Jump to content
Science Forums

The Final Theory


alexander

Recommended Posts

That was a very thoughtful reply, k. I hope that you wish to discover truth, if indeed there's any there to discover.

 

You say, "He writes about an object falling straight down, in which there is a distance traveled, and the work function shows there is work, so energy must be expended. However, he claims there is no energy source, so Newton’s law of gravity is violating the (other) Laws of Physics. This is called a Straw Man argument, which is a logical error. The author either intentionally or unintentionally is a frequent user of this kind of argument. Yes, there is no energy source powering gravity as he wants us to think there must be. However, there was an energy source. Remember, that all matter is always pulling against all matter (by that model)."

 

Why should I accept the idea that all matter is always pulling against all matter? Isn't it possible that our conclusion about that phenomenon is wrong? We conclude that objects pull on one another. But what if they don't? Incredible as it seems, McCutcheon shows that there is another explanation.

 

K, it's the model that he says is wrong. You cannot expect him to accept the premises of the model in order to disprove it. Remember, that all matter is always pulling against all matter (by that model). I'm sure with your understanding of logic there's a name for that fallacy too (stolen concept?). It's too bad you didn't read the whole book. He proposes a different model, one in which all matter NEVER pulls against all matter.

 

The issue is simply this: McCutcheon says our understanding of gravity is wrong. Both he and Newton cannot be correct since the two theories are contradictory. Therefore, at least one is wrong. The funny thing is this: if we vote on the issue (which seems to be the coin for truth these days), we can still - all of us - be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tormod, I just saw the reply you made about "permission to reply". I never got an email saying there was a response, so I never saw it. Don't take the lack of a response as agreement with what you said.

 

I simply wanted to point out that this book is most likely the man's livelihood. I have to work for a living so I exposed myself to an attack because I respect the position he is in. Obviously, if I didn't think there was value in his book, I wouldn't go through the trouble.

 

What is it that you want to accomplish on this website? Perhaps what will happen here is what I have observed on other sites: slowly, over time, discussion will come to an end because people become just plain rude. As if 'winning' the argument is the same as identifying what is true.

 

K's post was very rude and not as logical as he'd like to think it was. On the bright side, another sword has been added to the army, eh?

 

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed". I love that saying although I don't know who said it. If McCutcheon is right, we humans have a fundamental perceptual flaw: we are incapable of detecting motion unless that motion is relative to us. Like the frog that can't detect the motion of a pebble thrown through its field of vision but instantly sees when a fly does, we too might be blind to some aspects of existence.

 

I suppose if he's correct we could just ignore him. And besides, if he's right then we'd have to rewrite every physics book that was ever written, rethink Franklin's theory of electricity, Einstein's light speed limitation, not to mention all the formulas that would have to come under consideration. Way too much trouble for such a tenuous concept as truth.

 

Let's vote on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, if I didn't think there was value in his book, I wouldn't go through the trouble.

 

Let me put it this way: If you can't discuss his book, do you think people will think it is a good book? I don't.

 

K's post was very rude and not as logical as he'd like to think it was. On the bright side, another sword has been added to the army, eh?

 

Rude to who? K's post was a review of the first chapter of a book he read. If an author cannot take criticism (and even worse - if his readers can't take it) then he has a real problem.

 

Let's vote on it.

 

On what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K - I appreciate your extensive comments. I surely hope you read the rest of the book because I will look forward to your discussion of the really challenging material you have not yet encountered.

 

Interestingly, I have yet to read a negative review from anyone who has read the whole book, only from those who have read the first portions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be late in the day delivering this. I have looked on amazon books and read 24 reviews. None seem to be from Phyicists, nor am I one.

The most thorough account of the book refers to all the perceived and well explained gaps in current theory arising from faulty scientific perception as far back as Newton.

The book is universally described as a very readable step by step explanation of the short-comings of present day science theory and goes on to explain how in a universe where everything is expanding (at all levels - cosmic and quantum) and being fed by new material these inconsistencies disappear.

I got the impression that the book could be described as a very lucid explanation of the problems being encountered by current theories. However, I did not get the impression that I would necessarily be convinced by the new theory, just that it was complete in its consistency and range.

I am going to attempt to find critical comment from an expert source before devoting a week of reading time (common comment by readers) to the book itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCutcheon is certainly persistent and ambitious. Moreover, the concept of Expansion Theory is bold. And we all like 'bold'.

 

But in the final analysis, his whole book is founded upon the not-terribly-insightful observation that modern theories regarding gravity are clearly missing a grand underlying truth. Beyond that, the book clearly has major flaws in it.

 

My background: an honors graduate in computer science about 100 years ago at a major university (USC), I aced all the calculus based courses in physics. This is probably what led to my becoming, eventually, the chief engineer on a nuclear-powered attack submarine. Days gone-by now...but all true.

 

My overall take on McCutcheon's book: at almost $30/copy it is fundamentally dishonest.

 

Yes, he has one good idea in the form of Expansion Theory regarding its application to gravity -- but it's not even his idea. Moreover, he tries to coast the rest of the way by shucking and jiving, using hand-waving arguments instead of rigorous or complete thinking.

 

Note that there is not a single reference in the book to who originated Expansion Theory (or any other references, for that matter). McCutcheon isn't honest enough to state that an orignator of Expansion Theory -- well before McCutcheon's implied origination of it -- is Peter Bros, whose ideas were published in a series of books about Copernican concepts of the universe.

 

Frankly, I still like the boldness of the approach, even if it is wrong. Failing is a good thing -- it is the fastest and most courageous way to learn -- and we need to do it more often if we are to ever come up with a complete Theory of Everything that actually works.

 

So, I really don't have the desire for a complete skewering of McCutcheon's book. Courage is as courage does. But I will point out some of the most commendable ideas, blatant falsehoods and (intentional?) oversights:

 

(1) The Good -- The best and brightest in this book is captured in the first two chapters on Expansion Theory as it pertains to gravity and orbital mechanics in the form of (though he doesn't use this term) non-linear dynamics. This is good stuff, and should be followed up by a modern-day von Neumann to give it the mathematical rigor that it clearly needs.

 

(2) The Bad -- The author has a pedantic, petulant writing style at times that can mask or obliterate his own circular arguments, even if they were true...and often they are not. He gets lost in the minutiae at times and sometimes just plain "loses it" both emotionally and factually. For example, he goes completely aground in his discussion as to how (by his misperception) a horizontally fired object can't _ever_ go into a circular orbit by Newtonian theory ("Gravity based circular orbits are impossible"). This is stuff and rubbish -- a horizontally fired projectile can clearly go into a circular orbit when fired with sufficient velocity provided that there isn't a looming mountaintop somewhere in the projectile's future. But he doesn't stop there with that one mistake -- he goes on and on and on about it (his mistake, that is) until the reader can only continue slogging through the reading by taking an interlude to write "stupid!" in the margin...e.g., as I resorted to on page 116. Seriously folks, this is blatantly stupid stuff. At a bare minimum, as this paragraph points out, it is at least nothing more than one of McCutcheon's emotional rants about his own misinterpretations. Either way, it's more than a little bit sad.

 

(3) The Ugly -- Many, many instances of exculpatory evidence exist against 'The Final Theory'. McCutcheon is clearly overreaching with respect to Expansion Theory. Notably, the author either does not bring these disproofs of his ideas up or glosses over them. Examples include:

 

(a) Energy consumption: The energy required for expansion is just another form of 'magic' (as McCutcheon calls it) to replace existing, magical matter-attraction theories of gravity. This was a gloss-over; the author asserts that he'll prove this isn't the case, then fails to do so.

 

(B) Laws of Life: While he was apparently awake during high school discussions on Laws of Thermodynamics including 'entropy', McCutcheon does not discuss 'consciousness' at all. As this is core to understanding probability waves and modern quantum theory & mechanics, I can only presume that he doesn't have much of a grasp on these subjects.

 

© Electron diffraction: The author blatantly ignores the experimentally observed effect that a *single* photon put through a diffraction process will exhibit wave diffraction. This is profound -- and widely available -- knowledge. That the author would ignore it does not speak well for his arguments. (Ref.: "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert)

 

(d) Wave/Particle Nature: As with the parabolic descent nonsense, the author's style is to misconstrue or obfuscate the current thinking regarding the observed wave/particle nature of photons. It's simple: non-observed 'matter' is a probability/possibility wave. Observed matter exhibits its particle nature. Yet the author conspires to confuse the reader (or himself) on this foundatational point. "Quantum Reality" is a must-read in this regard...it is truly not to be missed, and is a highly pleasurable read.

 

(e) Bell's Theorem: Completely missing-in-action. The Quantum Fact that all reality is non-local is kind of a big deal. Again...see "Quantum Reality" if you prefer enlightenment over diatribe.

 

(f) Muon time-compression: Also readily available info the author ignores, the fact is that muon's at near light speeds decay more slowly than the ones that are not travelling that fast.

 

I could go on and on and on myself...but it all comes down to this: were Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, John Bell, David Bohm, Neils Bohr, von Neumann, Max Planck, etc., etc. all out to lunch...or is McCutcheon?

 

Sorry...I've done my homework, and it's not the former. McCutcheon overreaches...and misses the mark of Truth.

 

A much better book to read (and much more tolerable): "Einstein and Buddha". I recommend it highly. Especially to McCutcheon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speculation that quantum mechanics and consciousness are linked is based on the principle that the act of measurement, which involves a conscious observer, has an effect on quantum events. Part of the center of the argument here is how real is the wavefunction(See: Bohm versus say Bell). Another not often looked at issue is nature its own observer. If nature is, then in essence consciousness is not a requirement for the wavefunction to collapse.

 

Quantum approaches to consciousness are sometimes said to be motivated simply by the idea that quantum theory is a mystery and consciousness is a mystery. That opinion betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Nature of quantum mechanics, which consists fundamentally of a scientific solution to the problem of the relationship between mind and matter. There are two kinds of descriptions that jointly comprise the foundation of science.

 

1.) Accounts of psychologically experienced empirical findings, expressed in a language that allows us to communicate to our colleagues what we have done and what we have learned.

 

2.) Specifications of physical properties, which are expressed by assigning mathematical properties space-time points, and formulating laws that determine how these properties evolve over the course of time.

 

Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and their colleagues discovered a way to connect these two kinds of descriptions by causal laws, and their discovery was extended by John von Neumann from the domain of atomic science to the realm of neuroscience, and in particular to the problem of understanding and describing the causal connections between the minds and the brains of human beings. According to quantum physics, as it is both practiced and taught, our human choices play a key dynamical role in our scientific description of nature. This injection of observer/participants into the basic causal structure of physics was the radical revision in the conception of science ushered in by the founder’s of quantum theory.

 

The quantum conception of the relationship between the psychologically and physically described components of scientific practice was achieved by abandoning the classical picture of the physical world that had ruled science since the time of Newton, Galileo, and Descartes. The building blocks of science were shifted from descriptions of the behaviors of tiny bits of mindless matter to accounts of the actions that we take to acquire knowledge and of the knowledge that we thereby acquire. Science was transformed from its seventeenth century form, which effectively excluded our conscious thoughts from any causal role in the mechanical workings of Nature, to its twentieth century form, which focuses on our active engagement with Nature, and on what we can learn by taking appropriate action.

 

The altered role of conscious agents is poetically expressed by Bohr’s famous dictum:

 

“In the great drama of existence we ourselves are both actors and spectators.” (Bohr, 1963, p. 15: 1958, p. 81)

 

Further, it is even more expressed in statements such as:

 

"The freedom of experimentation, presupposed in classical physics, is of course retained and corresponds to the free choice of experimental arrangement for which the mathematical structure of the quantum mechanical formalism offers the appropriate latitude." (Bohr, 1958, p. 73}

 

The switch in thought between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is summarized in Heisenberg’s famous assertion:

 

“The conception of the objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept, but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of the particle but rather our knowledge of this behavior.” (Heisenberg, 1958a)

 

Heisenburg and others tended to see the wavefunction as a mathematical construct to understand the knowledge of behavior at the quantum level which is the background in which all existance takes place. Bohm and others tended to see the mathematical construct we call the wavefunction as real in itself. Ever since that point it has depended upon one's quantum interpretation of events weither consciousness really is involved in this or not. To some it is and to some it is not. Today there are positions in between these two extremes.

 

Either way one stands here is the crux of the problem. We exist as part of nature. On a quantum level that makes us active when it comes to trying to measure anything. The role of observer then by nature has an effect upon the outcome. The two cannot be divorced enough to actually determine just how important consciousness is in all this. But in essence nature itself is involved in all quantum process and events. As such nature itself holds a position as observer/participant and few would attribute conscious acts of will to nature itself. So even if one takes the position of the wavefunction being real there is no absolute reason or evidence to assume that everyhting depends upon consciousness.

 

I would however, go as far to suggest that quantum mechanics does play a role in consciousness as we understand it. But the actual evidence out of science is not at all in favor of say, our consciousness creating everything that is no matter which camp one finds oneself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I have not read the book in question here, "A final Theory." But, if I was to actual go by the few who have here I would suggest that the book is not so much real hard science at all. It seems like its one persons interpretaion of things and as such is more presenting the Author's own worldview. That's fine in and of itself. We all tend to have a certain worldview and many books could be written on just that. Interpretations of quantum reality abound also. The problem is once one departs into the area of presenting one's own worldview scientific methods tend to get cast to the side. Our own personalities color the picture one is trying to present. One then enters the realm of popular science presentation that often can leave out aspects of hard science that are important to understanding what science actually has discovered about this universe and reality. Such presentations are never to be construed as anything approaching a real final theory about everything. In the best case they can try and explain what a final theory really ought to be to laymen. In the worst case they can tend to present a distorted picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Austin, your arguments are based upon your 'authority' which rides on your very excellent credentials as a student and on your experience in the Navy and in all of the books you have read.

 

But I don't think those credentials necessarily mean you are right. Nearly every negative response to McCutcheon I've read uses the 'argument from authority'.

 

In particular, although you grant McCutcheon credence with respect to the idea that gravity is an effect of expansion, you say that it will only be correct if someone can mathematically explain it. What if your assumption is wrong? What if all things cannot be explained with mathematics?

 

How do you explain the fact that consciousness exists even though nobody has explained it with a mathematical model?

 

If the universe is expanding at the 'atomic' level, as McCutcheon claims, then allow me to make some observations relative to that and lets see where it goes.

 

First, if we are all part of that expansion, we are going to be blind to it with respect to perception.

 

Second, expansion at an atomic level is not currently in any of the standard atomic or molecular theories. It would seem absurd to assume an expansion process would have no effect on those theories. This means that standard models are probably wrong.

 

Third, our models of chemical processes and electrical processes rely heavily on our current atomic models, which once again do not include the phenomenon of expansion.

 

Fourth, if our understanding of electrical processes is flawed then so is our understanding of magnetism and light. Now we're into the electromagnetic spectrum. Now everything is screwed up.

 

It would have been irresponsible of McCutcheon to propose the expansion theory without attempting to address these issues, which he does in the book.

 

Finally, I don't think that it is McCutcheon's responsibility to have read every book ever written and be terrified of not being aware of someone else's contribution to the concept of expansion. Give him the benefit of the doubt on this, at least for now. If he stole the ideas, I'll help you beat him up later. After all, being the mathematical wizard that you are, you are certainly aware of the fact that Calculus was invented by more than one person at the same time.

 

To the other comments about lay people, etc. I can only tsk. tsk tsk.

 

To paultrr, wow, beautifully written. I can't say I understand it all, but what I did understand I agreed with. I'll work on it. I don't think that our being conscious has an effect on the nature of existence. The fact that we are conscious and we exist means that the two work together. Consciousness must be a property of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am in the process of reading the book. The expansion theory is interesting but seems to fall apart when considering the effects of the moon and the ocean tides. The author goes to great lengths show that the moon is not involve in the ocean tides. Refer to page 159 "Does the Moon really cause Ocean Tides?". I will continue to read the book because it does stimulate thought but will be looking for "The Final Theory II" :friday:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craigsmith,

 

thank you for taking the time to look at it. I had problems with orbital mechanics and I struggled with how it could possibly work for over a year. The only thing I can say is that when it finally did appear to be believable it was after I realized that his explanation is at the very least no less incredible than orbits caused by a pull. So I simply said, 'why not?'.

 

I still don't know if he's correct. The strength of my conviction is not a measure of the voracity of his theories. They are either more accurate than current theories or they aren't. Only when we are able to fill in the substantial vacuum that he has created in our understanding of the natural world, and use that understanding with more certainty than our current models, will we be able to say that he is more correct.

 

But, if a line were drawn in the sand and I was required to stand on one side or the other, I'd step on McCutcheon's side without hesitation. And if it were a bet, I'd bet the farm.

 

Recently, I made the observation that McCutcheon actually provides a way to define time in terms of something other than a unit of time. It is my understanding that time is considered a fundamental phenomenon that can't be broken down into component parts. We provide a way to measure time but we always use a standard that contains time within it. When this dawned on me, I checked the book to see if McCutcheon addressed this issue. He had.

 

Toward the end of the book, which I had read with a mostly fried brain, he made the same observation.

 

So, most likely, my epiphany had been triggered by what I had read and it just took some time for it to get through my filters and reach the surface. But that's one of the things that I love about the book. It provokes thought and is so incredibly fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HIddy Ho Folks, I too am reading "The FInal Theory" SO far so good....! Many thought provoking ideas. New thoughts and or theories is something that excites this brain.:friday:

 

 

So I will be back shortly to comment further on this subject,

 

Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...