Does science in general find itself in a confirmation bias on TOE?

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline kristalris

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
According to general psychology any held paradigm will lead to a confirmation bias that will only be shifted when somebody of accepted authority deems a paradigm shift in order.

The current paradigm in nuclear physics / astronomy holds GR and QM as not married as yet, and if at all possible any idea on this marriage should be stated in mathematics. No ideaís or even concepts are worth discussing or testing if not presented in mathematics. This paradigm infringes on basic logic and is thus unscientific:

If you know that you donít know how to marry GR & QM then logic dictates that one primarily should use verbal logic and only in exceptional cases uses mathematics in order to start off getting the pieces of the puzzle in order. The logic being that only with sufficient data can you use Rutherford-ian deterministic mathematics and with diminishing data you go from empirical statistics via Bayesian statistics to Bayesian probabilistic reasoning to verbal logic. I.e. you work from rough to fine. First a rough idea which you work out into a verbal concept and then a mathematical concept, towards a theory that is mathematically consistent with all known data ( a TOE) and ultimately a law of everything. The latter then generally in science held to be true within a given or assumed framework. Yet this isn't the current paradigm. History shows paradigms are always proven wrong, especially if you a priori know that there is something wrong from the start.

So GR & QM are both to be seen as the best laws of physics we humans have ever had within their assumed frameworks / as yet unknown boundaries. And thus not as mere theories. The laws of Newton should be seen as laws of physics not just on historic grounds but systematically.  Like we still hold the law of the flat earth when drawing up a city map.

The soft spot in GR is that it has photons being mass-less yet exerting gravity, whereas this never has been observed. Photons traveling for billions of years without lumping yet exerting an enormous wallop of energy?  Something from nothing because otherwise non-interference of  two light beams canít be explained?

We observe more order in the system of our visible universe than we can explain. So we must assume a reason for this. Something more fundamental than the second law of thermodynamics.

Iíve got a testable idea: a dynamic crystal:

  In a computer simulation having as many as possible near perfect rigid elastic spheres with as much room as possible in a cube of super conductive walls. I predict it will go to order of a dynamic crystal away from the disturbance of the walls. A dynamic crystal in the sense that every ball will remain in its virtual box. A bit of chaos isn't bad and actually even required to explain it all.

A scientific dictate should be that this should be repeatedly tested on ever stronger computers as they come along, until science can explain the observed to much order in this or any other way. Otherwise pose better testable ideaís. To state you need mathematics before testing this is illogical.

Another testable idea is that a distant galaxy can be seen as a gyro. I predict that accelerating any matter will make the gravity rise confirming the amount needed to account for DM. That also leads to a rise in momentum and thus acceleration that is DE. Leading to the illusion of a rising flat space cake with raisons, being the current view of our visible universe. (We are in this concept in the middle of a crust of a huge sphere, not by chance but because life needs time to form and will be snuffed out before we get out of the middle because having become too unstable )
I.e. all matter acts like little black holes taking unspun actual atoms (lumps of un-split-able, in-compressible extremely small mass > c) out of the dynamic crystal by bringing them into spin and adding them to the strings of spiraling and interlocking forming the SM. The actual atoms spiraling through the other dynamic crystal of smaller and faster particles forcing them into this spiral and thus creating curved space.
We then have an infinite amount of both particles causing pressure on the one and small black holes for under pressure causing gravity on the other end.  The strings act like a hologram and thus no interference, unless with the double slit experiment. Atoms not ions canít > 1/3 c akin a helicopter canít > 1/3 mach. And that is why ions as atoms canít get to c.
The strings are held together by the pressure of the system in a surface tension scenario. When strings rub it causes magnetism. The spinning atoms spin away like a top.
When two strings hit head on they disintegrate: a matter anti matter collision.

Two strings interlocked counter rotating can form a photon  bouncing thus waving trough the crystal. In an under pressure of a gravitational field the wound up photon becomes a bit unspun i.e. redshirted in order to hold c by accelerating, being short tracked in the crystal. Like a car accelerating in a curb it will steer in more at in this case twice the Newton value. Confirming to what GR predicts and thus to the mathematics of GR.

Length contraction of SR can be seen as a Doppler effect. No problem there either.

An atom clock when accelerated slows down the clock instead of time in a way that you can set your atom clock too.

The fundamental driving force of MN is thus order and disorder of these only three components: two particles and an extreme amount of nothing. The surplus of the larger one is forced into a crystallization process forming a multiverse of spheres extremely far apart. We are in one of these. Instead of growing further the center will collapse like a water fall crushing the larger atoms in its center and bringing them into spin confirming to the law of conservation of energy. Ultimately to be shot as a yet to form galaxy into the double crystal where it will slowly accelerate by forming strings taking up mass. Popping out of the double crystal at the other hand falling back to reform the double crystal and move inward like a glacier.

So GR is married to Newton that is married to QM in a testable way.

Actually I can elaborate, yet apart from showing logical consistency  the reason for this thought experiment lies in a product that Iíve already given: the tests. This inaccurate speculative method shows you where to look in order to start extremely accurate testing. The latter is the job of science Ė at least to support Ė or to falsify Ė or to come up with something better - and thus not my job. I merely stumbled on this idea as a pastime working on something else. I donít claim more than basic science class knowledge (a long time ago) on the matter other than grasping the fundamentals of the logic involved.
Instead science is extrapolating mathematics out of its regime (like Krauss et all) providing something from nothing, belief in magic that is less likely than having a God. The latter contrary to magic not constituting a contradiction. Garbage in, garbage out. The rule should be all observations and all relevant questions answered as a hypothesis for testing. Whereby close is close enough.
Anyway this verbal concept fits all current observations  in science and provides an elegant logical explanation as a testable speculation for it all in a Ė even reasonably easy -  testable way. The latter is what it is. It either is or isnít testable. This is.