Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Science theory of everything

views
     
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 13 2009, 01:57 PM, updated 17y ago

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
hi... ever since small, I always wonder about this question.. THEORY OF EVERYTHING...

I read quite lots of book on astrophysics, maths and astronomy... albert einstein tried to solve this eqatuon.. but failed trying....

recently, there`s this M-theory emerged... it is said that we are vibrating on 11 dimension membrane at perfect ahrmony...
at central europe, CERN is investing at large hadron collider where they emit electrons at light speed at opposite direction and try to take a glimps of the first few seconds of creation of universe...

now, the discussion...

1) how far are we from completion of this theory??
2) there`s one drawback from what I read recently, there`s little gap to merge einstein`s general relativity and quantum emchanics... two theory of largest and smallest thing in the universe....

p/s please put ur religion hat aside....

cheers icon_rolleyes.gif
ketnave
post Oct 13 2009, 02:02 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
868 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
From: douchistan, pekopon


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 13 2009, 01:57 PM)
hi... ever since small, I always wonder about this question.. THEORY OF EVERYTHING...

I read quite lots of book on astrophysics, maths and astronomy... albert einstein tried to solve this eqatuon.. but failed trying....

recently, there`s this M-theory emerged... it is said that we are vibrating on 11 dimension membrane at perfect ahrmony...
at central europe, CERN is investing at large hadron collider where they emit electrons at light speed at opposite direction and try to take a glimps of the first few seconds of creation of universe...

now, the discussion...

1) how far are we from completion of this theory??
2) there`s one drawback from what I read recently, there`s little gap to merge einstein`s general relativity and quantum emchanics... two theory of largest and smallest thing in the universe....

p/s please put ur religion hat aside....

cheers  icon_rolleyes.gif
*
One candidate for the Theory Of Everything is String Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XH3RIED6Y8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 13 2009, 02:18 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
yes... I have that book.... M theory is the extension of string theory....

michio kaku? he is a THEORETICAL physicist... mean cakap je... doh.gif
SanosukeSagara
post Oct 13 2009, 04:28 PM

2008 2008
******
Senior Member
1,193 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Sungai Petani



QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 13 2009, 02:18 PM)
yes... I have that book.... M theory is the extension of string theory....

michio kaku? he is a THEORETICAL physicist... mean cakap je... doh.gif
*
What you mean by Theoretical Physicist = cakap je? You should go through his work before making a comment like this.
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 13 2009, 04:35 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
ok.. sorry.. I take that back


Added on October 13, 2009, 4:44 pm
QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 13 2009, 03:18 PM)
yes... I have that book.... M theory is the extension of string theory....

michio kaku? he is a THEORETICAL physicist...
*
This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Oct 13 2009, 04:44 PM
frags
post Oct 13 2009, 05:20 PM

The Wizard
Group Icon
VIP
1,640 posts

Joined: Oct 2006


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 13 2009, 04:35 PM)
ok.. sorry.. I take that back


Added on October 13, 2009, 4:44 pm
*
I just loled. You think his only job is to appear in Discovery Channel? You don't have to answer. I know you didn't mean it tongue.gif
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 13 2009, 05:24 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
you are a funny mod laa... ahah

ok.. back on track... to the topic... where`s michio now? in his research?
http://mkaku.org/

what about stephen hawking?


Added on October 13, 2009, 6:05 pmfrom mitchio`s work... worth a read... now I really take my word back doh.gif

Hyperspace and a Theory of Everything
What lies beyond our 4 dimensions?
When I was a child, I used to visit the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. I would spend hours fascinated by the carp, who lived in a very shallow pond just inches beneath the lily pads, just beneath my fingers, totally oblivious to the universe above them.

I would ask myself a question only a child could ask: what would it be like to be a carp? What a strange world it would be! I imagined that the pond would be an entire universe, one that is two-dimensional in space. The carp would only be able to swim forwards and backwards, and left and right. But I imagined that the concept of “up”, beyond the lily pads, would be totally alien to them. Any carp scientist daring to talk about “hyperspace”, i.e. the third dimension “above” the pond, would immediately be labelled a crank. I wondered what would happen if I could reach down and grab a carp scientist and lift it up into hyperspace. I thought what a wondrous story the scientist would tell the others! The carp would babble on about unbelievable new laws of physics: beings who could move without fins. Beings who could breathe without gills. Beings who could emit sounds without bubbles. I then wondered: how would a carp scientist know about our existence? One day it rained, and I saw the rain drops forming gentle ripples on the surface of the pond.

Then I understood.
The carp could see rippling shadows on the surface of the pond. The third dimension would be invisible to them, but vibrations in the third dimensions would be clearly visible. These ripples might even be felt by the carp, who would invent a silly concept to describe this, called “force.” They might even give these “forces” cute names, such as light and gravity. We would laugh at them, because, of course, we know there is no “force” at all, just the rippling of the water.

Today, many physicists believe that we are the carp swimming in our tiny pond, blissfully unaware of invisible, unseen uni- verses hovering just above us in hyperspace. We spend our life in three spatial dimensions, confident that what we can see with our telescopes is all there is, ignorant of the possibility of 10 dimensional hyperspace. Although these higher dimensions are invisible, their “ripples” can clearly be seen and felt. We call these ripples gravity and light. The theory of hyperspace, however, languished for many decades for lack of any physical proof or application. But the thoery, once considered the province of eccentrics and mystics, is being revived for a simple reason: it may hold the key to the greatest theory of all time, the “theory of everything.”

Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life futilely chasing after this theory, the Holy Grail of physics. He wanted a theory that could explain the four fundamental forces that govern the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces (weak and strong). It was supposed to be the crowning achievement of the last 2,000 years of science, ever since the Greeks asked what the world was made of. He was searching for an equation, perhaps no more than one-inch long, that could be placed on a T-shirt, but was so powerful it could explain every- thing from the Big Bang, exploding stars, to atoms and molecules, to the lilies of the field.

He wanted to read the mind of God. Ultimately, Einstein failed in his mission. In fact, he was shunned by many of his younger compatriots, who would taunt him with the ditty, “What God has torn asunder, no man can put together.” But perhaps Einstein is now having his revenge. For the past decade, there has been furious research on merging the four fundamental forces into a single theory, especially one that can meld general relativity (which explains gravity) with the quantum theory (which can explain the two nuclear forces and electro- magnetism).

The problem is that relativity and the quantum theory are precise opposites. General relativity is a theory of the very large: galaxies, quasars, black holes, and even the Big Bang. It is based on bending the beautiful four dimensional fabric of space and time. The quantum theory, by contrast, is a theory of the very small, i.e. the world of sub-atomic particles. It is based on discrete, tiny packets of energy called quanta. Over the past 50 years, many attempts have been tried to unite these polar opposites, and have failed. The road to the Unified Field Theory, the Theory of Everything, is littered with the corpses of failed attempts. The key to the puzzle may be hyperspace. In 1915, when Einstein said space-time was four dimensional and was warped and rippled, he showed that this bending produced a “force” called gravity. In 1921, Theodr Kaluza wrote that ripples of the fifth dimension could be viewed as light. Like the fish seeing the ripples in hyperspace moving in their world, many physicists believe that light is created by ripples in five-dimensional space-time.

But what about dimensions higher than 5?
In principle, if we add more and more dimensions, we can ripple and bend them in different ways, thereby creating more forces. In 10 dimensions, in fact, we can accomodate all four fundamental forces! Actually, it’s not that simple. By naively going to 10 dimensions, we also introduce a host of esoteric mathematical inconsistencies (e.g. infinities and anomalies) that have killed all previous theories. The only theory which has survived every challenge posed to it is called superstring theory, in which this 10 dimensional universe is inhabited by tiny strings.

In fact, in one swoop, this 10 dimensional string theory gives us a simple, compelling unification of all forces. Like a violin string, these tiny strings can vibrate and create resonances or “notes”. That explains why there are so many sub- atomic particles: they are just notes on a superstring. (This seems so simple, but in the 1950s, physicists were drowning in an avalanche of sub-atomic particles. J.R. Oppenheim- er, who helped build the atomic bomb, even said, out of sheer frustration, that the Nobel Prize should go to the physicist who does NOT discover a new particle that year!) Similarly, when the string moves in space and time, it warps the space around it just as Einstein predicted. Thus, in a remarkably simple picture, we can unify gravity (as the bending of space caused by moving strings) with the other quantum forces (now viewed as vibrations of the string).

