Prospective grand unifying theory?

[mibaokula]

i just thought this up on a whim. But why are physicists trying to sum up what the universe is by what i call fundamentals (or super magnification). Why don't physicists try to explain what the whole universe is by looking outside rather than do so by looking at what its made of. Taking a really simple example; the human body is made of various cells, but this tells us nothing of how cells work in organs, organs work in organisms and how or organisms interact with one another. No; to understand something in detail you must look at the whole picture otherwise you'll still come across many anomalies and limitations that waste time. If you want to know what I'm thinking, a single nerve cell or quark will not tell us this, we need to know of the many complex biochemical reactions and neural transmissions in the brain contributing to my feelings etc.

likewise, i think that a TOE cannot be a fundamental type theory alone; although knowing how things work a fundamental level will help. the most difficult task will be finding out what lies out in the cosmos. No-one has actually "seen" a black hole or the numerous other strange phenomenon in space so we cannot explain them fully. And there's the problem of dark energy/matter; if there was a GUT, would it really be able to explain this?

 

[mibaokula]

Hello mibaokula: You are absolutely right. Yet, quantum mechanics is based on “particles.” And the SMP is not a model (in the sense of simulation); in addition the string theory still messes with paradox of sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle. They are Band-Aids to fix a system that is not doing the job (sounds like politics, ha!)
Once we accept that energy is the prime element of the universe, and thus mass is nothing more than an attribute of energy (measuring the field density) residing primarily in the 4D space (not time), then particles are no more. And suddenly, many paradoxes and controversy is replaced by logical, consistent formulation.

if you've heard of the grand unification theories: electroweak and electro-nuclear, they postulate your ideas kinda. they say that as you get closer to the start of the universe, there is only energy and one type of energy - a unification of electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravitational forces - though they're not really there yet with gravity (thats kinda why where in this mess i guess). these split up into the four forces and i guess matter is "made" somehow. i think you're absolutely right; matter is energy just like glass which we can touch is actually a liquid.

 

[avemt1]

i just thought this up on a whim. But why are physicists trying to sum up what the universe is by what i call fundamentals (or super magnification). Why don't physicists try to explain what the whole universe is by looking outside rather than do so by looking at what its made of. Taking a really simple example; the human body is made of various cells, but this tells us nothing of how cells work in organs, organs work in organisms and how or organisms interact with one another. No; to understand something in detail you must look at the whole picture otherwise you'll still come across many anomalies and limitations that waste time. If you want to know what I'm thinking, a single nerve cell or quark will not tell us this, we need to know of the many complex biochemical reactions and neural transmissions in the brain contributing to my feelings etc.

likewise, i think that a TOE cannot be a fundamental type theory alone; although knowing how things work a fundamental level will help. the most difficult task will be finding out what lies out in the cosmos. No-one has actually "seen" a black hole or the numerous other strange phenomenon in space so we cannot explain them fully. And there's the problem of dark energy/matter; if there was a GUT, would it really be able to explain this?

If you think about it the big picture is what physicists are trying to get at. Here is an example: The human body is made up of many different organs. Now, to understand what these organs do and how they interact and support each other we have to study them individually. Once we do that and still have answers we have to ask ourselves "what is that organ made of, and how does it work?"
It is just the fact that you can look at something and see it, but you cannot understand the full functionality of the object by looking at just one level.

 

[ohwilleke]

I've been really impressed with the progress that can be made within the Standard Model with a quite minor extension to include four rather than three generations of Standard Model fermions, something that makes possible something very close to unificiation without elaborate and undiscovered SUSY particles or extra dimensions within existing experimental boundaries using nothing more elaborate than an SU(5) framework.

It is one of the most straight foward ways to explain excess CP violation where it is observed and also comports with evidence from the MINOS conference by two different methodologies supporting the existing of more than three generations of neutrinos. P.Q. Hung has made this point in a number of articles among the earliest of which is this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9712338 entitled "Minimal SU(5) Resuscitated by Long-Lived Quarks and Leptons." In this scenario: "SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) gauge couplings converge to a common point of approximately 3.5x10^{15} GeV (corresponding to a proton lifetime of approximately 10^{34 plus/minus 1} years)." Updates to this original insight in this 1997 paper by Hung have been made by Hung and others to reflect theoretical refinements and new experimental data at least as recently as 2011 in this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.3997v1.pdf

An example of how this framework could explain excess CP violation in B and kaon decay is found at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.2634v1.pdf

Along the same lines, a five generation model could explain neutrino mass in a satisfactory way. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.0415v2.pdf

I am also impressed with the prospects for finding links between the CKM and PMNS mixing matrixes and the masses of the fermions (perhaps via relationships between the square roots of these masses), that could give us better insights into the fundamentals at work in both of these constants, as explored, for example, in this doctoral dissertation: http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/theses/phd/goffinet.pdf

 

[mibaokula]

If you think about it the big picture is what physicists are trying to get at. Here is an example: The human body is made up of many different organs. Now, to understand what these organs do and how they interact and support each other we have to study them individually. Once we do that and still have answers we have to ask ourselves "what is that organ made of, and how does it work?"
It is just the fact that you can look at something and see it, but you cannot understand the full functionality of the object by looking at just one level.

if we keep going into a cycle of what things are made of and what not, we may never answer the more important questions.

 

[ZapperZ]

This thread should not deteriorate into a sociological/philosophical discussion. Please keep in mind where this topic is. If your post does not have actual physics content, it will be deleted without notice.

Zz.

 

[mibaokula]

This thread should not deteriorate into a sociological/philosophical discussion. Please keep in mind where this topic is. If your post does not have actual physics content, it will be deleted without notice.

Zz.

if no-one votes for any of the above theories or have any theories that use sound physics, the thread descends into just that.
ill just try to reply to what anyone says :)