The Final Theory About Universe

X

Xgen

Registered Senior Member
Guys,

I had an peculiar question for you. Sorry that I post it here but it concerns physics more than anything else and this question is the starting point for the building of any general theory about Universe, or how it is also callled TOE - Theory Of Everything.

My question is - Is it possible a final theory for the Universe to exist and if so when it will be reached? I ask you this because if the answer is No then why we should asking questions like What is relativity? What and how is realized gravity and so on. If there is some upper limit of human understanding it should be said - This question is impossible to be answered because its answer is beyond the potential of the human mind. Then we will stop asking ourself questions without answers and will concentrate on more practicle problems. If an upper limit exist it shoud be drawn and it should be said - Beyond this any consideration is à losing of time. After all human brain is a simple mashine , it would be too much someone to wish to know everything. My question can be formulated and in this way - Is it possible someone to know everything?
 
Have you heard of or read anything by a guy called David Wilcock?

He's got a pretty damn interesting theory, and he's written a handful of books about it too. You can read them free at

www.ascension2000.com

Apologies if you know this already, and good luck with the TOE
 
Theory of Everything... will we ever reach it?

Hey guys,

This thread particularly called my attention because anyone who's been into physics, math, chem, etc has made this question thousands of times, and no one has got a final answer. Let me share with you some of my insights in this topic:

As u may see, I've studied some stuff on chaos theory and fractals. This has led me to make a first postulate about the universe: it is a very complex, but still only a chaotic, non-linear deterministic dynamical system. That is: It is a system that evolves through time following a set of rules, or algorythm. Theoretically, if we knew this algorythm and the initial conditions of the universe (aka Big Bang, singularity, primal interaction, whatever), we'd be able to predict with amazing acuraccy every state of this system. However, several paradoxes and limitations arise from this:

First: Can we know for sure the initial conditions of the universe, to the last detail? u know that any tiny, microscopical error causes a dynamical system to evolve quite differently, so in terms of accuracy, we'd have to be, so to speak, infinitely accurate. Besides, if you've read something on Big Bang, you might know that right now we only know the history of the universe since it was some nanoseconds old. We've developed something called Fundamental theory, that bases everything on 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 4 force carrier particles. It also says that these 4 forces are different forms of the same interaction at different energy scales, and they become the same at 1000000000000000000 MeV. There's also investigations and speculation on Higgs Boson (or Planck boson), and supersymmetry, along with higher level descriptions like string and M theory. However, they all conclude that the first instant of the universe looks like a point with either infinite or zero values for each property or quantity we know, so it seems like we are just following a horizontal asymptote: we're getting closer, but we'll never touch infinite.

Second: Let's assume someone found THE algorythm and the initial interaction that preceded all. Now, what must he do? well, he runs to the most complex, big, and intelligent computer of all, and pours the data. Then he runs the most sophisticated simulation program... now, let's think math. How many bytes of information might the universe contain? let's say that U is the set of all the information of the universe's condition right now. now, as u know, the computer is a subset of the universe, a very small insignificant one, I might add. Can it run a simulation of the universe itself, to this moment?? that would constitute a paradox: the information in the computer would be equal to the info of the universe... therefore, it'd be as complex as the whole set... and then it would predict it's own existence, and the processing of the information, therefore running the simulation inside of the simulation... and so on... mind blowing huh?

Besides, computers are only accurate to a certain point. These little errors would accumulate, making the simulation turn into an alien universe.

As a corollary... if we consider humanity as a massive interconected computer (which we aint, for the most part, but let's just say we all used all of our potential, and that we all somehow connected so that all our intelligence and memory got combined), we'd still constitute another super computer, which is as far or as near from the answer as the computer in my last example. Therefore, there's a limit to what we can learn about the universe, and how well we can know it.

