| Author |
Message
|
| Alexroma |
 Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:10 pm Post subject: Simple Equation for the Theory of Everything |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
In my opinion, the successful Theory of Everything (TOE) should take into account the magnitude factor, that is, the difference in size between the Universe in whole and its constituting elementary particles.
The existing TOE candidates are rather complex mathematical models. However, it occurred to me that a new TOE could be built on a simple transformation of the famous Einstein's equation E = mC^2.
Since C is expressed in km/sec, the measure of its square is represented by km^2/sec^2. Thus, in the numerator we have the Surface Area (S), and in the denominator - time square. In result, the transformed equation is as follows:
E = mS/t^2
This equation seems to be meaningful for three reasons:
1. Universe as a whole, according to the latest scientific notions, has flat topology, so it makes sense to speak about its surface area.
2. Elementary particles have no substructure (because of their elementarity), so they do not have the volume, but still have some size, which may be measured by surface area.
3. Black holes, as singularities, neither have volume, but still have some size, and hence the surface area.
Applying this equation to the three above-mentioned objects, we can see that it correctly describes, in principle, their basic properties. For example, it explains why the Universe is expanding with acceleration: at constant mass and energy, according to the law of conservation of energy, its size (surface area) should increase proportionally to the time square, that is, over time it should expand with acceleration.
When applied to elementary particles, it might explain why the strong nuclear force is so strong (the lifetime of an elementary particle is extremely short).
As to the black holes, the energy they emit (Hawking radiation) is almost zero due to their very small surface area and significant lifetime.
The actual precision of this equation, when applied to specific parameters of the Universe, elementary particles and black holes, has to be verified yet, but it already looks accurate in describing their general properties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 323
|
“E / m = c2 = (299,792,458 m/s)2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 J/kg (≈9.0 × 1016 joules per kilogram)
So one gram of mass is equivalent to the following amounts of energy:
89.9 terajoules
24.9 million kilowatt-hours (≈25 GW•h)
21.5 billion kilocalories (≈21 Tcal) [2]
21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (≈21 kt) [2]
85.2 billion BTUs[2] “
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
Einstein’s equation has nothing to do with “surface area". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
"Einstein’s equation has nothing to do with “surface area"."
That's right. And that is why I transformed it - to introduce the size factor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 323
|
| Then you are "not even wrong". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
| I’m rather “conventionally wrong”, because terajoules, kilowatt-hours, kilocalories, kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy and BTUs are all conventional units. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kabud |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: I think you are 100% right Alex |
|
|
New Member
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1
|
this basic law : Einstein's equation E = mC^2
does have all that you pointed out above. It actually had to be like that because it is all parts of contemporary model of physical universe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
| "this basic law" is still not enough for TOE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 6nqpnw |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Simple Equation for the Theory of Everything |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 28
|
I'm not a numbers guy, so bear with me. Does it explain why the universe is expanding with acceleration OR something else, maybe like ... an accelerating repulsion relative to our galaxy?? Does it show the rate of "expansion" as a constant, or variable? Could the accelerating expansion be explained by the proximity effects of gravity from a super-ultramassive black hole at the center of 'the universe' pulling all galaxies towards it?
If your equation shows that the [b]rate [/b]of 'expansion' is a proportionally increasing variable (a constant variable, of sorts), then this is the mathematical evidence I've been scrounging for. It's a long-shot, but hit me up if u actually run the numbers.
Redshift = Accelerating Expansion = Spagettification = Exponentially Increasing Gravitational Force of Black Hole = Cosmological Constant = NO Dark Energy = NO Big Bang
_________________
"To know nothing is to know everything." - Confucius
"Imagination is E..." - Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
"E / m = c2 = (299,792,458 m/s)2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 J/kg (≈9.0 × 1016 joules per kilogram)
So one gram of mass is equivalent to the following amounts of energy:
89.9 terajoules
24.9 million kilowatt-hours (≈25 GW•h)...
Einstein’s equation has nothing to do with “surface area"."
As to the watts, electrical power does have the area component. The power equation goes like this:
P=VI (V - potential, I - current)
According to Ohm's law, I=V/R (R - resistance), so P=V^2/R
Meanwhile, R=lp/A (l - length of the conductor, p - electrical resistivity of the material, A - cross-sectional area of the current flow in square metres).
Accordingly, P=V^2•A/lp
6nqpnw, I'll try to hit you up with a long shot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1312
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
This is all complete nonsense. You cannot derive the nature of the universe by introducing a mathematical trick to an equation that just demonstrates the equivalence between energy and mass. Regardless of what you do with the the PHYSICAL CONSTANT of light speed, the quantity is still an energy that has nothing to do with a surface. The fact that the units contain a "m^2" does not mean that a surface has a meaning here. There are other unit systems thinkable, where you can entirely avoid surfaces.
You mentioned that you introduced a surface on purpose. This means that your conclusions only reflect your assumption that a surface might be a meaningful quantity here. So, it is not a miracle that you suddenly come up with these conclusions.
My alter ego is inclined to send this thread to the "Pseudoscience" segment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
I believe, there is nothing wrong in purposeful transformation of equations. Do you think Einstein came to his energy equation by chance? I understand your anger at the “forum freshman” who is publicly mutilating the physics’ “holy cow”, but to mathematically transform equations is scientifically legit, isn’t it?
Einstein himself transformed the previously existed equation of Umov, which was Е=kMC², with 0,5 =< k =< 1 (see Umov N.A. Ein Theorem über die Wechselwirkungen in Endlichen Entfernunden, 1873). Quotient “k” was used by Umov as a factor of ether. Einstein biographers admit that he knew about that equation. So, he transformed it because he knew there is no ether.
As to my transformation, please note, that “C” is not strictly a constant – it’s the maximum possible speed, and as such it’s defined by distance and time. I can not see any reason prohibiting mathematical operations with these notions.
As a moderator you can condemn me to “pseudoscience”, but I believe it would be an act of scientific inquisition. Anyway, at the end of the day it won’t matter how you call it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1312
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Alexroma wrote: |
I believe, there is nothing wrong in purposeful transformation of equations. Do you think Einstein came to his energy equation by chance? I understand your anger at the “forum freshman” who is publicly mutilating the physics’ “holy cow”, but to mathematically transform equations is scientifically legit, isn’t it?
Einstein himself transformed the previously existed equation of Umov, which was Е=kMC², with 0,5 =< k =< 1 (see Umov N.A. Ein Theorem über die Wechselwirkungen in Endlichen Entfernunden, 1873). Quotient “k” was used by Umov as a factor of ether. Einstein biographers admit that he knew about that equation. So, he transformed it because he knew there is no ether.
As to my transformation, please note, that “C” is not strictly a constant – it’s the maximum possible speed, and as such it’s defined by distance and time. I can not see any reason prohibiting mathematical operations with these notions.
As a moderator you can condemn me to “pseudoscience”, but I believe it would be an act of scientific inquisition. Anyway, at the end of the day it won’t matter how you call it. |
Nono. This is not about being a freshman or whatever. I am just applying scientific guidelines here and saying that there is no reason whatsoever to "invent" a relation to a surface. What you are doing, is just a mathematical trick that could be applied to any formula. Did you know that actually the equation is:
It is derived from an equation that puts total and kinetic energy in relationship to each other.
As to the nature of "c", it is indeed a physical constant. In the context of the famous Einstein formula, velocity does not have a meaning. It just shows the equality of energy and mass. This is not depending on any velocity. This constant shows up in a number of other equations without implying any relation to light itself of even a possible maximum velocity. This is just an interpretation of yours.
Please consider my criticism and respond to them accordingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
| Thank you for you criticism. This time I really appreciate it. I admit, my idea is quite raw and I have to polish it. That is why I would prefer to stay in this segment - I need serious criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 323
|
Edison said something like, "I have not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Good luck!
Last edited by Arch2008 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alexroma |
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 24
|
He also said "Hell, there are no rules here — we're trying to accomplish something". (As quoted in How to Think Like Einstein : Simple Ways to Break the Rules and Discover Your Hidden Genius (2000) by Scott Thorpe, p. 124).
I am trying to come to a simple equation for TOE, and I occasionally break some rules in the process. But you are right, I have to obey the rules in order to prove my point. Maybe, I have to leave Einstein alone and come to my equation from the scratch... or at least from other side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
