Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Janus

Thread: Is there tangible benefit for a "theory of all things" / "unified field theory"?

  1. #1 Is there tangible benefit for a "theory of all things" / "unified field theory"? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Hi all,


    I've often wondered, given the type of direction physics research is taking with replicating near big-bang conditions to get a better idea of a unified field theory, if there is any real point to a unified field theory if that theory itself, whatever it will be, will only aim to explain how gravity links with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces circa big bang conditions.

    I mean, what type of technological fruits would come from near big bang conditions if indeed near big-bang conditions are not a viable or sustainable construct in this otherwise deeply evolved post-big-bang reality we inhabit?

    What actually "is" the incentive on the current quest of physics if it will merely be a theory that is unable to offer any technological fruit given the big-bang context it embroils itself in?

    It seems pretty futile, as a quest, if you get my drift. What am I missing ;>?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    You are missing curiosity and 'the need to learn and know', for starters.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    And maybe that's it. Why go beyond that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    And maybe that's it. Why go beyond that?
    It is absurd to suggest that scientists should only do research, in certain fields, because they "know" it will lead to practical/technological benefits.
    Pure knowledge, itself, is worthwhile and nobody can know what benefits may accrue, from this new information, in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There have been many, many cases over the years where people have asked the same question about other research. That research has sometimes taken a couple hundred years to fully bear fruit, but you wouldn't have a computer to type on without it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    Hi all,


    I've often wondered, given the type of direction physics research is taking with replicating near big-bang conditions to get a better idea of a unified field theory, if there is any real point to a unified field theory if that theory itself, whatever it will be, will only aim to explain how gravity links with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces circa big bang conditions.

    I mean, what type of technological fruits would come from near big bang conditions if indeed near big-bang conditions are not a viable or sustainable construct in this otherwise deeply evolved post-big-bang reality we inhabit?

    What actually "is" the incentive on the current quest of physics if it will merely be a theory that is unable to offer any technological fruit given the big-bang context it embroils itself in?

    It seems pretty futile, as a quest, if you get my drift. What am I missing ;>?

    Einstein wanted to unite "matter" with "the electromagnetic field" in order to establish a unified field theory but was unsuccessful. The fact is that we really do not fully understand either of them. We do not understand what matter attracts other matter. We call that "gravitation", which is a mystery not previously solved. Nor is the electromagnetic radiating wave fully understood. I am sure that many may argue about this, but it is true. The "theory of everything" does not answer many questions, and most unified field theories are based un new and undefined "particles". Theories like this disappoint and contribute to disbelief. We do not have a good model of the electron, proton or atom. There are some new theories, however, that do have some substance, but none of the scientific societies would dare publish them. Therefore, nothing much is happening in this area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    "No one would publish" is a bunch on nonsense. If they aren't publishing then they are either still gathering evidence to make a strong case, or don't think it's worth anything. People would jump on the chance to publish anything with substance for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is their jobs usually depend on publishing a minimum number of papers per year plus the possibility of getting funding for their research.

    Now if you mean the journals wouldn't carry such things, that's also nonsense. There are many journals out there with a variety of standards. You can always find one to publish anything. Of course, you'd like to publish in a more reputable journal, but if your paper has good data, it'll almost always get some attention. That's also completely ignoring conferences and the like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    You may have a Sharpsword, but certainly not a sharp mind.

    From your post I do't think you understand Einstein's work at all. Uniting matter (???? ) with the EMfield ? And matter attracts matter through gravity ?? Matter is just a small subset of mass/energy, which is affected by space/time curvature, which is produced by the mass/energy in the first place.

    When the theories of General relativity and of quantum electrodynamics make verifiable predictions, accurate to 9 or 12 decimal places, only a clueless individual would argue that they are not undestood. And then use that as an argument for other, non standard, unverifiable, pseudoscientific theories.

    Every GPS unit you buy from your local electronics discounter for $100, is adjusted for the effects of GR, since time passes at different rates at the altitude of a geostationary orbit ( satellite ) than it does at the altitude of your car. How is that for understanding GR and associated benefits. And can any of the non standard theories you propose do similar ????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    When you find an experimental evidence for Unified Field Theory, then one benefit we would have is that physic will become easier. All other non-working branch of theory will be pruned down/removed since there's no evidence for them. For example: there's one theory that said (with real math!), light will produce gravity just like gravity bend light... but since it is easier to see light for yourself (as not behaving that way) rather than disproving the complicated math with another complicated math and teach this proof to a student, it is easier to just forget this idea and physic will became easy!

    That's why classical physic is soo easy. 1 textbook can encompass hundred of years of trying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Except that light does produce gravity and that effect has been verified (correct me if I'm remembering wrong). What makes physics work isn't how simple it is, but how accurate it is. You don't forget about something that gives you the right answer just because you can't understand how it works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    If light produce gravity, then you can bend light: circle them around in loop, and create gravity. Unfortunately you can't do that because nothing happens when you did that. Light doesn't produce gravity... it is just a theory...
    Last edited by msafwan; August 24th, 2011 at 06:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    What evidence do you have for your claim?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    If light produce gravity, then you can bend light: circle them around in loop, and create gravity. Unfortunately you can't do that because nothing happens when you did that. Light doesn't produce gravity... it is just a theory...
    It takes a lot of light to produce very little gravity. For example, if you took the entire world's energy consumption for 2008 and converted it all to light, the gravitational field of that light would only be equal to that of a 52 kilogram object.

    Besides, if gravity bends the path of light, then light must also exert a gravitational pull on the object producing that gravity, otherwise you would get a change in momentum of the light without a canceling change of momentum in the object and you would have a violation of conservation of momentum.
    msafwan likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Anything that is affected by gravity will, by definition produce gravity ( or space/time warping ). Heck, even in Newton's gravitational equation, the force is proportinal to the mass of the attracting object and the attracted object.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    What evidence do you have for your claim?
    I constructed a classical electromagnetic model of the atom that conforms to measurements. Using this model, I was able to derive Einstein's energy equation in two short pages. The model also shows that the energy states and the frequencies of radiation conform to the Bohr model of the atom and the Rydberg wavelengths. Coincidence??

    Easy to reject an idea when you have no evidence upon which to analyze it. What you don't know just has to be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    The rest of us are open minded.
    Post your theory, and we'll decide wether it has holes like swiss cheese throughout it, or if its viable.Or do you just expect us to take your word for it, because from your other posts, I would have to assume the former.

    You may however be relegated to pseudoscience, and we could have a good laugh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    All those insights are deserving of unanimoty among the scientific community, I am sure. I think the sting though of my initiL question was of the poison of whether a unified theory based on big bang conditions has any relevance to the mechanics of our own far differently evolved space-time reality (compared to big bang conditions). Any thoughts on how a unified theory that uses the big bang (as a fundamental basis of theoretical requirement) can uncover any logic consistent with how the universe has changed from a big bang to what we have now that is useful to our own current conditions of space-time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    "No one would publish" is a bunch on nonsense. If they aren't publishing then they are either still gathering evidence to make a strong case, or don't think it's worth anything. People would jump on the chance to publish anything with substance for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is their jobs usually depend on publishing a minimum number of papers per year plus the possibility of getting funding for their research.

    Now if you mean the journals wouldn't carry such things, that's also nonsense. There are many journals out there with a variety of standards. You can always find one to publish anything. Of course, you'd like to publish in a more reputable journal, but if your paper has good data, it'll almost always get some attention. That's also completely ignoring conferences and the like.
    How come you know more about what has happened to me than I do? Sorry, but your assumptions are incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    All those insights are deserving of unanimoty among the scientific community, I am sure. I think the sting though of my initiL question was of the poison of whether a unified theory based on big bang conditions has any relevance to the mechanics of our own far differently evolved space-time reality (compared to big bang conditions). Any thoughts on how a unified theory that uses the big bang (as a fundamental basis of theoretical requirement) can uncover any logic consistent with how the universe has changed from a big bang to what we have now that is useful to our own current conditions of space-time?
    I don't know what DrRocket would have said about this post but I'll have a guess!
    ("guessing can often be right")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore Eversbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Somewhere close by
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    You may have a Sharpsword, but certainly not a sharp mind.

