Einstein: A Genius, a Paradox

[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.

[subversion]

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

[Guille]

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.

[Graybeard]

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

Sub ...

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

[Graybeard]

Dave .... Guille & Sub ...

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

[Guille]

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.

[Graybeard]

Guille ....

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.

[Guille]

forever.

In the name of science and of toequest, I must remind you that NOTHING is forever, not even NOTHING itself.

[SimpleKid18]

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?

[mkirkpatrick]

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.