View Full Version : Complete Unified Theory. How close are we?
2003-Aug-31, 08:30 AM
Those of you who have read Hawking's literature will be familiar with the concept of a Complete Unified Theory.
At the beginning of last century scientists thought they were pretty close, but since then we've generated almost as many questions as we have answers. How far off finding such a theory do you think we are? Do you think such a theory even exists?
2003-Sep-01, 02:56 AM
I am not familar with such a theory. Could you enlighten those of us not in the know, please? And if you could please explain it in terms in which someone with no formal post high school education (such as myself) could understand?
This does indeed sound very interesting. <_<
2003-Sep-02, 01:48 AM
The idea is that the two great acheivements of theoretical physics in the 20th century, quantum mechnics and general relativity (both of which make excellent predictions about our universe), actually contradict each other at some levels. Therefore neither of them are 100% correct. Scientists have been trying to search for a "theory of everything" for many years, a theory that can predict anything (rather than having to use a different theory for various applications). I could go on and explain some of the contradictions, but I wouldn't do a very good job of it. Hawking's books are simply the best at explaining this to people like you and I who haven't got a degree in physics! I don't think anyone on this forum would argue about that.
You must understand that a theory is just a way of human minds coming to terms with their surroundings. There is no such thing as fact in science! Maybe this means that we will never find a theory that explains everything. Maybe the Universe simply doesn't work that way. I'd like to know what other people think about this. Is finding a complete theory possible? If so, when will it occur?
2003-Sep-02, 03:54 AM
Ok, I think I get the general idea.
Well both major theroies have more going for them then against them.
I would think that once the counterdictions of both sides are more fully explored in light of each other that the falisey will fall off and truth will prevail.
Perhaps if one standard could be applied to both, it may be a worth while starting point. That is if that hasn't already been tried.
2003-Sep-03, 09:50 AM
Kashi, when I had started a topic 'Theories of everything' in 'Everything else in the universe' , you said that when even scientists don't know ,how can we ?' or something like that.
But now, you have started a topic on the very same subject.
We know that the Quantum theory deals with the very small while relativity deals with the very large.But there are some cases in which these theories do not agree with each other, e.g. Relativity says all physical laws break down at a singularity, but Quantum theory doesn't.
There are many other cases in which these two theories do not agree.Scientists hope to find a theory in which these problems get solved.
One such theory is the heterotic string theory. In this, elementary particles are supposed to be waves on a string.
We don't have a complete unified theory yet, but i suppose we will have one within the next 20 years.
2003-Sep-04, 03:51 PM
Who do you think will make the next great interpretation of the Universe?
Will it come from some great highly educated well-respected person in some lofty institution of intellectual achievement residing in a stone tower covered with ivy?
Or will it come from some young patent clerk just finishing college with a not an especially astounding, but still respectfully good, academic background?
Who gets to decide?
The people in the Ivy Towers.
Or the young patent clerk?
Or maybe you?
Or maybe me?
2003-Sep-06, 08:26 AM
I think the 'next great interpretation' of the universe will come from any one who is hardworking enough and determined enough to search for it, and has enough knowledge, enough common sense to find it.
2003-Sep-06, 10:14 AM
I have been following discussions about the current theories that explain our Universe, and I want to point to a theory that has been around for several decades.
It is an explanation for the Universe that takes into account electricity in space. Current theories have been relying on the assumption that space is more or less empty and electrically neutral. All the data that are collected point to major electrical (magnetic) activity and it is seen literally everywhere. Whenever electrical currents exist in space they influence matter in very different ways than what is expected if only gravity is used to explain tha data. At www.holoscience.org a lot more details can be found about how plasma (electrically charged gas) behaves and shapes the universe.
So maybe the theory that explains everything is already around and needs only to be developed further by scientists. Which in turn means that we need to be careful whenever theories cannot predict or explain observations or need to be constantly revised.
2003-Sep-06, 12:05 PM
Does this electric "theory" (which barely fits the definition of a theory) actually make any reliable predictions? The website seems to be conceptual and philosophical rather than theoretical. I'm interested, but just a tad sceptical.
2003-Sep-06, 12:05 PM
the problem with all theories,are the fact that they can be invalidated it the whim of the creator at any time. remember, even einstein reniged his "cosmological constant" theory over one dinner w/ hubble and lemaitre.
when they agree on a unified theory, will it be just the result of a few bottles of wine over dinner too? ;) sure at that point they will have proof but only until some body comes allong who isn't satisfied. and then POOF no more unity.
einstein was right . reality is all in the perception, percieve unity and it will be.it will reveal itself if it is there. there are no truths that are hidden to the eyes they were meant for.
2003-Sep-06, 12:10 PM
The theories used today actually do have a small cosmological constant, although it is not used instead of a model in which the Universe is expanding.
2003-Sep-06, 02:54 PM
Thanks for following the link, actually the predictions of the electric model (indeed it isn't "one" theory but more like a different way to look at the observations) are very diverse and some of these are:
- the sun is not powered by fusion reactions, but acts as a giant anode in an electric circuit powered from outside the solar system
- black holes/singularities do not exist
- dark matter does not exist
- the "volcanic" activity on Io is actually an electric discharge (like an arc welder)
- planets are formed by ejection from a star, not by by gravitational collapse of disk material, that's why so many large planets are found circling very close to their parent stars.
- binary stars are very common because they are formed through "fission" of a parent star when the elctrical stress is too high and results in a nova or supernova event.
- craters seen on planets and moons are mostly electrical scarring instead of impact craters
- wheather, which can be seen on any planet with an atmosphere in the solar system, is also largely powered by the electric environment.
At www.electric-cosmos.org there is more to find on the cosmological implications of the model.
Of course there's a lot to be studied before we know if this model is e better explanation for all the observations, but I think it deserves a chance and might very well be the next "revolution" or paradigm shift.
2003-Sep-13, 01:32 AM
Steven Hawking is still alive right? I have a book by him but most of it is WAY over my head....sure I understand that he proposes that the smallest object in the universe is an 11 dimensional string. If an atom is the size of a solar system, then the string is the size of an atom.
That would be very very very very very small. Maybe 10^-100000000000000000 small, even smaller probably. An atom (variably) is about .25 nanometers across, and the solar system is 20 billion miles across, there are.....lots of nanometers to the mile....times 20 billion......hmmmm.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.