Various people routinely say that the word "theory" has different vernacular and scientific meanings. To a layperson, "theory" is synomous with "guess" whereas to a scientist, "theory" means "well established and accepted idea". Typically reference is made to the established "theory of gravity" to show that the "theory of evolution" is a scientifically widely accepted idea and not just a guess ("Oh, evolution is only a theory!"). Yet when scientists speak of "string theory", they do not mean it is a well established and widely accepted idea (this is just my opinion). It certainly seems that scientists use "theory" with differing connotations and that some extra knowledge is required in order to understand what flavor of meaning is implied.
Thanks for the reply. I'm aware that scientific slang is ambiguos. This relies on the fact that scientists are supposed to understand the differences between the theory of gravitation, string theory and homeopaty.
Now my question was to know your attitude towards my Nobel prize idea.
You say you need extra knowledge about it to decide.
Let us say I already provided you with all the informations.
My theory IS exactly what I said, no extra information is avaliable at the moment.
I have no more precise argument than the one I posted. I just have a longer list of possible applications which relies on the assumption that I could prove that the space is discrete, and that that provides the possibility of computing (in a way which is still to be investigated) quantum effects.
For example I could add that I will be probably able to prove that black holes have no real singularity in their center.
That I could explain ghosts as a condensed state of virtual particles binded together by gravitons, etc.
Something which is impossible for the present theory of gravitation or for string theory.
However, I still have no clue on how to prove that the space is discrete or to actually compute quantum effects from my theory. For this reason I need more people studing in this field and more money (possibly public) to investigate the issue further.
Let me also add that the current understanding of gravitation is massively unsatisfactory. Prof. Hawking and Penrose proved that a generic solution of the current theory of gravitation will eventually produce a singularity. That is as if I had a description of the pendulum but my equations will eventually predict infinite velocities. The description may be accurate for small time intervals, though I hope we agree that such model cannot be considered a fundamental and satisfactory model for pendulum motion!
In the same way general relativity is inconsistent and self-contradictory. Ask any theoretical physicist you know. He or she will agree. Hawking himself often explicitely referred to this problem.
All string theorists refer to this problem as a motivation for the need of searching a better theory for gravity.
Hence, once we are aware of the fact that general relativity is inconsistent, I have to stress that my theory is in a far better position.
By construction, space discreteness will regularize the theory and no singularity will arise and the theory will be consistent.
For this reason I suggest that my Nobel prize idea will receive equal time in science classes.
Any comment?
PS: If someone needs to refer to this material please consider that it is my intellectual property as such copyrighted. The material can be referred as it is (included the present notice -This material is intended as a demostration and does NOT reflect my real understanding of gravitational theory-) with no editing.
Sorry for be explicit on this, but I am a student and it could compromize my future if my teachers come to know it!
PPS Thank you for the expansion example above. Very funny!
))
