Unified Field Theory

[Stonejaw]

Hey guys im new to these forums but I do have a good question to ask as it is in an area I am interested in. I am wondering about weather the Unified Field Theory(UFT) has been proven in anyway? I am seen and heard about the devices called "Lifters" heres a link to what they are http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm They are said to use the Biefeld-Brown Effect. But judging by the way these devices work by using high voltage and then somehow "float". I am tempted to believe that this has more to do with the UFT and that the Biefeld Brown effect is part of the UFT. I know that Einstien was trying to relate electromagnetic fields with gravity and this could be some tiny evidence of this correlation? Well what I mean to say is I would like to hear all of your inputs about this or any knowledge you guys have as I am extremely interested to learn more about this.

Thanks!

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Simply put, there isn't a single UFT in existence to actually be proven. Theoretical Physics is yet to come up with a model that is mathematically consistent within itself and hence there's not really anything to prove experimentally.

It's possible that the Biefeld-Brown Effect may be explained in the future by a UFT but not yet.

 

[Xyo II]

yes, a uft is way off from now, it really started with Newton, and Einstein did a lot to contribute, but combining general relativity and quantum physics is just not happening anytime soon. one day we will, and its not "proving" the theory, as much as constructing it.

 

[PowerEngineer]

The concept of repulsive gravity is not currently en-
dorsed by the scientific community at large. Yet, there
are several important reasons in its favor. First of all,
there is no necessary analytical argument against the ex-
istence of antigravity. Second, the accelerated expansion
of the Universe cannot be explained without the agency
of a repulsive force. Third, astronomical processes pre-
cede the existence of human observers by billions of years.
Cosmic entities with predominant antigravity would have
to be too remote by now for immediate observation.
Fourth, the magnetic force is also polarized, but it never
repels iron. Repulsive effects are naturally detectable
only among sources that cannot react (flip over) to each
other's presence. It is possible that gravity is always
attractive because of unknown internal processes within
massive bodies, similar to those magnetic effects. Finally,
there are su±cient experimental demonstrations to con-
sider its existence seriously.

Ahhh... This certainly seems to be another example of pseudo-science that pollute the internet. I'm pretty sure that their supposed link between electricity and gravity would have been easily found by others (such as Albert Einstien).

I think that so-called string theory comes close to being that UFT you're looking for, but it has a way to go yet and will be hard to ever prove.

 

[Xyo II]

oh, and btw, Einstein did release a UFT about in 1930 or so, and in it he postulated that torsion fields could un-bend spacetime in a local area, but a true UFT is theoretically as follows:

A physical theory that combines the treatment of two or more types of fields in order to deduce previously unrecognized interrelationships, especially such a theory unifying the theories of nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces.

In other words, a set of equations that would fill up 2 pages, and describes all of nature's laws. As you can imagine, it is an intense ongoing work, and unlikely to happen in the next 10-20 years.

 

[DrPizza]

Einstein spent the last half of his life attempting to work out such a theory. Some people consider his efforts to have been a waste of time because he failed to embrace quantum mechanics.

About string theory... Once CERN is going in about 2 years, weren't there some sorts of results that would bolster support for string theory? (I wish I had paid closer attention to an article I was skimming.)

 

[Xyo II]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Einstein spent the last half of his life attempting to work out such a theory. Some people consider his efforts to have been a waste of time because he failed to embrace quantum mechanics.

About string theory... Once CERN is going in about 2 years, weren't there some sorts of results that would bolster support for string theory? (I wish I had paid closer attention to an article I was skimming.)

Einstein always said that he refused to believe that "God plays dice with the Universe" -quantum mechanics is only like 80 years old, only about 10 years newer than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and it is now believed that space could be 2-d, not 3-d, nor 4-d, nor 11-d (some quantum theories postulate up to like 22) and this would completely undermine relativity's foundations. but, as long as its true, go with the flow i guess.

 

[RossGr]

As for the lifters. It seems that they ionize air near the surface of the foil, this generates air currents near the surface which are the lifting mechanism.

Note that they do not work in a vacumn.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: Einstein Element

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Einstein spent the last half of his life attempting to work out such a theory. Some people consider his efforts to have been a waste of time because he failed to embrace quantum mechanics.

About string theory... Once CERN is going in about 2 years, weren't there some sorts of results that would bolster support for string theory? (I wish I had paid closer attention to an article I was skimming.)

Einstein always said that he refused to believe that "God plays dice with the Universe" -quantum mechanics is only like 80 years old, only about 10 years newer than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and it is now believed that space could be 2-d, not 3-d, nor 4-d, nor 11-d (some quantum theories postulate up to like 22) and this would completely undermine relativity's foundations. but, as long as its true, go with the flow i guess.

space being 2-d? as in space and time? or are you talking spacial demensions?

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Einstein Element

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Einstein spent the last half of his life attempting to work out such a theory. Some people consider his efforts to have been a waste of time because he failed to embrace quantum mechanics.

About string theory... Once CERN is going in about 2 years, weren't there some sorts of results that would bolster support for string theory? (I wish I had paid closer attention to an article I was skimming.)

Einstein always said that he refused to believe that "God plays dice with the Universe" -quantum mechanics is only like 80 years old, only about 10 years newer than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and it is now believed that space could be 2-d, not 3-d, nor 4-d, nor 11-d (some quantum theories postulate up to like 22) and this would completely undermine relativity's foundations. but, as long as its true, go with the flow i guess.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere, suggest that space could be 2-d.

Incidentally, both general and special relativity work fine with superstring theory in 11-d...

 

[Xyo II]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Einstein Element

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Einstein spent the last half of his life attempting to work out such a theory. Some people consider his efforts to have been a waste of time because he failed to embrace quantum mechanics.

About string theory... Once CERN is going in about 2 years, weren't there some sorts of results that would bolster support for string theory? (I wish I had paid closer attention to an article I was skimming.)

Einstein always said that he refused to believe that "God plays dice with the Universe" -quantum mechanics is only like 80 years old, only about 10 years newer than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and it is now believed that space could be 2-d, not 3-d, nor 4-d, nor 11-d (some quantum theories postulate up to like 22) and this would completely undermine relativity's foundations. but, as long as its true, go with the flow i guess.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere, suggest that space could be 2-d.

Incidentally, both general and special relativity work fine with superstring theory in 11-d...

you need to read the Scientific American i will post the article as soon as i find it

edit: and i was referring to 2-dimensional, not the latter possible dimensions..........

 

[YoshiSato]

The answer is: 42

 

[MoD TaRkIn]

In reply to the orininal question way way back, those "lifter" things are almost certainly working on the principles of ion propulsion (like NASA NSTAR or ESA SMART-1), albeit in a crude and ineficient way. Electrons are stripped of the foil or what ever it is and accelerated to the cathode, and through the wonder of Newtons 3rd law, you get a force. I made something similar (ish) to demonstrate ion drives for an astronomy talk i did once.

As for the Biedfield-Brown effect, in the scientific community, it generally gets put into the same pile as cold fusion and warp drive! It's been a while since a read over it, but i seem to remember that a rigorous treatment of it implys that it breaks conservation of momentum.

As for a UFT, gravity is barley understood, and gravatational waves haven't even been detected yet (althbough, I know a few people working on gravational detectors in Germany and Lousiana that made large bets that they would be found before 2010 or so, so much so that the odds were slashed!). A UFT is almost certainly way, way off, if ever.