Theory of Everything? - What we are talking about?  

Dear prof. Unzicker, I'm the author of the TYCHOS model which is basically an 'updated and perfected' version of Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric configuration of our solar system. I believe to have found the 'missing piece of the puzzle' of the Tychonic system (namely, the Earth's 25344-year orbit - which I call the "PVP" orbit - which stands for "Polaris-Vega-Polaris"). In the TYCHOS, the Earth slowly revolves 'clockwise' around this PVP orbit (with a circumference of 355,724,597km) - while the Sun revolves 'counterclockwise' around us - once every year. Now, I only came to know about the "1/137 fine structure constant" a month ago or so (I'm no astrophysicist, let this be clear!...). Well, it so happens that, as I tested this 1/137 ratio within my TYCHOS model, it turns out that the Sun moves EACH DAY (i.e. for every diurnal rotation of Earth) by near-exactly 1/137th of the PVP orbit's circumference. Of course, this could be entirely coincidental - yet I would be delighted if you would set aside some of your time to look into it - and let me know your thoughts about this matter, if any... book.tychos.space/chapters/21-mans-yearly-path#the-tychos---and-the-magic-137-number

Keep it up Unzicker. The scientific world needs skepticism; there are too many scientific ideas accepted as "fact" that I have a hard time swallowing. Even as an electronic engineer, I do often find myself explaining some obscure things to lay men who have difficulty accepting quantuum mechanics. Such obscure things as Tunnel Diodes, which are well explained by QM, even though I am puzzled by the paradoxes of QM and believe those paradoxes to indicate an innaccurate theory. So, we need you to keep at it, nudging people's thoughts.

The observer is the observed abandons the concepts of space and time without altering the constants.

Some of us are and always have been certain that time doesn't exist. Speaking for myself, the reason is that you can always remove time from any equation and replace it with something else, such as rate vs rate vs rate. Secondly, that light travels in a straight line is an illusion. Light is a spherical shell that moves away from a collapsing electron shell. It only appears to travel in a straight line because the photon shell interacts with your eye at a point that is 90 degrees from its source. This would not be possible if light had mass.

4:17 ''The less unexplained numbers the closer we are to a theory of everything'' 4:26 ''The less fundumental constants we have...'' One thing is to talk about less *unexplained numbers* and another about *less fundumental constants*. 16:12 What do you mean by 'intuitive' ?

I love your channel.

I hope to hopefully model some experiments one day using computers to investigate some of the consequences of a simpler reality. That is one where gravity (or more specifically its fundamental gravitational cause) is actually the underlying constant of everything. So giving us one constant from which all others can be derived if math is up to it. That is one that takes into account the principles of our volumetric space including: 1) the non-linear relation between surface area and volume causing sweet spots, 2) spin, attraction, and movement, and its generation of interesting shapes and effects at all levels, 3) the goldilocks dimensions of our volumetric space that provides us, through attraction and movement, with "spin" effects plus "counter spin" effects, and 4) an assertion that things can not occupy the same spot (black holes yes, singularities no).

Time is not a dimension. It is not a degree of freedom. It is the unit for measuring the rate at which other degrees of freedom change.

There might not be any connection between gravity and c. All of the observable experiments that involve gravity are constrained by the acceleration of mass, which is constrained by c due to the charges on matter. Gravity field has no electric charge. Applying c to equations of gravity may work, only because of the observation of its actions on matter constrained by electric properties of matter. Perhaps some constants can be simplified by removing associations with gravity. I am also not sure if E=mc^2 is correct either, it's really just a spin on E = 1/2mv^2 and a substitution of v^2 for c^2. I don't believe that mass is lost when energy is produced. An electron that releases a photon does not lose mass. E really just is a change\transfer of moment from one particle to another. When a electron releases a photon it loses momentum and when a photon is absorbed by another electron it gains momentum. Heat is simply a change in molecular motion in a mass.

in chess we start by sacking pieces, but over time we realize that holding more of the board position and pieces. it seems unrealistic to try to refine a theory of everything by simplifying everything. each field we explore comes up with thier own constant, but they dont fully work. the ridiculous cmb(black space had stars in it we see with a better telescope) and pulsing stars dont get the same range. quantum vs reality as we know re gravity. light wave or particle, both and neither. the 'constant' that is the max speed light, but as a wave its speed changes with density and gravity. and even though it is the max speed, space an undescribed somehow expands faster than light. the big bang, though old galaxies seem to far away to be old, and we seem to be traveling toward a point not away. the final simplification issues are the atom and the universe we cant see either of them as such, but we assume we know them enough to simplify them to slide into other areas. the more we look into an atom the smaller we imagine inside it, but we havent identified it. the universe expands every time we get a better telescope. our current thesis is missing around 95% of what or model needs. the hubble distance suggests we affect space we can see, but everything to a lesser degree, but the stuff we cant see behaves very different to the stuff we can readily observe or our model fails. a unifying theory is surely vastly more complex as we haven't even been able to fully describe the movement of the knight or bishop but suggest we know enough to play the best opening. theories are great to advance our knowledge, but the more we simplify things to explain the other bits, the more we forget they are theories, so we don't look passed our piece to see if it fits with the rest of the board. many theories have to do with light so i wonder if that is a good place to start, lets unify 1 equation for light that can be used without thumbing the scales.

imo, having to resort to renormalization is a red flag that something in the standard model doesn’t quite add up.

Excellent Teaching Presentation.

The theory of everything will encompass a story that explains how and why the universe came to be. Not just pure maths. Like how Darwinian evolution services countless interesting stories detailing the origin of species and the relationships shared across the ecosystem. And actually, atomic physics shares the same structural theme as cellular biology, and this is because atomic physics shares the same theme of emergence as biology, Darwinian evolution. So you just heard the theory of everything and didn't recognize it. Well done

first step is to understand that light is not a wave or particle. Tesla said it best “Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.”

"... and probably we have to abandon the concepts of space and time" (might be a bit of a tough sell, for those with vested interest in space and time) :). A bit quirky vid, but interesting and inspiring.

@2:55 "... that means light is an electromagnetic wave..." No it doesn't. It means electromagnetic waves are one possible model for light propagation. Do not stretch empirical observation beyond what is logically permissible, otherwise you are doing metaphysics, not hard science. Pixies dancing on superstring filaments is another model. Why do we reject it? Because it's not as parsimonious as Maxwell's model.

I thought the atom is the theory of everything. A lot of these other theories fail to provide any kind of geometry because particles must take up volume. Also the obsession with reducing something to be spheres, we don't know what's really happening at such a small scale. The shapes could be quite different than we expect.

So, there will be a theory that explains how I can have a subjective experience of the enjoyment a human brain is generating by watching this video? Hmmm.

Selection (Darwinian) is better, if not absolute, starting point than math is, which is 100% speculation. Thus, selection determined perception of the world, that is better, and the only for us, humans, picture. From that starting point we connect to 10^10 and to 10^-10 scales we have no selective experience. In short, time and space are as real as we are. And time is not a dimension (which is a speculation).

That picture of Heinrich Hertz at 2:43 looks an awful lot like a young Prince Charles... But hey, he's a German too! 😏 *snickers in Catholic Stuart*

The background music is very distracting. I prefer concentration without noise.

I believe if we want to find a theory of everything we must find an explanation of the fine structure constant. Why? Because it is a number which measures the probability of an EM and atomic electrostatic interaction, and it is found in the surface area entropy of a black hole which tells me it has something to do with the overall gravitational mass. I actually found an equation which shows this.

Ethereal Mechanics 👍🏼

Excellent Video. I have no words to express how good it was beside the ones I have just said.

big G supremacy gang

As implied by its name, a "Theory of Everything" reposes its range or codomain into each of its internalized descriptions, thereby affecting universal self-similarity among reality. Regarding the ToE, Chris Langan writes... "...because its metaphysical content must be mapped into reality along with its physical sublanguage, it must describe reality in such a way that it contains the codomain of this mapping, thereby establishing that reality has a metaphysical aspect. Because it contains physics as a sublanguage, and physics is largely mathematical, the required metaphysical metalanguage must be mathematical as well. But ToE mathematical structure must be mathematics of a higher order, literally embedding and distributing over the mathematical structures employed in standard physics ... as does the language of mathematical logic in particular." AN INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS "Hology is a logico-cybernetic form of self-similarity in which the global structure of a self-contained, self-interactive system doubles as its distributed selftransductive syntax; it is justified by the obvious fact that in a self-contained system, no other structure is available for that purpose." Intro to the CTMU Discrete quantum systems, including the universe itself, have zero total entropy. "In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. ... because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship." CTMU Another definition of "zero constraint" or "pure freedom" is the "primordial black hole" of the "Big Bang" model. As a "point", such a structure defies boundary conditions altogether, yet as infinite mass, it's potential is likewise unlimited. Reality must be self-contained, and hence it must be self processed. Perception is the, natural, generic, and universal model of self-processing systems, a fact which should be obvious to scientists, if any still exist or even know what a "model" is. "Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model.." CTMU The lack of self-awareness in with today's popular theorists is precisely in line with their counterparts during the last dark age, the ones supporting Geocentrism and censoring truth. The implication by physicists that a "theory of everything" is physics proper is akin to an artist describing reality as a canvas & paint.

Is it also possible without space and time? Yes these wholes are above space-distance and time transience and are in a body-free actual state of abstract-spiritual nature. They can form extended physically suggestively acting structures, but are not existentially dependent on them. Such act in a more or less delaying way (distance) but are permanent, know no before and after. Time lasts and is therefore a second property of that so-called "concept of time".

It's very strange to expect to build theory of everything as theory of physics. Theory of everything should also include everything the rest: logic, biology, creator.. Physics is not everything. Physics is only statistics of matter movement. Theory of everything will be algorithm of matter.

Most your ideas fly over my heads, but i was always suspicious of scientific babas. Rest of my old age will be learning few titbits of maths and sciences but btw why biologists, and people from other natural sciences rarely make such seemingly outlandish claims?

Theory of everything???? Yeah their own theory.

Probably I understand what he is trying to reach ! He wants to eliminate space and time before understanding how they emerged as reality! Instead of that wants to run forward, the current understanding of space and time thus gravity is very weak (even Einstein didn’t scratch the surface regarding space, time and gravity) What he postulated still too early (space and time are not fundamentals) but that doesn’t need running forward (too early)! Both are work of Planck and Einstein is very important (incomplete doesn’t mean not valuable) Physics reached its limits because of the lack of deep understanding of the fundamentals of physics but running forward is not the solution! He was always saying Einstein said,….etc but what will happen to GR by removing space and time in favour of running forward?!

I recommend a video link as attached, then we may know why modern physics does not add up. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Sk7ZEg68V-o.html By the way, do you know the distance between you and yesterday of yourself?

My unifying physics theory of everything, matter theory, is the theory you want. I feel you're running out of ideas for a unifying physics theory of everything when you start talking about the possibilities of quaternions and group theory, which are mathematics, not physics. A theory is an understanding using some assumptions and their implications. I invented matter theory by learning from my successive tries to correctly assume what must be physically occurring, reasoning that assuming what is physically occurring implies mathematical relations which might represent what is physically occurring. I compared each successive theory's assumptions and implications for consistency with observable reality, gradually eliminating illogical possibilities and inventing a better theory. Guessing at mathematics can sometimes help, but it doesn't necessarily give you the understanding you want, as can be observed in quantum theory and relativity theory. If you truly want to physically and mathematically logically understand all the fundamentals of physics, matter theory is the theory you want. Matter theory is for sale. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.

This artificial voice is disturbing to hear and makes your video sound like the advertising for a fake product

This guy has no PHD in physics.

Super excited. Thank you

Thank you so much for your submission! (final video announcement with winners / runner ups out now, by the way)

I much, much prefer hearing your voice rather than some fake American version. Just saying.

There must be something fundamentally wrong here, just because I seemed to understand most of it. Usually, when scientists talk about things, I barely understand any of it😃

I would recommend looking at how Rutherford mathematically predicted the neutron. If anyone knows where a link to his original work is I would love to read it.

I find this video extremely interesting, and was somewhat aware of quarternions' relevance in physics. I am analyzing Hamilton's Algebra as a Science of Pure Time these days, so yes... made me even more curious!

When there is an exchange of photon energy, the energy level drops with the absorption and emission relative to the spherical geometry. The energy level cannot drop below the centre of the sphere or nucleus of the atom because the process is relative the radius of the sphere. This forms a geometrical constant at the smallest level of the process. This can be seen mathematically as the Planck constant linked with 2π ~ h/2π. The 2π represents the diameter of the sphere. This is because the process is unfolding relative to the two dimensional surface of the sphere, with the inner surface forming negative charge and the outer surface forming positive charge. We have to square r² the radius because the process is relative to the spherical surface. We can see this mathematically with the speed of light c² squared and the charge of the electron e² squared. We have a continuous process of energy exchange forming the Golden Rectangle and Golden Angle relative to the charge of the electron squared and the spherical surface. The Golden Angle forms the potential for the fine structure constant or coupling constant in the form of the mathematical approximation 137. This dynamic spherical geometry also forms the potential for the Inverse Square Law of EM fields and gravitational fields. The equations are identical and we even have 4π in each equation representing the spherical geometry. This geometrical process does not; unfold in three-dimensional space over a ‘period of time’, but forms three-dimensional space with a probabilistic uncertain future. This uncertain future is formed by light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’ and in the equation for kinetic energy; we have the constant one ½, because the radius is ½ the diameter of the sphere.

Shaun and z Keating and Neil have overwhelmed public discourse on modern science with skewed enthusiasm on making money out of it. That is called Americana ..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA

I will have to disagree that constants need to be explained. Constants are a local measurement and come from a proposed model. I, like many, believe in an infinite universe therefore constants don’t exist. They exist because we create empirical equations that are local. Include more forces above or below, constants will change.

Congratulations, the story has started.. Does it mean? That science will continue where Gilbert left off? William Gilbert was a physicist. Today he is remembered for his scientific works in the field of magnetism and electricity.Gilbert established that electricity and magnetism are not the same thing. Gilbert's magnetism is an invisible force.

Keep going I can not wait to see all the implications a VSL theory can bring to the table.

Thank you so much for this exciting video, which I probably will watch again several times. It would be great if you could develop your last two proposals on h and c and the deconstruction of space and time. Looking forward to watching more videos from you. Really very exciting

The more you delve into theoretical math, the more physics appears to be simplified outsides of our senses. For example, the Quaternions provide linear algebra within 4 dimensions that could potentially account for physical phenomena- what this could be saying is that electricity and magnetism are the same but their directions are perpendicular to each other due to the nature of dimensions and their sources. Of course there are a few other properties that they differ in, but overtime, looking at physics like this can almost simplify everything down to its relative direction it seems. I too believe that constants can be simplified or have a greater level of understanding On a side note, the philosopher Kant believed that spacetime was something that was unique only to human perception, and that it was not a natural property of the universe, like how we view it. He believed that it was near impossible for humans to shake this perception.

A healthy skepticism allows for new ideas to emerge. ^.^

Your audio is suddenly so clear and crisp, great job!!!

For the "classical" macroscopic scale particulate mass object -- say, a bowling ball waiting for you in its wrack at a bowling alley -- you are "seeing" (i.e. "detecting"; "measuring") what appears to be its stationary ("at rest"; "not moving"), smooth, solid, well-defined surface -- in very clear, and extremely fine-grained high-resolution detail -- at an equally well-defined and fixed "location" with respect to the smooth wooden surface of the bowling lane, the chairs and tables, and all of the other "classical" scale objects in the room that are "stationary" with respect to the walls of the room, and the surface of the Earth outside the building. NOTE, however, that you are "observing" these objects by means and in terms of an extremely large number of very fine, very high frequency, and very tiny -- compared to the "macroscopic size" of the "classical objects" comprising the "visual image" of your "observation" -- wavelength vibrational acceleration (or "momentum") pulses referred to by the current "standard model of physics" as "electromagnetic magnetic radiation", known to the rest of us as "light"… All "pure momentum", "pure acceleration", "pure motion" (or in the immortal words of Mr. Spock in Season 1, Episode 26 of the original Star Trek series [and according to Einstein's most famous equation], "pure energy"), the 'self-relative motion' (SRM) of what I claim is an otherwise scale-uniform superfluid (or "hyperfluid", if you will) medium (SUM), referred to by A. Einstein as "spacetime", in the self-fractalizing (ala Fourier) geometry of a horn toroidal fluid vortex (HTV), operating as a "Self-Structuring Feedback Loop", if you will. (Thanks J. Wheeler.) ...What else _could_ it be?

Einsteinian Relativity is real-time relative-timing, time-timing sync-duration is pure-math cause-effect motion.., Eternity-now Everything. But cannot make sense-in-common without the i-reflection logarithmic resonance Superspin Superposition-point connectivity function in/of holography-quantization, ..interference=Conformal Field state-ments. A recreation of Atomic-nodal vibrational glyphs. Maybe. Space-time in frozen phase-locked Aether, or 1-0-infinity instantaneous probability spectrum of pure-math e-Pi-i relative-timing..? ONE-INFINITY Nothing in eternal No-thing. All consistency is absolutely self-defining Eternity-now continuity, constantly that is, under the available/observable, hyperfluid circumstances. ER=EPR, Singularity-point Lensing POV, orientation-observation resonance /Sublimation-Tunnelling, or superposition-superspin=> resonance in i-reflection, or convective math-music reciprocation-recirculation potential positioning possibilities, ie interference time-timing sync-duration.. A Graphical interface projection-drawing exercise that no one can accept unless they do component abstractions step by step, for themselves?

What Feynman said about Theory is a typical example of self-defining Observation and his sum-of-all-histories in the observed here-now-forever context. It is a matter of opinion therefore/thereafter whether or not you agree with nothing in No-thing in definable difference. Einstein's default definition of creative principle is of a conscious awareness, of dominant resonance, probability spectrum positioning and a "good fit" with observation arranged in accordance with his Thought Experimentalist's Intuitions, another version of "sum-of-all-histories here-now-forever" objective perceptions. The GD&P line-of-sight construction of the Fine Constant is Fractal Quantum Operator Logic Fields Modulation, assembled in the 0-1-2-ness Singularity-point cross-sectional dimensionality coordination, log-antilog shaping condensation in which the idea of "collapsed" pure-math relative-timing Reciproction-recirculation e-Pi-i sync-duration probability is the observed Fields consistent cause-effect of phase-locked coherence-cohesion axial-tangential orthogonality.. and 0-1-2-ness shapes C.., (and this agrees with the Lie Group Tangency Space proposition), because "geometrically", really, that's why we are having this problem with apparently no absolute starting point, ..which is an absolute Tautology (nothing is No-thing) when you realise that statement self-defines absolutely nothing vanishing-into-no-thing, Perspective, eg "This Sentence is False", unless you don't know where, when, what, how and why it exists in "Flashed" Quantum Circular Logic.., etc, etc. "I know nothing", again, in this cause-effect instantaneous-continuous Eternity-now Interval. Again, by default, arguing toward the same objective using the act-ual effect of real-time relative-timing that is 0-1-2-ness self-defining/module-ation Communication, the "Progress of Science" relies on Precision Reductionist Observational Accuracy in Reasoning (entitled processes or "philosophies"), so another way to recognise Theoretical Analysis is learning unlearning, in a mathematically formal process of recreation or re-evolution of WYSIWYG.., so in identification Correspondence, Tangency Space-time is dualistic 0-1-2-ness, log-antilog, e-Pi-i axial-tangential multiphase-locked "Superspin Modulation" harmonic probability inside-outside holographic time-timing positioning, and the projection-drawing picture of transverse trancendental Polar-Cartesian self-defining infinitesimal coordination. Optional Nomenclatures.

&t=176s "That means the light is an electromagnetic wave" No, it doesn't. It means that both photons and electromagnetic waves propagate with the speed which is determined by epsilon and mu: V_photon = 1/sqrt(epsilon mu), and V_emw = 1/sqrt(epsilon mu) Photons do not exhibit neither electric nor magnetic properties, nor they are affected by electric and magnetic "fields". So, a photon is not electromagnetic wave. And an electromagnetic wave is not a photon. And what makes physicists to claim that epsilon and mu are constants? It is a well-known fact that epsilon_not and mu_not are the minimal possible values of epsilon and of mu, and that epsilon and mu may have also the values which are higher than epsilon_not and mu_not. And that they can vary continuously (e.g. in transparent materials with continuously varying “refractive” index (that is: with continuously varying epsilon and/or mu) - such material we can make at home: in a tank filled up with water we add sugar. The horizontal laser beam bends towards the bottom of the tank, that is, it bends in the direction in which epsilon and mu increase. And they increase because the density of our material increase towards the bottom of the tank). A photon is energy packet. Energieelement. Can it have less than three dimensions? In the real world, in reality, what is that what “can have less than 3 dimensions”? It is NOTHING. Such entities/”bodies” do not exist. Such entities cannot exist. E.g. “that what has length, and height, but not width (“has” 0-width)” is NOTHIG. It is clear to any sane person that such “thing” does not exist, that such “thing” cannot exist. A photon is DEFINITELY a 3D energy packet. It has finite size, finite volume, finite energy, finite energy density. Can it, perhaps, have an infinitesimal volume? No, because then it would have infinite energy density. If it would have infinite energy density, Planck’s energy density distribution would not be valid. And we know that it IS valid. So, neither of the photon’s (energy-droplet’s) dimension may be infinitesimal. All of them must be finite. Small, but finitely small. And, energy is not “property” of a photon. A photon IS energy. It is energy-droplet. Energy is not “just some number which has to be the same before and after some interaction”. The definition of the force is: F = dE/ds. Force moves objects. Force accelerates objects. Numbers do not affect objects. Numbers are not physical objects. Mathematics is not reality, and it cannot “produce” reality. It can only describe reality. Math is a writing-language. So, the infinitesimal change of energy dE along some infinitesimal length ds can and does move objects. So, energy is SOMETHING, a quality (and not just "quantity", that is, "a number"). Since a photon has finite energy, then the very definition of the force implies that its energy has some continual distribution along each direction which goes through the photon’s finitely small volume. “Continual” means: it smoothly continually begins at the beginning of a photon, then smoothly continually rises, then smoothly continually reaches its maximal value (at the center of a photon), and then smoothly continually starts to decrease, and, finally, it smoothly continually ends (becomes 0). How can we claim that all this is “smoothly continual”. Because, if one is sane, then one knows that - any change takes some time to occur (no change can occur in “no time”, so there cannot exist any “refraction points”, but only smoothly continual bends. They can be very sudden, very “sharp”, but never a “point”-breaks.), - during infinitesimal time only an infinitesimal change may occur (and during finite time, only finite changes can occur)(the simplest example: during infinitesimal time, the change of photon’s position is infinitesimal. During finite amount of time, the change of photon’s position is finite). Hence, the distribution of energy of a photon is smoothly continual. The distribution of its energy density is also smoothly continual. If the distribution of photon’s energy could/would have “breaks”, then, these breaks would exert INFINITE force (dE/ds in such "breaks" would be infinite) upon some object which would be hit by such photon. Infinite force … does not exist. There exist the maximal possible force in universe, it is huge and FINITE. So, epsilon and mu determine the motion of a photon. They determine both the speed and the path of a photon. If epsilon and mu do not vary, then the photon’s path is a straight line. If epsilon and mu vary, then the photon’s path is not a straight line. Why? Well, if along the photon’s cross section which is perpendicular to the photon’s path, the epsilon and my decrease from right-to-left of the cross-section, then the photons left-cross-section-part moves faster than its right-cross-section-part, and hence the photon’s path bends to the right. It was detected that two gamma photons, which confronted each other, changed their paths. Why? Well, since epsilon and mu determine the motion of a photon, the only sane explanation is: in the area of confrontation of two gamma photons, epsilon and mu increased. The confrontation of two gamma photons is the fastest, the most intense, the most focused energy-density-change in universe. So, it is no wonder at all that epsilon and mu would increase in a peak-like way in such circumstances. It is also possible that, if gamma photons have sufficiently high energies, the peak-like increase of epsilon and of mu could be sufficient to enable the formation of energy whirl. It may be temporary whirl, but it can also be a stable whirl. In that whirl we would have confrontational energy flow. Whose radial energy-density distribution would be smoothly continual bump-like distribution. We would have du / d_epsilon. du is the infinitesimal radial change of confrontational energy denstity's smoothly continual radial distribution. d_epsilon is the infinitesimal radial change of epsilon's smoothly continual radial distribution. And that would definitely “produce” electric “field”. Also, the du / d_mu would “produce” magnetic “field”. So, we would have the stationary energy whirl, which would have “charge”, which would have magnetic “field”, and … gravitation. Namely, the radial decrease of epsilon and of mu would determine … the radially variable “allowed” velocity, that is … the gravitational acceleration. Yes, that would, essentially, be the unified physics. And that it is the unified physics, simple, clear, comprehensible unified physics, one can see here: https colon slash slash independent dot academia dot edu slash ZDimi%C4%87

ok, looks like you don't like the blah blah. Here is the mathematical tool. Instead of considering quaternions, you should consider the "quaternion algebra" over the skew field of quaternions, ie : h =(q1)+(q2)i+(q3)j+(q4)k, where q1, q2,q3,q4 are quaternions.

You have not abandoned the concepts of space and time...and if you have then I declare you a quack...All you have done is changed how they are described by math (which isn't physics). Further, you have misrepresented physics as having "constants". C is not a constant - it is a base variable. The value of C changes from a different frame of reference. A true "constant" would have a set value in all frames of reference. C is derived from the density of ether within a region of space. If Mr. Unzicker would indulge me with his explanation of the mechanical reason why C changes in "pure" space vs air, vs glass, vs diamond I think it would help everyone. But please let it be mechanical and not based on "measurements". Measurements are for verification not for the reason behind the measured thing. I will of course explain why the speed of light changes with 100% logical reasoning. So I have axioms of reality...which are purer than your math because they represent actual reality. 1.) Mass exists 2.) Space exists 3.) Motion exists Using these ideas I can describe anything in the universe. They are axioms or basic truths. Everything else is a derivation of these. Here are some examples: a.) Length - the number of masses (assuming you agree on a standard mass) between two masses. b.) Time - the comparison of one mass's position to another mass. c.) velocity - length / time So what mass should we choose as our base unit? It does not matter. But it should be something that does not change in size. A single ether particle is what I would use. Atoms? Too large and they can change shape etc. I would define length as 1 ether particle max diameter. And yes most likely ether particles are not spherical. My hope is that I can either convince somebody to pursue my theories or make enough money to quit my job and prove them correct myself.

@2:13 sins of omission though? "...we should _only_ analyze achievements of the past..." is one way of framing it, which I think would be detrimental to science. To explicitly say something good maybe, "... one thing we can and should do is analyse achievements of the past."

Once you eliminate space and time, which is the insight in 1) explaining what localizes and eliminates superpositions in large object, i.e. makes them classical 2) where does it comes from randomness and non-linearity (exponential divergence of trajectories) ? 3) which variational principles should be followed by an object at the mesoscale? I don't think this eliminations would solve anything.

To understand the principals behind the workings of Nature is child's play - yet the paragons of intellect do not know this. Why? Because you are being deliberately manipulated to prevent true understanding. Not knowing this conspiracy - not a theory - means that you will forever be stuck at the roundabout of science. To start anew you need to go back to C19 and do your own thinking. It is not hard, I have done it, and I am a taxi driver. Mathematics is not for understanding (chiefly) but for development of technologies. Think dynamics, mechanics and relationships. Ultimately, a theory of everything is impossible in principle because of infinite recursions. But the understanding of Natures simple principles will set you off on an infinite journey of discovery and an ever expanding consciousness. Alas, somebody wants to stop you because of monarchical greed.

Dear Alexander Unzicker, Thank you for this interesting video. Speaking of new visionary ideas and simplifications, I have this: The Theory Of Everything In 7 Plain Sentences 1) I have only one constant which is there are no constants. 2) I have just one force and it works eternally in two directions. 3) This force is binding all atoms and molecules to form all masses. 4) This force provide rotation and orbital motion to everything. 5) This force disperses all formed masses centrifugally away from the centers of formation. 6) All velocity motions in space of formed and dispersed masses only depends on the spacial aerodynamics in the not empty space. 7) I have Newtons 9,81 m/s squared-pull to be a confusion of an overall orbital velocity draft resistance pressure on orbital objects in the not empty space by their simple sizes and orbital velocities. Prediction: All established astrophysicists and cosmologists and their laymen supporters will take this simple explanation to be a huge anomaly. What do you think Mr. Alexander Unzicker? Is it simple enough to your critical scientific taste?

The concept of Space is generally correct, but the idea of "distance" is a totally circular argument, born because of how perceive "Space". From the point of view of the Universe, the Space an be a single point, and the concept of a speed limit on causality (c) is a consequence of the way we perceive things (a separate observer) while there are no real separable objects or units - a isolated observer kills the apparent part of the complex equation, leaving us with the real numbers only. Add to this, Zermelo-Frankel and the theory of sets which is wrong, and yes, you may not recognise a ToE if you see one...

Nice stuff, but forgets that it doesn't explain "the moron in the mirror" problem (the original 'communication' problem)! It's the audience, not the physics that needs the explanation;-) It's worth looking back at the plausibility of the stories ("narratives") that are suggested as to how the various modern laws came to be main stream, such as the story that at the time of Newton, in a God created world, with a place for everything, and everything in it's place, the apple was the one item that could be used to challenge the existing natural order, it didn't fly away. and it didn't stay in the air, but fell straight down (close to the tree), and thus provided the vehicle on which to explain the now popular 'theory' (sic). The number of constants may well be related to how we perceive the 'dimensions' of independent measurement. It's only the three dimensions of length that have a scaling constant of unity. We're gonna need scaling constants for the rest... PS, I'm with you on Quaternions ;-)

I like good ideas of fundamental science. I realized the facts abandoned the space -time and replacing it mathematical structure and group. Physicist had explore space-time as an illusion since Einstein. As nicely coined by you that two constant like two duck in this video going hand in hand ,but both have time derivative since Newton . Impulse is strong action . Limiting velocity a strong change in time. Acceleration the gravity a second order geometry from Newton to Einstein. But the recent two experiments results like anti Hydrogen under gravitation and switching fermion to boson with temperature and reverse as a quantum engine need these mathematical groups under ??? I am burning mid night oil with simple mathematical fundamental and physics . May I see smile on judges pen. Please keep hammering the foundation....

I already wrote about constants 4 years ago, I have noticed that since I was 14 years old Pie) (constants are not just a numbers) , infinity and constants,…..etc How they calculate dimensions, speed,…. etc that was written on closer to truth RU-vid channel, ….. What he is talking about is not new at all, actually what he is talking about has nothing to do with so-called theory of everything!

This period in modern physics will become known as the Age of Dogmatism. Only artificial intelligence will get us out of this age. Theoretical physics is now simply too complex and the field should abandoned so that smart people can do something useful for society. The actual way to judge a physics theory, as I have been saying now for over 10 years, is to estimate its Kolmogorov complexity. In case you are wondering, just because Kolmogorov complexity is uncomputable that doesn't mean we cannot estimate it. Indeed, all of these silly generalizations such as "counting constants" are just very poor estimates of Kolmogorov complexity. Once we have that established the other fact that you are incorrect about is c. It actually turns out that c and alpha and inversely related and BOTH are arbitrary constants but the one constant that generates them is not.

@10:50 but Sciama's formula is empirical, it is not a "calculation". You have to measure the masses. Then whether the sum totals to c² is a matter of empiricism. So by "calculate the constants" do you mean "measure them _or_ get them from pure mathematics and postulates"? Because to me it sounds like that is what you are claiming. But who would disagree with this?

What are numbers ? To me, they are tools. Tools used by "God" to create this beautiful world, and tools used by humans to "play God", to take control of our world. However, in order to understand ourselves and the universe, I believe we need pictures, not numbers. Pictures like the old nordic tree of life, pictures like yinyang. Pictures telling us how active and passive forces are related and pictures of the relationship between an individual/a particle and the society/the environment.

I agree that space and time are not fundamental and can be expressed in terms of vectors, but I do not think that quaternions are general enough, alternatively, I would suggest that geometric algebra is the right tool for the job, as it would encompass more than just vectors, but also scalars, spin, bivectors and trivectors as well.

Have you thought about the possibility that quaternions represent not space-time but the profiles of the object and its substance? That is, for a three-dimensional limiting shape and a plenum?

unzinger, your mic is to close to your mouth!!!! your makeing a FN ASMR video!!!i creeps me out!!! this is your first video that does this!! stop it!..

I am curious about what abandoning space-time as a "thing" in physics implies regarding matter and mass. Newton pretty much postulates matter as well as space and time. Newtonian Mechanics essentially addresses the interactions of mass across space through time. I have also often wondered why space is not simply one dimension.

Space and time are emerged that doesn’t need anyone to think that he discovered that, still too early for understanding reality without space and time (better to do your job „deeper understanding „ instead of running forward by marketing for the unreachable!

What he is saying is incorrect, some constants need interpretation (deep understanding) and just trying to get rid of them is not a solution at all, for instance the purpose of some constants is solving the problem of infinity, ….. gravity constant is other story “more complicated “ !

Very interesting and new revolutionary theories outside the standard model. I am impressed !!!

Love this, thank you. Coming in on the 'visionary idea' level (sounds pompous to me), I have some suggestions. EM only exists between c and 0K, both of which being state change boundary values for spacetime. Particles and radiation are created by the vacuum under stress, at 'temperatures' above 0K. I understand that Wheeler, for one, considered the idea that the vacuum was the source of matter and radiation. I think that the source of any GUT lies within the physical properties of the vacuum, it is the only path to unifying QM with relativity (IMO).

worshipping the past and assuming future advances will come if we repeat methods of the past. first statement you make is niave and false

Are you opposing a real person or you're just speaking to yourself? If the least, please refer the link to the full video.

Space and time are real phenomenon I still occupy the same physical area regardless the number you set to it and experience the same rate of change in a system regardless the number you set to it.

We can't formulate the Theory of Everything because we do not know everything.

Yes there was a lot of hope held for quaternions, but they didn't fulfill this promise, according to Penrose, if my memory is right, they don't have the correct signature for the relativity formula.

Ja diese Ganzheiten sind über Raum-Distanz und Zeit-Vergänglichkeit erhaben und sind in einem körperfreien Ist-Zustand von abstrakt-spiritueller Natur. Sie können ausgedehnte körperlich suggestivistisch einwirkende Strukturen bilden, sind aber nicht existentiell abhängig von diesen. Solche wirken mehr oder weniger verzögernd ein (Distanz) sind aber dauerhaft, kennen kein Vorher und Nachher. Zeit dauert und ist darum eine zweite Eigenschaft jenes sogenannten "Zeit-Begriffs".

You talking about a fantasy. 😂 Physics died long time ago.

Of course, every house is constructed by someone...Heb3.4..11.3

There can only be a theory of the visible universe. The rest is not math, but logic.

Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as posited by Newton's theory and proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor): Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

isnt it pronounced “LEE” in english?

Alexander,' Ich weiss bestimmt dass ich ihnen so etwas angeliefert habe. Nehmen Sie acht auf ihre mailbox von monaten vorher.

Leibniz > Newton

@4:36 Ashtekar sound bite is only true _relative to knowns_ but not absolutely true. If experiments reveal more unexplained phenomena we might have to temporarily introduce more constants. It looks backwards, but is still progress. Interplay of theory and experiment. The nuanced Abhay Ashtekhar quote would be, _"The fewer constants in our theory for the same given phenomena explained indicates progress." - "Yes."

Very nice video. I looked up what #PaCE1 was and realized it's a TOE channel contest submission! 👍 Very cool. Side note. I remember the TOE channel was the channel that brought me to your channel in the first place.

Just a thought;so be polite Could gravity be a part of every single atom of mass? Saying gravity is in the atom makes it electric so gravity is mass do to the atom being electric?

@1:28 "...would you even want to know about it?" [shows picture of hypergraphs]. That was hilarious. Nicely done.

There are two distinct ToEs, the physical and the metaphysical/metaphorical. No ToE can be exhaustively complete. )Δ^∞( ...is the formula for everything outside a mind.

One should know "everything" and a reasonable understanding of the same before proposing a theory of everything and knowing everything is an impossibility!!! Therefore, this mission is impossible!!!

The problem of bringing evidence which does not admit a description by current scientific comprehension / understanding is not confined to the " Plasma cosmologists / Electronic theory of cosmology " proponents. Other still more exotic performance and observation / recording of such phenomena meet with the most egregious resistance not just marginalising and suppression but harm and death. This is due to the side effects, such demonstrations cause side effects which include independent thinking, loss of aggressive behaviour, strong empathic attitude development toward other people and other characteristics which impede and impair commerce.

I have the answer for you, how can I get in contact with you? There are no constants… light is NOT a constant for shure. Light doesn’t even have a speed at all!

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon, 2002/2010. Try to keep up.

When you are standing by a pond at 10:31 it reminds me of another video which exemplifies some chemistry. This should be informative. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5UsRiPOFLjk.html

cryptic description

nice new format with a second speaker! When patreon to support your channel? Or maybe you just provide a crypto public address?