Of course, any theory with this power and majesty has a problem. This theory, because it is a theory of everything, is really a theory of Creation. Thus, to fully test the theory requires re-creating Creation! At first, this might seem hopelessly impossible. We can barely leave the earth’s puny gravity, let alone create universes in the laboratory. But there is a way out to this seemingly intractable problem. A theory of everything is also a theory of the everyday. Thus, this theory, when fully completed, will be able to explain the existence of protons, atoms, molecules, even DNA. Thus, the key is to fully solve the theory and test the theory against the known properties of the universe. At present, no one on earth is smart enough to complete the theory. The theory is perfectly well-defined, but you see, superstring theory is 21st Century physics that fell accidentally into the 20th century. It was discovered purely by accident, when two young physicists were thumbing through a mathematics book. The theory is so elegant and powerful, we were never “destined” to see it in the 20th century. The problem is that 21st century mathematics has not yet been invented yet. But since physicists are genetically predisposed to be opti- mists, I am confident that we will solve the theory someday soon. Perhaps a young person reading this article will be so inspired by this story that he or she will finish the theory. I can’t wait!

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Oct 13 2009, 06:05 PM
SUS99chan
post Oct 14 2009, 02:51 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
99 posts

Joined: Jul 2008
From: Came from the future Joined : November 2020
to fuse a general explanation for the mechanism of everything and science is a defeating purpose to the framework of science itself. for instance, logic and the inductive method, or scientific method are insufficient for good reliable scinece. there is no ultimate truth. as of history, we learn far more by attempting to falsify a hypothesis than trying to confirm it. falsification helps to uncover novel ideas, because confirmation produces little new insight.

coming up with a unified theory is simply just an estimation. to understand the universe is to understand strings. unfortunately, to understand strings is to observe higher up dimensions, which is improbable at given time and technology.

as OP has mentioned, the problem faced with this theory is the colliding thoughts of general relativity and quantum mechanics. the latter concretes its foundation of teaching with four universal forces, while the other says the higher the energy or the mass, the higher the force of gravity. so the smart scientists have come up with a new idea that dark energy is what responsible for the formation of gravity force by studying the way universe expands and so on. but to observe dark energy, or dark matter, is too physically improbable. and force it creates are then retained by photons which in turn expands the universe consistently.

so while waiting for the good people at CERN to come up with something, the universe is already an entirely different being. so basically, the theory of everything, well its just an approximation of the physical world of the past, if they do come up with one.
SUSjoe_star
post Oct 14 2009, 03:12 AM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,810 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
Hmm just a thought, but doesnt Heisenbergs principle of Uncertainty negate the existence of any single theory or equation that can explain everything in a deterministic way? I'm just getting this off the top of the head, and would welcome any refuting smile.gif
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 14 2009, 01:19 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(joe_star @ Oct 14 2009, 04:12 AM)
Hmm just a thought, but doesnt Heisenbergs principle of Uncertainty negate the existence of any single theory or equation that can explain everything in a deterministic way? I'm just getting this off the top of the head, and would welcome any refuting smile.gif
*
are you reffering to quantum mechanics?? where anything is possible...??? rclxub.gif

stephen hawking once say this.... for the universe to exist to this day, consider this possibility.. group of monkeys rush to typewritter and start to hitting the trywritter... the probability of them hitting out shakespeare`s poem... shocking.gif
nice.rider
post Oct 14 2009, 02:12 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
109 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
QUOTE(joe_star @ Oct 14 2009, 03:12 AM)
Hmm just a thought, but doesnt Heisenbergs principle of Uncertainty negate the existence of any single theory or equation that can explain everything in a deterministic way? I'm just getting this off the top of the head, and would welcome any refuting smile.gif
*
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle involves particles in quantum level, where the physical properties like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. One of the reasons is it exhibits wave particle duality.

I would say it is part of the GUT (Grand Unify Theory) or in this context, the theory of everthing.

The idea from both Heisenberg and Bohr on quantum mechanics were not widely accepted in the eyes of Einstein, as he said "God does not play dice".

However, almost all observation in quantum level suggests that the behavior of properties on wave-particle were indeed random.




SUSjoe_star
post Oct 14 2009, 04:23 PM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,810 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
Yeah I know regarding the background of Heisenbergs principle (both momentum AND position of particle cannot be accurately determined at the same time), but a theory of everything in my book should be able to override this. In other words, randomness would cease to be in a universe where a certain fundamental equation can explain every single occurrence. I believe this is one of the paradoxes that theorists have greatly debated about. Shall give it more reading when I have more free time smile.gif

On a sidenote, imho Einstein was a total brainiac, but at the same time approached things with a set outcome in his mind. He might have achieved more had he not been so set in his ideals of a static universe etc smile.gif

This post has been edited by joe_star: Oct 14 2009, 04:25 PM
nice.rider
post Oct 14 2009, 06:01 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
109 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
QUOTE(joe_star @ Oct 14 2009, 04:23 PM)
Yeah I know regarding the background of Heisenbergs principle (both momentum AND position of particle cannot be accurately determined at the same time), but a theory of everything in my book should be able to override this. In other words, randomness would cease to be in a universe where a certain fundamental equation can explain every single occurrence. I believe this is one of the paradoxes that theorists have greatly debated about. Shall give it more reading when I have more free time smile.gif

On a sidenote, imho Einstein was a total brainiac, but at the same time approached things with a set outcome in his mind. He might have achieved more had he not been so set in his ideals of a static universe etc smile.gif
*
Yup, Einstein didn't like the idea of randomness. I believe almost everyone would prefer order rather then chaos smile.gif

While Dr. Michio used Carp to explain the multiple dimensions idea (Yes, I read your long post, Awakened_Angel biggrin.gif ), Stephen Hawking used Monkeys, he used Turtles too in his book A brief history of time, another scientist Paul used two-dimensional creature (let's called it worm) to explain the grand unified theory.

Imagine a machine-gunner facing a target screen. As he fires the gun, he sweeps his aim at a steady rate from side to side. The end result is a pattern of equal spaced bullet holes. Now a 2D creature (worm) which lives in the screen would perceive this sequence of events as the regular appearance of holes in his world. With careful observation he would deduce that the holes are not formed at random, but periodically, and moreover they are arranged in a geometrical simple way, with equal distance between them. Confidently this worm would proclaim a new law of flatland physics: The law of hole creation. He would conclude that the appearance of each hole causes the appearance of the next in line, in a regular way. After all, one hole is always followed by another in a simple sequence. From the limited perspective of his 2D world, the worm misses entirely the fact that the holes are actually "completely independent" of each other, and the regularity in their arrangement is due entirely to the "random activity" of the machine-gunner.

In the limited 2D view of the worm, the law of hole creation is true and he was the Einstien of its kind. However, when looking at the larger view 3D, ... or 11D, the so called law is nothing but a pure random act.

From our limited perspective within the spacetime (4D), aren't we all behave like the "worm"?

We all would rejoice if GUT (Grand Unified Theory) is solved one day, however the true meaning behind it may not be as pleasant, it could be painful to certain extend.

Like what Steven Weinberg have quoted : "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."

He believed that the more we understand about the origin of the universe and its evolution on the grandest scale, the more we realize that human life is the outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back 15 billion years to the earliest moments of creation.

Steven Weinberg is the Nobel winner physicist. He was awarded the Nobel prize for his contributions to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, which is part of the GUT.

TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 15 2009, 09:20 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(nice.rider @ Oct 14 2009, 07:01 PM)
Yup, Einstein didn't like the idea of randomness. I believe almost everyone would prefer order rather then chaos  smile.gif

*
I do believe that the only constant that is always constant in this universe is CHANGE..... wink.gif

there are no absolute point in this universe... we are center of each other.. when you throw a ball, you see it in straight line... issit?? zoom the pic out... to earth magnitude.. then plus the vector of earth rotating and orbiting... the straight ball is not so straight anymore.. then zoom out the magnitude again to solar system magnitude... what you`ll get? and finally to ever expanding universe.. what you get? blink.gif is the ball that you threw in straight line??
corad
post Oct 19 2009, 04:22 AM

Hard to see, the dark side is.
*******
Senior Member
2,401 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Sarawak / United Kingdom

QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 13 2009, 01:57 PM)
at central europe, CERN is investing at large hadron collider where they emit electrons at light speed at opposite direction and try to take a glimps of the first few seconds of creation of universe...

now, the discussion...

1) how far are we from completion of this theory??
2) there`s one drawback from what I read recently, there`s little gap to merge einstein`s general relativity and quantum emchanics... two theory of largest and smallest thing in the universe....

p/s please put ur religion hat aside....

cheers  icon_rolleyes.gif
*
1st, CERN is not in Central Europe. It's West .. or rather slightly South West.
2nd, if the LHC is a success, then we'll see what the universe was made of billionths of a second after the Big Bang .. not "first few seconds"

for your questions,

this theory could be completely wrong. nobody can say how long it will take to complete.

"little gap" is quite an understatement. einstein's equations do not hold up with Newtonian mechanics either when approaching light speed.

when scientists find out what exactly is mass (the main thing the LHC was built to find out) , then we'll probably get a completely new set of theories laugh.gif
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 30 2009, 05:37 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(corad @ Oct 19 2009, 05:22 AM)
this theory could be completely wrong. nobody can say how long it will take to complete.

"little gap" is quite an understatement. einstein's equations do not hold up with Newtonian mechanics either when approaching light speed.

when scientists find out what exactly is mass (the main thing the LHC was built to find out) , then we'll probably get a completely new set of theories 
*
any news from large hardon collider?? heard they switch it on...

latest news is from angel and demons movie doh.gif
joyyy
post Oct 30 2009, 06:38 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,394 posts

Joined: Apr 2007


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 30 2009, 05:37 PM)
any news from large hardon collider?? heard they switch it on...

latest news is from angel and demons movie  doh.gif
*
In the real Angels and Demons book, it wasn't the LHC, the writers changed it to the LHC to make it grander. biggrin.gif
Anyways, the number one purpose of the LHC is to detect the Higg's boson, which would explain how mass came to be.
It was turned on for a brief period last year and almost immediately ran into some problems. Since then the LHC has been lying there doing nothing sweat.gif
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 30 2009, 08:46 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(joyyy @ Oct 30 2009, 07:38 PM)
In the real Angels and Demons book, it wasn't the LHC, the writers changed it to the LHC to make it grander.  biggrin.gif
Anyways, the number one purpose of the LHC is to detect the Higg's boson, which would explain how mass came to be.
It was turned on for a brief period last year and almost immediately ran into some problems. Since then the LHC has been lying there doing nothing  sweat.gif
*
i see.... doing nothing or wont let us know something?? hmm.gif
joyyy
post Oct 30 2009, 10:33 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,394 posts

Joined: Apr 2007


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 30 2009, 08:46 PM)
i see.... doing nothing or wont let us know something??  hmm.gif
*
Nah, I won't be the conspiracy theorist here. I feel that the discovery of the Higgs boson would be too big a discovery to cover up, even when there's no reason for them to cover it up. biggrin.gif
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 30 2009, 10:36 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(joyyy @ Oct 30 2009, 11:33 PM)
Nah, I won't be the conspiracy theorist here. I feel that the discovery of the Higgs boson would be too big a discovery to cover up, even when there's no reason for them to cover it up.  biggrin.gif
*
you know the biggest enemy of this research??? religion ; god

joyyy
post Oct 30 2009, 10:45 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,394 posts

Joined: Apr 2007


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 30 2009, 10:36 PM)
you know the biggest enemy of this research??? religion ; god
*
The discovery of the Higgs boson would only explain the origin of mass. It wouldn't explain the origin of the Big Bang and that's all the Church cares about. As long as physicists are nowhere near solving the mystery of the Big Bang, the Church would point to the divine. tongue.gif
TSAwakened_Angel
post Oct 31 2009, 09:01 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
origin of mass???

which leads to??

origin of universe la my friend... it is all interrelated.....
bgeh
post Oct 31 2009, 06:35 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 30 2009, 08:46 PM)
i see.... doing nothing or wont let us know something??  hmm.gif
*

They had a malfunction in the LHC last year. There was a bad connection in one of the superconducting cables, which quickly heated up, and I can't remember exactly what happened now, but it involved a heck a lot of the magnets (very strong ones too, 5-8T iirc - note they might sound low but they provide an extremely uniform field) going out of alignment, and then they also went boom, causing a lot of damage). Took a year to fix, implement new safety systems, and hopefully low energy collisions will happen in the next 2-3 weeks.


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Oct 30 2009, 10:36 PM)
you know the biggest enemy of this research??? religion ; god
*

No it isn't.


QUOTE(joyyy @ Oct 30 2009, 10:45 PM)
The discovery of the Higgs boson would only explain the origin of mass. It wouldn't explain the origin of the Big Bang and that's all the Church cares about. As long as physicists are nowhere near solving the mystery of the Big Bang, the Church would point to the divine.  tongue.gif
*

By church you probably mean the catholic church; not all (christian) churches, or religions are against this.
The discovery of the Higgs boson would be experimental confirmation that the Higgs mechanism for particles exists.
TSAwakened_Angel
post Nov 6 2009, 09:04 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
I just watch this documentary..... you guys might consider watching it.... thumbup.gif

http://www.tom365.com/movie_2004/html/6803...9823132429.html


p/s you need to DL the Ovod player in order to watch it


"scientist use the word "singularity" to hide our ignorance on creation of universe" Dr mitchio kaku

which mean, we always talk about singularity and this and that but know nothing of it... which is true....

we talk about god this and god that but know nothing about god... hmm.gif


Added on November 6, 2009, 9:06 am
QUOTE(joyyy @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 PM)
The discovery of the Higgs boson would only explain the origin of mass. It wouldn't explain the origin of the Big Bang and that's all the Church cares about. As long as physicists are nowhere near solving the mystery of the Big Bang, the Church would point to the divine.  tongue.gif
*
in the doc, the pope ask stephen to leave some secret of god to be kept....

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Nov 6 2009, 09:06 AM
joyyy
post Nov 6 2009, 02:08 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,394 posts

Joined: Apr 2007


QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Nov 6 2009, 09:04 AM)
I just watch this documentary..... you guys might consider watching it....  thumbup.gif

http://www.tom365.com/movie_2004/html/6803...9823132429.html
p/s you need to DL the Ovod player in order  to watch it
"scientist use the word "singularity" to hide our ignorance on creation of universe" Dr mitchio kaku

which mean, we always talk about singularity and this and that but know nothing of it... which is true....

we talk about god this and god that but know nothing about god...  hmm.gif


Added on November 6, 2009, 9:06 am
in the doc, the pope ask stephen to leave some secret of god to be kept....
*
Actually, physicists use the word singularity to describe the Universe the instant before the Big Bang because the Universe then had zero volume and infinite density. Also, it's called a singularity because physicists really have no idea on the behavior and mechanics of the Universe at point time = 0.
And this has nothing to do with religion. shakehead.gif
We physicists are agnostic basterds =)
TSAwakened_Angel
post Nov 6 2009, 05:27 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(joyyy @ Nov 6 2009, 03:08 PM)

And this has nothing to do with religion.  shakehead.gif
We physicists are agnostic basterds =)
*
it is an analogous concept that i use.... sweat.gif
nice.rider
post Dec 1 2009, 06:26 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
109 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
A cat is put in a box with 50% chance of the poison gas will be released within 2 minutes. If the gas releases, the cat die. If not, the cat alive. We wait for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes, without opening the box, is the cat alive or dead?

The answer is the cat is in half dead/half alive state.

Many people say this result is ridicules, as their brains have been long "trained/damaged" by the incomplete/incorrect frog view paradigm of the world. They say (Are you one of them?) the cat is either dead or alive, cannot be in half dead/half alive state.

This is the famous Schrodinger cat to explain the Quantum Mechanics characteristic. In subatomic level, the behavior of electron or other sub particles are purely random in nature. To predict where the electron is going to exite is meaningless. All we can do is to study the probability of it behaviors.

There are two branches of paradigms on how we perceive the world.

1) The "frog" view (Aristotelian paradigm)

The subjectively perceive of the world is "physically" real, and the mathematical language is merely an approximation.
Or

Maths/Science is just an approximation of how we view our real physical world


In our childhood (even in majority of university syllabus), we were taught to observe the world using "frog" view, that said, the truth is out there, our maths/sciences merely approx it.

Eg. Classical Newton mechanic, Gravity, Special/General theory of relativity.

2) The "bird" view (Platonic paradigm)

The mathematical structure is physical real, and all human language we use to describe it is merely an approximation for describing our subjective perceptions. Eg, the Schrodinger cat.
Or
How we view our world is just an approximation or merely a perception, not necessary real, maths/science equation covers all possible physically real scenarios.

When Plank, Neil Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger proposed Quantum Mechanics, it revolutionized the way we perceive the world, that said, the "bird" view, how we perceive the world is just a perception, a probability, not necessary real. What is real is we could express mathematically about the behaviour of subatomic particles using forier, laplace or matrix functions.

This is where Einstein did not agree with, as he mentioned God doesn't play dice. For him, universe is deterministic while quantum mechanic suggests that it is free willing.

If Theory Of Everything (Quantum Mechanic, Gravity, Strong force, Weak force) (TOE) has been successfully derived, it shows us that the equation is "real" and it represents all possible outcome of reality. Reality is no longer like what we perceive as it could be misleading. The impacts:

- We would have different view in the context of free will or determinism. In fact, it already influences our view now
- It challenges our religion view of the deterministic universe
- Our education would be leaning more towards bird view, rather that the restricted frog view

One thing for sure is human being have tendency of throwing away any new ideas that contradicts with what they learned/hold for a very long time "even though the new ideas is the correct/better one". The old/wrong ideas that has been implanted way long ago will stubbornly stay forever.

Sad, isn't it.

This post has been edited by nice.rider: Dec 1 2009, 06:29 PM
deeplyheartbroken
post Dec 1 2009, 06:45 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
774 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
Lately had been studying on anti-matter. Long time never read on the string theories anymore, as I feel it is not simple enough yet to be complete as the theory of everything.
empire23
post Dec 15 2009, 09:27 PM

Team Island Hopper
Group Icon
Staff
9,417 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Bladin Point, Northern Territory
QUOTE(joe_star @ Oct 14 2009, 04:23 PM)
Yeah I know regarding the background of Heisenbergs principle (both momentum AND position of particle cannot be accurately determined at the same time), but a theory of everything in my book should be able to override this. In other words, randomness would cease to be in a universe where a certain fundamental equation can explain every single occurrence. I believe this is one of the paradoxes that theorists have greatly debated about. Shall give it more reading when I have more free time smile.gif

On a sidenote, imho Einstein was a total brainiac, but at the same time approached things with a set outcome in his mind. He might have achieved more had he not been so set in his ideals of a static universe etc smile.gif
*
Not really, Heisenberg postulated that "measurement" or "observation" would influence the final outcome to become "less accurate"

The principle you're generally looking for is the GIT, or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
bgeh
post Dec 16 2009, 02:00 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(empire23 @ Dec 15 2009, 09:27 PM)
Not really, Heisenberg postulated that "measurement" or "observation" would influence the final outcome to become "less accurate"

The principle you're generally looking for is the GIT, or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
*
I honestly don't think that Godel's Incompleteness Theorems actually apply to these things (well, they do, because most, if not all of physics rely on the Peano axioms for natural numbers)

I think he's talking about if a GUT/TOE can actually be found, would this mean that we'd be able to predict every single thing that will happen next? (determinism)

This post has been edited by bgeh: Dec 16 2009, 02:02 AM
lin00b
post Jun 29 2010, 10:17 AM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
thread ressurection:

it seemed that special relativity/standard model might need to be modified

neutrinos are not what we think them to be

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0258sec    0.44    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 07:38 PM