New theory of everything ?

[bojan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...scisurf114.xml
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...9/Main/1991519
http://aimath.org/E8/

[robagar]

it unfortunately appears to be total nonsense - see

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/ex...theory-of.html

or

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:..._of_everything

the first one is by someone who knows what he's talking about, but the second one's funnier

[xelasnave]

I cant figure out what he is saying.

But it seems more of the same, math to explain the math , without making a statement of what the fundamental approach of how things may work.

Rearranging the jig saw puzzle but the picture is much the same as before in my view... which is reasonable..... outside of that approach one must be a crackpot no doubt...but I feel all are going around in circles... its like trying to describe Hobbits and not having found the Shire to exist on this planet.

I know we need a starting point and accumulated physics is that starting point....but the general approach seems little different to string theory for example quantum lop gravity etc..it seems more of working on the detail with no overall view of what is going on...

It seems to me the problem is that all are starting at the wrong end of the force array... start with gravity and then unify everything with gravity not the other way about.....

we still live in a world that offers no machinery as to how gravity works and without figuring that out what is the point moving to the other forces...

figure gravity then unite the other forces with it would be better in my view.

The machinery of gravity has been a problem since Newton.. he knew of at least one possible machinery along the lines offered by LeSage (pushing via particles) yet he folded his cards saying gravity was due to the force of God.. I even suspect that to arrive at his inverse square rule the premise of LeSages shielding would have been the starting point ..easy to see just draw some circles and see the relationships the geometry dictate...

I doubt that Newton's view that gravity was due to the force of God was his scientific view but presumably a view determined by the needs of his day and age....but thats what he said..on my reading of the history.

Dr A Einstein did not seek to move much past that interesting point Newton made as to the force of gravity being that of God..Dr A Einstein certainly did not seek to correct Newton on that point attributing gravity to merely a relationship between masses... Dr A Enstein some say was religious but if nothing else he would have had in mind the influence of the Church... he was indeed brilliant to offer a better theory and not erode the power of God for gravity as offered by Newton...

How can we move forward when all the good minds mince around the issue of how gravity works... folk fall over themselves to offer parallel universes, the concept of super symmetry etc before they will tackle the nuts and bolts of how the machinery of gravity works.......could we not look for some answers not so subject to an acceptance of unprovable conjectures...........so even if you dont like a concept of gravity pushing why has there been no other machinery offered in over 300 years... math records the numbers etc but finally there is a fundamental thing going on building the Universe from Maxwells..molecular vortex's seems silly to me..what is a molecular vortex anyways...all that science and who ever asked???..what is it?...

One could think that gravity may play a major role in the Universe so why not work it out and then unify the rest with that concept of gravity... I bet things will turn out considerably different... give gravity a force other than saying it is the force of God and see if that does not get us past the current dead end...and lets face it standing back notwithstanding all the wonderful work and formula it is at a dead end... does not matter how pretty you make the street if it dont lead anyplace.

Still if anyone can in a simple sentence tell me what the new kid on the block (the surfer guy) is saying and how it is any different to the fundamental approach of others..that of starting with the wrong forces and effectively not dealing with the issue of gravity... I would like to read such a simple statement.

I ask because I must have something wrong but the way I see it is the way I have outlined it...I state the proposition very simply so it should be easy to point out any fundamental flaws in my thinking...which I welcome by the way... I dont like to think I am in the dark.

Why has science gone so long (and continues to do so) without the machinery of gravity being addressed and left in the hands of God and then relating it to the other forces?.... I am assuming that gravity will be the major player which is no more unreasonable than starting with electricity or magnetism..as has been done.

I have a guest arriving so I must go... I will read what I have written latter and fix any problems.

alex
alex

[bojan]

The problem with gravity is that it ALWAYS manifests itself as the attraction force... unlike electromagnetism, for example.
This, attraction-only feature is one of the main reasons why it is so hard to (mathematically) unify it with other forces, which are always both.....
The Einstein's assumption that the acceleration can not be differentiated from gravitational attraction enabled him to develop the general theory of relativity.
Again, nothing analog to this exists for other forces in nature.. Gravity is very special thing :-)

[xelasnave]

I bet you thought I would suggest that gravity may be a force that acts the opposite to attraction but you must know my views on how gravity works so I will let it pass.

Clearly with Newton saying gravity is the force of God and Dr Einstein not describing a force but a relationship of mass one can certainly conclude that gravity is a very special thing indeed.

If both these learned men could not offer up any mechanical force for gravity nor could anyone that came after them offer up a mechanical force I think all will be waiting a long time for the theory of everything.

Still with investigations into Dark Energy and Dark Matter under way maybe something will come in time.

alex

[Outbackmanyep]

Mathematicians ..... a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there....

[bojan]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I bet you thought I would suggest that gravity may be a force that acts the opposite to attraction but you must know my views on how gravity works so I will let it pass.

alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

So what do you think of my suspicion that Newton probably used the push concept..(that of LeSage or Newton's mate,name escapes me, who was keen on the idea).. as the starting point to the inverse square rule... sure looks that way.. rather ironic I feel.
alex

[bojan]

I do not think Newton ever used the pushing force concept... especially later after formulating his laws of motion and inertia..
There is some interesting reading on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...ia_Mathematica)
about his Principia. Bthw, he was not the only person at the time who was thinking about why planets orbit the Sun and inverse square law of gravitational attraction, which must be adopted to explain the measured motions.

