[AntonioLao]

the theory of everything will have at the minimum two distinct forces. For example, the electric force and the magnetic force. because these forces are not exactly equal, the gravity force and the concept of mass become meaningful. Until we fully understood the concept of charge (electric,weak and color) and its relationship to current (charged current and neutral current), any partial theory based on just either one of these concepts (charge or current) cannot be a theory of everything.

At this stage of my independent research, I'm leaning toward a TOE based on fundamental current of spacetime, which thru its quantization forming the concepts of all the charges and the inertial mass and gravitational mass.

[Fredrick]

I am leaning towards a duality (which is something different than opposition), and I can see how many links may exist between what are already known as the four forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces), but I do not believe they are ultimately linked altogether. So, I see four forces (in which electromagnetic force takes in indeed a peculiar 'dual' position), but mainly because that is what is proposed right now. I do not have the actual information on why the other three - except gravity - are linked. I did read however that the third connection was based on something rather little.

[Robert "Bob" Shriner]

In my openion the use of "Theory of Everything" is to include not only GR and QM and "strings" and Constants of Nature that are used values without basis in theory, the Fundamental Forces of Nature, the origin of physical life, the origin of comparative physical change or time, and yes even farther to include where we have been and where we are going as a Universe and finally a Theory of Everything must be inclusive of the pure abstract, self-isolating, successful in prediction, mathematical formulation that by definition is so pure that a whole host of libraries full of successful formulations to not relate to each other without dynamic support and use by the user. Do not missunderstand, it is my belief that we have used these formulations to create the greatest advances that man has ever known. I am awed by the success and yet as J. A. Wheeler, of Princton once said while refuring to the successes there is still.."something missing" The something that is missing eats at my mind each time I read of a truth in the definition of a successful prediction and a description of what the author believes to be happening comes forth denying all other successful predictions that have come before. The cornerstone concepts and theories that make up the description of the physical must be addressed for they are successful in prediction. The question of unification is just a small part of the totality of the search. This then implies that some portion of each of the conrnerstone concepts and theories that are used today are at least part right and part wrong. A theory of everything candidate must not only answer the question of why an individual concept works but must also answer the question of why an individual concept does not work. The complexity is enormous in one field only now try to accomplish this in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, a host of engineering disciplines, philosophy, and a host of other disciplines, and there is a matter of faith all at the same time. Then when you add chaos, structure, duality, local and global limits or not, and not to forget a certain Uncertainty that must also be addressed it could become a task too high to climb over or too wide to go around. Those of us who have tried to understand what we know in light of all that we see and hear and read are a bit crazy. Crazy I am and have been for all these years as I seek to solve this greatest of all "black box" experiments that we find ourselves within. I seek a TOE, with the help of others, that will give me a sense of awareness of all that I see about me everyday and evening when a few moments are available to marvel in the beauty of a living Universe.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Robert "Bob" Shriner Do not missunderstand, it is my belief that we have used these formulations to create the greatest advances that man has ever known.

but there is one more challenge of greatest technological advances and this is the feasibility of a controlled thermonuclear fusion at room temperature. Scientists have been working on this idea for over 75 years and still no breakeven capability. The success of fusion, in my opinion, does not necessarily depends on the unification of forces but understanding the mechanism of how these forces can work together at different configurations.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Robert "Bob" Shriner I am awed by the success and yet as J. A. Wheeler, of Princeton once said while refering to the successes there is still..."something missing." The something that is missing eats at my mind each time I read of a truth in the definition of a successful prediction and a description of what the author believes to be happening comes forth denying all other successful predictions that have come before. The cornerstone concepts and theories that make up the description of the physical must be addressed for they are successful in prediction. The question of unification is just a small part of the totality of the search. This then implies that some portion of each of the conrnerstone concepts and theories that are used today are at least part right and part wrong. I seek a TOE, with the help of others, that will give me a sense of awareness of all that I see about me everyday and evening when a few moments are available to marvel in the beauty of a living Universe.

Originally Posted by AntonioLao there is one more challenge of greatest technological advances and this is the feasibility of a controlled thermonuclear fusion at room temperature.

I agree here with AntonioLao.
Let me tell you my story.

Back in the mid 80's I was utterly surprised to read that scientists were looking for a theory of everything. I was convinced that they had a theory of everything already. I had one already, so how come they didn't have one yet? Ever since I have been trying to communicate to whoever interested that theories of everything have existed for a long time already and if scientists could not answer the question, the reason could lay in the fact that they wanted a singular platform for their TOE.

I can describe what I am trying to say better when asking you this question of a religious nature:
If god created the universe, is god then a separate entity next to the universe or is god part and parcel of that universe?
The significance of this question is that when god exists next to the universe we should be able to find the single platform within the mechanisms of our universe, because it would be a self-contained creation. However, when god is part and parcel of the universe then we cannot find a single platform for the mechanisms, because the source is then contained within every part and parcel. On some level the parts are independent parts onto themselves, even though there may be enormous links creating visible connections between many parts - but not between all parts. The parts themselves are all true - onto themselves, but to have them fit on a singular platform is like wanting all nations in the world to fit on a platter.

If god is part and parcel of our universe then we can stop calling god god because everything is then already animated by/full of the origin. Unfortunately, the freedom exists to call god god even when god is within everything already. We then end up with a second (in my opinion false) god which does not exist, or at least creates a lot of confusion about the true nature of god and our universe.

I hope you will contemplate this question when you have a few moments to marvel about our wonderful home.