Post what you're thinking right now.

[odeon]

My theory looks promising and unconventional, but it's making strange predictions. Haven't quite figure out how to interpret it yet, or whenever or not I made an error.

Is it something that you could describe to us without us needing to understand a lot of exotic maths, and without putting your Nobel Prize at risk of being stolen?

I doubt I'd get that far, not even close to being taken seriously. I'm hardly a genius, not a physicist and I only know basic mathematics. Sorry if I made it sound fantastic.

I'm basically working on a theory of everything that present a string like structure to elementary particles. Based on how these strings loop around a core point and what way they fluctuate and flow, they determine the elementary particle's entire makeup. It's tricky to explain it because while I work on this theory, I draw these particles as 2D representations and try to figure things out visually. However that's the real idea behind my theory; It's to formulate a visual representation of everything, and how and why it works in a simplified yet effective fashion.

Your problem, I believe, is that you'll have too few dimensions to explain some stuff that needs explaining. You'll have a very hard time modeling early universe or space near larger masses (anything from a proto-star to black holes or beyond). You also won't be able to predict gravitational forces on a larger scale, regardless.

That said, what you're doing is a bit like string theory, afaik. Projections (such as two-dimensional or three-dimensional models) are very useful when you need to predict lab results when discussing string theory, but it is important to realise that they cannot fully explain everything, they can only model a situation in a limited, controlled set of circumstances.

Do you use vector analysis or statistics to explain how small particles behave?

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Yeah I've noticed those exact problems too and then some, and had to resort to some bizarre revelations to at least toy around.

I think I'm using more of a vector based analysis, not too familiar with mathematical terms though.

But anyway, I figure I'll post this to show what these strings look like...

[attachment deleted by admin]

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Also did this for the sake of toying around. It's not a realistic scenario, but I wanted to try a random interaction so I did this a while ago to test something...

The main idea of this diagram is to show the hypothetical process of how the two strings respond if this ever happened. As you can tell, it's not 100% and doesn't show how the excess energy is released because I rushed it.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Heh, that makes me think now on how much I've changed. If I was still so anxious, I would have never posted my work on here, but now it doesn't bother me.

[Blasted]

I am a pathetic git.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Figures, the moment I talk about my theory, the amount of fuck ups I see in my work come down like a ton of bricks. Back to the drawing board... The amount of times this has happened is countless.

[Callaway]

If there's eight notes in an octave why is there only seven in the Do, Ray, Me thingy?

I think that it's because the second Do is exactly one octave higher than the first Do.

If the first Do is middle C, then the second Do is high C.

[Peter]

Figures, the moment I talk about my theory, the amount of fuck ups I see in my work come down like a ton of bricks. Back to the drawing board... The amount of times this has happened is countless.

I've had similar experiences.  It's easy for me to develop a myopic view of something when I work on the fine details of it day after day, and to lose track of how the details fit together.  When I try to explain it to other people, I'm forced to take a step back and cast a critical eye over my progress, and that's often when I realise that I've slid off course or missed something critical. 

Sometimes I find it refreshing to start over; it can allow me to cast off unnecessary baggage and head in interesting new directions that hadn't occurred to me before.  Other times, it's just a pain in the arse.

[odeon]

Singularity, how do you account for, and represent, the time axis?

[Adam]

this page is full of clever stuff i'm too dumb to understand 

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Singularity, how do you account for, and represent, the time axis?

So far I've being focused on just spatial aspects and basic mechanics such as how the forces work. Until I can get those perfected, applying time other than using frames of progress (as with the last image I posted here), would be problematic. But my real goal is to start as simple as literally possible, then gradually apply more complicated mechanisms when needed.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Since I'm doubting some aspects of my work, I thought I'd still show this, because even though it's flawed, you'll probably understand what I'm trying to do. Excuse if my terminology is wrong in some areas, but I'm still trying to figure certain things out.

Fig 1. This represents a quanta of electromagnetic radiation according to my theory (in this case, a virtual photon), it treats a photon as the only point-like particle almost, but close up, it has a core point and contains the source's flow pattern (spin information). The wave packet is basically source charge information attached to it.

