Chris Langan – The Interview THEY Didn’t Want You To See – CTMU:
The problem is the CTMU does not meet the criteria of being science. In the video, he appropriates concepts of general relativity (e.g. the manifold) with attempts at tying it with concepts that arise in the context of quantum mechanics (e.g. temporality, free will). But the CTMU makes no testable prediction, nor is it expressed in the language of mathematics. The papers he has written on it does not attempt to explicate it in any mathematical framework.
He talks about his college calculus class having inconsistencies. Had he continued in his studies without dropping out, he would have studied real analysis, which tries to address those questions, being the rigorous prelude to calculus, along with complex analysis. College intro calculus is not a rigorous treatment of infinitesimals.
His problem, that I try to avoid in my own math research, is he equates orthodoxy with a lack of originality. This is a false dichotomy. The rules are like guardrails to prevent one from veering off into total nonsense. It’s not as if the ‘physics community’ is opposed to new ideas, but such theories ideally must fit within the context of the existing literature, not have irreconcilable inconsistencies, and must be conveyed in the language of mathematics. The growing popularity of the theory ‘modified newtonian dynamics’ that attempts to reconcile dark energy with Newton’s inverse square law of gravitation is evidence of this. Same for various theories of quantum gravity that depart from the more pooular string theory.
And finally, a theory also needs to have finality, where you put the pencil down and present the results. The CTMU is not like that, but is like a never-ending extension or atavism of the author’s life, having been working on it since the ’80 without feedback, which is necessary in apprising the worthiness of a theory. Same for the overabundance of marketing and other material. The math should stand on its own, without the need for many promotional videos.
Similarly, Eric Weinstein in 2013 claimed to have developed a ‘theory of everything’, what he called “Geometric Unity”, that exists in 14 dimensions. After dropping hints of his theory on various podcasts, he finally in 2021 presented a technical paper to much hype, which failed at even the standard model, let alone unifying all the forces into a single equation that would be required of an actual theory of everything. Had he sought feedback earlier he would have saw he was on the wrong track and not wasted so much time. At least, unlike the CTMU, it is expressed in the language of math, but there was nothing there.
Like Mr. Langan, I have also claimed to have one of the highest IQs. The goal of the math challenges is to create what is effectively a self-administered IQ test to support this assertion. In avoiding the above pitfalls, the concept does add to and builds on the existing literature, is expressed entirely in the language of mathematics, and the results are objectively true in a mathematically rigorous sense.
I mentioned the part about the Rogers function a couple weeks ago. I had developed a proof of a particular identity, but it was an ad-hoc proof, meaning I had pieced together formulas from other sources. It does technically prove the thing I sought to prove, but it’s not quite good enough. What I had done is find a connection between pseudo elliptic integrals, Roger’s L function, and tied it to the quadratic fields 3 and 13, among other results. To give an outline, I showed that two integrals are equal and then from the second integral yields an expression in which using Fourier series the terms simplify and proving the identity, all contained within the concept I had developed. It also proves results from the literature. So I would call it a success of meeting all the criteria of fruitful research.