To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Unified field theory
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

kjw
it must be due to my incomplete understanding of what Unified field theory is all about, that I ask this question.

there are alot of very clever people working on this and i do not understand what causes the problem of not being able to unify the four fundamental forces.

excuse my simplicity, but if we take the big bang as truth, is it not given that all four force were unified in the "beginning".

is any one able to offer some understandable interpretations into the problems facing Unified field theorists ?

understandable interpretations is my way of saying "please dont use big words huh.gif "





AlphaNumeric
It's widely considered that just like the weak force and electromagnetic force combine if you have a very high energy system (they behave identically) then if you get even more energy the strong force and eventually gravity will also combine to make a single 'superforce'. Given the very high energies of the early universe, it's thought that this force did exist in nature for a tiny fragment of a second.

Part of the problem of gravity is it's just so weak, trillions of trillions of trillions of times weaker than even the 'weak' nuclear force. This doesn't lend itself to being put in the same framework as the other 3 forces. When you apply the same mathematically formulism to gravity as has been done for the EM force and the weak and strong forces you get all kinds of problems with the theory returning nonsense predicts.

Ways around this are being investigates, like in string theory particles aren't points like they are in more traditional quantum theories, they are vibrations on a quantum string. Work's still going on on that and other areas like Loop Quantum Gravity.
Zephir
QUOTE (kjw+Oct 18 2006, 12:24 AM)
...if we take the big bang as truth, is it not given that all four force were unified in the "beginning"...

You can imagine all the forces as the result of curvature of surface curvatures of small droplets of matter, forming our vacuum and particles of observable matter, recursively. The curvature effect is given 1) by the tendency of energy to focus along density gradients and 2) the tendency of surface energy waves to spread along as straight path, as possible due the diffusion character of mass/energy concentration leveling.

But the effect of surface tension is ambiguous, which can be observed on small mercury droplets easily: the small droplets repel itself mutually at low distances, whereas they have tendency to agglomerate itself into bigger one. By such way, the tiny droplets can form the bigger one, where the repulsive and attractive forces are in mutually equilibrium. The elementary particles or atom nuclei can serve as an example of such hierarchical systems.

user posted image user posted image user posted image

By Aether Wave theory (AWT) these droplets have appeared as a result of condensation of hot false vacuum, formed probably by the interior of black hole, existing in previous generation of Universe. Such process is analogous to condensation of hot vapor into droplets, which are forming the gas, which condenses into droplets, which are forming the gas.... It's evident, if you heat such mixture, the droplets will gradually evaporate again, which will lead into disappearance of electromagnetic interaction, strong nuclear interaction and weak nuclear force, consecutively. Just the gravity will remain. This is explanation of GUT mechanism without using of big words, just by using of physical analogy.
Euler
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 09:37 PM)
curvature of surface curvatures

Your armwaving has been shown to be nothing but utter twaddle. Proof based on the data you've given:

User posted image

However, feel free to continue refuting this (which in turn results in you refuting your own words). You're still keeping plenty of people entertained.
Zephir
QUOTE (Euler+Oct 18 2006, 01:08 AM)
...proof based on the data you've given...

You can generate the picture composed from randomly chosen math symbols with the probably the very same reasoning effect... wink.gif
Furthermore, we aren't discussing the time dependent solution here, so the time differentials presented by you are totally off topic here.
Euler
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 10:14 PM)
You can generate the picture composed from randomly chosen math symbols with the probably the very same reasoning effect, here...

Awwww, bless. You don't understand the proof. Suprise, suprise.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 11:14 PM)
You can generate the picture composed from randomly chosen math symbols with the probably the very same reasoning effect... wink.gif

You mean that because you can't tell the difference between real maths and just a bunch of symbols in a jpeg that you dismiss Euler's proof because you can't be sure it's real?

Doesn't say a lot for all the maths claims you made Zephir wink.gif Your iterative solutions can't save you now tongue.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (Euler+Oct 18 2006, 01:20 AM)
Awwww, bless. You don't understand the proof. Surprise, surprise.

