The final theory...

[spikenigma]

Dear All,

was just reading

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/2/index.htm

and it makes interesting reading - although of course he is just trying to sell his overpriced book.

Any specific thoughts on his assertions that the current theories of gravity are wrong, nuclear forces misunderstood, light-speed limits are a human invention and time being misunderstood?

main page...

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

I look forward to your thoughts, enjoy...

[Morilore]

He's an idiot, and an extremely egocentric idiot at that. He takes his lack of understanding to be a global lack of evidence. And he can't seem to accept that science is inductive, not deductive: you can't just derive physics from a set of premises, you have to test theories and work backward (did I get those two terms confused?).

[Patrick Degan]

Sounds like bullshit to me. The authour seems to think that the forces of nature are all "mysterious" and "completely unexplained" and fail to account for some sort of "power-source" for gravity or magnetism and therefore violate CoE.

He's either an idiot or a conman —perhaps a combination of both. If he were so confident that his theories could withstand scrutiny and be easily comprehensible, he'd outline a summary of them along with the basic equations and observations underlying them for general free public consumption (i.e. his website) in addition to providing the far more detailed descriptions in his book for public sale. He'd submit his work for peer-review. Instead, he states that science is wrong, everything is misunderstood, and he has the answer but you have to buy his book to read it.

In the great television series The Rockford Files, Jim Rockford (James Garner) stated a memorable description of how a con-game works to a client, telling her: "You don't lay out the whole scam out in one go. You feed the information to the mark a bit at a time. That way he does all the work and he thinks he's the smart one."

In short, The Final Theory might make interesting science-fiction, but I don't see it displacing Newton or Einstein anytime soon.

[Kuroneko]

After reading this, I take it that he is thinking that conservation of energy refers to kinetic energy only, which is false. Gravity indeed does not do work, in the sense that the mechanical energy of an object is preserved. There is absolutely no contradiction in having gravity transfer kinetic energy into potential energy, and vice versa. An objection could be that gravitational potential energy is itself an ad hoc hypothesis invoked to rescue the principle of energy-conservation, but this is not so, since gravitational potential is measureable and can be used to make predictions, and hence is not an ad hoc hypothesis. A somewhat more interesting objection could be that the gravitational potential energy of an object is not a well-determined quantity, in that one can add any constant to it without changing any observational effects (since they are invariably based on the potential difference, in which the constant would be cancelled out). However, that is actually very silly. A mathematician would have no problem in defining gravitational potential as an equivalence class of certain functions, but a physicist would likely simply observe that since the effect of gravity is zero at infinity, the most natural resolution to this is to take the gravitational potential as zero at infinity, which would give precisely the form found in every textbook on Newtonian mechanics.

The magnetism section is very confused. It seems to imply that magnetic energy is constantly being spent, even though there is no change in the system at all. This theme is repeated several times. The pipe-freezing example is also confused, since higher temperature would allow the molecules to have enough kinetic energy to essentially ignore the forces between molecules, while a lower temperature would mean such effects would dominate (hence, freezing).

I won't even try to outline all the errors on the page, but the special relativity one is interesting, in that it is precisely the classic twin paradox in another guise. Its resolution is very simple: one of the observers is not intertial, and hence there is no symmetry between the two, so it should not be a suprise that their measurements are asymmetric. The fact that special relativity postulates equivalence among inertial observers only is very well-known. This particular issue doesn't even require Physics 101 knowledge--anyone has read about relativity should know this, much less someone who has (presumably) studied it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Apparently, it never occurred to this brilliant physicist that forces actually make things move.

[Guardsman Bass]

EDIT: Well, that's not entirely correct- Newton's definition of a force(at least mathematically) was F=MA. I should say that a force causes an object to accelerate, which can cause it to move if there is no force acting equally in the opposite direction.

[Lord Zentei]

I seem to recall having seen this somewhere before. He seems to think that it requires constant input of energy to maintain a force. This is an intuitive understanding of force: we grow tired of holding an object, so why not gravity? Energy, however, is force times distance. For instance, gravity requires no power source keeping an object immobile on the ground, and a falling object uses it's own potential energy as Kuroneko explained. This completely elementary error leads me to doubt the claimed credentials of this "Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico".

[Patrick Degan]

I seem to recall having seen this somewhere before. He seems to think that it requires constant input of energy to maintain a force. This is an intuitive understanding of force: we grow tired of holding an object, so why not gravity? Energy, however, is force times distance. For instance, gravity requires no power source keeping an object immobile on the ground, and a falling object uses it's own potential energy as Kuroneko explained. This completely elementary error leads me to doubt the claimed credentials of this "Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico".

A Google search on Michael Martin-Nieto reveals that he is an accredited physicist attatched to Los Alamos who has devoted research effort toward the technical applications of high-energy physics. An ESA lecture programme featured Dr. Martin-Nieto:

EVENTS FROM THE ADVANCED CONCEPT TEAM

Controlled antihydrogen propulsion for future missions into very deep space

by

Dr. Michael Martin-Nieto

Everybody is welcome on the 9th of September 2004. Time: 10:30.
Where: At ESTEC, Noordwijk. Room: Da026

To world-wide notice, the ATHENA collaboration at CERN in Geneva created 100,000 low energy antihydrogen atoms. Thus, the concept of using condensed antihydrogen as a low-weight, powerful fuel (It produces a thousand times more energy per unit weight of fuel than fission/fusion) for very deep space missions (the Oort cloud and beyond) has reached the realm of conceivability. We discuss the technologies that must be developed to reach this goal, and emphasize that a dedicated antiproton source (the main barrier to copious antihydrogen production) must be built. We compare the operational source at CERN and the soon to be started facility at GSI in Germany with the requirements to be fulfilled on a source to serve technical applications.

Dr. Martin-Nieto is senior researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratories. His interests lie in theoretical aspects and technology applications of high-energy physics, He has already a long-term interest in antimatter technology and in particular in antimatter-propulsion. Dr. Martin-Nieto is the author of numerous scientific publications on various aspects of antimatter technology, such as anti-hydrogen production, anti-hydrogen storage, anti-proton traps, and anti-proton production.

It would appear that the authours of The Final Theory either misunderstood or cherry-picked their way through Dr. Martin-Nieto's works for support for their supposed "theory of everything".

[Lord Zentei]

It would appear that the authours of The Final Theory either misunderstood or cherry-picked their way through Dr. Martin-Nieto's works for support for their supposed "theory of everything".

OK, critique of Dr. Martin-Nieto withdrawn. It's really appaling how they throw his name around as though he endorsed their silly claims.

Further search shows the book to be written by a Mark McCutcheon, and his book to be number 27 on the Amazon science books bestseller list (linky) with a 4.5 star rating.

[Medic]

At any given moment in the history of science "There is an
unspoken collective agreement in our educational institutions
to teach clearly flawed explanations since they really have no
alternative."

Even if he weren't blowing smoke up out asses he still fails to recognize that science is an ever-evolving body of research. Some epiphany there, that we are not in fact, all knowing. What a dolt.

[spikenigma]

good posts everyone....

it is indeed quite easy to criticise him for his acusations of a conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, blatant teasing titilations and promises of his final theory to shamelesly pedal his book.

there's also a physicisist here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 4?v=glance

...who had a stab at bashing his attacks on current science and some of his theories, but I can't seem to get my head around 2 points he made which made me consider:

1. Gravity

(unless all celestial orbits are gradually decaying to distance 0) it would seem that indeed gravity is "an unlimited constant force drawing from no known power source" - the veritable perpetual motion machine

2. Light

the bouncing the photons of the mirror example. How can the photons impart momentum but yet not loose any energy when they travel away?

just my two pennies...I may buy his book and read through it and share his "final theory" with the board.

I can only hope the last paragraph of the book isn't ".......and my answer is: god did it!"

[Thinkmarble]

1. Gravity
(unless all celestial orbits are gradually decaying to distance 0) it would seem that indeed gravity is "an unlimited constant force drawing from no known power source" - the veritable perpetual motion machine

Err, no.
A body has a certain energy in an gravity field.
As you move the body around potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy and vice versa.
No energy is created.
And the motion will only be perpetual if you discount friction.

2. Light
the bouncing the photons of the mirror example. How can the photons mpart momentum but yet not loose any energy when they travel away?

E=+sqrt((p_vec)^2)

[spikenigma]

Err, no.
A body has a certain energy in an gravity field.
As you move the body around potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy and vice versa.
No energy is created.
And the motion will only be perpetual if you discount friction.

E=+sqrt((p_vec)^2)[/quote]

both explained and my questions have been answered,

thanks to everybody who replied...most helpful....I won't be buying the book...

[Prozac the Robert]

His perpetual motion argument is especially bad.

Take a rock. Fly into space. Lob the rock. Watch it fly for ever. Look, perpetual motion! Sounds quite similar to hos case for orbits, doesn't it? But he's not trying to pove that a body remaining at a constant speed because no forces acting on it requires a power source.

Bleh. I'd like to see if he's derived any mathematics for his work though. It would be interesting to see if it's reasonably self consistent, and if it could be used for anything.

[Lord Zentei]

The more I think about this damn book, the more it pisses me off. I mean seriously, this guy claims to be an electrical engineer! How the fuck does one become a qualified engineer without knowing that energy is force times distance, for crying out loud? To make matters worse, some of the reviewers at amazon.com who seemed to know what they were talking about treated him with kid gloves. One said that the book, while useless to scientists might be of value for the layman.

I couldn't possibly disagree the more. The layman does NOT need 'science' books that contain nonsense. That's just represents negative education, doesn't it? Here is a useful criteria for judging self proclaimed science books:


If the author doesn't know dimension analysis his work isn't worth shit.


I can't emphasize that enough. Some laymen reading this may be wondering what "dimension analysis" is. No, it's nothing funky or advanced, it is simply concerning yourself with what units you are using.

For instance, suppose you say that the distance between two points is fifty meters. Then some twit or other comes along and says: "no it cannot have length. The distance has no volume, you see". Unless you are a brain damage case you would probably conclude that the person is not making any kind of sense, and you would be right. Similarly, consider defining the surface area of a certain 3-d region in space. Your challenger then states quite brazenly: "It cannot have a surface area, because it is weightless". Would you truly trust the claims of someone who measures speed in kilograms or mass in miles? Of course not. And you should not trust the writer of "The Final Theory" for precisely that reason!

How do we do dimension analysis? Simply use algebra on the units and see if the correct unit emerges, so you know that you are not measuring temperature in green bananas. Here is an example: Einstein claims that energy is mass times the speed of light squared. Does this make sense? Let's see, shall we?

claim:
Energy = Mass * Speed * Speed

definition of speed:
Energy = Mass * (Distance/Time) * (Distance*Time)

simple algebra:
Energy = Mass * Distance * (Distance / Time) / Time

definition of speed:
Energy = Mass * Distance * Speed / Time

definition of acceleration:
Energy = Mass * Distance * Acceleration

definition of force:
Energy = Force * Distance

Which is correct; energy is indeed force times distance by definition. Note that I went through rather more loops than necessary, so as to let you see what this was all about. Note that this does not give you constants and such nor does it provide a physical mechanism for your theory. There is a lot more to formulating a hypothesis than this. But at least you know that your claim makes some kind of sense; whether right or wrong is yet to be seen through experiment or observation.

[Hardy]

Which is correct; energy is indeed force times distance by definition.

Some people(like the author of that book and this nutjob) would think that the definition of energy is flawed in itself.

[Lord Zentei]

Which is correct; energy is indeed force times distance by definition.

Some people(like the author of that book and this nutjob) would think that the definition of energy is flawed in itself.

Well that's just too damn bad. Energy isn't just "whatever". They are taking their intuitive use of the word 'energy' and applying it to the scientific arena.

In day to day talk we can say "wow, that music has 'energy'", "he is an 'energetic' person", "show some 'energy' people", "he is a 'powerful' politician", "we must retain the 'momentum' in this campaign" and so on and so forth. Fair enough.

In science, however, "energy" is what you get when you multiply force with distance (or something equivalent according to dimensional analysis) nothing more and nothing less. If you want to talk about something other than force times distance (such as velocity times mass) you call it something else, damnit (like "momentum" for instance)! First you have the concept THEN you assign the name, not the other fucking way around. For instance: "Power" is energy per time unit by definition. There are reasons why the defenitions are so specific: it is simply so that one scientist knows what the fuck another scientist is talking about, and so that mathematics can be applied to science.

Velocity squared corrupts the definition of energy, because no mass can move at velocity squared. No experiment could prove what energy is, but a mathematical model of a rocket shows that kinetic energy is the same as momentum. The simple and basic math takes precedence over observations which are prone to illusion and misinterpretations.

Good lord. How the blazes can people not know this stuff. They shouldn't just be focusing on scientific facts and theories in science classes, but also on HOW SCIENCE WORKS!

[R. U. Serious]

Sorry, for digging up an old topic, but I just came across this:
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/~bapowell/amazon.html

which made reference to the amazon-page and reviews on the book that is discussed here.

Further search shows the book to be written by a Mark McCutcheon, and his book to be number 27 on the Amazon science books bestseller list with a 4.5 star rating.

The book still has a 4-5 rating, and there are very few negative reviews on amazon. Another odd thing seems to be that all the 5-star-reviews have around ~450 positive votes ("this was a helpful review"), even though there's plenty of time between the reviews (usually it will be a lot more unevenly distributed).

Either someone found a very good way to game amazon from the outside, or (possibly, if this is true http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/~bapowell/amazon.html ) it's [also] an inside job.

I mean, I am aware that basically no rating system on the web is truly immune to maipulation, but seeing such a blatant example did startle me.