espen haug unified revolution

[granchio]

just stumbled across this

http://www.espenhaug.com/



is it for real?



any comments?

[Maggette]

Come on. That must be a joke.



"Questions

Posted At : November 26, 2014 8:31 AM | Posted By : Espen Haug

Related Categories: Projects

What are the ultimate building blocks of everything?

What is time?



Why does Einstein synchronization of clocks lead to a synchronization error? (Poincare suggested same procedure, also he misunderstood several aspects of what could be done)



Why is Einstein's relativity of simultaneity just an apparent effect?



Why must absolute simultaneity be reintroduced?



What exactly is energy, and how is it related to matter?



What is the ultimate origin of memory and intelligence?



What is the true cause of gravity?



Unified Revolution answers these and many more questions."



I think Espen isn't that much of an idiot. This sounds like [img]/User%20Files/3110/Latex-Equation-12134.gif[/img]

[pj]

Is anything to read available?

I would love to see some excerpts before forming an opinion.

Although the quackometer is in red.

[EGH]

Hi hi, yes of course any good scientist or critical thinker should be skeptical when someone claiming they have a Unified Revolution theory!



Still please keep your mind open still. It took 12 years to write this book (naturally not full time, but in periods 7 days a week from early morning to bed time.). I had no plan even to derive one new result in physics, but then my book contains several hundred new formulas/equation. As so much is new I show all derivations step by step. Unlike much or at least parts of modern physics everything also follows simple logic and can be explained and only have one interpretation.



My theory is basically uncovering a whole new layer of mathematical results that gives a much deeper understanding of physics. Deeper in the sense that I start out with simple assumptions about what everything is made of. My assumptions are incredible simple. I thought such a simple theory not could lead to much at all, so I was surprised myself how extreme simplicity lead to so much.



Many of the existing results in physics stands, but many of existing interpretation is according to my theory wrong or incomplete. This because little if anything of modern physics is derived from the ultimate building blocks of everything.



I also spent considerable time digging out old ignored masters, and looking into the original texts. So part of my book is also of interest from a historical perspective, but it is mainly about a new theory, but my theory is rooted in ancient principles that was ignored way to early, and no one developed a mathematical framework before now.



Many of my results are compared to well known experiments, my results agree very well with these. I am also discussing a series of less known experiments that have been published in academic journals, but that have been ignored and not understood -- that now suddenly seem to make sense. I am also suggesting and explaining a series of new experiments that can distinguish between my theory and main frame physics.



I will be happy to post much more info later. I will also lay out more info on my home page. The next few weeks I will put out the table of contents and preface there. I also have considerably amount of spreadsheets and mathematica code, this I made for myself to check my formulas. I however derived all formulas by hand or in my head, mathematica could in no way simplify equations as well as manually. I did a lot of work to get the final results on very compact form (if possible, just a few of the end rests are ''ugly''). I will need to clean up the code a bit and add some comments in the code and spreadsheets, so over the next few months I will also put out a lot of free spreadsheets and some mathematics code on my website, this mainly so people easily can play around with the many formulas in my book and check numerical output as well as 3D graphics for themselves. There is no CD with my new book, I think the time for CD´s are over, spreadsheets and mathematica code will be put out for free on my homepage for anyone to download, play around with or criticize.



The math background needed is much simpler than for example in options. What is needed is to come up with the idea, and I stumbled up on it 12 years ago, and Eureka! I had to refresh my knowledge somewhat on simple things such as cosine and sinus functions as they are very much used, then quadratic equations (only a few of them requires a few pages to be solved), pythagoras theorem often used, and I had to use Taylor expansion once. So yes mostly high school math skills is needed for all the derivations. I only have one chapter on uncertainty, how ''quantum randomness'' can explain macroscopic observed randomness, and this chapter is mainly empirically and based on a large scale (3 years) very simple photon experiment we did.



Any 'quant' or person decent in math should be able to check my derivations and also to understand the math. I talked with a few theoretical physicist that when I asked them about some equations in physics they told me they could not really explain the equations, but that I just had to trust the math. This is partly how part of theoretical physics has got on the wrong track I think. All equations and results should be understood, yes there are several counterintuitive effects such as time-dilation, length contraction, quantum tunneling, but all these should be understood and explained. How can mass take up energy, what exactly is this energy? Feynman was right when he somewhat populistic said:



'In modern physics, mass is somewhat diffusely distinguished from matter because matter and energy are poorely defined concepts'



This will now change, read chapter 2 in my book, introduction to energy and mass (only text) and then jump to chapter 20 where I derive energy and mass relationships from this much deeper understanding. Chapter 21 and 22 also about energy and matter, but to understand relativistic mass and energy relationships one first need to study also the mathematical chapters 5 to 10 at least.



Some people have already got copies of the book, the first print run was 1000 copies. Unfortunately the printing house (one of the large UK ones) had some technical problems and have to re-do a large number of copies, these should be ready soon, but shipping and all will take time before volume is up at amazon. I hope much is resolved next few weeks. So the main batch is likely a couple of weeks delayed. Some people in UK, US and Netherland and Norway already got the book, but yes behind on feeding the many hungry minds (and critics) of this word



(and my english is much better in my book than here, as I there had editors cleaning up my NorEnglish.)



I expect my critics in future to be polarized. All the people not understanding my book will give me 1 star, and the three people in the whole world understanding my book will give me 5 stars. And I bet no one will criticizing me for being Humble!



Sincerley Yours,



Espen Gaarder Haug, best known as Mr Humble, or did I hear someone whisper Mr Ego^3, can a (Big) Ego exist in less than 3 Dimensions, I strongly doubt so



Yes naturally be skeptical, I am going out with a professor in theoretical physics this week, he said he was very skeptical, but he said he also was curious, I think this is good start! Only time will tell if I will become Mr quack^3 (the quackometer should indeed still blink Red).



PS today I also donated a few copies of my book to the National Library, I do not know how long the bureaucrats use to properly register them and then handle them out again. So my book can be borrowed for free possibly already next week. (people living outside Norway will have to consider the price of flight ticket up against it.)

[EGH]

Maggette, I actually like your formula, because we do not need to quantify Taleb´s ego to find my Ego relative to his.



So yes e^(pi)=23.14



This is actually correct, how could you know At least it fits empirical data quite well the last few days



So we can conclude Taleb has a small Ego (relative to EGH), people should be careful claiming Taleb has big Ego in a world where most things are relative!

[FDAXHunter]

As Einstein said: "If you cannot explain it in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough."

[EGH]

okay I give you one of the first pages in my book for free



"Enough of this. Newton forgive me; you found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thoughts — and creative power. Albert Einstein 1946"





"Enough of this. Einstein forgive me; you found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thoughts — and creative power. Espen Gaarder Haug 2014"





So yes I am afraid this actually confirms the formula given by Maggette. The big and unsolved question will I be able to defend my small Ego? Are my formulas correct? Will they stand the test of time, what chances do I have against the academic establishment (that for sure many of them will fight for their current world view).



By the way I claim the Einstein math is correct, but that many of the interpretations are wrong and or incomplete and that there is an extra 'layer' of math derived from a deeper fundament that gives better insight and opens up for understanding some ignored experiments already done, as well as some experiments that should be done.

[chiral3]

Good for you Espen. Nobody locks themselves away for twelve years and thinks anymore. Also, it's been twenty years since physicists have thought about comparing their work to experiments. It's all categories and cosmic Galois groups and shit.

[EGH]

Thanks chiral3.



Well I only locked myself away last six years or so, the first six years I used a lot of the quiet time at the prop trading desk to get going on this project (and naturally free time). first I wanted to publish some papers on it, but since the theory was kind of original the papers got very long, I had to explain everything from scratch, and then I could suddenly see almost everything fundamental came out from this, and then I wanted to keep quiet about the whole concept and just derive and derive, and publish it all at once. It took many more years than expected, but I am happy with it.



I talked with one professor in math that now was semi-retired. He told first now he could finally work on the math research he always wanted to work on, because before semi-retirement he had to publish a paper or two almost every year, publish or perish. And to publish a paper or two a year he had to focus on minor ideas (well I guess he generalized a bit, but much too it I think). So he claimed most young post-docs in academia these days not had chance to focus on things that "really matters" (with a few exceptions).



Luck also plays a big role I think. Again I never suspected I would derive even a single formula in physics, I just felt I stubbled over something that got me going. And the Judges has not looked at my work yet, so I have to keep my Ego high now, before it gets under attack .

[chiral3]

"Well I only locked myself away last six years..."



Wow, a perfect example of time dilation. We used to work near each other. That was about 10 years ago. Your team's numbers were very good that last year, hence why I was fortunate enough to enjoy the crisis and you were able to lose time.