FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Theory of Everything





nanobid
There are so many theory, postulates, hypothesis and tidious equations in various topics of different subjects. Just imagine a single mathematical equation ( better to say theory) that explain all physical phenomenon in the universe.
lyeandro2587
I think what you are trying to understand is how everything started. But in my opinion, the theory is non-existent. The greatest of minds can only resolve into something that they can actually perceive. Even the big bang theory has its limits.

Thus, in order to understand everything as it is dictated by some kind of equation, we need to go one step higher. A much higher realm.

Though, one interesting idea is the golden ratio. Smile I find it very cool. Smile
Bikerman
You think minds can only engage with things they perceive? Surely not. Do you not think abstract thoughts? I do, frequently. Right now I was, a second or two ago, thinking about what would happen if we crossed a mule and a creationist. I have never perceived that particular union, but it didn't stop my mind conjuring various possibilities.
kelseymh
nanobid wrote:
There are so many theory, postulates, hypothesis and tidious equations in various topics of different subjects. Just imagine a single mathematical equation ( better to say theory) that explain all physical phenomenon in the universe.


You really do enjoy posting out-of-context statements, without even attempting to express an opinion or engage in a dialogue, don't you?
nanobid
I got surprised on Kolseymh's comment as "......out-of-context statement....etc." I think you are not aware about the attempt of unification of all fundamental forces. Actually I think about it independently whether the physics behind an "event" will be simpler or complex if such theory is feasible. If someone feel that it's an absurd idea, then I will be hopeless.
Let's begin with the gravity (interaction) of which the effect is generally ignored in microscopic world where the quantum theory dominates and vice versa. But incorporating the gravity into the quantum field, the "quntum gravity" is not well-established (?). So think in this way.
kelseymh
nanobid wrote:
I got surprised on Kolseymh's comment as "......out-of-context statement....etc." I think you are not aware about the attempt of unification of all fundamental forces.


Well, let's see. I'm a professional particle phycisist with twenty years of experience in the field. Both my thesis and my ten years of research following my Ph.D. involved precision measurements of the CKM matrix elements, which are central to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions.

I have also worked on the ATLAS experiment at CERN, which has as one of its goals the observation of the Higgs boson, or other effects of the Higgs mechanism, which is central to the spontaneous symmetry breaking at the core of the Standard Model (which unifies the electroweak and strong interactions). ATLAS also has a primary goal of observing or ruling out supersymmetry, which is one of the leading contenders for a unified simplification of the Standard Model.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your background in theoretical particle physics, and what your current research focus is? Then we'd be able to have a clear and more detailed discussion of the topic you have raised.

Quote:
Actually I think about it independently whether the physics behind an "event" will be simpler or complex if such theory is feasible. If someone feel that it's an absurd idea, then I will be hopeless.

Let's begin with the gravity (interaction) of which the effect is generally ignored in microscopic world where the quantum theory dominates and vice versa. But incorporating the gravity into the quantum field, the "quntum gravity" is not well-established (?). So think in this way.


Um. What are you talking about here? Instead of telling us what to think (especially when what you tell us is too incoherent to think about), why don't you tell us what <b>you think</b>, and we can move forward with a discussion.
Bikerman
Whan I introduced Mike to the forums I pointed out that he was a professional physicist. I didn't want to mention his actual CV - that would have been presumptuous of me - but surely you didn't think I would give just anyone my 'seal of approval'? I don't make a habit of endorsing posters or sayng that their view has some extra 'weight', so the fact I did so in this case should have been a clue methinks.
I would consider Mike's last posting as a professional (and rather restrained by my lights) smack in the Gob for being a cheeky git in the presence of your betters, and think very carefully about your next question, if I were you.
kelseymh
Bikerman wrote:
Whan I introduced Mike to the forums I pointed out that he was a professional physicist. I didn't want to mention his actual CV - that would have been presumptuous of me - but surely you didn't think I would give just anyone my 'seal of approval'? I don't make a habit of endorsing posters or sayng that their view has some extra 'weight', so the fact I did so in this case should have been a clue methinks.


Sigh. Thanks, Chris. I don't normally throw my own CV around either ("appeal to authority" is Bad Science, whether a crackpot, politician, or real scientist is involved). The OP's assertion that I "wasn't aware" of current topics in particle physics required a statement of qualifications, I think.
saberlivre
We, physicists, never give answers, but we always think we're the owner of the truth.
kelseymh
saberlivre wrote:
We, physicists, never give answers, but we always think we're the owner of the truth.


"We"? Cool! What university are you with? Or are you one of the many (like several of my own colleagues) who managed to escape out into industry?

I give plenty of answers. I try to do my best to answer questions clearly and completely. The OP of this thread has spent the past month or so doing little but trolling -- throwing random "descriptions" out as posts, but rarely making any statement or asking a question (for example, not in this thread). The OP started out just cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but at least now is writing their own text.
nanobid
How little we know, how eager to learn. We shouldn't forget the original topic. Laughing
Ankhanu
nanobid wrote:
How little we know, how eager to learn. We shouldn't forget the original topic. Laughing


To imagine an unified theory? Done. It sure would be neat!
kelseymh
nanobid wrote:
How little we know, how eager to learn. We shouldn't forget the original topic. Laughing


And what do you know? What do you want to learn?
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Right now I was, a second or two ago, thinking about what would happen if we crossed a mule and a creationist.

A creationass?
Bikerman
That was one possible result. The other would be a perfectly normal mule...Smile
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
That was one possible result. The other would be a perfectly normal mule...Smile

Well, being sterile, mules do have a harder time understanding this 'evolution' thing...
_AVG_
With regard to a so called "theory of everything", after due consideration I'd like to give my view.

While it would indeed be extremely elegant if we could express the universe in one equation, I believe that this is impossible because of the following reasons:
- consider Godel incompleteness; no theory can be complete and consistent
- also consider that any result borne from human reasoning is just actually formed by induction; I'm saying that deduction is just a fruit of induction (so we are forever biased by sense perceptions and all knowledge is relative)
- lastly, consider that a Theory of Everything implies Omniscience (which encompasses absolute knowledge)

Extensive debate regarding the possibility of a GUT perhaps has a better place in a Philosophy forum otherwise ...
Bikerman
Hmmm....interesting objections, BUT..
Quantum theory is pretty complete, as is relativity. Both work well, regardless of Godel, and to very high degrees of accuracy. Insofar as any theory can never be the reality (no map is the territory) then we will never have a perfect description of the universe - that would require at least another universe to contain it - but we can have what most people would accept to be a theory of everything. If quantum theory and relativity worked together then we would effectively have it......
Having the theory does not mean it is soluble for all conditions (or even for any condition).....
Indi
_AVG_ wrote:
- consider Godel incompleteness; no theory can be complete and consistent

Gödel's theorems only apply for specific types of logical frameworks. They don't even apply for every part of mathematics. There is no reason to believe the universe itself satisfies the conditions that make Gödel's theorems valid for it.

_AVG_ wrote:
- also consider that any result borne from human reasoning is just actually formed by induction; I'm saying that deduction is just a fruit of induction (so we are forever biased by sense perceptions and all knowledge is relative)

What that would imply is that we could never know with absolute certainty that the theory we have is the actual, perfect theory. It doesn't imply that we couldn't have a theory of everything, only that we could never know for sure that it is the theory of everything.

_AVG_ wrote:
- lastly, consider that a Theory of Everything implies Omniscience (which encompasses absolute knowledge)

Not at all, not anymore than knowing the rules of chess allows one to know every game every played, past, present or future. Hell, you can put the rules of chess on an index card or two... but there are millions of times more possible games than there are atoms in the observable universe. Knowing the rules of the game not the same as knowing everything there is to know about the game.
Bikerman
Just to emphasise that last point (because it is a mistake often made when talking about a ToE) - having a theory is not the same as 'knowing' every possible ramification of that theory. If we reduce the theory to mathematics, it is possible to encapsulate a whole 'universe' of possibilities within a determenistic theory.
Even a very simple statement in maths can have virtually incalculable possible outcomes - knowing the theory that describes something is not the same as knowing every possible future state of that 'something'.
kelseymh
Aidenjeff wrote:
I have also labored on the ATLAS research at CERN, which has as one of its objectives the statement of the Higgs boson, or other outcomes of the Higgs procedure, which is middle to the natural balance bursting at the center of the Normal Style (which unifies the electroweak and powerful interactions). ATLAS also has a major purpose of following or owning out supersymmetry, which is one of the best competitors for a specific overview of the Normal Style.


Interesting! I am curios what your native language is -- some of your translations are great, but unconventional. In idiomatic English, we call it the "Standard Model" of particle physics, the unification of the electroweak (EW) and strong interactions (QCD). The Higgs mechanism is a form of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which gives mass to the weak bosons.

BTW, which group are you with on ATLAS? I'm at SLAC, and worked on ATLAS (the pileup simulation) for about a year before moving to CDMS and GEANT4.

(minor edit to fix markup, no content change)
Dennise
Bikerman wrote:
Right now I was, a second or two ago, thinking about what would happen if we crossed a mule and a creationist. I have never perceived that particular union, but it didn't stop my mind conjuring various possibilities.


What a waste of time for the mule!
hspb
Imho, it is not really.
asnani04
Hm. It was very interesting to read the posts in this thread. I'm not qualified enough to say anything significant on this topic, so I was trying to take up all the information I could. Thanks all the experienced guys there, for enlightening people like us on this subject. Smile
Related topics
Video card setting
science vs. religion
songwritting(guitar)
The Final Theory - We humans know nothing?
In theory, we can all get rich :P
Is God a man?
Superstring Theory
A Theory About Everything That I Think Is Worth Merit.
My latest theory...
Temperature in empty space
What if we shared everything...?
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
An alternative theory of gravity, and problems with it.
was our ancient history more advanced than the present?
God, Physics, and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Basics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.