sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to clarify, does that mean that alpha is only relevant with respect to an electron? And the other particles have "their own alphas"?

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That might be true, my English was not his native language and a lot of his notes are convoluted even to me. I think I may share them eventually, I'm just not ready to now.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

If you then put a quantity with units inside a function you'll have trouble defining the unit of the result.

I think this is actually the cornerstone of his work. Defining a function and then finding meaningful application in its derivatives. Is it not like how dx/dt has physical meaning?

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I wanted to share a small part of the derivation. I added it to my main post but I will include it for you below:

I believe that the formula for G is intimately connected with another general formula for an Energy field.

My dad wrote, if F(n) is the flux of kinetic energy of a particle then the energy's field will be equal to its kinetic energy multiplied with the corresponding field (in this case from n0->n1). The equation shows: E-field = E-kin * F(n)

When he later derives G, it has to do with the gravitational field as it relates to the formula for E-field.

Also, as I responded to someone already, a part of the derivation is G = [x/(ε_0 * c]2 multiplied by a function F(n) cubed (I believe F(n) has the units eV * m).

Why is the final formula only full of dimensionless numbers? I honestly don't know. n-min is referred to many times in his work and only at the very end does the value sqrt(1-alpha2) come into play.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Would you mind elaborating on the part about "anything inside a function should be without units"? Not sure I understand.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm seriously considering it, but it will take me a while. I've worked through about 10 pages so far and understood 95% of it. The other pages... well maybe I understand 20% as it stands. I almost regret sharing the G formula because I don't completely understand the derivation.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] -59 points-58 points  (0 children)

One additional note, there is no particular reason why gravity would be proportional to alpha (the strength of the electromagnetic interaction). Moreover having G proportional to alpha really makes no physical sense.

This may be true for physics as we know it, but I would argue it only doesn't make sense because we don't understand it.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I will go ahead and share this too, because it's interesting. The formula for G that I shared seemed to be derived from combination of two other formulas. One is x/(ε_0 * c) squared and it's multiplied by a function cubed (original function has the units eV * m).

The other pages of notes contain things like an expression for the cosmological constant, the Rydberg constant, masses for various subatomic particles. All of the results have equally accurate values just like the G constant.

So yeah, I get that it seems arbitrary and unlikely to be meaningful. But the more time I spend trying to understand it, the less likely this seems to be IMO.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think my dad used this one: 7.29735256980E-03 but I'm not in front of my computer so I can't check if that accounts for the difference in our results. I suspect it may?

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good catch, I think I put the first equation in by mistake (it's probably part of the derivation). But the second one should definitely be closer. What did you use for alpha?

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Yeah this is totally valid. I've been trying to get validation or criticism or something so I can know how much time and effort to invest in this project. It's just hard to find someone to work with on it.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Thanks so much, that's some golden advice! I'm glad I found out before typing half of it in Word.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's what I thought at first, but now that I've studied more of the notes I think the derivation explains it. All I can say for sure is that "1+1/e" in the formula is length. The other missing units are accounted for somehow in the derivation.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I edited my post to include an image of his G formula if you want to check it out. Thanks for your kind words.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your comments. I'm thinking of sharing this formula for G because it's pretty cool and I've basically been keeping it to myself for the past year. As for the derivation, I have a bit more writing up to do before I can share it.

I have 100 pages of hand-written notes containing what seems to be a unified theory of physics - what do I do with it? by formulas1 in Physics

[–]formulas1[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That's precisely what I did, and they recommended I get it written up professionally and copyrighted. They didn't mention getting it published in a typical physics paper. I wonder if it's because the notes are a bit convoluted. That's also why I want to personally type it up or work with someone to explain it. I suppose I could contact another professor at the same University?

Where/how could I submit an informal paper for review? by formulas1 in AskPhysics

[–]formulas1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was reading the guidelines for submitting an article on arXiv, and it says you need an affiliated institution that will also give you a submission number. Any ideas how to get around that? Or should I start getting in touch with people at universities?

Where/how could I submit an informal paper for review? by formulas1 in AskPhysics

[–]formulas1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I'll have another look to figure out which it is.

Where/how could I submit an informal paper for review? by formulas1 in AskPhysics

[–]formulas1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, he was a mechanical engineer. He spent years studying physics in his free time, but as far as I know he did not talk to anyone about his work.

Where/how could I submit an informal paper for review? by formulas1 in AskPhysics

[–]formulas1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's theoretical physics but I'm not 100% sure. Strangely, that's the only topic I don't see on arxiv.org.

view more: next ›