Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is the Final Theory of Everything generally accepted In the

  1. #1 Is the Final Theory of Everything generally accepted In the 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    Is the Final Theory of Everything generally accepted in the Scientific World today? From what I have read, he states that many of the common concepts are wrong. I welcome comments. Joe L. Ogan


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Final Theory of Everything
    Can you provide a link? No such theory exists, not in actual scientific circles anyway. If some guy claims to have it, he is talking with his sphincter.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 The Final Theory of Everything 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    All I know is what I read on the Internet! It is in Google. Some of the things he says appear to make sense. There is a whole book out on it. I am just trying to get some information on what to believe and what not to believe. I will appreciate your thoughts when you examine what I am mentioning. Joe L. Ogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    You do realize, Joe, that you have no where and at no place in this thread identified who "he" is, right? And... "It's in google" doesn't exactly narrow things down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Is the Final Theory of Everything generally accepted In  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe L. Ogan
    Is the Final Theory of Everything generally accepted in the Scientific World today? From what I have read, he states that many of the common concepts are wrong. I welcome comments. Joe L. Ogan
    Joe; The 'Theory of Everything' was coined by Albert Einstein, who basically wanted to tie many things together into that one scenario. It's said he worked on this to his dieing day, never reaching a conclusion. Many people, on many forums, have tried to do the same, with no idea what the expression means....and no one I'm aware of in 'Theoretical Physics' has made the claim of a viable conclusion. There is no reason for anybody, in the science world to accept or argue the issue.


    The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Final Theory Theory of Everything 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    Hi. I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody. I read the theory. I just looked it up. Apparently it was written by Stephen W. Hawkins. It is on Google. I just asked if it was generally accepted by Modern Science. I am not promoting it. I am just trying to find out if anyone else believes it. Apparently you have not read it. You are the Scientist. I am not. Please put it in Google. I think you will see that I did not make it up. I never heard that Einstein had written "Final Theory of Everything. This a Book. I thought it was original. Maybe it is not. Thanks for your opinion. Joe L. Ogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Hi Joe. I believe we do understand each other. We don't think you are trying to advance this guys theory, nor do we think you made it up and we understand that you simply want to find out the truth. Further more, we applaud your effort in trying to find out the truth. Too many people believe everything they read. :wink:

    What we are saying, is that no such theory exists in scientific circles. The fact that some guy published a book does not change this. These days anyone can publish a book that is reasonably well written. Very few publishers have the capacity to judge the scientific correctness of the books they publish and this would be a prime example. After all, books are published routinely that propound the truth of any absurdity imaginable.

    The definition of a theory in science is different from that used in everyday language. What this guy would have at most would be an hypothesis.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    From the Amazon.com book review:
    Amazon.com Review
    With a title inspired as much by Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker series as Einstein, The Theory of Everything delivers almost as much as it promises. Transcribed from Stephen Hawking's Cambridge Lectures, the slim volume may not present a single theory unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces, but it does carefully explain the state of late 20th-century physics with the great scientist's characteristic humility and charm.
    The book does not advance a Theory of Everything. Hawking is a highly respected theoretical physicist, so what he wrote in the book is probably a good summary of what is generally accepted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Ah. Stephen Hawking writing a book about the state of modern physics is different to a guy named Stephen Hawkins writing a book about his theory of everything. Well done Harold.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ah. Stephen Hawking writing a book about the state of modern physics is different than a guy named Stephen Hawkins writing a book about his theory of everything. Well done Harold.

    I see/hear people mess up Hawking's name all the time. Is it due to Richard Dawkins I wonder? I have even heard a high-school physics teacher say "Hawkins."
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none has been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.

    In current mainstream physics, a Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature, which are usually considered to be four in number: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Because the weak force can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the TOE should yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of particles as well as the different forces. The expected pattern of theories is:

    Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gdel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable.Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything


    All I know is what I read on the Internet! It is in Google. Some of the things he says appear to make sense. There is a whole book out on it. I am just trying to get some information on what to believe and what not to believe. I will appreciate your thoughts when you examine what I am mentioning. Joe L. Ogan
    Joe; Contrary, to what some of your replies are indicating 'TOE' is and has been studied in several fields and actively for a hundred years, much longer as another theory. The one Einstein worked on (Hawking, originally believed in) was based on the assumption of the four major forces (listed/explained above), with in the then 'Singularity Theory' could have or should have resulted in all things Universal, explaining mathematically the results.

    (my thoughts); If Einstein was correct, on his RE-EVALUATION, or that the Universe should be subject to both expansion and contraction (oscillating), then the matter that makes up the our Universe, could or would be the same matter that made up a previous Universe, an unlimited number of times (eternal), which is a very old theory mentioned in Hindu Mythology. These are NOT my beliefs and I am skeptical of the forth force, gravity, being properly understood, the most important of the four IMO.

    "What to believe?"; On TOE, probably could be answered, if we actually started from an original perspective. That is if you determine a beginning and an ending of actions/reactions of matter with in a confined area, you should be able to mathematically determine a scenario. The trouble is, Science (Astronomy/Physics/Astrophysics) has not determined either B/E and has no idea if any current theory is near to 100% correct, possibly not accurate at all.

    One explanation of the BBT...

    As astronomers were collecting data on the Universe based on their observations, theorists were busy developing models that attempted to explain the cosmos. Recently equipped with Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Einstein was one of the first to attempt an explanation of the physical Universe. Einstein believed the Universe to have a static, uniform, isotropic distribution of matter. Einstein's own calculations however proved to result in the exact opposite, an oscillating universe that had the potential for expansion or contraction. He was certain that the universe was stable. Einstein was compelled to amend his original equation. He used the term cosmological constant, which created a spherical, four-dimensional closed universe (Parker).
    http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 http://www.thefinaltheory.com/booksummary.html 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    http://www.thefinaltheory.com//booksummary.html

    Hi, all. I have placed the URL about the subject matter. I found the summary very interesting. I hope that you will, at least, take a look at it. I am not trying to sell it to anyone. I just think that one should keep an open mind about all things scientific. I do not know any theory that is set in concrete. Thanks, Joe L. Ogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Hi Joe!
    The author of that book is not a doctor of any science, he is a quack. He wrote a book on how to make a fortune writing books. Go figure?

    Do you keep an open mind about math? 1+1=2 and that pretty much is how science works. Anyone can take "only a theory" plug in the numbers and get the same result as observed every time. Each bit of knowledge is like a brick in a road that has only one destination so far, and that is the science we use today. There might be cracks in the road and some of the bricks haven't been made yet, but this guy's book isn't one of them.

    http://www.revish.com/reviews/158112...riceAWilliams/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 The final theory about everything 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    Well, I am not a scientist. I must confess that I do not know. But, is 1 + 1 = 2 a theory? I thought it was a simple arithmetic problem which had been accepted as fact. Does the scientific world recognize any thing as a fact? I know that most scientific theories that has been proposed has been resisted by the scientific world. I may be wrong about that. I do not know whether the guy in question is a quack or not. He has received a scientific training. Some of the things that he has proposed sound very interesting. I shall reserve judgment about what he has said. That does not mean that I accept it. When I said that I believe in keeping an open mind, that is the basis of an educated person. It appears to me that folk in this forum, tend to resist anything that does not agree with their present thought. No critisisim implied. Most people resist new thoughts. I shall continue to strive to learn as long as I live. I thank you and others for your thoughts. Joe :. Ogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    When I said that I believe in keeping an open mind, that is the basis of an educated person. It appears to me that folk in this forum, tend to resist anything that does not agree with their present thought. No criticism implied. Most people resist new thoughts. I shall continue to strive to learn as long as I live. I thank you and others for your thoughts. Joe :. Ogan
    Joe; Keeping an open mind is actually what science is about. I'll agree, in todays world being objective in experimenting, testing and reporting results may turn subjective (personal opinions/Religious conviction/social trends), but the general idea is to determine a truth in why things in Astronomy/Astrophysics, have and continue to happen.

    The Mark McCutcheon book, he points out many of the inconsistencies, many of which have not been or not acceptable to all in science. He, myself, possibly yourself, have lived through the developing of a good deal of the modern day theories, which have dramatically changed since the 1950's and 60's. IMO, while theory today are based on ideas and assumption of opinions of even older ideas and I'm afraid many have taken a left turn into a wished reality. Staying on opinion, rather than trying to validate 'theoretical physic/science' in total, more attention should have been and should be placed on 'what if's', if those untestable observations were in fact wrong.

    Having said that, what does show to be correct, can't simply be ignored or trashed because it may not make sense to some author or those actually in science, that may not agree. It's all part of trying to get at the truth. For example, I am very skeptical of Big Bang Theory, feel the Universe has always existed, much as Fred Hoyle felt, taught and wrote about, until his death, but I cannot ignore the 'claimed' evidence for BBT, even though these results are and have been disagreed with by many, then fewer as time goes by...

    "this forum"; You'll find less resistance here than any forum, I've ever tried to post on science, for expressing opinions. On this thread, it was simple ignorance of 'TOE', not you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    I appreciate your comments. You have stated what I would expect a man of science to do. Thanks. Joe L. Ogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Science is the merciless guardian of what we know. Any theory, new or old, is brutally scrutinized through relentless testing until it is accepted for matching closely observation or discarded for failing to do so. Someone like McCutcheon who marginally works with science is not automatically a scientist, although someone like Einstein who worked in a patent office but rigidly applied the scientific method to prove new theories was. I resist baseless conjecture masquerading as scientific theory. Science isnt a popularity contest. Interesting ideas need a lot of that proof thing before they deserve an open mind. McCutcheon is only proving that he can sell a book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Final Theory Theory of Everything 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    Well, I appreciate what you are saying but someone has to have an idea and begin to conclude that it is right before anyone even thinks about checking it. If you reject all new ideas, new theories will never be proven. I expect that Einstein had many ideas that were never aired because he never had time to prove them. Do you have ideas and attempt to prove them? Or do you reject your own ideas because they are not accepted in Scientific Circles? Thanks for your thoughts. Joe L. Ogan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Science is about discovering the truth of the cosmos. Ideas are necessary for this, but most ideas get disproved or are just baseless to begin with. This is how we get scientific knowledge:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    McCutcheon has no serious knowledge of what he is discussing. He is not basing it on any series of experiments or observations he has made. He has not submitted his idea as a scientific paper that would then be peer reviewed by other scientists in that field for verification. He is just selling a book and he has the audacity to call it The Final Theory and pretends it is science.
    I have an idea that a Kerr ring singularity has several observable aspects that can be described as a googol, one-dimensional closed strings crushed onto each other. Its an interesting idea, but we just dont have a form of mathematics that would prove it. So my idea just aint science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •