Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51
Like Tree9Likes
  • 2 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Nickpolman
  • 1 Post By shlunka

Thread: Preferred Theory of Everything

  1. #1 Preferred Theory of Everything 
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the numerous TOEs out there today. If you could, please say which theory you believe, or find to be the most plausible and why.

    Personally, I believe that because of the conflicts between relativity and quantum mechanics, finding the true TOE requires a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe using modern FACTS and removing quantum and Einstein theories. I predict that the truth will present itself more clearly, and that it will somehow be connected to an electromagnetic explanation of gravity. The opinions of Nikola Tesla and Hendrik Lorentz capture my interest(and I concede that they are simply 'opinions', just like every theory-made-fact was at some point), and the theories of an Ether seem to be the groundwork for our current model of the universe. To ignore that possible characteristic of the universe just because it makes the theoretical process easier seems to me like laziness. I see a logical need for a medium in which light waves propagate.

    As far as current popular theories go, string theory caught my interest a while ago, but I now see it as just one of the many possible ways to make mathematics conform. I believe a purely electromagnetic universe is the most likely.

    Like I said before, this is based on personal opinion of an unknown area of science. I know it's hard to ask of science folk like us, but try not to argue please. We all know that we will never convince each other of anything and the arguments will go nowhere because humans are stubborn, especially on the topic of personal beliefs.


    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    44
    lol teh tee oh ee is best candidate so far imosvho. it is of course connected to teh big bang theory.

    fundamental interactions emerge from the natural number set as it grows, as it becomes increasingly able to describe complex concepts such as particle energy.

    is there a problem in the difference between a 1/n+1 universe, and an n+1 universe?

    apart from that, there's some crazy french dude who's making out he's the prime candidate for resolving number theory and field theory. crazy french dude ftw.


    number is the fundamental building block of the universe...

    proposal

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

    where T is the cardinal of U, and ∞ is an implied future potential value of >1

    note: this is a testable hypothesis: the equation works. it works. god damn but it works... LINKY
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Perhaps I just don't understand your lingo, or I'm uninformed, but I don't think there is a theory of everything titled "TOE". Nor do I think the big bang is a theory of everything; maybe I just didn't know. Also, the theory of everything is (I think) supposed to explain all of the complex concepts, not describe them. Newton described gravity, but he didn't explain it. I'm interested to know how the theory you are referring to explains things like quantum entanglement, as well as gravity and its unification with the other fundamental forces.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Theories and facts are two completely different things. A theory can never be proven, only demonstrated to have specific area of validity. For both QED and GR those areas cover very nearly everything we can measure.

    Of course we're going to have to find some different way of describing the universe that is neither QED or GR. They are known to be inconsistent with each other and their areas of validity don't overlap that much, so neither can be "right" but neither is wrong either. Even after finding a working theory of everything, QED and GR will still be usable with their areas, just like Newtonian mechanics is still used within its area.

    When you say "throw out Einstein and use FACTS" you really don't know what you're talking about. Einstein's GR conforms to all the observations we've ever made at the large scale, just like QED conforms to all the observations we've ever made at the small scale. Those are facts, and there's nothing else. Any new theory of everything must conform to the same observations plus any new ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    When you say "you really don't know what you're talking about", you really don't know who you're talking to.

    My point was that just because the theories conform to observations doesn't mean that they accurately explain them. To say that you would still use a theory after it is proven to have a fundamental flaw doesn't make any sense to me. Gravity's role on the quantum scale, I'd say, is a pretty big example of invalid theory for at least one of the two. In order to discover the discrepancy, it seems only logical to break science down to the irrefutable facts of direct observation and let theories be built again. If Einstein had been aware of modern quantum observations and facts prior to his relativity theories, I highly doubt he would have formulated them identically to when he held such a rigid belief in the uniformity of the universe on all scales.

    I believe it is necessary to periodically question anything that has been accepted as though it is a proven fact, when in truth it is not. rather than put such a level of trust behind beliefs from well before our lifetime; such methods are reminiscent of the blind faith of religions, which my personal observations of inspired my lifelong passion for truth in science.



    "A theory can never be proven"

    I'd like to know what you would call the previous state of a fact, before it is proven to be one.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    When you say "you really don't know what you're talking about", you really don't know who you're talking to.

    My point was that just because the theories conform to observations doesn't mean that they accurately explain them. To say that you would still use a theory after it is proven to have a fundamental flaw doesn't make any sense to me. Gravity's role on the quantum scale, I'd say, is a pretty big example of invalid theory for at least one of the two. In order to discover the discrepancy, it seems only logical to break science down to the irrefutable facts of direct observation and let theories be built again. If Einstein had been aware of modern quantum observations and facts, I highly doubt he would still have held such a rigid belief in the uniformity of the universe. I believe it is necessary to periodically question anything that has been accepted as though it is a proven fact, when in truth it is not. rather than put such a level of trust behind beliefs from well before our lifetime; such methods are reminiscent of the blind faith of religions, which my personal observations of inspired my lifelong passion for truth in science.



    "A theory can never be proven"

    I'd like to know what you would call the previous state of a fact, before it is proven to be one.
    Magimaster is absolutely correct. You have no idea what you are talking about, and that is utterly clear from your post.

    It is abunndantly clear that the universe is not electromagnetic and contentions to the contrary usually come from "Electric Universe" wackos, who demonstrably do not know what in the hell they are talking about.

    The term "Theory of Everything" (TOE) is intended to describe a theory that unifies the electroweak, strong, and gravitatinal forces. There is currently no such theory, although there is a great deal of ongoin research in the attempt to formulate a TOE. Unification of gravitation with quantum theories is a major goal and a major hurdle.

    String theory is one attempt to develop a TOE, but it is at best formative and not yet mathematically well-defined or consistent.

    Science is in the habit of questioning everything, but does so intelligently. That requires that new theories obey the correspondence principle -- they must agree with all valid experiments and with accepted theory within known domains of validity of that theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Thanks for your input here guys, but so far you have both failed to respond to the OP.

    Either way, I get paid to know what I'm talking about, and I wouldn't have a job if I didn't. DrRocket, If you are agreeing with Magimaster on my lack of understanding while quoting me as saying "throw out Einstein and use FACTS", I ask that you please pay attention a little better, since I never said that. I said to throw away that which is theoretical in Einsteinian and quantum physics, only in the context of deciphering the conflict between the two, not forever. I know what a unified field theory is, too. Thanks. My opinion on an electromagnetic universe comes from my own introspective thoughts on light (electromagnetic radiation) being the cosmological constant that gravity must also adhere to. In my own, apparently delusional logic, this means to me that gravity is directly affected by the properties of electromagnetism. Also, since the goal is to unify all forces in the end anyway, it is already believed that gravity and electromagnetism, as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces, are all of the same origin.

    With all due respect, Dr. Rocket, your claim that "It is abunndantly clear that the universe is not electromagnetic" is downright false. I admittedly don't know what it truly means, but the fact that electromagnetism sets the cosmological constant of the entire universe seems to kill your point. Other than that, gravity seems to be related as I stated and the electroweak force speaks for itself. As for the strong force, color charge is somewhat similar to electrical charge but I'll admit the only connection I can think of is that the strong force is indirectly involved in electrical charge of quarks but that's it. When I said purely electromagnetic, I was implying that I predict that if and when the fundamental interactions are unified, electromagnetism will play the most important role. Again, this is due to the fact that the cosmological constant of the entire universe is based on electromagnetism alone, of all the fundamental forces. As for the electric universe, I don't know anything about that other than the fact that it has something to do with plasma cosmology, another thing I know nothing about. My opinions are formed from my education on Tesla, Lorentz, Maxwell and Einstein and the history of science as a whole.

    I am not insisting that anything I say is fact, yet you both seem to be reacting as if that is the case. I clearly stated from the beginning that it is all personal opinion, since obviously no one can claim that any TOE is right. I am sorry that you look down on my personal sense of logic.

    As long as we're throwing around our opinions on who knows what today, I would like to state that, apparently, neither of you have any idea how to read. I asked you for your opinions on the numerous theories being proposed, as to which you found the most plausible. What I got was criticism of my own opinions, in direct conflict with my plea that arguments be avoided. I would also like to state that I have responded in this manner in the defense of my own opinion, since apparently you believe that even an opinion can be wrong.

    Edit: Also, DrRocket, I hope you don't really stand by your statement that you think Magimaster is absolutely correct. His definition of a theory is very radical indeed.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    .

    Either way, I get paid to know what I'm talking about, .
    Then either you are a theif or your employers are fools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    So bold you are to call me a thief, when it is you who has stolen the topic of this thread from its original intention, which you have yet to reply to.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    So bold you are to call me a thief, when it is you who has stolen the topic of this thread from its original intention, which you have yet to reply to.
    Apparently you cannot recognize a response when you see one.

    Your facts are wrong. Completely wrong.

    There is no evidence that the cosmological constant is determined electromagnetically. If you calculate the vacuum energy according to quantum electrodynamics and then insert that value in the stress energy tensor of general relativity you overpredict the obseved cosmological constant by about 120 orders of magnitude. That is a gigantic error.

    NOBODY has an explanation for the observed accelerated expansion of space. NOBODY most certainly includes you.

    I have made quite a good living in part by being able to recognize when people do not know what they are talking about. My BS meter is fully functional, and you peg it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Preferred Theory of Everything 
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the numerous TOEs out there today. If you could, please say which theory you believe, or find to be the most plausible and why.

    Like I said before, this is based on personal opinion of an unknown area of science. I know it's hard to ask of science folk like us, but try not to argue please. We all know that we will never convince each other of anything and the arguments will go nowhere because humans are stubborn, especially on the topic of personal beliefs.
    It's pretty disappointing that I actually have to quote my original post on the 11th post of this thread in order to try and get past this inane confrontation, the likes of which I requested be avoided, and actually get started with the topic at hand.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, DrRocket. I certainly am not trying to prove anything. I was only stating my interest in an idea, and I'm tired of defending myself against someone who is simply acting like a jackass. All I wanted to know was the general consensus of which proposed TOE people are leaning towards, or what they believe is the most likely, based on their own personal opinion. Danny Burton seems to be the only person who understands what I'm asking, even if his response is a little confusing.

    I'm beginning to believe you can't comprehend the idea of a non-confrontational discussion on personal, creative opinion since you seem to be focusing so much on FACTS and disproving my admittedly imaginative ideas. Do you argue with children as well when they say something imaginative? As a veteran member of this forum, you do a poor job representing it with a sense of class. I regret ever speaking my mind in the first place.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    NOBODY has an explanation for the observed accelerated expansion of space.
    i luv u guise

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)
    number is the fundamental building block of the universe...

    proposal

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

    where T is the cardinal of U, and ∞ is an implied future potential value of >1

    note: this is a testable hypothesis: the equation works. it works. god damn but it works... LINKY
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Preferred Theory of Everything 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    I predict that the truth will present itself more clearly, and that it will somehow be connected to an electromagnetic explanation of gravity. The opinions of Nikola Tesla and Hendrik Lorentz capture my interest(and I concede that they are simply 'opinions', just like every theory-made-fact was at some point), and the theories of an Ether seem to be the groundwork for our current model of the universe. To ignore that possible characteristic of the universe just because it makes the theoretical process easier seems to me like laziness. I see a logical need for a medium in which light waves propagate.

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    My point was that just because the theories conform to observations doesn't mean that they accurately explain them..
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    Again, this is due to the fact that the cosmological constant of the entire universe is based on electromagnetism alone, of all the fundamental forces.
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, DrRocket. I certainly am not trying to prove anything. I was only stating my interest in an idea, and I'm tired of defending myself against someone who is simply acting like a jackass. All I wanted to know was the general consensus of which proposed TOE people are leaning towards, or what they believe is the most likely, based on their own personal opinion. Danny Burton seems to be the only person who understands what I'm asking, even if his response is a little confusing.

    I'm beginning to believe you can't comprehend the idea of a non-confrontational discussion on personal, creative opinion since you seem to be focusing so much on FACTS and disproving my admittedly imaginative ideas. Do you argue with children as well when they say something imaginative? As a veteran member of this forum, you do a poor job representing it with a sense of class. I regret ever speaking my mind in the first place.
    I'm sorry that you have such a dislike for facts.

    But this and other forums are read by innocent lurkers with a desire to learn real science. Real science is rather dependent on facts.

    If you don'e like criticism, don't say stupid stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    I do not have a dislike for facts, I have a dislike of stupid people hijacking threads for reasons in direct conflict with the OP's initial requests.

    As for watching out for these innocent people, if they are going to take what I said seriously despite the fact that I stated it as an opinion, that's their own stupidity and not my problem. Part of living with free will is letting people decide for themselves instead of restricting their experience to what you decide they should read. Humans are logical in nature, not perfectly, but enough so that they can figure things out on their own. A public discussion does not deserve to be compromised for this reason.

    Also, this is not the first time I have pointed out that someone is being overly critical and argumentative and gotten a response that it is all in the interest of the innocent person trying to learn something. If that was truly the case, you should have politely corrected my mistakes like an adult. Even an extremely flawed idea can include a unique aspect about it that can spawn further ideas that just may lead to a real discovery. Just look at the way Einstein transformed Lorentz' Ether theory.

    Sometimes my nephew will say the stupidest things I've ever heard in his own attempt to explain the phenomena of life, but sometimes when he expands on those stupid ideas, he manages to come to the correct conclusion on his own.

    To ignore anything when trying to understand everything seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. Your methods are not the kind that allowed for the theorizing and discovery of radical, unexpected discoveries that have been made throughout the history of science.

    I am interested to hear your take on how light waves can propagate without a medium. If this is true, why was it ever considered necessary? The Ether was not disproved, but simply left out of relativity. Lorentz himself stated, "that there is little difference between his theory and the negation of a preferred reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, so that it is a matter of taste which theory one prefers."

    In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote:"I agree with you that the general relativity theory admitsof an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    44
    ok. time flows down to the bottom of the post (and continues)

    teh tee oh ee

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

    teh big bang = Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1) for any truth state where ∞ > 1

    the sequence follows: HAZY BOUNDARY, 13(1/13), 21(1/21), 34(1/34)

    where the hazy boundary prevents us from breaking Heisenberg’s and the numbers are not certain (I ain't no math geek, if you couldn't tell).. but they're certain to be some function of those numbers...

    big bang = number

    number + number

    PATTERN EMERGENCE = NUMBER COMPLEXITY

    number complexity + number complexity

    PATTERN EMERGENCE = DIMENSIONS

    dimensions + number complexity

    PATTERN EMERGENCE = FIELDS

    fields + number complexity

    PATTERN EMERGENCE = MASS

    mass + number complexity

    PATTERN EMERGENCE = GRAVITY

    gravity + number complexity



    sorry to bang this drum so hard but please... come on.
    number is the fundamental building block of the universe...

    proposal

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

    where T is the cardinal of U, and ∞ is an implied future potential value of >1

    note: this is a testable hypothesis: the equation works. it works. god damn but it works... LINKY
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    44
    and the difference between the actual value of each new fraction and the value we, as an observer as part of the universe cannot know, is carried directly away from us and straight over an event horizon by the Higgs'.
    number is the fundamental building block of the universe...

    proposal

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

    where T is the cardinal of U, and ∞ is an implied future potential value of >1

    note: this is a testable hypothesis: the equation works. it works. god damn but it works... LINKY
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    If I may say so I stand by Dr. Rocket on this one, blunt though he may be it is sometimes needed, apart from being funny, and can add solid information on a forum where it is in many cases deficient. Besides, i'm sure many have better things to do then write long posts on this forum, or even read them!

    I also don't disagree with the approach by schiz0yd, reasonable as he is and even 'paid' as he may be in many of the posts.

    As far as I have encountered there is a strong need to be VERY careful if you REALLY want to discuss science about what is and what is not - an argument can be a good way to do this and should help show people where their ideas do not work! :P

    However going back to the OP, in my ignorance I also like string theory as a model but it is in so many ways an outcast and still needing much work so stands aside from 'Standard Theory' which I am sure many will not argue with, and is a 'safe' place to work from. Many people may secretly 'lean' towards electromagnetism as a favourite but things still dont add up.

    A true TOE might be far more diverse if the universe is in fact not 'electromagnetic' and would take on a very interesting form indeed. It is also a 'holy grail' yet to be discovered, Stephen Hawking fell into this trap in his Brief History of Time saying that he wouldn't be suprised if it is found by the end of the 20th Century! 10 years on and as far as I know we are not any closer!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by fatman57
    If I may say so I stand by Dr. Rocket on this one, blunt though he may be it is sometimes needed, apart from being funny, and can add solid information on a forum where it is in many cases deficient. Besides, i'm sure many have better things to do then write long posts on this forum, or even read them!

    I also don't disagree with the approach by schiz0yd, reasonable as he is and even 'paid' as he may be in many of the posts.

    As far as I have encountered there is a strong need to be VERY careful if you REALLY want to discuss science about what is and what is not - an argument can be a good way to do this and should help show people where their ideas do not work! :P

    However going back to the OP, in my ignorance I also like string theory as a model but it is in so many ways an outcast and still needing much work so stands aside from 'Standard Theory' which I am sure many will not argue with, and is a 'safe' place to work from. Many people may secretly 'lean' towards electromagnetism as a favourite but things still dont add up.

    A true TOE might be far more diverse if the universe is in fact not 'electromagnetic' and would take on a very interesting form indeed. It is also a 'holy grail' yet to be discovered, Stephen Hawking fell into this trap in his Brief History of Time saying that he wouldn't be suprised if it is found by the end of the 20th Century! 10 years on and as far as I know we are not any closer!
    There is quite a bit of work going to develop both a bGrant Unified Theory (GUT) and a Theory of Everything (TOE). A GUT would be a unification of the electroweak theories and quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong nuclear interaction. A TOE would be a GUT plus unification with gravity. Nobody knows how to do either.

    The Standard Model is pretty well set. There is not a lot of theoretical work going on with respect to it per se. However, there is an extension of the Standard Model, known as supersymmetry that is the subject of quite a bit of attention. Supersymmetry is crucial to GUTS and to most string theories. One of the major hopes for the LHC is that it will finally detect supersymmetric partner particles -- but there have predictions that such a discovery is just around the corner for at least a decade.

    It is absolutely clear that the universe is not electromagnetic. Gravity is not electromagnetic, and it accounts for most of the structure of the cosmos, since the universe appears to be electrically neutral on large scales. The electromagnetic force is important in atom-scale particles and in stellar astrophysics where the plasma state is common. But even plasmas are quasi-neutral.

    No one seriously believes that the electromagnetic force is dominant on large scales. That role is clearly one filled by gravity. There are some wacko groups advocating the "Electric Unverse" with contrary opinions, but they are basically nuts -- the lunatic fringe.

    The forecast for a successful TOE has been made several times. Hawking fell into that trap as you noted. String theorists have also fallen into it, and some cling tightly to the notion that string theory will soon provide such a theory. However, the truth is that string theory has run into some serious difficulties as a physical theory, It has produced some spectacular mathematics, but it has produce zero new physics. That could change. Or string theory could fade away into physical oblivion (but could live on as an exceptional conjecture machine for pure mathematics as salsaonline has suggested.)

    In any case one ought to read popular articles on string theory very skeptically. There are a plethora of outrageous claims made for string theory to describe physical phenomena about which nothing is actually known.

    The fundamental difference between the Standard Model and the various string theories is that the Standard Model is mature, proven physics that is solidly backed up by experimental evidence. It is the best available description of particle physics. It does not include gravity. It is therefore not a complete or final theory, but is a very good approximation within its domain of validity. String theories are a research attempt to develop a TOE. They are neither mature nor backed up by experiment, which simply reflects their nature as a research topic. String theories may or may not ever become predictive physical theories. If they do, they will supplant the Standard Model and general relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by danny burton
    and the difference between the actual value of each new fraction and the value we, as an observer as part of the universe cannot know, is carried directly away from us and straight over an event horizon by the Higgs'.
    This is gibberish -- word salad.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. My dog makes more sense (probably because he is smarter and better educated).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This is gibberish -- word salad.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. My dog makes more sense (probably because he is smarter and better educated).
    u rly r speshul eh.

    why not have a little read up on what the Higgs represents.

    If you can read that is, and considering there's no evidence supporting that theory yet we shouldn't be too optimistic eh...

    but here's something for you to practise on. It's from a scientist:

    [An] important lesson we learn from the way that pure numbers like α define the world is what it really means for worlds to be different. The pure number we call the fine structure constant and denote by α is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h. At first we might be tempted to think that a world in which the speed of light was slower would be a different world. But this would be a mistake. If c, h, and e were all changed so that the values they have in metric (or any other) units were different when we looked them up in our tables of physical constants, but the value of α remained the same, this new world would be observationally indistinguishable from our world. The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged.

    John David Barrow FRS (born 29 November 1952, London) is an English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician. He is currently Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge

    If you do manage to get past ah,bu,ku,duh... then try emergent complexity . Again, it's from a proper academic, please do be careful.


    One last thought. If it's so easy to dismiss the proposal that the fundamental interactions are the direct result of emergent complexity in a rapidly expanding early universe, how come you haven't managed to come up with any credible argument against. (um... telling people they smell doesn't count... you should have left that at school. ... *lightbulb moment*... oh I'm so sorry I didn't realise this was a GCSE site. *starts looking for grown-ups*)

    There's some VERY simple things you could do to test it, if only you could understand that. Testable. Funny that isn't it.

    Continually rolling out your ego isn't actually science. Have you thought of a career in football perhaps? It might suit you.... If you got game. But like I said, no evidence for that so far.
    number is the fundamental building block of the universe...

    proposal

    Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

    where T is the cardinal of U, and ∞ is an implied future potential value of >1

    note: this is a testable hypothesis: the equation works. it works. god damn but it works... LINKY
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    @schiz0yd, the point you make that most clearly labels you as someone who isn't doing actual science is this "My point was that just because the theories conform to observations doesn't mean that they accurately explain them. To say that you would still use a theory after it is proven to have a fundamental flaw doesn't make any sense to me."

    Observation is all there is. There is no explaination. And Newtonian mechanics is still used despite having many flaws. It's still good enough for many cases where the more detailed SR or GR are not needed. The same will be true of both GR and QED once they're successfully replaced.

    In the meantime, there's no point in believing in any TOE unless you're looking for grant money. Some bright spark will eventually find one if the universe really is that comprehensible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    @schiz0yd, the point you make that most clearly labels you as someone who isn't doing actual science is this "My point was that just because the theories conform to observations doesn't mean that they accurately explain them. To say that you would still use a theory after it is proven to have a fundamental flaw doesn't make any sense to me."

    Observation is all there is. There is no explaination. And Newtonian mechanics is still used despite having many flaws. It's still good enough for many cases where the more detailed SR or GR are not needed. The same will be true of both GR and QED once they're successfully replaced.
    If you don't mind me saying I think you both are speaking about similar things - schiz0yd makes a good point that an observation doesn't necessarily prove a 'fact,' I think he is simply explaining his dislike for there being no single theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    In the meantime, there's no point in believing in any TOE unless you're looking for grant money. Some bright spark will eventually find one if the universe really is that comprehensible.
    I completely agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    I am interested to hear your take on how light waves can propagate without a medium. If this is true, why was it ever considered necessary? The Ether was not disproved, but simply left out of relativity. Lorentz himself stated, "that there is little difference between his theory and the negation of a preferred reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, so that it is a matter of taste which theory one prefers."
    Light propagates just fine in a vacuum without a medium. That is what is predicted by classical Maxwellian electrodynamics, QED and what is seen in experiments. We stars (light) that are separated from use by many light years of vacuum.

    The historical issue of the aether is discussed in another thread here.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=23410&start=0

    There is a theory due to Lorentz that includes and aether, but it is rather contrived and ultimately produces exactly the same predictions a special relativity.
    That is done by including the Lorentz transforms of special relativity by fiat, rather than as a logica consequence of a compact set of principles -- special relativity requires only the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames and that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

    What special relativity does is show that a model based on an aether is not necessary and that it is rather cumbersome. So, since it is superfluous, one simply dispenses with it. It is basically a useless interpretation of special relativity and no longer receives attention. There is no point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by fatman57
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    @schiz0yd, the point you make that most clearly labels you as someone who isn't doing actual science is this "My point was that just because the theories conform to observations doesn't mean that they accurately explain them. To say that you would still use a theory after it is proven to have a fundamental flaw doesn't make any sense to me."

    Observation is all there is. There is no explaination. And Newtonian mechanics is still used despite having many flaws. It's still good enough for many cases where the more detailed SR or GR are not needed. The same will be true of both GR and QED once they're successfully replaced.
    If you don't mind me saying I think you both are speaking about similar things - schiz0yd makes a good point that an observation doesn't necessarily prove a 'fact,' I think he is simply explaining his dislike for there being no single theory.
    I guess it could be interpreted that way, but an observation is a fact. Repeatable observations are the only kind really. Nowhere in physics is there a need for a theory to explain itself as long as it works. (As far as that goes, if two theories produced identical results, people would usually gravitate towards the one that requires fewer assumptions.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Hi.
    As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Ether as it is the only way that the entire universe can be explained in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on the Ether any further in this section of the forum due to an act of discrimination towards me on behalf on the moderators who seem to think that I am the only person who should not be allowed to speak of the Ether, even when my cases are well presented and flawless. So regrettably, discussion of the Ether will have to take place in the new ideas and hypothesis section, at least for now.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Hi.
    As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Ether as it is the only way that the entire universe can be explained in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on the Ether any further in this section of the forum due to an act of discrimination towards me on behalf on the moderators who seem to think that I am the only person who should not be allowed to speak of the Ether, even when my cases are well presented and flawless. So regrettably, discussion of the Ether will have to take place in the new ideas and hypothesis section, at least for now.
    You are delusional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    8
    Well, take into account of what revolutionary physicists and other scientists did to construct their theorems. Newton created calculus and a higher understanding of particle behaviour that was never even imagined before, and Einstein re-imagined how the universe worked by throwing away everything that Newton had taught about gravity, in order to develop his special relativity. Even in current times, after Feynman and Michio Kaku, we still develop new ways about thinking. Science is fact and nature turned form, but sometimes the very fundamentals of our understanding has to be re-imagined in order to gain new perspective, and possibly new answers.
    Personally, I'm fascinated by the magnitudes that empty space has proven to show, maybe there's a precursor to this BB theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    Well, take into account of what revolutionary physicists and other scientists did to construct their theorems. Newton created calculus and a higher understanding of particle behaviour that was never even imagined before, and Einstein re-imagined how the universe worked by throwing away everything that Newton had taught about gravity, in order to develop his special relativity. Even in current times, after Feynman and Michio Kaku, we still develop new ways about thinking. Science is fact and nature turned form, but sometimes the very fundamentals of our understanding has to be re-imagined in order to gain new perspective, and possibly new answers.
    Some of what you say is not accurate, here. Einstein did not throw away Newtonian gravity at all- Newton never said what Gravity was and Einstein had also not scientifically defined gravity- merely it's effect. Just as Newton did. We still use Newtons theories today.
    Einstein built upon the work of Maxwell and Lorentz. Like every other scientist, he relied on the work that came before him. S.R. and G.R. were strong because of its accuracy and how well it ties it all together, but the concept of Relativity pre-dates Einstein.

    Personally, I cannot think of anything that Michio Kaku has ever done except popularize known science and exploit the promotion of string hypotheses to inspire greater interest in the sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Personally, I cannot think of anything that Michio Kaku has ever done except popularize known science and exploit the promotion of string hypotheses to inspire greater interest in the sciences.


    And of course, tirelessly promote himself.

    Neverfly and Nickpolman like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    Well, take into account of what revolutionary physicists and other scientists did to construct their theorems. Newton created calculus and a higher understanding of particle behaviour that was never even imagined before, and Einstein re-imagined how the universe worked by throwing away everything that Newton had taught about gravity, in order to develop his special relativity.
    In a word, no. In more words, hell no. Special relativity does not deal with gravity, so Einstein certainly did not "throw away" what Newton had taught about gravity to develop SR. It is GR that deals with gravity. You seem not to have a clue about the things you are pontificating about.

    Even in current times, after Feynman and Michio Kaku, we still develop new ways about thinking. Science is fact and nature turned form, but sometimes the very fundamentals of our understanding has to be re-imagined in order to gain new perspective, and possibly new answers.
    I'm sure that you think you are saying something profoundly novel and instructive, but I assure you that you are not. What do you think scientists do every single day? Have you ever read a real scientific journal? You seem to have no clue at all about the amount of creative thought that goes into developing scientific theories. The one who needs to imagine, to say nothing of re-imagine, how to think is actually you.

    Personally, I'm fascinated by the magnitudes that empty space has proven to show, maybe there's a precursor to this BB theory?
    I have no idea what you are trying to say. What is a "magnitude of empty space?" And if there's a precursor to a theory, then it already exists. I can't tell if you are therefore arguing that we have somehow misplaced this precursor, and that we ought to launch a search for it, or if you are trying to say that there is/might be a theory of an epoch that precedes that of the Big Bang.

    Precision in expression is important in science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    that we have somehow misplaced this precursor, and that we ought to launch a search for it
    This had me rolling...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    8
    I'm not denying the imaginative thought that goes on every day, all over the world. I never even pointed towards that. What I'm implying is that perspective grants knowledge. Scientists aren't bound to a single train of thought, except for ones that are proven untrue. Even then, it's found that re-defining certain sciences can aid in new discovery.
    I have yet to see any precursor theories to the Big Bang yet. If you have any, do you mind sending me a link? I was saying that the Big Bang seems incomplete, to me. It doesn't quite makes sense to have (at the beginning of time) already existing energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    I'm not denying the imaginative thought that goes on every day, all over the world. I never even pointed towards that. What I'm implying is that perspective grants knowledge. Scientists aren't bound to a single train of thought, except for ones that are proven untrue.
    Huh? That makes no sense.

    Even then, it's found that re-defining certain sciences can aid in new discovery.
    Huh? That makes no sense.

    I have yet to see any precursor theories to the Big Bang yet.
    There are no real scientific theories of "before the Big Bang."

    If you have any, do you mind sending me a link? I was saying that the Big Bang seems incomplete, to me.
    Of course it's incomplete. All of science is. You seem unaware that this is understood.

    It doesn't quite makes sense to have (at the beginning of time) already existing energy.
    First, whether it makes sense to you is not actually relevant to how the universe works. Second, it's not established that energy existed at the "beginning of time."

    Your thoughts are quite muddled, and their expression equally so. I can't quite get the point of your posts, sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    I was saying that the Big Bang seems incomplete, to me. It doesn't quite makes sense to have (at the beginning of time) already existing energy.
    No one knows nor are there any theories about pre big bang physics. Most likely, there is something that was going on in some fashion then. Since time as we know it began with the expansion of the Universe, we are very limited in how we can look past time itself... But hey, almost 14 billion years is still pretty good.
    Nickpolman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    8
    Aye, it's incredible what we've been able to learn just from our current understanding. The big bang theory explains it very well too, with the microwave radiation left over from the event and such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    8
    I'm not denying the imaginative thought that goes on every day, all over the world. I never even pointed towards that. What I'm implying is that perspective grants knowledge. Scientists aren't bound to a single train of thought, except for ones that are proven untrue.
    In simpler terms, science tends to clash, some theories don't match with others and we are always adjusting for it. Sorry about the confusing lingo.

    Even then, it's found that re-defining certain sciences can aid in new discovery.
    What doesn't make sense about it? Going back into old ideas and reanalyzing them can aid in new discovery.

    There are no real scientific theories of "before the Big Bang."
    And you know this because...? You seem very arrogant to make a claim like that.

    Of course it's incomplete. All of science is. You seem unaware that this is understood.
    You're right, seeing as all science correlates to one another, it is unlikely that it will ever be complete. When I ask if you have any links that could show me I was being sincere, since I haven't seen any.

    First, whether it makes sense to you is not actually relevant to how the universe works. Second, it's not established that energy existed at the "beginning of time."
    Do you think I'm unaware of the fact that my understanding has no effect on the universe? It makes no sense, and not just for me, for energy or any form or any thing to exist at the beginning of time. It also was established that energy existed at the beginning of time by the BB theory. I'm saying that I don't agree with it.
    Sorry, My mind tends to wonder, I'm not very good at writing in an organized format.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    There are no real scientific theories of "before the Big Bang."
    And you know this because...? You seem very arrogant to make a claim like that.
    Because we read a lot about cosmology and keep current with the latest theories..
    tk421 likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    There are no real scientific theories of "before the Big Bang."
    And you know this because...? You seem very arrogant to make a claim like that.
    I know this because I study science. Actual science. And unlike you, I endeavor not to make assertions without foundation. I find your attitude to be far more arrogant than mine, truth be told.

    If you were to acquire an education about these topics beyond the pop-sci sources that you evidently consult exclusively, you'd know that our modern cosmological understanding allows us to extrapolate back in time to within roughly a Planck time of the (in)famous singularity. Any earlier than that, and we have left the domain of our current understanding. Our math breaks down, which tells us that our math cannot be used there. Most pop-sci sources make the wholly unwarranted leap that the universe therefore started off as a singularity. That might make for sexy copy to attract eyeballs, but it isn't science. Since we don't even have a theory that gets us to a singular Bang, we pretty much self-evidently don't have a theory that goes back in time to an epoch that precedes that. Calling that logical chain of reasoning arrogant reveals more about you than about me, frankly. Most unbiased folks would instead call my description a statement arising out of humility, as it acknowledges frankly what we don't know, rather than falsely asserting that an unfounded extrapolation is true.
    AlexG likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    In simpler terms, science tends to clash, some theories don't match with others and we are always adjusting for it. Sorry about the confusing lingo.
    Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say, nor why. You make statements often uttered by people who know little about science and scientists. You seem to think you are in possession of important insights and advice that scientists should heed. Sorry to pop your bubble, but you sound a bit like a kindergartner telling Beckham that he needs to run fast and pay attention to what's going on around him.

    Going back into old ideas and reanalyzing them can aid in new discovery.
    As my niece would say, "Thank you, Mr. Obvious." Again, you seem to think you are saying something profound. Good scientists routinely revisit history as a source of inspiration. New data often stimulates a search for resolutions to seeming paradoxes, and that search often includes historical ideas. The atomic concept was first articulated by Democritus, a couple of millennia ago. Newton thought he'd proved light was corpuscular; Young thought he'd definitively refuted Newton. Now we use mental imagery that is a blend of these two centuries-old ideas.

    You're right, seeing as all science correlates to one another, it is unlikely that it will ever be complete.
    I don't see how "correlates to one another" has any relation to the question of completeness.

    When I ask if you have any links that could show me I was being sincere, since I haven't seen any.
    I missed your requests for specifics. For general science knowledge, I recommend that you go read some books on the subject (and not just ones written to impress a lay audience).


    Do you think I'm unaware of the fact that my understanding has no effect on the universe?
    You misunderstood entirely what I meant. I was reacting to your apparent belief that the validity of a scientific theory was determined by whether it made sense to you. I was pointing out that nature is as nature is. Whether it makes sense to glorified monkeys is not nature's problem.

    It makes no sense, and not just for me, for energy or any form or any thing to exist at the beginning of time.
    And there's an example of precisely my point. I don't give a damn -- and neither does nature -- whether you and any number of your family members, acquaintances and facebook friends think that something makes sense or not. The history of science has shown countless times that the human imagination is far too limited. To insist that the universe should behave in a way that makes sense to you personally is arrogant and frankly narcissistic. Let me give you the disappointing news: It's not about you. Get over yourself.

    It also was established that energy existed at the beginning of time by the BB theory.
    I'm neither going to agree nor disagree with that statement yet. I want you instead to defend your confident assertion with a citation. From a textbook or referred journal article. No pop-scie sources allowed.

    I'm saying that I don't agree with it.
    That's been clear from the beginning. What I've been trying to get you to understand is that you haven't offered a single scientific reason to support your position. Again, simply saying "I don't agree with concept X because I don't agree with it" is useless.

    Sorry, My mind tends to wonder, I'm not very good at writing in an organized format.
    Format isn't your problem, I'm afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    8
    What you're saying makes sense, In that our current understanding doesn't allow us any form of revelation, but should that mean that we cease any investigation of it? When I read your statement it sounded more "there wasn't anything before, so hush." rather than "we don't know what came before". That's why I said arrogant. I didn't make any claims that there was a true theory to back my statements, only that this theory is unfinished. Thanks for your honesty, as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    And you know this because...? You seem very arrogant to make a claim like that.
    I must jump on this one, too. What is arrogant in this? I mean, really... What about that was arrogant in any way?

    There is no 2010 Chevrolet El Camino. Am I arrogant, now?

    There are no theories of "Before the Big Bang."

    Now, there may be many hypotheses about it. No theories.

    EDIT: Apparently, you were typing the above while I was typing this post...
    Last edited by Neverfly; June 9th, 2013 at 02:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    What you're saying makes sense, In that our current understanding doesn't allow us any form of revelation, but should that mean that we cease any investigation of it?
    Please read what I actually wrote. I never said that we should cease investigating anything. Again, read what I actually wrote.

    To remind you: I said that there is no real theory of what preceded the Big Bang. That's a description, not a prescription. You comprehend poorly.

    When I read your statement it sounded more "there wasn't anything before, so hush."
    You made that up in your head. I cannot be held responsible for your inner monologue. Point to where I wrote any such thing.

    rather than "we don't know what came before".
    I explained precisely this.

    That's why I said arrogant.
    Again, you are accusing an invention of your own mind of arrogance. Don't put that on me, bud.

    I didn't make any claims that there was a true theory to back my statements,
    And no one accused you of such claims.

    only that this theory is unfinished.
    You went a bit further than that. You reacted quite negatively to my accurate statement that we don't have a theory of a pre-BB epoch, as if that news were a crushing disappointment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickpolman View Post
    And you know this because...? You seem very arrogant to make a claim like that.
    I must jump on this one, too. What is arrogant in this? I mean, really... What about that was arrogant in any way?

    There is no 2010 Chevrolet El Camino. Am I arrogant, now?
    There is no spoon.
    /arrogance.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    @Nickpolman
    Thank you for overlooking the somewhat aggressive responses you have received to some of your posts. The difficulty is that your observations are pretty well identical with those we have seen many times on these pages. In most of those instances they turn out to come from people who are not only ignorant of science, but unaware of, or even perversely proud of this ignorance. Ignorance of science is a wonderful position to be in, since it means one has exciting discoveries ahead. Refusal to minimise that ignorance is self evidently a bad thing.

    I suspect some members have mistakenly placed you in this latter category, hence the implicit hostility and open frustration in their responses. I think, based on your posts, that such is not the case. Just one tip - you will probably learn faster, and encounter fewer negative responses, if you focus on asking questions rather than making assertions.

    Welcome to the forum by the way.
    Nickpolman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    8
    Thank you, and I'll try my best not to be self absorbed by my own ideals. Although seemingly harsh, The people posting replies are at least being honest and are making good points about mistakes I am taking, in both attitude and evidence (or lack there of). I'll take your suggestion to heart, and ask more than state. It's not a crushing disappointment to hear the thoughts of others as well.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Theory of Everything is interesting and may be or may not be a candidate of big significant theory of future physics.
    But yet it is very immature and does not fit in physics currently. Experimental data can help to make it more acceptable.
    It is good effort.
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman WaterWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    KZN, South Africa
    Posts
    79
    Sorry for this question, I might be a bit naïve, or my thoughts are different, but why should there be a theory-of-everything? The reason for my asking this, is because we are here. And we have no clue why. That is our driving-force for trying to understand things around us. A theory-of-everything will then destroy that. And, in turn, us. We'll have nothing to live for, nothing to strive forward for. We'll just... be. In my opinion, if there is a theory-of-everything, I hope we don't find it. But, as I said, I might be a bit naïve. Any thoughts? It most surely is welcome.
    "No army is stronger than an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

    Dywyddyr - "You're rather good at denying reality, aren't you?"
    Plautus - "False."
    Dywyddyr - "And you've done it again. Well done. Would you like a biscuit?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    When most people talk/type/keyboard about the "Theory of everything" it is meant as a theory that would resolve certain anomolies between quantum physics and classical physics.

    We all seek a single bottom line for observable reality. In so doing, we develope varied diciplines of study and observation and experimentation. Each dicipline has it's own lexicon and concomittant logical structure within which constructs are formed. Enter the construct "tower of babel" and we mean different things by using the same words or phrases. Knowing that, communication depends on a shared phraseology which zings right over the heads of many enmeshed in the lexicon of their dicipline.

    whither hence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Theories of Everything today are generally considered to be mathematical theories, and specifically String Theories or M theory. A theory of Everything implies that there could be a general theory that, by its subsets, could eventually be able to include all of physics. The only theories so far likened to this possibility, via mainstream physics, has been String Theory. Not only has string theory not been able to make any provable predictions before observation, but there is no consensus evidence that String Theory has any validity at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Preferred meaning most accepted? Unsubstantiated religious beliefs.
    Nickpolman likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Preferred meaning most accepted? Unsubstantiated religious beliefs.
    Yes, forgot about that one. Another popular theory of everything has been past and present religious beliefs. God accordingly created everything, and continues in his efforts in humanities behalf. But such ideas would seem to be totally unrelated to science -- although somewhat valiant efforts to the contrary continue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •