Who Should I Share My Unique Theory of Everything With?

[tdunc]

I along with everyone here probably has a unique theory of "everything" The question is who do you show it to, and who you show it to is important because some people are hardwired in their beliefs. If someone believes in GR your probably not going to make them change their mind. And if your ideas contradict GR then it's probably not a good idea to get feeback from this guy.
Anyway... I have a 16+ page journal I keep, call it a small book, and have not showed it to anyone but would like to eventually because what I have written I think is important. I really have no idea who to send it to although. Do I send it to my local Universites physics department? Do I send it to NASA? ha I really don't know. I guess I'm too lazy to make a website, and even then who's going to find it? Is that the way to go, a website? Will google serve it up or will it be lost on page 50's results is my concern.

 

[ahrkron]

The point is not if somebody's ideas contradict GR or not. The only test (and the main allegiance scientist pledge to) is agreement with experiment. If a theory predicts an experimental result that is different from that predicted by, say, GR, then an experiment can decide.

If, on the other hand, the new theory only gives a word-description of a physical phenomenon (however compelling and "sensible"), then it has no use in science.

 

[Vern]

Go to Google and type in "Photonic Structure of the universe" and see what comes up.

Publish on the internet and folks will see your stuff. That doesn't mean it will hold any special place with scientists. And yes; most of us are hardwired to a certain set of beliefs I'm afraid. It is rare when we encounter a scientist like Einstein who could ponder several different scenerios of physical reality.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[Locrian]

What ahrkron said. Either your theory is useful in practice and it will be widely accepted, or it's useless and who cares?

 

[Chi Meson]

Addendum to theprevious posts:

Some people point to string theory and say, "well, they don't have any experimental support, and scientists call it "Physics." But not all scientist accept it as physics (not yet) simply because it can not be supported by experiment. What is does have, however, is a mathematical model that seems to allow for the existence of the forces and particles as we know it. If your theory does not have at least a mathematical framework that is without paradoxes but can provide consistant structure to your theory, then it is only speculation.

 

[ahrkron]

wrt the (good) point on String Theory,

ST is indeed far from being experimentally verifiable but, nonetheless, it is still an attempt to tie together SR and QM with the very strong constraint that it has to reproduce all of their predictions. It is an attempt to simplify our assumptions, yet maintaining all their predictive power, so you can argue that it is (by construction) supported by all experimental evidence to date.

 

[force5]

Maybe you should consider presenting your work as a concept or model. That way, you would be offering options or possible enhancements to current thinking. The word "theory" seems to require a level of description that most people either lack the know how or education to document properly.

 

[Chronos]

Words and logic do not have much utility in science. They are vague, contextually sensitive and generally do not produce definitive, testable solutions. Mathematics is the language of science. Numbers and symbols have definitive, invariant meanings and produce definitive, testable solutions that everyone can agree upon. A theory without a mathematical framework is not a theory, it is an idea. No one has ever received a Nobel [at least not in physics] for an idea.

 

[employee #416]

Who's to say that math is logic of the universe? I would disagree with that. Just because you have math, does not mean you have a theory.

$$2x=x~~~2x/x=1~~~2=1$$

Math doesn't mean anything. tdunc, I say get your theory out there. If you would like, I can make you a website for it. I don't mind, I would love to do it.

 

[Alkatran]

Who's to say that math is logic of the universe? I would disagree with that. Just because you have math, does not mean you have a theory.

$$2x=x~~~2x/x=1~~~2=1$$

Math doesn't mean anything. tdunc, I say get your theory out there. If you would like, I can make you a website for it. I don't mind, I would love to do it.

I always love seeing a new division by 0 problem.
If you divide by 0 you can pretty much make anything equal anything, what's your point?

 

[Gza]

Who's to say that math is logic of the universe? I would disagree with that. Just because you have math, does not mean you have a theory.



$$2x=x~~~2x/x=1~~~2=1$$


Math doesn't mean anything.

Math doesn't mean anything if you are allowed to do anything (ie. divide by zero.)

Who's to say that math is logic of the universe?

Experiment is to say that, as far as we know it, math is the logic of the universe.

 

[Entropy]

Just post your theory. As long as you listen and try to learn in your discussion then youdon't have anything to worry about. Unless you have a disrespectful attitude, I don't think anyone here is going to attack you or label you as "stupid" or anything. Anyone who does is just a jerk.

 

[Chronos]

Apologies for agreeing with gza just because he is correct. Math without observational support is merely speculation. Observation without mathematical support is merely reality. Experiment with this hypothesis and see what you conclude: observation is the independent variable, math is the dependent variable.

 

[employee #416]

If something is logic, can it really be changed?

 

[tdunc]

What is math? Math is a language. English is a language. Both can be used to describe the same thing, what is important is that the audience can visualize in their head the concept or model of what it is your describing. I don't need math to describe the physical appearence or motion of an object, I can use english, simple as that. And if you don't agree then that's too bad because it's true. Mathmatically stating that an object has traveled from point A to point B doesn't make it any more clear or true than observation Or imagination. And no, I nor you need to actually observe anything to "get the picture" . You guys read books right? What is the author using as a means to convey to you the story's setting, charaters and occurences? English. We can visualize all these things he is describing because we have something called an imagination, imagination is based on past observations and experiences to "construct" a close to if not exactly similar image of what the author has in his mind.

Does the absense of a mathmatical explanation or "proof" in a given theory tend to come across as speculative? I suppose you can argue that and you might have a point, but what if proving anything is not what the theory is all about? And what is so wrong about speculating how something might work? It's true, a lot of theory is purely philosophy. Before we try to prove something it would be wise to know that what we are trying to prove is even close to reality, it would even be Best to speculate until we get a close to reality idea of how something works based on reason and logic.

Lets not forget either that math is not reality, "reality is reality", nor is it explicitly immune to error, quite the contrary. Humans invented math as a means to describe reality, so what if their explanation of an event is untrue to the event or even more likely given the complexity of math, misunderstood?

In any case, I have my theories of this and that written down all in laymens terms eg. completely void of math. Not because I suck at math, or that I don't know math, but because I don't find it necessary for what it is that I am trying to convey. A model or two diagramed out wouldn't hurt but again, Imagination and logic is really all you need.

So I guess I decided to wip this website up and post it here first. I will say right now that the earlier entries are iffy because I was pretty new to all this. It gets better at the end. I enjoyed it, that's why I do it because it's a really interesting and fun subject, hope you all find it intriging.

http://www.geocities.com/tdunc01/

 

[Locrian]

what if proving anything is not what the theory is all about? And what is so wrong about speculating how something might work? It's true, a lot of theory is purely philosophy.

This is a board about science. Given that, it's safe to say we are using the word "theory" as it is defined in science. Scientific theories are always about predicting something, they are by definition "proven" (in the scientific sense of the word), and they are never purely philosophy.