- 14 Mar '03 00:05I ran across this web site a year or so ago. I have read it twice and find it interesting... BUT... I don't have the math skills to know if it might contain some validity... If anyone has time and interest I would appreciate an appraisal of the math contained in this theory...

http://www.rostra.dk/louis/

Thanks - 14 Mar '03 22:30

Mark... I would appreciate any comments as far as the basic structure of Louis Nielsens equations. I enjoy physics and cosmology but other than being able to do the basic algebra, I get lost when the calculus comes along.*Originally posted by royalchicken***Would be happy to give it a try. Thing is, most of the math I have done actual, theoretical work in is analytic number theory, and things not related to physics, so my physics is a bit (read: very) weak.**

If this guy is right then (just a few of many) consequences are:

1 - Louis Nielsen joins Albert Einstein in the history books.

2 - Gravity is the result of "pressure" of "unitons" (unitary mass)

acting because any two masses "mask" each other, causing

apparent "attraction" as per Newton.

3 - The driving force of stars and quasars is fission, not fusion. (I know, I know)

4 - All of the basic forces of nature are united as "gravitaional remnants"

5 - The mass of the universe is the same as at the start. It's expanse is growing and Gravity decreases over time.

6 - Most importantly, if his math is correct, there is a good chance that this is the GUT. (Grand Unified Theory) that Einstein worked on the last 30 years of his life...

Some of the predictions are...

1 - The expansion of the universe should be accelerating.

2 - The orbit of stars in spiral galaxies should be "faster" than expected the further from the center you go. - 14 Mar '03 23:01

I'm way skeptical too! When I first read this, i thought it must be a trick put out by some grad student (like the one they did to the psychologists a few years back) trying to prove the extent of quackery in science. But as it weighed on my mind over six months or so, I went back and actually tracked some of the sources he quoted. Then reread it in full then tried to draw pictures of each aspect. It really is an entire break from the physics we know and love, but it is so ... so... ? "mechanical" is the word that comes to mind. It's like the beginnings of physics coming full circle and rejoining its roots.*Originally posted by royalchicken***It's impressive, I'm skeptical, it's huge, I'll give it a read .** - 14 Mar '03 23:09Mathematics 5000 years ago was more empirical than dishwashing is today. Now, to the greatest extent possible (keeping in mind the Entscheidungsproblem), it is a axiomatized game played with symbols. It is encouraging to see physics go in the same direction. In fact, one of David Hilbert's famous unsolved problems of 1900 was to make physics an axiomatized science. Obviously, nothing remotely approcahing this has been achieved. Very astute of you, btw, to put this in this forum. You should get Acolyte on this one too.
- 15 Mar '03 06:57Woo doggies! Now this is a piece of work. I've got the working scientific knowledge to understand the concepts, BUT I lack the mathmatical fortitude to follow the equations through. Fontunately for us though, I have a mathmatically gifted friend who has agreed to sit down with me and work this through together. Give me a while and I'll get back to you with what we find.
- 15 Mar '03 16:43

That would be great. I think I will start to make an outline of what I think each section implies. (in plain english, of course) That might make it more interesting as I'm sure I have misinterpreted or missed many of the implications... Mike*Originally posted by Omnislash***Woo doggies! Now this is a piece of work. I've got the working scientific knowledge to understand the concepts, BUT I lack the mathmatical fortitude to follow the equations through. Fontunately for us though, I have a mathmatically gifted friend who has agreed to sit down with me and work this through together. Give me a while and I'll get back to you with what we find.** - 15 Mar '03 19:35Nielsen has one fundamental problem so far. He defines a fundamental time unite, and expresses all units of time as integer mulitples of that unit. This implies a discrete-state model of the universe. This is all well and good until he starts treating time like a continuous variable in his differential equation:

1/G dG/dt = -1/3 1/t - 15 Mar '03 20:24

a ha... He must start as an integer model or he can't achive quanta or unitary increase... is there no "resolution" mathematically from the unitary to the real set of numbers following the integration? This is what I was afraid of, but I couldn't put it into words. If not then he can't justify using the resultant as a "next input"? (i am making up the terms as i go so correct my terms if i mess them up)*Originally posted by royalchicken***Nielsen has one fundamental problem so far. He defines a fundamental time unite, and expresses all units of time as integer mulitples of that unit. This implies a discrete-state model of the universe. This is all well and good until he starts treating time like a continuous variable in his differential equation:**

1/G dG/dt = -1/3 1/t

3.11 is the specific you refer to.

3.12, 3.13 seem to lead only to his prediction of the age of the universe given in 3.14. ... In 3.14 he concedes the result as "approximate". It doesn't seem that 3.11 is required of the theory other than to support his claim for the age of the universe.

He gave priori definition to big T at 3.7 ... 3.11 seems to be a diversion to an instance of T, specifically T now... or age of universe...

With that said, does the entire theory fail if not 3.11? I don't know. - 15 Mar '03 21:35I know. It's like when I was breaking away from mormonism... I felt like a heritic. Reading Nielsens paper made me feel the same way. That is also probably why it facinated me and brought me back to it time and again. The good news is that it probably has some real fatal flaws. Otherwise one would think it would have been accepted by main stream science. It has been out there for seven years now. I have yet to even hear a mention of it in Scientific American and/or Nature, both of which i pay attention to. But... It is heresy and I am reminded of the rifle at the start of the civil war... the government had two fully modern cartridge loading models, the Henry (later winchester) and another ( the name skips me) that was actually in production and under contract by the Union Army. They were stalled and not ordered as standard issue because the generals "knew" that the soldiers would "waste ammunition" at prodigious rates if they were allowed to shoot sixty rounds per minute instead of three. The point is, Nielsen is calling into question the greatest set of science of all time, (relativity) and knowing human nature, I dare say that whatever replaces it will take at least fifty years to accomplish it. Maybe Nielsen is it... and maybe not.
- 16 Mar '03 01:24This post contains MAJOR CLAIMS OF NIELSENS THEORY...

1 - There exist real smallest units of Length,Time and Mass (quanta) which makes integer math possible on the entire set.

2 - Everything in the universe transpires as a function of simple unitary (quantum) increase in it's expanse in length and time.

3 - The first law is entropy; all must devolve from higher states of organization to a lower states in unitary stages. (quanta)

4 - The second law to materialize was gravitation and it must obey entropy.

5 - The universe began as an "Embryoton" whose mass,length and time were unitary and allow algebraic equality with the universe now.

7 - The Embryoton "unfolded" in unitary or quantum steps.

8 - Describing the Universe... At each unitary step... total mass is unchanged, expanse increases, time increases and gravty decreases. (The immediate inference of totally unchanging mass is the elimination of internally created "many universes". They would need to be comprised of something, and "everything" is defacto universe. ipso facto, no more somethings, except as ORIGINATING FROM OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE. It's a closed system thing. Mike)

9 - There is a untary mass called a "Uniton" that exherts volume pressure inverse to the extent of the universe. Gravity is thus the uneven pressure caused by ANY TWO MASSES MASKING THE OTHER FROM UNITON PRESSURE. Envision it as any two objects each in the "unitonic shadow" of each other. As their separation decreases, they shade more and more of each other, and at some point they will inevitably collide because the unitonic pressure on "unshaded" sides pushes them together. This is a quantum (unitary) explanation of Newtons force of gravity, yet is still entirely mechanical in it's implementation! (It is also heavily tied up in "dark" energy and matter in the form of "extremely large nucleonic" pockets of stuff.)

10 - That the periodic chart of elements is actually a reverse order diagram. "Original" (or first) elements consist of extremely large mass nuclei, and in accordance with the first law (entropy) , these heavy nuclei have fissioned out to our current state. A consequence is that at the center of each star is an embryonic "super" nucleus that is still devolving through fission... which gives way to an iron layer and to a fusion layer. The fusion layer is basically the "burning of ash" from the entire process! (at this point is where I just about choked at first go)11 - The smallest length and time units are Lorentz invariant (dependent upon reference frame?) thus allowing the claim that they are descriptions of not a "particular" length or "time-expanse", but are descriptions of their "physical smallest uncertainties". (this gives me a headache) What I think he means is that in general the smallest units of length and time appear uniformly identical from all points within the universe to all observers.

12 - He arrives at the statement that as length and time (of the universe) "tick up", assuming constant mass,invariant electron charge, plancks constant and the invariant speed of light, the only value that can change is G or gravity! As the universe expands, gravity becomes less and less.

These are just the things I noticed in the introduction! My brain is tired for now. Mike