English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-17 02:25:14 · 9 answers · asked by suck sess 2 in Science & Mathematics Physics

einstien and hawking did not finish it. but i thought it was just the implementation of the relativity factor into newtonian mechanics.

2006-07-17 02:27:22 · update #1

9 answers

When you're dealing with a Grand Unified Theory, you have to throw Newton's laws out the window.

They are a good approximation to Einstein's laws, when you're dealing with everyday sizes and speeds (bigger than a grain of sand, no bigger than a galaxy, less than 100,000 mph)

But, when Newton's laws are applied to high speeds or subatomic particles, the theoretical predictions do not match the observations.
Therefore, Newton's laws have to be thrown out.

That leaves modern physics with two theories, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.
Relativity works for all speeds, and for very massive objects.
Quantum mechanics works for very small objects.
The problem is that the two theories are incompatible with each other.

So what laws describe a black hole?
Relativity (because it's very massive), or Quantum Mechanics (because it's very tiny)?
They both apply, but they don't agree with each other.

Dr. Hawking made some progress with his PhD dissertation that proposes the existance of Hawking radiation, but I don't know if there have been any astronomical observations that support this.

2006-07-17 04:39:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

According to the supporters of Burkhard Heim, the Grand Unified Theory is alive and well.
Heim and his successors led by Droescher and Haueser have developed a quantised version of General Relativity, postulating up to 12 dimensions. Each version using 6, 8 or 12 dimensions accounts for other mysterious effects (like the "Quintessence") that are not predicted or accounted for by other theories. Heim Quantum Theory also predicts new effects, such as a coupling between Electromagnetism and Gravity.
A space-propulsion device has been proposed that exploits this coupling and is reputedly being considered for test by the US.

2006-07-19 08:32:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Unified field theory has been already developped by bright iradiant Scientists.
however its development is likened into a little boy;he has already developed but he then develops more,And after that he has developed he still developped more and continues to develop till he is an old -old man. At that point he is tired of developping.

2006-07-17 10:43:08 · answer #3 · answered by goring 6 · 0 0

In my opinion it is not going well at all. Gravity has still not been integrated in with the other 3 forces and even the integration of the other forces into one theory is extremely messy. I think they are not even on the right track yet. Just my opinion. I don't really understand the math behind it.

2006-07-17 09:45:50 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0 0

The main problem still is at the Planck time/lenght level (very very small values): at those scales general relativity equations break down, for quantum fluctuations [simplifying just a bit ;-) ]. We are still far from including gravity.

2006-07-17 09:42:05 · answer #5 · answered by ascaniosobrero 3 · 0 0

Since gravity is seen as bending of the four dimensional spacetime, gravity is only a pseudo force. That is why I guess unified field theoy is ready.

2006-07-17 10:38:39 · answer #6 · answered by Thermo 6 · 0 0

the unified theory did have to do with how gravity affects the theory of relativity. einstein hoped to tie gravity into his theory of special relativity. he's gone, but we still have hawking. einstein called it the grand unification theory. where are you hawking, and can you enlighten us somewhat? pretty please?

2006-07-17 09:41:07 · answer #7 · answered by Debi K 4 · 0 0

Please don't forget Applied Spatial Mechanics, seeing as we are already inside a back hole no doubt they'll be needed at some future point of our understanding.

2006-07-18 00:26:41 · answer #8 · answered by Paul Dalby 2 · 0 0

Full of holes. Still it is believable

2006-07-17 09:37:13 · answer #9 · answered by Dr M 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers