Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grand Unified Theory Possible by 2050

Posted by Roblimo on from the wrapping-it-all-up dept.

pcarter writes "Scientific American has an interesting article about the possibility of unifying all the fundamental physical forces (electro-weak, strong and gravity) by 2050 and how it might be done. "

1 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Grand Unified Theory by Sheridan · · Score: 4
    Alright, I am a Mathematics/Physics major at my college.
    Congratulations. In a few years time when you graduate, you might even understand why the rest of your comment is such utter tripe.
    All I want to know is "How many people actually understood what the article said...?"
    Me, for one.
    Oh, I see, only two of the hundreds of posters. That's okay, it just makes reading some of these posts funny, but sad at the same time. Alright, here's what the article is missing as far as linking Quantum theory with Standard theory. The link isn't impossible at all...If you have no clue what you are talking about.
    I assume you mean "quantum gravity" and the "standard model". Reading the original article would have helped you here, I think. It is amazing that anybody with such and obvious lack of knowledge of particle theory could write the above comment about lack of knowledge being sad.
    Has anybody here dealt with Chaos Theory and implications of the Riemmann Zeta function for starters. And I don't mean a search on Yahoo for a definition. Modern science cannot to this day even predict accurately, given all determinable factors what will happen during a reaction on an atomic scale. Quantum theory is based on Probalistic Physics, Relativistic or Standard Theory is based on Deterministic Physics.
    The Standard Model is a fully quantum theory. Furthermore, just because a theory is probabilistic, it does not imply that it does not make precise predictions. In fact, the standard model is about the most rigorously tested theories out there (along with GR). It makes extremely accurate predictions of measurable quantities, and agrees with experiment to a phenomenal degree of accuracy. You obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about. (inanity about complex plane etc. snipped)
    If you want to respond, please say something intelligent and not pathetic/flame...Thanks
    Of course, you could help responders out in that by reading the article and posting something intelligent in the first place.
    --
    "I am not a nut-bag." -- Millroy the Magician