What is gravity?

[xelasnave]

Passion can make opponents friends and friends opponents but there is no need for either possition.
It is easy to focus on stuff and get upset and I would ask all who are buring up to settle a little... this thread is like a night at the pub in some respects.. we are all intoxicated with knowledge believe and passion for the achievement of humanity... still there is no need to rip it up.. no one has to stand over anyone so lets us understand all engagingf in this most wonderful thread are of like minds ...maybe different but not as different as someone who believes in ..say..astrology... or other stuff ..we all are of the same ilke... argument upon a question is admirable..personal attacks etc should be leveled at outsiders..eg astrologers, soothsayers etc...
I like a fight but I dont like belting folk who are the same, almost, as me.

I do think it is wonderful that so many get into the subject of gravity when it comes up.
alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by michaellxv

How did anyone prior to Newton know how to aim a projectile?
We don't have to fully understand something to use it.

I have a couple of theories.

Firstly dark matter/energy are just a place holder that kinda make the maths work for what we see. A bit like calling sqroot(-1) = i - when no such real number exists.

Next, the spacetime continuim is such that all times and places co-exist. Our conciousness just moves from one state to the next (should fit with quantum theory I reckon). Dark matter/energy is just all of that matter and engery which exist at times which are not now hence we cannot see it. All of this should make time travel possible when we do work it all out

Unlike 400 years ago we at least acknowledge that we do not know everything. If you look at the increasing rate at which scientific discovery builds on previous work it should only take one more generation to work it out.


Michael

Michael I read your post a while back but have been unable to comment and compliment you on your insite.

I hope you are correct and that all knowledge is only a generation away... and I admire your belief there is more to come..that is the way it is... if only humans could understand what you have outlined I feel we could be better set up to embrace new knowledge and understanding.
Those who go before us are resentful that they give us a world we do not understand or appreciate... that is the way it is but the fact is when they are gone it is the new humans who take over.. are they better or worse???those who pass say the new kids know nothing but one wonders if that be so why does humanity move forward as it does..new humans that is why... all views of youth and their inexperience are never respected by those before them and yet it is the new humans that take us forward... That is why GR needs an update... how new humans can settle for science now near a century old is strange to me.. I can not accept that a new DrA can not take us further than that... so understand it is in your hands not those who ran before you...Use Dr A as your guide, your example, as your hero...he was nothing..a little little man... could not have won a pool comp. or flogged two men his better in a fist fight but he was a great and wonderful man who showed us that evfen if you were a complete nobody..a pattents clerk..that is not flash lets face it..you could do great things... someone that today each of us would push aside if he stood in the way of a feed or a pool game ..he went for it.. he achieved..with nothing behind him..a poor pupil and in the work world was only a clerk as low as you could get in the world of work and business..who would think someone so low in the pecking order could do zip ...yet he did stuff.. lots of stuff really... so is that man someone that can inspire you ..to me he is a hero... now think about it..anyone here probably has more going for them than Dr A ..everyone should expect to be more capable than him...he is regarded as brillant but he was a man who simply had a go...they have looked at his brain in a jar (rather stange and horrid and stupid to place him like some sort of human anomoly) etc but that was not where it came from...he simply had a go and was never put off by the fools around him... Irrespective of if GR works or not the man pulled a great act... he still has the audience captivcated so how good is that... I never think of him as brainy but as a man he was so cool.
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry going a light speed stuff suffers.. I will fix spelling aswap.
alex

[iceman (Mike)]

I've deleted some posts here.

If you have nothing useful to add to the topic of the thread, just don't reply.

[Baddad (Marty)]

Hi All, Hi Alex,

I watched a program on Steve Hawking last night. His quest to find the Theory for Everything was the main plot.

As his findings went: At the instant of the "Big Bang" Gravity was a powerful force but quickly dissipated into a weak force.

The explanation for this was that the extra six dimensions in "String Theory" is responsible. Meaning that gravity is impeded by the other dimensions. This satisfies the maths behind it. Hawkings hopes that the CERT experiments will provide supporting results for this.

This was mentioned very early in this thread as something along the lines of parallel universes. Something to consider.

The second point I want to bring attention to is the matter of "Gravity Waves":

For waves to exist energy must be available and it needs to behave in such a way that there are both opposing and reinforcing forces. That is to say, electromagnetic waves are changing positive to negative as they pass a point. With the co-existing magnetic wave alternating north and south.

Does this mean that they may be searching for gravity that pushes as well as 'attracting'?

Even sound travels as a series of compressions and rarefactions.

So if gravity does have a negative factor and it can be harnessed it would make things interesting. Yes?

Personally, the nature of gravity, to me appears to be very different to any other forces. I think it does not have a wave nature but elsewhere in the universe there may exist "negative gravity"

Too much speculation to be creditable. I'll sign off.

Cheers Marty

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Baddad

The second point I want to bring attention to is the matter of "Gravity Waves":

For waves to exist energy must be available and it needs to behave in such a way that there are both opposing and reinforcing forces. That is to say, electromagnetic waves are changing positive to negative as they pass a point. With the co-existing magnetic wave alternating north and south.

Does this mean that they may be searching for gravity that pushes as well as 'attracting'?

Even sound travels as a series of compressions and rarefactions.

So if gravity does have a negative factor and it can be harnessed it would make things interesting. Yes?

Personally, the nature of gravity, to me appears to be very different to any other forces. I think it does not have a wave nature but elsewhere in the universe there may exist "negative gravity"

Too much speculation to be creditable. I'll sign off.

Cheers Marty

Gravity and gravity waves are two different animals.

And yes objects effected by gravity waves can be pushed apart or brought closer together.

Steven

[DJDD]

Perhaps I have not read this thread thoroughly enough but it seems that the notion of push gravity is being held up as a credible alternative to GR in the main because we are asked to keep an open mind because that is a necessary condition of doing science. And that if people did not have an open, enquiring mind then many areas of scientific enquiry would not have been pursued partly because of the notion that we "knew it all".

however, there is a significant difference between Push Gravity and GR. Push Gravity does not answer many questions, has not been experimentally verified (except for a faint possibility that the pioneer spacecraft slowed down because of it) and has been discredited. On the other hand, GR has been verified countless times, both terrestrially (including GPS) and astronomically.

of course, we do not know everything, but it is more likely that GR will either be modified in a similar way that newtonian physics or dropped for something radically different, than junked entirely for push gravity. regardless of the passion of the believers.

just my $0.02 worth.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Gravity and gravity waves are two different animals.

And yes objects effected by gravity waves can be pushed apart or brought closer together.

Steven

I cannot say for sure myself, but my tutor's words were very exact and match Steven's statement on this exact issue, "A gravity wave with enough intensity would tear your arms and legs off".

Io has a high degree of volcanic activity associated with the 'Tidal Forces' attributed to gravitation (a divergent field). But gravity waves seem to have just as great an impact if sufficiently intense.

Steven, is this the effect of an intense quadrapole, ie, the inflation and deflation of spacetime as the wave passes through a given spatial region...effectively overcoming electromagnetic bonds (tearing molecules apart by spatially and temporally separating the individual particles, maybe even atoms)????

[xelasnave]

Thanks Marty I enjoyed reading your post.
AND thanks DJDD that was value for money...I cant argue with anything you raise.

AND to all...sorry I have been ranting again.. I promised myself I would never again do so.

I like to think that (and have said it before) that it is the "push" or the flow of stuff that "bends" the space time grid constructed by GR

AND the push gravity thing came out of wondering about DrA's cosmological constant ... I always thought push gravity was my original idea and pursued it in ignorance of Le Sage and all the others after him...

AND I have only recently actually looked in depth at another site covering push gravity and it has good stuff and stuff I cant abide ..for as someone once observed some of those push gravity sites are off beat...and that is how the site Ron built to house my rantings has gone we have things really off beat..all that was without my help encouragement or help...
I am not into time travel but on our site we have a time detective who is into time travel, and various threads on stuff I am absolutely at odds with... but as I have preached the open mind thing I have kept my mouth shut and have not bagged anyone for ideas I find impossible to entertain...
So keeping an open mind has come back to bite me.

