It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this the Unified Field Theory?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well, in that case.

I can prove ∞ is useful.

But ill be needing about 2 trillion $$$ in research grants first.

thanks




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine

blue not but hazard jest into regards John pretty Wow! must notwithstanding train energy obsolete circus

...


...


...

Understand? Of course you don't. I was 'out of the box', as you say, so why can't you understand what I typed?

You can't understand it because I didn't say anything. I was not using the language correctly to convey whatever meaning might have been intended. By the same token, just saying "∞" is just as meaningless.

Grab a tape measure and measure something. Now try to tell someone how long it is using only numbers. No units, just numbers. You can't do it. 3 inches is much different than three feet, or three millimeters, or three kilometers.

Get in a car and drive for 30 minutes at 60 miles per hour. Now can you know from that information where you will be at the end of that drive? No. You know how long and fast, so you can find out how far you went, but which direction did you go? Without that information, you cannot know where you are.

Math is a language, just like English, French, German, Chinese... and if you try to make some deeper sense out of a single word without context, as in this case, you achieve nothing except to demonstrate you do not know the language. It is somewhat like me trying to write a novel in French using only French words I have heard thrown together, not understanding what any of them meant.

Now, you do have a point as to thinking 'out of the box' is a useful concept, but there must still be a reference point of communication. You want to talk about the implications of 'i' in Einstein's Relativity equations at velocities higher than c? Hey, I'll jump into that debate! I love getting out of that box then. Want to discuss what quarks really are and why they are only found in certain situations? Sure, no problem, I'll jump out of that box.

But in every case, the language must be observed, and the language of science is mathematics. Learn to speak the language before you jump out of the box, because until you do that, you don't realize you really don't know where the box is in the first place.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


rofl. . . . if you google the meaning of life 42 is the top answer found. I always wanted to know the question though


really though ∞ would include the UFT however it may also encompass a vast amount of other data. however mathimatically it is nothing more than a symbol


Infinity (symbolically represented with ∞) comes from the Latin infinitas or "unboundedness." It refers to several distinct concepts – usually linked to the idea of "without end" – which arise in philosophy, mathematics, and theology.[1]

In mathematics, "infinity" is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is a different type of "number" from the real numbers. Infinity is related to limits, aleph numbers, classes in set theory, Dedekind-infinite sets, large cardinals,[2] Russell's paradox, non-standard arithmetic, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real numbers and the absolute Infinite.


en.wikipedia.org...

the point is that ∞ may be a symbol used in the UFT if it is ever found. The human notion of infinity encompasing everything is just that a human notion. The mathematic symbol however does not encompass everything.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


We may now use these symbols (Greek letters, infinity symbol, etc.) in modern mathematics, but that is not their origin. Ancient civilizations who used such symbols created them for language because they represented other ideas that most of the people in those societies could understand when they saw them.

That which inspired the Greek letters goes back to even earlier cultures. To us now, they mean nothing, but to those earlier peoples such a symbol represented an understanding of one thing or another. And allowed them to communicate that understanding quite simply. Many of these symbols have roots in several various civilizations.

For instance, this particular symbol that's being referred to in this thread was also found on carvings in Tibet....



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eMachine
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.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by eMachine]


The real problem in quantum mechanics is the measurement problem

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

However the measurment problem doesnt keep scientists from making varifiable discovories at the quantum level. We cant just not look because we do not understand. People say ohh it wont be discovered by scientist because they think they now what they are looking for. This sentiment is incorrect. Science based upon years and years and years of study and experiment seems to point in certain directions and it would be ludacris for the researchers not to follow the data. If you had ever heard any particle physists talk about TOE or UFT they all say ooh yes we may be completely wrong. If that is the case thay will take a new path. Get off their backs and let them science it up.

I sure would much rather follow the studies of science than the ranting preaching of the dime store philosophers.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by eMachine

What you say may well be true, but it is irrelevant to the issue discussed here. Regardless of its origin, ∞ is today a symbol (see post above by constantwonder) that is used in science and mathematics to deal with certain concepts. In the strictest sense, the meaning of ∞ is not even strictly defined, as it is beyond definition.... infinity, without end. It's only use in in theoretical math and certain areas such as limits.

That's a far cry from being a Unified Field Theorem.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder

The real problem in quantum mechanics is the measurement problem

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.



Exactly. They don't know how to interpret their observations.

I'm saying that they are limited in their breadth of vision because they're looking at things completely wrong.

I'm no scientist (obviously, as you indicated in your post), but you're saying that they think that the act of them taking a measurement of a process caused the process to change?

Assuming so, that mentality is the problem... things change without any observable cause, or perhaps the constant state is in fact change. We need to realize that there are innumerable possibilities and unlimited potential. Energy in and of itself is not restricted.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Yes the measurement problem *gags* . . . Not all physists believe that the observation has any impact there are two different camps on this idea. Those that believe the observer is necassary and those who do not. Until our equipment and experiments become sophisticated enough to find a definitive answer i wouldnt lend either much credence. The point is that science is imo our best bet on finding the age old answers we seek.

Scientificly the non-observer universe has more appeal as it doesnt dip into philosphy like the observer interpratation.

The outstanding strength of gravity to remain ununified is troubling finding the higgs boson or higgs feild may do it but dont cross your fingures. A point which makes me wonder if the op even understands what UFT and or TOE actually are

Also to adress another point. . . people see the word observer and they believe that it must be a person this however could not be further from the truth. The observer could be another particle it could be an instrument. For example the mercury in a thermometer must obsorb some thermal energy to give a reading thereby changing the temperature of the body measured... this makes the mercury the observer, making it incredibly hard to determine often what the "observer" might be. Its a rediculously hard concept to grasp, and i hope that physics can be rid of it


[edit on 10-1-2009 by constantwonder]

[edit on 10-1-2009 by constantwonder]

[edit on 10-1-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Do you even know what the unified field theory is? ∞ is not unified or a theory and has nothing to do with fields at all.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaneFonda
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Do you even know what the unified field theory is? ∞ is not unified or a theory and has nothing to do with fields at all.


not entirely true both diracs and klein gordons equations give limits of ∞ making it next to impossible to define its ground state. So in the reality of physics ∞ actually makes it much harder to pin down the unified feild theory. So OP i just destroyed your theory sorry.... time to move on


[edit on 10-1-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
video.google.com...

If you have not seen this, I recommend it highly. It is a 4 hour presentation but I found it spellbinding.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Yes, this thread may be closer to TOE than UFT, but I would completely understand the mistake. My thinking has been more along the lines of TOE honestly. That's the problem I have with science (call me simple, naive, or just plain stupid), why are so many separate theories necessary when there is one very simple facet that we are missing that would help us to explain them all?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pappie54
video.google.com...

If you have not seen this, I recommend it highly. It is a 4 hour presentation but I found it spellbinding.


Thank you. Very interesting.

I don't think I've heard of Nassim Haramein before, but after watching the first couple minutes of the linked video, I'm very curious to see what he's got to say. I'll certainly watch it completely when I can give it my undivided attention.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
No offence to anyone but Nassiem isnt the most influencial person in science today. I have watched a lot of his presentations and frankly am not impressed. I much prefer the work of people like Ed Witten, Brian Cox, Michio Kaku, Eric Cornell, Walter Lewin, Amanda Peet. All are working particle physists and have made much noise in the search for both a theory of everything and a unified feild theory



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Personally, I like a scientist who is not afraid of appearing "unscientific" among his peers.

I do value science. When I read the work of scientists like Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku, I feel "enlightened", I feel that there is order and unity in all things. The problem is, most scientists (those mentioned included) would say there is nothing at all spiritual about it.

The disparity between science and spirituality is a problem for both sides. It makes both sides inherently flawed. If scientists and religious/spiritual people could be more open and acknowledge the merits of the other, we would make more progress.

There is nothing "magical" about either.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
That is the big question isnt it. . . . Does spiriituality belong in the discussion. . . Alot of noted physists are agnostic... and are so because of the measurement problem. I dont know about your spirituality but it would make things alot simpler or alot harder if spirituality is entered into the equation.

Like i said i dont know about your spirituality but if you believe in a creator then that makes it alot more simple to explain. If you believe the other spiritual belief that we are all one and may and we create our reality "The Rabbit Hole" theory (lol) then it becomes much much much more complicated because you would have to know everyones consiousness. . . .

For good or bad i believe someday science will either find an answer or accept a "creation" type theory



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Unified Field Theory = God

You can't measure God with an instrument.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Does this have anything to do with Feynman's path integral? The infinity would be the number of possible paths between any two quantum states.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth




It was always right in front of us. Music, cycles, rhythm... An Unchained Melody if you will.



blog.myspace.com...



Main Profile: www.myspace.com...









So look into it!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join