digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

New Unified Force Theory Predicts Measured Values Of Physics

eurekalert.org — David Thomson and Jim Bourassa of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute (QADI) released a new theory which mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision. Their Aether Physics Model includes the "Holy Grail" of physics sought by Albert Einstein; the Unified Force Theory.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • EasySt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nice read, but they show up as "Cranky" on Crank Dot Net...

    http://www.crank.net/aether.html
    • jfengel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wonder why they were only rated "cranky" rather than "crankier". It's not the worst I've read, like the timecube gibberish. But it's got all the markers for crankiness: blaming the old orthodoxy, attempts to match the style and form of scientific research but failing, pride in lacking education, overblown self-assigned credentials, putting themselves front-and-center (i.e. making it personal rather than objective), math limited to the high-school level.
    • volantis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let me see if I get this straight. Someone posts a link from a site they call crank.net, and that means the theory is no good? Are there any scientists here? Can someone show an actual error in the math or constants used? I hear all this mindless ranting, but there is not one iota of substance in all this talk.
  • glooper23, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Wait does e still = mc squared or what.
  • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Bad link? Says page missing.
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29"aether"?
    Quickly, re-vulcanize my tyres, I have to be aboard the 5 o'clock auto-gyro to the Prussian consulate in Siam.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Someone clue me in here...
    • alienz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I do believe it's a Mr. Burns from the Simpsons quote. Or rough estimate.
    • thegline, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That comment had me laughing harder than anything I've seen all day.
  • whovian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Eureka instantly got dugg.

    Yahoo link
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060605/phm007.html?.v=46
  • Sarev0k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Here's the text from the article

    GILBERTS, Ill., June 5 /PRNewswire/ -- David Thomson and Jim Bourassa of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute (QADI) released a new theory which mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision. Their Aether Physics Model includes the "Holy Grail" of physics sought by Albert Einstein: the Unified Force Theory. "Our model shows the forces are unified by a simple set of general laws explainable as the fabric of space-time itself, which is a dynamic, quantum-scale Aether," said Bourassa.

    In February 2002, Thomson was observing a peculiar setup of a Tesla coil and noticed what appeared to be two distinctly different manifestations of charges. Not finding an adequate explanation for why charge should take on two different forms, Thomson decided to re-examine the foundations of quantum physics. Within three weeks, he discovered the simple, empirically based equations, which produce the Unified Force Theory. "This new model of quantum existence does not change the laws of Quantum Mechanics, it merely changes our view of quantum structure," Thomson said.

    "I placed an ad on my website for someone to develop the mathematics for a Unified Field Theory based upon the Aether," said Bourassa. "David said he not only could do it, but already had." Since then, they joined together to form QADI, a registered 501(c)3 non-profit research organization devoted to the development and dissemination of the Aether Physics Model, published Secrets of the Aether, a book about the theory, and released a new white paper that summarizes the theory, A New Foundation for Physics, which is available online at http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf.

    Infinite Energy Magazine will be publishing the white paper this fall. "We just received our first acknowledgement," said Thomson. "Because we are self- educated and this revolutionary discovery about the mathematics and geometry of the space-time fabric is not coming from a well-known scientific organization, it has been slow to gain acceptance, despite the stunning results the theory produces," he continued. The fabric of space-time Thomson refers to is the ubiquitous Aether, long discarded by modern science. According to Albert Einstein's Special Relativity theory, there cannot be a rigid Aether, as envisioned by Albert Michelson. However, Thomson and Bourassa's quantified Aether is fluid, as recently proposed in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American by Theodore Jacobson and Renaud Parentani.

    Besides the Unified Force Theory, QADI has also developed the foundation for an atomic binding energy equation, an electron binding energy equation, a conductance constant, fine structure constants for the proton and neutron, and geometrical models for photons, subatomic particles, and quantum units of space-time. These are significant accomplishments, and should be receiving close attention from scientists and researchers. The theory is testable, coherent, mathematically derived, empirically based, and uses easy-to- understand Newtonian equations.

    Along with providing more precise values for the Strong Nuclear Charge and Weak Nuclear Relationship, three other measurements where they predict a slightly different value than the Standard Model are in the Casimir equation, the neutron magnetic moment, and neutron g-factor. More accurate experiments should confirm which values are correct, which could verify the validity of the Aether Physics Model.

    For additional information about the Aether Physics Model, contact Jim Bourassa or visit http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com. Science editors can use the white paper, A New Foundation for Physics, as a basis for an article. High-resolution graphics are available from QADI.
    • emiles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahahaha give me a break.

      Looking at a Tesla coil observed new types of charges? How? What are they? This isn't science at all.
  • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9 I don't think that serious physicists usually issue 'press releases' to announce a serious discovery, but I haven't read the paper yet so I can't dismiss it YET.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3there are quite a few theories that come up with acurate measurements.. it just takes scienctists alot longe to accept things than a lot of people think. This is intersting but has a long long way to gt to displace einstein.
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8 Ok. Read their website, and their krappy PDF. I can now state that without a doubt they are crackpots, and not even very convincing ones.

      Their math is full of magic numbers that they just pull out of their ass to make the equations work.
    • drigz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

      if you want to have a look.
    • volantis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am the primary author of the theory. Can you give us an example of "Their math is full of magic numbers that they just pull out of their ass to make the equations work." PhD physicists have read this theory and found all the math was accurate, as was the data used to develop the theory. If you can provide an example of something that was made up, please share it.
    • PAStheLoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1first of all, what is this (a*c)/b = Gforce .. then (a*c)/(b*Gforce) = 1 thing is useful for?

      it's always true, and it doesn't explain why Gforce is subjective .. and what's up with these names like AETHER and Gforce.. with these names even Einstein have been considered a crackpot, period.
  • Fantt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This is just a press release! I could issue a press release claiming that I'd discovered a B-52 bomber on the moon inhabited by angels and the X-Men. I don't see the connection between these guys and a credible university either... Sounds really fishy to me.
  • KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1for those of you who are a little more physics savvy than me, how does this jive with string theory; does it support it or just the opposite?
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2string theory has no eather
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It doesn't do anything... it's a bunch of rambling, incoherent "equations". There is no theory here. Real physicists produce peer-reviewed papers, not press-releases.
    • drigz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To date, string 'theory' and real life don't have much to do with each other. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with string theory, just that (as is widely acknowledged) it still has a long way to go.
    • opti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0stealthboy,

      The question was "how does this jive with string theory," not "what is string theory."
  • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Because we are self- educated and this revolutionary discovery about the mathematics and geometry of the space-time fabric is not coming from a well-known scientific organization, it has been slow to gain acceptance, despite the stunning results the theory produces"

    Duh. This is all bunk. There are even random factors they have to throw in, but they explain them as "likely caused by the space characteristic of Aether". Right. These guys need to go take some college courses on mathematics and physics. Just perusing some of their pages on their site I can tell they're at about a 9-th grade level.
  • kettlehead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9crackpot pseudo-science. how is this on the front page?
    • swizzcheez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"crackpot pseudo-science. how is this on the front page?"

      As far as I'm concerned, crackpot pseudo-science is perfectly fine for the front page if for no better reason than to educate everyone (myself included sometimes) on its merits or lack thereof. As long as it's _new_ crackpot pseudo-science, it's still news to me!
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12These people set off my "crackpot physics" alarm.

    From their website: " As self-educated amateurs interested in quantum physics, David Thomson and I have independently arrived at the same three conclusions" eventually follows up with "Click on the Buy Now button to purchase Secrets of the Aether." (http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/intro.html)

    Now, these guys are admittedly much, MUCH smarter than I am. But their whole website just reeks of this being an interesting amateur theory that won't hold up in the peer review process.
    • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9People who believe Elvis is still alive also independently arrive at the same conclusion.
    • fingermouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4> ... their whole website just reeks of this being an interesting amateur theory that won't hold up in the peer review process

      And then they'll complain that the peer review process is 'broken' becuase it won't allow crackpot claims such as theirs to be published. Go figure.
  • Fantt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"Infinite Energy Magazine will be publishing the white paper this fall."

    'nuff said?
  • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The Unified Force Theory that I remember from childhood:

    The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

    I don't know if it's true. As far as I'm concerned, there's no all-powerful force controlling my destiny. That might be a different force than what Al was looking for.
  • Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's coming from crank.net whose tagline is "cranks, crackpots, kooks and loons on the net." I think that says a wee bit about things.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I dont belive in the aether theory, i feel morlesy successfully disroved it but that isnt to say this is all crack pot science with no supporters. The bohr theory of the universe depends on an aether and is easier to belive than einstein but that doesnt make it true but it does have alot of supporters.

    With an aether, light doesnt go at a constant speed. With einstein, one guy in a car and one guy on the side of the road both measure the light coming from the headlights as C, even though this seams to be counter intuitive. Bohr says The car should measure light at C and guy on side of road should measure light as C + speed of car. just the effects of an aether makes it apear to be C to both observers.
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Umm... the special theory of relativity has been proven many, many times. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their velocities. I know, this theory has only been around for 100 years. Give it time for acceptance, right?
  • Moly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If they understand quantum theory well enough to know that their model is consistent with (most of) it then they are probably not (complete) crackpots. The argument that tossing in random factors (i.e. not yet understood alpha and beta errors) does not discount the rest of the work...yet. After all, what are Dark Matter and Dark Energy? They are constructs invented to explain alpha and beta errors. Most of science, especially chemistry and physics, are not exact, regardless of how much F=mA kool-aid you drink. The whole precept of Schrodinger's cat, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle exist to fill in...alpha and beta error.
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There is a certain neutrino flavor that was *very* recently measured to have a small mass. This is confirming some thoughts about the "dark" matter in the universe.

      > "The whole precept of Schrodinger's cat, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle exist to fill in...alpha and beta error."

      Ummm, no actually. The whole point is that certain physical values cannot be measured to the same precision because of a fundamental construction of nature. It's not just to explain holes or errors. If that's your conclusion then you need to read up on it again.
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@MikeyTheK
      I like to think that I'm open mided, and I gave them a fair shot, but this thing is a load of garbage. Read the linked PDF. It's awful make believe stuff.

      They invented a theory that they liked, and then fudged the math to make it fit. It's just not good science.
    • emiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What the hell is alpha and beta error?
  • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Cranks, quacks, kooks and charlatans.... No dig!

    That name is what got me first... and then their 'mission statement':

    "We will provide an environment for the Aether Physics Model to grow by supplying books and training, a laboratory, and an open knowledge database website. We believe the Aether Physics Model provides key solutions to physics including a Unified Force Theory, which will lead to breakthroughs in all branches of science. We also believe that establishing the Aether Physics Model as the foundation of universal knowledge will increase world harmony and human development, by creating a bridge between science and spirituality."

    Very bogus and suspiciously cranky sounding. Not 'main stream science' at all. More like Voodoo new age psychobabble, that appears only to have been designed bemuse and beguile the scientifically uniformed.

    Sill it's a nice demonstration of how easily some people can be hoodwinked into believing in anything, if the language can in some way sound convincing - even if what is actually being said is ultimately all but meaningless.

    In conclusion it seems that the people who printed this article have got two similar terms confused, as in 'ether' and 'aether' - because clearly rather than study the later, ir appears clear that they have spent large quantities of their time studying (and probably sniffing) the former.

    GJ
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dammit, if I could only have had a few minutes more editing time that might even have been a good joke...
  • Mohonri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7For everyone who thinks this is a crock, please feel free to report the story as "inaccurate" or "ok, this is lame"
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It isn't just a 'crock of crap', it is a veritable lake full of it. But at least its amusing...

      GJ
  • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did anyone else notice their explanation of how a Crookes radiometer works? Ridiculous. If they'd just read wikipedia they could have saved us all a load of wasted time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
    • jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, the wikipedia entry leaves some questions ...

