Author Topic: IGG: A Theory of Everything  (Read 4907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28363
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
IGG: A Theory of Everything
« on: May 31, 2016, 02:10:18 pm »
Haven't watched it yet, but it met its $30k target!
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-theory-of-everything#/

« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 02:12:49 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline photon

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: us
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2016, 02:49:14 pm »
Bullshit
 
The following users thanked this post: BU508A

Offline BU508A

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 417
  • Country: de
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2016, 03:10:06 pm »
When I saw this, I had a deja-vu.
There is a guy in Germany, Prof. Dr. Konstantin Meyl, he invented the so-called scalar waves as an extension of the Maxwell equations.

This was completely debunked as bullshit by Prof. Gerhard W. Bruhn from the TU Darmstadt, as you can read it here:
http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/Maxwell-Skalar.htm (sorry, it is in German, but the mathematics behind should be international  :D )

The reason, why I'm very skeptical about this Indiegogo campain are sentences like this:  "If our hypothesis is true it will revolutionize not only physics but science in general and beyond.".    :blah:

I think I'll play this a bit and see what will going on here:


 :popcorn:

BU508A
“Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized.”            - Terry Pratchett -
 

Offline photon

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: us
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2016, 06:59:03 am »
These guys are academics looking for funding of their research. The cannot get funding for their research from the usual sources, ie peer reviewed sources. So they are pulling the same trick as Baterroo, ie getting funding from the ignorant masses. Notice what they promise for your hard earned money. Your name on one of their papers published in a prestigious journal. Bullshit. If they could get their paper published in a prestigious journal they would not need your money.
 

Online edy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1782
  • Country: ca
    • DevHackMod Channel
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2016, 09:17:33 am »
There is a reason for peer review and scientific scrutiny. There is also survival of the fittest. If an idea cannot be proven, well argued, and will not be accepted by others who are highly educated in your field and can understand the terminology... something is wrong with your "science".  That is not a reason to abandon normal sources of funding and keeping scientific rigor. These guys are publishing, so why do they need to crowd-source a bonus to their salary? Are they not employed? Are they not teaching somewhere or have a research lab?

They should have done a campaign to fund their book on QHD and that's it. Not to fund the salary on their research or "bonus" on top of whatever they are already making by teaching. I know it boils down to semantics.  But the campaign sounds to me like they can't get a job anywhere or got the plug pulled on their research, and they need the money to live on while they keep working away on it. Somethings smells fishy.

I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but if they are on to something, surely they can argue their point to scientific peers and obtain more funding? Seriously, do you think anyone else but a trained theoretical physicist would have a f**ing clue what this means and be able to tell if it is B.S. or not:

Quote
Quantum Holonomy Theory

Johannes Aastrup, Jesper M. Grimstrup
(Submitted on 27 Apr 2015)

We present quantum holonomy theory, which is a non-perturbative theory of quantum gravity coupled to fermionic degrees of freedom. The theory is based on a C*-algebra that involves holonomy-diffeomorphisms on a 3-dimensional manifold and which encodes the canonical commutation relations of canonical quantum gravity formulated in terms of Ashtekar variables. Employing a Dirac type operator on the configuration space of Ashtekar connections we obtain a semi-classical state and a kinematical Hilbert space via its GNS construction. We use the Dirac type operator, which provides a metric structure over the space of Ashtekar connections, to define a scalar curvature operator, from which we obtain a candidate for a Hamilton operator. We show that the classical Hamilton constraint of general relativity emerges from this in a semi-classical limit and we then compute the operator constraint algebra. Also, we find states in the kinematical Hilbert space on which the expectation value of the Dirac type operator gives the Dirac Hamiltonian in a semi-classical limit and thus provides a connection to fermionic quantum field theory. Finally, an almost-commutative algebra emerges from the holonomy-diffeomorphism algebra in the same limit.

I invite someone to submit a lay-person explanation of this abstract. Feel free to be creative and funny.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 09:19:28 am by edy »
YouTube: www.devhackmod.com
"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, captain" - Scotty
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28363
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2016, 10:26:44 am »
Someone just emailed me this the other day wanting me to do a video on it:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0387v2.pdf
Some Australian professor has supposedly detected gravitational waves using zener diodes and a scope.
He originally had government funding for his research, but then magically found he couldn't get any more funding and then ended up presenting at a quack pseudo-science conference.
Claims the mainstream scientists are suppressing his idea  :blah:
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: au
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2016, 11:09:41 am »
I think these are genuine academics with a theory they want funds to pursue and I don't see a problem giving crowd funding a go. More and more university funding is being based on commercially viable research - in other words, research into things we already understand pretty well. Getting funding at universities for theoretical research can get very political especially if you are contradicting the Standard Model, and these guys want to go a new way.

There are precedents for this. Roger Penrose, one of the best living mathematicians wrote a book in 1989 called "The Emperor's New Mind" with some very controversial ideas he had about the way consciousness and the mind works at a quantum level. By asking ordinary people for money for the book instead of going down the peer review path, he was doing the same thing as these guys. If you read the book, you will probably get your money's worth in even if he is totally wrong. I think it is bad if the peer review process ends up preventing us from seeing new ideas because of an ultra-conservatism.

The academics behind this campaign state clearly that they know they may "be working down the wrong alley".

But if they are correct - if they are going down a useful track, the consequences will be extraordinary. It would be revolutionary. I do not have a problem with them saying that. If you have a $55 signed book, it will be worth a fortune in 50 years.

If they are wrong, the book can be used as a doorstop. Chances are they are wrong, but who knows? There is already huge money invested into string theory research and it could all be wrong.

At the end of the day, all you can do is to choose to invest in the people. In the field of Quantum Physics, it usually takes decades for a theory to become part of the standard model, and so it may be that we don't live long enough to find out if they are right.

If they do develop a new algebra, then right or wrong, the existence of a new algebra is very valuable. It is a new tool that may find unexpected applications.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 04:46:22 pm by amspire »
 

Online edy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1782
  • Country: ca
    • DevHackMod Channel
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2016, 12:42:15 pm »
There are precedents for this. Roger Penrose, one of the best living mathematicians wrote a book in 1989 called "The Emperor's New Mind" with some very controversial ideas he had about the way consciousness and the mind works at a quantum level.
.
.
.

If they do develop a new algebra, then right or wrong, the existence of a new algebra is very valuable. It is a new tool that may find unexpected applications.

This reminds me of how "Chaos Theory and Fractals" came into being. Many main-stream mathematicians thought it brought nothing new to math and science, and was just a descriptive method for analysis without providing any more insight... and a way to make "pretty pictures". The number of papers that then came out that had "fractal" and "chaos" in their titles mushroomed... everything from people describing biological systems to physics to markets. The big question was, did it actually help us understand the systems and made predictions better or was it just a new way of categorizing or describing processes? Was it a like a new type of mathematical taxonomy?
YouTube: www.devhackmod.com
"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, captain" - Scotty
 

Offline iampoor

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 500
  • Country: us
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2016, 04:41:21 pm »
Seems completely legitimate, if not very far out there!. I dont see the snake oil here.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 05:51:04 pm by iampoor »
 

Online ivaylo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 566
  • Country: us
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2016, 05:05:21 pm »
This reminds me of how "Chaos Theory and Fractals" came into being. Many main-stream mathematicians thought it brought nothing new to math and science...
Sources? I don't remember anyone being supressed and then vindicated in the area, it's always been considered important.
 

Online edy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1782
  • Country: ca
    • DevHackMod Channel
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2016, 09:54:11 pm »
I remember there being some friction between Mandelbrot and the established mathematical community over the lack of rigorous proofs and utility of Fractal Geometry at the time, and concern about the "hyperbole" of popularity. Perhaps it was resentment that Mandelbrot was getting so popular and mainstream, while many hard-working mathematicians were getting no love from the public. Here is the article I referenced:

http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~pawelst/rzut_oka/Zajecia_dla_MISH_2011-12/Lektury_files/Math.%20Intelligencer%201989%20Krantz.pdf

The article is an interesting read... It shows how political mathematics can be. At the end, in case you don't want to read the linked article in full, Krantz summarizes by saying:

Quote
The subject of fractal geometry is young, we should
watch its development closely. Who knows? In 300
years it may prove to be as important as calculus.
Meanwhile, the books under review provide a delightful
invitation to the subject. The prose is clean
and dear, the illustrations profuse and attractive, and
the concepts are enjoyable. One of the principal emphases
in these books is the description of algorithmic
techniques for generating fractal graphics images on a
computer system. In this respect the books are a great
success. However, as to the assertion that they provide
a glimpse of a new science or the language for
developing a new analysis of nature, I would say that
any contribution that fractal theory has made in this
direction has been accidental. In short, the emperor
has no clothes.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 09:56:11 pm by edy »
YouTube: www.devhackmod.com
"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, captain" - Scotty
 

Offline hamdi.tn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 610
  • Country: tn
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2016, 10:47:23 pm »
 
Quote
What happened at t=0 at the big bang?
 What is dark matter and dark energy?
 What happens at the singularity of a black hole?
 Are the laws of physics unique?
 Will the universe expand forever?

you need way way waaay more than 30K$ to do research for that !
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: au
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2016, 11:14:15 pm »
Quote
What happened at t=0 at the big bang?
 What is dark matter and dark energy?
 What happens at the singularity of a black hole?
 Are the laws of physics unique?
 Will the universe expand forever?
you need way way waaay more than 30K$ to do research for that !
They admit that more research is needed. The $30K is to get their current ideas down into a book next year by 2021. If the campaign can raise something like $400K, that will pay for full time ongoing research. I gather they feel they have the right model, but I imagine learning to apply the model to the whole of physics would be a different thing totally. The killer discovery would be a new prediction that comes out of the model that is testable.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 12:14:41 am by amspire »
 

Offline hamdi.tn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 610
  • Country: tn
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2016, 11:38:06 pm »
Quote
What happened at t=0 at the big bang?
 What is dark matter and dark energy?
 What happens at the singularity of a black hole?
 Are the laws of physics unique?
 Will the universe expand forever?
you need way way waaay more than 30K$ to do research for that !
They admit that more research is needed. The $30K is to get their current ideas down into a book next year. If the campaign can raise something like $400K, that will pay for full time ongoing research. I gather they feel they have the right model, but I imagine learning to apply the model to the whole of physics would be a different thing totally. The killer discovery would be a new prediction that comes out of the model that is testable.

well good luck with that ... they need some billions $ and 3 life time to be able to test it. Most theory of the last century are not testable on humain scale and they some of them remain just a math equation. i think if they are not just missing around, having a model that can be approved by the scientific community is enough. but for what they announce to be searching for, i think most respected university around the world have dedicated team of physicists, well equipped labs and huge budget that cover years of research and they will be too happy if someone show up and say well i have what it  look like a solution for what you spent 100 years so far looking for.
it look hinky
 

Offline amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: au
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2016, 12:08:50 am »
well good luck with that ... they need some billions $ and 3 life time to be able to test it.
No they don't. They just have to publish their ideas in a way that makes other physicists stop and think - "Maybe they are onto something here." If they have stumbled onto a better model, there will be plenty of Nobel prizes to be shared by plenty of physicists over plenty of years.

When Einstein did his great works, he didn't know how to apply it to the whole of physics. He wasn't able to empirically prove any of his ideas when he published them.
 

Offline hamdi.tn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 610
  • Country: tn
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2016, 12:43:18 am »
well good luck with that ... they need some billions $ and 3 life time to be able to test it.
No they don't. They just have to publish their ideas in a way that makes other physicists stop and think - "Maybe they are onto something here." If they have stumbled onto a better model, there will be plenty of Nobel prizes to be shared by plenty of physicists over plenty of years.

When Einstein did his great works, he didn't know how to apply it to the whole of physics. He wasn't able to empirically prove any of his ideas when he published them.

yeah exactly that's what am saying after that sentence  :P they need that money to test it , but they don't have to test, they only have to prouve that their model is worth discussing
 

Offline photon

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: us
Re: IGG: A Theory of Everything
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2016, 03:19:09 am »

When Einstein did his great works, he didn't know how to apply it to the whole of physics. He wasn't able to empirically prove any of his ideas when he published them.
But Einstein got a real job until his ideas were validated.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 04:46:14 pm by photon »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf