-
Email An Imagineer
Blog Search
Loading...Today’s scientists can make extremely accurate quantitative predictions of most experimental observations based on two theories. The first or Quantum Mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions regarding the microscopic quantum properties of mass and energy while the second, the "General Theory of Relativity" makes extremely accurate predictions regarding the macroscopic properties of a gravitational field.
However, these two theories appear to be incompatible because when one tries to mathematically integrate quantum theories predictions that mass and gravity are discontinuous or quantized into the continuous properties the General Theories of Relativity associate with gravity, infinities arise.
This is true even though many of the brightest minds in the scientific community have spent the last century trying to find a "The Theory of Everything" a way to integrate them.
Their lack of success is somewhat puzzling when you stop and think about the board scope and sophistication of our experimental data, knowledge, and the ability of computers to help analyze data.
However, John Wheeler may have given us an answer when he pointed out in his book "At home in the universe" that most of the great advances made throughout history have been made by those who "Seek a Wider View".
My farther put it another way, "Sometimes you cannot see the forest because of the trees." In other words if you are looking for a forest you will never find it if you focus your attention only on one tree.
Most scientists have focused on integrating the observed properties of gravity into the presently accepted quantum theories to define a "Theory of Everything". The reason may be that quantum theories can explain and predict a wider range of observations regarding properties of mass and energy than relativistic theories they feel it must define the fundamental causality for the laws of nature.
However, could our lack of success in finding a "Theory of Everything" be because scientists are so focus on interpreting observations based on a quantum mechanical "tree" that we cannot see the "forest" of observational evidence that suggest that the fundamental component of mass and energy may not be quantum mechanical.
We have and will show in "The Imagineer’s Chronicles" one could define a “Theory of Everything” if one assumes that the fundamental component of mass, energy and gravity is related to a continuous not a quantum property of space.
We are not asking your blind acceptance of our interpretations of observational data we have and will be giving here but we are asking you to take a "Wider View" and focus on the "forest" instead of the individual "trees" in that forest.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright 2007 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
One afternoon, I was in the backyard hanging the laundry when an old, tired-looking dog wandered into the yard. I could tell from his collar and well-fed belly that he had a home. But when I walked into the house, he followed me, sauntered down the hall and fell asleep in a corner. An hour later, he went to the door, and I let him out. The next day he was back. He resumed his position in the hallway and slept for an hour.
This continued for several weeks. Curious, I pinned a note to his collar: “Every afternoon your dog comes to my house for a nap. ”
The next day he arrived with a different note pinned to his collar: “He lives in a home with ten children – he’s trying to catch up on his sleep.”
I cried from laughter
Sorry, if not left a message on Rules.
mm.. amazing.