Science
Related: About this forumDoes anybody here understand GRAND UNIFIED THEORY ?
There are so many very knowledgeable folks here--- knowledgeable in many different areas...
I just wonder if anyone here actually understands this.
I am not sure I even WANT an explanation. Probably would take pages and pages.. but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)There are a lot of experts over there.
ramblin_dave
(1,546 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I am a musician. I know what five part invertible counterpoint is.
So did Mozart ! But he knew a lot more than I do.. :> )
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)PJMcK
(22,037 posts)Everybody knows what it is.
Except scientists!
(wink)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I learned that gravity travels at the speed of light!!
gibraltar72
(7,506 posts)Hokie
(4,288 posts)The Wikipedia article you linked provides a pretty good start. Also, it's probably not correct to talk about one Grand Unified Theory since there are multiple ones out there.
Once electricity and magnetism were thought to be entirely different forces. Through the work of 19th century physicists like Michael Faraday, Ampere and others it was shown that the two were related to each other. Finally James Maxwell came out with a "unified" theory of electromagnetism.
Since then physics with the discoveries of atomic theory and quantum mechanics has been moving in the direction developing a single theory that included all the forces of nature: electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the string nuclear force. First electricity, magnetism, and the weak force were unified and theory was confirmed by detecting particles that it predicted.
The GUT would go one step further and combine electromagnetism, the weak force and strong force into a single theory. Most physicists think that is the case but no GUT has been confirmed experimentally. One reason is the energies necessary to see the particles predicted are far beyond the capabilities of even the largest particle accelerators like the LHC.
Even beyond the GUT would be a theory that included gravity. gravity is nicely explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to remarkable precision but it is completely apart from quantum mechanics which seems to explain the other forces. A theory combining gravity with the other forces has been dubbed TOE or Theory of Everything. That's what some of the far out theories like string theory are trying to do.
Not an explanation but I was trying to give you the lay of the land.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)It separates the many... aspects? of it. It shows me some kind of form to follow. A trail to take.
The WIKI article was too much to start with...
I remember decades ago reading Nigel Calder's EINSTEIN'S UNIVERSE. There were wonderful moments when I 'understood' something, a lot of it.. And then, it was gone. Know what I mean? Then read Hawking, etc..
As a retired classical musician, I now have the time to delve into different disciplines that have always fascinated me..
My ex's husband is an aerospace engineer. I can sit and listen to him for hours !! All it takes is one question.. and he's off...)
Thanks so much,
Hokie
(4,288 posts)There are a lot of good YouTube videos on quantum mechanics and relativity. I love the quote "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." It believe it was Richard Feynman's. I love watching his lectures. If I had a dying wish would be to spend and evening drinking beer or a good bottle of whiskey with Feynman.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)In the 1970s i was in Ithaca, NY and had the great good fortune to spend several evenings in a restaurant listening to Carl Sagan after dinner.
Priceless experience....
I will check out Youtube....
LuvLoogie
(7,012 posts)to many of the concepts which can help one to understand this area of discussion. It pretty much is all math used to interpret reality and experience from the physical changes of state and energy of matter. As it seems that we can only conceive of this linearly, we must use the tools available to us logically, i.e. a theory of math that is based on observed experience.
In order to retain what we observe, we use time juxtaposed against observable events. Because we can observe changes in state and energy in matter, we can predict what may happen next or assume what may have come before.
Since matter and energy seem to trend toward entropy, many assume that there must have been a state of the universe that existed as a singularity that was out of time. We speak of an arbitrary beginning and end, because that is the limit of the forces that we have been able to observe or conceive of.
But I wonder if our very existence somehow keeps us from being able to discover the math. We are trying to find a bridge between our universe and another in which the square root of i applies to a real location.
But before you read Hawkings book, please go to confession and say three Hail Mary's.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)That is so perfectly clear.
Interesting - The way you presented this gives me the impression that I already knew it. The mark of a good teacher.
"But I wonder if our very existence somehow keeps us from being able to discover the math. "
This makes sense. Our existence certainly affects how we observe something. And affects what we observe.
I read Hawking many years ago (but I did not go to confession).. well, not TOO many.. I will get him off the shelf.
So you mention the square root of i.. Never thought of this before. But will explore..
Thank you,
LuvLoogie
(7,012 posts)I was always fascinated with space and math and time and matter and the nature of reality.
lastlib
(23,248 posts)rickford66
(5,524 posts)I'd love to say more right now, but I have a pizza in the oven.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Don;t look at it. It will change !!!
rickford66
(5,524 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Just looked up Heisenberg.