But I have done what I set out to do and that was to build my own theory of everything and although it is only speculative and unsupported I can explain to my personal satisfaction how all the forces relate in a push universe...and it is only an idea so please no one get upset that I dare to have a go...
I really dont think there is anything difficult to swallow with my approach ..it does not need matter that cant be seen, it can handle the outter stars in galaxies exceeding their speed limit, it can hold a galaxy together, it can explain the Universe expansion, the corona, the helioshere, behaviour of light thru a medium, momentum, how an atomic bomb works, how a fission reactor works, how a fussion reactor may work (i dont think they will ever work in truth) why we have lightning elves and sprite etc, why the earths core is hot, how electricity is generated... most things I can fit in the push universe... so I am content with it and remember it is the first Universe I have ever built ...and with no plans like everyone else gets.

But I have done zip in the last 18mths Ron built the site after I had lost interest so I was dragged back sort of...

So what is gravity???
I still dont know after all the years I have read stuff on it.

alex

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

So what is gravity???
I still dont know after all the years I have read stuff on it.

alex

Alex,

"What is Gravity", gravity is a subject far too big to learn from a discussion forum. It needs to be described in detail and systematically. It also pays to know some history, ie, what was Einstein looking for...why did he look toward Poisson's equations first, and what is curvature (I feel this is the biggest piece of the puzzle)?? Start small, what did Newton say, then geometry needs to be included because it's a field of acceleration...there are so many things.

I have posted this link before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0

If you cannot understand the math, don't worry, just understand his explanations for the functions.

If you watch this brilliant series (12 parts, 20 hours or so), you WILL have a new appreciation for gravitation, and, how SR fits in.

People pay a lot of money for this type of information, delivered this way.

Unfortunately/fortunately, not much comes from little effort, so take my advice on this, just give it a try...at least until the end of lesson 3.

And it's delivered by Leonard Susskind, what more could you want for free???

Weigh it up, what have you got to loose, against what have you got to gain?

At the end of the day, you might not have all the pieces, or even have them correct (that's me for sure), BUT, you will have an appreciation of what it actually is.

I dare you to put the time in!!!

Mark

[xelasnave]

Thank you Mark... Was Leonard Susskind one of the guys who came up with inflation theory??? Susskin I think anyways I will look...he has been around and a mate of Whitten I think..probably all are mates in that game.

You may not believe it from the stuff I write but I have read a fair bit on SR, GR and Dr Einstein and I do appreciate the enorminty of the subject a little.

In fact it was reading about Dr Einstein that gave me inspiration... for some reason I felt he was a loner like me he seemed to be treated the same as I was at school... I "invented" an electric motor when 11 yrs but the teachers gave me no recognition for thinking and all I got was you would do better learning what we teach trip... in reflection I could have been encouraged not put down as a day dreamer... I could do leaving certificate chemistry before I went to high school..self taught from books I got from relatives who were teachers... it was easy because I loved chemistry. Topped the trial leaving in combined science 98.5% but the math cost me 1.5 marks... I added something wrong so I always felt math denied me a perfect paper..it was like adding 2 and 2 and writing 5 a simple mistake.... so with that behind me I went into Law an obvious caree choice given my interests...
AND I had before I was into DrA's work applied but missed a job at the pattents office in Sydney ... and his peaceful manner I related as they say.

I took from him that sometimes the rank outsider can win... and I think a lot of new stuff comes from folk who are no in the group and just think different to others someway.
I knew he wanted to unite the forces and that is why I had a go... so for someone who probably sounds at odds with it all I am probably one of his greatest admirers...I think he was on the money when sniffing around the cosmological constant but when Hubble announced the Universe was expanding he seemed to give up on the idea... and that may have had a lot to do with the personalities..Dr A a humble chap and Hubble an x lawyer (they can be pushy and overbearing) and also a contender for the world heavy weight boxing champ... but I see push as an extention of thinking along the lines of a cosmological constant...

But look at the lenght of this thread.. It bears out what I say..gravity is the most interesting topic humans can think upon or discuss... and if you tell the ladies about it they move you onto other activities real fast


I will accept your dare simply because I do like this stuff.
alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Nesti

I cannot say for sure myself, but my tutor's words were very exact and match Steven's statement on this exact issue, "A gravity wave with enough intensity would tear your arms and legs off".

Io has a high degree of volcanic activity associated with the 'Tidal Forces' attributed to gravitation (a divergent field). But gravity waves seem to have just as great an impact if sufficiently intense.

Steven, is this the effect of an intense quadrapole, ie, the inflation and deflation of spacetime as the wave passes through a given spatial region...effectively overcoming electromagnetic bonds (tearing molecules apart by spatially and temporally separating the individual particles, maybe even atoms)????

The forces exerted through a gravitational wave have a quadrupole symmetry. Using the the arms and legs analogy, if you held you arms out and the wave tore your arms off, the action of the force perpendicular to the arms would squash your body (assuming you were standing).

The reality however is the amplitude of gravitational wave is so small nothing as graphic as this will ever be observed. Also the electromagnetic and nucleur forces are extremely strong so it extremely doubtful for disruption to occur at a molecular or atomic level.

What I find interesting is if a gravitational wave has an effect at a molecular or atomic level in the same way as electromagnetic radiation.
In other words whether the energy of a gravitational wave can be absorbed by atoms and molecules.

If this can be observed it might be very strong evidence for the graviton.
It would be analogous to photons being emitted by atoms after absorbing electromagnetic radiation.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

No it was Guth and some Russian for the inflation theory...Suskin was a starter in string theory... was spent time alone to come up with the idea and wanted to turn to booze when it was not readily accepted...
alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

No it was Guth and some Russian for the inflation theory...

I think his name was Mr Linde.

[xelasnave]

Thank you Steven.
alex

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

What I find interesting is if a gravitational wave has an effect at a molecular or atomic level in the same way as electromagnetic radiation.
In other words whether the energy of a gravitational wave can be absorbed by atoms and molecules.

If this can be observed it might be very strong evidence for the graviton.
It would be analogous to photons being emitted by atoms after absorbing electromagnetic radiation.

Regards

Steven

I discussed this with my tutor. He reckon'd that the feature differences between quadrupole and transverse waves were so great, that he sees no reason why the two should be involved with an exchange. Also, that a TOE will never happen since the two cannot be unified, even if the force coupling constants merged at some higher energies, they don't HAVE to unite.

He asked me, why do they need to be combined anyway, so we can feel happier???

It's a good point actually...

Personally, I believe that the fundamental differences reside within each particle...whether that be the spatial/temporal states and values, or, force states and values.

For my belief, I think we don't quite have the full picture. We may be close, or miles away, but I FEEL there is a definite connection between gravitation and principles of matter...beyond GR.

It has been argued that quantum mechanics is not locally causal and cannot be embedded in a locally causal theory … it might be that this apparent freedom is illusory. Perhaps experimental parameters and experimental results are both consequences, or partially so, of some common hidden mechanism.
John Bell, Free Variables and Local Causality, Epistemological Letters, 15, 1977

The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like the ‘genetic’ hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein’s intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous: A vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein’s idea doesn’t work. The reasonable thing just doesn’t work.
John Stewart Bell (1928-1990), author of Bell’s Theorem / Bell’s Inequality, quoted in Quantum Profiles, by Jeremy Bernstein [Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 84]


Can you see what I mean about the possibility of both SR/GR states/values, and Force states/vaules residing with the particles, but somehow these are then transferred into their frames of reference at each and every spacetime position (they naturally evolve within the spacial regions and over whatever time period), whether that be applied to Inertial frames or accelerated frames, if the function values could somehow commute across to the Gravitational Field, we would then have a form of unification in regards to process, so it is not necessarily for the forces to unify.

This would also mean that we would have a type of global reference frame...dare I say, a lattice of Calabi-Yau spaces orchestrating feeding all of the states and values to all particles within the spacetime continuum. It would therefore only be spatially and temporally connected by association, and not embedded. kind of a master field which can stitch together electric, magnetic, gravitational fields etc...This would even account for the consistency of the force laws, conservation laws (eg angular momentum), the homogenous energy density within the continuum. So the particles take with them all that which defines their characteristics..."the photons in those experiments carry with them programs which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave".

