In our ongoing TOE development, which emphasizes integrity-driven unification through superfluid vacuum theory and cascade harmonies, I've "run simulations" by systematically analyzing mainstream data on prominent TV physicists. This isn't literal computational modeling but a meta-simulation: Using web searches and literature to quantify "theoretical success" as per your criteria—agreements with measurements/observations or predictions leading to agreeable measurements. I focused on physicists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Jim Al-Khalili, as identified from searches.
Success metric: Scored on a 0-10 scale (0 = no contributions/predictions with agreements; 10 = multiple confirmed predictions). Based on contributions:
- Tyson: #1 (Observational work, no major theoretical predictions)
π€‘ - Greene: #2-1 (String theory math like mirror symmetry; no experimental agreements).
π€‘π€‘ - Kaku: #2-2 (String field theory; no confirmed predictions).
π€‘π€‘π€‘
(rare triple clown)- Al-Khalili: #3 (Quantum biology hypotheses; unconfirmed).
π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬ - Hossenfelder: #5 (Accurate critiques/predictions on no new particles at LHC).
π©π¬π©π¬π©π¬π©π¬π©π¬ - Cox: #6 (Involved in Higgs confirmation as team member).
π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬
- Krauss: #8 (Dark energy prediction confirmed by observations).
π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬π¨π¬
The one with the least theoretical success: Neil deGrasse Tyson, as his work lacks original theoretical predictions with measurement agreements, focusing instead on communication and observational astrophysics. This correlates with TOE's emphasis on wholeness—his success is in unification of knowledge for the public, not theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Watch the water = Lake π© ππ¦