    From your post I do't think you understand Einstein's work at all. Uniting matter (???? ) with the EMfield ? And matter attracts matter through gravity ?? Matter is just a small subset of mass/energy, which is affected by space/time curvature, which is produced by the mass/energy in the first place.

    When the theories of General relativity and of quantum electrodynamics make verifiable predictions, accurate to 9 or 12 decimal places, only a clueless individual would argue that they are not undestood. And then use that as an argument for other, non standard, unverifiable, pseudoscientific theories.

    Every GPS unit you buy from your local electronics discounter for $100, is adjusted for the effects of GR, since time passes at different rates at the altitude of a geostationary orbit ( satellite ) than it does at the altitude of your car. How is that for understanding GR and associated benefits. And can any of the non standard theories you propose do similar ????
    Those satellites are not in geostationary orbits.
    Nearly all of the above lines of evidence can be questioned, and all have more than one possible cause (although some may have no cause at all).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    All those insights are deserving of unanimoty among the scientific community, I am sure. I think the sting though of my initiL question was of the poison of whether a unified theory based on big bang conditions has any relevance to the mechanics of our own far differently evolved space-time reality (compared to big bang conditions). Any thoughts on how a unified theory that uses the big bang (as a fundamental basis of theoretical requirement) can uncover any logic consistent with how the universe has changed from a big bang to what we have now that is useful to our own current conditions of space-time?
    I don't know what DrRocket would have said about this post but I'll have a guess!
    ("guessing can often be right")

    I guess (and hear me out here) what I am trying to say is how a core singularity such as the big bang can merit a huge amount of research, the results of which would only confirm theoretical models of singularities, singularities which themselves would offer what to the physics world to keep it going? Is it a process of survival for physics. Presumably it is, but that's my question, what are those results we are looking for, what are the tangible benefits? Thanks for your patience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    "No one would publish" is a bunch on nonsense. If they aren't publishing then they are either still gathering evidence to make a strong case, or don't think it's worth anything. People would jump on the chance to publish anything with substance for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is their jobs usually depend on publishing a minimum number of papers per year plus the possibility of getting funding for their research.

    Now if you mean the journals wouldn't carry such things, that's also nonsense. There are many journals out there with a variety of standards. You can always find one to publish anything. Of course, you'd like to publish in a more reputable journal, but if your paper has good data, it'll almost always get some attention. That's also completely ignoring conferences and the like.
    Maybe you know more about my experiences in this matter than I do? You are hypothesizing your beliefs instead of listening. One of the main hangups is the comment that my material is in conflict with the theories of quantum mechanics. That is partly true, but I was not allowed to challenge those comments and my paper was rejected. In most cases, my submission was abandoned because they could not find anyone who was willing to review it. Why do you say that my material doesn't have good data? Everything in it is based on real world measurements, and the data is readily available.

    What you also do not know is that some of my papers were published. Several were published by the ACS, the largest scientific society in the world. My paper on electromagnetic radiation was presented at the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 2003. I find it strange that the approach that I have used was first proposed by none other than Professor Max Planck in the presentation of his quantum radiation theory in the year 1900. No one seems to have paid much attention to his method since then. Except, of course, Neils Bohr.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    The rest of us are open minded.
    Post your theory, and we'll decide wether it has holes like swiss cheese throughout it, or if its viable.Or do you just expect us to take your word for it, because from your other posts, I would have to assume the former.

    You may however be relegated to pseudoscience, and we could have a good laugh.
    Yes. I have heard that one a lot. By the way, what is YOUR definition of "pseudoscience"? My material is based on real world measurements instead of hypothetical theory.

    You really want me to post my theory? In what form? It could take up a lot of space in my quote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If, like you said, your derivation is only two pages, then it won't take up that much space.

    If you're saying they wouldn't publish your paper in the ACM or IEEE, that's not so surprising. They have tons of submissions and not much space. If you're saying you couldn't get published at all then your paper must just be a piece of crap since there are journals out there that will publish just about anything. Sorry if that hurts, but it's true. And yes, it's something I'm dealing with too.

    If you want to get it published, you should look back at the history of similar publications. They went through some of the same trials and tribulations. If there's any merit to your work, it'll get published eventually.

    I've got to say though that you aren't presenting yourself, and by extension your work, in a very good light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    If, like you said, your derivation is only two pages, then it won't take up that much space.

    If you're saying they wouldn't publish your paper in the ACM or IEEE, that's not so surprising. They have tons of submissions and not much space. If you're saying you couldn't get published at all then your paper must just be a piece of crap since there are journals out there that will publish just about anything. Sorry if that hurts, but it's true. And yes, it's something I'm dealing with too.

    If you want to get it published, you should look back at the history of similar publications. They went through some of the same trials and tribulations. If there's any merit to your work, it'll get published eventually.

    I've got to say though that you aren't presenting yourself, and by extension your work, in a very good light.
    My articles HAVE been published by the IEEE and the American Chemical Society. However, not ALL of them. The problem occurs when the bridge between mass, gravity and electromagnetics begins to close. The IEEE will refer physics matter to physicists, who will in turn not accept electromagnetic or electronics answers. Consequently, the paper is always rejected since they cannot find sufficient reviewers. The APS rejected even the thought of the submission of my technical papers.

    You are very quick to judge. It would be better for you to spend a little more time in reading my statements before you condemn me. My studies have taken many years, and I have spent a great deal of time in reading the works of the world's greatest masters of science. Note that Ludwig Boltzmann spent some 40 years in developing his science of thermodynamics but did not receive recognition for it. As a result, he committed suicide. That would be the "final solution".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    We have read your posts ( statements ) but not your publications, and frankly your posts are, sometimes, complete gibberish. That is the only thing we can base our opinions on, until you present more material.

    And Boltzmann didn't commit suicide because he couldn't get published, rather because he was mentally unstable due to depression. Do you bring him up because you identify with him ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    @sharpsword, Sorry, I don't see where in my post I'm condemning anyone. As I said though, you aren't presenting yourself in a light that encourages people to take you seriously. That's not a condemnation, just an observation, and one that shouldn't be too hard to change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    We have read your posts ( statements ) but not your publications, and frankly your posts are, sometimes, complete gibberish. That is the only thing we can base our opinions on, until you present more material.

    And Boltzmann didn't commit suicide because he couldn't get published, rather because he was mentally unstable due to depression. Do you bring him up because you identify with him ?
    Your statement is partly correct. He didn't commit suicide because he couldn't get published. It was because he did not receive the Nobel prize for his 40 years of effort and the establishment of thermodynamics. What you seem to have missed is that he worked on one of the most basic fundamentals of physics and was highly successful in correlating his models with measurements. I identify with him on this, but to a lesser degree.

    You seem to have a tendency to call names. What is "gibberish"? Must be anything you disagree with or don't understand.

    Here is one of the basic equations that I have developed for the electromagnetic force acting on the electron in the atom:

    Fm=Ke x v^2/r^2 c^2.

    In this equation, Ke is the Coulomb constant, v is the velocity of the electron, r is the radius of the orbital path, and c is the speed of light. This magnetic force opposes the Coulomb force of attraction and is equal to it in a stable atom. Using Newton's law of motion and equating terms results in the derivation of Einstein's energy equation. Pretty simple, isn't it? You can see how easy it is using classical analysis.

    The method used to develop the model for the electromagnetic force is based on the Lorentz force and the laws of electromagnetics. The mathematics involve several cross-vector equations that represent the actions of the electron due to its inherent electromagnetic characteristics. This was published in 1999, but not by any physics society (they would not even allow a submission).

    More questions? I have many more details that I can provide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Gibberish is in the dictionary and is applicable to your last post. It means something that no-one understands.