      Enter the crackpots!
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Yes, but it doesn't leave any question about whether or not they work in a vacuum. They don't, but in the Aether universe the vanes would spin in a vacuum due to the way they calculate the radiation pressure of light on the vanes.
  • wnysteel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"David Thomson and Jim Bourassa of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute (QADI) released a new theory which mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision"

    isn't the answer still 42?
  • gh02t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is kinda fishy
  • thegline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Scientists" that put out press releases instead of peer-reviewed research? Thanks, I'll pass.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Word to the cranks--don't name your theory after obsolete scientific paradigms like "aether" or "phlogiston".
    • volantis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Word to the cranks--don't name your theory after obsolete scientific paradigms like "aether" or "phlogiston". "

      A word to true scientists, don't worry about popular opinion, describe nature exactly as it appears. In case you didn't read the whole press release, we're not the only researchers bringing back the Aether. Two university physics professors wrote an article for Scientific American last December that seeks to bring back the Aether. These university, PhD physicists couldn't get their ideas published in the peer reviewed journals either, and also resorted to using the popular press to get their message out.
    • PAStheLoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1very strange .. how come they can't get through the peer review process? Maybe the whole scientific community is jealous? Or what? Isn't that an alternative explanation, that they are just trying to collect the necessary credit for publishing, to not to be thrown out of their universities?
  • RealScientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It seems to me that all of you that are making these comments need a lesson in the scientific method.

    Here it goes... The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

    This press release clearly follows these steps, and calls for validation: "More accurate experiments should confirm which values are correct, which could verify the validity of the Aether Physics Model."

    Now, stop your masturbating, I think your mom is calling you...
  • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Scientific discoveries are not made in pres releases - no more than they are made by lone cranks posting their inane ravings on Internet forums.
  • SuperFluid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you RealScientist for the helpful perspective. It really chaps my hind end to hear off the cuff rants and insults about a theory without any insight into the specifics of the thing.

    When I was in college, we had to conduct Meta research to compare and contrast what was being published on some area of interest to the class at hand. This was a great exercise for us as students because we learned that opinions very in spite of how fixed the data on hand. This is obviously what Volantis has done in his paper. He looked closely at the known observations and measurements of physics and was provoked along an utterly unique line of reasoning about what these facts were telling him about the underlying reality of the universe.

    Frankly, I see nothing “wrong” in this paper. It’s a bit hard to wrap the imagination around because we are so conditioned to think about the data within the constructs of a single model (even though we must evoke all sorts of patch jobs to that theory in order to explain why observations do not match the theory). We pontificate all manner of illusionary solutions to salvage SRT (because it does such a good job with so many other predictions, we feel compelled to do so), what fault can we find with the APM by comparison? It has simply corrected a few minor concepts (mass as energy, versus mass as inertia, etc. . .) much of which has already been suggested by other great physicists.

    In as much as introducing new terms (like on, onta, etc. . .) causes your gut to wrench a bit, it does help clear up some confusion (since familiar terms like “mass” carry specific assumptions that his model demonstrates were incorrect assumptions to make), I can see where some will simply fold the paper and round file it. I remember the days when New Math was introduced into grade school. Parents and children alike revolted over learning new symbols to communicate relationships when we already had perfectly workable symbols well learnt. The resistance won out, even though the new math would have prepared many more students to think symbolically, a necessary ability to scientific modeling. We shoot ourselves in the foot as a society when we prefer comfort zones to stretching ourselves into the unfamiliar.
  • EasySt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nature still holds secrets and wonders for us to unravel. Remarkable discoveries are sometimes made by people who aren't "Educated" enough to "Know" why something shouldn't work.

    A Theory has as its chief value, its ability to predict the outcome of an experiment.

    Even a "crackpot" theory deserves further investigation if it can demonstrate a better accuracy / ability to predict the outcome of an experiment than existing theories.

    I don't know if this particular theory is one of those "Remarkable discoveries", however, I do hope for "Real" scientists to maintain open minds enough to allow them to peruse the occasional "crackpot theory" and test the occasional experiment that wild claims are made for.

    They might just accidentally get lucky and refine a crackpot theory into a working one and give us something cool, like anti-gravity or "free" energy.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.