that theory is too self-centered aroung the 3rd dimension to even be a theory at all - yet another example of human ignorance and misunderstanding types of thinking. -Dan
Unless things have drastically changed since the last time I've taken a physics class, they still haven't come up with a Theory of everything (TOE). The problem is gravity. You can explain every other force (E+M, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear) by one equation that reduces to each force, but not gravity. Unlike the others, no one has yet found (I think, I havenb't read any journals in a while) a gravity particle. If the "gravitron" is found, then they could derive TOE, but until then it's beyond reach. As for being too self centered and all that, so far physics is doing a good job explaining what can be observed. Yes there are problems, but I haven't seen any reason lately for any paradigm shift in thought. Since you make a claim that the existing mode is faulty, could you give some reason's why and maybe provide some evidence?
Unless things have drastically changed since the last time I've taken a physics class, they still haven't come up with a Theory of everything (TOE). The problem is gravity. You can explain every other force (E+M, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear) by one equation that reduces to each force, but not gravity. Unlike the others, no one has yet found (I think, I havenb't read any journals in a while) a gravity particle. If the "gravitron" is found, then they could derive TOE, but until then it's beyond reach. As for being too self centered and all that, so far physics is doing a good job explaining what can be observed. Yes there are problems, but I haven't seen any reason lately for any paradigm shift in thought. Since you make a claim that the existing mode is faulty, could you give some reason's why and maybe provide some evidence?
I agree that the idea of a TOE is itself a moot question. Yes, there may be a unifying theory in the works between quantum physics and cosmology. String theory seems to be bridging the gap rapidly. However, as soon as you're certain you understand a phenomenon completely, you find that you didn't take into account the ground you're standing on, or the rule you're using for measurement. Undoubtedly, there will always exist an area in our field of vision which is obscured by our limited perspective. The very definition of existence is still very much in question by theoretical physics. We can always propose models in which paradoxical data can coexist. However, does the very model depend upon the shape of the universe in which it was conceived? Food for thought. ------------------ Jesse D. Sierke Quartermaster Third Class United States Navy
I'd imagine so. Models are not built on air, you know. They all come from trying to explain the actual experimental results -- which, by definition, reflect the universe itself (and all its shapes, sizes, and behaviors). ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
For those of you interested: there is a book that attempts to describe TOE and superstring theory called The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene. It might be worth checking out to answer some questions.
The theory of everything!!! (maybe)??? Heres an idea that I've been kicking around. Just for fun. 1) Space is a fabric 2) What we call matter is a localized network of knots in the fabric. (Mater is a special state of space) 3) The space between the knots is obviously knot free. 4) So an atom is a localized distortion of space time. Maybe the fundamental particles that the atom is built from are actualy wormholes. 5) Electrons appear to be in many places simultaneously. Perhaps this is due to space time distortions. The electron is sort of a micro time traveler. Perhaps the paradox of the time traveler meeting himself (duplication) is taken to the Nth degree with particles such as the electron. 6) Motion is an illusion (Xeno) Maybe he was right. Perhaps motion (matter moving through space) is actualy a wave like phenomena. When a ball moves through space what is actually happening is that space (the material) is being turned into the ball at many positions. So the knots are transfered somehow through the material.
I not familiar with "TOES" although I guess the acronym makes sense. I have heard or "GUTS" or Grand Unified Theories. There are several theories out there, however, proving any one is quite difficult. Unifying the four physical forces has as of yet been unachieved. As stated by another poster, Gravity doesn't want to fit the theory. Gravitons, as of yet undiscovered as supposed to be quite massive and would therefore require tremendous energies to creat in particle accelerators. I understand that scientists have theorized at what energy levels the graviton could likely be created. As of yet, no particle accelerator is powerful enough. I, for what ever reason, see gravity as fundamentaly different then the other 3 forces which have been unified. My reasoning is that the nuclear strong, weak and magnetic forces work over such short distances, whereas gravities reach is believed to be unlimited, it is also the weakest force by far. I beleive broken symetries, to an extent, can be used to substanitate that the three forces have frozen from a single force, but gravity on the other hand is so different. No grand unified theory yet, but they are well on the way. Subjests you may be interested in checking out, Topology, Superstring theory, Knot Theory, and Quantum mechanics. Have Fun
PAbbey, I must inform you that ELECTROmagnetism (both magnetism and the electrostatic force where unified in the nineteenth century by James Maxwell) also works over infinite distances, remember the inverse square law of Coulomb ? I looks very similar to the one from Newton... The main difference between the three GUT-forces and gravity lies in renormalisation. The field equations of Einstein have unresolvable infinities within them while the infinities in the other forces are controllable. If you want to learn a little bit more about renormalisation try this link ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton [This message has been edited by Plato (edited September 24, 1999).]
Plato, You are absolutely correct! I'm not sure why I was under the impression magnetism had a finite range. Like gravity, it does have infinite range. The remormalization link was intersting. Thanks.
