What about the absence of a unified field?

[Fredrick]

I would like to start a new thread - not on strings, M, or other possible theories of everything that lead to a unified field theory - but to the opposing view: the option that a unified field of forces does not and cannot exist.

I have some mathematical information that I want to use later (that gave me an indication that a unified field of forces is an impossibility). First I am curious if there is anybody else out there, who has serious doubts about the existence of any unified field theories.

Much has been said about the ultimate platform on which unification would be possible. In my opinion, not enough attention has been given to the opposite. Can you please articulate why a unified field of forces cannot exist.

I am going to give one example of a singular platform (our earth) with four active members (North, South, East, and West). Though the platform is (or appears to be) singular, these four active ingredients do not have a common thread; the platform is known, but does not contain unification.

East and West can go on forever in their direction, but some unification can be found in that they can cover exactly the same spots. Depending on your point of view, a single place can be East or West.

For such single spot, North and South appear to deliver the same set-up as East and West, but North and South cannot go on forever in their direction. When on the North pole, one cannot go further North. One cannot even go East or West on the North pole. There is only one direction on the North pole, and that is South. To unify North and South in absolute terms is not possible, while it appears possible for East and West.

These four directions contain a pair of opposition without the possibility of unification (North and South), and a pair of opposition in which unification appears very well possible (East meets West).

This example may not be scientific enough for everyone. Please use any platform you can think of to denounce (or confirm) the possibility of unification on a single platform.

 

[humanino]

I have no doubt on the existence of such a law : as Feynman said, take all the laws you can imagine. They are all LHS=RHS. Here is the TOE : sum[ (LHS-RHS)^2 ] = 0

The question would be is there a reason why Nature would entirely follow from a simple principle. I do believe this is so. This is a religion.

 

[humanino]

... plus the fact that history has shown us how much we gained by unifying. Starting with Copernicus/Galileo/Newton : the fact that movements on Earth are the same as movements of planets. There is a whole list following.

Yet of course, it is very possible that a TOE would be useless. It is also possible that it really would get us closer to what Nature really is. Spinoza rules !

 

[setAI]

I myself lean toward a concept of pluralism and "noncompromise" [Marvin Minsky's idea of agents/forces working independently resulting in an emergent selection where dominant forces are reinforced and endure/equilibrate while lesser forces dissapate]- however pluralistic systems are still kinds of unified frameworks becasue their interrelationships form a collective system which establishes the structure of the world

 

[Fredrick]

Good answers, but are they delivering?

I think I see what you are doing, Humanino, with "... all the laws you can imagine. They are all LHS=RHS. Here is the TOE : sum[ (LHS-RHS)^2 ] = 0" but I read in it that they are ultimately balanced, I do not read there is unification between the parts.

Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple, and I guess we both support that idea. Still, that does not mean it múst be on the condition of unification. I do agree with you that unifying principles have delivered us much insight and knowledge, and as such I have nothing against the idea that unification would indeed be wonderful. Question is: are there any facts to support it? Or to pose the opposite: if there are so many facts against it, why do we believe in it still?

North, South, West and East are very simple parts of a single spinning planet, yet unification is not delivered (except in the singular spin). Unification appears to exist because almost all spots on Earth can be approached from any of these directions; exceptions are, however, the North pole and South pole - they each miss 3 directions. As such I must agree with you, setAI, that "the pluralistic systems are still kinds of unified frameworks because their interrelationships form a collective system which establishes the structure of the world." Similar terms would be 'family' or 'nation.' They are unifying principles, while the members do not necessarily have to agree with each other (except on the principle that they are family or a nation). Does Marvin Minsky deliver evidence/source material for his theory/idea of independently working forces?

Humanino, can you come up with a different set (or can you deliver the unifying aspect to your sum)?

 

[Mike2]

Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple, and I guess we both support that idea. Still, that does not mean it múst be on the condition of unification. I do agree with you that unifying principles have delivered us much insight and knowledge, and as such I have nothing against the idea that unification would indeed be wonderful. Question is: are there any facts to support it? Or to pose the opposite: if there are so many facts against it, why do we believe in it still?

I would argue that simplicity does equal unification. This is perhaps a tautology. If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity. And divergences arose from this single entity. But if the universe did not come from a single entity, then you have the situation of instantaneous emergence of complexity. This is perhaps the antithesis of a reasonable explanation for all things. Instant complexity defies explanation and thus is the same as suggesting that the creation defies logic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

On the other hand Freeman Dyson, in his recent essay in the New York Review of Books, was perfectly OK with not unifying gravity with the other forces. He would want some addition to GR to permit the development of the standard model within it, but otherwise we have spacetime, and we have quantum theory, and maybe that's it!

 

[arivero]

I have no doubt on the existence of such a law : as Feynman said, take all the laws you can imagine. They are all LHS=RHS. Here is the TOE : sum[ (LHS-RHS)^2 ] = 0.

This is algebra. I would expect TOE to be a geometric theory. And no unyfied field in the GUT sense.

 

[Fredrick]

Origin may be unified, result does not need to be.

I would argue that simplicity does equal unification. This is perhaps a tautology. If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity. And divergences arose from this single entity. But if the universe did not come from a single entity, then you have the situation of instantaneous emergence of complexity. This is perhaps the antithesis of a reasonable explanation for all things. Instant complexity defies explanation and thus is the same as suggesting that the creation defies logic.

I have no problem with accepting that the origin was singular, but the results coming from the origin do not automatically have to be singular. It could be, but nowhere is it prescribed that the result must be singular. But it is an interesting path that you are creating.

If the result is indeed unified then the result must contain/reflect the origin. On the other hand if the results are all different variations of the singular origin, the results do not require unification between the forces. This latter example requires nothing more than the momentary existence of a single (but absolute) level of separation within the origin right before the start of creation. Both (or more) versions would reflect the original state, but they would do so in their own specific way.

Arivero, I personally do not mind the use of any platform that may deliver insight into how unification could (or could not) come about.

SelfAdjoint, thanks for info on Freeman Dyson. I'm looking him up.

 

[humanino]

This is algebra. I would expect TOE to be a geometric theory. And no unyfied field in the GUT sense.

Agreement from me. I do believe in an elegant formulation. I was just quoting Feynman. We basically reproduced his explanation. I am not certain in which book he wrote this.

Fredrick : the dummy example of Feynman I quoted illustrates only that unification is a difficult and deep task, from which some expect to gain profound insights.

 

[Fredrick]

Thanks

So, Humanino, if I get it correctly, you showed me an open door, which was actually a painted door on a wall, and I tried to walk through it?

I like the joke! But I don't know if the insight I gained is more than a profound bump on my head.

If you believe in an elegant formulation, what place would the very option of believing have in that formulation? Said differently, if it is elegant, the freedom to believe or the freedom to theorize - which can basically be seen as a separate area existing next to the facts - must be included.

In short: do you expect such formulation to include/mention separation?

 

[humanino]

The door was painted by Feynman !

Once again, when we look backwards, we contemplate a formidable path towards unification, where in each step, understanding how two apparently distinct phenomena are in fact the two sides of the same coin, and this often lead to discover yet other sides (ok, my analogy is poor ) So, we historically gained so much by unification that we came to the certitude that all phenomena must be explained by only one simple elegant principle, which probably reflect closely the very deep Nature of Reality. That Nature is one, is my belief too. No matter how well we can justify this belief : until we reach our goal, we cannot be sure it exists in the form we conceive it.

Feynman was pointing that : in the path we could sometime be victims coincidences misleading us, and we have to expect our road to be long and difficult. Even worse : maybe there is no such thing as a single law having more significance than the dummy sum of squares, maybe Nature is twofold ! Maybe Nature is manifold...

 

[Fredrick]

Yes

I like your reply. I don't blame you (hmm) but Feynman. Okay, we disagree on a small aspect, but I have the feeling our minds are not that far apart. Not identical - but not far apart.

Quoting Feynman: In the path we could sometimes be victims: coincidences misleading us, and we have to expect our road to be long and difficult. What if the road was short, done already, and simple (like Einstein expected)?

I read the longing for simplicity in your words, and I want to deliver simplicity, though not one that supports (absolute) unification. When probing for the most important information about life, DNA has become the center explanation of it all. DNA has a four-fold mechanism, and nobody is sincerely asking what A, C, G, and T have in common. In my thinking it is the basic difference of at least one level of separation that causes this mechanism to work.

What do I mean with one level of separation in regards to DNA? Because the segments occur in pairs, I do not see the necessity to conclude that all are absolute separations. It is already possible to say that the difference of four exist when two segments cannot exist in each other's vicinity (if they were to exist all by themselves), but they are able to be in each other's vicinity because they are both accompanied by a different second segment that work as pacifiers.

I then have a single level of separation that has been bridged by the additional two other segments. Could there be more levels of separation? I guess so, why not, maybe. But without a level of separation, I see not how they could have cooperated and not evolved into one and the same thing. The absolute incompatible difference that exists between (at least) two segments creates a long term stability (for all four segments).

I am able to deliver exactly the same idea for the four forces — electromagnetic, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces — where each in themselves may be the perfect representation of what existed before the Big Bang, but at least two of those platforms are absolutely incompatible. The other two may have similarities, congruency, or what have you with one or both of these platforms, and because of their pacifying presence the whole is not more violent than it already is. Two platforms deliver 'stability,' while the two other platforms could not, and would not exist in the same universe all by themselves.

 

[Enos]

Unified field theory requires an equation right? because I have principles that seem to make a lot of sense to me lately but no experince in equations.

 

[Fredrick]

Show us what you've got!

Hi Enos,

Threads in PhysicsForums allow for quite an amount of freedom to discuss what you want. Equations or principles, they are fine with me. This thread in particular was set up to discuss the possibility of the absence of a unified field, but the opposite is naturally part of such a discussion. Whatever you communicate is open for discussion in this thread. I am interested to hear what your principles entail.

 

[Enos]

Here's what I got so far.

These ideas are kinda new so I haven'd had time to add more detail into it. But I'll paste what I wrote so far. Hope it makes sense. Please let me know if you see some wrong with it or have questions on connections. :shy:
---------------------------------------------------------

Change Constant and Order + Chaos Principle​

It all started with self-discovery, but as I started to narrow down to answer the reason behind every human action I started to realize that the universe must follow the same laws. Just recently the answer hit me.

The universe must follow the change constant rule which is governed by Order and Chaos. Which states that all existence must constantly change and do it in the most orderly way possible. But when the choices are limited to where all possible choices have chaotic results, the orderly way would be to choose the lesser chaotic choice.

Humans follow this rule clearly but I should give it more detail. How I know we follow order and chaos is the fact that pain and pleasure exist. Pain represents chaos while pleasure represents order. There are also two types of feelings which are mental and physical. Physical pain and pleasure isn't that complex, although mental pain and pleasure may seem more complex due to different personality types and life experiences. But all the pain and pleasure we get in life, both physical and mental decide what actions we choose. Certain mental values may exceed the physical pains and get us in a harmful choice. Or certain physical and mental pleasures may exceed the mental and physical pains and get us into bad habits.
Example: you are cold and there is a fire. To most people getting closer to the fire is the most orderly choice, with the exception of those with mental reasons for not doing it like if they felt they had to prove their bravery or someone who fears fire.
An example of a chaotic/chaotic choice is a bulimic person. I'll use a female in my example so I don't have to keep saying him/her or she/he. The bulimic female mentally convinces herself that she is fat and that food makes her fatter. So she physically makes herself throw up. To her the physical pain of throwing up is the lesser chaotic choice of the mental pain of feeling insecure and fat.

Enough about humans, let's get back to the universe as a whole. Big Bang is where many believe our universe began but it is just another part of the change constant - order + chaos principle. Something can only change so much before it changes into something that it already was. The orderly thing for all existence is to unify as a singular being or existence. But to do so would take a long time in our measurements of time because this must be achieved while avoiding chaos. But once absolute order is achieved change constant and order + chaos principle still applies. That is why the most orderly time of existence is followed by the most chaotic time of existence (Big Bang). Absolute order has no lesser chaotic choice because no order is else where so change constant forces absolute order into absolute chaos. So then the singular existence is no more and order is a part of the rules again in this infinite existence.
No beginning and no end would mean creation is impossible.

Just because we manipulate the order of something that has always existed doesn't mean creation was involved.

 

[Fredrick]

I get the point - but I have some problems handling the information.

I clearly get the point you are trying to make, Enos. And though I do not see too much wrong with it, I must say that it does not give me enough handles to get to a full understanding.

First and possibly foremost of all is that your words contain a lot of subjective terms that make it difficult to discuss. With subjective words I mean words that can mean something for one person and something else for another. The most famous one in circulation the last couple of years is the word 'evil.' Though we can certainly all agree on what it more or less means, evil is in the eye of the beholder (just like beauty is). It is impossible to nail down a definition that stands indefinitively for all people involved. American actions in Afghanistan seem brave to me, but for some religious people they are deeds of evil. Iraq is a whole different ballpark altogether. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Objective words on the other hand can mean one and the same thing (though variation often exist) for all people. Moon, sun, dog, you name it. Many specialist words exist in use only by those of the trade or branche of science. I would like it if you used more specific words, but I do get the image you are portraying, I think.

I get an idea what you mean with the words constant together with change, order and chaos. So I want to ask you how much importance you give, for instance, to the actual quantity of something. Take water for instance, the amount of water of dew falling off a leaf, and all the water in the Pacific Ocean are not the same. The water may be seen as similar but nevertheless the difference in quantity makes it completely different.

Or human intervention/interaction. Wouldn't you say human intervention changes the course and therefore the outcome, which is different from how the universe behaves? There is a unique feature involved with life, where a living being can decide to not do something, where a planet or star must continue its path. A bulimic person may decide to give up on either throwing up or on the whole ideal of skinny people. A star cannot stop its path, a human being can (though indeed this may be terribly difficult). We can walk away from situations, or we may get involved. It is a question of consciouness whether we see that there is a choice available to us, that is not available for a meteor or river.

Was consciousness part of the beginning of our universe. Do you think it will play a role in a possible ending?

 

[Enos]

I don't think I bring up good and evil, I bring up pain and pleasure which everyone feels mentally and, or physically. These principles apply no matter how different their views might be. Because ones definition of order will be someone else's definition of chaos. But the one doing the action is doing the order, the one doing the reaction, Is also doing order. Conflicts arise but it is the orderly thing to do. But because humans have consciousness they also have the power to manipulate the order of things and come to a mutual agreement. But the power to manipulate order doesn't effect the laws of change and order.

Quantity has importance in how things are ordered. That is why I think our universe is the way it is from the Big Bang. When space began to cool down the particles would have been in different quantities spread throughout the universe. So while some particles sought order with a larger group the conversion of these would have been faster than the particle group with smaller quantities. Then making differences between these particles and unable to convert in an orderly manner. Much like human groups, when different color skins and culture first met order was difficult because order takes time.

Consciousness, I think is just what comes with beings who are able to feel think and do. Order is done differently by different things. Consciousness is what makes humans and life different from each other. But humans manipulated order, which I am unsure if animals and other types of life do.

I don't know if the most orderly time of existence will have consciousness but whether or not it does, it doesn't have a choice what to do because the only room for change and order is through chaos because order is no longer a choice once absolute order is achieved.

 

[Fredrick]

Adam and Eve

I get the picture. I cannot go where you are going. I think ordering is important, but not that important. At the top I see space for either Chaos or for Order, and within the order I see a lot of variations that can come to the top. A leader who puts him (her)self above everyone else is significantly different from a leader who places him (her)self between everyone else (first among equals). A king can lead, but so can a city manager who got hired by a staff that can also fire the manager. Anarchists say we do not need leadership (though I think basically that under those conditions the biggest ass%^&#@ get the best of it all). In pluralistic democracies nations are organized with weak leadership, but strong individual rights (where a democracy with the two party system often shows the opposite). Top/bottom is steeper in dictatorships and a two party system democracies than in pluralistic democracies.

I never thought I would talk here about Adam and Eve, but when it comes down to order, then ordering is in question and it must be addressed. There are two versions of ordering and I mention it here because it brings us back to the reason of this thread, which is basically the question: Unification or not.

With establishing the story that god created Adam first and from Adam god created Eve, an ordering has been used in time. Not to dispell any person's belief that this is true, a different way of ordering exists as well. God could have easily created both Adam and Eve at the same time.

What is the difference between these two versions? The difference is the ordering in time, and the link that exists (or not exists) between Adam and Eve.

When god created Adam and from Adam Eve, god established a top and bottom, a first and last, an important and an unimportant aspect, or however you want to frame it. This way a version of ordering has been created that appears applicable to everything; and everything is linked to each other. I think that the truth is not that simple. What is most important for you, is not most important for me. What is the top for you, I regard as not that high of a standard, what is first for me, maybe second for you. You may give importance to leadership, I want everyone to follow their own voice while being respectful to others' voices.

When god created Adam and Eve at the same time, god delivered two segments that may have a lot in common, but in at least one aspect both have nothing in common: on one level of separation there is no link. Ordering can still be applied but each has their own version of ordering, in which various segments have their own positions. The parts may, but whole picture is not based on ordering because it is based on two equals that are not identical. One can armwrestle and decide who will be the winner, but that does not deliver an order that is natural; it is an order of results only. In this version it is preposterous to mention one of the two as top and the other as bottom, because each is not organized according to the other's principle, but to their own. Same goes for culture. Cultures can never top other cultures as a whole, only in segments. What is great in Western society, may be dummm in other societies, and vice versa.

Sorry to bring a religious story (Ada & Eve) into a scientific/metaphysical thread, but I am using it because it is familiar to everyone (Christian/Jewish/Muslim or not). It delivers an order, which may have much appeal, but which is not the only way in which everything can be ordered. It lacks information; it lacks options that clearly exist. That's why we have different religions. Some have only one god, others have multiple gods, while there are also a lot of people who believe there's no god(s) at all. I know that nobody can answer that question for everyone, only for ourselves.

Scientists mention that in nature there are four forces: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. According to me they are organized according to their own principles, which do not dispell the possibility that there may be several links between them, but that at least one level of separation exists within this group of four.
A few more remarks: Chimpanzees share 99% of our genetic make-up. Not everything humans can do, chimps can do, but to say that we are truly different from animals ignores a significant part of who we are (and who they are).

I understand that symmetry has a strong appeal, and ordering delivers a strong push for symmetry, but life is not symmetrical. The way we are born and the way we die is as a-symmetrical as it gets. Beginning and ending do not have to correlate at all (a car hitting someone has nothing to do with the conception of that person).

Can I ask you to reply to this message with regards to our thread: do you believe unification exists or do you believe a separation of at least one level is the norm?

 

[Enos]

I think you misunderstood my statement about the differences in life and humans. I meant that consciousness is what separates life from each other. Consciousness is what separates you from me. Like the meteor must stick to its path. Consciousness opens a gateway to change their path. Order applies to both the meteor and the conscious life.
I believe life is very symmetrical if you look close to why people do what they do. And keep in mind that consciousness opens change in the order. We conscious beings makes it seem more complex because we are the masters of changing our faith.

A car hitting someone has everything to do with the conception of that person, because if it wasn't for that conception, that person wouldn't be around to get hit.

Can I ask you to reply to this message with regards to our thread: do you believe unification exists or do you believe a separation of at least one level is the norm?

I believe that unification and order go together. But I also believe that separation happens after absolute order is achieved because absolute order means only change possible is absolute chaos.

 

[Fredrick]

One and one way only

I believe that unification and order go together. But I also believe that separation happens after absolute order is achieved because absolute order means only change possible is absolute chaos.

At least we have the leak above the water line. I see where we differ. For us to agree while making use of ordering there is one way and one way only:
in the single order of things separation must come first. There is no other way I can ever agree with you about an absolute order.

Yet as you can see that may undermine unification. I do not believe in unification as the ground rule, but I do believe it exists for the separate parts who follow unification within their own segments (possibly even to the extent where the parts believe that they alone are formed according to the whole picture - which would translate into: they believe in a lie, but they don't know any better).

My universe started with materialization, but that materialization was the visible result of an invisible single action: separation. On the most fundamental of levels separation is the invisible unified principle that all various forms have in common. The various forms may show agreements/accordances among each other, but at least one degree of separation exists within this composite field of forms (forces).

I have some mathematical evidence to support my claim, but I do not know if you are interested in wrestling about the basics of math. Nevertheless, I am glad we bumped heads and got some clarity about our differences.

 

[Enos]

I'm in the beginning of learning math and working on it. So far it's very fun and a great challenge. So if you share your math I am more than willing to try and understand it.

Although I believe unification and order go together I still believe that separation and order go together also. Order agrees with both.

 

[Fredrick]

My pleasure

That would be my pleasure. It is good, however, to understand that the math involved is very much like talking about the ABC in language. The concepts are enormously big and tremendously simple (just the way it should be according to Einstein).

In Chapter 5 you can find the mathematical evidence (I am still working on the wording to get it as tight as possible, so if you have any suggestions... language-use, math-contents, or otherwise, I would appreciate your remarks).

http://www.pentapublishing.com

There is a link on that page that directs you to page 5. There are 8 tables in that chapter. The significance is that at one point in time I must use the number zero to explain a step. I conclude that zero is therefore a fundamental part of math (which by itself could be a moot point, but it is important even when zero may point to something unimportant; people may ignore the fact that to call something unimportant is an important fact).

Again, the math is terribly simple, but it may give you a nice look at the prime number sequences that exist within the natural numbers, and how they are all connected.

 

[KonradKorzenowski]

perhaps there is not a TOE but many different but non compatible theories that comprise a unified theory

 

[RingoKid]

I was just wondering if we as conscious entities are the unified theory.

Do not all the forces align in us and that the understanding of unification is essentially the understanding of ourselves ?

 

[Chronos]

What part of science does this involve? Try the philosophy forum. It is inappropriate here.

 

[RingoKid]

sorry chronos, I didn't have much time to elaborate but I needed to put something down before my train of thought left without me...

so anyway, I think you're trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

What does unification in the sense being discussed here have to do with strings, branes and LQG ? My question in light of the discussion is perfectly relevant.

Do all the fundamental forces exist in us as conscious entities and are we then the manifestation of the unified theory ?

To understand the unifying principles involved in a "theory of everything" would also neccessitate unifying the concepts of our physical selves with the awareness of ourselves as both physical and non physical entities?

Duality implies the physical self exists in the 4d universe and the awareness of self ie the soul propagates somewhere else. Could that place not be a hidden dimension of string theory.

The difference between an entity that has an awareness of itself and it's surroundings sucg as us and one that doesn't like a rock or a star for instance is merely the accumulation of strings that vibrate in said dimension.

The commonality all life shares is the awareness due to the vibration of our fundamental strings in a dimension of consciousness. The higher the vibration the higher the intellect of the species.

If time is a dimension of motion that is formed from particles existing in a 3 d universe then why can awareness/consciousness not be a dimension also for without it we wouldn't know anything of the concept of time and the physical realm ?

dimension

n 1: the magnitude of something in a particular direction (especially length or width or height) 2: a construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished;


Then again maybe you're right. Maybe the whole thread needs to be in the metaphysical section.

What then are some of the philosophical ramifications of knowing everything of nature and the forces involved in defining it ?

do what you got to do chronos...

 

[pelastration]

The difference between an entity that has an awareness of itself and it's surroundings sucg as us and one that doesn't like a rock or a star for instance is merely the accumulation of strings that vibrate in said dimension.

The essence - imo - is how these vibrations are connected. A TOE must combine all.
Imagine a membrane with on it's surface many knots or strings. When a vibration goes over the membrane surface, that vibration will also be felt in all the knots and the strings. So the membrane can act as a propagating medium for vibrations. That explains non-local communication since the interactions (local vibrations) between knots or strings will also affect more distant knots on other areas of the membrane.

You can see this on a toy-model with balloons I made some years ago. Look how knots will bend or deform spacetime. http://www.mu6.com/show5.html.

 

[yanniru]

Unification not predicted by Bojowald-Smolin Cosmology

Over a series of papers (e.g., http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0311015) Martin Bojowald developed a model of the physics of the Big Bang assuming an initial collapse of a universe. This model has been criticized by Penrose as it predicts that entropy goes to zero during the Big Bounce.

This plus other criticisms of the Bojowald cosmology are summarized by D. H. Coule in Contrasting Quantum Cosmologies (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0312045). The following quote from Coule expresses the reduction of entropy and the lack of unification:

“Instead of the energy density growing on approaching the singularity it rather decreases so that degrees of freedom are being removed: so the arrow of time is actually reversed during the collapse. This goes against notions in black hole physics that information should not be destroyed”

So Bojowald predicts with LQG that Planck energies and the unified field are never achieved. This answers the original question of this thread. If Bojowald is correct, singularities in black holes or at the beginning of the universe do not reach Planck energies and the forces of nature are never unified.

So the question mis: is Bojowald’s model correct? I suggest that it is based on a further criticism, apparently new with Coule, that is expressed in the following quote from the Abstract of Coule’s paper:

“However, this approach could render flat space unstable to rapid expansion or baby universe production….violates notions of unitarity, on passing through the bounce”

A Big Bounce cosmology is unappealing as Dark Energy considerations suggest that the universe will never bounce. However, the properties of Bojowald’s model, namely baby universe production and resetting entropy to near zero, make it a perfect match to Smolin’s old hypothesis that black holes produce baby universes and that the predominant kind of universe in existence are ones that maximize black hole production.

A principle criticism of Smolin’s hypothesis was that if entropy is never lost, chaos would result in just a few generations. But here we have a LQG model of singularities predicting that entropy is reduced in singularities.

And it is easy to presume that unification energies are never reached because baby universe production bleed off energy in non-unitarity regions. So if Bojowald-Smolin (BS) cosmology is correct, unified fields do not exist and there is no need for a unification theory. In short any TOE will be a TON (theory of nothing).

 

[marcus]

Hi yanniru,

I see that Coule has revised and re-posted his paper ((http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0312045) a couple of times, so I will go back and have another look at it---stimulated by your interest.

I remember looking at Coule's preprint last year, when it was posted on arxiv. It did not seem to me to constitute an effective criticism of the results in LQC because it didnt accurately come to grips with them. I could not find the overlap----Coule did not reproduce Bojowald's equations for study but seemed to be working within an earlier formalism. The references to current LQC seemed impressionistic rather than precise. But I could be wrong so I will have another look.

It does not seem that the Coule paper has been published---do you know what is going on? Is he not trying? Has he run into problems with peer review?

It also does not seem to have been much cited by other researchers. I was able to find only one paper in the literature which cites the Coule e-print. It was cited as ref. [31] by Bojowald and Vandersloot http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0312103 on page 8.

So the Coule paper remains for me something of an enigma.

By contrast it seemed to me that http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311015,
co-authored by Tsujikawa and Maartens (both of whom have done numerous string papers) and by Singh, did make solid contact with LQC and provided a constructive mix of corroboration and criticism. From my standpoint this was encouraging because it showed that outsiders with an independent perspective can get productively involved

---------------------
On another matter, I heard a recorded talk by Penrose in which he raised the thermodynamic question. This a fascinating question. We think entropy must never decrease. What happens to entropy during a bounce? I will say that Penrose was rather tentative about this. No one has rigorously defined the entropy during these processes so it remains speculative---based on hunch---but Penrose hunches are well worth minding!

What happens during such extreme circumstances is a question which is being addressed by current work and which I expect will stimulate interesting developments. Ashtekar and Bojowald are co-authoring one or more new papers (not yet posted) on Black Hole collapse and evaporation---including a possible resolution of the information paradox.

I understand that Penrose spends a fair amount of his time at Ashtekar's Institute (CGPG-penn state), and so would imagine he is following this work of theirs as well.

I will get a link to a recent seminar Ashtekar gave at penn state
If you are interested, you might also look at
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0410054
Ashtekar's recent "Gravity and the Quantum" paper
which summarizes some of his work with Bojowald

 

[yanniru]

I find it interesting that Coule's paper that you and I cite starts by claiming to be a response to the paper by Tsujikawa and Maartens. Is this an impressionistic reference. If you read my profile myou will see that I am biased towards a Smloin Bojowald cosmology. Too bad Coule is not so well respected. Could I find similar criticisms in the discussion by Lubos on wikipedia.

 

[marcus]

I find it interesting that Coule's paper that you and I cite starts by claiming to be a response to the paper by Tsujikawa and Maartens. Is this an impressionistic reference...

It's a case in point, Richard.
Coule brought out 3 versions of the paper. In the first two, no mention of Tsujikawa, Maartens, Singh (TMS)

Date (v1): Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:23:47 GMT (16kb)
Date (revised v2): Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:25:30 GMT (16kb)
Date (revised v3): Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:38:21 GMT (16kb)

In between Dec and Feb, it looks like someone called his attention to his not squaring with them. Could have been one of them, or a reviewer.
So he tried to address the difference. but I still don't think he connects with
TMS either. I read some TMS and liked what I read.

Each of us must decide what papers to take seriously. I found little telling or credible in Lubos-Wiki article, and was not impressed by Coule. You on the other hand may choose to give some weight to one or both of them!
Whatever you choose is fine with me. It is not something we need to argue about.

I guess my only caution would be to remind you that Lubos-Wiki has not passed peerreview (and sounds to me either misleading or as if he doesn't know what he's talking about) and also that Coule paper does not seem to have gotten over the publication hurdle----although David Coule has published a whole bunch of other papers!

In other words, he CAN publish physics paper and he is an established guy, he is just not (yet?) up to speed with this particular paper.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

It would not make sense if the forces cannot be unified because at some level gravity must be the same as electricity and as the colour force and so on, or else colour charge and mass would not exist in the same universe which they clearly do.
The question is:at what energy does unification take place? Are the forces already unified now but we haven't noticed for some reason?

 

[Epoch1]

As far as I can see, North, South, East or West only exist as points of reference on a physical grid. They are not good examples of a force. In the case of the Earth, a round sphere, I can reach any place from my position by traveling in any direction. Where I am determines where a direction lies only as it relates to what planet I am on. Is Mars east or west of earth? There is a unifying force for the universe. The force, however, is not in the universe. Instead, the universe is contained within the force.

 

[Epoch1]

"I was just wondering if we as conscious entities are the unified theory."
Ringokid

"Was consciousness part of the beginning of our universe. Do you think it will play a role in a possible ending?"

"Einstein said that the ultimate theory had to be simple"
Frederick

"Consciousness, I think is just what comes with beings who are able to feel think and do. Order is done differently by different things. Consciousness is what makes humans and life different from each other. But humans manipulated order, which I am unsure if animals and other types of life do."

"I think you misunderstood my statement about the differences in life and humans. I meant that consciousness is what separates life from each other. Consciousness is what separates you from me."
Enos

"If the universe did come from a singularity, then all things were the same thing at that singularity."
Mike2

I am new to Physicsforum and as dumb as they come. But finding a TOE has always been a subject of interest. So far the posting in this thread have intrigued me the most. I have my own ideas and have found them echoed in the posts here. I have taken some quoyes from some of the members and will addres them here..

Ringokid touches on the best observation from my point of view. We are indeed, as conscience beings, examples of the true unifying force. As illustrated by the "uncertainty principle" the only way to determine the properties of the cat is by observation. It is just as true for the universe. The universe can not exist unless there is a witness. It could not have been created without first having been concieved. Concept and observation are properties of a conscious being.

Fredrick also touches tentatively on some truths. Einstein is correct. The answer is simple. Consciousness is not the beginning of the universe, it is the source of it. The universe is created everytime a new lifeform is created and ends when that lifeform when it dies.

Enos is correct about consciousness being a common factor shared between life forms. However consciousness is not what serparates life forms or what make them different... it is what connects them all regardless of intellect or complexity. We all share the same time but not the same perceptions. Thus the universe is different for all beings.

And mike2 asks if the universe came from the same singularity. As in the Big Bang. Even if the single particle theory is true as far as where all the matter in the universe was when the bang happened the question remains...where did the particle come from. What existed before the bang? There was either something or nothing. And as a matter of fact... you can't make something from nothing.

For me the answer is simple. It is the physical manifestation of the one absolute factual product of the conclusive equation. The universe has to exist because nothing, as a starting point, is impossible.

Consciouness is the unifying force that allows the universe and the life forms within it to exist. Life is the result of the interaction of the conscious force and physical matter. Life does not exist within the universe... the universe exists within life.