And also in the words of Sir David Bohm;
Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse: that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.
David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987


And again;
In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined; while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events, connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness.
David Bohm, On Quantum Mechanics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980

Maybe we're missing a tiny little thing, which turns the "reasonable thing" into the 'correct thing'.

This may then give us an answer to the problem of quantum measurement, as this pathway is all but blocked it seems.

For me, I feel the next advances will be made in expanding SR & GR...maybe to include something else...ZR?!

Make sense?

Cheers
Mark

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I like to think that (and have said it before) that it is the "push" or the flow of stuff that "bends" the space time grid constructed by GR

alex

Alex,

Where did you get the "Push" nature of GR, rather than 'attractive' nature of GR from???

You're not talking about the 'Pressure' are you? ie, the Pressure of the Energy Momentum Density?

That can easily be confused with a type of 'Push', as the Energy Momentum IS the flow, and in a direct/indirect way, does creates the Einstein Tensor values, which in essence IS the curvature...but there is no real pushing involved.

I went hunting for it...took me half an hour, phew!
Discussed [in my bible] at 1:14:00 and runs for about 4-5min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCRG1uzc9xg

Cheers
Mark

[xelasnave]

Mark firstly I dont know what I am taliking about in the context that I can relate anything to GR correctly because I still do not understand GR.

AND whatever view I have is very simple and no doubt misses the real deal... but pressure is a good way to think about it the way I think about it... In fact simply put I guess you could say that my belief is that gravity is basically radiation pressure... or the pressure of all the electro magnetic radiation in the universe, gravity being caused by an imbalance of such due to mass (object) shielding.

Everything I write comes from my thoughts so thats where I got the "push" nature..I dont think anyone else sees it that way. all I am saying is if you see a grid (3d) (forget time at this point) and place a sphere in it I think the grid lines will curve in to the sphere...not like the ball on the blanket which curves grid lines away..(I think the ball on the blanket gives the opposite of what GR suggests) . so if there is the flow or pressure I suggest the sphere (mass) shields so the grid lines go in the direction of the decrease in the pressure... and as a result near the sphere or as we get closer the cubes of the grid will get smaller... or the grid gets smaller as we get closer to our mass...

I suspect that has caused me to lose any credibility left... if you understand what I am saying and more if you dont... I need my hands free to take you see
alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Nesti

I discussed this with my tutor. He reckon'd that the feature differences between quadrupole and transverse waves were so great, that he sees no reason why the two should be involved with an exchange. Also, that a TOE will never happen since the two cannot be unified, even if the force coupling constants merged at some higher energies, they don't HAVE to unite.

He asked me, why do they need to be combined anyway, so we can feel happier???

An electroweak theory has shown that the electromagnetic and the weak forces can be unified. The experimental verification of this theory has come through the detection of "neutral currents" as predicted by the theory.

Since we now have two of the four forces unified it would seem to be a logical progression to believe all four forces to be unified.
The conditions in the very early history of the Universe (<10^-43 sec after the BB) would seem to support a single unified force.

It has been argued that quantum mechanics is not locally causal and cannot be embedded in a locally causal theory … it might be that this apparent freedom is illusory. Perhaps experimental parameters and experimental results are both consequences, or partially so, of some common hidden mechanism.
John Bell, Free Variables and Local Causality, Epistemological Letters, 15, 1977

The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like the ‘genetic’ hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein’s intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous: A vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein’s idea doesn’t work. The reasonable thing just doesn’t work.
John Stewart Bell (1928-1990), author of Bell’s Theorem / Bell’s Inequality, quoted in Quantum Profiles, by Jeremy Bernstein [Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 84]


Can you see what I mean about the possibility of both SR/GR states/values, and Force states/vaules residing with the particles, but somehow these are then transferred into their frames of reference at each and every spacetime position (they naturally evolve within the spacial regions and over whatever time period), whether that be applied to Inertial frames or accelerated frames, if the function values could somehow commute across to the Gravitational Field, we would then have a form of unification in regards to process, so it is not necessarily for the forces to unify.

This would also mean that we would have a type of global reference frame...dare I say, a lattice of Calabi-Yau spaces orchestrating feeding all of the states and values to all particles within the spacetime continuum. It would therefore only be spatially and temporally connected by association, and not embedded. kind of a master field which can stitch together electric, magnetic, gravitational fields etc...This would even account for the consistency of the force laws, conservation laws (eg angular momentum), the homogenous energy density within the continuum. So the particles take with them all that which defines their characteristics..."the photons in those experiments carry with them programs which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave".

And also in the words of Sir David Bohm;
Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse: that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.
David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987


And again;
In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined; while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events, connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness.
David Bohm, On Quantum Mechanics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980

Maybe we're missing a tiny little thing, which turns the "reasonable thing" into the 'correct thing'.

This may then give us an answer to the problem of quantum measurement, as this pathway is all but blocked it seems.

For me, I feel the next advances will be made in expanding SR & GR...maybe to include something else...ZR?!

Make sense?

Cheers
Mark

I'm not sure whether you're advocating local causality by the implication that the state of a particle in space-time are supplied through a global reference frame.

An obvious question that comes to mind is how do you explain quantum entanglement or better still the status of Bell's theorem (is the inequality violated or not).

For example there are tests with photon pairs (entangled pairs) where if the photons are "separated", the state of a given photon is determined by the state of the other photon. This has been experimentally determined by polarization tests.

This would seem to run counter to what you are advocating.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

An electroweak theory has shown that the electromagnetic and the weak forces can be unified. The experimental verification of this theory has come through the detection of "neutral currents" as predicted by the theory.

Since we now have two of the four forces unified it would seem to be a logical progression to believe all four forces to be unified.
The conditions in the very early history of the Universe (<10^-43 sec after the BB) would seem to support a single unified force.

I'm not sure whether you're advocating local causality by the implication that the state of a particle in space-time are supplied through a global reference frame.

An obvious question that comes to mind is how do you explain quantum entanglement or better still the status of Bell's theorem (is the inequality violated or not).

For example there are tests with photon pairs (entangled pairs) where if the photons are "separated", the state of a given photon is determined by the state of the other photon. This has been experimentally determined by polarization tests.

This would seem to run counter to what you are advocating.

Regards

Steven

It's a nice enough idea, but Grand Unification (QCD-electroweak interactions) will need to be seen. I don't think anybody's come up with a neat Quantum Gravity as yet. What's the closest so far, 'M-theory' ?
And I think both of these suggestions require S-Symmetry in order to predict an energy level for convergence.

"how do you explain quantum entanglement or better...Bell's inequality"
In the mail.

"This would seem to run counter to what you are advocating"
I don't mean to do so; I'm advocating an alternative; a local and non-local system at the same time, without violating SR. Something that also describes the inability for a history vector to come back to the event interaction point through devolution under 'local' law. There's an element missing, a non-local, time asymmetric process which needs (MUST) account for probability and show why freedom of choice is retained (similar to relativity, where a relative viewpoint has affect over spacetime. In this freedom of choice has affect over deterministic processes and can collapse probability). So, it must handle freedom of choice too and GR as I pointed out earlier. Huge call, I know.

I'm not elluding to a 'Relative State' interpretation, nor 'Bohmian Mechanics', or even 'Sum over Paths' postulate (Feynman), but something quite different. I feel you can flip these three ideas up on their heads, and end up with a single mechanism which can determine local events, in full view (so to speak) of a 'whole world' of particle states. Einstein's evolution equations had an aspect of this.

I looked to Aharanov's TSQM (Time Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics) for some background early on.

You can get the documents from here;
New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics Yakir Aharonov and Jeff Tollaksen
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/to/Tollaksen

And;
Two-time interpretation of quantum mechanics Yakir Aharonov and Eyal Y. Gruss
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/quant-ph/ah/Aharonov