The unified field theory

[carlitto]

The unified field theory

 

 

The unified field theory is for modern physics the most important problem. This theory says that after the Big Bang only one unified power has existed. This GUT-Power (Grand Unified Theory) was divided into four fundamental powers.

The four fundamental powers

 

 

strong power range: 10^-15 m between quarks

electromagnetic power range: infinite between charged particles

weak power range: 10^-15 m between leptons (neutrinos, elecrons)

gravity range: infinite between all particles

 

 

Today we try to bring the four powers together. It has been discovered that a symmetry has existed between the electromagnetic power and the weak power which has broken. It is important to know that the W+-, the W-- and the Z0-particles are the exchangeparticles of the weak power. In our universe there is the higgs field, which unifieds with the field of the weak power. With high energy it is possible to destroy the higgs field and the exchangeparticles of the weak power are then free, they behave like photons and do not differ from them. For this discovery S. Glashow, S. Weinberg and A. Salam got the noble price. In an experiment in the CERN (Conseil Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire), in the proton-antiproton-collider this particles were found and so the electricalweak power was proofed. Now phycisists work to find a connection between the electroweak power and the strong power.

[coldcreation]

The unified field theory

The unified field theory is for modern physics the most important problem. This theory says that after the Big Bang only one unified power has existed. This GUT-Power (Grand Unified Theory) was divided into four fundamental powers.

The four fundamental powers...

...Today we try to bring the four powers together. It has been discovered that a symmetry has existed between the electromagnetic power and the weak power which has broken. It is important to know that the W+-, the W-- and the Z0-particles are the exchangeparticles of the weak power. In our universe there is the higgs field, which unifieds with the field of the weak power. With high energy it is possible to destroy the higgs field and the exchangeparticles of the weak power are then free, they behave like photons and do not differ from them. For this discovery S. Glashow, S. Weinberg and A. Salam got the noble price. In an experiment in the CERN (Conseil Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire), in the proton-antiproton-collider this particles were found and so the electricalweak power was proofed. Now phycisists work to find a connection between the electroweak power and the strong power.

 

This is all fine, but the main problem is fitting the odd-ball gravitation force into the group of fundamental forces. By the way, there is no unified field theory. Until gravity is put into the mix unification cannot be realized. GUTs has really amounted to nothing in this respect, neither has any other theory. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Do you have a reason or intention behind it?

 

The subject rules...do you have any solution to the problem of unification?

 

cc

[carlitto]

I am really disappointed about my friend coldcreation's response. Modern physics have been built on these 4 fundamental forces, and I wonder how many people are aware of this. It is trude that we are not able to explain and solve every problem in universe. That is why when we are not able to solve some major problems, some people come out with a new idea.

Graviton is one of these. A particle, which we consider it exists, to explain gravity. That may or may not be true. that is what we neeed to study on.

As my friend coldfusion knows, in beta minus decay, we consider that an antinutrino comes out with the electron, to fullfill the linear momentum conservation. Not because we could see or detect a particle called antineutrino. There are hundreds of particles and we have really complicated explanations for them. And not for all of them we do have valid expanations.

 

Below is the info regarding the unified field theory.

 

(retrieved From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

 

In physics, unified field theory 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. Alternatively, using the particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics, fields can be described in terms of exchange particles that transfer momentum and energy between objects. Crudely speaking, objects interact as they emit and absorb exchanged particles, in effect playing a subatomic game of "catch". The essential belief of a unified field theory is that the four fundamental forces (see below) 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, namely:

 

* Strong force: Force responsible for holding quarks together to form neutrons and protons, and holding neutrons and protons together to form nuclei. The exchange particles that mediate this force are gluons.

* Electromagnetic force: It is the familiar force that acts on electrically charged particle. The photon is the exchange particle for this force.

* Weak force: Responsible for radioactivity, it is a repulsive short-range interaction that acts on electrons, neutrinos and quarks. It is governed by the W boson.

* Gravitational force: A long-range attractive force that acts on all particles. The exchange particles have been postulated and named gravitons.

 

 

History

Historically, the first unified field theory was developed by James Clerk Maxwell. In 1831, Michael Faraday made the observation that time-varying magnetic fields could induce electric currents. Until then, electricity and magnetism had been thought as unrelated phenomena. In 1864, Maxwell published his famous paper on a dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. This was the first example of a theory that was able to encompass previous theories (namely electricity and magnetism) to provide a unifying theory of electromagnetism. However, today we know that the classical electrodynamics developed by Maxwell eventually breaks down near the quantum limit (for large momentum and energy transfer). A complete quantum description of the electromagnetic force was achieved in the 1940s, a theory known as quantum electrodynamics (QED). This theory represents the interactions of charged particles mediated by force carriers named photons. The theory is based on a space-time symmetry of the field called gauge (really phase) symmetry. The theory was so successful that the principle of continuous gauge symmetry was soon adopted for all forces.

 

In 1967, two Americans Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg and a Pakistani Abdus Salam proposed independently a theory unifying electromagnetism and the weak nuclear forces. They found that in seeking a quantum gauge field theory of the weak forces they were forced to introduce an additional force. They demonstrated that the gauge field from the weak interaction was structurally identical to the electromagnetic field. Quantum electrodynamics is then a consequence of a spontaneous symmetry breaking in a theory in which initially the weak and electromagnetic interactions are unified. This unified theory was governed by the exchange of four particles: the photon for electromagnetic interactions, and a neutral Z particle and two charged W particles for weak interaction. As a result of the spontaneous symmetry breaking the weak force becomes short range and the Z and W bosons acquire masses of the order of 90 GeV / c2. Their theory was given experimental support by the discovery, in 1983, of the Z and W bosons at CERN by Carlo Rubbia's team. For their insights, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979. Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer received the Prize in 1984.

 

The next logical step towards the unification of the fundamental forces of nature was to include the strong interaction with the electroweak forces in a theory called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). A quantum theory of the strong force had been developed in the 1970s under the name of Quantum Chromodynamics. The strong interaction acts between quarks via the exchange of particles called gluons. There are eight types of gluons, each carrying a color charge and an anti-color charge. Based on this theory, Sheldon Glashow and Howard Georgi proposed the first grand unified theory in 1974, which applied to energies above 1000 GeV. Since then there have been several proposals for GUTs, although none is currently universally accepted. A major problem for expermimental tests of such theories is the energy scale involved, which is well beyond the reach of current accelerators. However, there are some falsifiable predictions that have been made for low energy processes that do not involve accelerators. One of these predictions is that the proton is unstable and can decay. It is at present unknown if the proton can decay although experiments have determined a lower bound of 1035 years for its lifetime. It is therefore uncertain, at the present time, whether any GUT can provide an accurate description of matter.

 

Gravity has yet to be included in a theory of everything. Theoretical physicists have been so far incapable of formulating a consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The two theories have proved to be incompatible and the quantization of gravity remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. In recent years the quest for a unified field theory has largely focused on string theory. Much hope has been put on one of its offshoots known as M-theory (M. Kaku, B. Greene). Others theories that attempt to explain the quantization of gravity are twistor theory (R. Penrose and W. Rindler), Noncommutative geometry (A. Connes, J. Madore) and loop quantum gravity (L. Smolin, R. Gambini and J. Pullin).

 

Reductionism

There is much debate about the intrinsic value of searching for a possibly successful unified field theory. Besides the argument that such a theory may not exist, some have argued that finding the final theory, that is the ultimate foundation of nature, will not unlock the mystery of the universe. This is the view that the understanding of the ultimate particles will not yield a complete knowledge of the behaviour of atoms and molecules or some higher level structure. Some physicists (e.g P.W. Anderson) have argued that large structures undergo collective behaviors which are not most usefully described in terms of the behavior of their constituents and therefore there is no reason to label the lower-level behaviors as more fundamental.

 

I have intended to give info about the issue. And curious about what the people think about the subject. Lately, superstring theory is on the agenda. Still, I think it is far away from the ultimate one

[coldcreation]

I am really disappointed about my friend coldcreation's response. Modern physics have been built on these 4 fundamental forces, and I wonder how many people are aware of this. It is trude that we are not able to explain and solve every problem in universe. That is why when we are not able to solve some major problems, some people come out with a new idea.

 

I wouldn't be disappointed about my resonse. I havn't given you one yet. I ask simply what is your motivation for bringing up this subject, a good one. My response will come after you answer this question. What is your objective, do youu even have one, or are you just curious to see what peole think about the four "powers" (forces) of nature. I think everyone is aware that there exists no unified field theory today, and that until a solution is found for fitting gravity into the framework there can be no ultimate theory.

