Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Philosophy > General Philosophy
Reload this Page Einstein: A Genius, a Paradox
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
The GUT of TOE
Old
  (#11 (permalink))
The Observer
dleviwing is a name known to alldleviwing is a name known to alldleviwing is a name known to all
 
dleviwing's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,899
Thanks Given: 38
Thanked 235x in 185 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 37
   
The GUT of TOE - 10-08-2005, 03:30 PM

Hi Guille & Greg;
It is said that a true TOE will bring these two gauge theories together to form a single Grand Unified Theory. (GUT)
Do you accept this as true??
GUT and TOE, I know there's a joke in there someplace.

  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
a huge fundamental gap in the intrinsic value of the two theories
Old
  (#12 (permalink))
Banned
subversion is on a distinguished road
 
subversion's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 562
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 4x in 4 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rep Power: 0
   
a huge fundamental gap in the intrinsic value of the two theories - 10-08-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing
Hi Guille & Greg;

GUT and TOE, I know there's a joke in there someplace.

I put my TOE in your GUT. Anyways, I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to comment nevertheless.

I believe that the TOE must reconcile QM with relativity. Notice I didn't say reconcile relativity with QM. Allow me to explain.

Relativity is a model theory, something so marvelously clever, we should be inspired by it to create our TOE. The entire basis of Relativity started off, ever so virtuously I might add, as a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, based on current knowledge of the day. Using the power of PURE THOUGHT Einstein was able to develop this theory, which was later tested and proven to actually be correct. In other words, Einstein was a visionary, with almost a psychic ability to glean insight about the world at large. It's almost as though he guessed the truth with his deductive reasoning. A lucky guess, maybe, or maybe luck had nothing to do with it.

QM, on the other hand, as I have been trying to explain to Dave lately, is quite the very opposite type of theory. QM is what we can refer to as an ad hoc theory. "Ad hoc" is a term derived from latin which means something that is "improvised and often impromptu" according to dictionary.com. Ad hoc theories are only temporary; they must eventually be replaced by a REAL theory, one which is based first and foremost on understanding, not merely explanation for the simple purpose of "explaining something." So if you see what I mean, you'll see that QM, as opposed to Relativity, was never based off of a thought experiment, it was not based off of vision or insight. It was simply developed out of necessity to explain things we didn't understand, but the point is, just because we explained it somehow, doesn't mean we truely understand it now. That is the fundamental flaw of QM, it is not a logical theory, it is a confusing theory, it gives us no understanding, it deludes us into thinking our confused understanding is sufficient, which I believe only distracts us from the wisdom and insight and forethought which must be utilized to truly understand what is happening at subatomic levels, and to inevitably create the TOE. I hate QM, a bunch of morons made it up without thinking closely. QM is the kind of accepted stupidity in science which engendered a social atmosphere for even more ridiculous theories like string theory to gain acceptance. Think first, then do experiments. Don't try to explain what you see, envision what should be explained. QM completely sidestepped the scientific method.

Yes, QM will be useful in developing the theory of everything, but only so much as it is something which must be re-explained, completely revamped, destroyed and built anew. Einstein agreed with me, he said that QM should give rise to a more "classical" theory. Einstein was a genious, and all he needed to use was his mind, for his mind itself was like an infinite experiment. Everyone's mind is this way but they just don't use it. Intelligence is a STATE of mind. People who study QM have a lot to learn, or unlearn rather.

dead serious, subversion
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 48
   
10-09-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing
Hi Guille & Greg;
It is said that a true TOE will bring these two gauge theories together to form a single Grand Unified Theory. (GUT)
Do you accept this as true??
GUT and TOE, I know there's a joke in there someplace.

GUTOE for me is the best way of calling it.

I believe that the unification of the two gauge theories that QM and relativity are would be an important acheivement into the discoverment of the GUTOE. But, of course, the GUTOE will need much more things, explenations of things that are not included in relativity and QM but are part of the strudy of the science we call physics.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14 (permalink))
8th degree Black Belt
Graybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to behold
 
Graybeard's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,304
Thanks Given: 558
Thanked 450x in 278 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rep Power: 35
   
10-11-2005, 02:43 AM

Guille ... i was referring to the comments of 'ISHAI' ... not your thread starter.

Sub ...
Quote:
That is the fundamental flaw of QM, it is not a logical theory, it is a confusing theory, it gives us no understanding,
It works .... if it is not logical, if it is confusing ... To us? So what, this is no ground for dismissal.

Sub, i can understand people being pissed off with it .. but to say it was 'proposed by a bunch of morons who were not thinking closely' is to dismiss a whole host of the worlds top physicists without a moments reflection on what it took to come to this understanding.

Bell's Theorem was a physical experiment that proved 'entanglement' ... I don't know if Einstein was alive (died 1952ish ?) when Bell proposed it, and it wasn't experimentally proved until early seventies ?? ... but i have never heard anyone argue about its proof.

If QM is all you say .... how do you explain that QM works ... and how do you explain the results of Bell's theorem.

Interested ... Greg
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15 (permalink))
8th degree Black Belt
Graybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to behold
 
Graybeard's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,304
Thanks Given: 558
Thanked 450x in 278 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rep Power: 35
   
10-11-2005, 03:10 AM

Dave .... Guille & Sub ...

Quote:
It is said that a true TOE will bring these two gauge theories together to form a single Grand Unified Theory. (GUT)
Do you accept this as true??
Its time i raised my colours ......

As you know ... i am self taught and have no training in physics ...

I believe in Einsteins theory of General Relativity...
I believe in Quantum Mechanics

I believe, where the ANSWER lies on COMMON ground, both these theories provide the same answer in different ways ..

Dave .... if the unification of these two, and by that i take it you mean the unification of the four forces provides a GUT ... Then i am with you ...

Sub ... if you want to draw a paralell, you eloquently explained classical physics and the 'visionary' side of it. Quantum mechanics does the same thing to me ... but i can't promote it for that reason.

I think both Classical and Quantum are of a part, and some further insight is needed for the next step .... to resolve the paradoxes ... to reconcile....

I think there is a GOOD chance it is String (M) theory ... I hope howls of derision are not bouncing of your computer monitors as you read this heresy....

At this time i have no real insight into String Theory ..... its very complex to me ... But, i can't dismiss the knowledge of those who propound it... i know others don't ... reputable people ... still ... my bet is going on the big 'M' or its successor in this arena

Fear not, these are only my opinions ...... Greg
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 48
   
10-11-2005, 02:22 PM

Greg,

I don't think you are doing a heresy for believing that string theory has a good chance of unfying relativity and qm. I also do so, partly. I believe that string theory might achieve to explain basically all physical phenomena: force, energy, matter, dimensions.....But I also believe that if it's mathi s as complicated as it is always stated (I don't know, for I've never seen an equation on string theory physics, have you? Is it that complicated?) to be, then it really needs a look at it deeply, as if we were trying to see what it really means, and simplify it, not it's equations, but yes it's meaning.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17 (permalink))
8th degree Black Belt
Graybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to beholdGraybeard is a splendid one to behold
 
Graybeard's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,304
Thanks Given: 558
Thanked 450x in 278 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rep Power: 35
   
10-12-2005, 05:26 AM

Guille ....

Quote:
if it's mathi s as complicated as it is always stated (I don't know, for I've never seen an equation on string theory physics, have you? Is it that complicated?) to be, then it really needs a look at it deeply, as if we were trying to see what it really means, and simplify it, not it's equations, but yes it's meaning.
Its Maths are complicated ....... but its answers ... they make everything so simple ....

Strangely enough, the first equation that was found to correctly describe 'strings' was found in a maths book over 200 years old ??? bizarre... or just an urban myth.

String theory has an answer for everything... but it is beyond our reach to test ... we will have to wait for another 'bell's theorem' ... which could be forever.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 48
   
10-12-2005, 05:49 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard
forever.
In the name of science and of toequest, I must remind you that NOTHING is forever, not even NOTHING itself.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19 (permalink))
Orange Belt
SimpleKid18 is on a distinguished road
 
SimpleKid18's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 26
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rep Power: 14
   
11-03-2005, 08:56 PM

Is there any reasoning behind the whole 'even nothing itself is forever' as I cant get myheadaround it. It there an equation or something that proves this?


Time is a tricky concept and can boggle an untrained mind...
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
he was a man of his time and now it is gone.
Old
  (#20 (permalink))
Moderator
mkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to beholdmkirkpatrick is a splendid one to behold
 
mkirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 7,477
Thanks Given: 369
Thanked 791x in 727 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rep Power: 98
   
Smile he was a man of his time and now it is gone. - 11-03-2005, 11:52 PM

I have repect for the man,he was right for his time,now that time has passed
but we could learn a lesson by his example at times of humility,there seems to
be a lot of boastful braggerts about these days.All seem to be right and none are wrong-I do hope that I am not one of them!





kind regards michael.


Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Russell's Paradox Guille Philosophical Thought 111 06-19-2007 07:37 AM
Russell's Paradox no more! subversion Noumena 24 05-06-2006 01:16 PM
Twin Paradox. socratus Philosophical Thought 4 04-12-2006 08:48 PM
Moore's Paradox Guille Philosophical Thought 2 06-10-2005 12:57 PM
Where Einstein went wrong wisp General Physics 11 04-19-2005 06:02 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com