What about the absence of a unified field?

[yanniru]

I find it interesting that Coule's paper that you and I cite starts by claiming to be a response to the paper by Tsujikawa and Maartens. Is this an impressionistic reference. If you read my profile myou will see that I am biased towards a Smloin Bojowald cosmology. Too bad Coule is not so well respected. Could I find similar criticisms in the discussion by Lubos on wikipedia.

 

[marcus]

I find it interesting that Coule's paper that you and I cite starts by claiming to be a response to the paper by Tsujikawa and Maartens. Is this an impressionistic reference...

It's a case in point, Richard.
Coule brought out 3 versions of the paper. In the first two, no mention of Tsujikawa, Maartens, Singh (TMS)

Date (v1): Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:23:47 GMT (16kb)
Date (revised v2): Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:25:30 GMT (16kb)
Date (revised v3): Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:38:21 GMT (16kb)

In between Dec and Feb, it looks like someone called his attention to his not squaring with them. Could have been one of them, or a reviewer.
So he tried to address the difference. but I still don't think he connects with
TMS either. I read some TMS and liked what I read.

Each of us must decide what papers to take seriously. I found little telling or credible in Lubos-Wiki article, and was not impressed by Coule. You on the other hand may choose to give some weight to one or both of them!
Whatever you choose is fine with me. It is not something we need to argue about.

I guess my only caution would be to remind you that Lubos-Wiki has not passed peerreview (and sounds to me either misleading or as if he doesn't know what he's talking about) and also that Coule paper does not seem to have gotten over the publication hurdle----although David Coule has published a whole bunch of other papers!

In other words, he CAN publish physics paper and he is an established guy, he is just not (yet?) up to speed with this particular paper.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

It would not make sense if the forces cannot be unified because at some level gravity must be the same as electricity and as the colour force and so on, or else colour charge and mass would not exist in the same universe which they clearly do.
The question is:at what energy does unification take place? Are the forces already unified now but we haven't noticed for some reason?

 

[Epoch1]

As far as I can see, North, South, East or West only exist as points of reference on a physical grid. They are not good examples of a force. In the case of the Earth, a round sphere, I can reach any place from my position by traveling in any direction. Where I am determines where a direction lies only as it relates to what planet I am on. Is Mars east or west of earth? There is a unifying force for the universe. The force, however, is not in the universe. Instead, the universe is contained within the force.

 

[Epoch1]

"I was just wondering if we as conscious entities are the unified theory."
Ringokid

"Was consciousness part of the beginning of our universe. Do you think it will play a role in a possible ending?"

"Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple"
Frederick

"Consciousness, I think is just what comes with beings who are able to feel think and do. Order is done differently by different things. Consciousness is what makes humans and life different from each other. But humans manipulated order, which I am unsure if animals and other types of life do."

"I think you misunderstood my statement about the differences in life and humans. I meant that consciousness is what separates life from each other. Consciousness is what separates you from me."
Enos

"If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity."
Mike2

I am new to Physicsforum and as dumb as they come. But finding a TOE has always been a subject of interest. So far the posting in this thread have intrigued me the most. I have my own ideas and have found them echoed in the posts here. I have taken some quoyes from some of the members and will addres them here..

Ringokid touches on the best observation from my point of view. We are indeed, as conscience beings, examples of the true unifying force. As illustrated by the "uncertainty principle" the only way to determine the properties of the cat is by observation. It is just as true for the universe. The universe can not exist unless there is a witness. It could not have been created without first having been concieved. Concept and observation are properties of a conscious being.

Fredrick also touches tentatively on some truths. Einstein is correct. The answer is simple. Consciousness is not the beginning of the universe, it is the source of it. The universe is created everytime a new lifeform is created and ends when that lifeform when it dies.

Enos is correct about consciousness being a common factor shared between life forms. However consciousness is not what serparates life forms or what make them different... it is what connects them all regardless of intellect or complexity. We all share the same time but not the same perceptions. Thus the universe is different for all beings.

And mike2 asks if the universe came from the same singularity. As in the Big Bang. Even if the single particle theory is true as far as where all the matter in the universe was when the bang happened the question remains...where did the particle come from. What existed before the bang? There was either something or nothing. And as a matter of fact... you can't make something from nothing.

For me the answer is simple. It is the physical manifestation of the one absolute factual product of the conclusive equation. The universe has to exist because nothing, as a starting point, is impossible.

Consciouness is the unifying force that allows the universe and the life forms within it to exist. Life is the result of the interaction of the conscious force and physical matter. Life does not exist within the universe... the universe exists within life.

 

[Twistedseer]

unified theory is simple.

to understand how the universe functions you need to know about expansion and the basic way matter behaves in relation to expansion.

overlooking the obvious is humankinds biggest flaw

Twistedseer

 

[Fredrick]

Been away

I have been away for a bit and just got back. Much to my surprise this thread is really really going somewhere. I have been very interested in your replies and I want to join in again with my view.

The concept that there is no unified field of forces does not contradict the idea that everything came from a singularity. The distinguished point here is the line between materialization and the previous unexpressed state of singularity. Materialization can be seen as crossing a line. By crossing that line the materialized segments were no longer based on the singular state, but on their own reflection/recreation of that singular state. The forces themselves are based on particular singularities, yet together they cannot be seen as entities from one and the same field.

