I know this much from Dr Herb Stroiskoff's thesis:

quote:

---

"...para-existant theory is based primarily on recent observations in tachyon light. This scientific theory unifies all underlying principles of the universe, namely all forces are described by one master principle. There are four types of force in the universe: strong force, weak force, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force. Para-existant theory is a successful explanation of unifying all of these concepts, expanding super string theory.

In basic, it has been discovered that all space is defined by two stratoplanes: Positon plane, (relations between molecular fusions that have been arbitraily called positive) and negatons (they are also commonly referred to as anti-space and space respectively). Known generally as "Open-Matter,"

Space and Open Matter are not to be confused. Additionally one must pressume the two planes relate to the concept of matter and anti-matter. There are two founding principles of para-existant theory to begin with. The first pillar, if you will, is that all existing space (negaton field) is equal to all existing anti-space (positon field), and is always held to be a constant. The other principle (well not a principle as such, but a broad generic conceptual principle in which to understand the upshot of paraexistant theory) is that the unique and patternistic positional relationships between these two planes of space and anti-space form all natural phenomena.

---

quote:

---

Can I ignore scientific principle in my mileau even though I am giving the story a scientific setting?

---

The real question, I think, is this: How much does it bear on your story? Is it merely part of your milieu, or is it essential to your plot?

You don't have to explain everything about your milieu. In fact, sometimes this can be rather boring for the reader.

But if this is an essential part of your plot--if, in other words, you don't have a story without paraexistent theory--you have to include it.

"para-existant theory" turns up nothing in google, and "para-existent theory" turns up a site on UFOs. In fact, a search for the name 'Herb Stroiskoff' returns no results. It seems that the name 'Stroiskoff' has been made up, as if anyone had it then it would be unlikely for google to return no matches for it, which it does.

Edit: just a thought: para-existent theory is my first ever googlewhack, although hardly a brilliant one as para-existent only turns up 3 items.

That said, I went to a conference a year ago on this general subject (superstring theory, all-unifying theories) and suffice it to say, no one has yet "succesfully" explained the unification of all the forces. (And be taken seriously by the rest of the scientific world, which is, after all, the hard part!) They are getting closer, but as far as I know, no one has managed it yet.

In short, I'd be a little skeptical of any story that claimed to have done so with hard facts (like you seem to be presenting.) I'd be much more convinced by vague referenced that someone solved it and that we can move on now, unless the science behind the issue is what drives the story. (Take FTL travel, I'm more than happy to accept this in stories, but if someone started to describe in detail how the engine worked, it would take away from the story for me because their science would have been completely made up and almost certainly wrong.)

As far as the general academia goes, there isn't a set believable Unified Field Theory. This theory that you have posted isn't generally accepted, I can tell you that for sure. That doesn't mean that it isn't feasible for a story (or that it isn't right for that matter), just that it hasn't been elevated by scientists to the level of a probable solution.

BTW, Einstein said that if he didn't figure out Universal Field Theory by the time that he died, he didn't think anyone ever would. He never did. It is like the Holy Grail of the Quantum Physics world.

UPDATE: I can't find anything on Google about the Doctor or the Theory (or anything resembling either).