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't have hope in a theory of everything. I am a scientist by nature, specially a mathematician. However, i realize that we have limitations, and that the questions about the universe are never going to end. You said before that if there's no answer, we shouldn't bother to ask other questions... and that aint true at all. Our development as human beings and as individuals doesn't fall on what we achieve, but on the search for achievement, the hard work, the time spent, the mistakes... it aint the place u get to, but the road u took to get there. Science and Math are the structures of the universe, pillars of our very own existence and of everything we'll ever know. A search for meaning in the universe is merely a reflection of a search for meaning in ourselves: it is the most exciting task, and the most demanding.
 
Chaos_Corona,

very impressing. But you see, I already have one theory which I am convinced is the final theory about universe. I make it without using any computers at all. It includes entirely new logic and math without analog in modern science.

But the question here is different. Do anyone really needs this thing? The people I had talked so far had reacted very negatively. One guy even told me that this thing is very good but the science can not develops in jumps, it should be developed more gradually and that for a final theory are needed centures to evolve. An another guy had the opinion that such a grandious goal can not be accomplished by one person but from a big team from the world best scientists, with much financing and state of the art technologies. 'If someone can just sit and thinks out such a final theory then the ancient Greeks should have finded this a long ago" - he told me. And this people was educated lecturers in a University.

You see, I am feeling like under-prizing the branch :) , my theory endangers thousends scientist through-out the world . From one hand science needs a Theory of everything very bad , from ahother it is not ready for it and scientists prefer to support science medium which is very unclear and unspecified. In this way they can make their own research much more easely and their own theories can be proved more easely.


So what should I do? May be without a Final Theory it is better?
 
Xgen

If you have a viable theory, then it should be published. And don't listen to these people you have been talking too, if they have no reasonable objections to your theory, they are envious of the implications your theory has.

And 1 more note, the best physics is done in GIANT leaps. 3 examples

Special relativity

General relativity

Quantum theory

Knock them off their feet(assuming the theory is correct, or else you will be ridiculed into oblivion)
 
OK, but it is not so simple. I can not just to publish it , like an article. It is too big, and if you do not go to the end you can not understand if it is correct.

Also it does not originate from QM. It is a lot below this. It is build only with Logic which I called "Absolute Logic". Definition of absolute logic:

It is Logic such that any deviation from it brings absurd results.
 
Sounds more like anti-logic to me. wouldn't absolute logic be absolutely logical.....hihihhihi:)
 
Yes, but what this mean? The Absolute Logic is the only one logic that can lead to a some desired result.
 
Therefore have you specified a logic that gives you a desired result?
 
I believe that I had found such logic. You see when you develop a theory in a field where it is not possible direct experimental check (besides an experiment can be interpreted in numerous ways) the only way to prove something is to show that there is only one sequence of assumptions that leads to reasonable results. If there is more than one roads you need more information to find out who is correct.
 
You can come up with the most mathematically elegant, beautiful theory in the history of theories, but if it cannot be verified by experiment, then it is not physics but maths.
 
Originally posted by Xgen
OK, but it is not so simple. I can not just to publish it , like an article. It is too big, and if you do not go to the end you can not understand if it is correct.

Also it does not originate from QM. It is a lot below this. It is build only with Logic which I called "Absolute Logic". Definition of absolute logic:

It is Logic such that any deviation from it brings absurd results.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing a problem here, as what human's have learned so far about QM is that it is just that....absurd! Our logical is built on a macroscopic look at the universe, no one says thats how everything should work. So many great discoveries have been found because "...the numbers say it should be that way...but thats absurd.." and they turn out to be correct. I don't believe its possible to simply base all physics on logic. That sounds a lot like discovering the secrets of the universe through though experiment alone. Which didn't work.

-AntonK
 
RE:Xgen

But the question here is different. Do anyone really needs this thing?
Click to expand...

