# Thread: Simple Equation for the Theory of Everything

1. 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.  2.

3. 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) 
21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (≈21 kt) 
85.2 billion BTUs 

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2...gy_equivalence

Einsteins equation has nothing to do with surface area".  4. "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.  5. Then you are "not even wrong".  6. Im rather conventionally wrong, because terajoules, kilowatt-hours, kilocalories, kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy and BTUs are all conventional units.  7. 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  8. "this basic law" is still not enough for TOE  9. 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 rate 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  10. "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  11. 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.  12. 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.  13. Originally Posted by Alexroma
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.  14. 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.  15. Edison said something like, "I have not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Good luck!  16. 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.  17. Extrapolation does not always work. If you tinker with Einsteins equation and solve it another way, then I believe that 1 second is equal to 300, 000 kilometers times the square root of mass divided by energy. This is at best a curiosity that proves nothing. However, if you actually plug in the numbers with joules and kilograms, it solves out to 1 second equals 1 second.  18. Are you trying to say "it's not even hopeless"?  19. That's not for me to say. Just proceed with both eyes open and perhaps aim a little lower than a ToE. :wink:  20. Originally Posted by Arch2008
That's not for me to say. Just proceed with both eyes open and perhaps aim a little lower than a ToE. :wink:
Good advice, since every person I have seen so far who offered a TofE was doing little more than displaying their own IofE. (That's Ignorance of Everything). Tone it down and you might get more people prepared to consider your ideas. I've already written you off because the odds are hugely against a casual poster on an internet science forum actually having made such an important breakthrough. If you believe in yourself give yourself a chance with other readers.  21. It might be a good advice, but not for me. I do believe in myself, and to tell you the truth, I already have my own TOE. The "problem" with it is that it can not be considered scientific, because it tries to explain the relations between space, time, consciousness, spirit and fate. The only scientific (or parascientific) part of it is the equation published here. I just wanted to declare it and share it with you, guys. I don't hope for any breakthrough here, I only want to spread my idea, because I think it might be somehow useful for somebody.  22. You most certainly do not have a Theory of Everything. You have, perhaps, a loose series of speculations concerning how things work. You do not have a thoroughly tested model, with detailed mathematical descriptions which offers a superior explanation for a myriad of observations, so - no, you do not have a theory.
By all means pursue your touchy-feely, New Age hypothesis, but as you honestly and refreshingly admit this has almost nothing to do with science.  23. That's right, the main problem is to prove that it's not "a loose series of speculations". I am not going to publish it before I obtain some material proof. If it's worthwhile, it can be eventually proved, and if it's not, there is no use to make it public. I don't have illusions about it.  24. Thanks to critics, I tried to figure out how my equation E=mS/t^2 correlates with E=mC^2 for elementary particles, i.e. quarks, in terms of quantity.

The precise correlation would be S/t^2 = C^2

It turned out that it works with the length value of 1 attometre, or 10^-18 m, or 10^-21 km, which is the upper limit for the size of quarks, and with the time value of about 5.91226965×10^-27 second

Well, I know, its not a good scientific approach to try to prove an equation by adjusting inputs to desired outputs. But please consider that I dont have any kind of Tevatron at my disposal to prove it experimentally, so I try to prove it just mentally, with my inner neuron collider.

Anyway, the time value of 5.91226965×10^-27 second is in the close range of Standard Model predictions for the lifetime of quarks (e.g. the lifetime of top quark with 30 GeV decay width is about 2×10^-26 second).

Subsequently, assuming that the quarks are spherical, the calculations go as following:

S/t^2 = 3.14159265×10^-42/3.49549324×10^-53 = 89,875,517,874 km^2/s^2 = C^2

I realize that I did not prove my equation yet, especially to the skeptics, but at least I showed its possible.  25. What does a theory of everything have to do with an equation? An equation alone can never explain the universe. The only way to understand the universe is to know how it physically works, that is a mechanism. Equations simply describe various physical events, they are not the mechanism for these events.  26. I have to admit that my equation is rather a statement than a serious attempt to formulate a complex TOE. And the statement is that the explanation of Universe should be as simple and elegant as the Universe itself, free of applying excessive intellectual force to it.

Looking around, we don't observe, even with sophisticated instruments, strings attached, dark energy looming or quantum bubbles bursting. We can only perceive physical objects and light, and there might be a good reason for that. The Einstein's equation is really great and it really makes sense because it speaks about the staff we can readily feel and see: energy, mass and light. I modified that equation to add to it two other factors which we can easily sense and comprehend: size and time. As to the size, it matters in our world because the whole is not only bigger than the parts of it, but it also has certain gestalt qualities, meaning that the Universe would not obey the rules of quantum mechanics just because it includes all the quanta. As to the time, I might agree with those who say it does not exist at all, but the importance of time scale is too obvious to ignore it: the processes that last fractions of a second much differ in essence from the processes that take millions of years to complete. Moreover, there is an undeniable correlation between size and time: the bigger the size, the longer the life time, and vise verse (compare the mean lifetime of quarks, atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies, with the only exception for black holes, and so we consider their properties to be rather strange).

