New theory to revolutionize quantum physics. - Page 2

**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.

BitVyper · 06-16-2010, 09:03 PM

Give him a break; everyone with the mind to consider such things at all thinks they're the ones who really see how it is at some point.

bluestarultor · 06-16-2010, 10:27 PM

Well, yes, but it falls apart rather quickly when you factor in the idea of time as a dimension.

Aside from that, we've traced the universe back to an incredibly brief period after the big bang, which, essentially, is probably when physics formed, given that anything before that makes the math go wonky.

There's a lot we don't fully understand. Why does space break down at smaller than the Planck constant? What is dark matter? How many subatomic particles are there? Just because we don't have the answers yet doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Aldurin · 06-16-2010, 11:17 PM

It's a theory, it's not perfect. It's just a step in the general direction of something new that may or may not be an awesome discovery. If we could understand such a concept enough, the world would be changed. Travel delay would be nothing, time travel as natural as crossing the street and watch companies going out of business in a heartbeat.

Many astronomers/philosophers/thinkers throughout history made amazing leaps in science, but opposition would exile them, kill them or even call them idiots. And their work became a big step in understanding the universe.

I'm just seeing which staircase the next step is on.

Kim · 06-16-2010, 11:24 PM

Quote:

It's a theory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Definition of Theory

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

No. It's not a theory.

Aldurin · 06-16-2010, 11:26 PM

Define well-substantiated. Do you want a full publication? Sources and not-so-random calculations? An idea that could go in a good direction?

Jagos · 06-16-2010, 11:33 PM

A thesis for one. Something you can prove also helps.

Kim · 06-16-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Define well-substantiated.

Facts and evidence that support your claims would be nice. It'd also be nice if you had a proper knowledge of the "facts" and "evidence" you've used.

TDK · 06-16-2010, 11:58 PM

I really hate it when I can't tell the difference between staunch sarcasm and stupidity.

Geminex · 06-17-2010, 12:27 AM

Or if you don't have facts or evidence, suggest a method through which they could be obtained.

And I'm actually not sure whether Earl is serious or not. I think he was serious to begin with, but is now just playing devil's advocate for the hell of it, but I could be wrong. Maybe he is just stupid.

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.

06-16-2010, 09:03 PM	#12
BitVyper History's Strongest Dilettante Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Arcadia Posts: 6,662	Give him a break; everyone with the mind to consider such things at all thinks they're the ones who really see how it is at some point. __________________ "There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, and the sea is asleep, and the rivers dream. People made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold. Come on, Ace; we've got work to do!" Awesome art be here.

06-16-2010, 11:33 PM	#17
Jagos FRONT KICK OF DOOM! Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Howdy pardner... Posts: 6,399	A thesis for one. Something you can prove also helps. __________________ Copyright musings World ramblings Scifi stories

06-16-2010, 11:17 PM	#14
Aldurin Lakitu Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 4,648	It's a theory, it's not perfect. It's just a step in the general direction of something new that may or may not be an awesome discovery. If we could understand such a concept enough, the world would be changed. Travel delay would be nothing, time travel as natural as crossing the street and watch companies going out of business in a heartbeat. Many astronomers/philosophers/thinkers throughout history made amazing leaps in science, but opposition would exile them, kill them or even call them idiots. And their work became a big step in understanding the universe. I'm just seeing which staircase the next step is on.

06-16-2010, 11:26 PM	#16
Aldurin Lakitu Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 4,648	Define well-substantiated. Do you want a full publication? Sources and not-so-random calculations? An idea that could go in a good direction?

06-16-2010, 11:58 PM	#19
TDK Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Reality Posts: 2,914	I really hate it when I can't tell the difference between staunch sarcasm and stupidity.

06-17-2010, 12:27 AM	#20
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	Or if you don't have facts or evidence, suggest a method through which they could be obtained. And I'm actually not sure whether Earl is serious or not. I think he was serious to begin with, but is now just playing devil's advocate for the hell of it, but I could be wrong. Maybe he is just stupid.