Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The Finiteness theory - a theory of everything

'Finiteness theory' is new hypothesis put forth by me. It visualizes that matter has a fundamental particle having a mass 1x10^(-47) kg and radius 3x10^(-23)m. It always remains moving at the speed 'c'. The motion creates a force of reaction, which manifests as gravitational and electromagnetic forces. When the fundamental particles integrate, the energy and force are transferred to the system formed, and so the 'natural energy' and the 'energy equivalent of the natural force' of any system thus formed is (mc^2)/2.

The fundamental particles integrate into electron-positron pairs, and these integrate into neutrons. Neutrons change into atoms, and the atoms integrate into molecules and huge masses of atoms/molecules. These masses form orbiting systems (like the galaxies and galaxy-clusters), and the orbiting systems together integrate into a pulsating system that we call the universe. Thus the universe is matter in its finite form.

Only the barest outline of the 'Finteness Theory' is given above. The theory actually includes the theoretical and mathematical explanations of how the integration happens, how matter interacts at different levels, how e-m radiations are formed from the particles, etc. The theory is speculative in nature; however, if any one is interested in the details, my book is available.

Though my theory is one among the many speculative theories, it differs from the rest in that my theory is all inclusive; it deals with everything from the fundamental particles to the universe itself, whereas, the other speculative theories cover only certain specific areas. I will post some mathematical proofs (subsequently) in this thread to justify my claim that my theory should be taken seriously and evaluated properly.

As per the Finiteness Theory, the natural energy of any body formed from the fundamental particles is mc^2/2. In the case electron/positron, half of the natural energy remains inside as internal vibrations. This internal energy can be regarded as the potential energy and it is this potential energy that creates electrostatic force. This gives an immediate mathematical result: "The energy equivalent of the electrostatic force created by an electron or positron cannot be grater than mc^2/4; or the maximum force is equal to mc^2/4." This is verifiable.

The force is the maximum when two electrons touch each other, and this force should be equal to the potential energy of two electrons. So the theory predicts that Ee^2/2r = mc^2/2 (where 'E' is the electrostatic constant, 'e' the unit charge, m and r the mass and radius of electron. All these are known values, and so can be easily verified. Both are equal to 4.09x10^(-14)J.

Thus the prediction is correct and so this can be regarded as a mathematical proof of my theory. I would request Bill Gill to offer his comments regarding this.

Well, I haven't figured out how to determine the potential energy when 2 electrons are in contact, so I just figured the force between them. The following are my results.

To figure the force I just used Coulomb's Law. Of course I don't think Coulomb's Law is really correct, it assumes a point source and a significant distance between the charges. Hopefully this will be close enough for a good guess.

Coulombs law
F = [k(e)*q1*q2]/r^2

I assumed that when they are touching the distance between the 2 centers is twice the radius of the electron.

Electron radius < 10^(-18)m

This is an upper estimate based on classical physics, where the electron is regarded as a particle.

k(e) is the proportionality constant

k(e) = 9*10^9*N*m^2/C^2

electron charge = 1.602176565(35)×(10-19)*C
where C is the unit of charge the coulomb


q1 and q2 are the same, the charge on an electron.

q1 = q2 =1.6*10^(-19)C

Doing the calculations stepwise.

q1 * q2 = {[1.6*10^(-19)]^2}*C^2 = [2.56*10^(-38)]*C^2


r^2 = [2*10^(-18)]^2 = (4*10^-36) m^2

Then the force between 2 electrons in contact is:


F = {[(9*10^9)*N*m^2]/C^2}*(2.56*10^(-38)*c^2)/[4*10^(-36)*m^2]


F = -23*10^7 N

The minus sign is because the force is repulsive.

That is a large force, if you can show that it provides the same potential energy as your hypothesis then wonderful, you have recreated an already known value, using an otherwise non-standard hypothesis. Now do us another one, such as the double slit experiment.


Bill Gill

Excuse me if my explanation lacked clarity. Putting in all the calculations as you have done is a time consuming effort. And you have taken pains to do it. However, what I have stated is the 'energy equivalent' of the force, and not the force. So in the denominator, you have to use 'r' and not r^2. Not only that, the classical radius of the electron is 2.8x10^(-15)m, and that value is to be used. Then the result will be 4x10^(-14)J.

I am proposing (based on my theory) that potential energy of an electron is mc^2/4, half its natural energy (Energy is a quality of matter and the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2, where 'm' is the mass). So the potential energy of two electrons is mc^2/2. This is also equal to 4x10^(-14)J. That is what I have stated.

Please verify. Regarding a double slit experiment, I can give only a theoretical explanation. Another mathematical explanation regarding the relation between the masses of electron and neutron will be posted tomorrow.

In regard to the size of the electron you said the value was available on the web, and that is where I got mine. If you want to use a different value then you need to justify it. In fact of course the electron doesn't have a defined size.

You say the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2. I assume that the c is speed of light. But according to special relativity e = mc^2. Where did you get the division by 2. Then you say that the potential energy of 2 photons is the same thing. I would think that the potential energy of 2 photons would be twice the energy of 1.

I really need to know the derivation of the value you give for the potential energy, since it seems you are using a brand new idea for it.

Things being how they are I will probably just ignore any more postings from you until you actually do come up with something that really matches what the rest of the world believes.

Bill Gill

For the classical radius of electron please refer the following link, it gives the value as 2.8x10^(-15)m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius

Being an alternate theory, the explanations are different. As you said, I am using 'a brand new idea'. In my theory matter cannot be converted into energy because energy is a quality of matter just like its mass and volume. I propose that motion (kinetic energy) at the speed 'c' (speed of light in vacuum)is the fundamental quality of matter. That means the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2 (using the equation for kinetic energy). However, in any body part of this energy remains inside the body and part as speed. In electron the division is 50:50, ie, half the natural energy remains inside electron. The energy that remains inside the electron is what I refer to as its potential energy, and this is equal to mc^2/4. So for two electrons, the total potential energy is (mc^2/4) + (mc^2/4) = mc^2/2.

Because of the conceptual difference, there will be some confusion regarding some terms used. My theory does not deny any observational evidence available so far, but explains the same on the basis of the concept that energy is just a quality like mass or volume.

So you don't deny any observations hey ... then how does a nuclear reactor make energy if you can't convert matter to energy?????

So explaination please how does a nuclear reactor work under your theory.

The core rods get lighter and we definitely have energy ... so lets hear you alternate explaination.

Ohhh wait let me have a guess in your theory weight is a ficticuous thing.

A very good question,Orac. What happens during a nuclear reaction? The present explanation is that matter/mass gets converted into energy. Definitely, it agrees with the observations; we get energy and there is loss in mass (the energy released is in the form of electromagnetic radiations which in turn heats up the core; this heat is used for generating electrical energy).

However, based on my theory, the radiations are streams of fundamental particles of matter, which always move at the speed 'c' (the energy possessed by the radiations is kinetic energy). During nuclear reaction, the internal energy of the nucleus gets released in the form of kinetic energy of radiations (particles of matter). Thus, the nucleus releases particles (of matter), and consequently there is a slight loss in mass. When the radiations are absorbed, the kinetic energy of the radiations is transferred to the molecules, which starts vibrating (gets heated). This heat is used for generating electrical energy.

ROFL ... right so the nucleus changes mass .. and you cant think of a few slight problems :-)

Do you expect us to this garbage seriously?

This isn't even pseudoscience ... it's trash.

Pointless discussing it if thats your level of science.

Orac, I read your post (41639) before taking the dog for a walk. I like to have something to think about while walking, so I tried to come up with a response.



In Finiter’s theory mass, volume and energy are qualities of matter.

Weight does not need to be fictitious, it is simply a factor of the influence of gravity on matter; or, from a different perspective, the influence of matter on the geometry of spacetime (OK, Finiter won't like that bit).

If you have a mass of matter, and remove some mass, in a gravitational field, your matter becomes lighter, because you have removed some of something that is one of its qualities.

Energy influences the geometry of spacetime, if energy is simply a quality of matter, some could be removed and the matter would appear lighter.

In this scenario no matter/energy exchange would be necessary, but the observed physics would be explained.

Orac, the problem here is that we are talking to a crackpot. There are many kinds of crackpot, but here we get science crackpots. Crackpots always have a response to any kind of criticism of their work. They do not, in fact they cannot, provide an actual mathematical explanation of their idea. When you challenge them to do so they wave their hands in the air and point out how it works in words. Then when you ask for a mathematical formulation they give you something that at first looks like it might be good, but then they say that their use of some important word doesn't mean what you think it means, they are using it in some other way. And they never give you an actual mathematical derivation of their values. In fact they are so convinced of the accuracy of their thinking that you will never convince them otherwise.

It is easy to get so wrapped up in trying to show them where they are wrong that you keep on trying after it has become obvious that you cannot show them. A few times I have tried to show where Finiter is wrong so that anybody else reading his posts will understand that what he is saying is not science. For some people it doesn't seem to help.

Trying to have a dialog with a crackpot is useless, it just encourages him. The only way to quiet a crackpot is to ignore him. Then he will go away and try to find some other venue to display his great understanding of how physics works. So in future I will do just that.

Bill Gill

I guess that tells me something about the "divided universe" idea.

Finiter, as one crackpot to another, give 'em some maths. I shall have to ask for an explanation, but thare yer go!

BTW Bill, that's sexist, I'm sure there must be some female crackpots out there somewhere.

Crackpots of the world unite,
We have a role to fill,
There’s just a chance we could be right,
Despite Orac and Bill.

Bill S seriously I don't mind crackpots there is a long list of crackpots in science who were right.

Without exception however those crackpots ideas were not trivially debunked and most were on a specific small area of science.

So take our latest problem we now have nucleus of different weight so we have no standard "atomic weight" of any element. You now have to rewrite most of the entire field of chemistry which is based upon the premise that an atom of element weighs the same and by reverse molar weights of substances. You even seperate elements based upon there weight but apparently not we got that all wrong.

When a theory requires you to rewite GR/SR, QM, Nuclear theory and Chemistry science thats pretty much all of science and goes way beyond crackpot science I would call it science fiction or garbage take your choice.

I am with Bill G done discussing it because it's theatre of the absurd.

Orac, you can call it garbage (there are persons who call the whole of physics garbage); that is your right. Calling names can be a part of discussion, I agree. But you should provide logical reasons for that if it should be regarded as a discussion. Please come up with unambiguous valid reasons for calling it garbage.

Dear Bill Gill, I would have appreciated your stand if you have tried to point out what is the mistake in the mathematical proof I have provided. I gave all the explanations, but you did not care to work it out. If you have cared to work out, then you would have got the result. After that you could have pointed out where I have gone wrong conceptually.

The problem is that you are not willing to go to the very end of the discussion. You fear that it will encourage me. I do not know why you should fear that. Do you think that 'pseudo science' will win if it is given a chance to be discussed? No, my dear BG.

Actually it is the crackpot or the pseudo-scientist who should fear discussion. He may be cornered at any time, and so he will drift away from serious discussions. For that, he will resort to name calling and rhetoric, and thus cleverly change the subject.

The problem is clearly explained in the post above you now just killed all chemistry. It no longer works because you just killed all atomic weights of elements and all molar mass values.

You now have mass spectroscopy, equilibrium states, boiling points, solute theory, ideal gas and liquid equations and countless more things that rely on these to fix up.

So aside from now having to go through radioactive decay theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) and explain what alpha and beta emissions etc and why we see atoms changing etc

You now have to also go and fix up chemistry because none of it's main qualitative theories work.

I think that pretty much means you have to rewite every aspect of science for your theory to be true. Should keep you busy and away from us for a little while, now off you go and fix up all the things you broke.

BS, you got the point. Is it that only a crackpot can understand another crackpot? However, in real world, the reverse thing happens: one crackpot will accuse the other of 'crack-pottery' (with all his might). So, are we not really crackpots (as maintained by Orac and BG)?

You asked me to give some maths. I have actually given one. I will repeat it for you

My proposal: Energy is the quality of matter, and the fundamental particle always moves at the speed 'c'. So the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2. In electron, half of this remains as internal energy; let us call it potential energy. So the potential energy of 'two' electrons is mc^2/2. The electrostatic force is due to this potential energy.

If the above proposal is correct, then the energy equivalent of the maximum force between two electrons should be equal to mc^2/2 (the potential energy of two electrons). This can be verified. The force is maximum when the electrons touch each other such that the distance is equal to 2r, where 'r' is the radius of electron. Calculate the force (energy equivalent) and see whether it agrees.

But the counter argument made by BG is that energy is to be calculated using Einstein's equation E=mc^2, and so my argument is wrong. Again he says that potential energy is not calculated in that way, and so I am wrong again, and so he will not discuss it further(that means will not verify the maths).

I put forth an alternate proposal, then the argument was 'that is not enough', 'provide some mathematical proof'. When I provided a mathematical proof, he just says that my proposal goes against existing ones. What is the logic in it? Can an alternate proposal be the same as the existing one?

I just do not know what you mean. During nuclear fission, a massive nucleus splits, and the mass of the two nuclei thus formed is less than the mass of the one that has split. So there is actual loss of mass from the nucleus. That being the fact, why do you say that I killed atomic weights. Be logical.

Seriously finiter I realize you don't understand it ... the fact is you will never understand it because you don't even remotely try to understand current science.

I saw your inability to understand the most basic things in QM and I am not going to start discussing nuclear theory and chemistry theories with you.

There really is not much to tell you your theory is trivially wrong if you care to actually do some reading of science observations which you will never accept and I am not wasting my time to discuss it with you. Others may have time to continue on discussions with your theory but without you willing to go do at least some minimal background work I see it as an excercise in futility and quite simply this theory isn't worth that much effort. So I shall leave you and Bill S to it.

Now I'm going to take off my "crackpot" hat, and put on my "ignoramus" hat; both fit very well.

Please can someone explain to me why the maths in this bit would/would not work?

Think about it Bill S ... quality of matter???? and what units shall I put on the quality of matter.

And what does less quality matter look like ... what does less quality matter actually mean?

It's an old idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality)



See it's unanalysable by scientific methods that's why finiter can just fob off answers, sorry I agree it simply isn't science and i dismiss it out of hand.

Any calculations you do will be based on some random scale of quality.

What finiter is doing is systematically adding qualities to eveything so you can't directly measure anything therefor he can't be proved wrong.

He is getting so wide now he has wiped out QM, nuclear theory and now chemistry. I can't measure or analyze anything because it's basis always comes back to some random matter quality meaning.

He hasn't worked out thats whats happening because he does not understand how all science fields connect but thats why I have given up on this. In the end literally everything will have its basis built around some quality and what you are doing is not science.

There is nothing novel or new about this, Finiter may have innocently stumbled on an idea or he may have seen other versions of it only he could tell you.

Perhaps "quality" was not the best word to use; because you can talk of the quality of something or a quality of something, and the implication is quite different.

Let's try "feature". We can then say: mass is a feature of matter, and have no problem with the units of mass.

Similarly, we might say: energy is a feature of matter, and have no problem with the units of energy. Does this make a difference?

I should be clear that I am not trying to defend or counter Finiter's theory, I am just trying to understand the factors involved in both sides of the discussion.

But energy is not a "feature" of matter at all?

Kinetic energy is a feature of movement, And potentential energy is a feature of distortion of spacetime (or if you don't like GR its a feature of gravitational seperation)

Photons of light are not matter and they most definitely have energy for example.

So by trying to make energy a "feature" you are indeed making a random quality and your original statement was perfectly correct and I did not misunderstand or misinterpret it .... my answer was correct.

if you want to make something a "feature" of matter first show me an observation that shows it to be so other than that it is indeed a randomly chosen quality because we certainly haven't needed it in an science so far.

I propose that energy is just one of 'the' qualities of the fundamental particles of matter, the other qualities being mass and volume. Surely such a proposal will have its implications in all areas of physics. One is that photons are made up of matter. I have worked out and verified nearly all aspects (as far as I can). Otherwise I would not have claimed it is a new theory.

Every thing made up of matter remains moving ; this is an observational evidence in favour of my proposal (but you may be explaining it another way). Photons consists of matter particles (you explain it in another way). And energy is not arbitrary; I have clearly stated that the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2 (Is this arbitrary?). What happens when energy gets transferred between bodies made up of fundamental particles is also an integral part of my theory; it creates potential states like 'charge' and 'heat'(again you may having other existing explanations for these).

Whether it is needed in science or not is not relevant here. Whether every observation can be explained based on this alternate concept is the only relevant factor. Science never says, "You should not propose anything new". Indeed it is an integral part of science; you propose something new, later it is verified, and if found correct, accepted.

As discussed been done a thousand times before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_quality) read the introduction section.

Most definitely not science and leads nowhere and is altogether pointless ... not wasting time to discuss it was explaining where it all leads to Bill S.

Knock yourselves out.

A hat always covers something! 'Trying to be ignorant' is good; you will always be asking questions, and that is the very essence of science; you will not be considered part of the establishment, and so you can always cry out "the emperor is naked".

I would again say 'be logical in your reply'. You have to read the 'cite you referred' again. It deals with an entirely different aspect, whether all qualities can be quantified or not. Please refer the folowing quote:

"The notion of energy quality therefore has a tendency to be linked with phenomena many scientists consider unquantifiable, or at least incommunicable, and are consequently dismissed out of hand."

It is only to differentiate between what is 'quantifiable' and what is 'not quantifiable', the 'energy quality' term is dismissed. This means only that energy can be quantified, and nothing more. I said energy is the quality of matter in the sense that it is measurable property of matter. And I have given the proposed quantity possessed by a fundamental particle.

Then like any scientist give me an experimental way to measure this energy in the matter please?

I am just an outsider interested in physics; I am not a scientist. However, I have come up with a new hypothesis which I call a 'theory'.

My proposal is that the fundamental particle of matter should move at the speed of light in perfect vacuum, and the energy possessed by it is kinetic energy, and also that light is streams of such particles. So the natural energy of the fundamental particle or any body is equal to mc^2/2. Already there exist experiments required for proving this.

You can measure the finite speed of light. That indeed is the most vital experimental proof. To get the mass of the fundamental particle, you can use the experimentally determined values of the mass of neutron and the plank's constant, and deduce it from my 'proposed models of electromagnetic radiation and neutron'.

To confirm that the natural energy of an electron when formed is equal to mc^2/2, where 'm' is its mass, please refer to the mathematical proof explained earlier in this thread. It states that because energy is a quantifiable property of matter, the electrostatic energy used when two electrons touch each other is half of their total natural energy.

The internal energy of any atom can be exactly calculated using my model. However, the measurement of external energy is complicated. Even then, by measuring the lattice distance, it is possible to arrive at the energy possessed by atoms.

I have a theory that there are little green martian men that live in the nucleus, they are called "martian grabicles" because they like to grab things energy, themselves anything really.

All science theory can be explained by "martian grabicle" theory as they either grab or release things. We have never seen "martian grabicles" but I am sure they are there and that is my theory.

"Martian grabicle" theory is far more powerful than finiter theory because I am sure we can expand it to explain all manner of thing.

So "Martian Grabicle theory" trumps finiter theory and is about as useful and scientific.

Very good! Just give me a mathematical proof! (You are so clever that you just avoided answering my arguments)

Orac, till this time, my answers have been to the point (the point you have asked to clarify). But till this time, you ignored all my 'uncomfortable' arguments that you cannot just deny. My last post was clearly to the point. 'As usual', you evaded that just because you have no counter arguments (I suppose).

From the subjects that you bring up for discussion in this forum, the image that any reader may get is that 'you are acquainted with the intricacies of modern physics'. I also have the same opinion about you. But, what I cannot understand is that you prefer not to answer to the point, you just beat about the bush, make some hue and cry, and just depart. Why?

I have given a mathematical statement for you to verify. You behaved as if you never saw it. Do you fear that my theory may get some legitimacy just because you verified a mathematical proof that I gave? Why should you just run away from that?

You'll have to put a lot more into your theory if you are looking for acceptance into the hallowed halls of crack(pot)ademia.