[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Granted there are many similarities, but what - if any - specific differences distinguish a Grand Unified Field Theory (G.U.T.) from a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.)? Is there a specific definition that accomodates these similarities and differences? Are there a series of distinctions that explain the differences and similiarities? The question is asked for many reasons, most particularly because it seems fairly certain that the two objectives parallel - and may learn from one another - in many ways.

If you want an actual scientific answer, then a grand unified theory is a theory in which three of the the fundamental forces are unified (strong, weak, electromagnetic) whereas a "theory of everything" would be a theory that unifies all four fundamental forces (i.e. gravity with the above three).

[MJA]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Granted there are many similarities, but what - if any - specific differences distinguish a Grand Unified Field Theory (G.U.T.) from a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.)? Is there a specific definition that accomodates these similarities and differences? Are there a series of distinctions that explain the differences and similiarities? The question is asked for many reasons, most particularly because it seems fairly certain that the two objectives parallel - and may learn from one another - in many ways.

G.U.T. = T.O.E.

Nature's Parallel is Nature's Truth

=
MJA

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by MJA G.U.T. = T.O.E. Nature's Parallel is Nature's Truth = MJA

Well, no, actually it doesn't. I'm not sure what your fascination is with equals signs, but you can't just throw them everywhere and expect a solution to everything!

[MJA]

Originally Posted by neutralino Well, no, actually it doesn't. I'm not sure what your fascination is with equals signs, but you can't just throw them everywhere and expect a solution to everything!

I am not sure what your fascination with division or difference is, but this forum is about unity, the unity of all things, isn't it?

Perhaps the solution then is simply a change of thought, or more simply, you.

=
MJA

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by MJA Perhaps the solution then is simply a change of thought, or more simply, you.

That, or I ignore your nonsensical comments. I think the latter works better for me.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino If you want an actual scientific answer, then a grand unified theory is a theory in which three of the the fundamental forces are unified (strong, weak, electromagnetic) whereas a "theory of everything" would be a theory that unifies all four fundamental forces (i.e. gravity with the above three).

Thank you, Neutralino:

There are some more thoughts on this in Parts I thru Pt VII at
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
If you peruse it, I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on the inclusion of gravity for a TOE.
Best Regards,
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Thank you, Neutralino: There are some more thoughts on this in Parts I thru Pt VII at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie. If you peruse it, I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on the inclusion of gravity for a TOE. Best Regards, - RP

I don't really understand how to navigate that page! For example, where is part I?

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino I don't really understand how to navigate that page! For example, where is part I?

76.1 Due to computer glitch, please scroll down - in the left hand column - to Part I

[MJA]

[quote=neutralino;37167]Well, no, actually it doesn't. I'm not sure what your fascination is with equals signs, but you can't just throw them everywhere and expect a solution to everything![/quote

My fascination with equal.

Equal is the solution to every mathematical equation or problem, every single one. An equation is only true when it is equal. And it was a mathematical solution, hello, to unify the universe that Einstein was looking for. Whilst he ventured down the road of complex mathematics, getting lost on the way, the solution was more simple than thought; the truth was the other way. Equal works not only mathematically but more importantly empirically, or more simply stated: the equality of experience is the self-evident truth. The search is over, time to unite or equate the universe. Equal is the natural solution to everything.


=
MJA

[neutralino]

[quote=MJA;37261]

Originally Posted by neutralino Well, no, actually it doesn't. I'm not sure what your fascination is with equals signs, but you can't just throw them everywhere and expect a solution to everything![/quote My fascination with equal. Equal is the solution to every mathematical equation or problem, every single one. An equation is only true when it is equal. And it was a mathematical solution, hello, to unify the universe that Einstein was looking for. Whilst he ventured down the road of complex mathematics, getting lost on the way, the solution was more simple than thought; the truth was the other way. Equal works not only mathematically but more importantly empirically, or more simply stated: the equality of experience is the self-evident truth. The search is over, time to unite or equate the universe. Equal is the natural solution to everything. = MJA

I'm afraid you are incorrect. "Equal" is not the solution to every mathematical problem. Since you insist on talking about mathematical equations, then the equals sign simply says that the left hand side of the equation is the same as the right hand side of the equation. So, since you want to use this stupid analogy, what does the theory of everything "equal"? Note that, it cannot be equal to "equal," before you even say it.

In your final line, you say "time to equate the universe".. equate it to what? In the equation y=x^2 I equate y to x^2; but what do you intend to equate the universe to? It is, by definition, everything.