juanrga

I do not consider that "linking" was a synonym for "unification".

Either you lack a [math]c^2[/math] factor in [math]dt^2[/math] or you are using a [math]c=1[/math] system of units and then [math]r_s=2GM[/math], but both expressions cannot be true. When corrected, the above is the Schwarzschild metric only in Schwarzschild coordinates.

There are rumours that the announcement of the experimental finding of the Higgs boson will be made this year. It seems that the LHC has found a Higgs particle about the 125 GeV region.

A cat has not wavefunction. The moon has not wavefunction...

Good to point out, that being incapable of unifying two theories may not necessarily mean they inherently incompatible. It may be a point of how people are attempting to unify the theories. Every attempt so far has proven difficult - but on the whole does not mean the two theories cannot be unified. Notice that I did not even mention unification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties

Thanks

Why some people want to extend the concept of "physics" doing it equivalent to the concept of "science"? Why some people still believes in reductionism when emergence, non-deterministic chaos, and other recent developments have falsified it?

The point here is that a true ToE is not "expected to fail". Otherwise, it cannot be a ToE.

The physicsworld news article affirms that Newtonian gravitational interaction means α ~1. I do not know why. In fact, a modification of Newtonian gravity due to a hypothetical fat graviton does not fit into a Yukawa potential with α ~1. In any case, the Adelberger et al. review, reports tests of the inverse-square-law up to a distance λ = 200 μm for α = 1. And this recent work sets the limit on λ = 56 μm for α = 1.

This is what "the scientific state of a physical, chemical, or biological system is given by [...] n=n[t]" means. I think that the existence of a unique state n at a given time t could be also emphasized in the text using words.

Electronic collisions are changes in velocity determined mainly by electromagnetic interactions. Electrons are always separated a minimum non-zero distance [math]r_{min}[/math] from the target with which they collide. For instance the collision of two electrons can look as follows (classical approach)

I am not sure if a scientific state is any single uniquely identifiable condition or is not. I will think about that. The first phrase in the encyclopedic article is only an introduction to the topic. Below it is explained that a state summarizes the collection of observables or properties associated to a system. I gave some concrete example.

And the history of physics is full of misguided assertions assuring that a "potential ToE" was already available. E.g. Laplace claiming that Newtonian mechanics plus gravity was a ToE. Some years after it was shown that Newtonian gravity could not even explain fully the motion of Mercury. And now we know that Newtonian mechanics plus gravity is very very far from being a ToE. Recent assertions that string theory or Garret Lisi's theory would become physicists' dreamed ToE were fatally flawed as well. In fact, critics of string theory like to call it now a ToN: Theory of Nothing.

Taylor and Wheeler suggest not using the term. And I agree with them. I have just checked that Wheeler, in his very well-known textbook Gravitation (co-authored with Misner and Thorne) also differentiates between matter and radiation: In fact the cosmological evolution of our Universe is usually split into http://en.wikipedia....n-Dominated_Era and http://en.wikipedia....r-Dominated_Era

You continue repeating the same mistakes that I reported in post #33 above, except that you have now corrected your expression for Pjafter that I noticed above that your previous expression for Pj was wrong if by m you mean "inertial mass".

Last paragraph of section "2.3.2 Short-range modifications of Newtonian gravity" on http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=articlesu3.html

Precisely LQG was developed to try to unify both QM and GR. Searching a bit you would be able to find one of the many criticisms published about LQG. Time ago that I abandoned that line of inquiry, but then the number of theoretical physicists still working in LQG was small, about an order of magnitude less than those working in other approaches to quantum gravity.

The part that defines its scope and methods. Even if we admit that someone was able to formulate a TOE tomorrow, its testing would use the universe as a whole and this only could be made by the so-called "supernatural observers", which are not real.

Cultural systems, systems studied in philosophy,... are not scientific systems. Biological systems are an example of scientific systems.

Your body has thermodynamic entropy. It is generated by dissipative processes in your body such as chemical reactions. There is also a flow of entropy due to heat and mass flows with surrounds (e.g., when you eat your body gains the entropy contained in the food). For mature bodies, the thermodynamic entropy is approximately constant. Thermodynamic entropy and Shannon informational entropy are two different beasts. The former is physical (entropy is a physical quantity), the second is not.

It could provide some alternatives to more conventional agriculture, but believing that it can totally replace conventional agriculture is not supported by any study that I know. In fact, there are serious doubts that organic agriculture was more eco-friendly and healthy than conventional and that it could produce enough food to sustain the current human population. Note: Even their use of the term "organic" is in disagreement with usual meaning, for instance as in organic chemistry.

The short answer: GR and QM are mutually incompatible.

The Newtonian inverse square law (1/R2) dependence has been tested up to the 10 micrometres (micro = 10-6) without finding any deviation.

Electrons are not tiny hard balls. If you are asking if they will collide ('touch') as billiard balls, the answer is "no".