Grand Unified Theory

[Sam Carana]

Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense? A Theory of Everything, does it make sense? Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street?

 

Sam Carana

 

 

[Sam Carana]

I see a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything first of all a theory, existing in theory, i.e. in the mind of people. Whether it makes sense in practice is another question that can be asked regarding any theory and science in general. My question is, does a GUT make sense as a theory? Should it be called a theory, and idea or a model? Or, should it not be given any name - was it perhaps better to ignore the idea?

 

Love to get some more ideas on this.

 

Sam
 

On 4/22/05, Antonio Rossin <ros...@tin.it> wrote:

Any Grand Unified Theory (GUT - of any thing, Georges)

requests being communicated, to make sense.

Perhaps, a GUT of Communication is the case, not to

remain in a dead-end-street forever.

 

Just my two cents of this Communication GUT at:

http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm

 

be well,  antonio

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epistemology/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  Epistemology...@yahoogroups.com
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Antonio Rossin]

It seems to me, maybe ignoring the idea was better, but Sam did
not so, therefore we are here to discuss it now. Not to ignore it.

Has GUT to be an idea? I think it had been such at least at start,
at least in the mind of the first people who elaborated it.

Had the GUT idea been exposed into polite understandable terms?
if so, then it becomes a theory.

Does the GUT theory present as a repeatable thinking-behaving
procedure? If so, then it becomes a model, in practice.

antonio

At 19:14 +1000 23-04-2005, Sam Carana wrote:
> I see a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything first of all
> a theory, existing in theory, i.e. in the mind of people. Whether it
> makes sense in practice is another question that can be asked
> regarding any theory and science in general. My question is, does
> a GUT make sense as a theory? Should it be called a theory, and
> idea or a model? Or, should it not be given any name - was it
> perhaps better to ignore the idea?
>
> Love to get some more ideas on this.
>
>Sam
>

>On 4/22/05, Antonio Rossin <<mailto:ros...@tin.it>ros...@tin.it> wrote:
>
>At 21:12 +1000 22-04-2005, Sam Carana wrote:
>
> > Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense?
> > A Theory of Everything, does it make sense?
> > Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street?
> >
> > Sam Carana
> >
> >
>
>
>Any Grand Unified Theory (GUT - of any thing, Georges)
>requests being communicated, to make sense.
>Perhaps, a GUT of Communication is the case, not to
>remain in a dead-end-street forever.
>
>
>Just my two cents of this Communication GUT at:

><http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm>http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm
>
>
>be well, antonio
>
>

>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>To visit your group on the web, go to:

><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epistemology/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epistemology/

>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

><mailto:Epistemology...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>Epistemology...@yahoogroups.com

>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the

><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>To visit your group on the web, go to:

><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epistemology/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epistemology/

>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

><mailto:Epistemology...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>Epistemology...@yahoogroups.com

>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the

><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[More Sense]

On 4/24/05, Antonio Rossin <ros...@tin.it> wrote:
>
> It seems to me, maybe ignoring the idea was better, but Sam did
> not so, therefore we are here to discuss it now. Not to ignore it.
>
> Has GUT to be an idea? I think it had been such at least at start,
> at least in the mind of the first people who elaborated it.
>
> Had the GUT idea been exposed into polite understandable terms?
> if so, then it becomes a theory.
>
> Does the GUT theory present as a repeatable thinking-behaving
> procedure? If so, then it becomes a model, in practice.
>
> antonio

What's the difference between ideas, theories and models? Here's my two cents.

For an idea to be a theory, it needs certain things. It would help if
it was understandable, internally consistent and abide by logic. In
short, it needs to make sense.

A model doesn't necessarily need to make sense, it just have to model
something. That something can be part of nature, but it can also be
fantasy. For something to be a good model, it needs to have a good
likelyness.

Deborah

[Sam Carana]

Thanks all for the responses. I like George's reponse, who simply replied with "a theory of what?" Indeed, let's see "what" the GUT claims to refer to and if it really is a theory in the first place. To assess this, we need something more tangible than a name, and much is still lacking as far as I see it. What we have right now is something that's referred to as a theory, but the actual substance of the theory still needs a lot of work, if achievable at all in the first place. So, I would agree that it's probably better - for the time being, at least - to refer to it as the Quest for a Garnd Unified Theory, or QGUT.
 

Nevertheless, taking the above into account, some people seem to claim to make progress with the QGUT, although I'm not one of them. Personally, I see some epistemological arguments for objecting against the very idea of a GUT, such as that such a quest falsely gave the impression that the complexity of reality could ever be captured in the simplicity of a single theory.

 

Perhaps the deeper question is, how does this fit in with "Occam's Razor"? Is science a quest to simplify things? If so, does such simplification have inherent limits that would put a GUT beyond reach? Just questions at this stage and I do hope to get some responses.

 

Best regards,

 

Sam
 

[kimmy]

Until someone derives a method of teaching people how to communicate
"perfectly", through a perfect language or perhaps by telepathy, all
theory will perhaps remain theory. I do not see why humans cannot
develope this skill, it seems some have special skills such as this
already. Perhaps I am getting off the subject. I have participated in
my own research on this subject and found their are certin people I can
communicate in an ease of motion than others. But the majority of the
time, I am misunderstood. I have pondered this situation and have made
strides in developing my "social" skills, however I am finding that it
"takes two to tango". I have a theory on everything but most find my
theories those of a "mad scientist". Oh well, I still try. I have had
the attitude of "societies loss", but given the gift or curse of my
mind, I feel the need to continue to try to make people listen, rather
understand, i.e. feel my thoughts as I do of scientists past and
present.

[Sam Carana]

On 4/27/05, Antonio Rossin <ros...@tin.it> wrote:

At 15:33 +0000 26-04-2005, tonguessy wrote:

> Any Grand Unified Theory (GUT - of any thing, Georges)
> requests being communicated, to make sense.

> be well,  antonio

No theory needs to be communicated to make sense. It makes sense or it
doesn't make any sense according personal experiences. Your +A-B>C
theory doesn't make any sense to me (and to others too) despite all
your attempts to communicate it. But it keeps making sense to you.
Does this mean that in makes an "absolute" sense?

Best regards

Tonguessy

No. It means that it makes sense in relation only to those people who

awarely feel they are in need of the change it eventually implies.

 

I cannot but congratulate with you for the self-sufficient world you

live in -- Absolute Metaphysics included, of course, in your case.

 

antonio

 

But for people to assess whether it made sense, a theory needed to be communicated first. Without communicating an idea, the one who dreams it up may believe it makes sense, but that doesn't mean that it does. In fact, if it's original, people haven't even thought about it, let alone determined whether or not it made any sense. In conclusion, for a theory to make sense, it must be communicated first.

 

Sam

 

 

[Sam Carana]

Hi Tonguessy,

 

What you say doesn't make sense to me, yet we're communicating at some basic level.
 

On 4/27/05, tonguessy <me...@pd.infn.it> wrote:

>  But for people to assess whether it made sense, a theory
> needed to be communicated first. Without communicating
> an idea, the one who dreams it up may believe it makes
> sense, but that doesn't mean that it does. In fact, if it's 
> original, people haven't even thought about it, let alone
> determined whether or not it made any sense. In conclusion,
> for a theory to make sense, it must be communicated first.
>  Sam

I disagree. Try to communicate the theory of equal rights in the Germany or Italy of the 30's and see how sensible it becomes.

 

Fear may indeed be a good reasonb to be silent. But eventually, it will come out that people have been deceived and that what they have been indoctrinated with didn't make sense and you will be able to reveal your theory, which hopefully does make more sense. Eventually, no dictatorship can withstand ideas that make sense.

I may have a theory that i don't like to discuss because i've come to the conclusion that no one cares about it here. How can you know that it doesn't make sense?

 

If I do not know anything about it, then I cannot determine whether it made sense or not. You're just confirming what I already said.

It may be useless for your needs, meaningless for you logic, but it's just YOUR perception.

 

I don't know anything about it, not whether it was useless, meaningless or anything else, because you failed to communicate.  

Not mine. Do i hold the right to have meaningful and useful theories for myself without the need of any official certification (social, political, economical, philosophical, neurological etc..) or not?

 

You can claim it did make sense, but you cannot expect us to either agree or disagree with that, because we wouldn't know what you're talking about.  

We can talk about WHY and HOW we communicate, i'm afraid we can hardly talk about WHAT we can communicate.

 

We, as long as you refuse to communicate, there's very little to talk about, other than that. Why and how you do that is even further beyond reach.

