[Planet_Bob]

There's more than enough speculation concerning the contents of the TOE to keep readers busy for years.

This dilema will exist until we are presented with a TOE and everbody goes 'Ah of course. Why didn't I see it'. The standard model for the atom is just that, a model. Until we can view the inner workings of an atom, we'll never really know.

Maybe one way to work towards the TOE is to determine what it should not contain.

One of the most fundemental things that I would ensure was not in the TOE would be constants of any type. Anything that is constant, is so for a reason. It is no good just quoting constants, what should come out of the TOE is the mechanism that provides its consistancy.
So the biggie, the Speed of Light, would not be included in the TOE.

What would you consider should not be included in the TOE.

[Guille]

Religion should not at all be included in the TOE. It might talk about it, it might have some principles that authors then apply in favour or against religion, but the theory itself must not have any religious contention.

[michellemfry]

I was considering a theory that was devoid of stresses. There is a great deal of hidden stress, I think, in the universe. Perhaps, the source of force could be seen as a particular type of stress. Stress can be a subtle, less than obvious factor in many things from the inanimate to the living. Any thoughts?

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by michellemfry I was considering a theory that was devoid of stresses.

Stress is caused by a difference between two entities. That can be both physical and emotional, but it is as a result of those differences.

IMHO, in the TOE there would be no results manifesting themselves as fundemental cornerstones to our Universe. A TOE should be able to create an individual force that can be used in a comparison against another individual force.

So I think that stresses should not exist in the TOE.

[beyond_ur_imagination]

the other things that should be excluded from the TOE are the concept of absoluteness and fundamental particles.

relativity is something that can help explain that mechanism.as for my case i feel even the word microscopic is relative.

a fundamental particle is something which shd not be described in terms of other particles. but the moment i use a fundamental particle to describe another particle with the help of an equation, this equation can always be inverted describing the fundamental particle in terms of other particles whch were on the LHS in the original equation. and the not so fundamental particles in the inverted fram start acting as fundamental.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by beyond_ur_imagination the other things that should be excluded from the TOE are the concept of absoluteness and fundamental particles.

One misconception that appears to be applied to many attempts at the TOE is that our depth of knowledge of the Universe is sufficient to be able to explain how it works.
What we call absolutes are just the limit of our understanding and as for fundemental particles, how fundemental are they ?

If it is the Theory of Everything, you should be able to use it for everything. Big, Small, Short, Tall. There should be no limitation as to what you could apply the theory to.

Expanding on the idea of leaving out absolutes, would you agree that all dimensions should be left out?
After all, one person's Small is another person's Tall. As you say, it's all relative.

[dleviwing]

Planet_bob;
If you are saying that there are no absolutes, I must disagree. If you are saying that the term is being misused, I fully agree. I have yet to see the word "absolute" used as a definition of something that is truly absolute. Do you have any concepts that you would consider as absolute?

The TOE is sometimes misinterpreted as meaning the solution to the unification of forces into one concept. A true TOE will include consciousness and life and thus may be some time before it can be verified as anything more than a hypotheses. Solving the physics part (GUT) of the TOE may be relatively easy in comparison.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Do you have any concepts that you would consider as absolute?

The only concepts that I would consider to be absolute and that we can fully comprehend are TRUE and FALSE.
Whenever we apply the term absolute, we apply it according to our understanding, which may or may not be the case.
For example, we have the term absolute zero, which refers to the very lowest temperature and the point where all atomic movement ceases. There may be states beyond this temperature of which we have absolutely no knowledge because it is beyond our current realm of understanding.

Originally Posted by somebody famous It is always the absolute case, until proven not to be

Originally Posted by dleviwing The TOE is sometimes misinterpreted as meaning the solution to the unification of forces into one concept.

I fully agree with you, there is the common misconception.

IMO, the GUT is a holy grail which doesn't exist, but that doesn't stop people going in search of it.

The 4 forces will only be unified when the structure of the atom is FULLY understood. The current models have far too many convenient factors to be a true reflection.

The TOE will provide the information to be able to better understand the atomic forces and why they are what they are.

[dleviwing]

Hi Steve;
In a way you can make this analogy of "true/false", "on/of", "hi/low" and "+/-" states of the logic bit as being the absolute fundamental properties of the computer. Like the computer, the fundamental substance of the universe also has fundamental properties that can be viewed or defined as "absolutes". Once the absolutes are fully understood in all their diversity of interactions, then the atom becomes a relatively uncomplicated structure to comprehend. Understanding how uniform motion influences the wave mechanics of structure and bonding is the primary key to the solutions of combining Relativity and QM; also in the nature of physical structure of atoms and particles.

Have you noticed that those of us that have strong backgrounds in computer science tend to inject a computer like logic progression into everything?

I am going to try and start a thread on a view of the atomic structure, but it may require getting into an understanding of wave mechanics of standing waves, transverse waves, and longitudinal waves as they relate to charge and particle structure. This is also alluded to in Richard Feynman's dissertations of inflow and outflow wave nature of particles;.He only failed to recognize the importance of uniform motion in the confinement of standing waves.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Have you noticed that those of us that have strong backgrounds in computer science tend to inject a computer like logic progression into everything?

David,
If you assume that there is only TRUE or FALSE, then all problems become very straight forward. The only problem being in determining what is TRUE and what is FALSE.

IMO, the fundemental substance of the Universe has one property and only one property which is; that it is either TRUE or FALSE.
It either exists or it doesn't. That it is.

Where the complication comes into play is when you have a second instance of the fundemental substance(FS), which in of itself is only ever TRUE or FALSE. If it's FALSE then it's not there and it doesn't exist.

The moment you have two instance of the FS, they then form a relationship. A to B and B to A. It is this relationship that is the building block of the entire universe.
This is where I believe we will find the TOE.

The FS would have to be Massless, so it would be a pythagorean point, essentially a coordinate. The relationship between 2 points of FS can be determined initially from their coordinates. Having 2 different coordinates means that as a system, they have moved beyond being pythagorean points and the system now has mass.
Introduce another FS and the systems grows and becomes far more complex.