Need some clarificationregarding GRAND UNIFIED THEORY

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pradeep198621
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory Unified theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Grand Unified Theory (GUT), exploring its implications, definitions, and the challenges associated with unifying the four fundamental forces of nature. Participants raise questions about the nature of GUT and its relationship to unresolved questions in physics, such as entropy and absolute zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions what a "link" found by a GUT would predict and whether nature allows for such a discovery, citing unresolved questions like low entropy in the past and the impossibility of reaching absolute zero.
  • Another participant clarifies that GUT specifically refers to the unification of the strong and electroweak interactions, noting that it does not address the broader questions raised by the first participant.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that a unified theory should incorporate fundamental patterns of dynamics in spacetime rather than focusing solely on particles as building blocks of reality.
  • A newcomer expresses fascination with GUT and inquires about compelling candidate theories beyond string theory, indicating skepticism about string theory's neatness as a GUT.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and implications of GUT, with no consensus on what constitutes a successful GUT or which theories might qualify as candidates. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between GUT and the broader questions of physics raised.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions and definitions related to GUT, including the specific interactions it aims to unify and the criteria for a successful theory. There are unresolved mathematical and conceptual steps in the discussion.

pradeep198621
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
(If this thread doesn't belong to this group, Iam sorry"...
Regarding the "GRAND UNIFIED THEORY"
It is the theory to find a link between the "four fundamental forces of nature"...and suppose that somebody some day find a "link"...then can You tell me what he has really found "what one can predict from the "link"...
Does Nature permitts anybody to Find that link...
THERE ARE IN THIS NATURE MANY "WHY" Questions to be answered...

>> Why there is LOW ENTROPY IN THE PAST

>>why WE CANNOT ACHIEVE ABSOLUTE ZERO IN FINITR NUMBER OF STEPS

Does these questions when answered are not "grand unified theory"

Pls look at this...

Regards,
Pradeep.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The term "grand unifying theory" (or better: theories) is first of all not so "grand" and has a rather precise meaning: it is meant to be a unifying theory of the strong and the electroweak interaction, which, in the standard model, have their "independent" life one next to the other. It doesn't really address the issues you raise at all.
After the success of the unification of the weak and the electromagnetic interaction into the electroweak interaction, people went on a chase to incorporate the strong interaction too. Many schemes have been proposed ; I think the first one was the most "obvious" one: electromagnetism had the gauge group U(1) ; the electroweak interaction had the group SU(2) ; the strong interaction all by itself had the group SU(3), and it turns out that SU(5) contained each of these subgroups. So SU(5) was proposed as a first grand unifying theory. But the problem was that it predicted the decay of the proton at a much faster rate than has been experimentally observed afterwards, so it went down the drain. Then people invented lots of other schemes. There is no generally accepted grand unifying theory - as far as I know - at the moment.
 
A unified theory would have to incorporate the strong and weak forces, yes.
It would have to be a theory that is transposable at all scales. A fundermental pattern of creation.

Instead perhaps of looking for a particle that is the building block for everything and therefore is the foundation stone, if you like, of reality, why not look for a fundermental pattern of dynamics of spacetime?

A unified field theory would have to assume that everything is in fact one, otherwise you can't have unity. It would be a transposable pattern or set of equations that can be octaved up and down in scales of resolution. Thus being both expansive and contractive.
 
hi I'm new here.

personally i find the whole GUT fascinating.

which theories do you guys find compelling as GUT candidate? anything that might meet the GUT expectations...anything beside string theory. i don't necessarily think string theory is at all neat as GUT should but that's just my gut feeling speaking.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Is there a real need for a theory of everything (ToE)?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate Metric Ansatz For Unifying All Forces In 11D?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Just standard model and gravity, up to high energies? An update
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Is the Pursuit of a Grand Unified Theory Skipping Essential Steps?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate What Constitutes a Natural Completion of a Physical Theory?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate What are the prospects for the Causal Fermion System?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Graduate New Forces of Nature - A Quest for a Grand Unified Theory
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Got asked, "Why does there 'need' to be a UFT"
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Undergrad Three questions regarding QG theories
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K