    Has it ever occurred to you that an electron must allow for quantum mechanical effects ? It must primarily obey Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Which means you cannot know the v and the r in your atomic electron EM force equation since you would then 'fix' the values of momentum and position. Qm is a probabilistic description of nature. Also your orbiting electrons are constantly accelerating and, even you must know, an accelerated charge radiates photons and will eventually loose its energy. Your equation takes none of this into account or offer explanations.

    I think I'll stick to the QED description of the electron since it makes valid predictions to as many decimal places as I need, and describes most if not all observed effects.

    Does yours ????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    Gibberish is in the dictionary and is applicable to your last post. It means something that no-one understands.

    Has it ever occurred to you that an electron must allow for quantum mechanical effects ? It must primarily obey Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Which means you cannot know the v and the r in your atomic electron EM force equation since you would then 'fix' the values of momentum and position. Qm is a probabilistic description of nature. Also your orbiting electrons are constantly accelerating and, even you must know, an accelerated charge radiates photons and will eventually loose its energy. Your equation takes none of this into account or offer explanations.

    I think I'll stick to the QED description of the electron since it makes valid predictions to as many decimal places as I need, and describes most if not all observed effects.

    Does yours ????
    Yes, there is a correlation to the mechanical effect as defined by Newton's second law of motion. However, it took me quite a while to get there.

    As to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that principle applies to a single measurement. However, when there are multiple measurements that have consistent characteristics, sometimes those common characteristics can be utilized to characterize the reactions of moving objects. That process is called "characterization", and it is quite prevalent in electromagnetic analysis. Therefore, Heisenberg's principle is not always applicable.

    Yes, my equation does take into account the mechanical effects as is shown in the proof of the validity of the equation. In fact, the proof yield Einstein's energy equation. Can you, an expert in this matter, derive Einstein's equation in just a short analysis? I can.

    You can stick to the old QED description of the electron if you prefer. Makes little difference to me. By the way, how many decimal places can you provide? I have not found much in the way of accuracy in QED since the electron energy sphere is only a probable radius, not an exact one. You didn't know that?

    Many definitions are found in the dictionary. Do you want me to find one for you? Hope not, because that is not a very good way to act as a scientist. Name-calling should be left to politics and politicians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    So since the HUP applies to a single measurement, you equation has to be averaged over several measurements ?? HUP applies to any and all measurements.

    Was the point of the exercise to derive Einstein's energy equation ( what's that ???) or the electron energy levels ?? Why are some levels stable and some not even allowed ?? what happens when an electron jumps between levels ?? Oh yeah, you've got Einstein's energy equation.

    I can easily calculate the ionization energy of a Hydrogen atom to about nine decimal places. Can your equation do that ??
    Your equation predicts the electron will radiate away energy and spiral down into the nucleus due to its orbital acceleration.

    I have not called you a name, I have said your theory is gibberish ( or garbage ), do you see the difference??
    I am not a scientist but a politician.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    So since the HUP applies to a single measurement, you equation has to be averaged over several measurements ?? HUP applies to any and all measurements.

    Was the point of the exercise to derive Einstein's energy equation ( what's that ???) or the electron energy levels ?? Why are some levels stable and some not even allowed ?? what happens when an electron jumps between levels ?? Oh yeah, you've got Einstein's energy equation.

    I can easily calculate the ionization energy of a Hydrogen atom to about nine decimal places. Can your equation do that ??
    Your equation predicts the electron will radiate away energy and spiral down into the nucleus due to its orbital acceleration.

    I have not called you a name, I have said your theory is gibberish ( or garbage ), do you see the difference??
    I am not a scientist but a politician.
    You judge something you evidently know little about. Any measurement is affected by the measuring device. If you measure electric voltage, the voltmeter loads the circuit. In the case of measuring light waves, the orifice affects the measurement. These effects are compensated by the process of characterization in which the effects of the measurement device on a great number of measurements allows accurate compensation - - - the process of "characterization".

    The energy levels of an atom have stable states because they are mutually harmonic. The electron is harmonic, as is the proton, and those frequencies can be calculated.

    Planck utilized the measurements of chemistry and thermodynamics to determine the stable states. He developed (9) basics equation from the laws of chemistry and physics. Then he gave seven examples in his lecture in which he applied these equations. It is remarkable that he only used two of them in deriving solutions for the energy change reactions of matter. Fpr instance, the dissociation of a dissolved electrolyte for a system that consists of an aqueous solution of acetic acid. The dissociation of a molecule of H4C2)2 into its two ions. The state of equilibrium is in accordance with a log equation that represents the ions for the undissociated acid molecules that was previously presented by Ostwald. These states are actually energy states, and he used the gas equation of thermodynamics to determine these energies. These are the energy state changes for the exchange of electrons in physical reactions. He used other similar methods for the actions of light on matter and vice versa.

    The point of deriving Einstein's equation was not a point as you put it. I was simply trying to test my model of the atom, and I ended up with Einstein's equation. It was, for me, a very remarkable event.

    You can "calculate the ionization energy of the hydrogen atom to about nine decimal places? I can calculate it to 136 decimal places. However, that is not of much use since the constants upon which the energy equation are only accurate to about two decimal places. The electron orbit of the hydrogen atom is a "probability orbital", and that orbital has a finite probability width.

    I am still waiting for your definition of "gibberish". There are two definitions in my Webster dictionary, and they have quite different meanings.

    I must say that you seem to be pitifully lacking in your knowledge of physics, which tends to confirm your description of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    Hi all,


    I've often wondered, given the type of direction physics research is taking with replicating near big-bang conditions to get a better idea of a unified field theory, if there is any real point to a unified field theory if that theory itself, whatever it will be, will only aim to explain how gravity links with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces circa big bang conditions.

    I mean, what type of technological fruits would come from near big bang conditions if indeed near big-bang conditions are not a viable or sustainable construct in this otherwise deeply evolved post-big-bang reality we inhabit?

    What actually "is" the incentive on the current quest of physics if it will merely be a theory that is unable to offer any technological fruit given the big-bang context it embroils itself in?

    It seems pretty futile, as a quest, if you get my drift. What am I missing ;>?
    You are missing nothing, my friend. The big bang is not an issue with me, rather the
    so called sudden expansion proposition, where matter moved way beyond lghtspeed
    for a fraction of a second. I feel, as you do, the millions of $ better spent on research
    into the human condition, combating cancer, and the ills we bear in this life.
    nokton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    So the electron continues to orbit the nucleus because ' the orbits are mutually harmonic. And the electron is harmonic, as is the proton, and those frequencies can be calculated'. It has nothing to do with quantization you say !
    Harmonics are just a property of waves and so are not dependant on scale like quantum effects. You should be able to construct a large scale, macroscopic, two-charge orbiting system then that does not lose energy and spiral into the central charge.

    What's that ? James Clerk Maxwell says you can't ? Damn those physical laws, they pop up and ruin the best fantasies.

    You know if you keep this up pretty soon they'll have one of your posts in the dictionary as the definition of gibberish.

    As for me, I've had enough laughs at your expense, go learn some physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    So the electron continues to orbit the nucleus because ' the orbits are mutually harmonic. And the electron is harmonic, as is the proton, and those frequencies can be calculated'. It has nothing to do with quantization you say !
    Harmonics are just a property of waves and so are not dependant on scale like quantum effects. You should be able to construct a large scale, macroscopic, two-charge orbiting system then that does not lose energy and spiral into the central charge.

    What's that ? James Clerk Maxwell says you can't ? Damn those physical laws, they pop up and ruin the best fantasies.

    You know if you keep this up pretty soon they'll have one of your posts in the dictionary as the definition of gibberish.

    As for me, I've had enough laughs at your expense, go learn some physics.
    Yes, harmonics are a property of waves, but they are also the property of the elements that produce those waves.

    Everything has scale. Macroscopic phenomena involve many-bodied space, and sometimes they are harmonic, such as is the case for crystals.

    A large two-charge orbiting system? Does a lead molecule fit your definition? Molecules have size limits.

    James Clerk Maxwell never said "you can't". As is true with all theories, there are limitations.

    I guess that "gibberish" is your favorite word for something you know little about. You seem to have very little knowledge about physics. If you did, you would have a little more faith in the great physicists of the past.

    I have spent the past 22 years studying physics. That should count for something.

    If you are going to crab on various posts, then you should bring some facts to the table and avoid name-calling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    You don't even seem to understand my posts properly, never mind physics.

    Its a shame you wasted 22 yrs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    You don't even seem to understand my posts properly, never mind physics.

    Its a shame you wasted 22 yrs.
    And you only have a bachelor's degree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpsword View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    You don't even seem to understand my posts properly, never mind physics.

    Its a shame you wasted 22 yrs.
    And you only have a bachelor's degree?
    One thing I have learned on this site, is that no amount of self study guarantees that the person in question will know what he is talking about. I'll trust MigL's Bachelors above your self study any day.

    BTW, sharpsword, I'll prefer you make a thread in the New Hypothesis and Ideas section, provide a single link to your research and let us discuss it further there. Please keep mention of it out of the main sections. The main sections are for discussing established science.
    Last edited by KALSTER; September 3rd, 2011 at 10:52 AM.
    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  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpsword View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    You don't even seem to understand my posts properly, never mind physics.

    Its a shame you wasted 22 yrs.
    And you only have a bachelor's degree?
    One thing I have learned on this site, is that no amount of self study guarantees that the person in question will know what he is talking about. I'll trust MigL's Bachelors above your self study any day.

    BTW, sharpsword, I'll prefer you make a thread in the New Hypothesis and Ideas section, provide a single link to your research and let us discuss it further there. Please keep mention of it out of the main sections. The main sections are for discussing established science.
    Well, I do have a bit more of a background than you imagine. I obtained my doctorate in 1972, and I have worked for companies large and small. My work has involved most every phase of science, and my study techniques are very efficient. I have several patents and have solved numerous practical problems for the companies that I have worked for. Why do you look down on self study? As long as the background material is high quality and of the results of the masters of physics and science, it is better than going to a universe. And you will trust a guy with only a simple bachelor's degree for judgement? That tells me a lot about your forum.

    Apparently, none of you can stand challenges to your commentaries. Perhaps that is because you are lacking in knowledge and background. Perhaps that is why you have moderators who have a limited background in the subject. Your censorship is noted. Kiss off. This has been a waste of my time. BYE!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver View Post
    Hi all,


    I've often wondered, given the type of direction physics research is taking with replicating near big-bang conditions to get a better idea of a unified field theory, if there is any real point to a unified field theory if that theory itself, whatever it will be, will only aim to explain how gravity links with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces circa big bang conditions.

    I mean, what type of technological fruits would come from near big bang conditions if indeed near big-bang conditions are not a viable or sustainable construct in this otherwise deeply evolved post-big-bang reality we inhabit?

    What actually "is" the incentive on the current quest of physics if it will merely be a theory that is unable to offer any technological fruit given the big-bang context it embroils itself in?

    It seems pretty futile, as a quest, if you get my drift. What am I missing ;>?
    Now that dullblade is gone, "Yay"! Did I say that out loud? We can return to the OP's OQ!

    Not yet having the UFT we can't with certainty say what technologies might come from such knowledge.
    Whether or not any useful application arise from such knowledge, I say the great pleasure will be in "Finding out".
    The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out (Part 1-5) - YouTube
    Enjoy!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. "THE SPLIT THEORY !!! " ( PLEASE READ AND GIVE AN
    By Sundar in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 13th, 2013, 01:00 PM
  2. Replies: 158
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2011, 08:29 PM
  3. Anyone read the "The Final Theory" Book?
    By theorein in forum Physics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 12:48 PM
  4. is "jesus" a pseudo-science "user"?
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2007, 12:07 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 20th, 2006, 01:35 AM
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
  •