The TOE I mention is called the Scalar Theory of Everything. It corresponds to both General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has a Universal Equation which has been applied to many astronomical problems observations and to light interference experiments including those that reject wave models. For a list see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_

replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Faster than light experiments include quantum entanglement, quantum eraser, the measured speed of gravity (van Flandern and others), and the measured speed of the coulomb field.

In your model, what observations that are problems (poorly explained) for current theory that your model explains? I saw no observation/experimental support for your model.

    John Thank you for your questions/comments. Since I received them, I read your essay more thoroughly, compared it to my essay and have some new thoughts. I really like your paper. I agree with your comments on the current state of physical models, human modeling, the need for more fundamental models, the approach of adjusting the postulates and the need for a paradigm shift in the fundamental models. I also believe in your approach of changing the postulates, generating an equation that, based on the postulates, correlates with physical phenomena and using that equation to expand our understanding of the physical world. The STOE universal equation that calculates the force at every point in the universe and its use in explaining physical phenomena accomplishes that purpose - congratulations.

    Now the "howevers": I believe that your arguments used to generate changes in the postulates were successful in generating the framework that allowed your success. However, they are not complete. At the end of your conclusion you state: "However, because the universe's source of initial conditions is unknowable, the universe is unpredictable except for limited space and time." This leaves the "quest" to develop a TOE open to finding a lower fundamental level that totally eliminates undecidability(incompleteness), uncomputability, unpredictability and allows the development of a complete, computable, predictable model of the physical world. That was my goal in developing the Successful Self Creation Theory and the basis of my essay. In the essay I introduced that lower level and its scale up to the multiverse. I also alluded to its usefulness in explaining the creation of humanity, human minding and human creativity. In my next posting, I will answer your questions about how my model explains previously unexplainable and/or "poorly explained" observations and problems related to the physical world. I invite your follow up comments on both postings. Talk to you later. John

    5 days later

    Correspond to verified measurements.

    In solid state physics it is common to apply a unitary transformation in order to obtain a mathematically simpler model. E.g. the Froehlich transformation of a hamiltonian with electron-phonon interaction is changed into a hamiltonian according to which two electrons attract each other, which is of course not true. So what does "correspond" mean? Models are "effective", in the sense that there may be a correspondente with reality, without being true.

    Dear John,

    Despite it is a bit speculative, I like your Essay. In particular, I agree with your Einsteinian vision of a deterministic Universe. I have a question: you wrote that also the "impossible" expressed by Heisenberg is a human imposition. But, in this case, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a consequence of a mathematical theorem of Fourier transforms. It is quite difficult to define as "impossible" a mathematical theorem. How do you explain this issue?

    In any case, I had fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

    Cheers, Ch.

      John To my knowledge this is the only theory that mathematically connects quantums (C*s) to very small "measurements" of Planck action and to the measurements to the very large universal variables of space, time, mass, etc. So the theory dos not explain the observations. It explains the processing that connects the observations. So the problems it solves are the problems of connecting and unification. My major claims are it overcomes entropy ( it converts chaos to order). it connects the very large to the very small. It unifies quantum mechanics and General Relativity. It generates the mathematics that can be used to explain it. I have attached a note that may help to explain what I am talking about.Attachment #1: C_to_SSCU_TRANSFORMATIONS.gdoc

      John I could not open the attachment. So I am trying to send it in a different way. John Crowell

      Martin In this case, I am simply trying to say that my theoretical measurements and the "verified or generally accepted as true" measurements of physics are very close to being the same. For example, my theoretical value of the Planck time is 5.3631702x10^-44 seconds and the generally accepted value is ~5.39x10^-44 thanks for the inquiry. John

      Ch. thanks for your comments. The "impossible" that I am talking about is the ability to get a complete accurate description of "natural" reality. If you have an assumption/axiom that is wrong it is impossible to be both complete and accurate. In the case of mathematical theorems, one has a beginning or an ending "statement" and you work forward or backward using (the rules of) logic and reason to prove the theorem. If those rules do not apply then it is "impossible" to get the complete accurate result you want. The fundamental assumption of philosophy is that the rules that govern reason and logic are present everywhere, all of the time and never change. The SSC theory disputes that assumption. If the SSC theory is correct, then it is "impossible" for theories-mathematical or scientific (based on that assumption)to develop a complete/accurate TOE. I will discuss the specific case of the uncertainty principle in my next post.

