Do you believe that eventually scientists will find that there is nothing called as GUT?

[Braznor]

Physcists around the world are in the quest for the Holy grail of Physics i.e GUTS, the theory which shall unite Quantum Mechanics with Einsteinian Relativity, Some say String theory has managed to this so, but still it remains unverifiable (please explain more about this?)

Do you think such a theory will eventually be found? or perhaps there is really no such theory, perhaps the universe itself exists on the border of these two phenomena i.e as a duality of being a wave and a aprticle at the same time like photons.

I would appreciate a debate about this.

 

[Soccerman06]

I thought it was the M-theory that was suppose to be the hands down ultimate Theory. Maybe Im out of date, but thats what I remember.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
I thought it was the M-theory that was suppose to be the hands down ultimate Theory. Maybe Im out of date, but thats what I remember.

Please enlighten me about M-Theory.

 

[silverpig]

M-Theory is basically string theory. It's too bad that it's gained a lot of press because it has everyone thinking it's the answer to all of physics' problems, yet it might be total crap.

 

[Soccerman06]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
I thought it was the M-theory that was suppose to be the hands down ultimate Theory. Maybe Im out of date, but thats what I remember.

Please enlighten me about M-Theory.

I wont pretend that I know anything about M-Theory beyond the fact it involves strings and combining the what few current string theories into one cohesive unit. Of course its still all hypothetical and we probably cant prove anything at this small of a size in the near future.

Im sure a simple google search can point you in the right direction.

 

[stupidkid]

I watched The Elegant Universe on Nova a while ago and they say M-Theory is where there are many "membranes" upon which everything exists. When two "membranes" collide, they produce a Big Bang and another universe. This is also a good explanation for why gravity, one of the four fundamental fources of the universe, is so extremely weak compared to the other three. Gravitons, the particles of gravity, escapes out of the "membrane" where it originated, thus reducing the strength of gravity.

I recommend you buy The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and also watch the documentary if you want to learn more about String Theory/Quantum Mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Knock yourself out.

 

[Xyo II]

A Unified Field Theory, or Theory of Everything, or Grand Unified Theory, is a set of equations to describe the physical universe that "work" with each other. Any movement or event in the Universe can be explained through the equations, and to forecast future events. Essentially, it is what physics is all about- to know and be able to describe every event through all dimensions. The disputes between quantum mechanics and relativity are only part of the problem.
You really can't find solid evidence for String Theory, but it does help explain plenty of phenomena- search for more information to decide if it best explains the universe for you. (Maybe that sticky will help)

 

[booboisie]

You can actually watch the Elegant Universe for free online, although you have to watch it in chunks at a time. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

 

[TK2K]

well if you look at the whole idea of a GUT, there are underlying factors we do not yet understand. for example, why pi comes up so often, and how the wave function of quantum mechanics relates to the marco world. There is most definetly something that links all of these together, however we do not know of it yet.

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
I thought it was the M-theory that was suppose to be the hands down ultimate Theory. Maybe Im out of date, but thats what I remember.

no, it is very much not. there are many aspects it does not account for. also, its not real science! this is not to say it is wrong, however the idea is make the math work. real science has been done by observations and then making math that works off that, not making math and seeing if it works in real life.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: TK2K
well if you look at the whole idea of a GUT, there are underlying factors we do not yet understand. for example, why pi comes up so often, and how the wave function of quantum mechanics relates to the marco world. There is most definetly something that links all of these together, however we do not know of it yet.

First of all: Don't confuse science and philosophy. Science is never about WHY. it is about HOW.
Secondly, I would say we now have a pretty good idea about how quantum mechanics relates to the macro world and I am not sure I understand the problem with pi?

 

[TK2K]

for example, if you drop a set of pins on a paper, the relationship between them is pi. how come, we dont know.

Science is also about why, not just how. for example, when an atom is decaying (radioactive decay) each particle in the nuclius is identical to each other, so why does one get let go as opposed to another one? we do not know, and the reason for how the decision is made to let one go instead of another will tell us far more about the underlying structure of the universe.

why and how are interchangeable. im not sure i see your point. why something happens is directly related to how it happens, or, how is the answer to the why. i dont know if you think i was back dooring in religion, i was not at all.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: TK2K
for example, if you drop a set of pins on a paper, the relationship between them is pi. how come, we dont know.

What do you mean by "the relationship between them is pi"?

 

[f95toli]

Science is also about why, not just how. for example, when an atom is decaying (radioactive decay) each particle in the nuclius is identical to each other, so why does one get let go as opposed to another one? we do not know

Again, you are using "WHY" which is not a "scientific question" simply because it can not be tested. We can only perform experiments to test HOW something happens, never WHY
Anyway, we do understand radioactive decay. The process is complettely random meaning there is no "reason" why one decays and not the other. The world is not deterministic, some things can not even IN PRINCPLE be predicted and radioactive decay is one example.


And no, I did not think you were refering to religion but you are making a common misstake in believing that science can tell us anything about "why something happens". It can't, "why" is the realm of philosopy (and religion).
A good scientific theory can explan the results of an experiment. That is all.

 

[TK2K]

Buffon's needle
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54972.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s_needle

 

[f95toli]

And what is so strange?
The reason pi appears in this problem is because it involves angles. It is simple geometry.

 

[TK2K]

its strange.... the whole idea of it it strange, why do they fall in such accordance to each other, the realtionship between each other is strange.

but, there are some other strange things in this world. i dont think that a GUT is posable with our level of knowledge. M theory came closer then anything else, but its still lacking .

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: TK2K
its strange.... the whole idea of it it strange, why do they fall in such accordance to each other, the realtionship between each other is strange.

There is no direct relationship between two needles. The probability that ONE needle will cross a line is 2l/(t*pi), the "pi" appears in the formula simply because the probability is related to the angle.
Hence, if you do this MANY times you expect to find h/n=2l/(t*pi).

It is no different than flipping coins.

 

[cker]

The idea of unifying physics isn't new; from what I understand (I'm not experct) we already have unified classical (Newtonian) physics with macro-scale relativistif (Einsteinian) physics, basically by finding classical physics to be medium-scale approximations of relativistic physics.

Now there's quantum theory, with various hangers-on like the string theories, and the problem is unifying the micro (quantum) with the rest (classical and macro) physics.

If you accept the proposition that micro-scale, medium-scale, and macro-scale physics all describe the same continuous universe... in other words, that the universe is continuous as you "zoom in" from the macro scale of galaxies down to the micro scale of the smallest subatomic structures... then there MUST be some form of unifying theory or set of theories. I believe that there is such a mathematical description. I do not quite buy the idea that it's going to turn out to be some sort of concise, telegenic equation that fits on a business card. But any set of mathematical functions which accurately describe the universe at an arbitrary scale would be incredibly useful.

I think that it's likely, provided we can keep our society up and going, that we'll come across some mathematical description. Recall that we have a long history of coming up with one system that kinda works, (retrograde orbits, astronomically speaking) and then only later finding a better model (circular orbit heliocentric solar system model), and later on finding the exceptions and details that point out where reality deviates from our idea model (elliptical orbits, etc) or where there's more going on than we thought. I mean, now we have a pretty good idea how to model a solar system like ours with fair accuracy. It only took us... what? 500-600 years to figure it out? And we're still finding details.

But arguably the hard work was done with the move to the right model -- heliocentric solar system. I figure we'll come up with something similar in fundamental physics -- a besically accurate model which will be expanded upon and refined over a long period.

But the utility and opportunity a Theory of Eveerything would offer is just too tempting. Not that it's omniscience or anything, just near-obscenely useful.