Could This Be the Theory of Everything?

[PRyckman]

T=E/d

Time Energy Distance
Distance is one Plancks constant
Time is one frame rate of time.
Energy defined by E=mc^2

Plain and simple guys. Let's see the lower Energy is the higher the relative frame rate. On Earth that frame may be 901.28 and the frame rate traveling near light speed 1.0001000100010001

Therfor traveling one second at near light speed would equal 901 seconds on earth.

I can explain nearly every theory with this. Including wave particle duality, and interference patterns.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Let's see. E = mc^2 and E = dT so dT = mc^2 and therefore m = dT/c^2. So to find the mass of anything, find how far it went (d) in a given time (T), multiply the two together and divide by the square of c. Suppose it goes twice as fast, then the distance per unit time is twice as big and so is the mass. Mass goes up linearly with speed. That doesn't agree with relativity or particle physics experiments, so I really doubt whether you can explain existing physicsw with this.

 

[Erck]

Humility is probably the only way we might be allowed to discover the mind of god.

 

[PRyckman]

almost proved me wrong

its not E=Dt however
it is E=D/T and
D=E(t)

And Distance is always equal to one. The universe does not care about our forms of measureement, one kilometre could be represented as 1 just as 1.8 centimetres could aswell. Distance is always one. If you double the speed then you only double the time.

 

[PRyckman]

further

time is not defined as how far energy traveled in a given time, energy always travels at the same rate regardless of time. Time is defined as how fast time is moving in given distance. And distance in equation is not moving it is static. Therefor the equation is not the amount of distance traveled it is the amount of distance containing the energy. And time is not measured from a starting point, but also as a static figure, a figure which shows relativity between different amounts of energy.

 

[PRyckman]

Further... I'm not quite sure yet, but I may even be able to explain gravity with that equation, precisely HOW gravity moves us.! I'm trying to get the word out about this equation, I don't want to go into detailed explanations until people are interested.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I don't want to go into detailed explanations until people are interested.

I'm completely interested. Please continue.

Now, if T=e/d = d/e and distance is always 1, then you're saying that either T= e or T= 1/e?

 

[PRyckman]

T=1/e
However to be accurate 1 must be the smallest measurable distance. fortunately you can find this distance by D=E(t) . Let's say you use one kilometer as a radius. And are measuring the energy contained. Well this amount of energy over one 1d space would cause a black hole. Therefor you divide the entire equation until Energy is less than one, and time is greater than one. That will give you the smallest distance that exists, or... Plancks constant

And I only realized how to explain gravity with this equation today, so I'm not yet sure it's true however I think it does work.

How can we find an electron at a given place and time, only in theory can we do that correct? It only exists as a potentiality in both.
Let's say that an electron has a 50/50 chance at any given time to be found on either the left, or the right of a line. If time figured from my equation is a lower time number(greater energy) on the left, and visa versa, then that given electron will actually spend 51% of its time on the left, therefor the force acted upon the entire atom is moved left, closer to the center of energy, and then the cycle continues. It is time that causes matter to move together, gravity doesn't even exist.

However that is the outskirts of the theories i have found to be in this equation, that wouldn't be the best judge on my equations validity

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is over the top, and you don't care to match with science or experiment, so this thread belongs in theory development, and it's going there.

 

[Nereid]

T=E/d

Time Energy Distance
Distance is one Plancks constant
Time is one frame rate of time.
Energy defined by E=mc^2

Plain and simple guys. Let's see the lower Energy is the higher the relative frame rate. On Earth that frame may be 901.28 and the frame rate traveling near light speed 1.0001000100010001

Therfor traveling one second at near light speed would equal 901 seconds on earth.

I can explain nearly every theory with this. Including wave particle duality, and interference patterns.

Please explain the double slit experiment in terms of your idea. Be sure to state distances, wavelengths etc in units which we can actually measure in our labs, using rulers and other conventional measuring instruments.

 

[PRyckman]

I don't have any science equipment to measure anything let alone something like the speed or mass of light. Which is why the best I can do is thought experiments. So I will explain the double slit experiment in that way as it's the only way I know how.

Ps. Self Ad Joint, Don't be mad at me, I don't know where the theory development forum is, nor do i know hot to submit this to any peer reviewed journals, so this is where I stand.

Double Slit experiment:

We know that photons only ever eixst in probability until they interact with something. At the point where the wave is traveling through the slits, it has probability to exist is in both slits. Therefor the probability of the photon or electron showing up on the screen is greatest in the middle.

At the point the photon strikes the detector screen it choses a course. I't does not choose that course until it hit's that screen, therfor the waves of it's two probabilities have already interacted, because at the moment it becomes a particle it is connected to time.

 

[PRyckman]

Self Ad joint, you never made any further comments past the ones about d(t) that i said to be D/T If it's m=(D/T)/c^2 what do you think of that?

 

[chroot]

"Self Ad Joint" -- is that like a sleazy do-it-yourself advertising firm?

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

I don't have any science equipment to measure anything let alone something like the speed or mass of light. Which is why the best I can do is thought experiments. So I will explain the double slit experiment in that way as it's the only way I know how.

Ps. Self Ad Joint, Don't be mad at me, I don't know where the theory development forum is, nor do i know hot to submit this to any peer reviewed journals, so this is where I stand.

Double Slit experiment:

We know that photons only ever eixst in probability until they interact with something. At the point where the wave is traveling through the slits, it has probability to exist is in both slits. Therefor the probability of the photon or electron showing up on the screen is greatest in the middle.

At the point the photon strikes the detector screen it choses a course. I't does not choose that course until it hit's that screen, therfor the waves of it's two probabilities have already interacted, because at the moment it becomes a particle it is connected to time.

So what pattern would one see on the detector screen? How - and why - would that change if one slit were covered?

 

[TeV]

"Self Ad Joint" -- is that like a sleazy do-it-yourself advertising firm?

- Warren

"Self Ad Joint" maybe the name of a liberal firm from Netherland distributing a good pot?Sorry,I couldn't resist (I see in Theory development forum lotz of crapy posts allowed.Maybe this one will pass too )

 

[chroot]

Heh, pretty much anything goes in TD.

- Warren

 

[TeV]

Well,many hippies in the past claimed they discovered Theory of Everything while smooking a good pot..So,the post is still subject related I think
(Hope,our Selfadjoint and the folks from the Netherlands don't mind this little "nonscientific" conversation ).

 

[PRyckman]

So what pattern would one see on the detector screen? How - and why - would that change if one slit were covered?

Well I explained to you the reason why there is a higher probability of the photon striking near middle,Also how the photon can interact with itself to begin with.

With one slit covered the photons do not make an interference pattern, and are just randomly scattered in the direction of the wave. This is because there is only one wave, Only one potentiality exists, it is not possible that the light went through both, to split into two potentials.

 

[Nereid]

Well I explained to you the reason why there is a higher probability of the photon striking near middle,Also how the photon can interact with itself to begin with.

With one slit covered the photons do not make an interference pattern, and are just randomly scattered in the direction of the wave. This is because there is only one wave, Only one potentiality exists, it is not possible that the light went through both, to split into two potentials.

OK, next: can you account for the interference pattern, as observed with both slits open, in quantitative terms? In other words, the relative intensity I on the detector screen is the following function of (some variables describing position on the screen, distance of slits from screen, width of the slits, distance between the slits, wavelength(s) of the light, ...). If, perchance, the result is exactly the same as one can obtain from textbook physics, please say so.

 

[PRyckman]

uncertainty principle
n.
A principle in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty with which another conjugate quantity may be known. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uncertainty+principle

Therefor, if we limit the space light can travel through, and wait for it to hit a screen, we are measuring its place and direction. If you give it two paths to travel, by that principle it must increase it's uncertainty. Just as making the slits bigger would increase the radius of its possible courses of travel.

 

[PRyckman]

OK, next: can you account for the interference pattern, as observed with both slits open, in quantitative terms? In other words, the relative intensity I on the detector screen is the following function of (some variables describing position on the screen, distance of slits from screen, width of the slits, distance between the slits, wavelength(s) of the light, ...). If, perchance, the result is exactly the same as one can obtain from textbook physics, please say so.

You are asking me to show you something that's already been done. Scientists can and have already done that. oh ic ok, you the result is exactly the same as from textbook physics, it can't go against the facts.

 

[chroot]

Hmmm so in the end your "T = E/d" theory produces the exact same results as conventional physics?

Could you please elaborate on how those results are obtained?

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Yes I'll do my best.

First off, Energy must be less than one. One being the point causing singularity, or mass traveling light speed. Distance must be One aswell, because any distance can be measured as One of whatever unit. For instance 1.98 centimetres could be equal to one. However,... For total energy to be less than one, the distance must be incredibly small. I think THAT distance may be Plancks contant.

Time must be equal to or more than 1. This represents one frozen frame of time. This is where relativity comes in. Once you have the amount of energy in given distance you have a frame rate. Let's say your traveling near light speed, and the distance your measuring has an energy of .99999
Plug that into the figures and you have a framerate of 1.000010000100001000010001

Now on Earth you have an energy in given distance of .0014
Plug that into the figures and you have a framerate of 714.2857

So that would mean that traveling with .99999 of E for one second would be equal to
roughly 714 seconds on earth

 

[chroot]

PRyckman,

I do not see anything in your last post that's relevant to the double-slit experiment. Please try again.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Post#23 ? That wasn't it's purpose

 

[chroot]

Okay, well, Nereid has asked you several times to show her your conclusions about the double-slit experiment from your "T = E/d" theory. You then responded that the conclusions are the same as accepted science. If this is true, I'd like for you to demonstrate it. I'm asking you to show us how you can derive the "textbook" conclusions, which you agree are correct, from your theory.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Are we speaking of the textbook calculations of the way the waves interact? Those calculations are not part of my theory I don't think. Those calculations are already finished. They already know how the waves interact, just as they do with water waves. They just didn't know how they interacted, isn't that true?

 

[chroot]

The calculations that are "already finished" were derived from the mainstream concepts of energy, time, and distance. You seem to want to redefine those concepts, and thus the "already finished" calculations are subject to review. If you cannot show that your new definitions permit the same conclusions, we cannot continue to consider your theory viable.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

That is what I'm trying to show you. They do accept all of these calculations.
I think I am not explaining part of the question?

Ok here's what I think I'm missing. Why the waves can interact.

I think I showed you how they can exist in two places , so now why do they interact.

So now in the middle we have two probabilities, each separate, yet the same particle.

Before I start I'd like to ask you to tell me how to put a picture in here and what format it must be in or what not So that I may draw a diagram.

However without the diagaram:
Each slit can be represented as point A and point B
Once past the double slit, it exists in two probabilites.
These probabilities both have energy but the exact amount is spread between them.
If energy were equal to one then that energy is spread across the entire probability field.
If energy wave from point A in it's entirety had a probability of 50% half of the full energy would be spread across that distance.
If energy wave from point B in it's entirety also had a probability of 50% then the other half of the full energy would be spread across that distance.

Now these waves can interact with one another, exerting an equal force on each other.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The product of mass and the time rate of change of acceleration is aproximately unity.

$$m \frac{da}{dt} \approx 1$$

 

[Antonio Lao]

If force is equivalent to time or saying that force is directly proportional to time implies that if there is no force or if two equal and opposite forces are in equilibrium then time is zero. But because of the existence of Planck constant, Planck energy, Planck length, and Planck time, the two opposite forces at the infinitesimal domain of the local region of spacetime cannot be truly equal in magnitude.

Because of the existence of an infinitesimal differential force $$\Delta F$$, a movement exist between two parallel worlds. This is the phenomenon of vacuum fluctuation.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The existence of two infinitesimal differential forces which are not exactly equal in magnitude also implies that the outer product of these two forces are less than unity and the inner product of these two forces is greater than zero.

$$F_i \times F_j \leq 1$$

$$F_i \cdot F_j \geq 0$$

 

[russ_watters]

Those calculations are not part of my theory I don't think.

Then it isn't a "theory of everything," is it?

 

[PRyckman]

I don't understand the math too well could you further explain it in english?
I find it interesting that you say approximate unity. To me that says some guy with a real affinity for turning patterns into a math formula came up with something that can almost explain it in all situations. "Like the guy from A Beautiful Mind" (i forget the real mans name)

But please tell me as best you can what that equation means. What it's basic meanings are, and what happens at extremes of certain variables, if you would be so kind.

I don't understand what the dot signifies, division?
And The subscript i?

 

[Antonio Lao]

From vector analysis, The vector (cross or outer) product of two vectors is given by

$$V_i \times V_j = |V_i||V_j|sin \theta$$.

The $|V_i|$ denotes magnitude of the vector. $\theta$ denotes the angle betweens the vectors.

If $\theta$ is 90 degrees then the vectors are perpendicular also called orthogonal and the vector product is just the product of the magnitudes. The subscript i and j are used only to differentiate different vectors. If the magnitude is unity then the product is almost unity for all angle almost 90 degrees.

The scalar (dot or inner) product of two vectors is given by

$$V_i \cdot V_j = |V_i||V_j|cos \theta$$.

If $\theta$ is 0 degrees then the vectors are collinear also called congruent and the scalar product is just the product of the magnitudes. For angle almost 90 degrees the product is nearly zero.

In reality, the dynamic angle (changing continuously) is almost 90 degrees for vector products to be approximately unity and almost zero for scalar products. If angle is almost zero then the vector products is almost zero and the scalar products almost unity.