So that one basic question that needs to be asked is how much and what of the universe can actually explained given the assumption that the push or pull forces are the only causes the act universally? And so you have the problem of causally explaining the evidence of quantum physics, and thus of the natural organisation of matter in general on the scale of atoms, molecules and living organisms.

And then you can ask is the lack of any adequate causal explanation in quantum theory the fundamental reason why there has bee no predictively successful development of a quantum gravity theory?

And why is it that in twenty years of looking for the stuff experimentally, has no dark matter been directly detected, and while the modification of Newton’s laws, which doesn’t sound theoretically sensible anyway, also doesn’t work for galaxy clusters?

I’d definitely recommend Lee Smolin’s book The Trouble with Physics as giving a pretty objective insight into what the modern problems of theoretical physics really are. My only reservation being that, having given up on string theory, Smolin’s now into loop quantum gravity.

So my own conclusion is that It’s not, as Smolin suggests, the concept of time that’s the real problem but the foundations of quantum theory. Sort that problem out causally and then I say you’re really getting somewhere with a workable and properly scientific universal theory. Although you can then ask wouldn’t such a theory need to be just too radical for any physicist to contemplate?

1. First sentence: it’s confusing to talk about how “the fields of mathematics and physics were expanding exponentially”, for what I hope are obvious reasons…perhaps what you’re trying to say there could be expressed better by being more specific? Possibly by saying something like: as mathematical and physical theories were getting more ambitiously integrative, Godel noticed that their actual descriptions were becoming (proportionately, do you think?) more laboured and ornate. Further to this, I have two questions for you:

(i) Was this true of physics as well as mathematics, as you say? I mean, that Godel noticed it in physics too?

(ii) Or was it possibly that mathematics was trying to accomplish its own integrative miracles, to match what was going on in physics?

You can probably skate by without fixing this. However, it might be beneficial to sharpen things up a little, lest Godel notice you…

2. Third sentence: not “it was with this spirit that Godel was critical…” but something more like (for instance) “it was in keeping with this spirit…” or “it was in this spirit that Godel conceived his criticism of mathematics…” or indeed anything at all like that, the point only being that one does not employ a “spirit” directly as a criticism, but the spirit animates or informs the criticism only. Maybe: “It was this spirit which animated both Godel’s criticism of mathematics, and his fondness for physics — ultimately leading to his elaboration of Einstein’s…” blah blah blah. These are rough notes, you understand; but something like that might serve your purpose a bit better.

3. Fourth sentence: you mean, at least, “…upon which foundation I will…”

4. Second paragraph: doctoral dissertation not “doctorate dissertation”; “during work on which” is needlessly cumbersome; and again, “bridges” says there is a relationship, but it does not describe the relationship. Take an extra twenty words and make the connection plainer, as discussed in my comment to a previous post. Then at the beginning of the next paragraph you don’t need to say “his pursuit of simplicity”, but you can say “this pursuit of simplicity”…whatever you choose to say, you can link it up better, make it more contingent on what’s in the first two paragraphs. This is flow. Sometimes you need to break flow up a little bit for dramatic purposes, to show the passage of time, to indicate that you’re going to leave off attacking on one angle and begin again on another that will eventually meet up with it, or to instantiate a brand new topic — a brief biographical sketch, for example. But just here, it’s all linked, so it should desirably look linked.

5. Fifth paragraph: do this to your first sentence — “This allowed Godel to address the fact that “there are…relatively simple problems…” Not to sound like a hipster, but see what I did there? Do that. But more than that, this paragraph needs a tad of work. I like your triumphant introduction of old Albert (well, I would!), but I’m not sure it’s just right; nor am I sure that he “catalyzed” the search for a Theory of Everything. It seems what you’re saying there is that it had always been a scientist’s dream to have a Theory of Everything, but because of what Godel has shown it’s always eluded us and always will elude us, but Einstein made it possible to conceive of achieving it. But these things aren’t in the correct order, and what you’re talking about there (if I’ve got you right) isn’t well-described as catalysis, even in metaphor. Hey, I told you I was going to be brisk! One more salient point: Einstein didn’t prove the unity of electricity and magnetism, Maxwell did — relativity deals with gravity, light, acceleration, and invariance in the (correct!) groundbreaking concept of spacetime.

Once you change this stuff, you may well see a better way to lead into the

6. Sixth Paragraph: “fourties” is of course “forties” (you knew that, I know); one struggles with things, not “of” them (you knew that again, I’m well aware); Einstein’s problem wasn’t developing mathematical models for a relativistic universe, but finding a way to reconcile the quantum mechanics birthed by his own Nobel Prize-winning theory of light with his later brainchild, relativity — and for him the key to this was, as ever, visualization: visual understanding, not mathematical modelling, was what he was looking for. But, did Godel help him find it?

Hmm, I don’t know. Einstein never came up with a viable GUT. And say, where were we again? I guess I must eagerly await your next installment so I can see just where you’re going with this…unless there is no next installment in which case what you need is a conclusion…in which case what you and I should have is a little conversation. Obviously it can’t end here! Because the crucial thing isn’t Einstein’s synthesis, but Godel’s…we know he brings his love of simplicity and authenticity to GR when he and Einstein hang out at IAS, but what’s the upshot?

No matter how well one plans, that’s always the very last unanswered question, I guess. I’m going to advise rewriting straight from “…if the system itself is inconsistent” all the way to “…Einstein’s theory of special relativity”, and then tacking on two hundred words of conclusion. And if not that, then something a lot like it.

Okay, call or be called!