Unified Theory

[noz92]

quantum physisists are working on a theory of everything (unified theory), but are unable to create one so far. but they do have certain parts of this theory completed, does anybody know what those parts are?

[Solaris]

This is what I found:

The Grand Unified Theory explains every principle process that occurs in nature by introducing energetic matter (basic force), which formed wave formations — PHOTONS. Incredibly, these formations then went on to create everything.

 

Energetic matter = shrinking energy and space as well as time

 

by Dr. Chaim H. Tejman

[noz92]

one thing that i don't unerstand about this theory, is what kind of things can we really understand with it (in it's completed form)?

[ed84c]

Strong Nuclear (between neutrons and protons in a nucleus)

Weak Nuclear (Radioactive decay)

Electromagnetic (photons)

I

-> the essence of GUT

[noz92]

can this theory help us know everything in the universe, can this theory "Read the mind of God" as Einstein said it would.

[Solaris]

Oct. 8, 1998 - Over the past century, physicists have unlocked the secrets behind radio and television, nuclear energy and the power of the sun. Now they’re seeking the ultimate prize: a “theory of everything” that could reveal a bizarre realm of interdimensional wormholes and time warps.

 

advertisement

 

Such a theory would give us the ability to “read the mind of God,” says Cambridge cosmologist Stephen Hawking. And in Hawking’s opinion, there’s a 50-50 chance that someone will discover the Holy Grail of physics within the next 20 years.

 

It won’t be easy, though: The discoverer would have to find the harmony underlying two themes as discordant as light Bach and heavy rock.

 

On one side is Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein saw the large-scale universe as a smooth, curved surface in four dimensions (the three dimensions of space plus time). The gravitational force that binds us to the earth arises from the very structure of that space-time continuum.

 

On the other side is quantum theory. Beginning in the 1920s, a generation of scientists defined the small-scale universe as a collection of fuzzy phantoms. These subatomic particles couldn’t be precisely located in space and time, but their interaction could be described in statistical terms.

 

Space-time's out of joint

Both theories are proven successes — but taken together, they’re out of joint. The equations that describe the gravitational field are completely different from those for electromagnetism and subatomic interactions.

 

Moreover, each theory is incomplete by itself. Relativity cannot tell us how the big bang gave rise to the universe as we know it, or what lies within the black holes created by the collapse of massive stars. Quantum theory, meanwhile, only describes an assortment of particles, mathematical constants and equations — without divining the sense and symmetry underlying them all.

 

For decades, theorists have tried various strategies to roll up the gravitational field and the quantum field into one set of equations. Most of the attempts failed. “Whenever we tried to calculate numbers from these theories, we would arrive at meaningless infinities,” said theoretical physicist Michio Kaku.

 

Superstrange superstrings

But one bizarre approach is gaining popularity. It turns out that the equations of quantum theory can mesh perfectly with the theory of relativity — if we look at them from the perspective of a 10-dimensional universe.

 

The concept is called “superstring theory,” because theoreticians imagine the core components of the universe as tiny loops of string or membranes vibrating in 10 dimensions. Different resonances of the vibrations correspond to different types of particles. Thus, electrons, neutrinos and other elementary particles fit on a grand cosmic scale, just as the notes A, B and C fit on a musical scale.

 

Kaku says it should come as no surprise that the universe makes more sense in higher dimensions. After all, Einstein made the universe seem more sensible by including time as the fourth dimension.

 

But if the universe we only dimly understand as having four dimensions really has 10 — where are the other six dimensions? Kaku and his fellow string theorists contend that when the big bang inflated our four dimensions into the universe as we know it, the extra six dimensions collapsed into loops smaller than the smallest observed subatomic particle.

 

If humans could somehow identify and harness those dimensions, it might become possible to manipulate those interdimensional fields. You could create stable “wormholes” for rapid transit across the universe. You might even be able to drop into parallel “quantum universes” that operate under physical laws completely different from our own.

 

Needle in a cosmic haystack

Exploring such science-fiction possibilities would require resources of science-fiction proportions.

 

There are millions of possible solutions for the superstring equations — and figuring out the right solution for our universe would be like picking a needle out of a galaxy-sized haystack. Even if the theory turns out to be right, probing the shrunken dimensions would require energies approaching the scale of the big bang — trillions of trillions of times more powerful than a hydrogen bomb.

 

However, outer space could open a window to the hidden dimensions and at least provide some confirmation of superstring theory. By observing the patterns of particles and antiparticles flying through space, researchers just might find indirect evidence to back up a “theory of everything.

[Solaris]

Enter this site http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077361/ and watch the image with the title THE SYMPHONY OF EVERYTHING. It will help. don't forget to click next and see all of it.

[noz92]

thanks

[pulkit]

When you talk of a unified theory it means that using this theroy, you have basically one or a small set of all important equations that can link up all physical phenomena.

 

Currently there are we divide nature into 4 types of forces, i.e., gravitational electromagnetic strong and weak. This classification is due to the way we understand physics today, it has these four major channels that are not inter related.

A unifiel field theory would inter relate all 4 of these forces. That would mean we would now understand nature in a unified manner, not as 4 mutually exclusive channels.

 

And till now, I do not believe this has been achieved.

[Solaris]

No problem

[noz92]

 

And till now' date=' I do not believe this has been achieved.[/quote']

 

what do you mean by that

[e(ho0n3]

quantum physisists are working on a theory of everything (unified theory), but are unable to create one so far. but they do have certain parts of this theory completed, does anybody know what those parts are?

The most complete physical theory that I know is Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which explains how the electromagnetic force and the weak force are both forms (or come from) the electroweak force or something to effect. We still have the strong nuclear force to deal with and then there is of course gravity. A "unified theory" is one that will encompass the electroweak force with the strong force. Theories that encompass all four forces (i.e. weak, strong, EM, and gravity) are known as "Mother Theories" (or M-Theory for short). String theory seems to be the most promising of these "M-theories".

 

As far as I understand it...

[noz92]

oh, thanks for the the info.

[fuhrerkeebs]

The most complete physical theory that I know is Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which explains how the electromagnetic force and the weak force are both forms (or come from) the electroweak force or something to effect. We still have the strong nuclear force to deal with and then there is of course gravity. A "unified theory" is one that will encompass the electroweak force with the strong force. Theories that encompass all four forces (i.e. weak' date=' strong, EM, and gravity) are known as "Mother Theories" (or M-Theory for short). String theory seems to be the most promising of these "M-theories".

 

As far as I understand it...[/quote']

 

Quantum chromodynamics describes the interactions of quarks and gluons...meaning it describes the strong nuclear field.

 

quantum physisists are working on a theory of everything (unified theory), but are unable to create one so far. but they do have certain parts of this theory completed, does anybody know what those parts are?

 

It depends on which GUT theory your talking about. Some of the more famous ones are Loop quantum gravity, string theory, and twister theory.

[noz92]

thanks

[jordan]

Does anyone know exactly what kind of evidence and testing is being done for string theory? Exactly what would someone look for to prove such a hypothosis?

[Thales]

Basically they have to investigate the very small. A scale that makes quarks look big. The main bases for string theory is it provides an alternate mathematical method for deriving (hopefully) a unified theory. It shows so much promise because the appearance of strings (modes of vibration) occurs on many different scales, and for those of you who are advocates of chaos theory, you will know its fundamental postulate is that complexities in nature arise from patterns repeated accross many scales.

 

It is a far as I understand a theory in which everything, including force carrying particles (which will help with unifying the much weaker gravitational force) arises from the different modes of vibration of these tiny tiny tiny strings. If it works it will go to prove how everything can be represented via geometry.

[fuhrerkeebs]

Does anyone know exactly what kind of evidence and testing is being done for string theory? Exactly what would someone look for to prove such a hypothosis?

 

Nothing. String theory predicts nothing that we can currently test, nor will we be able to test it for some time to come.

[jordan]

So what is the draw to it?

[TheProphet]

So what is the draw to it?

 

Much public notice and theorys that have "rather easy ways of visualizing" for the generel public ! My guess atleast why it is so hyped!

[fuhrerkeebs]

Much public notice and theorys that have "rather easy ways of visualizing" for the generel public ! My guess atleast why it is so hyped!

 

That's pretty much it. And because it has the potential to make predictions we can test, we just don't know about them yet

[TheProphet]

That's pretty much it. And because it has the potential to make predictions we can test, we just don't know about them yet

 

Altough i consider it's potential to be rather vague since string theory has bin around for quite a while... but time will tell.. but more interesting is that the other versions like LQG and simple are making interesting progres. Altough i've just heard and read some i donä't consider me knowing much about it.. i bet Jana or Martin is quite much more up to date on these!

[fuhrerkeebs]

LQG makes predictions...but we can't test them yet either. I personally don't think any of the current GUTs are correct, but I think it will end up being something along the lines of LQG. Discrete and background independent.

[fuhrerkeebs]

Altough i consider it's potential to be rather vague since string theory has bin around for quite a while... but time will tell.. but more interesting is that the other versions like LQG and simple are making interesting progres. Altough i've just heard and read some i donä't consider me knowing much about it.. i bet Jana or Martin is quite much more up to date on these!

 

Did you mean to say that there is a GUT with the name "simple" or that LQG is simple? Because LQG may seem simple, but it is actually quite hard when you get into things like quantitizing spacetime using Ashtekar variables and stuff.

[TheProphet]

Did you mean to say that there is a GUT with the name "simple" or that LQG is simple? Because LQG may seem simple, but it is actually quite hard when you get into things like quantitizing spacetime using Ashtekar variables and stuff.

 

Oooh no... LGQ is far of my knowledge.. there are some other theory called simple quantum gravity or something.. don't remember the name att all somtehing with simple atleast.. And for that instance no GUT is simple... quite the oposite.. so the misunderstanding is dealt with i hops