New theory to revolutionize quantum physics.

**McTahr** · 06-16-2010, 08:55 PM

Hokay. Here goes:
This is an ill-intentioned hypothesis at best.
At worst, it's a philosophical thought experiment.

You have no foundation to the theory. You don't include anything more than a conceptual overview. Physical phenomena aren't even touched upon, let alone considered. You describe phenomena that have been explained countless times by other theories that have actual experimental backing to them, yet don't relate them in any way to a conceptual framework. You're also dismissing general and special relativity's approach to time, as well as anything relating to quantum mechanics, despite it being a theory to "Revolutionize" it.

There is no science to this. It's merely "oh, it's this way" and honestly a bit of an affront to be purported as anything having to do with the science of Physics. The very core foundations of experimental physics are ignored. That is, that your theory, as described, is entirely untestable, regardless of technological advancements whatsoever, which quite literally borders on similar descriptions with "Magic."

We find differences in speeds of time at different positions due to explanations granted by general and special relativity, in that given as the speed of light is an absolute relative truth, the time-space dimensions will in essence warp to maintain this truth. This could be what's leading you to think otherwise, and head off on your trip to "Theoryville."

I strongly advise you read and re-read anything dealing with general and special relativity, as well as hyperspace theories and anything similar.

Edit: Oh, and to touch on theoretical Physics very briefly, if I may, as I potentially see this line of argument being taken as a reproach. Even superstring theories and their ilk, despite being in essence unverifiable as it stands today, have by their very nature as theories ways to ultimately be tested. Simply put though, the means to do so are not within our generation, or even perhaps tens or hundreds to come. The energies needed to prod into multi-dimensional theories is on the scale of entire star systems. LHC is a drop in the ocean. Your theory, as you put it, is from the outset entirely unverifiable in any way. To be a hypothesis, it must be testable. To be a theory, it must be a very tested hypothesis. Etc.

06-16-2010, 08:55 PM	#11
McTahr For the right price... Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,268	Hokay. Here goes: This is an ill-intentioned hypothesis at best. At worst, it's a philosophical thought experiment. You have no foundation to the theory. You don't include anything more than a conceptual overview. Physical phenomena aren't even touched upon, let alone considered. You describe phenomena that have been explained countless times by other theories that have actual experimental backing to them, yet don't relate them in any way to a conceptual framework. You're also dismissing general and special relativity's approach to time, as well as anything relating to quantum mechanics, despite it being a theory to "Revolutionize" it. There is no science to this. It's merely "oh, it's this way" and honestly a bit of an affront to be purported as anything having to do with the science of Physics. The very core foundations of experimental physics are ignored. That is, that your theory, as described, is entirely untestable, regardless of technological advancements whatsoever, which quite literally borders on similar descriptions with "Magic." We find differences in speeds of time at different positions due to explanations granted by general and special relativity, in that given as the speed of light is an absolute relative truth, the time-space dimensions will in essence warp to maintain this truth. This could be what's leading you to think otherwise, and head off on your trip to "Theoryville." I strongly advise you read and re-read anything dealing with general and special relativity, as well as hyperspace theories and anything similar. Edit: Oh, and to touch on theoretical Physics very briefly, if I may, as I potentially see this line of argument being taken as a reproach. Even superstring theories and their ilk, despite being in essence unverifiable as it stands today, have by their very nature as theories ways to ultimately be tested. Simply put though, the means to do so are not within our generation, or even perhaps tens or hundreds to come. The energies needed to prod into multi-dimensional theories is on the scale of entire star systems. LHC is a drop in the ocean. Your theory, as you put it, is from the outset entirely unverifiable in any way. To be a hypothesis, it must be testable. To be a theory, it must be a very tested hypothesis. Etc. __________________ Gone.