Finally! The Grand Unified Theory (thank me later)

M

MikeHoncho

Banned
Banned
I'm a roofer, college drop out and this is my first post anywhere ever.
Still I'm sure you are drooling to hear my theory about
the nature of the Universe.
If it humors you, please review the following train of thought,
...try not to laugh.

(Throughout the following when you see "-right?" I'm not asking
you to agree, I'm literally asking, "Is this correct?")

Everything within the Universe is some form
of matter or energy- am I right? I mean is there anything at all that
is not some form of energy or matter? Also, E=mc² states matter and
energy are just different states of the same thing.
If so, I figure its safe to say that everything (and I mean
EVERYTHING) within the Universe is some form of energy.
So I ask myself- What IS energy? Removing particles of matter from
this train of thought (matter is merely solid energy right?), my
understanding is that all forms of energy are then some form of wave.
Or more precisely, electromagnetic waves.
So what IS an electromagnetic wave? I know there is debate about this
and photons and dual nature and all sorts of other stuff I don't
really understand.
If you will forgive my ignorant hubris, here is what I think energy
(everything) is:

Consider an electromagnetic wave existing in otherwise empty space.
You have an electromagnetic potential alternating in magnitude at
various frequencies. A changing electromagnetic potential. Nothing
more- right?
What is an electromagnetic potential? That's how hard a charged
something would be pulled upon if said charged something happened to
be within the influence of the wave. The charged something doesn't
have to actually exist within the influence of the wave- right?
If so, everything derives from variously convoluted electromagnetic potentials.
Forces that WOULD be exerted IF specific conditions are met.
Potentials.
Things that may be.
Nothing?

Any response would be greatly appreciated.
 
You roofers are all so bloody intellectual, these days. I can't understand your theory I'm just a retired cook from a time when manual workers were thick.

Oh, welcome to Sciforums btw.;)
 
tablariddim said:
You roofers are all so bloody intellectual, these days. I can't understand your theory I'm just a retired cook from a time when manual workers were thick.

Oh, welcome to Sciforums btw.;)
Click to expand...

Nevr feer! Aftor I git a few meeningful replys all drop the act and the spell chekker.
 
Quantum theorists already think of the subatomic particles as, not existing, but having the probability to exist at any one point. This is a decent bit of deduction, but it's not a G.U.T.
 
spidergoat said:
Quantum theorists already think of the subatomic particles as, not existing, but having the probability to exist at any one point. This is a decent bit of deduction, but it's not a G.U.T.
Click to expand...

Well the title is a bit of marketing i'll agree.
Still, is there anything factually wrong with my train of thought?
This is a baited question because if not the deduction will continue way past Nothing.
 
MikeHoncho said:
Well the title is a bit of marketing i'll agree.
Click to expand...
Yes. The "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" (G.U.T.E.) is, specifically, the holy grail of physicists, the theory that will unify the four forces of the universe in a single elegant paradigm. Currently, electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces have been linked, but gravity stubbornly refuses to claim membership in that group.
Still, is there anything factually wrong with my train of thought?
Click to expand...
I think you run into a Heisenbergian dilemma here. The only way energy can be observed is by its effect on matter. That's more of a philosophical issue perhaps. But from a more scientific perspective, we only seem to be able to describe energy by reference to matter. The basic noun in your definition of energy is "wave." Is a wave not by definition a type of motion, and is motion not by definition strictly a behavior of matter? If the universe "contained" only energy and not matter, how would it work? Is that why they invented the concept of the photon?
This is a baited question because if not the deduction will continue way past Nothing.
Click to expand...
It's a good post, I wouldn't worry about that. You're articulate and you understand the scientific method, either from study or intuition. It's just not about the G.U.T.E. so I'm a little disappointed. :) Just kidding but I did assume automatically that's what it was going to be about.
 
