[Fredrick]

The quest to understand everything is a very old quest. In the old days the ones proposing explanations for everything were scientists/priests. Then and now the platforms of religion are diverse, but in general can be divided into four platforms:

A: a single god
B: multiple gods
C: no god
D: one cannot know about god with certainty.

Since the Renaissance scientists/priests became either more science- or more religion based, and today we see a clear distinction between the two. To explain everything in science we do not have four, but only two platforms available.

A: a unified field of forces
B: a field of forces (with connections but not unified).

As you can see there is a clear connection between the A's and the B's as the distinction between one version in which everything can be brought back to a single principle, and the other version in which multiple principles exist at the same time.

Platforms C and D do not exist in science. It would be weird to say that the four forces do not exist, and it would be weird to say that one cannot know anything about the four forces with certainty.

And this is where we are today. Most attention in the search for a theory of everything has been placed in an A-platform. There is hardly any discussion about a theory of everything existing on a B-platform. It doesn't mean everyone is behind the idea of the unified field: far from it. But somehow people are afraid to speak out against the A-platform.

What do you think? Are both A and B possible? Only A, only B? Take the poll and tell us what you think.

[tom mccurdy]

Originally Posted by Fredrick The quest to understand everything is a very old quest. In the old days the ones proposing explanations for everything were scientists/priests. Then and now the platforms of religion are diverse, but in general can be divided into four platforms: A: a single god B: multiple gods C: no god D: one cannot know about god with certainty. Since the Renaissance scientists/priests became either more science- or more religion based, and today we see a clear distinction between the two. To explain everything in science we do not have four, but only two platforms available. A: a unified field of forces B: a field of forces (with connections but not unified). As you can see there is a clear connection between the A's and the B's as the distinction between one version in which everything can be brought back to a single principle, and the other version in which multiple principles exist at the same time. Platforms C and D do not exist in science. It would be weird to say that the four forces do not exist, and it would be weird to say that one cannot know anything about the four forces with certainty. And this is where we are today. Most attention in the search for a theory of everything has been placed in an A-platform. There is hardly any discussion about a theory of everything existing on a B-platform. It doesn't mean everyone is behind the idea of the unified field: far from it. But somehow people are afraid to speak out against the A-platform. What do you think? Are both A and B possible? Only A, only B? Take the poll and tell us what you think.

I have never even heard anything being remotly tied into religon with any search for TOE

[yanniru]

The letters TOE have come to mean a theory that unifies the four forces of nature. Since three are already unified in GUT, the TOE means the unification of gravity with GUT. But, restricting ourselves to physics, TOE should mean the theory of everything that exists. There is no need to theorize about things that do not exist.

So I hypothesize that Planck scale energies are never reached anywhere, even in the so-called singularities of black holes, not even in the Big Bang. The truth of this hypothesis is a separate question. My point is that if that hypothesis is true, then GUT plus a quantum GR theory treats everything in existence.

Richard

[c. michael turner]

What if only three dimensions exist? And spacetime is not the true way to understand the relationship between the concepts of matter, energy, time, space and speed and we overlooked a fundamental process? What if relativity is the point of origin mass to energy transfer between matter, bound, and matter, free- the Gravity wave. That is to say that matter evaporates into the gravitational wave creating the actions of space, time and gravitational wave sychronization. What if space is the gravitational wave being freed to its lowest form of matter? What if time is the cosmological constant -the evaporation rate of matter? Then there is no real curved spacetime. What if gravitational wave sychronization is monopole gravitational waves aligning through the path of least resistance that brings matter together, that is responsible time and space distortion as the waves elongate just as the dopler effect works in sounds. Instead of the sound wave being shortened or elongated when compared to moving objects the gravity wave is shortened or lengthened, red-blue shift which affects not the action of sound but the actions of time and space. Time and space are actions created by each three dimentional piece of matter as the matter evaporates into the gravitational wave. Space is the unfolding of matter. Time is the resulting action of the rate of evaporation of the gravitational wave. Relativity- Point of origin mass to energy transfer in wave form.
Newton- Einstein- Turner Copyright @ 2003, All Rights reserved. C. Michael Turner- Hey it's an original thought!

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by tom mccurdy I have never even heard anything being remotely tied into religon with any search for TOE

If you are only looking for a TOE where gravity is unified with the other three forces than I can agree with you. The four forces were not known a couple of centuries ago. Yet people have been thinking about a TOE for a really long time. Before the Renaissance there was no clear distinction between science and religion, and therefore the religious contexts we know from the past can be seen as the platforms in which 'everything' was explained. Whether you agree with them or think much of them is not the issue; their platforms are.

Two platforms stick out that are still significant for us today: the platform on which unification was thought possible (a single god), and the platform on which unification was thought to be impossible (multiple gods, like with the Greek; modern science owes them a lot).

I am not interested in finding god or gods, but through these ideas and images the folks long gone already have given us the chance to see what they were thinking. With Akhenaten, for instance, in ancient Egypt, the struggle between an actual unification and considering unification absolute nonsense is delivered to us; showing that our ideas are actually very old ideas (though they contain modern knowledge). Akhenaten believed in a single god, while everybody around him could not go there because reality does not show unification. The Egyptians obeyed Akhenaten because he was the pharaoh, but right after his wife (Nefertiti) came to power much was put in place to persuade her to go back to their multiple god system that made more sense. When she too was dead, Egypt abandoned the idea of a single god again.

Today - not in a religious but in a scientific sense - the idea of unification is very strong. Not many people challange the idea of finding a TOE based on unification (though there is a certain silent large minority to be found). The question that should be placed front and center is whether a TOE can be based on unification or not. By not addressing this first question, we may be talking Santa Claus all the time. A lot about Santa is real...

If you want to see, you can see the TOEs of the past; but if you insist that a TOE can only be about gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force then there is no religious context that can be appealing. Nevertheless, the battle is the same: is there unification or is that impossible!

__________________
The difference between a structure containing unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titilating mathematical evidence on-line (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the basics of our universe - or not.

[Marketa]

People tempt to unify things because they themselves are unified. I am ONE. You are ONE. So we are naturally looking for ONE explanation.
And I think this is the right way, because we know, that one explanation must exist. We ourselves are the living - well, not explanation - but at least prove, that everything we can observe can be unified. Any difference (and I can prove it, if you want a prove send to me e-mail) can be "unified" with another like this: red and blue (two different colors) are unified by the fact, they are both colors - so they are same in the base. This is not only word playing, but I admit, that for VERY DIFFERENT objects it is extremely difficult to find "the base".

[Fredrick]

I understand what you are trying to say, but the example that you deliver is the common example. I would like to see if you have an ultimate example in that unification exists on the ultimate level as well.

The example to counter your example would be the binary system. Each and every 1 in the binary system is a one, and though all ones may deliver different messages in different combinations, ultimately they can be seen as the same single 1, used over and over again.

However, the binary system is not based on a single member used over and over again, but on two different members that are used over and over again. Never will 1 be the same as 0, and even though their combination can be seen as a unified result since only together do they deliver the full binary language, their unification is not an ultimate unification because one member is different from the other member. Yes, they are both numbers, both no, they represent something that cannot be unified.

Even in the decimal system (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc) the same distinction exists in that - even when you can unify all natural numbers into one definition - the number zero would still fall outside this definition. Because of zero, unification is not possible in the binary nor in the decimal system.

As you know, in the definition of colors, black is often not referred to as a color since it is actually the absence of reflection that is called black. White is also a phenomenon in the color scheme that poses problems because it is the combination of colors that creates white. Just like zero with the natural numbers, black and colors make the phenomenon of colors a lot more interesting than that of a simply unified basis.

[Marketa]

But there ARE ways how to unify zero with other numbers or white and black with colors...
I'll express myself more clearly: OF COURSE, there must be DIFFERENCES between various parts, between every tiny photon or even string must be DIFFERENCE because otherwise they would be "the same thing" and our universe wouldn't exist. But these differences, no matter what the difference is, can be unified - every difference is between at least two objects and it is a kind of symetry between them (doesn't matter how complicated) and this symetry is what I call unification.

[W. M.]

OF COURSE, there must be DIFFERENCES between various parts, between every tiny photon or even string must be DIFFERENCE because otherwise they would be "the same thing" and our universe wouldn't exist.

I have always thought of the universe like an engine: An engine is very complex because it has many various parts, and some of those, in turn, consist of their own parts. On one hand, if you remove even one part of the engine, you will not truly have an engine, because it will cease to function as one. On the other hand, if you throw the engine into a super hot furnace, you will achieve the ultimate physical 'unification' of the universe because all the parts will be melded into a pile of slag, so then you'll no longer have a functioning engine.

Same thing with a TOE: we need to strike a balance between keeping all of the aspects of the universe seperate while at the same time being able to see the collection of all of the universe's parts as a single working entity.

[Rod Johnson]

Well Fredrick,



The deepest view of a TOE is to see that unification of the four natural forces will ultimately be the by product of having answered all the mysteries of quantum research. I cover those mysteries and superficially answer them in my up coming book Sequential Physics and Mystical Symbols.



You offered:

Originally Posted by Fredrick The quest to understand everything is a very old quest. In the old days the ones proposing explanations for everything were scientists/priests. Then and now the platforms of religion are diverse, but in general can be divided into four platforms: A: a single god B: multiple gods C: no god D: one cannot know about god with certainty. Since the Renaissance scientists/priests became either more science- or more religion based, and today we see a clear distinction between the two. To explain everything in science we do not have four, but only two platforms available. A: a unified field of forces B: a field of forces (with connections but not unified). As you can see there is a clear connection between the A's and the B's as the distinction between one version in which everything can be brought back to a single principle, and the other version in which multiple principles exist at the same time. Platforms C and D do not exist in science. It would be weird to say that the four forces do not exist, and it would be weird to say that one cannot know anything about the four forces with certainty. And this is where we are today. Most attention in the search for a theory of everything has been placed in an A-platform. There is hardly any discussion about a theory of everything existing on a B-platform. It doesn't mean everyone is behind the idea of the unified field: far from it. But somehow people are afraid to speak out against the A-platform. What do you think?

I think that only A is possible. If all of the connections are made, the natural field phenomena will be unified under a single principle. That principle is very apparent to those who have studied and embraced the geometric concepts that are necessary.



I have read every TOE that I can get my hands on and none of them have embraced those concepts. Close, some of them but not quite there.



Rod