The 4 forces, Universe and TOE

**LeoK** · 03-04-2011, 04:14 AM

Hi, all

The GUT, Grand Unification Theory (of the 4 forces) which Stephen Hawking has made known (originally stated in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow) has to be included into a TOE.

Moreover, also, the issue of Universe absolutely has to be answered of.

Also a scientific frame of how Universe was created and how it probably will evolve.

And a TOE must answer on the issues that for the present are enigmatic
when observing.

Have a nice day
LeoK

**LeoK** · 03-04-2011, 01:09 PM

The GUT, Grand Unification Theory (of the 4 forces) which Stephen Hawking has made known (originally stated in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow) has to be included into a TOE.

Moreover, also, the issue of Universe absolutely has to be answered of.

Also a scientific frame of how Universe was created and how it probably will evolve.

And a TOE must answer on the issues that for the present are enigmatic
when observing.

Hi, all

For to begin with GUT there is the mystery in the nature of electromagnetic force concerning why the electron and the proton has exactly the same charge - but opposite. The weak nucleus force, on the other hand, is to be found in for example radioactivity decay.

The strong nucleus force, on the other side, is present, for instance, in holding the proton together. The electron on the other side is a elementary particle in it self - but as mentioned here having exactly the same electromagnetic force - as the proton - but the opposite charge.

So, the proton, as a particle, holds both electromagnetic force in its charge. And holds, within, the strong nucleus force that holds it together. Adding gravity to this reason we have mentioned the 4 forces of nature. The GUT is the effort to scientifically merge the 4 fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, weak nucleus and strong nucleus. TOE must naturally incorporate GUT. But how?

Universe - finite or infinite has to be proven - and also mathematically and physically explained.

Was Universe created in the Big Bang? Well, give the math for it then. And incorporate the BB in TOE. But the mathematics for BB is a problem for the scientific community. There is the inflation add to the BB theory which tries to explain why the temperature is all the same whatever direction we measure it. Can the inflation add to the Big Bang theory also explain why all the galaxies in our known universe are oriented in a disk?

Observations has stated not only the single galaxy in its self is shaped in a disk with its stars. But that also all the galaxies in the known universe ALL are oriented in a disk. Does the inflation theory also give the answer of why not the galaxies in universe are distributed randomly in a sphere? - Which one would expect.

The observation of a flat universe - how does this go together with an even temperature in all directions? And primarily - how does the Big Bang shape in this way? - When one would expect galaxies randomly oriented in a spherical space from the postulated BB explosion.

The enigmas just add when making more observations.

Have a nice day
LeoK

**LeoK** · 03-05-2011, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by LeoK

The GUT, Grand Unification Theory (of the 4 forces) which Stephen Hawking has made known (originally stated in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow) has to be included into a TOE.

Moreover, also, the issue of Universe absolutely has to be answered of.

Also a scientific frame of how Universe was created and how it probably will evolve.

And a TOE must answer on the issues that for the present are enigmatic
when observing.

For to begin with GUT there is the mystery in the nature of electromagnetic force concerning why the electron and the proton has exactly the same charge - but opposite. The weak nucleus force, on the other hand, is to be found in for example radioactivity decay.

The strong nucleus force, on the other side, is present, for instance, in holding the proton together. The electron on the other side is a elementary particle in it self - but as mentioned here having exactly the same electromagnetic force - as the proton - but the opposite charge.

So, the proton, as a particle, holds both electromagnetic force in its charge. And holds, within, the strong nucleus force that holds it together. Adding gravity to this reason we have mentioned the 4 forces of nature. The GUT is the effort to scientifically merge the 4 fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, weak nucleus and strong nucleus. TOE must naturally incorporate GUT. But how?

Universe - finite or infinite has to be proven - and also mathematically and physically explained.

Was Universe created in the Big Bang? Well, give the math for it then. And incorporate the BB in TOE. But the mathematics for BB is a problem for the scientific community. There is the inflation add to the BB theory which tries to explain why the temperature is all the same whatever direction we measure it. Can the inflation add to the Big Bang theory also explain why all the galaxies in our known universe are oriented in a disk?

Observations has stated not only the single galaxy in its self is shaped in a disk with its stars. But that also all the galaxies in the known universe ALL are oriented in a disk. Does the inflation theory also give the answer of why not the galaxies in universe are distributed randomly in a sphere? - Which one would expect.

The observation of a flat universe - how does this go together with an even temperature in all directions? And primarily - how does the Big Bang shape in this way? - When one would expect galaxies randomly oriented in a spherical space from the postulated BB explosion.

The enigmas just add when making more observations.

