Zaz is right. Abra is a little behind the times.

String theory had everyone excited for awhile because it seems to answer some questions about gravity and quantum behavior. The problem with string theory is that as it was studied, different versions of it sprang up that worked mathematically. I forget at the moment but I think five unique versions of string theory were published and found to be mathematically sound. The really big problem was that the five different versions mutually contradicted each other and each proved the others were wrong. They all pretty much claimed that there were the usual four space/time dimensions and six additional dimensions that allowed matter and energy to connect, interact, and generally work.

Folks argued about "who was right" for years, to no avail. One guy, Edward Witten, was "beat up" and "picked on" by the other theorists until he eventually showed that, by adding the additional dimension (the eleventh dimension or the "one ring that binds them all", the conflicts in the other theories dropped out of the equations, the overall model was simplified, and appears to have a elegant solution.

The newest version (which I posted here last week) adds another dimension to make the overall package even tighter but strongly indicates the possibility of reverse time travel.

The accidental touching of two membranes by the ebb and flow of energy could have resulted in the big bang. The large hadron collider Zaz mentioned about is a small way to try to recreate the conditions which existed shortly (very very very shortly) after the big bang and allow us to see a tiny window of possibilities.

I'm not convinced that there are any descrepancies.

General Relativity models spacetime.

At the quantum scale spacetime breaks down.

Where's the descrepancy?

It may actually turn out that there are two distincly differnence 'phases' of existence.

After all, can anyone show me their warranty that says that the universe must necessarily be able to be described by a unified theory?

Perhaps that whole idea is nothing more a wet dream of men?

This would be like demanding that you have one "Law of physics" for water.

So you make up the laws of physics for liquid water.

Then it turns to ICE and you're laws BREAK DOWN.

So?

What do you do? You make up a whole new set of laws for how it behaves as ICE.

Then when it turns to steam you are frustrated again.

So you make up a whole new set of laws for how it behaves as a steam.

Then someone comes along and say, "Where there MUST be a unified theory that will describe water in all three states SIMULTANEOUSLY!"

Why?

We have no such law.

So why should the universe be any different?

General Realtivity describes the large scale behavior.

Quantum Mechanics describes the small scale behavior.

And there is NO WAY to unify them!

That's just an absurd wet dream of men.

It may very well not be doable.

I'm not saying that is isn't doable.

I'm just saying that it might not be doable.

Where's the written warranty that says that the universe must comply to this wet dream of men?

Actually I'm surprised that I'm not completely lost altogether to be perfectly honest about it.

Sometimes I feel like the zombie that missed my own funeral.

Have they found the Higgs yet?

I thought that was supposed to be something the LHC should be able to do without a hitch.

I don't even have TV here. Just NPR radio with static and dial-up Internet.

I will be the first to admit that I do not completely understand it... Researching it has led to an obvious sense that there exists a lack of mathematical 'knowledge' in my mind.

Would I be correct in saying that one could replace the value of c with any number and the equations themselves, and all of the underlying ones as well, would still 'work'?

I don't keep up with the news but I would be willing to bet that they have not and never will find the Higgs.

If the find 'something' it will be some kind of black hole of energy and they will probably re-define the Higgs to match what they actually did find.

Right I tend to take this approach. Its about context.

Yes all of the standard module of physics is wrong if you decide to try to answer ultimate questions like what caused the big bang, we have not consolidated the physics into a whole, but each piece still does a good job of representing specific states of matter, energy, fields, motion and space.

Great thread guys, wish I had time to really read all the posts, ill try to come back bye later.

Being in a band is really sapping my spare time these days.

Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The cop says, "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg says, "No, but I know where I am."



Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976)

German physicist. One of the founders of the quantum theory, he is best known for his uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to determine with high accuracy both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle like the electron.

. . . . And Heisenberg's wife was unhappy becuase when her husband had the time he didn't have the energy, and when he had the position he didn't have the momentum.

Polish physics.....two wrongs don't make a right...but, three lefts do.