Fig 2. This is an attempt to show what happens when virtual photons are generated on various particle types, as well as demonstrate basic concepts. Basically the process isn't perfect because as the wave packet expands and forms the photon, a gap in vacuum energy is left behind which must be balanced out, and it does. The result of this causes a specific distortion of space-time on the other end (or wherever applicable) to "emit" in which it contains information of the missing charge and spin. This means if a photon matching those characteristics enters within that distortion, the photon will have it's course bent as space-time normalizes as a result. Of course this creates headaches worth of problems too, because quarks and baryon forms would behave strangely and haven't figured out the exact nature of the distortion either. Although interestingly, if two distortions merge together, they can form a gap-like distortion that causes anything to be pulled towards their point of origin. Then gravity could then be caused by accumulating distortions in space time from ambient electromagnetic emissions via virtual photons being produced. But yes, problems there too, conservation of energy issues may be one. Neutron gravitational influence could still be explained by the fact the quarks would still emit virtual photons within themselves.

Fig 3. This requires 3 dimensions, and to treats the 2D strings forms like a yarn ball composed of countless of instances of the same shape. The idea is that, when spin is generated (showing as light blue), a tiny compressive effect (red) is exerted, this is more hypothetical than real process though. This results in all of the instances of this 2D string that are perpendicular to the spin to form stress points, (making these points more readily available to produce virtual photons, and thus a beam of virtual photon emissions; then they are influenced by the space-time distortion to curve around their own source and then be reabsorbed by the particle (blue). Basically all magnetism is an additive effect of this in my theory.

Now you see why I said there's a lot of problems with my work and requires bizarre revelations. But I guess that happens only when you decided to talk about it and get nervous about how ridiculous you might sound. Also, sorry if I make some physicists cringe with this.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Peter]

I only know some of the basic concepts of string theory and none of the maths, and I don't have a particularly deep understanding of physics in general, so I can't assess the correctness of your work, but I'm curious about how you've arrived at your current model, and how it's meant to be interpreted.  How, for instance, did you determine the structure of the particles?  What's the significance of the different shapes?  What's meant by the 'flow of string energy direction'?

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

I only know some of the basic concepts of string theory and none of the maths, and I don't have a particularly deep understanding of physics in general, so I can't assess the correctness of your work, but I'm curious about how you've arrived at your current model, and how it's meant to be interpreted.  How, for instance, did you determine the structure of the particles?  What's the significance of the different shapes?  What's meant by the 'flow of string energy direction'?

I was inspired by the idea of waves and incorporated that as part of the string structure. Charged strings have a waveform, and depending how it starts from the core, determines the electric charge. Neutral strings are flat and have no electrical charge but still exert spin.

The flow direction aka flow of string energy direction, is basically what determines spin (still speculating here). Hypothetically, the strings contain photon 'joints' holding the string packets together and they loop around each branch in the specified direction. This looping also leads to stress points which cause a joint and string to imprint a behaviour to space-time. A branch is basically a single loop of energy from core to core, and the number of charged string loops determine electric charge strength. All fermions contain three branch loops, while bosons contain six. Or alternatively it could be that, fermions are odd numbered, bosons are even numbered in branches.

The quarks are oddly shaped for three reasons, one, if they weren't they'd form quark-lepton like baryons (like one up quark, one anti-down quark and one electron); and two, the string itself plays a partial role in mass; three their shape attempts to explain how they form meson/baryon forms and when a charged and neutral string converge, they produce gluons (while at the same time, prevents neutrinos from having a gluon field). I did put a lot of thought into their shapes, and at the same time tried to make it simple too.

I provide a diagram below to show that in Fig 1. That's the flow configuration of all particles (still speculating on this though), and Fig 2. Clears up some of the terms I've used. I noticed the problem with spin with quarks, so unless there's a way to find a special condition for that, then that's a big flaw.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

I'm thinking I wish it weren't raining, because I'm going to have to walk out in the rain later on.

Maya Angelou said something about being able to tell a lot about a person by how they deal with a rainy day. Not sure what that says about me... except that I don't like getting my clothes wet.