Finally, I don't try to explain everything with my equation, I just try to show that everything might be quite simple in principle. In any case, I believe that the Universe can be better defined not as a mechanism, kind of a well-designed clock, but as a structured reality underpinned by the anthropic principle, so that it can be explained in a holistic way, rather than in terms of interaction between its individual parts.  27. Surely this should be in the Speculations and New Hypotheses sub-forum. not here?  28. I'm trying to reformulate my thesis now, to make it more clear and substantiated. It may be not quite acceptable now, but it is in the process of making.  29. I have edited my calculations of the correlation between E=mC^2 and E=mS/t^2 for the top quark and also added references. While the numbers stay the same, they apparently make more sense now.

To begin with, why the top quark, of all the flavors? It is the heaviest one, so it has the largest
decay width. The lifetime of quarks is in inverse proportion to their width, so the top quark has the shortest lifetime. Employing Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the Standard Model predicts its lifetime to be about 5×10^−25 s, which corresponds to the width of 1.5 GeV (calculated to a precision of 1 percent) . This is about 20 times shorter than the timescale for strong interactions, so the top quark does not have time to hadronize before its decayed. As all other quarks hadronize, they can only be found in hadrons, and that is why the top quark is also known as bare or true quark.

As to my equation, it fully correlates with E=mC^2 on the condition that S/t^2 = C^2, or more specifically, S/t^2 = 89,875,517,874 km^2/s^2. I tried to find out if this condition could be met for the size and lifetime of the top quark. As C^2 is a constant, I used the limit input for the size value, i.e. the upper limit for the size of quarks, which is about 1 attometre, or 10^-18 m, or 10^-21 km. For the time value I used the SM prediction of 5×10^−25 s. For calculation of S (surface area) I assumed that the quarks are spheres rather than mere points and used the corresponding formula for the sphere surface area. Based on the assumption that the diameter of the top quark sphere is 1 attometre, the upper limit for its surface area is Pi × 10^-42 (km^2).

After feeding the above-mentioned inputs into S/t^2, I got in result 62,831,853 km^2/s^2.

So, I got the result that is obviously much less than C^2. It was not a success, but neither a total failure: the good news was that the result is less, not more, than the square of the speed of light, because otherwise my equation would not make any sense at all.

The next step was to find out the hypothetical value of the quark lifetime which renders the identity between E=mC^2 and E=mS/t^2. My calculations, performed with the same value for the surface area, showed the top quark lifetime to be about 5.9 × 10^-27 s, and that was really exciting news, because the experimentally set lower limit for the lifetime of top quark is > 5 × 10^-26 s (at 95% confidence level) .

Hence, my calculated value differs from the actual result obtained at the Tevatron as much as the latter differs from the value predicted in the Standard Model! Moreover, the Tevatron result is the first ever experimentally obtained for the top quark, and the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Collaboration admits that this measurement is statistically limited" . In fact, the complete statistics show some events of the top quark decay width being at about 100 GeV , and that makes possible my calculated value for the top quark lifetime of about 5.9 × 10^-27 s, because it corresponds to the width of about 101.7 GeV.

Conclusion: as shown above, the CDF measurements of the top quark width demonstrate a close correlation between S/t^2 and C^2. This correlation may be proved exact in the nearest future with more precise top quark width measurements at the LHC. So, I dare to predict the lower limit on the lifetime of top quark to be > 5.9 × 10^-27 s, which corresponds to the width of about <101.7 GeV.

References

 A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B544, 520 (1999).

 Direct Bound on the Total Decay Width of the Top Quark. Author: Bauer, Gerry P.; Choudalakis, G.; Gomez-Ceballos, Guillelmo; Hahn, Kristian Allan; Henderson, C.; Knuteson, Bruce O.; Makhoul, K.; Paus, Christoph M. E.; Xie, Si Department: Laboratory for Nuclear Science; Department of Physics Publisher: American Physical Society Issue Date: 2009-01, p.6.

 Ibid.

 Top Quark Width in Lepton+Jets Channel Using Template Method. S. Shiraishi, J. Adelman, E. Brubaker, Y.K. Kim. University of Chicago, CDF Collaboration.
(http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/.../topwidth.html)  30. When I thought about the physical meaning of my equation, it came to my mind that while E=mC^2 reflects the equivalency between energy and mass (matter), E=mS/t^2 might represent the dynamic equilibrium between them, due to the presence of the factor of time in it.

Obviously, that presumed equilibrium is best maintained when S/t^2 = 1. With the assumption that t^2 = 1 s^2 and S is represented by a sphere with the surface area of 1 km^2 (using the units of measurement from the original E=mC^2), I applied a simple formula S = 4piR^2 for calculating the radius of that sphere.

I was greatly amused to find out that it resulted in about 8.92 m. Considering that the Earths gravity is assessed with the equation g = Gm/R^2, where R is the Earths radius in metres, as if Earth were an ideal sphere, it evokes a close analogy with the well known g = 9.81 m/s^2.

As to this result, which came quite undreamed-of and almost magical even to myself, there seem to be two possibilities:

1. It is a pure coincidence.

2. It means that the Earths gravity is very favorable for maintaining dynamic equilibrium between matter and energy, or better say, for easily converting one into another, over and over in time.

If the second proposition is true, it can even explain why life has originated and is prospering on Earth, taking into account its dependence on the metabolism, which is basically a process of converting organic matter into energy.  31. Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

where ∞>1  32. wow... simple equation for the theory of everything?? this is indeed bizarre.  33. Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
wow... simple equation for the theory of everything?? this is indeed bizarre.
if the equation isn't simple the universe requires a creator.

Complexity MUST be able to arise from more simple systems. Otherwise we'd be spending the research grants on doing up the Vatican, instead of the LHC.

Hence, we should then be able to look back the line of decreasing complexity to find the starting point. Which would be... er ... simplicity. But with potential

And what is the simplest thing in existence? Number.

edit . (A very frustrated edit) - I mean for god's sake it isn't that difficult is it? The universe expresses itself in numbers. It always has. How else CAN it express itself when the smallest thing you can know about ANYTHING from a quark to a universe is whether it exists. Is it a 1 or not?

When the hell have we done ANYTHING in this world that wasn't, at its heart, a manipulation of number patterns. Sometimes I just despair at the anthropomorhpic obsession with showing how special we are. We're not. We're just numbers.

Honestly. Could someone tell me what else the universe could POSSIBLY be made out of? It talks to us in its own language and all we do is out our fingers in our ears, pretend we can't hear... and poke it with sticks.

and then we act all surprised when our carefully crafted sticks... get busted up into little numbers as soon as they get anywhere near the actual fabric of the universe.

srsly people. srsly.

The LHC is engaged in a futile attempt to count to exactly 100(integer) using 10quanta of data.

the way to do it is to copy the universe - and approximate. Using only the rational numbers available in natural set 1-10 you can imply the existence of 100, but only by using imprecise curves and vectors - you can't describe the integer 100 perfectly because you ONLY HAVE TEN BITS OF DATA SO FAR. TIME NEEDS TO DIVIDE THE UNIVERSE INTO MORE FRACTIONS BEFORE YOU GET MORE QUANTUM DATA POTENTIAL.

ffs  34. Originally Posted by danny burton
if the equation isn't simple the universe requires a creator.
Put that other way around. Ever noticed how one may always cover a false premise by adding increasingly convoluted layers of explanation? Originally Posted by danny burton
what else the universe could POSSIBLY be made out of?
I suspect it's made of universe.  35. Originally Posted by Pong
Put that other way around. Ever noticed how one may always cover a false premise by adding increasingly convoluted layers of explanation?
ahem. ok... so how does a non-simple equation for the start of the universe have enough time to be non-simple in? Originally Posted by Pong
I suspect it's made of universe.
and that would be exactly my point. rational fractions of the universe. behaving as rational fractions.
______________________

tough luck.

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

where the implied value of infinity is greater than 1.

anyone who wants to dispute that infinity is a moving boundary, both in front and behind us, please come back yesterday. or tell me next week's lottery results. mm hmm?    37. apologies... any chance you could whip the appropriate posts over?

ta.  38. simple equation for the theory of everything?? this is indeed bizarre
Not indeed, because E=mC^2 is even simpler. Any foundation must be simple enough, otherwise it's not solid.

The simplest theory of everything is the creationism, but it's obviously too simple to explain why everything was created specifically like this. And when we see that the result of creation is not perfect, we tend to discard the whole idea of creation.

Btw, if there is an infinite number of possible realities competing with each other, the winning reality would be the one with god in it, because it must have a comparative advantage of self-knowing it's own purpose, which is rather a divine trait. It is a natural selection of realities. So, even if the Universe was not created by god, he/she would inevitably appear in it as a result of evolution.  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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement