Layer Theory

[Zwirko]

When musing about the origins of the Universe, any theory will naturally be largely mathematical in nature. Any theorist MUST have a deep and truly profound grasp of advanced mathematics. Without this it is not even possible for us mere mortals to even conceptualise the Universe in any meaningful way.

 

If the Layer Theory was to have even a slight degree of credibility then I would expect to see several pages of meaningless squiggles for starters.

[FastFuriousBK]

I deleted some portions of my posts to decrease my overall word count. I deleted some portions of Layer Theory.

[LaurieAG]

Layer Theory

 

In the layer theory the big bang occurred. In the theory, there are three layers. Layer one is our visible universe and the black holes that we can see. Layer one contains only the dimensions length, width, height, and time, which I will refer to as the first four dimensions throughout this text.

 

What do we actually see in layer 1?

[FastFuriousBK]

The parts of the universe that humans can see with natural vision.

[hallenrm]

Even a simple “yes/no” observation is, from a mathematical physics point-of-view, a measurement. And even in such “soft” sciences as Sociology, mathematical techniques such as Statistics are needed for terms like “a large number of people” to be meaningful, and to distinguish cause and effect from coincidence when observing phenomena.

 

It may be that, like many mathematicians, my definition of Math is more encompassing than the norm, but I can’t see how one can do science without using some sort of math.

 

What about the Darwin's Theory of evolution, was there a maths involved in it? Or for that matter Maslow's theory or the Dalton's atomic theory :)

[CraigD]

What about the Darwin's Theory of evolution, was there a maths involved in it?

In the common language of its proposal as a theory ca. 1860, the math is subtly buried – The Origin of Species” speaks of numbers of individuals, generations, geographic distributions, and phrases like “equal masses”, “equal numbers”, and “equal continental areas” – numerically quantifiable attributes – but to my knowledge contains not a single mathematical formula. However, the verification of the theory requires considerable math – in it’s early days, statistical analysis of population counts, these days some very sophisticated numeric analysis of genetic data (bioinformatics).

 

Without these mathematical approaches, evolutionary biology would not have a scientific character, but a legalistic, even theological one – much as many religious critics of the theory accuse.

or the Dalton's atomic theory

 

Dalton’s atomic theory consists of essentially 5 correct (and, unfortunately, 1 badly incorrect) postulates to allow mathematical formulae such as Dalton’s law to be formally, mathematically, defensible, not merely empirical. As such, I consider the theory, and nearly all of Dalton’s work, to be intensely mathematical.

Or for that matter Maslow's theory

You have me there. :cocktail: To my knowledge, expressing Maslow's hierarchy of needs mathematically has attracted little interest or notable success. Metastudies such as “Wahba, M.A. & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow Reconsidered: A Review of Research on the Need Hierarchy Theory” claim to have found no well-controlled statistical support for the theory.

 

As critics of Maslow point out, the hierarchy is arguably more of a philosophical idea than a scientific theory. As fundamentally a doctrine of transcendence, it can be considered a form of secular humanism, which some would claim constitutes as religion.

 

While Maslow’s ideas – both the hierarchy and his more succinct aphorism “when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” (which can be applied to mathematicians’ outlook on the universe) – have been a major influence on me personally, I’m forced to concede that, as commonly used, they’re not truly scientific.

 

I must stress that accepting the proposition that scientific theories have a fundamentally mathematical character does not imply that one must have great mathematical proficiency to appreciate, understand, and contribute to science. However, just as an architect doesn’t need to by physically capable of digging a foundation or hauling block, but needs workmen who are, the full work of science can’t, IMHO, be done without the contribution of skilled mathematicians. Math-free approaches to science, especially theoretical physics and cosmology, are prone to straying into the troubled domain of pseudoscience.

[hallenrm]

Math-free approaches to science, especially theoretical physics and cosmology, are prone to straying into the troubled domain of pseudoscience.

 

That's one statement I will never contest!

 

:cocktail:

[Jay-qu]

While this is all a very interesting and some-what on topic, we must not detract from the original thread idea of layer theory to much.

 

I would be happy to discuss "the theory of theories" at length elsewhere if anyone is interested.

[abeautifulfault]

fastandfuriousbk....i think you're truly gifted. I love and totally respect the ideas you set forth in your layer theory . look forward to seeing more of your posts :eek_big:

 

abeautifulfault:Love:

[Jay-qu]

Excuse me? The tone of you post is not appreciated, even though it is only your second post I expect you know how to behave properly and follow forum rules like everyone else. Understand that we are trying to help the guy. If he wants his theory to be useful and actually be taken seriously by the scientific community he will consider our remarks. Like I said before, I take no dig at the theory itself, for all I know it could be true, but I wont believe its true unless it produces confirmable predictions (that get confirmed).

[FastFuriousBK]

I agree with Jay-qu. Please obey the forum rules. Criticism needs to be respected and accepted. All hypography members and their replies need to be respected.

[abeautifulfault]

i am very sorry everyone. i didnt mean to offend anyone. and i'm sorry fastfurious for embarassing you on your forum. from now on ill respect the rules....:)

[Jay-qu]

Thankyou.

 

Now back to Layer Theory.

 

How does Hawking radiation fit in with your theory? Is it the same as in conventional physics, or do you propose another mechanism for the same thing or perhaps that it doesnt happen at all :)

[FastFuriousBK]

z

[Boerseun]

How does Hawking radiation fit in with your theory? Is it the same as in conventional physics, or do you propose another mechanism for the same thing or perhaps that it doesnt happen at all :)

Don't know whether this is relevant at all, but Hawking radiation exists in conventional physics only hypothetically. It's never been observed or proven to exist, so I guess "Layer Theory" shouldn't bother to cater for it - nobody knows whether it's real. The maths might work out, but then again, mathematically the universe can have n amount of dimensions, where n is any number you'd care to choose, whilst the real universe obviously has a finite amount - we just don't know how many. But the maths do work out. So, mathematical proof of Hawking radiation don't make it real, though...

[Jay-qu]

I know it doesnt have to cater for it, but I was wondering if his theory had another explanation for, also how it deals with the fact that if hawking radiation is accepted in the theory than black holes may be able to radiate away to nothing, how stuff like that fits in.

[FastFuriousBK]

z