To say this in different words: the ultimate level is a level on which various deliveries exist, all (how many?) coming from a previously experienced singular state. Unification is therefore extremely strong, but between the various forms differences should cause conflict as well, because each contain its own blueprint on how to be singular.

Singularity cannot be achieved unless everything that exists gives up being specific. I personally like life the way it is (admitted it is far from perfect) so I am rather happy that that is not going to happen anytime soon.

The nothing, that exist right on the crossing line between the unexpressed and the materialized universe, did not exist in the unexpressed universe. There was no nothing before the Big Bang. In our universe nothing does take in a place. In human experiences two places of nothing score the highest marks for their important impact on us: death and divorce. The unity that existed no longer exists after divorce or death. We can gather some memories/facts about the previous unity, but we cannot deliver proof of that unity anymore. First there was no separation, now there is no unity anymore.

I see the Big Bang as an enormous force of separation. The separation caused a change: materialization occurred consisting of imperfect unities, half-unities, no-longer-unities clinging on to unity. We may each individually portray unity, but on the highest platform we are no longer united. That what was before cannot be seen anymore. If we were unified even on the smallest grounds - throughout - we would know it. According to me the universe would then not have come into being.

I am happy the universe came into being, even though I too wish we were more united.

 

[marcus]

this is an awesome thread---feynman, humanino, fredrick, and others have said some profound and/or witty ideas

I will try to join in, but am admittedly not quite up to philosophical speed.

Anyway, i think that human thought goes in expansion contraction waves and it is just getting a new concept of time and space

the last time like this was around 1680 when Newton postulated absolute space and time. after that the program was to explain everything by particles moving in that absolute space according to some laws, and by waves moving in it. the program developed enormous momentum.

heat and sound were explained by particles moving in abs. space
electricity and magnetism, light, even quantum field theory and the Standard Model are built on absolute space and an idealized time variable

A crack developed in 1915 with Gen Rel in which spacetime points do not have physical existence, there is no fixed geometry. In GR there is no absolute space, there is just the gravitational field. but the rest of 20th cent physics will not mix with 1915 GR---it is like oil and water.

So I guess something like 1680 will happen. People will get a new model of time and space compatible with Gen Rel. then they will build quantum physics on the new spacetime. there will be a new program.

The program is always one of unification----of gathering the threads of explanation together---of braiding the threads of understanding. But be careful what you unify in with!
It is a different program depending on what the core concept of space and time is!

Actually the phrase "Theory of Everything" sounds a bit presumptious to me. I would be real happy if people could just come up with a quantum theory of spacetime and matter-----I would not call that "Everything". Just a modest theory of how space behaves, how and why matter curves it, a quantum theory of space at the fundamental scale, and just a modest quantum theory of some matter-fields living on that quantized space. Never mind consciousness or life or other grand topics. Just modeling a room inhabited by some matter would be great!

But we don't have that. 1915 Gen Rel invalidated both Newton's absolute spacetime and the minor variant of it that came with 1905 Special Relativity. I don't think we have the new one yet.

So I don't think saying the phrase "Theory of Everything" means anything.
We have to let history unfold. Whatever we picture now will be mostly wrong. I personally feel sure that the new historical wave will begin with a quantum theory of spacetime, that is to say a quantum theory of the geometry of spacetime (which is the gravitational field). there are half a dozen good approaches being worked on---maybe one of them will pan out.

the moment we have such a theory---then something like Newtons's 3 laws will happen, and a new program will start, and wave on wave of unification----putting things together within the new context.

personally, the most evocative thing I have heard along these lines recently is a talk by Ashtekar (with slides) that is downloadable. The whole talk lasts 1hour 16 minutes
He was talking about the gravitational field interchanging with matter, how a black hole evaporates----not just the semiclassical way hawking says but the way Ashtekar says. He was talking about the deep Planck regime at the pit of the hole too. the good part starts around minute 34, and then it gets even better at about minute 56 (out of total 76 minutes as I said)
this is what, to me, sounds most like the beginnings of a theory of time space and matter.

I will get link for it, incase anyone wants. Stingray, who is at Penn State, supplied it

Ashtekar recently gave a talk where he discusses this a bit:

http://www.phys.psu.edu/events/index.html?event_id=934;event_type_ids=7;span=2004-08-20.2004-12-25

Hopefully that's a static link.

 

[Fredrick]

Everything in a model.

A theory is an idea about how known subject matter fits in within a larger model. I agree with you Marcus that a theory of everything sounds big, but I think it was made big by having all these hot shots talk about it, placing it in a position almost impossible to grasp, while in the end it isn't (going to be) big at all. Einstein already said - freely adopted here - that it wasn't going to be anything incredibly difficult.

I hope this thread will remain to be an open forum in which we do not have to be afraid to speak our minds. Though I have great respect for the force of dismissal, I hope we can refrain ourselves from dismissing each others' ideas out of hand. Sometimes the 'foolish' words of one, are golden in the eye of another. I do agree with you Epoch1 that East, North, West and South are no forces. The reason I used this model of global directions is that I am trying to make the point that unification is not available. A second reason is that Stephen Hawking has mentioned that a theory of everything may be something North of the Northpole. By placing all global directions in this single model (planet plus spin), I deliver a model in which unification is definitively not possible on directional grounds. North opposites South, while East and West are different from North and South altogether. The singular model of course is the globe and its spin. Though the spin may be regarded as directional, the globe is not.

Quite paradoxically the Northpole is a place that lacks North (only South is available at the Northpole). Also, jumping in the air at the Northpole is exactly the same direction as walking a step North at the equator. Of course a jump and a walk can never be the same even when it is in the same direction. According to me a similar situation exists in prof. 't Hooft's evidence for linking three forces except gravity together (got him the Nobel prize). Question mark I would like to place is: is his evidence delivered on a very intricate but nevertheless 'trivial' piece of information?

I would hope that we all recognize that we are looking for a model in which everything can fit. A model does not have to be scientific only to be scientifically correct. A model can be more, but to have it be a correct model, all known scientific information must fit. Therefore I value information that contributes to understanding everything even when that information itself is not most scientifically. I hope we can agree on that.

I want to describe another form of model that's been floating in my head and that is figuring out how many structurally organized ways there are in which one can line up numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am not an immediate proponent of chaos theory (though I recognize it definitively for the interesting views it has given us), and I require that the sequences must have some logic to them to be of value. This is my result (but I bet there are some clever minds out there that can possibly deliver another one or two?):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

1, 3, 5, 4, 2.

1, 3, 5, 2, 4.

5, 3, 1, 2, 4.

5, 3, 1, 4, 2.

It is easy to see that each line has the same five members and contains no doubles. If 1 is the original unity that existed before the Big Bang then these six lines deliver six possible ways to create an imperfect materialized version of that previously experienced unity that no longer exists. Some place 1 at the beginning, some in the middle, some place it last. 5 is the final segment of creation within each sequence.

I have names for these six states: up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm. Can you fit the correct names with the correct sequence?

Enter a sixth number, zero, which according to me started to exist at the initial moment our universe came into being. If you wish you can see it as the number to portray the already mentioned force of dismissal; as in My way is the only way, the other ways are no ways. By being able to dismiss the information of the other sequences, each sequence is able to adhere better to its own format. Though each sequence claims to be everything - is even made up out of the same stuff as the other sequences - each must denounce the others' claims to represent everything. In reality they cannot deny the others' existence, but internally each can deny the others' validity. When placing the number zero on the above lines, its spot may be at the beginning or at the end, it may even be placed in the middle. Would two spots for zero contradict the above mentioned rules?

One last remark for the believers in a unified field of forces: we do not share the same belief. I respect you in your belief, I hope you can respect me too when I cannot go where you are going. If you are able to deliver evidence that unifies the forces in one field I will be the first one to cheer you on. However, I have not seen any evidence that a unified field of forces can exist, and I have seen an infinite amount of models that are based on at least a single level of separation, I have seen some evidence that separation is an intricate part of our universe, and that lead me to conclude that unification is not possible. Without the intention to insult I say: I am not a Cyclops; and even though I have one vision, I still use two eyes.

 

[marcus]

I agree with you Marcus that a theory of everything sounds big, but I think it was made big by having all these hot shots talk about it, placing it in a position almost impossible to grasp, while in the end it isn't (going to be) big at all. Einstein already said - freely adopted here - that it wasn't going to be anything incredibly difficult.
...
... and that lead me to conclude that unification is not possible. Without the intention to insult I say: I am not a Cyclops; and even though I have one vision, I still use two eyes.

a comic sense of history
an ability to use aphorism

everything I have to say in response is tangential. I think you are a writer.

BTW richard feynman and einstein were both humorists
feynman was more relentless about it

feynman had a really good knowledge of the history of science----his own individualistic take on everything but could relate it to facts and people.
half the value of science is its history
(its sometimes comic or ironical history)

right now I am watching a really close hard-played game and I can't take time to stand back. I don't want to think about issues you raise.

can you read any foreign language? most people who are actual or potential writers can, I think, because they are greedy for language----word-hogs---so they can't be satisfied with just one language

 

[pelastration]

A theory is an idea about how known subject matter fits in within a larger model. I agree with you Marcus that a theory of everything sounds big, but I think it was made big by having all these hot shots talk about it, placing it in a position almost impossible to grasp, while in the end it isn't (going to be) big at all. Einstein already said - freely adopted here - that it wasn't going to be anything incredibly difficult.

However, I have not seen any evidence that a unified field of forces can exist, and I have seen an infinite amount of models that are based on at least a single level of separation, I have seen some evidence that separation is an intricate part of our universe, and that lead me to conclude that unification is not possible. Without the intention to insult I say: I am not a Cyclops; and even though I have one vision, I still use two eyes.

Fredrick, maybe "separation" is a perception problem. Once you have a mechanical picture it's more easy.
What's my picture of unification?

If at Planck scale you got a braiding pattern like Ashtekan shows http://www.phys.psu.edu/events/display.html?event_id=934&file=5&width=600 , then that can be seen as a gravitational membrane. Continuos spacetime.

That dynamic membrane can make all kind of topological combinations. We can call that the zero level.
But instead of making combinations with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 like points, you need to make combinations of SURFACES which can join by creating locally multi-layers. There the separations starts locally since you join two different parts of the membrane together on one spot.

