Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory of everything, what is it?

  1. Mar 2, 2005 #1
    What exactly was Einstein trying to prove with his theory of everything... :confused: ???
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 2, 2005 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well he didn't call it that, mostly he didn't call it what others did, his Unifed Theory. He called it his non-symmetric theory. He tried to create a unified theory of the forces (but he didn't really know about the strong and weak forces; they hadn't been clarified in the thirties when he was developing his theory). So something like gravity plus the electron and photon, I think. His approach was to generalize his general realtivity to a metric tensor that wasn't symmetrical.
     
  4. Mar 2, 2005 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    To footnote SA's explanation, Einstein was trying to find a field theory that would unify gravity with electromagnetism as Maxwell did when he unified electric and magnetic field theory.
     
  5. Mar 3, 2005 #4
    ultimately

    Ultimately Einstein sought to be able to make sense of all activity in the universe (everything) with a single theory that would contain an ultimate first cause for all motion. He spent the last two decades of his life failing to do so.

    Now a days it is thought that there are four main forces that are the rudimentary reason for why things in the universe do what they do. These four forces are: The strong force (the force that in theory is responsible for attraction between sub-atomic particles), the weak force (the force that in theory allows for radiation, atomic particle orbit decay), electro-magnetism (I would appreciate it if someone could define for me what this force is responsible for) and gravity (the force that in theory is responsible for the degree of attraction generated by all objects ((while weaker than the strong force, it is the reason why stellar bodies such as the Earth and the moon effect each other as they do and is the reason why very large objects such as the planet we live on, keep its inhabitants from floating away from its core)).

    Now, many modern Theories of Everything seek to find a way to define each of these four forces in terms of the other so ultimately they will all be found to be a facet of a single force which can account for, well, everything.
     
  6. Mar 3, 2005 #5
    Electrostatic force?

    Did you mean the electrostatic force, because I believe that's responsible for the holding together of ionically charged particles (ionic bonding). So basically, this theory of everything was an attempt to amalgamte all the universal forces under one single equation. That would have been handy.
     
  7. Mar 3, 2005 #6
    Is your question directed towards my last entry in this post or one of the entries previous to mine?
     
  8. Mar 3, 2005 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And Shifflett has accomplished this in Einstein's theory,which he conflates with Schroedinger's similar theory. He needs a large cosmological constant to do it though.
     
  9. Mar 3, 2005 #8
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2005
  10. Mar 3, 2005 #9
    excellent thank you :smile:
     
  11. Mar 4, 2005 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Thanks for the link! That was fascinating. Shifflett follows this up with http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411016. I may be easily wowed, but this looks promising.
     
  12. Mar 4, 2005 #11

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yes, I've been reading that paper, which I had missed until I checked his site. I note that the large extrinsic c.c. imported from Schroedinger's solution, which he suggests might come out of zpe whenever the theory is quantized, is almost entirely cancelled by an intrinsic c.c. from the Lagrangian, so the residual c.c is small but positive as modern cosmology suggests it must be. Plus he is able to support the Dirac photon. So near...
     
  13. Mar 5, 2005 #12

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    And that totally makes sense to me... which means it is probably suspect.
     
  14. Mar 5, 2005 #13

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Chronos, could you tell me what you mean by "probably suspect"? Thanks.
     
  15. Mar 5, 2005 #14

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    I can appreciate the self-deprecating humor and could apply it to myself
    (if it makes sense to me then it must be wrong, or at least be highly suspicious) :wink:
     
  16. Mar 5, 2005 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    What marcus said :rofl:. I have concluded my belief system is historically unreliable. I have therefore taken up the repugnant practice of suspending judgement until hearing out other opinions. In all seriousness, I'm a window shopper. I don't have a theory, I just read them. I assume the people who write the papers I read have put a hell of a lot more effort into the subject than I have. I guess that makes me a cheerleader instead of a player. I can live with that. The main reason I hang out here is to listen and learn from people like marcus, who have made a real effort to connect the dots. Permit me to add this. I think there are some 'older' people here who could step down from the pedestal and acknowledge some of us are trying to understand.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2005
  17. Mar 5, 2005 #16

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    oops I got in the way of something more important. wasnt aware of context.
    Chronos, thanks for the kind words. Our appreciation for each other keeps us all working at our best. I am disturbed by what I read further on in your post and urge you retract it while still in the "editable" grace period.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2005
  18. Mar 6, 2005 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Since I am about the oldest poster on these forums (71), do I qualify for "stepping down"? If so, why?
     
  19. Mar 6, 2005 #18

    Kea

    User Avatar

    Oh dear. The problem with indirect human interaction. I thought it was quite clear what Chronos meant (though I do hope he/she clarifies it)...that is, the word 'older' was in inverted commas. I don't think Chronos meant it literally. Maybe he meant 'older' as in 'older and established and respected members of the physics community in general', in which case I think most of us would agree with him.

    Kea :smile:
     
  20. Mar 6, 2005 #19

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    That is just the point, but I actually disagree Kea, and I think it was an unfortunate line to take. "Older" in this PF context means senior in the way that people acquire seniority and respect (whatever the physical age) by their helpfulness, and occasionally wise restraint, in PF discussions.

    It takes more than intelligence and knowledge to be a good "village elder"
    and we do not have a surplus of qualified. the suggestion to step down is
    regretable
     
  21. Mar 7, 2005 #20

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Apologies to all. I was speaking figuratively. I only meant to say we all have a voice here and deserve to be heard.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Theory of everything, what is it?
Loading...