Potential Grand Unifying Theory of Physics has been released, key takeaways in comments
(www.sciencedirect.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
Comments (22)
sorted by:
After looking at the formula,
it was obvious to me,
that the crux of the biscuit
is the apostrophe.
For non science folks, the paper seeks to create a simplified equation, which
At that point my brain fried. If (and it is a big if) this equation is true, the sciences of Physics and chemistry at minimum will be undergoing a paradigm shift similar to this time 100 years ago. It will revolutionise the understanding we hold of reality.
It will change basically all the things with the standard model (which tbf is now badly broken), and make the field of geometry at least to a degree integral to our understanding of the universe. It also means that quantum mechanics (which aligns for me to how God does anything anywhere and everywhere) is most definitely usable to describe the macro as well as the micro.
Excellent. Thanks for the summary. I knew the Standard Model (and therefore string theory and quantum field theory) had serious problems and was all "broken".
The integration of geometry into the mix is surprising... very mind-bending stuff. Variable mass, relative to its position in spacetime, decreasing as the Universe expands. Variable MASS???
I wonder how any of this can be verified experimentally...
Edit: very interesting coincidence with the release of the MH370 story, which shows the flight being "orb-ed" to some other location
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79R77zt6JkU&t=1547s
The technology shown requires the unification of quantum theory and the theory of relativity... where the very small affects the very large, etc.
Thanks u/Lupinate for linking the article itself and not the puffy sci-fi blurbs now being written about it!
The abstract is very promising! The authors have the right way to go and may have hit upon the right math too. It passed peer review at least, though that doesn't mean much.
Quick skim shows that it's not that deep, which means some results might be less significant, but it might well have enough staying power to build upon. I like e.g. the "fine-structure variable". However, I gather that their explanation of the JWST rapidly formed galaxies is via entangling them with later galaxies, which would be the wrong path if I'm reading that intent; so that's a yellow flag. Will need to do a deep dive with it some other time.
What happens next is that the paper's attempt to describe a handful of (about 18) effects in a different way from the Standard Model will be met by a hundred attempts to state effects that are allegedly not explained. This war will be popcorn-worthy.
Very interesting stuff, Lupe. There's long been bits of speculation from honest physicists about the possibility that the laws of physics may not be a constant in other parts of the universe, or at other times in the universe.
The difficulty of course is that until we have a proposed mechanism for that inconsistency, it's impossible to test the idea.
These days I'm not well read enough on the newest papers to know if this proposal is unique, but at least for me, it's the first time I've seen a proposed mechanism to support the idea of changing dynamics/laws in different parts/times of the universe.
I am surprised to not see any references in the paper to dark energy, which according to current estimates is a bit less than 70% of the composition of the universe. I mention this because dark energy does not appear to dilute as the universe expands, while one of the fundamental elements of this paper is that leptonic matter (electrons, muons, taus) is decreasing in mass.
Even more interesting to me is that this mass reduction is not occurring with baryonic matter.
I'll be curious to see if this paper gains any traction. This information is well outside my field and I certainly can't grasp the intricacies of the information. But there's a pull here for me in that I've long wondered if we can safely assume that the laws of physics have indeed been constant across the universe and throughout its lifetime.
What we do know is that the current cosmological principle fails to predict observable phenomena. The paper actually calls out a couple of them ("The Big Ring" & "The Giant Arc), both of which are excellent reading for those that are curious. Both structures are enormous in size, are approximately 9 billion light years away (and consequently 9 billion years old at our current viewing time) and fascinating to read about.
Admittedly that began to fry my brain too, like the egg in the skillet in the old anti-drug ads. But your summary is helpful, thanks. As to the sciences of physics and chemistry being altered in a paradigm shift, as has been noted in science before, it will require the die-off of older, paradigm change-resistant folks, and younger, more flexible thinkers to ascend to leadership roles for this to completely happen.
It might take another 25 to 50 years for this to happen, such is the stultifying effects of rigid thinking and resistance to new ideas.
C is a max. Light moves at c in a vaccumn. In any other medium it is slower, and can be slowed to a walking pace, but there isn't really a medium that is less restrictive than a vaccumn.
I’d imagine Physics Majors in the future are going to be in for a fun time. As they need to throw out or rethink almost everything from their field This will also certainly have major impacts on Cosmology.
Any Grand Unifying Theory that does not name one of it's constants after Trump must be flawed.
After all this “Bacon still smells great in the morning “ Right ?
I am not a physicist, but is this like string theory and can never be proven via experimental physics?
If I’m reading this right. With my albeit limited understanding. If this bares out and has some legs to stand on as an idea. Then it’s just taken the whole notion of String Theory out behind the woodshed
This one might be, it's less string theory, and more looking at the quantum world with coordinate geometry. We have tech that allows us to test a number of the ideas here, although doing the universe curve measurement calculations may be a decent challenge tbh
Yawn..... Bob Greenyer, John Hutchinson, Ken Shoulders, JP Biberian and A. G. Parkhomov have entered the room.
Oh, this week's Grand Unified Field Theory has been released? Cool.
What's for breakfast?
Physics is bullshit. At quantum scales, everything breaks down and can not be localized, or made "real". It's fuzzy and based on probabilities. Physics is ultimately based on the "observer" or measurement. Your conscious and God are the only true two observers or measurers. Everything else is relative...
As a chemistry and physics professors told ALL engineering students...if one believes in one or both of these books, then you had better believe in this one...held up the BIBLE!!!!!!!!!
MidnightToker...VERY VALID OBSERVATION THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME WHEN I WAS TAKING THOSE COURSE...A VERY BIG THANK YOU!!!!!
No man can perceive God's stylus.
Technical theoretical physics (which is what this is) is just math.
Also some elements of physics to me are a proof of God. The casimir effect being my favourite example of this.