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

  1. Mar 14, 2008 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 17, 2008 #2


    Dr. Sylvester Gates on Sting theory. The best part is the end of his talk, after min 47.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  4. Mar 17, 2008 #3
    i wont wacth what you have linked i think it would delute my own concept of a theory of everything -.-, i just want to know if you think it has anythings within it that create conflects with its self?
     
  5. Mar 17, 2008 #4
    or dose it realy applie to all things :/???
     
  6. Mar 17, 2008 #5
    I would like to here a Theory of Nothing that is somthing we dont know :D
     
  7. Mar 17, 2008 #6
    Did you know that in 1850 a woman was born and given the name Emma Royd.
     
  8. Mar 17, 2008 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sting theory?
     
  9. Mar 17, 2008 #8

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sting created the universe. Its less of a theory and more of a self delusion, but he has managed to convince others.
     
  10. Mar 17, 2008 #9
    :rofl: Thats a bold statement. Leaves a red mark!
     
  11. Mar 17, 2008 #10
    Ok, so then why are you posting in my thread?
     
  12. Mar 18, 2008 #11

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You need to read and heed...http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  13. Mar 18, 2008 #12
    Ok let me repeat the cliche " Is Mathematical beauty enough in the absence of testable predictions?"Your views?
     
  14. Mar 18, 2008 #13
    Raise your hand if you watched the vidoes I posted...............anyone? anyone?

    Oh, I guess were just talking nonsense.
     
  15. Mar 18, 2008 #14

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for posting this. I watched part of the Einstein video. Hope to finish it this weekend. The other day I picked up a special edition of Discover magazine that is all about Einstein. There's a fun section in the back called "20 things you didn't know about relativity."

    The first three:

    1 Who invented relativity? Bzzzt—wrong. Galileo hit on the idea in 1639, when he showed that a falling object behaves the same way on a moving ship as it does in a motionless building.

    2 And Einstein didn’t call it relativity. The word never appears in his original 1905 paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” and he hated the term, preferring “invariance theory” (because the laws of physics look the same to all observers—nothing “relative” about it).

    3 Space-time continuum? Nope, that’s not Einstein either. The idea of time as the fourth dimension came from Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein’s professors, who once called him a “lazy dog.”

    More at:
    http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
     
  16. Mar 18, 2008 #15

    sas3

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is this the band “Sting”?
    I always thought they would do great things.
     
  17. Mar 19, 2008 #16
    I've just watched the documentary on Hawking and black holes with Kaku in it, I think String theory is dubious myself, but I would absolutely love to be wrong. I just don't think I am. :smile:

    I've seen most of this before though. It's a really good documentary for laymen and academics alike.
     
  18. Mar 19, 2008 #17
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  19. Mar 19, 2008 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Those are too funny! :biggrin:
     
  20. Mar 19, 2008 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This has to be the best quote from the entire article:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  21. Mar 19, 2008 #20
    I don't understand why theoretically physicists are trying to create a "theory of everything". Wouldn't that just put them out of a job? :wink:
     
  22. Mar 19, 2008 #21

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But if you were to discover it then you'd be exceptionally rich and famous. Theres not much money in physics otherwise.
     
  23. Mar 22, 2008 #22
    Who was it who advised a prominent physicist to abandon physics back in the 19th century as everything had already been solved so it was dead. I think even with a TOE it has an almost infinite number of applications, so I don't think it'd kill physics stone dead. You're right though it'd certainly make physics less interesting. I think it's for this reason I don't find chemistry that interesting or at least at A' level (college level UK 16-18) where everything is pretty much just so.
     
  24. Apr 10, 2008 #23
    if you think about it, is there any rationale as to why a "Theory of Everything" should exist? Suppose 'THE THEORY' it's just not there, and quantum mechanics and general relativity were not meant to be reconciled within a higher framework?
    String theory has been around for about 40 years yet what has it yielded other than more complexity?
    I'm not advocating that we quit seeking the Theory, but just being a devil's advocate with respect to the big picture. I mean, we are searching for something that we are sure is there without stopping to ask, why are we sure it's there?
     
  25. Apr 10, 2008 #24
    I watched them, thanks alot for posting them!! And then I ended up downloading about 3-4 hours worth of related videos, so I have something to do today, besides read Lee Smolin's book, "What's Wrong With Physics." Which is an excellent book on this topic by the way, along with Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong," and Brian G reene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos," which has a fascinating section on the question "what is time?"
     
  26. Apr 10, 2008 #25
    If you think about it, is there any reason why the orbits of stars and planets should be related with the fall of stones down on Earth ? Is there any reason why the interactions between magnets should be related with the radiation of heat by black bodies, or lightning ? Is there any reason why the forces that holds the nucleui together should be described in the same language as the interaction responsible for the radioactive processes, a language which happens to have been discovered to describe electromagnetism ?

    There is at least one rationale, historically this is what people have been doing, and they met more success than the could even hope for. In addition, string at first was not meant to be a TOE. This picture was more or less forced upon us by the theory.

    It's funny, yesterday I was having a drink with my ol' russian fellaw. He went like this about string theory
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook