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
E=IR: If you know any two of the variables E (voltage), I (current), or R (resistance), then you can find the other
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
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.
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?
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.
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
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
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.
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?"
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.