[xelasnave]

I just wondered if his contact with the concept played a part in his thinking. Thanks for the link I will read it after.
Yes I must read more of the history in truth. I thought I knew a fair bit about Newton and had never come across the fact that he was exposed to the idea or that it ws around as far back as 1745.
I have read a little history with maths, which I found wonderful, practical ways things came about..how to count stacks of canons balls, navigation etc. different nations contributions thru time.
I was so happy to find I was not the only person to have thought of the push notion, and shocked to find the idea was floated so long ago.. irrespective of its merit somehow I dont feel off beat as it were..well a little less upon my own estimation.... and happy that many minds must have thought about it... my obsession or curse with the gravity has been that I was the only one with the idea..so I had to promote it..as a duty if that makes sence ..but thats not the way of it ..the idea is pretty old hat really.

The blessing of its pursuit however lead me to read a lot which I have really enjoyed and hopefully learn a little.
alex

[bojan]

As you read, you will be surprised how many "new" ideas are actually old hats...
The problem was always how to prove them. Not many can resist rigorous mathematical scrutiny, and "pushing force" concept is no exemption to that.

Below are the links for some more reading for you.....
http://www.motionmountain.org/text.html
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/hiene...05_course.html

[mlcolbert]

bojan, thanks for the magic mountain link. I'm going to go through the text to see how it can be utilised with students.

michael

[xelasnave]

Thank you very much Bojan for the links...
I am at the Casino library at the moment so I will read them when I get to Sydney.
alex

[xelasnave]

Bojan I have now looked at the links I think it may take a while...it is not something one can knock over in a night ..probably that some weeks or more really... months even...to really take it in not just skip thru it

But that is good ...I think it may consolidate a lot of bits and pieces I have picked up over time.

I must admit I got sidetracked on a reference to Dr A's cosmological constant...and then I found more on the two slit experiemnt at Berkley... anyways better than being at a pub I reckon....

Dr A's cosmological constant was his attempt to balance the Universe at that stage to a static system but whne Hubble announced his findings Dr A pulled his horns in...wrongly I believe as if he had pursued the notion I think he would have been a convert to push gravity....so I say it was not his greatest blunder but perhaps his greatest insite as it can lead one to the pushing notion for gravity.

Anyways I wanted to thank you again now that I can see what you have presented for me...because in particular the Uni course notes and all the related material I will enjoy more than is healthy... I really appreciate what you have done for me. Thank you.

alex

[bojan]

no worries mate :-)

[xelasnave]

If that is one year of Uni that will take me longer than a year maybe?
anyways working away at it...
alex

[g__day (Matthew)]

Gravity hmmmm,

Personally I intuit the study of gravity isn't the study of a force - but really the study of geometry arising from the fundamental interactions between space, time and energy or matter. Our challenge is that these most fundamental interactions really happen at a level that is well below the atomic and sub atomic scales (i.e. 10 ^ -24 metres). Gravity dominates and operates at truly a quantum mechanical level - so its wierd. What's happening at around 10 ^ -43 metres and 10 ^ -43 seconds (Planck level interactions) we can't hope to say or model yet.

Our best relativistic scientific models can't yet be interpreted anywhere near down to that level of reality, nor can our super colliders reveal structures much below sub-atomic in size today.

I perceive examining gravity as a propogating force or energy is misleading - I think study should equally consider modelling it as tension in the very topology or framework of the in very the underlying essence of reality (which annoyingly we can't postulate what to model it as yet!).

Gravity may look like it manifests as a weak force at our level - but imaybe ts something alot more exotic than force carriers interacting with baryonic matter.

It could turn out (as an off the wall example ) that gravity is showing us simply spacetime is entirely fundamentally fractal in nature - scale relativity - meaning there is no fundamental unit of existence applies - if this is so then reality is infinitely unending in its minutae.

[xelasnave]

Is not space time the geometry that seeks to measure space but not a comment upon its make up?
As you suspect the machinery of gravity interests me and I offer my own primative attempt at an answer... but my point really with Newton and Dr A was their focus was on the measuring and avoiding the machinery or a comment such that an understanding as to physical interactions could be determined..of course small prevents comment in this area .. but I say with out a feel for what is going on and leaving that out we will miss the picture...... the avoidance of Dr A and Newton as to interaction between "things" leaves gravity having to fit the work coming from the other three forces...as if gravity need not be considered when working upon them..I feel this must have lead us on a different path... but I expect that if there is a fractal nature of size..as I do..we can never really identify all the particles... there may well be not bottom limit perhaps or not upper limit.. could it be that all our massive structures form only part of something much larger but which could be considered in its right a unit..of what ever everything we conceive may form... speculation only ...

And still reading all the home work
alex

[xelasnave]

I read this and had to share it.........from the Cern site ..neat site..

they said........

The Standard Model is the theory that embodies all of our current understanding about the behaviour of fundamental particles. However, this does not mean it is able to explain all phenomena that we observe. Examples of phenomena that can not be explained by the Standard Model are: dark matter, dark energy, description of gravity at quantum level, etc.

Will the HB if found tell us answers to these questions ??and if not all I say to that is take a step back to Newton and consider that there may well be a mechanical force to explain gravity and see how the standard model fits after recognising gravity must be the main player.

To work on the other three forces and not invite gravity to the party will leave the party a flop...

So I have been reading the course notes, got sidetracked to the CERN site and when I came across that addmission (above) and it was like ...this is what I have been trying to say...start at dark energy and work back from there

I am really enjoying the course needless to say I have to accept that the sums prove what they say they prove..when they actualy say what they are proving it is great.. lots of interesting links also.
alex