[Fredrick]

We already have all information required to create a TOE, yet it is the structure in which we place this information that is not correct. In this TOE unification is not possible, but links between forces are possible. In stead of a unified field of forces there would be a platform of forces.

In Search of a Cyclops delivers mathematical evidence that unification is not possible by showing that separation is fundamental in our universe. This is delivered through zero as part of the fundaments of integers (its use is required to explain certain steps of prime number structures found within the positive integers).

Unification can exist without a problem in religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim), but it does not exist in the materialized universe.

All material in our universe is moving outwardly from the location we call the Big Bang. It is possible to infer this information back as deriving from a single spot, yet is it also possible to infer this information as deriving from a large area. Very similar to the toy one can buy in stores today - a round mobile that one can manually expand and contract. While the universe is expanding it does not necessarily mean that it came out of a single spot, it could have come out of a larger area. The absolute center of the Big Bang may have even remained empty.

http://www.pentapublishing.com

[tom mccurdy]

A toe must unify QM and GR, or at least solve the conflict between the two... unifcation in some sort of fashion is a must.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by tom mccurdy A toe must unify QM and GR, or at least solve the conflict between the two... unifcation in some sort of fashion is a must.

Sorry, Tom, but that is not correct. A theory of everything is exactly just that: everything in a theory. By not having an open mind at the beginning, the quest is spoiled before one starts. Unification of QM and Gr may or may not exist while the theory of everything always exists.

[yanniru]

Contrary to Frederick, I believe that GR and QM must be unified, but that gravity does not need to be unified with the other forces in order to understand everything in the universe, at least of a physics nature.

This is because I believe that there is no place in our universe where all four forces are unified.Therefore, a theory of total unification is not necessary, but it sufficient. That is, I would pay attention if one came along.

At least all the questions of cosmology could be answered by a theory that combines GR and QM. The rest could be answered by GUT theory. I cannot think of anything left out except for the link from GUT to GR/QM theory, which is the TOE.

Richard

[Fredrick]

One way a TOE could exist in which GR and QM are not unified is a TOE that explains that our universe came forth out of conflict, not out of unifying principles. With various - conflicting - ways for matter to come into existence, the materialized universe will then have various bases that do not need to be unified; this would still be the case even when the bases are 99% identical. GR and QM may or may not be conflicting bases. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Marketa]

TOE without unification is not TOE. Well, it could be, but then you would need infinite time to describe our space. You could simply go and say: this is a table, this is a chair, this is a red cloth, this is a cell, this is an atom, this is a planet... It could be a TOE, but what we need is not a list of everything, but knowledge how everything IS RELATED, and even though conflict can be kind of relation, you still must understand it - the relation between things in conflict and that's called unification. I mean there can't be two (or more) completely unrelated parts - if there is conflict between them there is also a kind of relation and once we can unify the things we can understand the conflict.

[Fredrick]

I think that is a beautiful answer. Not necessarily a correct answer, but beautiful nevertheless since in words you are able to deliver unification. I would almost leave it at this, but I can't ignore the little voice inside my head saying: this is just an answer of the word unification in language, not of unification.

Einstein's relativity for me means that what is seen and measured by one is not necessarily in perfect harmony with the same event seen and measured by someone else. The conflict he recognized was delivered to us with the term 'relativity.' It did not become known as 'unification' because it did not deliver unification. It did give an explanation about our reality in which our own position is vitally important to knowing/understanding reality.

I do not deny the relationships that exist. But what came first? Was there a relationship first or was there conflict first? It can get mirky to keep both features in their own spots since they have so much in common. I often invoke the words my mother would give me in situations like this: a cow is an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a cow. We do not have the ultimate answer yet (well, maybe we already do), so the correct thing to say is that a theory proposing unification is a TOE, but a TOE is not necessarily a theory based on unification.

A TOE would of course deliver an explanation how everything fits (or doesn't fit) together.

[Marketa]

Cow is an animal, an animal IS not only a cow - but it's cow, too. It's the same with unification - unification is more than conflict, because conflict can be unified and that means understood.

[Fredrick]

Correction of your words: unification is the cow, not the animal. Conflict is the animal, not the cow.

Nice try, but it doesn't make the answer the way you want it. I understand fully what it is that you are trying to say. I just do not agree with your words. And since the final answer hasn't come in yet that is generally accepted as the final answer, we will just have to let it be that way. Nice try.

[Fredrick]

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictur...ures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

I could not ask for a better image. It does not mean absolute evidence, but it is nice to deliver a picture next to the words.