The Final Theory Of Physics
To receive automatic notification of changes to my sites Please click here https://www.angelfire.com/nb/offarex/NotificationOfChanges.htm and look in the top right hand corner of that page. It has a special link where you can give your email address to receive notification from angelfire.com when I put more information about changes on that page. I have another site which should give notification of changes in the same way. Please copy this address into your address window: http://offarex.tripod.com/NotificationOfChanges.htm and look for the link in the top right-hand corner.
February 2002
To introduce the Final Theory I will begin by asking some questions which the theory must answer and continue with a short overview of the main theories of physics which, when the Final Theory is described, will be parts of it.
Why, if protons are believed to be made of constituents with fractional charge, is the total charge precisely equal in magnitude to the charge of an electon yet the latter is believed to be indivisible? Experiments in recent years showing fractional charge effects with electrons did not convince people that there is anything wrong with the understanding of the electron as fundamentally unitary in its charge.
Experimental work shows that particles can only contain multiples of half units or whole units of angular momentum. Why is this?
The current belief in the neutron and proton as being made of fractionally charged constituents portrays them as essentially similar, as far as is understood under that description. Why then does the neutron have a half-life of a few minutes whereas the proton has absolutley no known mode of decay?
Few philosophers seem to have anything very memorable to say about physics but I have thought quite a lot about Karl Popper's idea that, to be considered scientific, explanations need to be, at least in principle, disprovable. More recently I have wondered whether that requirement could apply to the Final Theory of Physics. If it truly is the Final Theory then, of course, it can never be disproved. But if its finality is in question then the matter of possible disproof has arisen. Could a theory of the Universe be found which is obviously unsurpassable? It seems to me a matter of form that keeps people using the word, theory, for atomic theory because we know for sure that atoms exist. Could the Final Theory of Physics be more certain even than that?
It was hoped by some that all of physics could eventually be reduced to a small number of variables in a mathematical space with a manageable number of dimensions. Then mathematics would predict everything observable in the Universe using a master function. It is now believed that there are an infinite number of possible systems of mathematics. So it need not be expected that mathematics could be used to predict the form of the Final Theory.
The great power of mathematics is in generating patterns which may or may not apply to the observable Universe and physicists adapt those patterns to describe real situations. It is a feature of quantum mechanics that the Schroedinger equation cannot be used to predict molecular structure but when the structure has been determined it can be shown that the equation applies. So, first a model of the way the Universe works is required. That model may be described as a qualitative representation or theory of the Universe and then mathematics would be expected to be able to generate patterns which give the theory greater predictive power.
To increase the discipline within the body of people studying physics, physicists early on in the development of quantum theory took a very strict line with what can be made of experimental data and it has long been a fundamental principle that nothing can be considered as real unless there is observation of it. That was an important factor in the eventual adoption of Einstein's theory of relativity which is based on the principle that, because light cannot ever be observed to have any other speed than c in a vacuum when observed from an inertial frame of reference, then the speed of light is invariant when it is measured in such a frame. That seemed to render it unnecessary to try and explain observations in terms of an aether which in turn made people tend to believe that there is no inherent structure to the Universe.
The very hard principle of observability leads to the approach to quantum experiments concerning a pair of particles or photons having zero total angular momentum and having come from one event, which are said to be entangled. Since neither can be said to have any definite angular momentum, under the observability principle, until an experiment has been done to determine it, then it is taken that neither has anything within it that would pre-determine what the result of a detection experiment would be. Following on from this, since the total angular momentum of the Universe must be taken to be a constant and therefore the total of the two particles or photons must remain zero, then when a detection experiment fixes one angular momentum value it must also fix the other one. That is, they are entangled, not independent of each other. The two particles may be travelling in opposite directions and since the total angular momentum must remain the same for all time, the observability principle requires that a detection experiment on one particle must fix the value of the other simultaneously even if the pair have been in flight for a very long time. So, the observability principle requires that the two particles or photons could, in principle, remain linked in some way for periods of time up to billions of years.
In accepting the principle that nothing is pre-determined about particles, physicists have been forced to accept that particles could be linked by an invisible force which acts instantaneously over billions of light years, which seems impossible. Furthermore, it cannot be proven that the principle is correct. A detection experiment on the second member of the pair only shows that its angular momentum is opposite to that of the first, not whether its value was pre-determined at the point of origin. It would be satisfying to achieve a description of the Universe where the very hard observability principle would be found to be unnecessary. Then it would be acceptable to physicists to think in terms of a wave travelling through space having within it a definite amount of angular momentum which is there somehow whether a detection experiment is carried out on it or not. It is worth adding that no detection experiment ever proves anything about an individual particle and when detection is made of a particle which can only realistically be a proton, for example, the result of the detection may indicate that it was an antiproton. Neither do the pair of detections prove anything about a pair of particles or photons. Such experiments rely on statistical treatments of large numbers of particles. So it seems reasonable that the properties of particles may be pre-determined without any proof or disproof of it being possible. The Final Theory may illuminate this state of affairs.
Einstein's theory of relativity must be accepted as correct up to the current limits of experimental accuracy and it is based on the fundamental principle that the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference. The speed of light is the same in any inertial frame of reference, which helped to condition peoples thinking with regard to particle physics, as I mentioned above. Another fundamental precept is that the Universe is describable by a 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold which is transformed by the presence of mass/energy. So the Final Theory of Physics must be consistent with these requirements. Whatever the fundamental properties of matter are, they transform the manifold in the way predicted but it has not been shown exactly why such a manifold applies to the Universe and so to date it has not been satisfactorily explained how massive objects attract one another. Furthermore, in the ordinary sphere of human experience, velocities are additive quantities and velocities of particles are additive in relativity theory and are computable using the Lorentz transformations. However, the speed of light is not an additive quantity. Its constancy is a fundamental fact upon which Einstein's general theory concerning Riemannian manifolds is based and without a satisfactory explanation of its constancy, that is, why the Lorentz transformations apply, the Final Theory of Physics would be incomplete.
The theory needs also to apply to the known features of the Universe on the largest scales.
The Final Theory of Physics, therefore, needs to provide a satisfactory basis for relativity, quantum mechanics, known elementary particles, it must explain the constancy of the speed of light, the effect on the Riemannian manifold of mass and the fact that the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame of reference which may require account of the reasons for the four known forces of physics. It must also predict the origins of the Universe as far as there can be experimental evidence. These may easily seem to be daunting tasks and it may help anyone so interested as to try to develop such a theory to consider that simple facts often have simple explanations underlying them even though when applied to real situations the mathematical structures rapidly become very complicated. My work on the Final Theory has been guided by this observation over the last 15 years or more and it helped me to believe that I could make a contribution to this field, or even develop the Final Theory in some form even though the complexity of the mathematical structures used by physicists often makes them difficult.
Over the years I have had some valuable ideas some of which are important in modern physics and astronomy and they include segmented-mirror telescopes and laser guide-stars and mirrors deformable using the piezzo-electric effect to overcome problems with atmospheric instabilities. Also I thought of laser-powered fusion research, what became known as lidar, acceleration of particles using circular polarised radiation and other interesting things. Still, I was not confident that I could go on to produce the Final Theory, though I was always motivated by a desire to achieve an understanding of the way the world works.
Copyright©2002Andrew Burbidge
andrew_burbidge@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/andrewburbidge Offa & Arthur
http://www.offa.50megs.com/ Miscellaneous
www.stormpages.com/offarex Pictures
http://www.offarex.tripod.com/cgi-bin (Paste in.) Pictures
https://www.angelfire.com/nb/offarex Science & Pictures
http://offa.iuma.com/ Music
