Physics Help Forum The theory of everything

 Physics Physics Forum - General Physics Discussion and Physics News

Aug 22nd 2016, 01:06 PM   #1
Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1
The theory of everything

I believe i discovered the theory of everything. But i'm not sure about that. I would like and appreciate any opinion, comment and review for this. You can read and download my research at the following link :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/251000080/The ... Everything

Also i attach my research in pdf file format.
Attached Files
 Work_3.pdf (481.3 KB, 8 views)

 Aug 22nd 2016, 01:55 PM #2 Physics Team     Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Morristown, NJ USA Posts: 2,310 Right off the bat I see a glaring error that pervades your work: zero divided by zero is NOT infinity; it's undefined. You can set this by rearranging the equations: 1 x 0 =0 and 2 x 0 = 0 The first can be rearranged to 0/0 = 1, and the second to 0/0= 2. Which one is correct? Well, both are, and neither are. In general whereas dividing a non-zero number by 0 will yield plus or minus infinity, dividing 0 by 0 does not. Consequently all your equations that try to make use of 0/0 = infinity are in error. Your premise is that the speed of light 'c' is not constant. So you end up talking about situations where E=m^2 yields E = 0 for non-zero values of m Do you have any evidence to back up the idea that c could equal zero? Last edited by ChipB; Aug 22nd 2016 at 02:04 PM.
 Aug 22nd 2016, 02:11 PM #3 Forum Admin     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby! Posts: 2,454 I'm afraid that there is another basic problem to your approach. Einstein's equation is really (see image below). p is the linear momentum of the object of mass m. So what you worked out only deals with particles that have no momentum, that is, stationary particles. As you say later on that your particles have kinetic energy, this is a contradiction. -Dan Attached Images   __________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. See the forum rules here.
 Aug 22nd 2016, 11:32 PM #4 Forum Admin     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby! Posts: 2,454 You might be interested to know your attempt at classifying has been done using irreducible representations of one particle states of the homogeneous Lorentz group. (This is what Special Relativity deals with most of the time.) Don't worry about the terminology here: it sounds worse than it is. We can categorize different particle states in the following way (which is similar to what you were attempting.) a) p^2 = -M^2, E > 0 b) p^2 = -M^2, E < 0 c) p^2 = 0, E > 0 d) p^2 = 0, E < 0 e) p^2 = M^2 f) p = 0, E = 0 These list all the different possibilities for particle states. Note that we don't have to use any of these...that's up to experiments to determine. However we can characterize each particle in a very similar fashion to what you were doing. a) and c) are all we need to characterize known particles. a) is a typical "matter" particle and c) is a stationary (not moving) particle. f) says nothing is there at all and is essentially representing the vacuum. b) and d) would represent a particle with negative energy. Even anti-matter has positive energy so we have to discard these. To be perfectly honest I really don't know what e) would be. It has an imaginary mass M so it could represent a tachyon: a particle that travels faster than the speed of light. No such particles have been found and I don't think anyone thinks there will be. -Dan __________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. See the forum rules here.

 Tags theory

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post neutrinogal Nuclear and Particle Physics 0 May 14th 2012 04:01 AM kevinmorais General Physics 41 Sep 11th 2009 11:36 AM titanic_211@yahoo.com Philosophy of Physics 2 Aug 22nd 2009 08:01 AM Mathstud28 Theoretical Physics 3 May 1st 2008 09:58 AM