Talk:Unified field theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh needs references and probably more sections or better presentation of the text Snailwalker | talk 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Miscellania 2 One thing missing 3 Quantum Gravity. 4 Quack Theories 5 Heim Theory 6 Theory of Everything 7 Needs cleanup and fact-checking 8 Merge from Grand unification theory

[edit] Miscellania

There are many theories out there, all of them with questions left to answer. The Unified Theory (Theory of everything) should not have any unanswered questions left, no exceptions AND explain everything. The only theory that would do that is the theory that can explain and make one understand that 'everything equals nothing'. That theory is there... no wave stuff or formulas, no limited dimensions, none of that 'scientific' stuff AND no phantom allmighty god either, just an explanation of process and description of everything and nothing. It's the OMNI theory and the author is Robert Badoux. It is described in the book: The Face of God, The Unified theory.

Caroline Thompson 10:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC): Hi Robert, I've deleted stuff on TIME, SPACE and tensors and altered the link to my site to a link to a PWA paper. As written, the article seems to imply that what you are describing is the Wave Structure of Matter theory of Milo Wolff. It is in fact your own theory. Can you make this clearer?

I still don't understand why the fact that it explains Mach's principle (a point on which I agree!) means that it has to be a "relative motion" theory. It is surely basically an aether theory?

Caroline Thompson 10:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC): Further thoughts: What you need, I think, is to wait until you've finished the Wave Structure Matter page, preferably in a manner agreed within the WSM group, then use this as your main link.

[edit] One thing missing

I am not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV. In fact, this all very much baffles me, though I find it very interesting. That disclaimer aside, I found this article failed to address quickly and directly the problem, which is the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is simply not made clear here. Digging into the four forces individually is necessary certainly, but showing the division upfront right in the intro would clarify this a lot to poor confused people like me. Something like the first paragraph here right in the introduction would be very helpful. --Steven Fisher 08:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Gravity.

Some time ago, I watched a television documentary in which scientists claimed the universe was created at the instant of the big bang, by a collision between two pre-existing universes.

With this idea in mind, I have wondered if the reason why a theory of quantum gravity cannot be found is because our universe is a hybrid universe, represented by two mathematical theories, wholly alien to each other, which can never be unified.

                      This is just a thought from a layman
                                  Derek R Crawford.

[edit] Quack Theories

I changed Quack theories to Amateur theories, just to make the title sound more professional.

why does this page not mention tesla? he was said to have gathered a lot of information on this subject, but he never published it Aptitude 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heim Theory

very surpising omission. I"ll add it in with usual caveats to mollify the Heim haters. Take Care!--Will314159 12:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Everything

Shouldn't this article be merged with Theory of Everything?

No. A theory that unifies the electroweak interaction with QCD is certainly not a theory of everything. It's not a theory of gravity, for example. -- Xerxes 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Yet according to the introduction of this article, the subject is:

...an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter.

In physics, the forces between objects can be described as mediated by fields. Current theory says that at subatomic distances, these fields are replaced by quantum fields interacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics..... The essential belief of a unified field theory is that the four fundamental forces ....as well as all matter are simply different manifestations of a single fundamental field. A unified field theory aims to reconcile the four fundamental forces (or fields) of nature (from strongest to weakest)...

That is what bothers me. The article seems to be about the same topic as discussed in the Theory of everything article. We could (A) rewrite the intro to this article, to make it clear how this article should be distinguished in intent and content from ToE. Perhaps some paragraphs from this article could be moved to ToE, or vice-versa. (B) It may be better to merge the two articles, and have links to other articles on specific unification schemes that are not proposed as "ToE"s. (I have no preference at the moment.) Your thoughts? RK 19:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reposted from RK's talk page:

I suggest resolving this issue by turning unified field theory into unification (physics) and extending it to talk about other unifications. Otherwise, theory of everything article should cover the remaining material. Either way, neither should be merged with GUT. -- Xerxes 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Einstein used the term "Theory of Everything" to discribe this theory according to Brian Greene H0riz0n

[edit] Needs cleanup and fact-checking

For example, M-theory is not primarily due to Michio Kaku and Briane Greene. Most people would mention at least the name of Edward Witten! There are many other concerns about organization, coverage, emphasis. ---CH 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Grand unification theory

That appears to be about the same thing, only seemingly written for someone with a master's in physics (who presumably knows what a unified field theory is) rather than the typical Wikipedia reader. If I'm wrong, please say so. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

GUT is a step along the way to a Unified field theory - it does not attempt to bring gravity into the theory. The two should remain separate. --Exodio 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay: I'm not a physicist. But then should this be merged with Theory of everything? See #Theory of Everything above for someone who disagrees with you about what the term means. It should certainly be merged with one or the other, it sounds like, no? Either that, or it should be renamed to "Unified field theories" and someone should add references to both of those articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It sounds like the two articles should be merged. But there seems to be subtle differences between the two - I am going to research a little more into both articles and see if I can figure out how they are different and how they are the same. It seems like quantum theory in general is slightly disorganized and repetitive though. --Exodio 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, GUTS, unified field theory and TOE's are three different things in physics. Perhaps the aricles are lacking in clarity and description as to why they differ; the answer, however, is not to merge them. Guys, if you don't know the subject matter, you should not be making these kinds of suggestions to begin with. Please don't be so bold. linas 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)