From the very beginning of mankind mankind had some sort of "theory of everything" First in myths and religion, then came philosophy with "a philosophical theory of everything" this lasted from Plato to Hegel (they had some consistent all including picture of what the world/universe is about) and now the science gets its turn at the subject. Science will probaly produce some new "myth" which would be partly based on results of experiments, eg. plausible interpretation of some phenomena (Everett Theory and Multiple Universes). Since there is need for such a theory I think somebody will provide it.
 
Guys,

if you are interested I can make you a presentation. I can not present you here my theory because it is too big, but I can give you example what its logic is. Lets make a trip in the world of the Absolute Logic. Take a seat , get a pill of valium ;), and be ready to listen:

My theory is called MAC /Model Of Absolute Contigiuum/ .

According to MAC space and time are discreet. But this is not a postulate iò is result from the logic. For now let just abstract from these concepts - space and time, they are macroscopic and have not much sense in what is called Elementary Space. Elementary Space exist much below our reality at scales beyond reach of any experiment. Elementary Space is composed from two elementary opposites , they are called Limit and Interval. Limit is static component of the contigiuum and Interval is it's dynamic component. The Interval and the Limit can be called also elementary vector and point, but they are different from any points and vectors you may know.

A basic property of the Interval is its ability for 'collision', a basic property of the Limit is its ability called 'nonexistence". The Collision is the elementary event in the Elementary Space, it is the mechanism which keeps the Universe going and the time flowing. The nonexistence is the thing that make possible matter to emerge from the vacuum and which stays behind all known lows of conservation.

Collision of two vectors is just what it is ;), I suppose that you can imagine this. Collision defines a point in the space and a tick of time (if you are QM-addicted you can call collision - operator of time). From the collision and basic definitions of the Limit and the Interval it happens so that time and space are discreet, they like everything else are composed only from Limits and Intervals.

Thats for now. It is a short introduction of my theory. If you can comprehend it maybe I will continue with the Absolute Logic and will show you how energy and matter are defined.
 
more info please, the first two paragraphs have piqued my interest.

though I don't completely follow "collisions" of items of "interval", I have the impression that I am just not fully understanding your concept of "interval". Though the idea of "Elementary Space" as the congruence of Interval and Limit is very logical, exp int eh Chaos theory area...
 
Interesting Theory

Hey guys

Xgen, I think your theory is quite interesting. I am intrigued by it, and I think I would like you to explain it further. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind it, but maybe it's cuz I don't have the big picture yet.

Even though I am a fan of chaos theory and QM (to a certain extent), I've done some research in other descriptions and theories on the universe, specially those that involve extra dimensions or some kind of higher logic. I believe though that it is through math, and not just pure logic, that we can demonstrate a theory of everything. If there's no way to do an experiment to prove this now, it still must have a mathematical expression that proves it. Logic and math go by the hand, they predict the behavior of systems even before we see it in reality.

I also wanted to ask another question... Does a theory of everything imply that scientific research and further questioning will come to an end? I don't think so... first of all, I think that it might be possible to come up with such a theory, but I also agree that it will come up after a process of constant refinement, reform, and contribution from many scientists around the world. First of all, several paradoxes will arise from this... a whole lot of discussion, and stuff... fields like mathematics, technology, psychology, genetics.... we still got tons of stuff to ask questions and find more answers. For one, I think math is endless... hahaha, I have done a year of research on prime numbers, and I've come up with some interesting results... and I might come up with some demonstrations later on. Besides, u've got zillions of questions that don't have an answer... like "what is the momentum if the electron's position is x,y,z? or "what is going to be the weather conditions of Mexico in a month? (a little chaos theory here, hahaha) "will the dollar go up tomorrow?" etc.

I'd like to know how developed ur theory is. I'd also like to say that it's admirable to come up with such a thing, and I certainly aspire to contribute to this. (if not this theory, the theory of everything).
 
Xgen:

How can we test your theory?

Can you please provide an example of an observation which, if confirmed, would prove your theory false?

Thankyou.
 
I can not make a complete presentation here because my theory is too big and have many illustrations. At this moment it has only logical proves, I had also developed several experimental schemes but I am too far from realizing them. If you require strictly prove for every logical conclusion than this model will be never proved , the Elementary Space is too far from us.

But you see, even if I had explicite experimental proves (which means decades of hard work) which is not my job at all, I am theoretician there is high-tech centers where such kind of experiments had to be made, I don't think that it will be accepted. It is too crude. Theoretic physisists had more romantic view, they need Higgs-bozons, gluons, virtual particles and other complex stuff to explain something.

If I am wrong, OK you can just mock me, just another dude. But can you just for a second imagine what will happen if They are wrong? It can be a catastrophe not only for science but for the western civilization.

I am convinced that MAC is the correct way. It is very crude and unnatural logic but there is no other way. MAC resembles one big rock standing on the road of the Science, there is no way around , if you want to understand what is really going on down there you must pass through it.

Chaos_Corona made some interesting remarks. However I think that Logic is more powerfull than mathematics. Mathematics have range of aplliance, it is absurd to describe everything with math or to make exact simulation of the reality. But we can make some logical conclusions that are usefull for us and our survival. For example I may not know what exactly gravity is but I know that when I jump from the 8th floor gravity will make from me a piece of shit.

It may sound absurd but I had developed my theory from a practicle point of view. There is some applications that can not be realized without a strong theory, like anti-gravitational engine, meson battery, photon-accelerator and so on. The times when engineers had made inventions are past, now is the time of theoreticians. Because everything simple is already maded.

Thank you all for the remarks.
 
sorry to disagree

Originally posted by Xgen

Chaos_Corona made some interesting remarks. However I think that Logic is more powerfull than mathematics. Mathematics have range of aplliance, it is absurd to describe everything with math or to make exact simulation of the reality. But we can make some logical conclusions that are usefull for us and our survival. For example I may not know what exactly gravity is but I know that when I jump from the 8th floor gravity will make from me a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? It is absurd to describe everything with math, or to make an exact simulation of reality?? No offense.... but reality is essentially mathematical. If you couldn't describe everything with math, then it wouldn't exist. This universe would be a whole bunch of clumps of nothing, with a totally erratic motion and behavior. Therefore, no logic could be applied.

As far as I am concerned, that isn't the universe I live in. Now, let me work through the example of gravity and the guy jumping off the building. Sure, logic is far simpler than math... in the sense that even a dog will understand that he must not leap from the building if he wants to keep barkin' and playin' around for a while. But if you must explain the universe, a much more complex endeavour indeed, math takes a much more important place, in which it blends, or even surpasses logic. It is nonsense to say that we can explain the universe with a logical explanation that needs no mathematical proof, and it is nonsense to say that u can come up with an ilogical mathematical expression.

Now... I don't know if my info is correct, but I think that most breakthroughs in science have seemed illogical under the eyes of most scientists when they first came into being. Relativity and Quantum Physics... fractional dimensions... little strings that form multidimentional membranes when they vibrate... sounds stupid, right? What was the first thing that proved them right, as fairly good aproximations of what reality looks like? Math, of course.

Now, I'm not sure if I understood u correctly, but it seems like ur theory must defy most of the theories of everything that exist nowadays (as u say, "experimentalists need their bosons and particles and stuff), and u'd describe ur theory as something so radical that it's revolutionary and mindblowing. I'm sure it is, and I don't mean to take credit from you. Coming up with this kind of thing is amazing, and u certainly seen to have been diggin a lot into it. I'm just saying that it's weird for you to day that there is no need for proof. Your theory is just infallible... it's so obvious that nobody could ever question it (if he was logical and learned enough)... and you say that now it's time for theory.... That sounds like u're either scared of being proved wrong, or that ur theory is amazingly good. In both cases, you have to understand that science is all about proving things. Speculating about a theory of everything, and then saying it is true a priori, that is called religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top