Many scientists have searched for the "unified field theory" that will aid them in making better sense out of our understanding of physics.

Dr Michio Kaku said that it would be a very short and simple equation that could connect various fields of physics.

What if, this is the equation they are seeking??

∞

The infinity symbol.

This has been around forever, but what if it was a key element that has been overlooked?

∞ (ASCII - hold alt and press number pad keys 2 3 6)

Now the infinity symbol effectively represents the greatest possible sets of numerical values for all possible variables.

Every possible variation is included, and nothing is excluded.

They say a quantum computer will be able to calculate on a ∞ scale.

Perhaps that will be the only way to make use of this equation, is with quantum computers.

No math formula explains as much as this one does that is for sure!

Is this not the unified theory of all things???
∞

Let me know what you think.

Yes I am aware that even if this is true, it is possibly thousands of years ahead of our current technological stage.

Thanks for your time.

I will repeat in case my above post was not articulated correctly.

∞ represents every possible variation of all possible variables

how much smaller of an equation would a physicist ask for???

its 1 letter

∞

[edit on 9-1-2009 by muzzleflash]

my wife just pointed out to me

that the scientific community wont like this idea much

because
No One will get a Nobel Prize for this

its been right under our noses the whole time

equations contains a '=' symbol.
and no i am dissapointed because you try to sell something for something that it is not.

How is that useful, at all?

Originally posted by logician magician
How is that useful, at all?

explain to me how string theory is useful

Please im all ears.

Thanks.

Originally posted by g210b
equations contains a '=' symbol.
and no i am dissapointed because you try to sell something for something that it is not.

the ∞ includes an infinite amount of
" = " signs within it

think about it

In order for an equation to be an equation, it must state something. Math is not just a jumble of symbols; it is an actual language. A couple examples:

E=IR: If you know any two of the variables E (voltage), I (current), or R (resistance), then you can find the other variable.

F=mA: If you know any two of the variables F (force), m (mass), or A (acceleration), you can find the other variable.

E=mc²: Since c (speed of light in vacuum) is a known constant, if you also know the value of either e (energy) or m (mass), you can find the value of the other.

These are statements that can be used to find unknown values. It's sort of like saying "the sky during the day is blue". With that statement, you can know the color of the sky if you know the daytime status. In contrast, ∞ is not a statement; it is an incalculable value used to represent a value beyond exact calculation. It is only useful when performing higher math functions that cannot be expressed with an exact number. So instead of saying something like "the sky during the day is blue", it's like saying "blue". Nothing can be inferred, known, or calculated from that one word.

The Unified Field Theorem, by definition, will be an equation (or equations), a complete mathematical statement that allows us to determine and predict interactions between the known forces. Not simply a symbol.

TheRedneck

right, ∞ is a variable that represents a single thing. You could say that single thing is everything in existence, but that isnt useful to science. That isnt an equation or anything of the sort. It is merely a statement. If Einstein couldnt figure it out, how could you think you have?

Well it could be an equation if looked at from a diffrent perspective like:

(X)

But that would be just crazy because it only has one value x which we don't know the value of. Well maybe just so crazy it might be correct.

We don't know because we don't know the value of (X) so then how do we find the value of X?

We can't. So maybe the answer to one equation for this unified theory is not possible. But if not then the answer can't be (X) and the equation is then wrong.

OK I think I just started to give myself a headache. But interesting post to think about none the less.

Originally posted by eMachine
Actually it seems that the basic building blocks of everything more often than not defy what we think we know. They do not react the way our scientists expect. That means there is something fundamentally wrong with what we think we know.

Sadly most of them think they know everything already. And that Einstien was God and since he cant figure it out, no one can!

Sad part is, ancient man had the answer thousands of years ago.

Modern man's Ego problems prevent him from seeing that.

I dont expect many people to understand it because all of modern science makes them think its gonna be complicated. When in fact its blindingly simple.

Occams Razor
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by logician magician
How is that useful, at all?

explain to me how string theory is useful

Please im all ears.

Thanks.

You are, aren't you? All ears and no brains.

How does comparing something useless against another useless thing make the first thing any more useful?

edit: not to say that string theory is useless - just using your perspective.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by logician magician]

Originally posted by logician magician

You are, aren't you? All ears and no brains.

How does comparing something useless against another useless thing make the first thing any more useful?

edit: not to say that string theory is useless - just using your perspective.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by logician magician]

Meh... A person can have only one brain unless they've got another stashed in a jar of formaldehyde.

What we (or atleast I) gain from String Theory is that there is something alike within everything in existence. Does it have any practical use? Probably not, but it could change our perception of who we are in relation to all other things.

Changing our understanding of what ∞ really means could have the same sort of intangible effect. I think that's useful.

ETA:
What I mean is, whether or not something is "useful" is subjective. I don't think the OP was indicating that String Theory is inherently useless, but that it may be "useless" by the common definition of "can it help us blow up our enemies?"

[edit on 1/10/2009 by eMachine]