So you get non-commutative combinations. The theoretical combinations - just starting with two tiny parts of that membrane - are equal to the Catalan numbers. So you can have - in following steps - 1,1, 2, 5, 14, 42, 132, 429, 1430, 4862,16796,58786,208012,742900, 2674440, 9694845, 35357670, ... unique combinations. That seems to me enough possible combinations to create the different types of fundamental particles we know. The essence is - in this type of quantum topological approach - that fundamental particles are local restructures of the membrane.

How does this local restructuring can mechanically happen? http://www.mu6.com/holon_creation.html.

 

[Haelfix]

Sorry I don't buy it.

Already we know the weak and electromagnetic forces are linked.

By some rather clever extrapolations we see the strong force indeed converges into coupling constant unification (or at least damn close). In fact its so close to being perfect, it really begs the question. With SUSY it more or less is exact.

Ok 3 forces in nature that are unified, why not the last one? Not to mention we need the last one in order to make sense of various scale and symmetry breaking problems (as well as cosmology problems).

Regardless, gravity is begging to be unified, not to mention it has a very simple interpretation as a spin 2 mediator, and with the laws of quantum mechanics, out pops general relativity. One doesn't even have to know anything about GR to see this. If you were a miniscule ant and had no idea about scales larger than say.. the radius of an electron, all you need to know is that gravity is attractive.. coupled with minimality, and field theory, you now have GR.

Alas its not perfect, you still need the UV completion of the theory.. That we expect there to be one, is tantamount to saying.. Everything so far looks right and seems natural. Let's go out and find it. That is the quantum gravity program in a nutshell.

I would say whatever that theory is, heuristically it is the simplest thing to look for and expect, and by occams razor, probably the right approach.

 

[marcus]

Sorry I don't buy it.

Already we know the weak and electromagnetic forces are linked.

By some rather clever extrapolations we see the strong force indeed converges into coupling constant unification (or at least damn close). In fact its so close to being perfect, it really begs the question. With SUSY it more or less is exact.

Ok 3 forces in nature that are unified, why not the last one?...

Hi Haelfix, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to respond since you didnt quote my post---so you may have been responding to someone else and saying you don't buy some other notion. this thread's ideas are a bit nebulous.

the question is whether there can be a satisfactory unification with "the last one" before we have a major remodeling of space and time.

"Ok 3 forces in nature that are unified, why not the last one?..."

Well, a priori I see no reason to suppose that (simply because 3 forces have been unified within Minkowski space) a fourth could be unified with them on the same basis.
Indeed the evidence (the difficulty experienced) suggests otherwise.

current progress in quantum gravity, for me, is exemplified by work around the big bang/inflation and around black hole evaporation. The trouble with your "ant" observer is that she can't venture into highly curved regimes.
I agree with you that in a nearly flat context it's not unreasonable to suppose that one could make an effective theory of gravity that is approximately right and which is compatible with theories of matter (also approximately right).

But what I find interesting is current progress around former singularities.

here's the link to that 20 September talk by Ashtekar, on Black Hole evaporation, again. It really impresses me. I don't see this kind of thing coming out of an effective theory that approximates past results on a flat or nearly flat space with an ant running around on it.

http://www.phys.psu.edu/events/index.html?event_id=934;event_type_ids=7;span=2004-08-20.2004-12-25

this is why I expect the next significant round of unification to happen only after a satisfactory quantum treatment of spacetime geometry

 

[Fredrick]

Unity

Hi Marcus,

Touché, as they say in French: I am a multi-lingual person, but I would be hopelessly lost if it wasn't for SpellCheck. I hope you had a good time watching the game (didn't we all want the Sox to win?). You make me jealous about Feynman (fine man) and Einstein (one stone); I wish I had more humor in me, but I do not mind if I happen to deliver a hilarious moment by accident.

I believe in unity, but I do not believe unity is retrievable on the ultimate level. The links provided by Pelastration and by you are more evidence that it is not unity that we are looking at. We are looking at variations of the initial unity. Together these variations make it impossible to speak of unity on the final level.

Allow me to express myself once again on a theoretical level of structures, instead of factual information. If the initial unity no longer exists and has been torn apart in a fragment A and a fragment B then the following deliveries trying to resemble unity are:

AA
AB
BA
BB

I call them gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces. Can you fit the correct name with the correct combination?

A is not the same as B, so how do they differ? I say that A can only be A (whether it is in a first spot or in a second spot does not matter). B however changes depending on the spot it is in. Therefore we have four different pairs of unity.

Even though AA is a double set it may experience itself as singular since it is based on two that are identical.

AB is different from BA in that the B behaves differently. Suppose the first position for B is one with a certain level of being in control while the second position for B is one in which a certain level of surrender is okay. Remember, A cannot be anything other than being A; it is B that delivers the experienced difference.

For AB the B will 'subject' itself somewhat to A and A will therefore be expressed better/more easily than in the BA situation in which B steps up to the plate and arm-wrestles with A to express itself as somewhat dominant.

In BB the situation is more like the AA situation, except that BB is fully delivering its duality because the first and second positions are part and parcel of the B's make-up. It will be difficult, however, to distinguish between which B is first and which B is second.

To complete the information: A nor B exists as such, only the combinations exist. AA appears to be A but isn't - though it may be impossible to distinguish the fact of the two A's.

So, I was able to deliver four versions of (initially disrupted but then 'restored') unity that together are not based on unity anymore because two parts are no longer based on both 'halves' A and B but on 'double-halves' AA and BB.

My apologies for going into this dry kind of theorizing. I prefer to keep things simple and by using this alpha-ordinal approach I can show the intricacies of rebuild segments. Is it possible to deliver a connection of three, but not four? Easily: AA, AB, BA. The fourth option BB does not fit.

Did I describe a simple theory of everything here? Yes I did, but it is one in which unification does not exist. Everything (the four forces) are linked to each other, but not linked to all at the same time. I see the same pattern appearing with DNA where multiple A, C, G, and T's can create an incredible amount of outcomes. Four parts that together deliver a beautiful (or not) outcome, but they exist in coordination of pairs only, not independently. I wonder here out loud whether the pairing is required to overcome an insurmountable difference. Let's say Jayne, Peter, Harry, and Grandpa are four people and Peter and Grandpa cannot get along at all. Put these two in a room together and the room will be too small. However, the same room can be occupied if not only Peter and Grandpa are in that room, but Jayne and Harry are there too. They are the catalysts that prevent that Peter and Grandpa go for each other's throat. Is there unity in the room? The answer is clearly No. But can they exist in one room? Yes.

So what are we looking for when we want to give gravity a place among the others (without it fully connecting to all three other forces)? We 'only' need to deliver evidence that one of the other forces has a connection with gravity. This is extremely hard because the B in BA is altered by the nearly unshakeable A in the second position, and the B will therefore not immediately resemble the first B in BB.

It is even more difficult to show the connection between AB and the second B in BB because the B in AB will have given up a somewhat important part of its characteristics to establish a clear connection with A in first position.

In English, gravity may be connected to a single part that exists within one of the other forces. Which part? I am not that knowledgeable in the field work but my suggestion would be a connection between gravity and magnetism. But another contender is gravity and part of the strong nuclear force. Then again the weak nuclear force seems quite well possible too. Gravity and electricity? Only one will suffice, and it shouldn't be based on the already established connection between the other three.

The only three forces able to deliver a combined connection are the ones that contain at least one of those unchangeable A's in them. It is (was) hard to connect the third force because of the BA force, which has an A in it that has to arm-wrestle with B all the time. This A does not change but it ís constantly busy.

The four forces are different forces and though clear links can get established among them, the ultimate goal of linking all of them — at the same time — is not feasible. God cannot be proven as a fact. By default, scientists are not looking for god, ergo scientists shouldn't be looking for god in a scientific way even if they want to do just that.

Marcus, the Sox won the World Series, so you have no more excuses (that is, if you didn't immediately jump into the football season)!

 

[marcus]

a comic sense of history
an ability to use aphorism

everything I have to say in response is tangential. I think you are a writer.

...
right now I am watching a really close hard-played game and I can't take time to stand back. I don't want to think about issues you raise.
...

Hello Fredrick, I am glad you are pleased by the outcome of the Series.

I am watching another contest right now, not between people so much as between mathematical models (and those working to develop them). String is the yankees and Loops is the sox.

Laurent Freidel just stepped to the plate and he is trying to hit a triple.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/PI-WORK-2/program2.php

Well more accurately let's say Saturday, day after tomorrow, at 3PM Freidel will give this talk Symmetry and particles in 3d quantum gravity

If you can say how to include particles in 4d quantum gravity, that would qualify as a home run. Doing it in 3d is not that but it certainly rates a triple

Smolin goes to bat on Sunday, at 5PM
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/PI-WORK-2/program3.php
His talk is Physics from Loop Quantum Gravity

conferences like this one this weekend at Perimeter Institute (initials PI like the greek letter) are where a showdown can happen----of if it is a case of gradual progress then you can see what progress is being made.

the game is to get a modern description of the gravitational field to replace the 1915 Einstein one (Gen Rel)
and in the process get rid of glitches or singularities that were snags in the 1915 theory, around bigbang and black holes
and then find out how to put matter into the gravitational field so that quantum space and quantum matter interact

this last is why the Freidel and Smolin talks---unifying space and matter is part of the program.

to be a good watcher you have to pay more attention to developments by the major players than to your own theories. this has its plusses and minuses,
right now I am pretty focused on the action---I hope you will excuse me if I don't comment on anything extraneous to that right now.

 

[Fredrick]

Below the belt.

To be a good watcher you have to pay more attention to developments by the major players than to your own theories. This has its plusses and minuses, right now I am pretty focused on the action---I hope you will excuse me if I don't comment on anything extraneous to that right now.

Thank you for your remark. I will accept it as information that I took up too much of (y)our space. It was not my intention to push out any other people or enforce my ideas upon anybody. I guess I got swept away in the excitement of our thread and its many interesting contributions.

I must come clean here: for twenty years I have been paying more or less close attention to the major players, and from a perspective of them delivering structures on which a theory of everything can exist, I must say that I am not impressed. Of course the Sox winning was hot, but that was not because they played so well, but because the odds of them winning seemed close to impossible. The games were not that exciting if they had just been regular games. It was the combination of all factors combined that made it extraordinary.

