What exactly was Einstein trying to prove with his theory of everything... ???
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is your question directed towards my last entry in this post or one of the entries previous to mine?
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.
Here's a good article by Michio Kaku on "Hyperspace and a Theory of Everything"
This article from Wikipedia is helpful to better understand electromagnetism:
excellent thank you
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.
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...
And that totally makes sense to me... which means it is probably suspect.
Chronos, could you tell me what you mean by "probably suspect"? Thanks.
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)
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.
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.
Since I am about the oldest poster on these forums (71), do I qualify for "stepping down"? If so, why?
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.
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
Apologies to all. I was speaking figuratively. I only meant to say we all have a voice here and deserve to be heard.
Agreed, Chronos, but the people who lock treads and send topics to TD are keeping PF from becoming like so many science sites, a carnival of private, unfounded theories. I don't think Shifflet's work constitutes that; if you look up his references, starting with Shroedinger and Einstein, you see a thin but genuine track of research published in peer reviewed journals - some very noted ones! - from that day to this. Shifflett's papers are very much immersed in that thread.
"Let a hundred flowers bloom" is not a good motto for a gardener; your garden gets overrun with weeds before you know it. Eternal vigilance is the price of cogency.
Its a dream to replace the god-awful fragmented non-intuitive physics that exist today.
And which bothers you more? That it is fragmented or, as I suspect, that it is non-intuitive? Give up on intuition as a guide to reality; your brain plays tricks on you. Follow the experiments and the math.
will a theory of everything only be relevent to our frame of reference or will it apply to alll pockets of the universe and beyond ???
If it's a true theory of everything, it will not only apply to all pockets of the universe, but it explain why those pockets are there.
Separate names with a comma.