      Ch. The uncertainty principle is a specific case. In the SSC theory, when a SSC progression reaches a stable state, it is a repeating combination of 2sets of equivalent and opposite processes. One set is the self creating processing and the self dissipating processing. The other set is two conversion processes. One converts the end of the self creating process to the beginning of the self dissipating process and the other connects the end of the self dissipating process to the beginning of the self creating processing. The result is an everything is a repeating, equivalently and oppositely connected system. When a human imposes on (perturbs) the system by trying to measure it, the system interacts. If it changes the variable being measured, that change will have an equivalent and opposite affect on its conjugate variable. If one gets more precise the other gets less precise--and that is the observed result. Neither measurement accurately reflects the true state of the unperturbed system. If the system interacts, it is "impossible" to get a complete/accurate description of the unperturbed "natural state.

      Ch. The SSC theory does not present any new "observations". However, it shows the changes/conversions/connections necessary to get a complete/accurate description of the processing that connects those observations. In my essay, I mention that physicists can use the model as an aide in their work. The basis of this statement is: If you know the overall framework of what is happening, it is much easier to understand and rationalize what is happening in specific situations/conditions/problems. I would like to test that idea on the BH Information Paradox that you and several of your colleagues are addressing in this contest. I would like to post on this thread (in more detail) how my work describes the creation, functioning and role of black holes in the creation of the universe, galaxies/solar systems and how it differs in its basics from current theories. Let you think about how to incorporate it into your work and see if it helps to generate new observations/rationalizations that can solve the paradox. Would you like to try that? John

        Dear John,

        Thanks for the clarifications. Again, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

        12 days later

        John Crowell re-uploaded the file Crowell_2272020.707am_Clari.pdf for the essay entitled "Clarification of Physics: A Derivation of a Complete, Computable, Predictive Model of "Our" Multiverse." on 2020-04-06 22:01:08 UTC.

        5 days later

        Dear John,

        You have presented very interesting radical ideas in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt. It is very important that you reject the 芦Big Bang禄 hypothesis, which introduces maximum ontological uncertainty into cognition.

        You wrote in one of the comments that your model is metaphysical. I don't understand only the initial ontological structure of your 芦Multiverse禄?

        Also questions: 1) How is matter related to consciousness? How can consciousness be represented in the language of mathematics as the "language of Nature"?

        2) You use the concept of 芦Multiverse". Why not Universe?

        聽I looked at the etymological dictionary ... The concept of "Universe" comes from Latin Universum - "world whole, world, universe", the form of the middle gender from universus is "general, universal", further from unus - "one", further from the pre-Indo-European * oin- (* (w) ein-) "one", + versus "furrow; line; verse", from the verb vertere "rotate", from the pre-Indo-European * wer- "rotate"...

        3) .In an interview with mathematician and mathematical physicist Ludwig Faddeev (in the journal "EXPERT" (2007), entitled "The equation of the evil spirit" it is written: "Academician Ludwig Faddeev believes that today mathematical rigor is more important than physical intuition and it is thanks to mathematics that a" unified theory of everything "will be built. The long-standing debate of scientists about what is more important - mathematical rigor or physical meaning, a correctly solved equation or an intuitive understanding of a natural phenomenon, continued throughout the 20th century, but at some time physicists seemed to win in it: Einstein as the creator of a special and general theory of relativity is better known to the average man than Poincare or Hilbert, Schr枚dinger is more popular than Weil, and Landau is more popular than Bogolyubov. But in recent decades, the situation began to change: it turned out that successful mathematical techniques have not just technical significance, but deep physical meaning. Mathematical intuition in solving increasingly complex physical problems may be more important than physical. And this caused a noticeable irritation of many great physicists. In the second half of the 20th century, a new generation of scientists appeared who could no longer be called pure physicists or mathematicians. Ludwig Faddeev is one of them. After graduating from the Physics Department of Leningrad University, he gained worldwide fame as a man who, together with his student Viktor Popov, solved the most complicated mathematical problems of the Yang - Mills theory, which later formed the basis of the theory of superstrings. The effects that were discovered were called "Faddeev-Popov spirits" and under this name entered all modern textbooks of theoretical physics. Faddeev is convinced that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics. Faddeev is convinced that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics".

        Do you agree with Ludwig Faddeev?

        Have you ever dealt with the problem of the "foundations of mathematics", which is already more than a hundred years old?

        Since you strongly and categorically oppose the ontologically flawed hypothesis of the "Big Bang" and this is extremely important for overcoming the modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of science, and give your picture of the world. I give you a rating of 芦ten禄 for your new ideas. The problem of the ontological structure of the 芦Beginning禄 is problem No. 1 for mathematics and physics, and for cognition as a whole.

        With kind regards, Vladimir.

        Dear John D Crowell,

        I certainly agree that many current problems of physics are based on false assumptions. It seems that a good approach is to try to identify these false assumptions and see what's left of science after they have been removed. My current essay deals with the false assumption of multiple time frames.

        I agree with certain aspects of your approach; it is finite, it is based on 'flexible' C* units that change while preserving their essence, and it is so structured as to be scalable. Also, as I think you agree, vortices are an essential concept.

        On the other hand, I do believe a big-bang-type creation event is reasonable, and I do not subscribe to a multiverse. In my mind the 'free lunch model' of a primordial field coming into creation implies that initially nothing else existed -- therefore any possible interaction must be self-interaction, as nothing else existed to interact with. This leads me to a self-interaction principle and equation that unfolds to evolve the universe in an essentially self-aware mode that gets us to where we are now. For example, to formulate it in physics form, if 'd' is a 'change operator' and f is the primordial field, then the basic equation is: df = f*f where * is the interaction operator. You'd be amazed how much falls out of this equation.

        One problem with FQXi, almost by definition is that most of the participants have their own models of reality, making it extremely difficult for everyone to agree. Therefore the best that can be expected is for us to converge to common principles and processes. Over the decade of contests this appears to me to be happening, as a number of us are coming to a neo-classical view that rejects the 'magic' of many current theories.

        I appreciate your reading my essay and agreeing with certain aspects of it. I wish you well in this contest and in the continued development of your theory of reality.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Respected Dr. John David Crowell

          Thank you for visiting my essay and left a nice introduction to your theory. Thank you for liking my essay.

          Yours is wonderful essay. logic is good. I did not find any mathematical support. How did you arrive at all those C*s. Dark matter is not experimentally found, Black-holes have infinite densities. Why you want them?

          You can use Dynamic Universe model's mathematics or Computer simulations for further development of your essay and theory with slight changes. We can discuss further on these changes through email.

          I highly appreciate your essay...

          Best wishes...

          =snp

            Hello to both of you,

            Thanks for developping Mr Crowell, I see better your general analysis. I work about my theory of spherisation, an optmisation evolution of the universal sphere ofr future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres, I have superimposed 3 E8 maide of coded 3D spheres , it is a Little bit different than the strings so at this planck scale and philosophically speaking also.

            I beleive strongly that a TOE is not possible but I understand what you tell me and I agree about the consistent Tools that you cited. But we know so few still, we are so Youngs at this universal scale considering this evolution, we have of course evolved in maths, physics, sciences but we have so many secrets to discover at my humble opinion. We don t know really what are these foundamental mathematical and physical objects and how philosophically and ontologically they create our reality with its geometries, topologies, amters, fields, particles, properties. But of course we evolve each Days in completing this universal partition where these numbers, fields, particles seem dancing in a harmonical way. We have many unknowns also to explain like this Dark matter, this Dark energy, this quantum gravitation, this consciousness and others. We must maybe accept our limitations in knowledges and consider that all this is generally not computable, nor decidable, nor predictable. It is like I said if we would predict the result of match of soccer, football and the motions of This ball if I can say, you inagine the parameters to take into account to predict the result and these motions ? The limitations seem important and seem impltying an impossibility to have a TOE, we can of course have roads towards Thos TOE but maybe we cannot reach it simply. We have like I said probably an ocean of unknowns to add , even the photons don t seem to be the main essence primordial of this universe. But of course I respect your essay and ideas that I liked. About the metaphysics, I d tell that this universe is fully deterministic at all scales and that the metaphysics are not really a truth, we have just unknowns rational, deterministic, logic to add , superimpose to our standard model and at this consological scale also. Maybe we must Think beyond the box, it is what I have made to reach this quantum gravitation with these 3D spheres and this cold dark matter encoded in nuclei, I formalise all this in maths with the lie derivatives, the lie groups, the Ricci flow, the topological and euclidian spaces, the poincare conjecture, the Hamilton Ricci flow in considering particles coded and so the codes are inside instead to consider strings and a 1D main Cosmic field. But I admit that this formalisatiom, renormalisation, quantization is not easy, but the results are relevant in all humility , I have respected this newtonian mechanics

            I wish you alkl the best in this Contest, thanks still for explaining your different general points of vue,

            best regards

            Vladimir. Thank you for your comments and appreciation for my ideas. In this response 1. I will provide what my theory says about your no. .1 problem - "... the ontological structure of the . In the development of the SSC theory, I discovered the lowest level of a self creation process - (I.e. the process that created the original self replicator). This process is also the process that overcomes entropy. Repeating self replication and self organization progressed to become larger/more complex self creators. This process continued until it became" all of the order in existence" which includes our universe and its contents. If I understand what you are saying humanity needs to know the state of existence at/ during the beginning. In the appendix of my essay I describe the state of existence before the beginning, during the origination and the forms/functioning and measurements of the resultant SSCU. So it was basically an existing state of chaos (chaotically interacting C*s) in which the:origination progressed until the stable unchanging-changing SSCU emerged, survived and began to self replicate. So the existence before and during the origination was a state of uncertain changing, until the first SSCU "emerged". Then it was an existing state of chaotic changing with a tiny, tiny, SSCU "island" that began to self replicate, grow and self organize. 2. The ontological state of every Successful Self Creating unit from the smallest to the largest and the simplest to the most complex is an intelligence/ successful self creating/physical combination. All three are necessary for the unit to exist and progress. The initial and ongoing multiverse is/was a changing combination of these three components. 3. Consciousness is an emergent result of the SSC processing. As a result it is a complex intelligence/SSC/physical combination.I will be discussing this in a future introduction of SSC and Humanity. 4. The Cosmos (i.e. all of the order in the universe) is equivalent to 3.68938x10^7 visible universes so I used the term multiverse to express that concept. 5. I do not agree with Ludwig Faddeev. In the theory SSC is fundamental and it creates "all of the order in existence". So the explanation of the Complete SSC processing/results is a TOE. mathematics is a result of this process that can be used to explain it. 6. In the essay I mention the creation of the mathematics related to SSC. So, in the theory, the creation of the fundamentals of mathematics is included in the creation of the fundamentals of SSC. I hope this is useful. Keep up the questions. I enjoy using the model to create the answers. John

              Dear Edwin. Thank you for reading my essay and providing comments that give me a chance to discuss my work and its relationships to the work of others. Rereading your essay and it's comments: I too believe that FQXi is providing a valuable forum for the presentation of "fringe" ideas/theories and a review by peers. Also, I was disappointed by tour comment to Gene Barbee: " ...there is no market for a new theory..." even when there is a need. As you know I also believe there are "...false premises built into the old theories...". I appreciate your neo-classical approach of taking on the old theories one at a time, showing what is wrong and trying to fix the problem from within. While I agree that cleaning up the individual "silos" is necessary, it is not going to provide the complete story that makes sense of all of the parts. I have a different approach. I also bring something new to the game. In my essay I introduce a new fundamental level and apply it to the physical world because that is what the essay contest is all about. However, the theory is more comprehensive. SSC overcomes entropy, converts chaos into order and becomes "all of the order in existence - the Cosmos of the ancient Greeks. In that realm the power of the theory is that it unifies everything in one theory. It includes physics, math, philosophy, religion, chemistry, biology, psychology, life, intelligence, consciousness, cognition, humanity, etc.. in one theory. People want to know how they fit. They need to know the beginning of creation/intelligence/the physical world through their interwoven progressive pathway to what exists now. When this is known we can apply it to the individual "silos", correct their premises and improve their theories. The idea of applying one overall solution to many individual problems is appealing to me. It is the approach I am following. Enough about philosophy. In my next posting on this thread I will discuss your specific comments on my essay. Thanks again for your comments. John Crowell

              Hi John

              1. Please clarify the initial structure of matter (forms of existence) at the first stage of Self-Creation. Does this structure change or is it eternal?

              2. What is the nature of the first "Law of Nature"?

              Vladimir

              By John Crowell I am adding these comments to answer questions I am receiving from the essay contestants. It is a broadening of the SSC theory that goes beyond the physical aspects of this contest. However, it covers what people are asking about.

              1. The ontology-"being"- that is the basis of "all of the order in existence" is the C*s to SSCU transformation described in the appendix of my essay. This is the irreducible beginning. It converts chaos to order and produces the lowest level of SSC order that survives -SSCU. The SSCU survives, self replicates-converts chaos to SSCUs, the copies self organize, repeat the processing and progress to eventually become "all of the order in existence".

              2. These two processes become (complete) the overall SSC processing/results. The combination of the three components a. the C*s to SSCU transformation b. the self replication c. the self organizing of the copies and their results 4. "all of the order in existence is the -creating/created/creator- ontological "being" that is present in every unit of progression in the SSC.

              3.The C*s to SSCU transformation of chaos to order begins with the formation of a vortex that becomes Planck actions that become the variables/ relationships of time, space, mass, speed and direction that become the form(s)ing and function(s)ing of the SSCU. That transformation is the irreducible level of SSC. This is the "foundational level" that scales up to become the physical and chemical world.

              4. The SSCU self replicating to create copies and the copies self organizing is the "foundational level" of the SSC self replicating/self organizing "worlds" of biology and its progression to become the biological/psychological progression of simple animals to humans.

              Continued in the next posting.