Similarly, the big guys and gals in physics battling on what is going to be the next hot issue may attract a lot of attention by many. I am not impressed. If you buy into the game, the result can be very exciting. If you don't buy into the game there ain't much there there. If you like baseball, but not soccer, does that in anyway reduce the importance of soccer? Of course not. It only tells something about your preferences, and nothing about the level of excitement of each game. From a neutral perspective I can assure you that the potential excitement in baseball is identical to the potential excitement in soccer.

Hot or not: if you are interested in discussing the validity of the requirement that a theory of everything will be based on unification then this is your thread. Otherwise, as Marcus pointed out, there are some very hot other games out there to follow.

Apologies to anyone for putting myself in this driver's seat again, but from a structural point of view I would like to point out that a final theory of everything must have a structure.

One apple and one apple is two apples.
One orange and one orange is two oranges.

Though apples and oranges should not be compared to each other, the abstract structure for both sums is the same:
1 + 1 = 2.

Same way for the final theory of everything: there múst be an abstract structure on which everything fits together.

I do not believe in the currently proposed structure that leads to a single ultimate 1. I believe multipe parts together are the final picture, in which relationships can be discovered between the parts but not between all the parts. I deliver such a structure which in my opinion creates a platform that can include all currently known information, but that excludes the possibility of unification of all forces on one field.

I would like to hear from others what they think about the structure with four forces portrayed as AA, AB, BA, and BB. Independently, A nor B exists; only combinations are valid results. I do not fill in the apples and oranges, I only deliver the structure.

If we must have a singular entity that exists within each force than that number should be zero. It is not a force to be reckoned with, but it is a function that enables each force to tune out of one game and focus on its own game. Which game do you give attention to?

 

[Fredrick]

New Link

I am very happy with physicsforums.com but I wanted to let you know there are other forums out there too.

here is one:
http://www.toequest.com

 

[Fredrick]

Lucy

It would not make sense if the forces cannot be unified because at some level gravity must be the same as electricity and as the colour force and so on, or else colour charge and mass would not exist in the same universe which they clearly do.
The question is:at what energy does unification take place? Are the forces already unified now but we haven't noticed for some reason?

It is interesting that you consider a link between gravity and electricity; why not between magnetism and gravity? I am aware that electricity and magnetism are united in the electromagnetic force, but I suspect a closer relationship between gravity and magnetism? What do you say?

When Lucy, the remnants of an early human, was found a discussion followed soon after whether Lucy could be seen as the person we all originate from or not. A good explanation was delivered in which not Lucy, but the group of which Lucy was a member could be seen as the ancestral group. The genetic material of Lucy would have been only part of the genetic material from which we pool our genetic material. As such there is no unification because several separate members deliver the outcome. According to me, same is true for gravity, electricity etc. Together they form the platform, but the platform itself is not unified.

 

[Fredrick]

Agree/disagree

For me the answer is simple. It is the physical manifestation of the one absolute factual product of the conclusive equation. The universe has to exist because nothing, as a starting point, is impossible.

Consciouness is the unifying force that allows the universe and the life forms within it to exist. Life is the result of the interaction of the conscious force and physical matter. Life does not exist within the universe... the universe exists within life.

I agree that nothing cannot be the starting point of our universe, but I disagree with the location of nothing, because I would still have to place that at the beginning of our universe. Difference of statement is that according to me the materialized universe is the expression of what existed before together with the phenomenon of nothing. It is not nothing that existed before, but the phenomenon of nothing forced the expression (created the materialization) of our universe. As such nothing is the reason our universe came into being, not the source.

Can you deliver an explanation of what consciousness is for you in the light of what existed before the BB?

 

[Fredrick]

Can you expand on this expansion theory?

unified theory is simple.

to understand how the universe functions you need to know about expansion and the basic way matter behaves in relation to expansion.

overlooking the obvious is humankinds biggest flaw

Twistedseer

Can you deliver more information on what you are saying?

 

[Fredrick]

Greek mythology/Renaissance

I think that human thought goes in expansion contraction waves and it is just getting a new concept of time and space

the last time like this was around 1680 when Newton postulated absolute space and time. after that the program was to explain everything by particles moving in that absolute space according to some laws, and by waves moving in it. the program developed enormous momentum.

heat and sound were explained by particles moving in abs. space
electricity and magnetism, light, even quantum field theory and the Standard Model are built on absolute space and an idealized time variable

A crack developed in 1915 with Gen Rel in which spacetime points do not have physical existence, there is no fixed geometry. In GR there is no absolute space, there is just the gravitational field. but the rest of 20th cent physics will not mix with 1915 GR---it is like oil and water.

So I guess something like 1680 will happen. People will get a new model of time and space compatible with Gen Rel. then they will build quantum physics on the new spacetime. there will be a new program.

The program is always one of unification----of gathering the threads of explanation together---of braiding the threads of understanding. But be careful what you unify in with!
It is a different program depending on what the core concept of space and time is!

How about the idea of the Renaissance (lit: rebirth)? After the Dark Ages Europe woke up to the ideals of the ancient Greeks. However, one interesting difference between 'us' and 'them' remained in place all this time, and that is that the Greeks did not believe in a single god. While we are following the Greek path of knowledge (and have contributed to it significantly ever since), we are not accepting (yet) of the idea that unification is improbable. If - as you say - human thought goes in expansion contraction waves, isn't it time we embrace the old greek ideals and abandon the idea of unification?

While Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions were developed with the ultimate highest standing in respect to believing (in that these religions do not necessarily need the connection to the factual materialized world: believing is not the same as seeing), it may have been impossible for the Greek, the Egyptians, and other ancient people to have a belief that lacked such connection (for them: seeing = believing). For them religion may have been based on/evolved from/connected to the surrounding world.

 

[marcus]

How about the idea of the Renaissance (lit: rebirth)? After the Dark Ages Europe woke up to the ideals of the ancient Greeks. However, one interesting difference between 'us' and 'them' remained in place all this time, and that is that the Greeks did not believe in a single god. While we are following the Greek path of knowledge (and have contributed to it significantly ever since), we are not accepting (yet) of the idea that unification is improbable. If - as you say - human thought goes in expansion contraction waves, isn't it time we embrace the old greek ideals and abandon the idea of unification?
...

hello Fredrick,
this is your thread, so if you want to mix physics and religion nobody can object.

so then you would equate monotheism in religion to the drive to unify physical theories-----which is reasoning by analogy: something that often and in lots of cases works very well.

I would say two things.
1. A lot of the "unification" talk is just hype because the idea of having a unified explanation for basic physics appeals to the public.

and in a general sense it appeals to the human mind. The Greeks were certainly not immune to this----there are half a dozen examples of Greek science where the guy tried to find a single substance or a single principle that would explain the properties of all substances. Everything is made of water, no, everything is made of fire! No you are wrong...etc.

So people are suckers for any kind of total explanation type single essence theory----and even today they will funnel taxpayer money into projects that are hyped as a promising quest for Unity.

2. But in sober truth, gradual piecewise unification of known parts of physics has been a great strategy. It hasnt always been a GRAND unification----hasnt always been comprehensive all in one fell swoop---but it has been practiced for centuries and it has worked.

In 1650 people knew the motion of pendulums and they knew the motion of planets. Who put pendulums and planets together? Newton
He put various kinds of motion on the same footing.

In 1850 people knew electric forces of Pos and Neg attraction and repulsion and they knew magnetism North and South stuff. But those were different. Who explained electricity and magnetism in a single set of equations?
Maxwell.
And he managed to finesse light and predict radiowaves in the bargain.

All through the history of physics since, like, 1600, there have been these sudden COUPs of unification.

Anyone who imagines there is going to be a "final" coup in his lifetime is probably self-deluded, or looking to sell books. Or he is just talking up his line of research. Final Unification is a kind of Snake Oil.

But step-by-step consolidation of physical theory is real pragmatic, and it has been a major engine driving progress in understanding nature.

and frankly i don't see any connection with religious monotheism.

Like i say, though, it is your thread----I'm just replying 'cause you quoted me, so it is like you said something to me in particular, so I'm telling you what I think

 

[Fredrick]

Mine is yours.

Thanks Marcus, for delivering a good addition to this thread. I like the fact that you make this my thread, but I want to make clear that I do not claim ownership. I claim voice, and I like it when others claim this thread to voice their ideas/opinions in regards to "unification yes or no."

I like your grounded response - especially the reference to snake oil. I think your contribution is very important in that it points to the fact that much can be seen in similar lights. There is no denying at all, and I am glad you bring this forward. Do I believe that everything derived from one and the same? Actually I do. But can the ultimate theory be one of unification? That I doubt.

It was not my intention to put religion on the front burner, so apologies, I merely wanted to deliver honor to those old Greeks who knew so much already. Much of the modern work still finds basis in their ideas. And who knows, maybe what we consider answers to real questions, were not considered questions at all for them? If they had a completed view already - but not per se all the specific facts - their Grand Theory may still be identical in as far as structure is concerned to the one we may find/have found.

What if their four forces (fire, air, earth, water) were mere abstractions for the underlying structure of the universe? We too know that they come in four (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity). Greek mythology is filled with structure. What if they present us the structure of the grand theory but then in a different context? People in the past had less facts available, but does that necessarily mean they couldn't figure out the beginning of the universe? We know about the Big Bang, but we - must - look as much as they looked in the dark for answers on how it all started.

 

[arivero]

the Greeks did not believe in a single god.

An interesting point to note here is Lucretius.

Well, it is true that faith is an inconvenience. Any faith on knowing answers precludes you of searching them. XXth century faith in money, or XVIIth century faith on the Creator, are two instances of it. A way it operates is by retiring valious people. Pascal or Barrow, for two examples of fighters conversed to divinity.

 

[marcus]

... A way it operates is by retiring valious people. Pascal or Barrow, for two examples of fighters conversed to divinity.

I had almost forgotten about Barrow. Was he Newton's math teacher at Cambridge?

A dominant way of thinking can operate by neutralizing independent thinkers (putting them out of action by isolating them or driving them into madness and despair, or in some other way).

I think this is what you are saying. I am not sure though.

In english one says "converted" to belief in divinity

to converse is to discuss. It is amazing how bad English spelling is.

I did not know that Pascal was a convert to belief in divinity. I thought he was always religious. What a shame!

Greatest moment in all of European history: Laplace telling the Emperor "that is an hypothesis which I don't need" Do I have the names right?
[corrected: Sire, je n'avais besoin de cette hypothese. Simon de Laplace
to Napoleon]


Belief in global free market capitalism is another of those aggressive proselytizing dogmas like Islam in the 800s and wellknown other instances----convert the heathen by the sword if they won't submit voluntarily---is this also what you are saying?

 

[selfAdjoint]

As to Pascal, I think it was specifically the Catholic heresy Jansenism that he was converted to. a sort of Calvinistic Catholicism, very stern and gloomy, human beings are nothing and deserve nothing from almighty god.

Newton. Kepler, and Pascal were all deeply religious, and all heretics to their separate birth faiths (C of E, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, respectively).

 

[marcus]

... Do I believe that everything derived from one and the same? Actually I do. But can the ultimate theory...

Fredrick here is an axiom:

Scientific theories are not meant to be believed in. They are meant to be tested.

If a theory does not make testable predictions then it is vacuous.
that is the whole point----and it is why some stuff they call theory is not really scientifically-speaking a theory. but more a philosophy imposed on the public by hype and sustained by the human tendency for wishful thinking

If a theory makes predictions and survives rigorous testing-----repeatedly agreeing with experimental measurements out to many decimal places, say---then one still does not have to believe it.

One uses it, and one keeps on testing it, but one is never required to believe.

If something is a real theory, then there is always the possibility that it will be fail to predict the next decimal place accuracy and that it will fail the test and will need to be modified or replaced.

===========
my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
there is nothing you need to believe is a perfect final description of nature
============

Suppose sometime there is a theory which unifies Gravity with what is called the Standard Model (of particle physics: all those little bitty things and their interactions)

OK. So what? Would that be FINAL? No.
it would not be a final ultimate theory---talking like that is hype.
It would just be some theory. surviving by continuing to accurately predict the next accelerator experiment and the next astronomical observation,
each day betting its life on predictions of microscopic physics and of cosmology-----and destined to eventually be shot down

============

I happen to suspect that string theory has gotten started on the wrong track to such a thing. But eventually some ingenious human brain will get a theory that puts cosmology (gravity---spacetimetheory) together with microscopic physics (the Std Mdle)---in such a way that it can make testable predictions. And that will be cool. And completely non-threatening.

 

[marcus]

...
Newton. Kepler, and Pascal were all deeply religious, and all heretics to their separate birth faiths (C of E, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, respectively).

How can an intelligent man not be a heretic?

given the general caliber of human religions so far.

I love Kepler.

His cackling over the third law, in his 1618 book, beats all.

 

[marcus]

the Unified Field Theory of 1618

In 1618 Kepler thought he had a unified scheme explaining
Geometry
Music
the Cosmos (the motions and distances of the planets)
and I think also the human mind as well, but don't remember for sure.

So he wrote this wonderful book called
Harmonies of the Universe

Harmonice Mundi

his wild-eyed ecstasy in this book is revealing of something basic
in human nature

the prurient itch for an all-encompassing theory

==================

the compelling urge to sink one's teeth into the Apple

people are wonderful

Kepler is my hero

================

but Kepler's enthusiasm notwithstanding,
in science theories are not to believe.
the theory of the day is just what happens
to temporarily be the most successful model.
those who puff theories up to appear more:
those who poeticize and rhapsodize and philosophize,
are hucksters, hyping science-porn to teenagers

 

[Fredrick]

Believing is a word in English.

Axiom:

Scientific theories are not meant to be believed in. They are meant to be tested.

I do not disagree with this axiom.

When I use the word believe, I mean believe in the old fashioned kind of way: as an instrument of freedom. Believing is not a scientific word, it is an English word.

When I do not know for certain, but think something could be true, I express that by using the word believe. If I am convinced that there are no facts to support my ideas, I will use the word believe. I can even believe two opposite things that would contradict each other if they were both true at the same time; that's how much freedom there is in believe.

Theory may cover much of what believe covers, but believe is less intellectual: no explanation is required, just stating you believe something is enough. As such there is an incredible amount of freedom and nobody can take that away. Most people would like to be taken seriously by others, so most people will stay within a certain realm of what can be considered acceptable. I try to do that as well.

The essence of believe is that what you think may be true, or that what you think is true, but by using the word you leave freedom to others to think whatever they want to think about it. Again, believing is an instrument of freedom. Unfortunately some take the freedom of believing and create a belief that leaves no freedom for others to believe something else. Some are even willing to eliminate others in the name of a belief; this is in itself a paradox. The freedom is fully taken in and not given out: for me that is not a belief, that is a dogma that been taken too far.

War can be the strongest 'imprinter' of a belief on a population. The Netherlands still shows the marks of the Spanish Inquisition. An Eighty Year War of Independence was fought between the Low Countries and Spain and in the locations where the fighting was most severe and lasted the longest you can still find a bible belt of deeply religious Protestants. In the Netherlands they are called black stocking churches because the people are so devote they do not want to dress up more colorfully. The severity of war created a deep deep imprint that has lasted to this day, four centuries later.

War leaves deep wounds and creates extreme moments in which people grasp the last straw of a belief to hang on for dear life. That is how desperate believers can become. Please, do not count me among them. Believing means only one thing for me: freedom.

Before the Renaissance theologians and scientists were often one and the same people. After the rediscovery of the ancient wisdom a split got underway between church and science. What used to be one and the same is now often regarded as two separate fields.