1 Peer review [reviewer #2144] added 29th September, 2006 at 10:45:32

Quote:”The universe will continue to evolve with lots of small bangs and all the observable and unobservable phenomena”.

Perhaps you could define “lots”? Otherwise, since there are so many small bangs occuring, why haven’t we observed any of them?

And regarding the unobservable phenomena, if it is unobservable, it would be impossible for science to prove. For instance, science has not managed to prove if ghosts and spirits exist, since it is not possible to observe them. Did you mean unobservable with the naked eye? If so, then perhaps the theory can be verified using other devices.

Otherwise, a commendable attempt on TOE.

Originality: **5**, Importance: **4**, Overall quality: **5**

2 added 1st October, 2006 at 06:41:24

As the cycle time for evolution from one stage to the subsequent stage is around 1.6 billion years (as per the evolution model), the small bang in case of a particular void, as mentioned, will take that much time to occur. So the frequency of such small bangs will depend on this time gap as well as the number of such event that can be detected using the most advanced observatories that are available now. Another possibilty is that the Quasar events that have been detected already are in fact the occurence of such small bangs.

What was meant by unobservable was the phenomena that can not yet be detected using the most advanced equipments which are there already at our disposal

3 added 15th November, 2006 at 14:36:04

One natural outcome of the evolution concept described in the theory is that

all the fundamental particles (6 leptons & 6 quarks), right from the electron neutrino

to the top quark are essentially superblackholes or primordial balls of matter

in the microscopic world.

4 Peer review [reviewer #7116] added 15th November, 2006 at 18:27:16

This is terrible, terrible, terrible.

The author makes extravagant claims without citing anyone at all.

The author has no conception of significant digits.

The author has not provided the article in a readable or machine-searchable format.

If anything, this article is a textbook example of research mimicking the “tone” of science, and we might learn something by the shock-and-awe that generates. Present the reader with two pages of equations in Greek at the outset, and they are apt to curl up in submissive dismay. But if there is any content here whatsoever, it evades this reader’s efforts to find it.

Originality: **2**, Importance: **1**, Overall quality: **1**

5 added 16th November, 2006 at 05:32:05

In reply to the comments by the peer reviewer

The author makes extravagant claims without citing anyone at all - The theory is self contained and the author can cite the theory only (whether it is right or wrong).

The author has no conception of significant digits - The author fails to understand what is meant by this remark.

The author has not provided the article in a readable or machine-searchable format - The author makes no claim that he is an expert or even average in such matters.

If anything, this article is a textbook example of research mimicking the “tone” of science, and we might learn something by

the shock-and-awe that generates. Present the reader with two pages of equations in Greek at the outset, and they are apt to

curl up in submissive dismay. But if there is any content here whatsoever, it evades this reader’s efforts to find it. -

The author’s aim was not to confuse the readers with mathematics

but the paper could be presented only in its most presentable form of which the best judge is none other than the author himself.

Also the author is not surprised with the harsh tone in the comments of the reviewer as it is quite natural (when outlandish

looking ideas are presented) and the author wholeheartedly welcomes it.

6 Additional peer comment [reviewer #7116] added 16th November, 2006 at 14:39:50

“Significant digits” refers to any system of numerical notation in which the author attempts to honestly portray the degree of precision obtained. For example, the author has begun with Hubble’s constant, which is in this paper defined as 750 km/sec/Mpc. We pass over the fact that this value is ten times higher than what most astrophysicts currently believe, and no explanation is given for the difference. The important point is that the Hubble constant is an empirical measurement with a good deal of imprecision.

The author proceeds to multiply this imprecise, three-digit figure by two other figures, and arrives at a value of 1.641394826 billion years. The digit in the ninth decimal place of this new figure represents a measurement of (roughly) eight hours per unit. To suggest that this level of precision has been derived from the foregoing work is incredible. Hence the need for significant digits.

7 added 17th November, 2006 at 04:54:10

The author fully agrees with the reviewer that the degree of precision as implied by some of the calculations is practically impossible with a theory of the above kind.

Also while doing the calculations the only aim of the author was to give some indicative figures to show how things fit in the larger picture and not to arrive at any precise values.

Also it is a fact that no norms or standards are followed (the author admits that is is definitely one of the shortcomings of the way it is presented) in deciding

the number of digits to be kept after the decimal point, while deriving the values. Basically it is done in an arbitrary fashion.

Also as far as the overall outcome of the theory is concercerned, the figure of 75 km/sec/Mpc is equally acceptable as 750 km/sec/Mpc for the value of Hubble’s constant.

The value of 750 km/sec/Mpc was given preference over the generally accepted value as it looked helpful in reconciling the derived figures with observational values available presently.