Complete Unified Theory Model Developed.

[arkain101]

Those who are members here may be aware I have been working on a new theory for quite some time. I've reached a point where I've began constructing a model.

 

I look forward to discussing the theory with you all here and working on how valid it is. I am obviously excited but I am just eager to put it to through rigorous testing and questioning.

 

There will be some time before it is put together clearly for the picking.

[InfiniteNow]

Excellent Arkain. You are clearly excited and proud. I am sure it feels good to have reached a point of transition in your work. ;)

 

 

So, this theory... How can we test it? Have you thought of any ways yet that might prove it wrong?

 

fyi... if it survives those tests, it only makes it stronger. :)

 

 

Cheers. I look forward to seeing more. ;)

[UncleAl]

-the constant speed of light. Why it is the same in all observable reference frames.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg

 

An invariant lightspeed for all inertial observers is a trivial consequence of Lorentz Invariance. Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer cannot exceed

 

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

 

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of motion. If you like a full solution for an arbitrary angle theta,

 

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)

u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

 

If your "theory" doesn't have contingent math and falsifiability, it is crap at face value. What testable predictions does it make vs. empirical observations?

 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Experimental constraints on General Relativity

 

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf

Nature 425 374 (2003)

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf

http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html

Relativity in the GPS system

[arkain101]

Theoretical Model Preview and Summery

I should stress that it is of yet a theory model. The model is a complete concept. The actual theory of this model is a process that is in developement. It is my intentions of this post to recieve input and insight from anyone that is able to do so.

This is not one of those "I have the ultimate theory posts". It is a discussion on the model I am soon to present.

 

I can lay out a short preview of the model to get things warmed up.

 

Unified Model:

 

In this model it is a somewhat simple concept to describe space-time.

 

There is a proposed two realms.

These two realms function to support one another and allow one another to operate.

 

These are:

-Space-time

-nospace-time

 

These are equal and opposite composistions.

 

This is the use of space-time in the current description and explanation. Here where we have time, motion, change, distance (space) that works in a relative way, described in relativity.

 

The nospace-time is the equal and opposite realm to the space-time realm. This would be where we would desribe light to be.

 

The principle to describe this relationship of the two realm is;

 

There is just as vast as an inward direction as there is of the universe which is vast in an outward characteristic.

 

Simple Overview:

 

The universe is large (possible infinite) in space. It is an 'outward' realm. All things act in an outward behavior. This is obviously where we get distance, time, size, mass, magnetic field. An outward 3dimensional. Using a logical presumption there is equally and oppositely an inward acting realm. This is the 3 dimensional realm looked at inwards. As to imagine a 3 dimensional axis (lacking the word for this intersection dimension lines) with all the arrows pointing to the center, the intersection point. Just as far as you can go outward in 'size', the model says you can go equally as great inwards.

 

How this is expressed is through Magnetic and Electric and electro-magnetic. The charge that is of a particle has magnetic and electric attributes. These are outwards in behavior. Which function perpendicular to eachother. (like a perpendicular set of intersecting lines in a 3 dimensional representation.

 

(The heart of the model theory is in the following)

Light is this perpendicular relationship, Electro-Magnetic 'particle-wave'. The model suggests that in order to join these two otherwise seperate from eachother phenominas (for lack of better description) of Magnetic and Electric. We must equally and oppositely unite them and doing so we cause light/electromagnetic radiation to be proposed as an inward (note: opposite) equal direction of travel.

 

An analogy to show this is to imagine a balloon full of water. This is our particle (like a quark) made of course energy in an outwards fassion. Now when we squish this balloon it sends the water to an inwards dimension. (note the squaring which takes place as we shrink a sphere) The water goes to a nospace-time realm and will appear in the other balloons around it.

 

This place of nospace-time is everywhere and anywhere all at the same time because it is everything (inward). electro-magnetic properties go here -inwards dimensionally- described to be this way by the equal and opposite reaction of magnetic and electric properties acting as a single unit.

 

This is to desribe how light is everywhere and anywhere for any observer at any time. In simple terms, light does not make its wave through space-time, quite the opposite, it exists in inwards dimensional fassion and appears back into space-time from with-in the very atoms themsevels that the light will be acting on. So if you see something or, an atom is affected by EMR, it is the electromagnetic pulse making its transition from the realm of inwards dimension (where everything is one, one place, one time) to the outwards dimension and is doing this by moving outwards inside the atoms which are 'observers' of the source.

 

An example; If you see a tree, the image of that tree is transfered via through space-time, however the actual energy of that light comes from with-in the atoms in your eyes that detect it. (This brings up a complicated problem and question. If light is not of 3D space-time, then what is this wave through space-time that we call light? It may be the effect reverse 3D acting in this 3D. Not unlike gravity is a proposed effect of mass in space-time that 'curves' its geometry.

 

Yet being that we percieve to only exist here in the space-time realm we percieve this action of light as the ripple through space-time with a wave-particle duality characteristic, unbound by time.

 

Simunatiously, it takes two to have one.

 

Each dimension realm complements eachothers own existence.

 

note: it is not size differeneces that we look at when comparing space-time to NOspace-time, it is reverse or equal opposite version of what we think of dimension and it just as vast but lacks the distance and capability of time to flow.

 

 

A second principle in this theoretical model is;

 

There can be no single thing in of itself, all events must require a relationship of a minimum between two things.

 

-Things like force, mass, light, gravity action. Any of these events is of a relationship of a minimum of two actions. Space-time itself requires a relationship to be.-

 

This is a wide open preview and summery of the theoretical model.

 

Relatively there is even a relativeness to the version of relativity. The very possible case of two realm equal and opposite to eachother that work as one and show clues of eachother through invisible 'strange or spooky action at a distance' type things.

[IDMclean]

Well said and described, I have some reservations, however I will voice them at a later point in time.

[arkain101]

Yes I should respond by the full written format version.

 

But I will also reply as I can.

[arkain101]

There is an equation I put together here in this theory. I was wondering if someone could check it. Also, cancle out the t's and whatever else to show the steps of simplification.

(m*a) (V*t)=q (r^4/t^4)

 

from:

 

E=q(r^/t^4)

 

-->

 

F*D =q(r^/t^4)

 

-->

 

(m*a) (v*t)=q (r^4/t^4)

 

-->

 

(m*a) (V*t)=q_E + q_B (r^4/t^4)

or?

(m*a) (V*t)=(q_E*q_B) (r^4/t^4)

[EWright]

I'm trying to figure out why this "Complete" theory keeps getting added too... :)

[Roadam]

Could someone explain me why these CUTs are and what is the diffrence between your model(KAC) and one presently approved.

[EWright]

Could someone explain me why these CUTs are and what is the diffrence between your model(KAC) and one presently approved.

 

The Complete or "Grand" Unified Theory would allow physicists to undertand fully and completely how the physics of the entire cosmos works. It would merge the physics of General Relativity with that of Quantum Mechanics. Right now the two theorys are not compatible, though each can be used accurately for its specific purpose. So far there is no approved Grand Unified Theory. It would be the most significant scientific accomplishment in all of history... Well, after the "Let the be light" thing from the Original Physicist.

[IDMclean]

[deleted]

[arkain101]

I'm trying to figure out why this "Complete" theory keeps getting added too...

 

This is a thread about the MODEL.

 

I suppose the title is a little confusing. What I meant by complete model for a theory. Is it was a unifying model, a model that completes everything, but Not a proved and finished theoretical model.

 

Sorry for the confusion. I wanted to involve anyone and everyone in the developement.

 

What is the summery of the model?

 

-All things are a 1D single unit.

-3D space-time is the act of this 1D unit going through the necessary process to become 3D. Things result in this process. Invisible 'forces', strange geometry acts, quantum weirdness, High velocity dialtions. The weirdness of the 3D comes from the 1D anti-space-time (Not positive 1D is to properly describe) acting (not naturally being) in a 3D manner of pro-space-time.

-Light traverses at an inwards dimension behavior

-magnetic and electric fields act in an outward dimension behavior

 

-When magnetic and electric join (source of mass/matter) an equal and opposite reaction occurs, and creates a natural electro-magnetic unit which traverses inwardly dimensionally, becoming at all places. All places are of this inward dimensional anti-space-time realm. It is to expalin why nothing is absolute in this appeared open space universe.

 

"all places" come from the inward dimensional anti-space-time realm. We are just currently configured in such a way (ever since the big bang) to percieve it all as 1 point, strrrretched apart. Light has never left its zero-point-like 1D place, but it did eventually expand dimensionally, but a dimension is made form a prior type. So it began from no-space-time dimension.

Although, we explain this action of lights anti-space-time realm changing into a spacial type requiring equal and opposite reactions in order for the particular change to transpire. This change in dimension caused light(electro-magnetic radiation) to attain different characteristics in large dimensional behaviours.

 

(craigD that is finally where "light outside of time" is applied).

 

Light has a constant. IS 0 a constant?.

 

-A fun analogy-

In order to take a "scoop" of light from its home of constant everywhere, anywhere, non-absolute behaviour, it needs to be taken and 'seperated' (perceivably) into the first stage of 2 things-directions to start space and seperation (time) speed, distance. The value of which it is scooped is scooped by the same size spoon (constant spoon) but for each stage of value there is but additional scoops, and we have intigeral behavior that EMR inflicts on spacious particle forms.

 

 

The actual development of this theory needs help and teamwork. I've meerly begun constructing logical compilations that can demonstrait quantum behavior that acts relatavistic.

 

Sllowly I am building up the math skills and geometrics to take steps in 'testing' the model.

 

I have developed a large list of principles, or more like postulates as of now which are all part of the model and theory.

 

If anyone would like to get involved I am more than happy to allow it. I refuse to hold such an idea from so many other great minds (here) and abound..

 

I agree with what someone told me, the world needs more of this. I dont need recognition, or a noble prize in my life. The actual progress and cooperation of humanity is far more rewarding in a life feeling fortunate for the now and each moment.

[EWright]

-All things are a 1D single unit.

-3D space-time is the act of this 1D unit going through the necessary process to become 3D. Things result in this process. Invisible 'forces', strange geometry acts, quantum weirdness, High velocity dialtions. The weirdness of the 3D comes from the 1D anti-space-time (Not positive 1D is to properly describe) acting (not naturally being) in a 3D manner of pro-space-time.

-Light traverses at an inwards dimension behavior

[/Quote]

 

:eek:

 

-magnetic and electric fields act in an outward dimension behavior

 

-When magnetic and electric join (source of mass/matter) an equal and opposite reaction occurs, and creates a natural electro-magnetic unit which traverses inwardly dimensionally, becoming at all places. All places are of this inward dimensional anti-space-time realm. It is to expalin why nothing is absolute in this appeared open space universe.

 

:confused: Dude, I'd suggest expanding on this in a way that makes sense ASAP before you find yourself transported to the Strange Claims forum.

 

-A fun analogy-

In order to take a "scoop" of light from its home of constant everywhere, anywhere, non-absolute behaviour, it needs to be taken and 'seperated' (perceivably) into the first stage of 2 things-directions to start space and seperation (time) speed, distance. The value of which it is scooped is scooped by the same size spoon (constant spoon) but for each stage of value there is but additional scoops, and we have intigeral behavior that EMR inflicts on spacious particle forms.

 

Can you make my vanilla.... with sprinkles please!? :hihi:

[arkain101]

I just need to mention this thread is for my theory model. I do not think KAC has the same model I am constructing. However, I don't mind his additions to this thread as long as there is no confusion between the difference of what I present and what he presents. What we present are similar but not in co-operation.

 

btw, is kick actually building a "unified" theroy?

[arkain101]

With these facts this model can make predictions (please check their accuracy):

 

The 'speed' of light is observably constant in respect to a short period of observation. The speed of light although is not a constant distance coverage in an amount of time.

 

ie, A planet that travels away from you contains a velocity. The light that comes from that planet is measured to come towards you at velocity C. C + ( - planet velocity) = Velocity Added, to distance / time of a photon from the source of emmition which then modifies C in means of vector observation.

 

Therefore, in direct observation the speed of light is maintained. However on outside observation of vector analysis, the speeds or velocities of distance to time relationships are variable.

 

The speed of light has measured to increase.

 

The universe is expanding.

 

The predictions are:

 

The value of the velocity of light, and its constant characteristics, is a product of overall expansion of the universe. As the universe grows ever larger the measured value of C will increase perportionally.

 

This is due to the relationship between zero point or anti-space-time and space-time. The electro-magnetic source of the universe as described comes from anti-space-time. The action of seperating it and spacializing it causes change:time effects. In out perpsective of space-time; As the universe overal grows, the EMR (its strange rippling through space-time) velocity from the 'direct' observation point of view will perportionally be measured to increase.

 

The relationship here is this;

 

The percieved spacial universe is the act of a zero space (source) going through a stage of processes. This change naturally developes time, and the laws of physics we find here. The source is a constant. The constant of zerospace and time. When the space-time realm here changes the laws that are detecable here will perpotionally follow in suit. This is again because the act of (somewhat) hypothetically stretching anti-space-time creates constants of this nature, that of, light, particle characteristics, measured time, and gravitational effects.

 

This can be applied to a blackhole. The condensed form of matter (energy) of the blackhole collpases wave forms of light. The apparent time and 'velocity' of light is collapsed in the non spacial region. This is a non-spacial region in a curved manner expressed in a singularity curve of gravitiy. This is because as mentioned that as the properties of things change the laws of physics (a product of the state of this change) perpotionally respond.

[arkain101]

I do beleive this perportionality expressed ealier is similar to what is known as the fluctuations in the tensorial metric of space-time.

 

However, This model expresses the source and relationship of this tensor.

[Pyrotex]

I do beleive this perportionality expressed ealier is similar to what is known as the fluctuations in the tensorial metric of space-time. However, This model expresses the source and relationship of this tensor.

I have read through (most) of this thread. I'm sorry, but I cannot help you. I've had QM and GR in college, and I recognize the Maxwell Equations and some others, but there doesn't seem to be any "continuity" that I can understand. In text books, the author usually goes... "from eqn 1 and eqn 2, we derive eqn 3. from eqn 3 and the assumption of the Hamiltonian from chapter 7, we derive eqn 4. ..." etc. That's what I mean by continuity; a logical flow of derivations and conclusions. Sorry, KAC & Arkain, but I just can't follow this stuff. :confused: