Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum quantum mechanics

im new at this... but... if electricity and magnetism are the same and we can take this further( which i believe theve combined the weak- electromagneticweak or somethin) and combine the rest of the known forces wouldn't this be the unification of physics. Further, wont quantum mechanics be proved fiction for knowing every force all u need is any observation of an electron. Speed synonomous with direction. Assuming nothin is uncertain. However, this is assuming that there are no unknown forces which though would invalidate much more than just my idea

psuedonym:

First ... learn to spell your name. If you can't spell your own name no one except someone that doesn't even have a name, for example j6p, will take you seriously.

Grand unification will not make the universe deterministic. Might I suggest you purchase a copy of any one of physicist Brian Greene's books.

Maybe you'd like to start by checking out this book by Greene.

Physics is defined by three constants: Lightspeed, c, enforces maximim information transfer rate. Newton's constant, Big G, scales gravitation. Planck's constant, h, enforces uncertainty in measurement; h-bar is the fundamental unit of action.

c=c, G=G, h=0 is General Relatvity.
c=c, G=0, h=h is quantum field theory.

No unification of physics exists that is predictive and therefore falsifiable with all three constants turned on. There are 40,000 members of the US American Physical Society alone, most of them with PhDs. Don't you entertain the tiniest hint of a mere whisper that 40,000 people who know a whole lot would not overlook something that you, knowing essentially nothing, would find?

(Boltzmann's constant is already in there. Thermodynamics plus the Bekenstein bound is General Relativity.)

Anyone that thinks they have a solution to the nature of the universe, and doesn't have a formal background in math and physics should start with proving the following:

e (raised to the power (pi * i)) + 1 = 0

The constant e is the base of the natural logarithm and has the value 2.718281828459045235360287471352662497757....

i is the square root of -1

pi, of course, is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197....

The proof is actually rather straight-forward. So if you can't handle this ... please don't try to tackle the rest of the universe.

Euler's unification of algebra and analytic geometry is quite beautiful. Then folks got down to business with non-commutative geometries and thigs got even more interesting.

Question authority.

Can a shepard, who can at least count his sheep, understand the explanations of a scientist about how the universe works?. I think so, and will even have a comment to two of their own.

I think it's possible for a lot of people to have the illusion of understanding. They *believe* they understand a thing. The world is full of briefing slide geniuses.

DA Morgan offers:

Anyone that thinks they have a solution to the nature of the universe, and doesn't have a formal background in math and physics should start with proving the following:
e (raised to the power (pi * i)) + 1 = 0

The constant e is the base of the natural logarithm and has the value 2.718281828459045235360287471352662497757....

i is the square root of -1

pi, of course, is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197....

The proof is actually rather straight-forward. So if you can't handle this ... please don't try to tackle the rest of the universe.
--------------------
DA Morgan

Well DA, you get a quick victory with that proposition. Luckily for me I never got beyond the Solar System. It is possible for people to get useful and meaningful results even though they are not completely up on the physics of the universe. My efforts were based on simple mathematics because that was what I knew best and that was what I could work on a calculator and a computer in BASIC. I will offer you a simple test. My number for the minimal radius of this Solar System is 31,830,914,183.8. Let?s call it Sr. The Earth equatorial radius is published as 3963.3 for a diameter of 7926.6 miles. We will designate Er as the Earths radius in miles. Lastly the published orbital radius for the Earth is 92,961,440. We can call it Or. The published data is in conflict by authors but I have no control over that. This is an excerpt from my book. I am sharing an important solar radius determination with you all.

Sn/(Or-Er) = 342.424464537 with a square root of 18.504714657
Sn/(Or+Er)= 342.395268066 with a square root of -18.503925747
----------------
.00078891
For ease of use I round this to .000789, let?s call it our significant number, sn.

What I have done is deduct the tracts of the Earths closest edge from the track of the Earths farthest edge, otherwise represented in orbital velocities of miles per second. This number is very useful and is offered and used for each planet in my book.

Example: Earths circumference divided by sn provides the seconds in one complete revolution around the sun. Earths years days of 365.25 times .000789 provides the equatorial surface velocity of the Earth in miles per second, or .2882 mps.

Your test is to use your standard physics to prove to me that the surface velocity of the Earth?s equator is .2882 miles per second without my Sn.

Jim Wood

My last post confused the Soral radius number. I at one point designate it a Sr then as Sn. They are the same thing.
jw

1) it's always a good idea to use units when you present numbers or calculations.

2) By "minimal radius" I assume you mean what I would normally refer to as "semi-minor axis," as the actual orbit is an ellipse, not a circle.

3) On what do you base the "minimal radius" of the solar system? From Sun to closest approach of what?

3) Is there any reason to think that your number is not a coincidence?

gunittheory.bravehost.com

40,000 is not enough. gunittheory.bravehost.com

TheFallibleFiend says:

(1) it's always a good idea to use units when you present numbers or calculations.
Rep OK

2) By "minimal radius" I assume you mean what I would normally refer to as "semi-minor axis," as the actual orbit is an ellipse, not a circle.

Rep: OK, but they get treated as circles as a practicle matter.

3) On what do you base the "minimal radius" of the solar system? From Sun to closest approach of what?

Rep: The answer to that question is in the book and I do not want to deprive any one of looking.

3) Is there any reason to think that (sic) this result is a coincidence?

Rep: Not to me. I do the same sort of thing for all the planets and just about all the satellites. It is my belief that there has never been a formula for the rotation of the planets, all of the planets, and I am confident that my effort will work for all major satellites.

Thank you for the follow up. It is a real surprise to me that people take this with such indiference.
Jim Wood