So I believe you are on the right track. There is, in fact, a very consistent, logical, and physical theory of physics with one set of equations which in different limits yields all four forces and explains and portends a great deal beyond that. So that is the only thing that makes sense...a unified theory and we have at least one.
Now, this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream. Why? Its very very threatening to their funding and careers; and the math is difficult to attack, so they ignore.
So we are at a Khunian moment...the anomalies are accumulating to the point that a paradigm shift may be imminent.
Oh, and this theory says the Higgs or Higgses is/are impossible; short the Higgs!
A few other things disappear. Cosmology loses its black holes (that Schwartzchild metric isn’t exaclty right… the singularity disappears), dark matter, big bang, etc. So you can see how threatening this is...and exciting.
This comment scores a full 68 points on the Crackpot Index. That doesn’t make it wrong, but if it’s right, I think you need to explain yourself more clearly.
To start with, as Psy-Kosh asked, what theory are you talking about, anyway? Where is it published, by whom, and what predictions have been made with it?
I was going to post a comment showing it should be much higher than 68, but re-checking my evaluation your score appears correct. Amongst other mistakes, I was going to award 50 points for no testable predictions, but I think the comment about the Higgs boson counts.
However, it seems like misspelling ‘Kuhn’ should count for something.
Well, really, for now my main thing is that I just want to know if my understanding of the concept of gauge bosons is correctish or if I completely missed the point of that aspect of the standard theories.
Are you … taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn’t seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That’s why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like “this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers”—because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.
I haven’t read the paper you linked here, but the titular “ECE”—“Einstein Cartan Evans”—returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.
I intend no insult to you in my disagreement (and I apologize for missing your ironic intent, if that is what I did). Our experience and intuition differ, and I have been explaining how mine lead me to different conclusions in this matter.
(Also, what you are complaining of is abuse, not ad hominem—it’s an important distinction.)
(Edit: To summarize the link, “ad hominem” goes, “you’re an irrational person, therefore you are wrong”, whereas we are saying, “your argument is wrong, therefore you are not rational”. We refuse to accept your claim that ECE is a theory-of-everything because you have not supported it, not because we think you’re stupid—in fact, I don’t think you’re stupid, just mistaken.)
Ok. Well, I just don’t think its possible on this site.to go through 800+ papers, 130+ in the last few years, which lead to this theory. I don’t have the time, and there is no indication that anyone here is open to it. Plus, I see no equation editor.
I’ll repeat. I responded to a Higgs Boson thread, saying I believe it does not exist, I referred to the theory supporting my belief, and I get trashed. Thats arrogant and close minded. And if I feel I have been ad hominemed, then I have.
If someone is as dissatisfied as I am with the output of Standard Model and string theories, they will seek out an alternative. And learn the math. I just pointed to what, after a four year analysis, I believe to be an extremely credible alternative.
I meant “this is my understanding of what the mainstream theory, ie, the Standard Model says. In fact, it’s my understanding of what many of the candidate theories that go beyond it say, it’s my understanding of why so many theories are described in terms of their symmetries. Because once one knows their symmetries, one more or less knows the basic structure of the forces it implies. Is this understanding correct, or did I completely miss the point about gauge symmetries and such?”
This is a “history of thought” and high level description of the basic theory and some of its most important implications.
The mis-application of symmetry is key… in fact the Riemann connection is not symmetric...it is anti-symmetric, thus the Einstein field equation is wrong and much collapses from that result. So almost everyone in physics is using the wrong math. Riemann geometry needs to be supplemented. Einstein wasn’t wrong.. he had incredible insights. He just wasn’t totally correct, as even he knew.
Didn’t look all the way through that paper yet, but… if you mean the Riemann curvature tensor having antisymmetric parts… so? How does that kill GR? (besides, anti symmetry is a type of symmetry. I didn’t mean symmetric as in “symmetric vs antisymmetric tensors”, I meant it in the more general sense.)
(Okay, I know of Einstein-Cartan-Theory, but I haven’t studied it yet. I still only have a rudimentary grasp of the math of basic GR)
But… what’s any of this got to do with my original question?
It doesn’t kill GR—it is the foundation. It just adds torsion to curvature, and that changes almost everything. What I am suggesting is that your question is about a theory that is no longer relevant if ECE is correct (which I have come to believe over a number of years). To go deeper, you do have to go do the maths, but they are not that hard.
So I was trying to gently get you to look in a different direction which may have a higher payback for your time, and also predicts that there is no Higgs, which brought me to the blog in the first place. Your choice, of course. Lots of people are invested in the Standard Model.
So I believe you are on the right track. There is, in fact, a very consistent, logical, and physical theory of physics with one set of equations which in different limits yields all four forces and explains and portends a great deal beyond that. So that is the only thing that makes sense...a unified theory and we have at least one.
Now, this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream. Why? Its very very threatening to their funding and careers; and the math is difficult to attack, so they ignore.
So we are at a Khunian moment...the anomalies are accumulating to the point that a paradigm shift may be imminent.
Oh, and this theory says the Higgs or Higgses is/are impossible; short the Higgs!
A few other things disappear. Cosmology loses its black holes (that Schwartzchild metric isn’t exaclty right… the singularity disappears), dark matter, big bang, etc. So you can see how threatening this is...and exciting.
This comment scores a full 68 points on the Crackpot Index. That doesn’t make it wrong, but if it’s right, I think you need to explain yourself more clearly.
To start with, as Psy-Kosh asked, what theory are you talking about, anyway? Where is it published, by whom, and what predictions have been made with it?
I was going to post a comment showing it should be much higher than 68, but re-checking my evaluation your score appears correct. Amongst other mistakes, I was going to award 50 points for no testable predictions, but I think the comment about the Higgs boson counts.
However, it seems like misspelling ‘Kuhn’ should count for something.
Let me recount quickly so we can compare:
-5 for starters.
+3 for statements widely agreed to be false (nonexistence of 1. black holes, 2. dark matter, 3. big bang).
+10 for claiming a paradigm shift.
+20 for talking about how great the theory is without explaining it.
+40 for claiming something like a conspiracy suppressing the new idea (cf. “threatening to their funding and careers”).
Step 8 suggests a +5 for misspelling Einstein, Hawking, or Feynman—you could do the same for Kuhn.
Well, really, for now my main thing is that I just want to know if my understanding of the concept of gauge bosons is correctish or if I completely missed the point of that aspect of the standard theories.
I am losing my touch...only 68? See below
Are you … taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn’t seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That’s why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like “this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers”—because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.
I haven’t read the paper you linked here, but the titular “ECE”—“Einstein Cartan Evans”—returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.
Not at all. I will be glad to move on to a more open minded forum which doesn’t engage in ad hominem attacks.
I intend no insult to you in my disagreement (and I apologize for missing your ironic intent, if that is what I did). Our experience and intuition differ, and I have been explaining how mine lead me to different conclusions in this matter.
(Also, what you are complaining of is abuse, not ad hominem—it’s an important distinction.)
(Edit: To summarize the link, “ad hominem” goes, “you’re an irrational person, therefore you are wrong”, whereas we are saying, “your argument is wrong, therefore you are not rational”. We refuse to accept your claim that ECE is a theory-of-everything because you have not supported it, not because we think you’re stupid—in fact, I don’t think you’re stupid, just mistaken.)
Ok. Well, I just don’t think its possible on this site.to go through 800+ papers, 130+ in the last few years, which lead to this theory. I don’t have the time, and there is no indication that anyone here is open to it. Plus, I see no equation editor.
I’ll repeat. I responded to a Higgs Boson thread, saying I believe it does not exist, I referred to the theory supporting my belief, and I get trashed. Thats arrogant and close minded. And if I feel I have been ad hominemed, then I have.
If someone is as dissatisfied as I am with the output of Standard Model and string theories, they will seek out an alternative. And learn the math. I just pointed to what, after a four year analysis, I believe to be an extremely credible alternative.
So thanks for the consideration.
And not one review article?
Thanks for your input—I’m sorry we could not be more helpful. Be well.
Huh? Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant “this is my understanding of what the mainstream theory, ie, the Standard Model says. In fact, it’s my understanding of what many of the candidate theories that go beyond it say, it’s my understanding of why so many theories are described in terms of their symmetries. Because once one knows their symmetries, one more or less knows the basic structure of the forces it implies. Is this understanding correct, or did I completely miss the point about gauge symmetries and such?”
What theory are you talking about anyways?
All this becomes superfluous with correct maths. In any case, if the Higgs is NOT found, particle theory as we know it is in trouble. Thats my bet.
And here is a link to a simpler unified theory that may point to the future: http://www.aias.us/documents/miscellaneous/ECE_and_Spacetime.pdf
This is a “history of thought” and high level description of the basic theory and some of its most important implications.
The mis-application of symmetry is key… in fact the Riemann connection is not symmetric...it is anti-symmetric, thus the Einstein field equation is wrong and much collapses from that result. So almost everyone in physics is using the wrong math. Riemann geometry needs to be supplemented. Einstein wasn’t wrong.. he had incredible insights. He just wasn’t totally correct, as even he knew.
Didn’t look all the way through that paper yet, but… if you mean the Riemann curvature tensor having antisymmetric parts… so? How does that kill GR? (besides, anti symmetry is a type of symmetry. I didn’t mean symmetric as in “symmetric vs antisymmetric tensors”, I meant it in the more general sense.)
(Okay, I know of Einstein-Cartan-Theory, but I haven’t studied it yet. I still only have a rudimentary grasp of the math of basic GR)
But… what’s any of this got to do with my original question?
It doesn’t kill GR—it is the foundation. It just adds torsion to curvature, and that changes almost everything. What I am suggesting is that your question is about a theory that is no longer relevant if ECE is correct (which I have come to believe over a number of years). To go deeper, you do have to go do the maths, but they are not that hard.
So I was trying to gently get you to look in a different direction which may have a higher payback for your time, and also predicts that there is no Higgs, which brought me to the blog in the first place. Your choice, of course. Lots of people are invested in the Standard Model.
Well, I think my question about gauge symmetries is more general anyways. Are you claiming a rejection of QFT itself?
yes. http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/example-of-the-antisymmetry-laws/