Has the Theory of Unification in Physics Been Discovered Yet?

cracker
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
A while ago I was watching this video on queantom physics and this dude was talking about the Theory of unification that explains everything from magetic, gravity of large aboject and gravity of very small and dence objects like black holes and I think some other things. So has anybody found this Theory or have they come close? Or are we still years away from finding it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are some theories which try to unite all the basic theories of physics. The two most prominent are string theory and loop quantum gravity. Neither has been developed to the point where physicists can make definite statements as to the validity of either one.
 
They are still decades away from finding if there is any validity to strings or loops or even branes (not mispelled).
 
cracker said:
A while ago I was watching this video on queantom physics and this dude was talking about the Theory of unification that explains everything from magetic, gravity of large aboject and gravity of very small and dence objects like black holes and I think some other things. So has anybody found this Theory or have they come close? Or are we still years away from finding it.

okay, first, it's spelled Q-U-A-N-T-U-M, not Queantom. secondly, my own oppinion of science is this, "Science is not a complete thing, and most likely never will be, therefore we must assume that we know barely anything to the universe or its true functions. if it were a complete thing, then we'd be able to create the universe ourselves, and that hasn't and most likely never will happen. so we then must assume that anything from this point on is possible, and that means anything. even the dumbest of ideas that sound so wack that a crack dealer would even shun then should be seriously looked at at a possiblity, not an impossibility."

So, then what is truly a theory of unification?
 
christian_dude_27 said:
secondly, my own oppinion of science is this, "Science is not a complete thing, and most likely never will be, therefore we must assume that we know barely anything to the universe or its true functions. if it were a complete thing, then we'd be able to create the universe ourselves, and that hasn't and most likely never will happen. so we then must assume that anything from this point on is possible, and that means anything. even the dumbest of ideas that sound so wack that a crack dealer would even shun then should be seriously looked at at a possiblity, not an impossibility."

This has got to be one of the silliest thing I've ever heard.

First of all, what makes you think you have all the necessary information about science, and how it is practiced, to be able to make that kind of a statement? You haven't a clue what "quantum physics" is, much less how science is done.

Secondly, you seem to have a complete mental lapse of the FACT that every idea MUST have a lot of experimental verification for it to be accepted as being valid. So no, not every stupid idea that comes out every "crack dealer" should be seriously looked at. We already know what works and what don't! If you don't believe that, then stop using your computer and other electronics, because by using those, you have explicitly accepted that concept.

I strongly suggest you refrain from making these kinds of ignorant statements from now on. You may have been able to get away with it in other forums that you belong to, but not here. There are not only students in the various area of studies on here, but there are also professionals in these fields that don't just sit and read internet websites about their fields, but also work in them! Not only will silly statements like what you have made not be tolerated, they will also not go unchallenged.

Zz.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top