MikeHoncho said:
I'm a roofer, college drop out and this is my first post anywhere ever.
Still I'm sure you are drooling to hear my theory about
the nature of the Universe.
If it humors you, please review the following train of thought,
...try not to laugh.

(Throughout the following when you see "-right?" I'm not asking
you to agree, I'm literally asking, "Is this correct?")

Everything within the Universe is some form
of matter or energy- am I right? I mean is there anything at all that
is not some form of energy or matter? Also, E=mc² states matter and
energy are just different states of the same thing.
If so, I figure its safe to say that everything (and I mean
EVERYTHING) within the Universe is some form of energy.
So I ask myself- What IS energy? Removing particles of matter from
this train of thought (matter is merely solid energy right?), my
understanding is that all forms of energy are then some form of wave.
Or more precisely, electromagnetic waves.
So what IS an electromagnetic wave? I know there is debate about this
and photons and dual nature and all sorts of other stuff I don't
really understand.
If you will forgive my ignorant hubris, here is what I think energy
(everything) is:

Consider an electromagnetic wave existing in otherwise empty space.
You have an electromagnetic potential alternating in magnitude at
various frequencies. A changing electromagnetic potential. Nothing
more- right?
What is an electromagnetic potential? That's how hard a charged
something would be pulled upon if said charged something happened to
be within the influence of the wave. The charged something doesn't
have to actually exist within the influence of the wave- right?
If so, everything derives from variously convoluted electromagnetic potentials.
Forces that WOULD be exerted IF specific conditions are met.
Potentials.
Things that may be.
Nothing?

Any response would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

First problem.

Matter is solid energy.

Energy is diffused matter.

The inbetween exists as virtual energy and matter in spacetime.

Second problem...

''If so, everything derives from variously convoluted electromagnetic potentials.''

I've stated this already mate.
 
Reiku said:
First problem.

Matter is solid energy.

Energy is diffused matter.

The inbetween exists as virtual energy and matter in spacetime.

Second problem...

''If so, everything derives from variously convoluted electromagnetic potentials.''

I've stated this already mate.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling I'm about to open a can of worms...

"Matter is solid energy.
Energy is diffused matter." ---- No crap, thats what I say in the very text you quote. And this is not the "First Problem", its the basis of my argument that you can classify EVERYTHING as energy. I welcome an example of anything whithin the Universe which is not energy in some form.

"The inbetween exists as virtual energy <<{Opinion} and matter in spacetime." ----Matter in spacetime is not inbetween anything; its just matter. My fart is matter in spacetime.

"''If so, everything derives from variously convoluted electromagnetic potentials.''
I've stated this already mate."---- First, this is not a problem within the context of my post. Second, I said this was my first post. Sorry I didn't read every post on Sciforums before posting my own.

I digress.
I just want intelligent consideration of my original post to determine if the logic can stand up. If so I'll post what I think the implications are and you all may crucify me then.
 
Your thoughts are not wrong, but the element of a GUT is to produce a theory which tells the story of everything... from beginning and end, which is also consistent of experiment and observation.

All you have done is strung words together, suffice to say, whether they make sense or not. Look... the universe is just an energy... but here is the real question... how can the universe have an energy if no one can be outside of the universe to measure it?
 
Reiku said:
Your thoughts are not wrong, but the element of a GUT is to produce a theory which tells the story of everything... from beginning and end, which is also consistent of experiment and observation.

All you have done is strung words together, suffice to say, whether they make sense or not. Look... the universe is just an energy... but here is the real question... how can the universe have an energy if no one can be outside of the universe to measure it?
Click to expand...

Bingo my good genius. Bingo.
You have beat me to my own punch.
The original post was bait for what I really want to say.

Nothing exists except as a potential unless an outside force acts upon it (even if the act is only observation). Since we agree this is true then the fact that our universe exists requires the existence of someone outside of the Universe to observe it... or Imagine it.... or whatever it is that God does.
So I proved God exists. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Sciforum. You may all log off now.
Tune in next week when I answer the burning question "Who made God".
 