Try to imagine, what will happen, if we evacuate the flask containing the small amount of soap solution. At the very beginning, the flask will be filled by nearly homogeneous foam with approximately flat walls (i.e. bubble membranes). Surprisingly enough, such state, which is controlled solely by surface tension is metastable. Why?

User posted image User posted image

The small bubbles are having a relatively larger surface tension per unit volume then the larger ones. If we connect two soap bubbles with a pipe, such system will be in metastable state. The tiny difference in volume has the result, the larger bubble will increase it's volume, whereas the smaller one will collapse even more.
Euler
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 10:37 PM)
IDIOTIC ARM WAVING

So just to reiterate: you don't understand the proof, right? Bearing in mind this proof relies on nothing more than elementary vector calculus, this lack of understanding doesn't bode well for your claimed understanding of topics such as "twistors, tensor fields, topology, variational principles..." the list goes on.
Zephir
QUOTE (Euler+Oct 18 2006, 01:41 AM)
So just to reiterate: you don't understand the proof, right?

Proof of what? Until some other person will explain, what are you trying to prove here, I'll consider you picture as a off-topic nonsense, which has a meaning just for you.
After all, by using of math is possible to (dis)prove virtually everything. For example, Einstein had proved the stationary Universe, some others have proven the expanding Universe - it's just a matter of constants... wink.gif
Euler
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 10:52 PM)
Proof of what?

Wow, so not only do you not understand the arguments within the proof, but the final conclusion has also totally passed you by? Fair do's, that's an impressive lack of knowledge.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 11:52 PM)
Proof of what? Until some other person will explain, what are you trying to prove here, I'll consider you picture as a off-topic nonsense, which has a meaning just for you.

He has shown that your statement "You only need E=mc^2 and the wave equations with arbitrary boundary conditions for AWT's mathematical model" is self contradictory because you can pick boundary conditions which preclude E=mc^2 from being right.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 11:52 PM)
After all, by using of math is possible to (dis)prove virtually everything. For example, Einstein had proved the stationary Universe, some others have proven the expanding Universe - it's just a matter of constants...
That's because they didn't know what parameters to put into their equations. You specifically said "Boundary conditions are not important" about your theory. Euler has proved they are.
Farsight
Good post 2 alphanumeric. I roll my eyes at the rest.
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 18 2006, 02:04 AM)
You specifically said "Boundary conditions are not important" about your theory. Euler has proved they are.

Until you prove, the Universe has some boundary at all, the boundary conditions have not meaning for the behavior of the rest. By AWT, the Universe is formed by black hole inside of another Universe formed by black hole inside of another one, recursively.

User posted image

Such recursion has no end by AWT - the boundary conditions simply have no meaning at all in such model. The previous generation of our Universe was probably pretty close to the existing one - the same black holes, galaxies and so on. This model is solely repetitive.
Ron
Hi guys,
I can't comment on this subject any better than AlphaNumeric and (for what I understood of it) Euler, but, honestly, no offense to you Zephir (again because I didn't understand the proof myself), but I've never seen the conclusion of a proof stated so distinctly. Quote "As a corollary....." just made me laugh out loud, as professional as the rest of it was, it took me off guard! I hope your sense of humor appreciates this kind of wit as well, Zeph. I know you've got a tough skin.
Sorry for the distraction,
Take care,
Ron
Farsight
I think this forum need more people like you Ron.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 18 2006, 12:25 AM)
Until you prove, the Universe has some boundary, the boundary conditions have not meaning for the behavior of the rest.

Boundary conditions don't have to literally mean on the boundary, that's one kind of initial conditions. Another kind is to specify the state of the system/field/whatever everywhere throughout the volume at a specific instant in time.

Have a look on Wiki for 'Dirichlet Conditions' and 'Neumann Conditions'.

Besides, that doesn't counter the fact you said that all you need for AWT's maths is the wave equation, E=mc^2 and whatever boundary conditions you liked. Euler has shown that such disregard for 'initial conditions' is wrong because conditions exist which contradict E=mc^2.

I would point out that the time you specify the system doesn't have to be at the beginning of it's dynamics so 'initial conditions' is a slight misnomer. Suffice to say, even spaces without boundaries can (and should) have 'boundary conditions' if you wish to solve dynamic equations about them, you just don't define them on the boundary.

If you'd done basic differential equations courses you'd both know this and understand Euler's proof your statement about AWTs maths was wrong.
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 18 2006, 02:31 AM)
...because conditions exist which contradict E=mc^2...

The E=mc^2 is steady state solution, independed to boundary or initial conditions. The foamy character of Aether is natural result of inhomogeneous character of each continuous environment. It just says, our vacuum is formed by flat membranes with low curvature.
Eric England
AlphaNumeric and Euler,

Please correct me if I'm wrong in the following assessment. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

1. The big bang assumes that "all" was present at a "juncture".

2. The only prediction I know of, for "before", is Einstein's gravitational singularity.

3. If so, then what caused gravitation to let go of all and allow it to become increasingly differentiated?

4. And, of course, what is the juncture?

Eric

AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 18 2006, 12:50 AM)
3. If so, then what caused gravitation to let go of all and allow it to become increasingly differentiated?

Noone really knows at the moment (aside from Zephir and his divine knowledge rolleyes.gif ) because Einstein's description breaks down before you can wind the clock back to the moment of the big bang. A consistent theory of quantum gravity is needed and even that doesn't guarentee anything.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 18 2006, 12:49 AM)
The E=mc^2 is steady state solution, independed to boundary or initial conditions.

If you understood Euler's maths you'd understand why that's wrong.
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 18 2006, 03:00 AM)
A consistent theory of quantum gravity is needed and even that doesn't guarantee anything

At the first glance, none the quantum based theory can supply the definite explanation of Big Bang due the probabilistic character of quantum theory.

For quantum theory the pin-point singularity has no meaning by the same way, like for relativity theory due the uncertainty principle. From this point of view, I don't believe in quantum theory of Universe without some deeper & independent insight.
Laidback
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 18 2006, 12:00 AM)
Euler has shown that such disregard for 'initial conditions' is wrong because conditions exist which contradict E=MC^2.



Can you provide details and or a link to this contradiction please..

QUOTE
Noone really knows at the moment (aside from Zephir and his divine knowledge  ) because Einstein's description breaks down before you can wind the clock back to the moment of the big bang. A consistent theory of quantum gravity is needed and even that doesn't guarentee anything


So is this another reason why the Big Bang theory should be turfed or disbanded?

I mean shouldn't areas of our universe that were some time ago near vacuum and or near unity completely No-thing and or at unity by now changing some constants?

Another question I have in where is this extra energy or increasing force suppose to be coming from for this claimed increasing rate of expansion? unsure.gif

BTW when we deal with Gravity, is every one clear that Gravity is merely a force of exertion and not some magical and or miraculous attraction, I say this because if we go back ~ WAY BACK~ when we first learned of possible forces as undergraduates ~ I cant believe how many individuals including some lecturers refer to gravities exertion incorrectly mad.gif

Zephir
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 18 2006, 08:29 AM)
So is this another reason why the Big Bang theory should be turfed or disbanded?

The phase transition of false vacuum would appear very similar to explosion from internal observer perspective. Furthermore, if the AWT is valid, then all these black holes hass appeared like quasars by giant collisions of zones of condensing vacuum. It's probable, the formation of Universe was very fast process from this point of view. It's even possible, a more then single generation of Universe has appeared at this moment.

user posted image
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 18 2006, 06:29 AM)
Can you provide details and or a link to this contradiction please..
It's the picture Euler posted on the first page of this thread.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 18 2006, 06:29 AM)
So is this another reason why the Big Bang theory should be turfed or disbanded?
No, because the BB theory is about the universe long ago being very small and very hot for which there is loads of evidence. It's just that when you get less than a billionth of a second from the actual 'big bang' our theories break down precisely because the universe is so small and hot.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 18 2006, 06:29 AM)
BTW when we deal with Gravity, is every one clear that Gravity is merely a force of exertion and not some magical and or miraculous attraction, I say this because if we go back ~ WAY BACK~ when we first learned of possible forces as undergraduates ~ I cant believe how many individuals including some lecturers refer to gravities exertion incorrectly mad.gif
Firstly, you went to physic lectures? If your theory of protons and understanding of E=mc^2 is anything to go by not much of it sunk in. Secondly, what exactly is the difference between a 'force of exertion' and a force of attraction. If a force brings things together, it attracts them to one another, so you can call it a force of attraction. Where's the error in that line of thinking?
Eric England
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
No, because the BB theory is about the universe long ago being very small and very hot for which there is loads of evidence. It's just that when you get less than a billionth of a second from the actual 'big bang' our theories break down precisely because the universe is so small and hot.


Could it also be said, that this is the juncture at which "ALL finite approximations" give way to infinity?

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Secondly, what exactly is the difference between a 'force of exertion' and a force of attraction. If a force brings things together, it attracts them to one another, so you can call it a force of attraction. Where's the error in that line of thinking?


So is gravitation exerted upon mass (attraction) or exertion by a mass (attractive)?

ParticlePhysics
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 11:49 PM)
The E=mc^2 is steady state solution, independed to boundary or initial conditions.

Hi Zephir, what is steady state solution please?

Olaf.
Zephir
QUOTE (ParticlePhysics+Oct 18 2006, 06:54 PM)
Hi Zephir, what is steady state solution please?

The steady state solution of AWT doesn't exist at all due the metastability of foam geometry: the larger bubbles tends to expand even more, whereas the smaller bubbles are having the tendency to collapse to infinitesimal size. The equilibrium requires the bubbles of the ver same size with flat walls and such equilibrium can be violated easily. Just the quasi-stable solution exists for the most dense solution, which is forming our 6D vacuum and 3D space.
Eric England
AlphaNumeric,

I has a couple of questions a few posts up... where'd ya go to?

Eric
Laidback
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 18 2006, 08:50 AM)
what exactly is the difference between a 'force of exertion' and a force of attraction. If a force brings things together, it attracts them to one another, so you can call it a force of attraction. Where's the error in that line of thinking?

The difference is attraction is perceived so therefore its not a REAL force..

If you refer back to the basics of physics to what and how force is exerted, attraction as a force is simply impossible!

The rest of your comments show me you still have much to learn, in fact ~ quite a considerable amount, and yes I agree, I still have some learning in me as well..

BTW.. I am interested what the BB theorists have to say about the perceived expansion and how it seems to be accelerating and if this is so, what increasing energy source may be facilitating it? Note how I expressed perceived expansion, and this too will be confirmed one day why it was perceived..

My model of the universe explains to me why science perceives, measured redshift which BTW suggests this increasing rate of expansion, my model even explains why we even measure areas with a given kelvin that seems to backup the big-bang theory.

As such I and other advanced physicists have their reservations about its validity.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 18 2006, 03:06 PM)
Could it also be said, that this is the juncture at which "ALL finite approximations" give way to infinity?
Even the methods of renormalisation, which are infinite techniques fail.
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 18 2006, 03:06 PM)
So is gravitation exerted upon mass (attraction) or exertion by a mass (attractive)?
I would say it's exerted by one mass on another and vice versa.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 21 2006, 02:37 AM)
If you refer back to the basics of physics to what and how force is exerted, attraction as a force is simply impossible!
A force alters something's momentum. That says nothing about the manner in which it does it.

Though not the guiding authority, the first example on Wikipedia of a force specifically uses the word attracted.

What definition are you using which procludes two objects mutually attracting?
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 21 2006, 02:37 AM)
As such I and other advanced physicists have their reservations about its validity.
I think you're being extremely insulting to proper high level physicists by comparing yourself to them.

Laidback
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 21 2006, 09:15 AM)
Even the methods of renormalisation, which are infinite techniques fail.
I would say it's exerted by one mass on another and vice versa.
A force alters something's momentum. That says nothing about the manner in which it does it.

What definition are you using which procludes two objects mutually attracting?


Two Areas at a velocity with the same trajectories.


QUOTE
I think you're being extremely insulting to proper high level physicists by comparing yourself to them.


I bet you're referring to the likes of crackpots such as Feynman.. RIGHT!??

Yeah I am quite aware of his award, and I cant wait for some one like you to discover and expose where he is going wrong! unsure.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I think you're being extremely insulting to proper high level physicists by comparing yourself to them.


I bet you're referring to the likes of crackpots such as Feynman.. RIGHT!??

Yeah I am quite aware of his award, and I cant wait for some one like you to discover and expose where he is going wrong! unsure.gif

Though not the guiding authority, the first example on Wikipedia of a force specifically uses the word attracted.


Really! laugh.gif Well wikipedia is a work in progress, so the error will one day be addressed...
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 22 2006, 03:50 AM)
Two Areas at a velocity with the same trajectories.
That doesn't define force at all.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 22 2006, 03:50 AM)
I cant wait for some one like you to discover and expose where he is going wrong!
Well his theory wasn't a theory of quantum gravity so it's going to be replaced sometime, but given it's accuracy in models it can be applied to, whatever does replace it will limit to it in certain circumstances, just like relativity replaces Newtonian gravity, but in the limit of a weak field relativity becomes Newtonian gravity.

The experimental confirmation is too good, QED is here to stay for the vast majority of light/charge interactions because it's been shown to work for them. Only in the most extreme situations might it fail and we haven't found them yet.

You obviously haven't grasped the general method of science yet.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 22 2006, 03:50 AM)
Well wikipedia is a work in progress, so the error will one day be addressed...
Edit it yourself or flag it on the discussion page. See what people do, you'll have your error corrected very quickly, though I doubt you'll listen.
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 22 2006, 01:04 PM)
...QED is here to stay for the vast majority of light/charge interactions because it's been shown to work for them...

The fundamental problem with QED (like with all the other theories, based on quantum mechanic) is, we don't know why, they're working at all. By such way, the QED and whole the QM is just a sort of numeric regression of reality, albeit quite complex. The fact, we can extrapolate the experimental results by parabola doesn't mean. we understand, why is it so.

Richard P. Feynman: "There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics ."

Not true anymore, thanks to AWT. But the Feynman was wrong, because just the fact, you're believing in c=const postulate doesn't mean, you're understanding the relativity theory better, then quantum mechanic. It's solely equivalent situation to quantum mechanic, in fact.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 22 2006, 12:41 PM)
The fundamental problem with QED (like with all the other theories, based on quantum mechanic) is, we don't know why, they're working at all

They never set out to do that though, simply to get a model of the universe (or some part of it) which worked and it does.

Just because a theory doesn't explain the why doesn't mean it's got no place in physics.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 22 2006, 12:41 PM)
Not true anymore, thanks to AWT.
I like the way you sing the praises of AWT, then link to a page where 83% of people in the poll think you're theory is either BS or desperately short on the essentials! laugh.gif It's like advertising the fact hardly anyone likes your theory, despite having spent a year telling us about it.
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 22 2006, 02:49 PM)
Just because a theory doesn't explain the why doesn't mean it's got no place in physics.

I'm not saying, the numeric regression has no place in physic. Usually, whenever the scientists measure something new and unexplained, they will use a numeric regression to have some math model, at least. Later such model is replaced more advanced one, which requires less and less introductory postulates, subsequently. This is a normal process of evolution.

The practical usage doesn't require the quite fundamental model at all, simply because of demand factor of such approach. Nobody will use the quantum mechanic for computation of resulting density during mixing spirit with water, simply because the semi-empiric mixing rule works well and it's much more easier to use. But it doesn't means, the more fundamental approach cannot have usage in more general situation.

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 22 2006, 02:49 PM)
  83% of people in the poll think you're theory is either BS or desperately short on the essentials.

So what? Nobody has believed in Copernicus or Galieo theories from it very beginning. This is not a relevant criterion at all. Despite of this, the Aether theory remains the only theory, which explains the wave character of light.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.