Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807

    Default Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Here is a brief explanation of what TOE is and why it might be the most important theory in science.

    Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the the standard model and unified the interactions (so-called grand unified theory - commonly known as GUT) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.

    Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right. As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QFT is apparently only an issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang).

    To resolve this conflict, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of GR and QFT into a seamless whole: a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena - the discovery of TOE.


    How close to finding this unified theory are we?
    Is there a chance that research from the LHC might help us discover the TOE?
    Is GR wrong or incomplete?
    Will QFT answer the questions we are looking for?

    Please join in the discussion put your answers and ideas forward.
    Last edited by David M W; 10-29-2016 at 11:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    The TOE is easy:



    at least where I'm concerned. I'm not altogether sure about thee....
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    The TOE is easy:



    at least where I'm concerned. I'm not altogether sure about thee....
    The only toe I'm certain about is, my little one on my left foot is hurting. That is a fact!

    Yours well... if it was that simple I think we would all know about it by now

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    The only toe I'm certain about is, my little one on my left foot is hurting. That is a fact!

    Yours well... if it was that simple I think we would all know about it by now
    Some of us already do (we call ourselves Quantum Field Theorists who understand Quantum Triviality). Others, not so much.... (that's why mega-churches exist...
    .. and others that believe in the god called "c"...
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-29-2016 at 11:51 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  5. #5
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang).
    A nitpick for accuracy, we are talking about a time frame of less than 10-43 seconds, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    How close to finding this unified theory are we?
    You could argue that we are very close now.
    In a black hole, our mathematics break down since a mathematical singularity just doesn't seem to be a very accurate model, just as we cannot model a time frame of less than 10-43 seconds immediately following the change of state of the Universe to what it is now, what we call the Big Bang. It's still pretty accurate!
    With that argument, you could say we are very close now. But one could also argue that is simply not close enough, since the models lack enough accuracy to fully model those systems. How long it would be until we can can be as much serendipity as much as hard work.
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    Is there a chance that research from the LHC might help us discover the TOE?
    Yes, and many of the experiments performed at the LHC along with other high energy accelerators is aimed at unraveling the cause of gravity.
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    Is GR wrong or incomplete?
    As a model, GR has been demonstrated to be very accurate. Just as the statement above, is it accurate enough?
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    Will QFT answer the questions we are looking for?
    If a model is a good model and it provides generally accurate predictions, then the model is modified when better observation or data makes a more accurate method of applying the model possible.
    This is true for both GR and QFT.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    From Maxwell's equations derivation of the speed of light (verified experimentally):













    Let

    Then

    Please interpret (if you have difficulty, ask your local community college physics teacher).

    Or pm me..
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  7. #7
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    From Maxwell's equations derivation of the speed of light (verified experimentally):













    Let

    Then

    Please interpret (if you have difficulty, ask your local community college physics teacher).

    Or pm me..
    Are you suggesting a new thread? Because this post does not appear to be on topic.

    Either way, what you typed was meandering and does not follow.
    Rather than saying, "let " you would have been better off to start by showing that your charge density and current denisty
    is 0 to represent in a vacuum.













    That is using Maxwell's equations. Now, of course, later, you will claim this never happened...
    Last edited by Neverfly; 10-30-2016 at 02:03 AM. Reason: Left out the 'v' in line 9. Oops. Too bad Chuck did not spot that...
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Are you suggesting a new thread? Because this post does not appear to be on topic.


    Either way, what you typed was meandering and does not follow.
    Rather than saying, "let " you would have been better off to start by showing that your charge density and current denisty
    is 0 to represent in a vacuum.













    That is using Maxwell's equations. Now, of course, later, you will claim this never happened...
    What if (x-vt) = ?

    My equation has a rest mass in it.
    Yours does not.
    That is the whole point of STR. (Hint: what is the meaning of in my equations?

    STR in QFT only addresses a single field point (event) at a time, so space and time are irrelevant.
    (i.e., a point observer in the parking lot with no space time extension).

    (unless, of course the permittivity and permeability constants have something to do with mass....)

    (the "speed of light" only applies if the mass of light is zero. Light is electromagnetic. Light has mass according to Maxwell, since permittivity and permeability come from the force equations.

    Maxwell merely interpreted them as speed because of his imaginary capacitor ("parking lot")... and his "displacement current" (he only considers the capacitor, not the energy of the alternating source for the E and B fields. (he folds them into the displacement current so he can retain the E and B models within the plates as a "space-time" concept over empty space. (i.e., NO MEDIUM)

    Have you ever done the actual derivation of displacement current from Maxwell's equations in space-time (integral form, using Greens' and Stokes' theorems - which include underlying symmetry considerations and restrictions)?

    (Actually Kaluza showed that EM is included in Einstein's original field equations by adding a fifth dimension - we call it "spin" or polarization; i.e., the rotation of the B field around the geodesic - path between the plates). Classic EM says that the B field carries no energy - the Poynting vector restores it by specifying

    ; (modified) GTR says extra energy is included with the spin. That is the essence of the Pauli/Dirac formulation.

    So you might need a cos function since the angle x-vt is unspecified.

    You REALLY have no idea of what Einstein is talking about....

    The Creation of the Universe (almost everything you need to know)

    In physics, one sets the permittivity constant and then adjusts the permeability constant to conform the the measured value of c. Why isn't it the other way around?..)
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-30-2016 at 12:24 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Galilean coordinates:

    let x and x' be two identical lengths governed by the relation x = x' = ct



    x = ct means (c changes co-variantly with t; if either t or c changes, x changes accordingly) either mass or distance as covariant transformations



    c a constant: c changes covariantly with space (x = 1) but contra-variantly with t;
    space is directly proportional to c, but c is inversely proportional t.

    is a fraction, and requires two dimensions for its expression, space and time.



    (if t = 1, x = x; x = 1 in addition means c = 1

    t=0 means it is irrelevant as a dimension, so c = c is a tautology expressed in one dimension only If t is irrelevant, so s x=ct in that dimension..

    That is, spacetime coordinates are irrelevant in inertial frames.

    (the equivalence of mass and energy in inertial frames:

    For a "space-time" diagram (STR), let space and time be independent of each other (perpendicular in two dimenstions):



    and equal, so that:



    then:



    An additional "mass" independent of will require four dimensions in "space-time"; hence the Dirac formulation. (This may seem ambiguous, but I have derived all relativistic relations in the relativity section on my website. Start with "The Creation of the Universe".... where I begin with intertial frames and then relate it to space-time coordinate systems for an interpretation of and
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-30-2016 at 02:01 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  10. #10
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Theory Of Everything (TOE)

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Galilean coordinates:

    let x and x' be two identical lengths governed by the relation x = x' = ct



    x = ct means (c changes co-variantly with t; if either t or c changes, x changes accordingly) either mass or distance as covariant transformations



    c a constant: c changes covariantly with space (x = 1) but contra-variantly with t;
    space is directly proportional to c, but c is inversely proportional t.

    is a fraction, and requires two dimensions for its expression, space and time.



    (if t = 1, x = x; x = 1 in addition means c = 1

    t=0 means it is irrelevant as a dimension, so c = c is a tautology expressed in one dimension only If t is irrelevant, so s x=ct in that dimension..

    That is, spacetime coordinates are irrelevant in inertial frames.

    (the equivalence of mass and energy in inertial frames:

    For a "space-time" diagram (STR), let space and time be independent of each other (perpendicular in two dimenstions):



    and equal, so that:



    then:



    An additional "mass" independent of will require four dimensions in "space-time"; hence the Dirac formulation. (This may seem ambiguous, but I have derived all relativistic relations in the relativity section on my website. Start with "The Creation of the Universe".... where I begin with intertial frames and then relate it to space-time coordinate systems for an interpretation of and
    Wrong.
    If you are calculating the speed of light, then the speed of light is denoted by "v" and not "c."
    The constant "c" does not "change covariently" with space, mass or time which is what Einstein demonstrated with theory of Relativity.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •