: One of my classmates once asked me, why is this website called " Theory of Analytical Space-Time " and why is it not named "Unified Theory of Physics"?
: This website was created in 1999 under the name "Theory of Analytical Space-Time", which has not changed since then. Everyone gets used to this name and it is not good to change it.
: Can you tell me about how many people have visited the site since it was built?
: There have been over a million hits on the home page, but it is impossible to count the number of repeat clicks.
: Theory of Analytical Space-Time has become a proper name, don't change it.
: Some people have claimed that Silong's paper was the most significant challenge to current physical theories, overturning the theory of relativity.
: I disagree with this assertion. On the contrary, Silong's work has strengthened the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. To say that the challenge is to challenge our way of thinking and our research orientation.
: Unification and overturning are two completely different concepts. Overturning at every turn will not be recognized. The unified theory of physics must be compatible and coordinated with the existing physical theories and explain the known physical phenomena without conflict. This is the most important and crucial principle for examining the paradigm of a unified physical theory.
There are currently two most likely ways to unify physics:
The first is to find a common framework for reconciling relativity and quantum mechanics. For more than 40 years, a group of the brightest physicists and mathematicians has been working on superstring theory, building a framework in ten dimensions or more, with no results in sight.
The second is to find the fundamental principles they share as the common root of relativity and quantum mechanics. Some have tried this path before, but gave up because it seems impossible to find principles that are compatible with both certainty and uncertainty. At present, this line of inquiry has been all but abandoned and is not in the spotlight.
The unification of physics has not been achieved along a crowded or unanimously favored path, but has emerged in a way that was not expected, in a neglected or unnoticed place.
: A new physical theory can reinterpret known physical phenomena and reconcile the contradictions or paradoxes of the existing theories.
: The principles of a new theory should be simpler and more widely applicable. The simpler the concept, the broader it reaches and the deeper it means. Such a theory is alive.
The basic principles of physics arise from natural phenomena and must be supported by experimental data, otherwise they are meaningless, and these data must be summarized and expressed by mathematical relations.
The principles of physics must be questioned from the day they are established, and they must be falsifiable, otherwise they become religious doctrine or metaphysics. It is impossible to judge the rightness or wrongness of a principle by theoretical denial, but it is possible to deny it with experimental data from its deductions and main conclusions, etc., or to limit its scope of application.
There are two directions in the study of physics; the vast majority of researchers go upward, from simplicity to complexity in depth. The other direction is to go back to the roots, from complexity to simplicity. Experts in the unification of physics should be the latter. Unfortunately, both academics and physics enthusiasts have long been accustomed to seeing the solution of complex problems as the direction of the unification of physics, and how to work in the wrong direction does not go. Therefore, for nearly a hundred years, the final step of physics through the portal of the universe cannot be taken.
: I got some emails asking me about two postulates or principles in Silong’s paper. Most readers will ask: Where were these two postulates or principles originated? Is there an empirical basis? Are they scientifically verified?
: In Silong’s paper, there are two postulates as principles: (I) the principle of space-time deflection and (II) the principle of space-time area invariance. These two principles are the core of the paper and the starting point, from which all inferences and conclusions are derived.
: This is the main topic of our conversation as well.
: Principle (I) comes from an astronomical phenomenon --- light aberration. This phenomenon, discovered almost 300 years ago, is directly related to the speed and direction of the earth's orbit around the sun. Therefore, the experimental data of principle (I) is solid and firm, and a large number of astronomical observations are based on it. Since relative motion is accompanied by visual deflection, we naturally consider whether the space-time frame is deflected along with the relative motion. We then boldly take it as a postulate and use it as the source and basis for Principle (I). For more details on light aberration, see Wikipedia Astronomical constants.
Principle (II) comes from the formula for the effects of time dilation and length contraction in special relativity. So, if we assume that the space-time area (product of time and length) is constant under space-time deflection, then we take this postulate as principle (II). The effect of time dilation and length contraction has also been proven by countless experiments over decades without falsification.
: The two principles proposed in Silong’s paper are based on experiments and solid sources. If these two principles were denied, then three hundred years of astronomical observations and experimental tests of relativity would be overturned and rewritten, and the foundations of modern physics would be shaken, which is obviously impossible.
: From these two principles, many convincing conclusions have been drawn, for example, the new planetary precession formula derived in Silong’s paper shows that this proves correct and consistent with the observations. This planetary precession formula, the second similar formula to appear since Einstein's general theory of relativity, is derived with completely a different idea and method.
: It is a theoretical formula, not an empirical one.
: I will talk about how to identify the true and false physical unification theory, or grand unification theory, or theory of everything. Some people claim to have developed the Grand Unified Theory, but we should have criteria for judging its truth or falsity:
The grand unified theory of physics or the so-called ultimate theory must have the following characteristics:
1. Simple underlying principles that imply symmetry and beauty. They have not only physical meaning but also mathematical expressions;
2. Compatibility with existing major physical theories and no conflict with existing experiments;
3. New interpretations to resolve the contradictions and paradoxes of existing theories and to reveal what lies behind Schrödinger's equation and strange quantum phenomena;
4. Unification of the four forces;
5. Addressing the fundamental questions of consciousness & existence, subjectivity & objectivity, etc;
6. Can be understood and discussed by scientists, philosophers and ordinary people.
: The unification of physics is not the overthrow of existing theories, but the establishment of common ground and the reconciliation of existing theories. The point is simply to take the final step toward the ultimate theory, where all the results of the existing theories still exist and are valid, not to start the previous work all over again.
:Some readers think that since it is a grand unified theory of physics, it should address the questions behind some physical phenomena together. For example, why is the refractive index of water 1.333 and not some other value? Why does a certain kind of gunpowder of fireworks burn green and not some other color? And what is the relationship between some fundamental constants of physics? What is the microscopic mechanism of a catalyst? Why do substances have phases and the transitions between them? What is the internal structure of the fundamental particles? The most difficult question may also be: What is the physical process of cell division? The answer is: it is someone else's business to study and solve these problems. It is true that those questions are not within the expertise of a person who deals with the basic principles of physics.
: That's right, Jinkai. I can think of a thousand similar questions. The current unified theory is in its infancy, the founder of the unified theory has only laid the foundation at the level of fundamental principles, the subsequent refinement and development will be long-term and a joint task of the scientific community. Do not expect that a few people can take all the achievements of the Unified Theory for themselves while everyone else stands by and watches. A few people are not that competent and morally unnecessary. How can you steal someone else's job when it is not your expertise in the first place?
: The founder of the unification theory is not obliged, nor is he able, to take everything on.
A little child asks the hardest questions. My grandson asked me why he could see through the glass but not through the wood door.
Key Words: paradigm, postulates