 

What else would you like to discuss?

 

PS. relax

[carlitto]

I have answered to your questions above, I do not have anything to add. I think I'm clear enough.

If you have read it, then you may tell your ideas about it. And, in today's physics gravity is not the only problem, as you know. I am disappointed becouse I would have expected a positive approach towards the subject. That is what I mean. If you have read my second thread, then why don't you tell your ideas?

I am waiting for your "response"

[Turtle]

I have answered to your questions above, I do not have anything to add. I think I'm clear enough.

If you have read it, then you may tell your ideas about it. And, in today's physics gravity is not the only problem, as you know. I am disappointed becouse I would have expected a positive approach towards the subject. That is what I mean. If you have read my second thread, then why don't you tell your ideas?

I am waiting for your "response"

 

___In truth there is a unified theory & it is Einstein's steady state unified theory. It is also Robertson's "Gravity is the 4th Dimension theory" ___If you use the search function on the top menu bar & enter "unified theory" or "total field theory" you find all threads here at Hypography discussing the topic; if none of the results fits your intended correspondence then start the new thread.:shrug:

[arkain101]

Scientists Make Antimatter!

 

 

Cold anti-hydrogen atoms have been made, stored, and detected for the first time at ATHENA! We talked to the ATHENA team about this groundbreaking, historic event in particle physics and learned what's next.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/

[coldcreation]

Scientists Make Antimatter!

 

 

Cold anti-hydrogen atoms have been made, stored, and detected for the first time at ATHENA! We talked to the ATHENA team about this groundbreaking, historic event in particle physics and learned what's next.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/

 

Cool arkian101,

 

Thanks for the good news. I am waiting for the creation (in lab) of the first hydrogen atom. This antihydrogen cold creation is a first step.

I will read more about it then post it on my thread Material Creation, if you don't mind. Or better yet, you can do so. That would be the coolest.

Thanks again.

 

cc

[carlitto]

Scientists Make Antimatter!

 

 

Cold anti-hydrogen atoms have been made, stored, and detected for the first time at ATHENA! We talked to the ATHENA team about this groundbreaking, historic event in particle physics and learned what's next.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/

 

That sure is important news. I will be following that breakthrough. Thanks for htat important info, arkain101.

 

P.S. By the way,if you think this thread is useless then tell the mods to delete the subject.

[coldcreation]

That sure is important news. I will be following that breakthrough. Thanks for htat important info, arkain101.

 

P.S. By the way,if you think this thread is useless then tell the mods to delete the subject.

 

Hola Carlitto,

No one wrote your thread was usless. The subject is a good one, its not the first time its been discussed, and it won't be the last.

 

Two questions:

(1) What are your views on unification, if any? (try not to copy paste an answer).

(2) To what extent do you think the CERN creation of antihydrogen is important for science (no copy pasting here either)? Why will you be following that breakthrough? And what implication(s), if any, does it have on unification, the subject of this thread?

 

cc

[carlitto]

Thanks coldcreation,

Since I am new around here, I thought your were neglecting what I said. Now, I think that was a misunderstanding.:shrug: I have brought the subject to learn what people in forum know about it, and how much they know. I am impressed with your interest in the subject.

When it comes to my opinions, I think we need a long time to reach unification. I donot know how long, maybe a century or 20 years. What I know is we need to work on it. Einstein’s theory was not complete.We may pass quantum, and we should. Coldcreation, there are lots of gaps in particle physics. And I think most governments are reluctant to pay more on a blind area, they pay billions on defence projects, but when it comes to science, they do not want to donate in someting which they do not have something solid in return. I accept that it is expensive to work on nuclear5, accelerators, etc. But that is the only way to discover something new.

For god’s sake, there are lots of gaps in todays quantum physics. Mr. Feynman worked on electrons for all his life and came up with his diagram. If we want to exceed the barriers, other than the science fiction, in reality, I cannot imagine any other science else than particle physics, to pave the way. It will newer be possible to rhigh speeds relative to light with todays knowledge. We expain everthing in universe with particle physics. E.g. universe is expanding, explained the observation of red shift, consequence of doppler effect. Black holes, warm holes,… I don’t know if cold fusion will come true or not. But we have to work on it. If we want infinite source of energy. Burnnning petroleum, fuel will compensate our current needs, but won’t take us beyond. And, antihydrogen may be a brick or nail in building a final theory. The word final or ultimate may not exactly be true. Antimatter is another rough subject within this concept. I have a limited knowledge on this field. I mean, It is known to talk about antiparticles, but about anti-hydrogen,or anti-matters?? I would like to learn more about them. How do they behave? What are their properties, eg. I will be grateful if any of you bodies tell me what you know. I wish I could answer my friend coldcreation’s questions. I hope he will teach us what he knows. I have the respect to the knowledge, and science. I may not know everthing about particles, nuclear physics, but I have the ambition. I wish I could work on this field… I will apply for minor in physics this semester. Who knows, where the way of destiny will take me…

