I realize that the great theories of fundamental physics are already united in their cradles. I quote here especially the general and restreint relativities and that of Planck. There are certainly other fundamental theories that are related to these three theories. Therefore I do not understand why all this controversy on the unification of the great fundamental theories which have lasted for more than a century to date. I explain the unification through the cosmological constants. Indeed I discovered that these theories all without exception use cosmological constants, that's one thing. But I also discover that the cosmological constants are derived from each other, which guarantees the link between these theories. So as an application of the fact that these theories are already linked in their cradles it is fair to say that people can use for example the Schwarzschild radius equation to calculate the radii of the proton and the neutron without waiting for someone, via a any theory, to allow this equation to be used.
Electrodynamics provides a unified description of electricity and magnetism-and it’s the only one known. In the Standard Model, the interactions aren’t unified and the corresponding framework isn’t known. The reason people care is knowledge about nature.
There are four interactions: Electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational.
What is the framework in which they appear as electricity and magnetism appear within electrodynamics, isn’t known. That’s what unification means.
The symmetry group of gravity is that of diffeomorphisms. Newton’s constant plays, essentially, the role that Fermi’s constant plays for the weak interactions. The cosmological constant simply defines a class of the solutions of Einndtein’s equations, depending on its sign.
The system of interactions between micro behaviour and macro behaviour of sun-atomic particels (quarks, l+Bosons,Higgs,electron,proton) can be explained using special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics the wave function Of the polymorphic system like the universe and the nano world of particels called string theory liquified to give a detailed description for the requirement to unify but it is diametrically intutive and dogmatic to be saying the theory of everything is subtle for the nature of randomness of space and time .
Stam Nicolis
Sasikanth Panta
I discover that quasi all that is not clear in current physics can only find answers via Planck and Einstein. But on condition of linking their works with cosmological constants. Einstein was unsuccessful with his cosmological constant A but his idea was brilliant to use the cosmological constants in his equations. I discover that there are many cosmological constants unknown to people until today! If Einstein and Planck have linked their respective works through cosmological constants, humanity would have known a century's head start in physics! in fact these two distinguished physicists have planned everything in their theory but unfortunately they do not know it. First, I discover that the constant h is a function of cosmological constants and h bar too. and h and h bar can be used in cosmological calculations. On my part I find that h is irrational and reduced h is rational. But what is unified physics actually? I believe people utilise word game to promote one theory over another! to try to make people forget to promote the theories of these two physicists! In terms of calculation I consider that a theory is unified if the model it uses is based on cosmological constants in link wich each other.
Things are not naturally unified.
A look at the 4 fundamental interactions , strong, weak electromagnetic and
gravitational all look very different. Strong interactions are short ranged and strong, keep neutrons and protons together in the nucleous of atoms.
Gravitation is long ranged acting from masses in the solar system.
Electromagnetic invoves electric and magnetic fields, stems from charges,
long ranged.
All main theories of physics, are limited in their specific spheres of application. You cannot use them for just anything.
I used to think that people wanted the knowledge for advancement of physics; or, for their personal understanding of the universe. It is more than that. For some, wanting recognition motivates them.
Others want foundational knowledge that has been endorsed by some form of popularity.
I think most want foundational knowledge that fits with their world-view.
There is a complicating factor. I call it noise. There is so much noise in so many places that important foundational views would be difficult to recognize. I don't know how the system could be changed to minimize this.
The various areas of physics are not even close to being unified. Particle physics consists of a model with many 'particles' and their internal relationships and external relationships. These are important in classifying observed behaviors, but do little to actually explain the nature of their origin and external connections.
There is no recognized understanding of gravity, especially of modified gravity. GRT provides a remarkably good tool for computations over a wide range, but falls far short in the quantum arena and in the cosmological area where some mysterious dark matter has been postulated to make things work. GRT falls far short in a theoretical sense.
Even electromagnetism fails to cover related phenomenon of quanta, quantum entanglement, spin, and uncertainty.
Quantum theory provides important relationships, but lacks an explanation of why and how the relationships happen.
There is much that remains to be understood. It is possible that the unifying foundation lies beyond our comprehension. This can happen if the functioning of the foundation differs too much from the functioning of our real world. This may not be understandable to many. Our understandings and communications are based on concepts in our physical world. This would even be true of happenings attributed to god. It is conceivable that the nature of a foundational realm falls completely outside of our ability to understand or communicate. If someone believes it may be impossible, they greatly hamper their ability to find it.
Juan Weisz
Richard Marker
Many thanks for your explanations. Best regards.
“Why do people care to unify physics, are the most important and fundamental theories already unified from the beginning?”
- a desire to “unify physics” is quite natural, for any normal human it is quite natural to think that Matter is a system where all/every material – and so physical - objects/events/processes exist and happen having only some one universal common base.
However, because of that in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- so in every case, when some mainstream authors attempt to develop some fundamental theory, the results completely obligatorily logically are nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions.
Including rather popular in Standard particles Model rather numerous attempts of the “unifications” really were/are such constructions; starting from the really questionable “unification” of the fundamental Nature Weak and Electric forces; and numerous similar attempts to do that by including in the unification of Strong Force. The attempts to unify with other Forces also Gravity Force are lesser popular, since in the mainstream physics and, correspondingly, Standard Model, such Force doesn’t exist because of in the mainstream the GR is standard theory.
Really indeed Matter has the one ultimate base – it is an informational system that is based on the ultimately fundamental and universal binary reversible logics,
- which in Matter is actualized as the Matter’s indeed unique and ultimately universal “material” base – the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),
- and all/everything what exists and happens in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice.
Including the Forces in Mater are different functionally, and so act in partially different spaces [every Force acts, first of all in one of the specific space dimensions (g,w,e,s) above], and so, though at extremely high energies the Forces’ actions can “interfere” by some ways, that really is inessential.
Etc., any really fundamental breakthroughs in physics, and in any other science, though, are possible only if the fundamental phenomena/notions above aren’t transcendent;
- what is possible only basing on the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, and so, including, it is nothing surprising in that Matter is some logical system.
How the Gravity and Electric Forces act in partially different spaces see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fundamental_Forces_and_Physical_Scale
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Grand_Unification_possible_including_gravity_with_in_standard_model
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Quo_Vadis_Physics_now_that_the_LHC_has_found_no_new_particles_except_the_Higgs_no_new_dimensions_nothing_except_the_desert_predicted_by_GUT_scale
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_it_is_possible_to_unify_physics_without_adopting_quantum_gravity
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Many thanks for the explication and the documentation. Best regards.
As an addition to the SS post above note also now, that the pointed in the last SS post above Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces is only a part of more general model, which includes also the 2023 model of Nuclear Force that acts between nucleons in atomic nuclei, see the paper “The Informational Model — Nuclear Force” in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force - all these Forces act by the same scheme.
Cheers
Recent SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physicists_seek_a_mathematical_formula_to_unify_all_natural_fields_But_they_say_mathematics_is_semantics_only_Isnt_this_a_contradiction#view=63fb6504c46c77e98d0f2120/21
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko
I answered the question of Arno Gorgels "Physicists seek a mathematical formula to unify all natural fields. But they say mathematics is semantics only. Isn't this a contradiction?".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Soil Science
- Soil Analysis