I imagine it's something about unified theory
Yeah, "grand unified theory", to distinguish unified theories that include gravity and all the other known forces. So loop quantum gravity isn't a GUT, and nor are supersymmetric theories that unify all forces except gravity. However, if one of those works, it's better than a GUT that you can't do much with, which explains some people's attitude to string theory!
GUT= Grand Unification Theory, The theory behind the fundamental or "superforce", found at the Grand Unification Point, where Gravitational, Electroweak, and the strong nuclear forces are equivalent.
To quickly interjet, what is the validity of unifying the 4 fundemental forces, when all theory strongly supports a 5th (and why not a 6th) force?
Logic tells me the GUT would need to be rewritten
For all you dreamers:
String Theory is goobly gook as a GUT or relevent to a ToE. It has practicable applications only.
We all know none of it ever be tested nor verified.
The plank scale my friend, that is what limits the number of fundamental forces. And the unified force would be a fifth force, true. But I posted at the start of all of this that we would be discussing the unknowable, so discuss theories all you want, but imagination belongs to it's owner.
Irvine, Calif., August 15, 2016 – Recent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journalPhysical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, Irvine.
The plank scale my friend, that is what limits the number of fundamental forces. And the unified force would be a fifth force, true. But I posted at the start of all of this that we would be discussing the unknowable, so discuss theories all you want, but imagination belongs to it's owner.
What's limited is your thinking.
'Einstein'.. got it ''Right'.. {I believe}, when he said - "We once got-it-wrong, to divide 'energy' into 'matter.' - It is ALL 'Energy'! .. With 'matter' being 'energy'.. In its' 'lower' vibrational state."
Ps. -- Another, 'morsel' for thought - In each of us.. {the 'non-physical'}.. We are All, {small}, 'orbs' of conscious energy - That are both, differentiated, from each other - While simultaneously, having elements, of 'common' basic, {Initiator}, purposes-and-quests.. If, in directions, that aren't necessarily, in complete 'agreement'.. Re. specificity.
To quickly interjet, what is the validity of unifying the 4 fundemental forces, when all theory strongly supports a 5th (and why not a 6th) force?
Logic tells me the GUT would need to be rewritten
You are correct. A GUT now needs to include the force of dark energy. It is also possible that there are other forces we don't know about (it may be that inflation requires a sixth force, some say dark energy may be enough, but I don't see how). But physicists can only talk about unifying what they know about. If something else appears, all well and good!
I tend to agree that unified forces are in a sense new forces, but they are forces which include the forces we know as low energy manifestations.
Eg, for the best example of a unification, there is an electroweak force which is rather well understood and the properties of this force make it split into two separate forces at normal energies. This is pretty weird, since the weak nuclear force is passed by very heavy particles, two of which are charged, and the electromagnetic force is passed by a single massless particle, the photon, but I believe what those physicists tell me.
Of course there was the earlier unification of the magnetic and electric forces, achieved by James Clerk Maxwell. We can now see that this unification was the result of the fact that the world is actually a relativistic one, and electric and magnetic fields are parts of a single four vector, which means that transformations can "rotate" one of them into the other (like space and time).
Note that the 4-vector including electric charge has three other components representing the current, and it is currents that create magnetic fields. So if you have a current, you can use special relativity to transform to a frame where the current is zero, and all you have left then is an electric field - the original magnetic field has been transformed into this.
There is a similarity between this classical unification and all those of particle physics, that what has happened is that some fundamental symmetries allow us to transform things that look different normally into each other. The Lorentz group does the job for electromagnetism. SU(2) x U(1) does it for electroweak unification.
news just in:
hawking suicidal after giving up string theory dead end
Imagine when eyes haven't exist between creatures.There must be pros and cons concerning their world.
"Deepak Chopra".. is, a 'god' - Actually.. we All are.. {I think}.. Ie. "Is it Not written, in your Law, 'ye are gods' "? .. {'JC' - John 10:34}
One of Elroch's best synopsis. Good job.
A quick summary reveals (from The Trouble With Physics) Five Great problems in Theoretical Physics to be solved.
1. The problem of quantum gravity.
2. Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
3. Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundemental entity.
4. Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature.
5. Explain dark matter and energy. Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales.
That is a good summary of some of the biggest questions.
My first thought was I'd probably drop number 2 - QM can be axiomatised satisfactorily. Having thought of this, a little research indicates why a version of this question deserves a place on this list. In fact there's a million dollars available for someone who can solve a key question).
From same:
Problem 2. Resolve the problems in the foundations of quatum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense. Several ways one might do this.
1. Provide a sensible language for the theory
2. Find a new interpretation
3. Invent a new theory.
Unfortunately, not many physicists work on this problem. This is sometimes taken as an indication that the problem is either solved or unimportant. Neither is true. This is probably the most serious problem facing modern science. It is just so hard, progress is very slow.
Re. the " 'Yang-Mills, Existence'.. and 'Mass- Gap' " 'problem'.. {or postuation}.. Without knowing, much about this ..If it has defied being 'proved' one-way-or-the-other - It Could be related, to.. {by force-of-circumstances} - Us, Being confined, to a tiny 'metaphorical' corner, of our universe ..{and, with its' Own dimensional limitations} - Whilst, the prized-and-elusive 'Answer'.. Conceivably, might require, having access, to a 'Grand- Overview' observational ability - That, are usually reserved for the 'Gods' - Whether hypothetical, or not!
Ie.- The same principle, for our inadequacy/inability? .. for definitively coming up, with, the Answer, to Any number, of 'physics'/'higher-math' problems.. Is that, we boastful humans, like-to-think, that the 'CERN' laboratory.. is Really something! ..{and, in-a-way it is}.. But, what about, what might be its' 500 yrs. {or more}, into-the-future, multi-generational, successor!? o:
I mean nuclears. Don't be in a hurry to lose your virginity.