Well... I suppose. But relativity won't allow anything to exist beyond the boundary of the universe.
 
Reiku said:
Well... I suppose. But relativity won't allow anything to exist beyond the boundary of the universe.
Click to expand...

Is it wrong to say that Relativity does not apply outside the boundary of the universe. I believe we're a little outside of relativity's jurisdiction.
I love your input by the way. My education is mostly limited to back issues of Omni Magazine so...
anyway I'm stickin to my guns. The laws (much less the theories) of this universe do not necessarily apply outside of it. And if there are x number of other universes they all exist too hence a God exists outside of and bigger than all of them.
 
''Is it wrong to say that Relativity does not apply outside the boundary of the universe.''

Yes... unless we invite not only multiple universes, but also self-contained principles. That would mean, that there still in't an outside to our universe, but there could be other universes floating about around our own universe. The strange thing is though, there is no space nor time that seperates them. Instead the spacetime they have are all self-contained.

''The laws (much less the theories) of this universe do not necessarily apply outside of it.''

That's because there are no laws. If everything known extrapolated from a single point, moving at a constant speed, then everything ''that counts'' is still contained within space and time. It does us no good to speculate beyond that point.

However, it still doesn't stop a lot of people... I mean, i have had my fair share of conversations with people talking about some kind of spatial or temporal existence outside the boundary of the universe...

''And if there are x number of other universes they all exist too hence a God exists outside of and bigger than all of them.''

If there is an x amount of universes, then we are talking about a finite number... but even on the score of 10^100 universes, it's still no more difficult to work with than just one universe alone. If we have an infinite amount of universes, then there are an infinite amount of chances for a God-Like Superbeing to be borne within one.
 
Me thinks u argue for victory not enlightenment. There is much wrong with your last post my friend. I don't think I'll even get into it because I think you could easily counter my counters and I your and so forth until the point became less clear instead of more.
Besides, although you argue you actually agree. We differ only in one point- You concieve a God within a universe when the universe is within him.
 
I do not post for victory. If i have no idea of the understanding of physics, i save myself from posting. But these are area's i know well. I am only trying to guide you on the path which is universally accepted.
 
MikeHoncho said:
Nothing exists except as a potential unless an outside force acts upon it (even if the act is only observation). Since we agree this is true. . . .
Click to expand...
Who agrees? Just you and Reiku, two guys who admit that you're not even professional scientists.
. . . . then the fact that our universe exists requires the existence of someone outside of the Universe to observe it... or Imagine it.... or whatever it is that God does.
So I proved God exists.
Click to expand...
No. Using Reiku as your straight man, you have formulated a hypothesis to that effect.
Reiku said:
The universe floats in nothing, in other words.
Click to expand...
You're treating the word "nothing" as though it stands for "something." "Nothing" does not mean "empty space." "Nothing" means "nothing!" The phrase "outside the boundary of the universe" may be grammatically correct English but it has no meaning, since the universe by definition is all that there is, and it ends at its boundary.

To talk seriously about space, matter or conscious creatures existing "outside the boundary of the universe" is not to understand science. It's like talking seriously about the properties of matter at temperatures below absolute zero. You can form the sentences but they are meaningless. You can probably even do the math, but you'll end up with solutions full of imaginary numbers.

That's probably what will happen if you try to take the concept of "outside the boundary of the universe" seriously. You'll get imaginary answers. It's a happy coincidence that the word "imaginary" was pressed into service for this, since we've now got religion masquerading as science on one of our science boards in an effort to circumvent the rules about trolling.

I have hypothesized that the universe also has a time boundary, at least a lower one. To ask "what happened before the Big Bang" is meaningless in this model, because that is the Absolute Zero of time. If this model is correct, there is no "before the Big Bang."

Moderator: I think this thread should be moved to Cosmology. It will attract people who can speak more knowledgeably about these issues. These guys won't survive two minutes under Q's moderation. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top