 

So, coldcreation, we are cool? I want to know what you think about me. You are free to say anything…:cup:

[coldcreation]

Thanks coldcreation,

So, coldcreation, we are cool? I want to know what you think about me. You are free to say anything…:shrug:

 

I have no personal opinion about you. I will say though that I admire your will to understand things that have not yet found solutions.

 

Yes, we are cool.

 

What do I think about unification?

I think is is possible to unite gravity into a unified framework, but in order to do so, a radical revision of mainstream cosmology is to take place. No longer should we search in the direction of ultra-high energy physics, at ultra-small scales, and at extremely high energies and densities for the solution. This has been the major drawback from the outset of the search, due to the standards set by the hot big bang cold dark matter model. It is this theory that has been a major stumbling blcok because it assumes all forces were united then, at t = 0, or shortly thereafter the moment of creation.

 

As implies in my handle, I'm a low energy, ulra-low temperature, quasi-zero density, very close to zero entropy type of guy. And all that, in an infinite spatiotemporal nonexpanding universe.

 

In short, unification takes place when all parameters and constituents are set at zero, i.e., never, or at minus infinity, if you will.

 

cc

[carlitto]

As implies in my handle, I'm a low energy, ulra-low temperature, quasi-zero density, very close to zero entropy type of guy. And all that, in an infinite spatiotemporal nonexpanding universe.

cc

You sure have a different point of view.

Why don't you explain your approach a little bit more detailed. When I look at the things from your perspective, some things that were true have to be wrong. For instance, what about the critical density of universe?

[coldcreation]

You sure have a different point of view.

Why don't you explain your approach a little bit more detailed. When I look at the things from your perspective, some things that were true have to be wrong. For instance, what about the critical density of universe?

 

You can read about Coldcreation in other threads (see Cosmology section, Material Creation, The Cosmological Constant: A New Law, Redshift z, etc.).

 

Quickly, in CC theory there is no critical density. Why? Becausethere is no expansion. Redshift is non-Doppler, therefore everything was not crammed into a point at time t = 0. The Universe is infinite in time and spatial extent. Creation of hydrogen occurs in the cold vacuum, etc, etc.

 

Much of cosmology is based on interpretation of observation. In the final analysis, the theory that best fits the data is called the standard model. The problem is, many observations contradict the standard model. Especially those that deal with the deep universe, high-redshift objects. See thread Redshift z and Material creation for more detail. cc

[HIENVN]

Hola Carlitto,

No one wrote your thread was usless. The subject is a good one, its not the first time its been discussed, and it won't be the last.

 

Two questions:

(1) What are your views on unification, if any? (try not to copy paste an answer).

(2) To what extent do you think the CERN creation of antihydrogen is important for science (no copy pasting here either)? Why will you be following that breakthrough? And what implication(s), if any, does it have on unification, the subject of this thread?

 

cc

Hi, Coldcreation and everybody in this forum of the unified field theory. I am a new member of Hypography and I would like to engage in this discussion that the unified field theory should be a advance theory of the 21st century.

Almost scientists not only know Einstein as is the author of unified field theory, but they also know Einstein rejected the value of quantum theory since 1920, which is a year that he proposed unified field theory. Although I have found out some defeats of quantum theory, but I did not strongly reject quantum theory such as Einstein did.

However, when we play a game we must to obey the rules of this game; therefore, we must to obey the rule of Einstein is reject the value of quantum theory if we want to discuss his unified field theory. Carlitto display a unified field theory in a manner of quantum theory when he using four quantum force numbers that do not in the idea of Einstein in his proposed unified field theory.

I would like to have a question to every body in this forum, which:

"Could somebody or me display a unified field theory that not include any quantum theory?"

I am waiting opinions of everybody in this forum.

Thanks to everyone,

 

HIENVN