Hi, all

TOE must basically describe the small compared to the big - Microcosms to Macrocosms and all the "way" between.

One can say that any thinking starting from Microcosms is a inductive reasoning. And the symmetrically thinking starting from Macrocosms is based on deductive reasoning.

This inductive and deductive manners of thinking are noticed because there seem to be some problem at scientists to fully handle the deductive form of viewing on any matter or problem.

So, basically when now Hawking and Mlodinow recently has stated that a TOE never will be written or found - I do more recognize inability in reasoning in the deductive form at scientists or any other person viewing any problem whatsoever.

I do not state that Hawking or Mlodinow are disabled in deductive thinking - but the disability is noticed by me in general. This is a bigger problem than we can imagine at first glance. I do incorporate the global environmental problems in this handicap of man.

So, therefore a TOE is not only difficult by its physics - but probably also is hard to find due to disabilities in the finders of TOE. Man is often good in inductive thinking, but rather often is handicapped in the deductive form. We apparently has problems in the Macrocosms way of thinking.

During the last about 15 years when I've been writing in physics sites I've almost every time when mentioned Big Bang been struck by the dim or unclear manner all sorts of physic people has written or mentioned this Macrocosms view of physics. People are, in my humble manner of expressing, not so good in arguing about Big Bang physics. They can't really convince me about BB. OK, Big Bang mathematics IS hard. Nevertheless my notion of general problems in deductive form of thinking stands. And therefore my general BB critics also stands.

Although, I am aware about that BB is a part of the standard model.

Have a nice day
LeoK

**LeoK** · 03-05-2011, 11:32 AM

Hi, all

The post some lines down here has a profound list of what a TOE must hold for to be a true implementation of Theory of Everything.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/theory...verything.html

Especially point Nr 10 is a hard criterion for TOE - but maybe it can be done.

Also point Nr 19 diminishing Big Bang in TOE is for me an indication that the list maker has made a thorough job. As a matter of fact - it's an anstonishing list of what TOE must hold.

And now Hawking and Mlodinow have thrown in the towel - why so?

NO - keep on searching for TOE..!!

Have a nice day
LeoK

**LeoK** · 03-06-2011, 05:49 AM

Hi, all

Excerpts from the mentioned list of TOE criteria:

6. The fundamental constituents must determine all observables. They must also determine all coupling constants and particle masses. (If they did not, the theory would not be final.)

This point, simply spoken, does support my thesis in some posts above here of the Microcosm and Macrocosm and TOE. But this list point is more or less precise about this criterion.

7. The fundamental constituents must be the only unobservable entities. (If they were observable, the theory would not be final; if more entities would be unobservable, the theory would be fiction, not science.)

I don't know how the list maker does argue for this point - but to my understanding the list maker does build this TOE criterion on the theory of quanta and QT. And also on the logical situation of only one unobservable. - If it were two or more - the logic and physics? in this TOE, would collapse. Probably is the first part of point 7 build or made upon the logical and physical? impossibility of two or more unobservable entities. The maker of this list has my regards of a physical and logical thorough understanding of the nature and the criteria of TOE. This judgment, by me, of the list is based of all list points. In fact I'm almost chocked over the way this list expresses TOE. I can here almost understand that Hawking and Mlodinow does throw in the towel - not by exhaustion - but by chock. That, for to return to point 7, the list maker only accept one (1) unobservable is probably also based on the search of a "pure logic" that a TOE theory hopefully would manifest. (The human natural? search for truth and logic.) I must say that I'm a bit unclear about this point 7. It would be nice to hear what the list maker has to say about this.

8. Non-locality must be part of the description; non-locality must be negligible at everyday scales, but important at the Planck scale. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)

This point is as it says based on quantum theory and GR and both having legal demands on a TOE.

9. Physical points and sets must not exist at Planck scale, due to limitations of measurement precision; points and sets must only exist, approximately, at everyday scales. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)

This point Nr 9 does manifest the standard model of elementary particles - which almost all is confirmed. Only, for the moment, lacking one or two definitions. Simply this point does manifest particles as electrons or protons and such.

10. The final theory cannot be a set of equations. (If it were, it would contradict the limits to measurement precision.)

This point Nr 10 is a hard criterion for a TOE. - But probably the list maker is right. A set of equations does probably diverge the mathematics and physics. Especially when TOE goes from Microcosm up till Macrocosm scale. The base equation would, of course, allow other equations drawn upon the base. But a set of independent equations does rather soon diverge the physical accuracy. How can Hawking and Mlodinow support such physics?

OK, the list is astonishing, but also a bit chocking. Seeing forward to some other views.

Have a nice day
LeoK

**austintorn@aol.com** · 03-07-2011, 05:15 PM

1.

The Secret of the Cosmos

There is no way around the conclusion that there is literally nothing to make the basic stuff out of, and so that is the answer: nothing, for it cannot be or stay. This then implies that all is a distribution of nothing in a balance that must ever sum to nil, and that further this must have a consequence on how the universe operates. We must also conclude that nothing cannot be or stay as an absolute lack of anything, and so this becomes the why of existence, and so finally we can proceed towards understanding, for this we cannot do with ‘solutions’ that are incomplete, for those are invariably limited.

To verify, as we always wish to do, anyway, we note that for all the universe’s plethora of positive and negative charged entities, the universe in sum is electrically neutral, noting that this charge neutrality always occurs in pair production of electrons and positrons of opposite polarity, and also with the neutral photon which can also become an electron and a positron.

We knew the answer had to be simple, not complex, but it still goes counter to intuition, somewhat, but our only other position could be that the basics existed forever, which fails, upon deeper investigation, since the basic supposed forever stuff has defined properties without any chance for them ever having been defined, plus that they possibly being made of ever smaller constituents has the same problem, not to mention the infinite regress of that approach.

So, we are down to what must be correct, that the forever basis of the basics must be nothing at all, however odd that might still seem. So, we have that stuff cannot be original, and that there was not just some ‘more original’ stuff laying around in some stockpile to make it of.

Unfortunately, for Creator believers, this means that there could have been no creation of this ultimate basis of nothing, which, too, is the only candidate for a prime mover that is infinite and eternal, as a prime mover must be. It is also seen that complexity cannot be First, much less an Ultimate Complexity.

Since cause-and-effect has to end somewhere, we have to replace it with an equation, the zero-balance. In effect, the universe in total weighs nothing at all, the positive kinetic energy of stuff balanced out by the negative potential energy of gravity.

2.

Einstein as a near traffic fatality…

George Gamow told in his book, ‘My world line’, how he was conversing with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues [Pascual Jordan] had pointed out to him that according to Einstein’s equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, Because [at point zero] its negative gravitational energy [mass defect] precisely cancels out [is equal to] its positive mass energy [rest mass]. “Einstein stopped in his tracks,” says Gamow, “And, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down”.

Now that we know of this zero-balance requirement, we might use it as a reason for the necessity of conservation laws, in some way.

The foreverness of the basis of nothing also suggest that motion is natural, not stillness, for if it was then that would still be the case, even suggesting that it would truly take a God to hold pure nothingness intact. The vacuum fluctuations of the ‘vacuum’ go on and on, as they ever did, the continuum of eternity for infinity. Of beginnings and ends there can be none for Totality, for then what was before—of some non special moment begun, or outside—determining some special place?

So we have arrived at the causeless, it operating anywhere, any time, by extension, further granting the information that everything possible happens, well, even infinitely, forever, eternally, over and over again.

3.

If there was a Big Bang, occurring at any old non special time and place, then others could certainly happen, whenever. If it was a low probability event of the quantum fluctuations, then, so, what, for eternity is ever patient. If there was no Big Bang, then some of emissions of the basic became rather longer enduring by glomming together and forming composites, up and and up, eventually, just the same result as a whole mass of stuff all at once coming from a Big Bang. The evidence of the evolution of stars, atoms, molecules, cells, life, brain and consciousness is plain to see.

Appearances in motion of matter and mass-energy as a foreground in the separated clarity of space as a background then further gave rise to the notions of past, now, and future, all of this further begetting our dreams and constructs for future progress, along with our remembrance of things and ideas past, granting learning, growth, planning, and creativity as beings.

It took a long time, though, billions upon billions of years, and more, this long yardstick, too, being unfathomable to some, but that’s how it is for a mindless evolution to inch along when the only ‘chooser’ is death.

All that remains, for the curious, about nothing, is to get more into the logistics of it all. We have three dimensions because the singularity of nothingness demands existential closure, which demands compositional parity, which demands cubic space. Our universe’s dimensionality is as inevitable as its existence.

The three dimensions of space are compositional, and thus the nullification of existence at totality must be carried out by the fourth, charge, which must be an aspect of time, as well as motion is, too.

Our existence in the finite must occur at the mid-point of infinite largeness and infinite smallness (infinitesimal), both of which are the same vacant truths of zero, the first dispersing away into nothing and the second shrinking away to nothing. It is no wonder that scientists have trouble reconciling the large versus the small.

**LeoK** · 03-10-2011, 03:44 AM