God Proven by Known Laws of Physics and Theory of Everything

[ezed]

So what's the score...what period is it...is anybody out of chalk yet!

[trish]

oh there it is!! stop smokin' my chalk ezed.

[hippifried]

Quantum theory never makes predictions like "the proton will have location X at time T; instead it allows one to compute the probability P that the proton will be at X when the clock says T. A probability by definition is a number between zero and one. Unfortunately, sometimes in an attempt to construct a quantum theory to model a particular situation a theoretician will get an embarrassing answer like P(E) = 8974.553. When this happens we say his model needs to be normalized. There has to be a uniform way to fix all these erroneous calculations at once to get answers in the correct range from zero to one. Sometimes it's just as simple as dividing everything by just the right number. If everything can be fixed we say the theory is renormalizable. Sometimes it can can be shown there's no way to fix the model. This is the case whenever you're getting results like P = infinity. In these cases we say the model is not renormalizable. When that happens the theoretician has to go back to the drawing board and try to reformulate, revise and redesign her approach.

Uh... Ok... 2+2 is still 4, right? Could you repeat all that in "string"?

[thx1138]

One thing's for sure: Allanah needs a bit more eye shadow.

[trish]

yes, hippiefried, 2 quarts plus 2 quarts still equals 4 quarts, unless they're quarts of miscible fluids, in which case you could get 3 quarts. also on the USS Cane, 2 quarts of strawberries plus another two quarts of strawberries may turn out to be a half pint short of four quarts.

[thx1138]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200801...ntimatterfound

[ezed]

oh there it is!! stop smokin' my chalk ezed.

I can't

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, it's not incorrect that GR predicts a continuous orbital decay. it's not incorrect that QFT requires a discrete orbital decay.

what could it possibly mean to say

...saying that they contradict each other when really it's that the maths diverge to arbitrarily high orders of derivatives in order to be consistent.

?

do you mean that if one insists on too much accuracy the two theories will make different predictions?

or do you mean that if one insists on a quantum theory of gravity (QTOG) that is actually renormalizable, then it won't be consistent.

in the former case all i can say is: well yeah, that's because the two theories are inconsistent.

in the latter case, you've got a theory that useless because it won't make predictions. you also, by the way don't have GR anymore. you have a different theory. a modified GR. a QTOG, if you will. you keep insisting GR+QTF is consistent, but you keep showing us QTOG which is itself inconsistent with GR.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions. They only become incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian. For the full details on that, see the below paper by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=...ghts/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

[trish]

Jamie, I see you still insist that

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions.

Yet, after an entire year, you have not yet addressed the point of disagreement between the two theories which to which I focused your attention a year ago, namely: GR predicts a continuous orbital decay of test particles and QFT predicts a discrete orbital decay. One or both of the two theories will have to be modified; just as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation gave way to QED. Alain Connes has a very interesting approach involving non-commutative geometries that would, if correct, modify the foundations of both GR and QFT. Leonard Susskind's holographic universe would save QFT at the expense of GR. Penrose is placing his bets and on GR. I think it's safe to say, almost everyone agrees something's got to give; and no one knows yet how it will all shake down.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, I see you still insist that

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions.

Yet, after an entire year, you have not yet addressed the point of disagreement between the two theories which to which I focused your attention a year ago, namely: GR predicts a continuous orbital decay of test particles and QFT predicts a discrete orbital decay. One or both of the two theories will have to be modified; just as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation gave way to QED. Alain Connes has a very interesting approach involving non-commutative geometries that would, if correct, modify the foundations of both GR and QFT. Leonard Susskind's holographic universe would save QFT at the expense of GR. Penrose is placing his bets and on GR. I think it's safe to say, almost everyone agrees something's got to give; and no one knows yet how it will all shake down.

Cite your sources.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions. They only become incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian. For the full details on that, see the below paper by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=...ghts/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)