• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Theory of Everything by Illusion

+ 5 - 1
+ 0 - 6
Referee this paper: [viXra:1211.0027]

Please use comments to point to previous work in this direction, and reviews to referee the accuracy of the paper. Feel free to edit this submission to summarise the paper (just click on edit, your summary will then appear under the horizontal line)

(Is this your paper?)

Closed as per community consensus as the post is not eligible for Open Community Review (see submission decline policy)
submission not yet summarized

paper authored Nov 4, 2012 to Closed Questions by Kimmo Rouvari
  • [ no revision ]
    recategorized Jun 23, 2015 by dimension10
    Most voted comments show all comments

    pg 13 "Quote from Wikipedia" pg 18 "Mass of a photon: [nonzero number]" Laughing out loud, should we even tolerate this nonsense? I know it was me who responded to the submission creation request, due to fear of censorship, but what do the rest think about this?

    @KimmoRouvari, It does not qualify as a serious scientific work, at least by modern norm, hence not worth any effort to make a scientific criticism, if possible at all. 

    @KimmoRouvari, falsifiablity is not my first concern, to claim your theory to be a "theory of everything", it is your burden to show us that at least it can, or has a good chance to, reproduce the known physical results of fundamental importance: Einstein's equation and Standard model etc. For example, based on your theory, if you can reproduce the correct anomalous magnetic moment of electron, I will be well impressed.

    @KimmoRouvari being able to calculate the anomalous magnetic moment is not absurd, it is a standart benchmark test for any wannabe TOE ...

    @KimmoRouvari GR allows the prediction of a lot more than that. Derive the EFE (or an equivalent equation) and then talk about your "TOE" 

    EFE is another piece in the continuum of the series of mistakes made since Newton. Equivalence should be stated (First law of ToEbi) \(E = m*f\) ,where \(m\) is mass and \(f\) is spinning frequency of a particle at rest. Einstein's \(E=mc^2\) equals First law of ToEbi just because \(c^2=f\)which comes from the mechanism at subatomic level (check the speed of light section).

    Do you even know what general relativity is? 

    3 Reviews

    + 3 like - 0 dislike

    @ Kimmo Rouvati  "Big Bang created very tiny spiked sphere like objects (physical particles)
    which vary in sizes." What on Earth preposition is this? How? How did "particles" obtain mass? What is the parallelism with ESB and Higgs mechanism? How can you derive EH action? Why 4 dimensions? The assumption that particles are tiny spheres is valid why?  You define a force between two particles that comes out of which Lagrangian? You just add some terms in Newton's law. 

    You refuse to demonstrate and provide a rigorous or even wavy derivation of any of the standard field theoretical results. The reason is obvious. Unless you demonstrate to the scientific community that your theory works in accordance with QFT and GR no one will take you seriously. I am not sorry but this is non-sense. 

    reviewed Jul 18, 2014 by conformal_gk (3,625 points) [ revision history ]
    edited Jul 21, 2014 by Arnold Neumaier

    Thank you for your review. I know that my paper needs more flesh around its bones therefore I'm writing Introduction to ToEbi which answers some of your questions. According to ToEbi, particle's mass is its geometrical cross section, an area capable of interacting with FTEP flux generated by other particles. So Higgs mechanism is not needed.

    Four dimensions are sufficient, that's why. The assumption that (elementary) particles are tiny spheres seems to work out quite nicely, that's why it's one of used hypotheses in ToEbi. 

    GR is covered in Atom Model and Relativity paper and as you can see, I haven't covered nothing but a tiny spots from vast area of physics. ToEbi needs a larger group of physicists who can cover all physics through its ideas. One way to catch some serious attention for ToEbi is by conducting proposed antimatter experiment. And I'm pretty sure that we are about to hear from that direction because for example Imam Hossein University (in Iran) has been interested in my Antimatter paper and that university is pretty much focused on developing Iran's nuclear program.

    Your other questions work as a todo list for me. Thank you for your valuable feedback!

    Adding new terms into Newton's law is mandatory because it lacks spinning component currently. On the other hand, adding a new factor into it removes the need for the "universal gravitational constant". 

    + 2 like - 0 dislike

    This is not a serious submission, and it is not worth any effort to review. There is no idea there which is not obviously idiotic.

    reviewed Jul 25, 2014 by Ron Maimon (7,720 points) [ no revision ]

    LMAO :D Well, I'm on the right track, experimentally verified.

    This answer is worthless and lazy, and should be deleted.

    This is how to review a paper that is worthless and lazy, and should never have been submitted. There is no need for a detailed review, as nobody could ever get confused on the value of this paper. Reviews in this case just lead to endless debates with someone who is fundamentally dishonest. Just cut the whole thing short, downvote, and ignore.

    @RonMaimon Fundamentally dishonest? What a fucking clown are you? :-)

    @ron more effort was put into the paper than your arrogant, lazy answer, making it worthless and lazy in comparison. Either delete it, or write a proper fair review.

    + 1 like - 0 dislike

    In addition to what @conformal_gk said, you state in your section "sun bends starlight" that your result "sounds reasonable". Why don't you refer to an experimental paper that reproduces your results? I feel that you are dishonestly ignoring experimental results. 

    Your paper seems to be a bunch of assumptions and "derivations". At least tell us the Lagrangian of "Toebi"! 

    reviewed Jul 19, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

    Here's one experimental "paper" which measures the unique predictions of ToEbi. That experiment was actually conducted 4 years before ToEbi. 

    Actually I might have an error in that Sun pending starlight section, sorry about that.

    I'll put that Lagrangian on my todo list (and put it here as soon as I'm done with it). 

    @KimmoRouvari Your error was to write the paper itself.

    user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

    Your rights