Before I continue, I'll add the photo of the mystery man of today's post. I'll reveal who he is if you manage to read until the end.
Anyone who has been following my quest to discover the theory of everything closely enough might have noticed that while I talk about people (mostly men) of science, I seldom if ever talk about any recent research. And none of the more recent research that I’ve talked about in my blog posts, I’ve cited in my manuscript on the theory of everything.
The curious reason for this is that at least in natural sciences you seldom (if ever) cite general ideas. You cite specific equations, experimental data, and theories. However, in my case all the equations that I cite are from textbooks. And you don’t generally cite textbooks. When it comes to citing theories, the case is even wackier. As far as I know, no one has ever before published a reputable publication suggesting such a particle. When I searched in Google Scholar for an “elementary particle of energy”, I found articles like this that suggest a “Photon as a black hole.” I can’t say that the theory presented in this paper is wrong. But it is so far from what I present in my manuscript, I can’t really cite it in any meaningful way. Other papers state that a photon is the only elementary particle of energy.
Extending this search to all of google, I find people asking “What is the energy source inside the elementary particles?” and knowledgeable people answering that the question is wrong and less knowledgeable people answering with their quirky theories that go beyond any conventional theory.
This is why I don’t cite anyone. I begin with the assumption that there is a spherical elementary particle of energy moving at the speed of light. Then I apply rather simple logic and mathematical analysis and obtain everything I say in the manuscript. It’s the case of those pesky postulates, that I mentioned in a post a year ago. If the basic postulates of physics in all prior publications are wrong, they pretty much veer off track already in the abstract of the papers. While this might sound hyperbolic, it really isn’t. To overcome their lack of knowledge of what makes the world tick, they use very handy mathematical tricks, such as Hilbert space, tensors and such. All of these have to some extent been invented to solve problems. However, at some point (or from their inception), these concepts have lost connection to the physical entities they describe. Or more precisely you can describe physical entities with these tools without really understanding them.
In principle I could learn to use these tools as well, at which point I could read and understand what has been written before me. But the almost incredible truth is that my undergraduate level mathematics skills and master’s level physics skills have allowed me to figure out the theory of everything, but I am (at least partially) unable to compare what I have found out to what has been published previously.
I don’t think someone else has discovered the theory of everything before me and just explained it with fancier language. If anyone had realized that there is an elementary particle of energy before me (that is, besides calling photons elementary particles of energy), they would have been explicit about it. However, it is completely feasible that some of the ideas that I present in my manuscript have been independently discovered. I just don’t know of these publications.
Could I then go and look for these publications? Perhaps I could. But I think I won’t find anything, at least easily. You see, I made the decision to take the Bertrand Russell route and begin with the basic axioms/postulates. While Russell attempted to minimize the number of primitive notions, or axioms, I sort of took a shortcut. I don’t base mathematics on abstract concepts, but I base mathematics on the elementary particle of energy. This means that I don’t have to worry about concepts like infinity, or even zero, as they don’t exist in the world of the elementary particle of energy. It’s hard to explain simply, but the lack of these fundamental concepts of modern mathematics is a liberation. Especially the lack of infinity. Zero you can still have in some calculations, but not as something divided by infinity, but just as the ‘trick’ of shifting of all terms to one side of an equation and such.
And how about the terms? I use the Planck constant, h, the speed of light, c, the Rydberg constant, , the Lyman limit and the Lyman alpha line. All of these are general enough to not need to cite. Although I might need to remove the phrase “with the lowest observed absorption being that of 1→2, or the Lyman alpha line of 121.56701 nm, observed in distant galaxies and quasars.” Or perhaps find a citation for that. It will be a very lonely citation. Perhaps I could say “to our knowledge the lowest observed absorption band is 1→2 , or the Lyman alpha line of 121.56701 nm,”
Pretty much everything else is just pretty basic mathematics, stemming from the understanding that the true quantum of light is a helix of elementary particles of energy. After that the whole manuscript is a progression of logical steps and their mathematical representations.
This means that there are basically two ways to reject the manuscript. Either to show clear evidence of a phenomenon that contradicts with the theory or to find logical faults with the mathematical analysis. Of course, there is a third way. The reviewer can say that the manuscript is not significant enough. This happened a year ago when I attempted to submit the early version of the manuscript to Nature. This shouldn’t be possible anymore, but you never know. And the fourth (and the most annoying) rejection is that the reviewer says “that the manuscript takes too large hypothetical steps”. This phrase is the academic equivalent of “have you stopped beating your wife?” The phrase might sound neutral, but it really assumes that what is said is wrong without offering any proof of this. It is left to the author to guess what they could do to convince the reviewer, but the reviewer cannot be bothered to state which sentence or equation the reviewer objects to.
However, now I have one trick up my sleeve. I finally go the ball rolling, now that I have two professors suggesting other professors to act as mentors, I think the one being suggested as mentors will feel compelled to at least to have a look at the manuscript and if they don’t feel able to help, they will suggest someone more capable. Once a sufficient number of people have seen the manuscript, someone will finally be willing to act as a mentor. And when this happens, I won’t be alone with this idea. And in science, the most important thing after a good idea is traction. If no one becomes convinced in what you say, you might be right, but no one will hear of you. Only when people become convinced, do they begin sharing their discovery to others.
The negative example of this is the case of Ignaz Semmelweis (our mystery man in the photo) and the germ theory, or more specifically the lack of it. Semmelweis was the first person to realize that if doctors didn’t wash their hands after handling dead people, the women they helped give birth would have a high likelihood of dying. Well, I’m making shortcuts, but that’s the general idea. But this was before Louis Pasteur had invented the germ theory of diseases, so no one (who mattered) believed Semmelweis. Only when people had an idea that there were tiny micro-organisms that could be killed by the washing of hands, did his ideas begin to properly take hold.
So that’s it. I need the first person with the proper scientific credentials to back me up. I can’t fully relax before that.
Comments