Is a Unified Field Theory the Key to Understanding the Universe?

[Delta2]

TL;DR

A naive attempt on Unified Field Theory

Is there any approach in any books out there, where we consider that in universe exists only one field, let it be called the Unified Field (UF), in which all of the known fields (gravitational, EM field, quark field, gluon field, lepton field, Higgs Field, e.t.c.) are just components (pretty much like electric and magnetic field are components of the EM field). And all the phenomena of the universe can be explained based on three laws:
1) The total energy of the UF is conserved
2) The total momentum of the UF is conserved
3) The total entropy of the UF can only be increased

Ok I am not sure how we can define the entropy of a field (I personally don't know how the momentum of a field can be defined but I know it is done in various books), anyway just saying (this is a naive attempt but it might inspire some scientists that are more well educated than me and have immersed deep into QFT and relativity).

Thanks, Dimitrios.

 

[Demystifier]

String field theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_field_theory

It works quite good for bosonic fields, but it's not entirely clear whether it can work also for supersymmetric fields which include the fermions.

 

[Delta2]

Yes well, that article of Wiki seems to be beyond my comprehension level, but does String Field theory takes into account the two conservation laws+ the entropy requirement in some implicit way?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I smell a trap. If I were to say "definitely no, this can't be done with just one field, you're going to imemdiately come back with "yeahbut...what if there's something we don't understand going on?"

What charge does this field have? And what spin?

 

[Delta2]

I smell a trap. If I were to say "definitely no, this can't be done with just one field, you're going to imemdiately come back with "yeahbut...what if there's something we don't understand going on?"

Well you can have your views and I can have mine, you might be wrong or I might be wrong. Of course it matters who is wrong and who is right when we do science, but there is something more important than that. Science can be considered to be a "fight" or should i say a "race" of different views between scientists. The most important thing for me is to have some sportsmanship when we do this race, like it is important to have sportsmanship when doing sports. And it is not so important who wins the race as that both (or more than two sides) did the race, participated in the process. That's what's important for me the participation in the race (like we often say in sports but no one listens to it ).

What charge does this field have? And what spin?

Hmm I don't know if it would be possible to define the total charge of the field as the sum of the charges of its components fields, and the spin likewise.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well you can have your views and I can have mine, you might be wrong or I might be wrong.

We don't seem to be talking science then.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

EDIT -- After several PM conversations with the OP, this thread will remain closed.