Warp wrote:
>   One thing I have never really understood is why they are so vehemently
> trying to find a "unified theory of everything".

As Mueen stated, it's probably to predict what currently can't be 
predicted. He was talking about the properties of particles which still 
have yet to be discovered, but the implications could reach farther. In 
fact, if we could determine *all* the factors present during the Big 
Bang, we will be one step closer to predicting future events. Of course, 
to accurately model the Universe we must use other parallel universes 
for computational purposes. I don't think we will ever reach such an 
advanced state (assuming such a thing is possible). We will most likely 
wipe ourselves out long before making such progress.

>   This may be a far-fetched analogy, but we have theories and models of
> how car engines should be built, and we have theories and models of how
> skyscrapers should be built. Neither model can be used to describe the
> other situation, but so what? That doesn't cause any problems. If you
> are building a car engine, use the car engine model. If you are building
> a skyscraper, use the skyscraper model. Where's the problem? Why would
> we even need a "unified model" which describes both car engines and
> skyscrapers at the same time? There's no need, and it would only completely
> unnecessarily complicate things.

In light of our current state of knowledge regarding basic physics, your 
assumption makes sense. But what if we do find a unified theory of all 
existence which makes us reconsider our severely limited knowledge of 
low-level physics? We might find that the approach to engineering a 
skyscraper and our approach to engineering a car engine becomes, er, 
more unified :)

>   Is it just a question of coolness, or is there some practical issue
> in play here?
> 
There are always practical issues regarding the advancement of knowledge.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Is it just a question of coolness, or is there some practical issue
> in play here?

I think it's more a combination of two things:

One - that the two theories are incompatible. Relativity requires 
continuous functions. Quantum disallows continuous functions. If space 
(including gravity etc) is smoothly continuous at the smallest levels, 
quantum theory would give the wrong answer. If space were discontinuous 
at the smallest levels, relativity would give the wrong answers, even at 
the big sizes. So, basically, people *know* that one of them is "wrong", 
even though both are giving the right answers to the precision with 
which they can be measured. And QED at least has been measured and 
matches predictions to something like 15 decimal places, which is an 
incredible precision.

Two - figuring out the combination might lead to all kinds of new 
discoveries. Just as an example, in 1890 or so, people thought they knew 
all about how light worked, and so on, except for one or two little 
anomalies, like black-body radiation and the photoelectric effect at low 
light levels. It took a whole new shift to quantum calculations to be 
able to understand those effects. That resulted in lasers, 
semiconductors, understanding genetics at the individual protein level, 
and so on.

If you can unify the operations of gravity and quantum interactions, you 
might be able to make electrogravitics, anti-gravity, gravity-powered 
light bulbs, stuff like that. Who knows? If you could get quantum 
miracles(*) to work reliably over space-like distances, you could get 
teleportation, time travel, stuff like that.

Plus, it might explain *why* quantum stuff is random, and whether 
there's any underlying unmeasurable rules, and so on, even if you can't 
manipulate it.


(*) AKA very low probability quantum teleportation events, like in 
tunnel diodes only long distances.
-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> gravity-powered light bulbs

  That sounds like a perpetual motion machine. Unlikely. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> gravity-powered light bulbs
> 
>   That sounds like a perpetual motion machine. Unlikely. :P

I guess it depends on what causes gravity. Maybe gravity isn't constant. 
I read one fictional story where the physicists discovered that gravity 
is caused by the spontaneous destruction of mass and created by the 
spontaneous creation of mass.  So places where there was lots of mass 
had more gravity, because it was more likely there would be a subatomic 
particle disappearing, and why the rest of the universe had a nice 
sparse sprinkling of random hydrogen atoms. :-)

Or maybe gravity-powered light bulbs would just be a more direct way 
than, say, tidal bore generators; a gravity-powered bulb might make the 
earth lighter or orbit slower or something.  Or maybe it would only work 
if the bulb was moving up or down. :-)

Gravity is pretty weak anyway. It takes the whole earth to hold you 
down, and just a little layer of electrons to hold you up.  I read if 
you took all the electrons off a 1cm cube of aluminum, and held them 1 
meter away, the force between the two would match the weight of a cube 
of iron 76 miles on a side. Vast difference in power, which is one of 
the reasons it's so hard to do quantum gravity experiments.

Plus, of course, maybe conservation of energy isn't true. That's the 
sort of thing a ToE has the chance to support or disprove. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> gravity-powered light bulbs
> 
>   That sounds like a perpetual motion machine. Unlikely. :P

	Unless our Theory of Everything provides exceptions to the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics based on certain rare circumstances.

	Those Laws are just a result of our observations, and can change. I'm
sure in the early 19th century, people would have scoffed at particles
with mass diffracting.

-- 
Why do the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same
tune?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Unless our Theory of Everything provides exceptions to the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics based on certain rare circumstances.

I'm told by other physicists that the zero-point energy might actually 
be tappable, or at least that there's no entropic reason it couldn't be.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm told by other physicists that the zero-point energy might actually 
> be tappable, or at least that there's no entropic reason it couldn't be.

  Does that mean we might get a real-life gravity gun (aka. zero-point
energy field manipulator) someday?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Whether there is a practical advantage will only show after unification. 
> But of course the main problem is that it is bloody annoying at parties.

Not as annoying as having all your underwear teleported two feet away 
when somebody fires up the Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain and plugs in 
the atomic vector plotter. Oh, wait, physicists don't get invited to 
those sorts of parties...

:)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:44:57 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   One thing I have never really understood is why they are so vehemently
> trying to find a "unified theory of everything".
>
>   We have models which describe how things work at quantum scale, and we
> have models which describe how things work at macroscale (including high
> speeds and high masses). Neither model describes well the other, but why
> is this such a big deal? Why can't we have two (or more) models at the
> same time?

Darren's is the best explanation, both theories start with different  
assumptions about the same thing; yet both are accurate. Problem two is  
when you get a theory A object behaving like a theory B object, because of  
problem 1 you can't mix-and-match the equations and all you get out of  
them is infinities (unless you're fine with physical infinities).

>   This may be a far-fetched analogy, but we have theories and models of
> how car engines should be built, and we have theories and models of how
> skyscrapers should be built. Neither model can be used to describe the
> other situation, but so what? That doesn't cause any problems. If you
> are building a car engine, use the car engine model. If you are building
> a skyscraper, use the skyscraper model. Where's the problem? Why would
> we even need a "unified model" which describes both car engines and
> skyscrapers at the same time? There's no need, and it would only  
> completely
> unnecessarily complicate things.

Except both skyscrapers and car engines use the same material science and  
physics and start with the same assumptions, they're just applied in  
different ways. A car-engine designer can use the same science to build a  
skyscraper, he doesn't need to switch equations, just take some extra  
things into consideration.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Whether there is a practical advantage will only show after 
>> unification. But of course the main problem is that it is bloody 
>> annoying at parties.
> 
> Not as annoying as having all your underwear teleported two feet away 
> when somebody fires up the Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain and plugs in 
> the atomic vector plotter. Oh, wait, physicists don't get invited to 
> those sorts of parties...
> 
> :)

1) I am indeed never invited
2) I don't drink tea
3) I am not a woman

not necessarily in that order.

Post a reply to this message