This the great lesson of the Theater of the Absurd. And Krishnamurti too.

Best regards

Tonguessy

 

What you say doesn't make sense.

 

Nevertheless, best regards too,

Sam

[Antonio Rossin]

At 15:06 +1000 27-04-2005, Sam Carana wrote:

I fully agree on this point of yours, Sam. To deepen further
the "Communication" topic, let me add that the Effectiveness of
Communication depends on the listener rather than the speaker.
To wit, if I said the same "intelligent" piece of information to a
public made with an intelligent fellow and an idiot, the first does
understand and the second does not -- but the piece of info was
equal to both. Not only, but also the intelligent fellow can feel
prompted even by a non sense, whilst the idiot is very unlikely
to be prompted by any significant news. I enlarged this topic in
a 1994 paper of mine, "the Effectiveness of Communication",
free at http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/effectiveness.htm

antonio

[Sam Carana]

I agree that, in order to find out whether the GUT made sense, we need to explore further what constitutes communication. Can science exist without communication? Is science more than communication? Those are subsequent questions, but firstly, what is communication.

 

To further explore this, let's look at the following conundrum. Someone sends a letter, but for whatever reason, the letter never arrives in the hands of the person it's send to. Is this communication? If a letter that never arrives is read by a postman who seeks in vain to deliver it, does that make it communication?
 

I look forward to answers and thoughts by all of you regarding the conundrum if the letter that never arrives. Is it communication?

 

Sam
 

On 4/28/05, Antonio Rossin <ros...@tin.it> wrote:

At 15:06 +1000 27-04-2005, Sam Carana wrote:

>On 4/27/05, Antonio Rossin <<mailto: ros...@tin.it>ros...@tin.it> wrote:
>
>At 15:33 +0000 26-04-2005, tonguessy wrote:
>
>>  > Any Grand Unified Theory (GUT - of any thing, Georges)
>>  > requests being communicated, to make sense.
>>
>>  > be well,  antonio
>>
>>No theory needs to be communicated to make sense. It makes sense or it
>>doesn't make any sense according personal experiences. Your +A-B>C
>>theory doesn't make any sense to me (and to others too) despite all
>>your attempts to communicate it. But it keeps making sense to you.
>>Does this mean that in makes an "absolute" sense?
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Tonguessy
>>
>No. It means that it makes sense in relation only to those people who
>awarely feel they are in need of the change it eventually implies.
>
>
>I cannot but congratulate with you for the self-sufficient world you
>live in -- Absolute Metaphysics included, of course, in your case.
>
>
>antonio
>
>
>  But for people to assess whether it made sense, a theory
>  needed to be communicated first. Without communicating

>  an idea,the one who dreams it upmay believe it makes sense,

>  but that doesn't mean that it does. In fact, if it's original, people
>  haven't even thought about it, let alone determined whether or
>  not it made any sense. In conclusion, for a theory to make
>  sense, it must be communicated first.
>
>  Sam
>

[kimmy]

I have found the best way to communicate with the general public is to
be straight to the point without using "big" words they may or may not
understand. I stay away from symantics, ie topics or points that I
already know are futile to discuss with certain people. Reading people
is a key point of this.
There are too many people with too big of an ego to even bother
wasting time with. It is quite a heartbreaking discovery. Also I think
that the evolution of a theory can be skewed over time, resulting in an
error in communicating theory.
I do not quite understand Antonio's opinions, does it make me an idiot?
To Antonio, I am sure it would. To the people who actually know me, it
would be percieved that Antonio is the same type of person who
critiques books or movies. Always dropping names, and bashing people
without first trying to understand in his own way. Third party
mediators are keys in helping people understand. Art is understood by
selected people, who can get in the mind of the artist and feel what
was trying to express. Don't get me wrong, there exists tons of art
that is beyond my perception! Perhaps someone may take the time to
explain them.
Human understanding envelopes many factors. Psychology, philosophy,
biology, chemistry, etc. In each of these subjects there are millions
of factors that a single persons understanding is derived from. What
science can do is eventually develope a formula to explains why a
person thinks the way he does. Beyond that, it could bring to light
what factors can be introduced to further understanding. Yet all this
depends upon the scientists own understanding which could again be
flawed.
The existance of perfect understanding is what humans can strive for.
Even with the gifts of past great minds in the above topics, it leads
to only more questions. Building on the past is one form of
developement. However, it keeps a person stuck on points that are
incapable of actually understanding by that particular person, through
little fault of his own. Attaining intelligence based on your own
ability to learn seems to be more of a clear way to develope. But it is
not up to you since you do not have control over it until you reach a
certain age (the age of your own ability to choose what you learn).
Which brings me to a point, the way we learn in this country (USA) is
so ridiculous, I am surprised anyone has sense! And it is all derived
from our economy and politics, and all their ways of understanding.
A sense of humor can take you really far in understanding. Laughing at
how simple things actually are is the best way to hold onto your
sanity.
After the age of coming into the realization that you are capable of
learning, it is up to each individual to expand his knowledge. It is a
beautiful thing to witness children thirst for knowledge, we all know
they ask millions of questions.
I am sorry I speak cryptic, but it is all I can do. It is not up to me
to make sure you understand. Yes, in this sense I must agree with
Antonio.
My first husband could never understand what I was talking about, and I
consider him extremely intelligent. And no matter how much I would try
to explain things he simply would just not get it. Thus, we realized an
amazing thing.
And we laugh about it so much now.

[Sam Carana]

Hi Kimmy,

 

Below I respond to selected parts of your wonderful post. I hope I haven't taken things out of context.

 

On 4/29/05, kimmy <teagu...@gmail.com> wrote:

<skip> ...  Also I think that the evolution of a theory can be skewed over time, resulting in an error in communicating theory.  .....

 

Good point, I do believe that we should not look at scientific or other theories in isolation from communication.

<skip> ...Attaining intelligence based on your own ability to learn seems to be more of a clear way to develop. But it is not up to you since you do not have control over it until you reach a certain age (the age of your own ability to choose what you learn). Which brings me to a point, the way we learn in this country (USA) is so ridiculous, I am surprised anyone has sense! And it is all derived from our economy and politics, and all their ways of understanding. .....

 

I fully agree! What children are supposed to learn constitutes indoctrination with one specific political view that comes with the political system that happens to execrize most control over society. Much time is spent on parading kids over schoolground, dressing them up in uniforms and making them recite pledges, singing national anthems and the like. It's part of a specific political message that seeks to mould children into a specific straitjacket.

 

Interestingly, most people will acknowledge the cosmetic parts of this doctrine, such as the uniforms, the marching in rows and the obeying of commands of the teacher. With some prodding, they will acknowledge that certain values are contained in sport. However, few people will acknowledge that the same values are also embedded in the wider academic curriculum and in subject matter related to science, maths, etc. The latter indoctrination is much more insidious, as it seeks to plant the idea into children's head that out of a number of alternatives, only one is the rightful one. The glorification of the idea of absolute Truth, good versus evil, etc, is part and parcel of the way subjects like science and maths are taught in school.

 

To improve this situation, we need to reduce government's grip over education. I've had long discussions about educational vouchers, which seem a step in the right direction. But the full picture is that we should not look at education in isolation, but seek reform as a package that also includes changes in things like financial and security services.

 

Sam

[kimmy]

This happens to be a great country. Now if only we could rid ourselves
of certain aspects and build upon what is left we could have a
beautiful country.
I do not think it is government control in our schools that causes a
problem. I think the way our society functions is the problem. Take
teachers for example. They went through the education system. For some
reason or another they decided to be a teacher. Some are actually in it
for great reasons, to teach children. There are alot who went to
college to become something else but for many reasons just said, "well,
I will just be a teacher". But you do not have to take a psychological
exam to be a teacher like you do when you work at a nuclear plant. You
do not have to desire to improve childrens minds, you just have to have
a BS in something.
What would benefit is actually making "teaching" as prestigious as a
doctor or lawyer. Just an example, I do not hold lawyers in high
regaurd.
What I am trying to explain seems like it would take me a year. So let
me just say this, to improve our society we would first have to reverse
ourselves then start from a good point and move ahead, because
somewhere in the history of this great nation we have gone terribly
wrong. The blame cannot be placed on just the government. In fact, no
blame needs to be implemented.
The more I dive into my theories on life, the more difficult it is to
explain my opinions. It is due to the fact that everything is
intertwined, and I am starting in the middle. The first topic to
discuss would have to be a family unit. More so the role of individuals
in that unit. With all this "women's rights" hoopla, the family unit
has suffered. I hate the fact that I am a woman in modern day America.
I have to be "wonder woman"!
As a woman, I feel my role in life is to raise children and take care
of my husband. This is actually something good. But in my quest for
this, I have found men with different opinions. They have believed
responsibilities are to be equal. So, I have worked, raised children,
and pretty much filled every role in the head of the household. Which
has lead to problems. If I am doing everything, why do I keep a man
that just goes to work, and expects me to work and have dinner ready
when he gets home, not to mention a clean house. So, I rid myself of
him. I already do it all, right?
I am a firm believer that a woman's place is at home, for most women.
Men are confused, women are confused and there are millions of problems
that rise from this. The children suffer. And the cycle continues.
People have tons of personal problems that need to be addressed before
work on overall society can even be considered. Perhaps general society
would improve simply by solving these problems.
Go back to the teacher. Say the teacher now has a great home life. She
isn't destracted at her job now, thus she can focus on what is
important at her job, encouraging her students to find their passion in
life. The children find their passion at a young age and grow into some
of the most brilliant scientists, enginneers, doctors, artists, etc.
that the world has ever seen! Instead of a few who would have excelled
on their own, it could be every one.
Reverse the snowball!
Let's say most of the women in the country quit their jobs to focus on
raising children, (uh, biology-duh) whether at home or in a community,
like a school. While the men worked, women are working to, but together
with other women towards a common goal. I strongly believe that it
would become a great thing. Many stresses would be lifted. Ok, I am
dreaming again.
I cannot explain every aspect in this small space. Sorry. Try to read
between the lines.
Live your life according to your own beliefs. Most of all, be happy.
And if you are not happy, figure out why and change it. THERE is NO
point to live a miserable life. It perpetuates misery in the people you
interact with. Gee, thanks!
Fill your role according to your biology, stop fighting it!
"The unexamined life is not worth living".

[Sam Carana]

On 4/30/05, Justin Sindorf <Poecilo...@msn.com> wrote:

  This Grand Unified Theory thread seems to be a 'free-for-all'.  I myself am included. 

 

Sam: Well, yes and no. It depends of course on what your ideas are of a GUT. Personally, I believe that the entire education system as we know it is based on a GUT, the theory that government always knows better. In that sense, school teaches kids a GUT and it's our duty to question that.

 

Sam:

What children are supposed to learn constitutes
indoctrination with one specific political view that comes with the
political system that happens to execrize most control over society.

Justin:

  If you live in the United States, or Europe this seems to be a statement that comes from the nuerotic, and paraniod culture.  Though I'm wondering are you referring to the curriculum, or the content of it.

 

Sam: I'm referring to both the subject matter being taught at school (and University, for that matter) and the education system as it's organized all around the world.
 

Sam:

 Interestingly, most people will acknowledge the cosmetic parts of this
doctrine, such as the uniforms, the marching in rows and the obeying of
commands of the teacher.

 

Justin:

  Are you actually suggesting that the teacher should not have control of their classes? 

 

Sam: I propose that we remove the grip of government from education, as part of a broader reform package.

 

Sam:

With some prodding, they will acknowledge that certain values are contained in sport.

 

Justin:

  This is a good thing.

 

Sam: It's good if they acknowledge the bad values of sport. School glorifies sport and in the process teaches many bad values. It's time we recognize this openly.

 

Sam:

The glorification of the idea of absolute Truth, good versus evil, etc, is part
and parcel of the way subjects like science and maths are taught in school.

 

Justin:

  Perhaps you might wonder how it is that we should glorify relativism.  Are you an absolute relativist too?  In fact we might as well disband schools altogether, as each child will think differently about what is the best life for them, and some(or most) may choose that going to school is not what is best for them at all. 

 

Sam: If their parents agree that homeschooling is the better choice, than government shouldn't violate the rights of such a family.  

 

Sam:

To improve this situation, we need to reduce government's grip over
education.

 

Justin:

  Please explain, and spare me the conspiracy theories. 

 

Sam: As said, I propose that we remove the grip of government from education, as part of a broader reform package. Conspiracy? Government bureaucrats don't need to do so in secret, they openly do so and flaunt it as well. Are you suggesting that the grip that government exercizes over education wasn't real? Government spends huge amounts of money to fund public schools, as well as many other educational institutions. Government controls what is being taught at public schools and further influences things by regulating many trades and professions, requiring specific certificates, diplomas and degrees from approved institutions. Government further endorses this system as an employer, by funding specific research and development projects, and by influencing the market through its purchasing power, by the threat of regulating, handing out licences, etc. This is no conspiracy, it's reality.

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 4/30/05, kimmy <teagu...@gmail.com> wrote:

...Let's say most of the women in the country quit their jobs to focus on raising children, (uh, biology-duh) whether at home or in a community, like a school. ..

 

Yes, the GUT of government control is very much manifest in offices and other workplaces. But why quit your job when you can work from home and raise your children from home as well, through homeschooling. Much work can easily be done from home, one just needs a computer, a telephone line and a desk. I do see a great future for that. That way, parents can ensure their children are educated in the way they want, without their children being indoctrinated with the GUT preached at school.
 

Sam

[jrichard]

Sam,

First of all, there is no GUT in or behind the education system. Our
system teaches the pieces, students won;t have an opporunity to
approach Chaos or Complexity until college.

I think you are confusing your concepts here.

Second, I would point out that your comment largely ignored Kimmy's
rather long and thoughtful post. You asserted your view into a snippet
of her words and didn't address what she was saying at all.

Why do you do this?

[zinnic]

In this thread your posts transform from an attempt to 'epistomologize'
on the concept of a scientific GUT into a political rant about your
imagined educational GUT presently imposed by the government. It is
obvious that you have very strong GUT feelings on public education but
you do little to inform as to how "a broader reform package" could
operate without govenment involvement. You imply that private,
parochial and parental schooling would, in the absense of public
schooling, provide our country with future generations of 'right
thinking' (IMO not freethinking!) citizens who somehow would arrive at
a magical consensus that will guarantee the formation of a 'better'
society. Do you believe that no members of our society will be
disadvantaged by the absence of compulsory public education, or do you
believe that school taxes should be abolished and that all parents
should be fiscally responsible for the education of their own
children?.
Regards...Zinnic

[peterball8]

Not only does a GUT make sense, it is REQUIRED, in order that the
UNIVERSE make sense. At present, there are two, and ONLY two theories
that have been tested, and proved correct under all possible
(realistically testable) conditions: quantum mechanics (QM) and
relativity. QM is the theory of the very small (at the atomic level),
and its answers are in the terms of probable expected results - no QM
answer is ever totally exact - it's always a horse race (that's why
Einstein hated QM). On the other hand, and in contrast, the theory of
relativity, or the theory of the very large, gives exact answers.
These two results are incompatible - answers in terms of probilities
and answers that are exact are incompatible. If the universe is
governed by a single law, or set of laws, this incompatibility of
results must be resolved. So people have been struggling to reconcile
the two by some process that "merges" them. And although some theories
seem promising (string theory), the concept (a requirement for
multidimensionality) is hard to swallow. Is there progress? Right now -
who knows? Things re VERY complicated, and it don't seem that it's
going to get any simpler. But they're trying. Wish them luck.

[souvi...@gmail.com]

A Grand Unified Theory is the tentative name given to any model of
unification between the Strong and Electroweak interactions of particle
physics. We understand the electroweak and strong interactions
theoretically and to very high precisions in experiments today. (People
make a living out testing these theories to extreme precision, and it
stands the test in every corner of the world -- so certainly it has a
large grain of objective truth about the structure of reality
independent of our communication.)

Whether it makes sense to look for such a unification comes from
something known to particle physicists as 'Chiral Anomalies'. It turns
out that there are very simple relationships between the quantum
numbers of colour and electroweak charges that cancel out in problems
of chirality in quantum field theory. No one knows why.

That is why we suspect there is a grand unifying theory underlying our
present understanding.

Then of course, we will have to think about gravity, and if at all in
needs to be unified.

At any rate, a Theory of Everything is just a tentative name for a
theory that unifies the *fundamental forces* of nature. It will, of
course, not explain directly why snowflakes form the way they do, or
why the stocks fluctuate or how turbulence behaves and other questions
of complexity.

[iamalberty]

I know very little about the topic , but like to participate.
Should we consider so many forces at all to explain the whole universe
?
or the force that started it all , from which up on combinations, all
the other chain of space -time events and as a result , the paths of
all the energy and hence all the forces as we measure ?
If at all there are many forces to be applied on the same matter /
energy then it must be the "inherent" ability of all the energy /
matter to respond to the so called forces. so it can be viewed that ,
if the forces shape the universe as it is , then they must have shaped
the initial universe , and before that. so if we consider the big bang
there should be one or more singularities , that must eventually give
rise to the thing in which we are today. Then we can trace back in time
to the initial stages of the universe before the big bang that a force
triggered the whole and from then on all the forms of matter / energies
came in to scene.
so as far as my knowledge is concerned , what is to be developed is the
apparatus, whether mathematical or mental , inorder to find the origins
of all the energies and there by finding a single form of energy which
using these operators combine with itself inorder to give us a
spectacular view in the night and me to join this group!

Due to lack of knowledge in the field , except interest , excuse me for
the message if it seems silly to you.

[goozlefotz]

Your message is not silly. I suppose that a greater knowledge of the
field would have changed your terminology somewhat, but your question
has never been answered and may never be answered. Science is good at
telling us "how", but not "why". If the Big Bang was indeed a
singularity, the possibility of science being able look behind that
point seems remote.

Dave G

[iamalberty]

Thanks for your reply.
Big Bang Arises only when there is calmness in the history of it.So if
Big bang is to be treated as the cause, then we are talking about a
**bang** or abrupt change of one quantity with respect to other.So the
first quantity seems to be calm before the bang .. but here before
something is bringing the concept of time .. as the way we see history
is on the time scale. So before big bang .. there was nothing defined
in our history, if we consider history in the time scale and a bang of
quantity if we constrain its proportions to space.
What i feel is, big bang , if we take the space - time in to
consideration can be justified, atleast the name. So , singularities
are constraints of one quantity to 0 scale in space and a bang is
constraint of one event to 0 scale in time.
For example , if we start counting the years from the birth of CHRIST,
and call it 0th year , then all the mathematics of calendars would not
have described the events before HIS birth.but coming to reality ,
there are events before HIM and after HIM and no abrupt change have
taken place, at least in the physics of space-time. But a radical
change have started in the minds of many people through generations,
starting from 0 th year.
If we can view this on a chart , the change in the minds of people ,
started from the 0 th year, which implies a big bang in the thoughts .
But there are other aspects too . So a big bang with in certain
variables need not be considered as a big bang in the other
variables.All these variables are for our convenience only( for
perception and mathematical ease, atleast).so what i feel is , once we
see that **energy** ( another variable !!) is always the same and it
changed forms , as if our thoughts(about the belief and religion as in
the above example) have been transforming on the dimensions of our 1.
communication 2.storage.
So a theory of everything need to be explained on the basis of taking
all the variables not only what we have created for our ease but, all
the **variables** , also should it encapsulate some absolute character
into its definitions rather than relativistic.
May be it is not so remote to crack it .. philosophically.

[shughart7]

Theory is not an idea. It is scientific fact. The theory of General
Relativity is not just some guys idea. It is real and is held as true
untill disproven. Like the Big Bang Theory. It is not just someone's
idea about what may have happened. It actually happened and is
ezcepted as true untill it can be proven to not be. Scientific Laws,
cannot be disproven. They are true in every aspect. Theories are
pretty mush laws, in that they are excepted as fact untill disproven.
I am not just making this up. This is how the scientific community
defines it. Do some research and you'll find out for youself; that's
what i did. Just Thought I'd clear that up. Oh yea, and scientists
are SEARCHING for a theory of everything so far its "strings" (if you
know what i mean).

[gratia]

As true students of physics should know, the GUT you refer to is,
indeed, a scientific theory klnown as The Unified String Theory,
proposed by Einstein.. In order to see the mathematics and physics
behind it, just do a Google search.

[shughart7]

Was Sring Theory proposed by Einstein? I'm not positive. I have the
Elegant Universe on DVD (very very good movie about String Theory; it
was on PBS awhile ago; it is very well made). I do know that he had
trouble accepting Quantum Mechanics. Now that i think about it, i'm
sure he did come up with the idea, but he could never proved it (he
passed away before he had a chance). Good post though. I agree with
what you said though, about how true students of physics should know
what the GUT refers too.