Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: unified theory ????

  1. #1 unified theory ???? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    i am an engineer, but since many parts of physics is covered in college i had a moderate knowledge,

    but latest physics news regarding gravitational wave or boson had me revisiting the subject,

    now after some long refreshing through various articles in internet i have a question,

    from my understanding relativity successfully defines space and time with gravity, while quantum mechanics define atomic structure and its interior components,

    i am attributing gravity to as a property of space here,

    why must a theory that describes space should also define things in space ?, this is not micro vs macro


    Last edited by gdpvk; January 20th, 2018 at 11:31 PM. Reason: furthur explained
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    i am an engineer, but since many parts of physics is covered in college i had a moderate knowledge,

    but latest physics news regarding gravitational wave or boson had me revisiting the subject,

    now after some long refreshing through various articles in internet i have a question,

    from my understanding relativity successfully defines space and time with gravity, while quantum mechanics define atomic structure and its interior components,

    i am attributing gravity to as a property of space here,

    why must a theory that describes space should also define things in space ?, this is not micro vs macro
    There is no "must". However, reductionism has proven to be fruitful in the past, and so scientists on the whole have pursued reductionism toward a grand theory of everything. Feynman himself, however, noted that there is no guarantee that the endeavour will succeed. "Nature is what she is. We shouldn't pre-decide the answer."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,061
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    i am an engineer, but since many parts of physics is covered in college i had a moderate knowledge,

    but latest physics news regarding gravitational wave or boson had me revisiting the subject,

    now after some long refreshing through various articles in internet i have a question,

    from my understanding relativity successfully defines space and time with gravity, while quantum mechanics define atomic structure and its interior components,

    i am attributing gravity to as a property of space here,

    why must a theory that describes space should also define things in space
    ?, this is not micro vs macro
    How would you say GR "defines things in space" ? (in addition to describing how they move in space)

    EDIT: or perhaps your question is whether a new theory incorporating both GR and QM is either possible or needed? (apparently GR breaks down at the Planck level of size.....)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    thanks for reply guys

    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post

    How would you say GR "defines things in space" ? (in addition to describing how they move in space)

    EDIT: or perhaps your question is whether a new theory incorporating both GR and QM is either possible or needed? (apparently GR breaks down at the Planck level of size.....)
    my incomprehensibility is at the point where, gravity being defined as one of the low value forces and defined by fabric of space, why is it expected to affect object at plancks length.

    also if you still do the calculations and arrive at a low force it probably will be too low for subatomic particles, also if i am considered particle of earth and an asteroid is thrown at earth and i fly to space how am i expected to follow gravity.
    Last edited by gdpvk; January 21st, 2018 at 10:35 AM. Reason: quote syntax error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,061
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    thanks for reply guys
    Maybe you might edit your last post first as you have wrongly attributed your quote to me. That might be confusing and it will be a lesson learned for the future. Let me know if you need help with the cutting and pasting (if needed)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    thanks for reply guys

    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post

    How would you say GR "defines things in space" ? (in addition to describing how they move in space)

    EDIT: or perhaps your question is whether a new theory incorporating both GR and QM is either possible or needed? (apparently GR breaks down at the Planck level of size.....)
    my incomprehensibility is at the point where, gravity being defined as one of the low value forces and defined by fabric of space, why is it expected to affect object at plancks length.

    also if you still do the calculations and arrive at a low force it probably will be too low for subatomic particles, also if i am considered particle of earth and an asteroid is thrown at earth and i fly to space how am i expected to follow gravity.
    In GR, gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy, And being a classical theory, this curvature should remain smooth down to the smallest level as mass and energy are infinitely divisible. Thus classically, gravity shouldn't be an issue at the sub-atomic level. However, at the sub atomic level, energy and mass aren't infinitely divisible, but divided into discreet values as per Quantum theory. If you try and incorporate these discreet values into GR you get space-time that gets "Jagged" at this scale, and this should results in wild variations in local gravity that we just don't see. So the issue is: Why does the GR model work so well at the macroscopic level, but fail to make correct predictions at the sub-atomic level, while on the Other hand, GM works well at the sub-atomic level, but fails to explain how gravity and space-time curvature model on the macroscopic level. A Unified theory would be one that worked equally well at both levels
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    quantum entanglement being property of the object, why is being defined by space at which said object is in ?

    gravity occurs because objects in space bend space towards them, light in said space is the epitome of effects that can be had on the space,

    now entanglement is transmission of info across space but it is not defined by the space in which object is rather it is defined by object itself, if so why should effects inside the object follow laws of space time
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    In GR, gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy, And being a classical theory, this curvature should remain smooth down to the smallest level as mass and energy are infinitely divisible. Thus classically, gravity shouldn't be an issue at the sub-atomic level. However, at the sub atomic level, energy and mass aren't infinitely divisible, but divided into discreet values as per Quantum theory. If you try and incorporate these discreet values into GR you get space-time that gets "Jagged" at this scale, and this should results in wild variations in local gravity that we just don't see. So the issue is: Why does the GR model work so well at the macroscopic level, but fail to make correct predictions at the sub-atomic level, while on the Other hand, GM works well at the sub-atomic level, but fails to explain how gravity and space-time curvature model on the macroscopic level. A Unified theory would be one that worked equally well at both levels
    thank you, from your explanation i understand energy and mass of subatomic doesnt seem to affect space similar to that of an atom
    the existing problem is similar to taylor equation for area under the curve,

    but gravity is too small, we dont know the actual complete build of the atom and we dont know if particles act inside the atom same way as the act outside the atom, its like hitting the back of bullet and examining the lead projectile movement and saying there's no gunpowder

    basically the discrete values as per quantum theory have a high possibility of being incorrect and may actually have an interaction inside atom that changes the values, since all of atom cannot be understood without completely understanding all of the atom,

    like youngs modulus, and solid state physics, what we know is the effect of presence of atom, electrons etc

    the whole question is me trying to understand the problem as my understanding of equations is poor

    new post
    Last edited by gdpvk; January 21st, 2018 at 02:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    In GR, gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy, And being a classical theory, this curvature should remain smooth down to the smallest level as mass and energy are infinitely divisible. Thus classically, gravity shouldn't be an issue at the sub-atomic level. However, at the sub atomic level, energy and mass aren't infinitely divisible, but divided into discreet values as per Quantum theory. If you try and incorporate these discreet values into GR you get space-time that gets "Jagged" at this scale, and this should results in wild variations in local gravity that we just don't see. So the issue is: Why does the GR model work so well at the macroscopic level, but fail to make correct predictions at the sub-atomic level, while on the Other hand, GM works well at the sub-atomic level, but fails to explain how gravity and space-time curvature model on the macroscopic level. A Unified theory would be one that worked equally well at both levels
    Does this problem show itself in modeling any field? Are fields at the heart of both GR and Quantum Theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    In GR, gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy, And being a classical theory, this curvature should remain smooth down to the smallest level as mass and energy are infinitely divisible. Thus classically, gravity shouldn't be an issue at the sub-atomic level. However, at the sub atomic level, energy and mass aren't infinitely divisible, but divided into discreet values as per Quantum theory. If you try and incorporate these discreet values into GR you get space-time that gets "Jagged" at this scale, and this should results in wild variations in local gravity that we just don't see. So the issue is: Why does the GR model work so well at the macroscopic level, but fail to make correct predictions at the sub-atomic level, while on the Other hand, GM works well at the sub-atomic level, but fails to explain how gravity and space-time curvature model on the macroscopic level. A Unified theory would be one that worked equally well at both levels
    after going back through I understood what your reply was , is there anywhere i can read about what you say in-terms of which mass and how much energy with how much difference from GR prediction

    thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Zero Space-Time Theory-Grand Unified Theory of the Universe
    By tianman32 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 27th, 2013, 01:31 AM
  2. Grand Unified Theory
    By jsaldea12 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 09:49 PM
  3. unified field theory
    By STEPHANkIM5 in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 18th, 2009, 10:00 AM
  4. Grand Unified Theory
    By Mike NS in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: September 29th, 2006, 11:36 AM
  5. Grand Unified Theory
    By Mike NS in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: January 30th, 2006, 09:20 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •