Is this the Unified Field Theory?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


But I thought the answer was 42, not ∞.

Doesn't this belong in BTS?

[edit on 1/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


But I thought the answer was 42, not ∞.

Doesn't this belong in BTS?

[edit on 1/9/2009 by Phage]


Have anything to add that isnt making a joke of it?

Just curious.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


What's to add?
∞ says it all, doesn't it?



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


What's to add?
∞ says it all, doesn't it?


haha ok you got me


excellant point i believe you win



oh and i checked every forum in BTS and none fit this topic as good as "Science and Technology" so ya i think it should be here

dont know where else it should go



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

sorry but the infinity symbol is a symbol and no equation.

Also there has to be an explanation given with which you can do (calculate) something.

E =mc^2 doesnt mean anything without at least a specification what E, m or c physical stands for.

Just the infinitiy symbol is also no theorie. It's nighter an equation nor a theorie. It's the same like the answer 42 ..it's a pointless answer on a question like "Is this the Unified Field Theory?"

very dissapointed. I have hopped you refer to an article or something if you post something with that title in the since forum.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by g210b
 


thats what i was saying, most people (like yourself) think its just a symbol

but in fact its an equation that contains all possible variations imaginable within it

and a quantum computer calculates it, because the human mind cannot

and i dont need to link an article (thats impossible) because no one ever suggested it before

i was the first person on the internet to even propose such an idea

i think you were disappointed because you thought it would be something new, and then you saw that it was something that has been around as long as mankind itself

the physicists were asking for help on finding the smallest possible equation to describe the entire universe

and there it is ∞

please think about it for a minute before you condemn it



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
equations contains a '=' symbol.
and no i am dissapointed because you try to sell something for something that it is not.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
How is that useful, at all?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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



explain to me how string theory is useful

Please im all ears.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Those of you who have replied to this thread with the typical close-minded "everything must fit into boxes" BS are the epitome of why the question of "what is everything" will not be solved by "scientists".

Yes, it's true, the "symbol" is not an equation, but I think this poster is on to something. The scientific community would never see the possibilities of this (no pun intended), because of the fact they are looking for an equation.

Man will eventually find that all of this crap that we have come up with, such as naming every minute particle and trying to figure out "what it does" as if there are limits to what anything can do, is in vain.

Yes, most of science has a purpose to it, we need physics for engineering etc., but when it comes to understanding what makes everything work and how everything does so, WE cannot use that knowledge. Perhaps a computer would... we could make a computer capable of using the "symbol" in any equation to find the variables and render us a more reasonable understanding of things.



Face it. We can't explain everything with our "math". Not everything fits into our "boxes". 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. We can effectively use our science, physics etc. to create large things and make them work the way we want to, but we have absolutely no understanding of how the smallest parts that make up everything actually work.

You all are perpetuating our flawed system of science by saying that the "key" to the Unified Theory must be what we expect it to be. That's why our scientists are not finding the answer. They believe that they already know what it should be.

The answer, whatever it is, will be too simple for them to see. And I do think that the key will be in realizing that not everything is as "concrete" as we assume.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by eMachine]

[edit on 10-1-2009 by eMachine]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

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."



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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]





new topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join