I have comparatively little understanding of Physics (especially when you look at who wrote the original article), so I likely don't know what I am talking about, but here is the problem with finding GUTs as I see it. So far, Gravity has truly refused to budge and allow itself to be combined with anything. Yes, it seems to fit with the EM force, but unlike EM, gravity has no none particle of transmition. Scientists have hunted for but found no such thing as a gravitron. Personally, I doubt they will; this particle must be able to penetrate any and every substance known to man, else we would be able to construct a permanent anti-gravity chamber with materials alone. Not even the more powerful (read: high frequency) EM waves/particles can do that, as far as I know. Also, if I am not mistaken, EM, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces have all been united, and all have particles of transmision. I don't pretend to understand that unificaton nor do I even know offhand what the weak and strong particles of transmission are. From what I understand, in an Einsteinian (is that a word?) way of looking at things, gravity is caused by a depression in space-time. Think of matter as a marble on a thin, stretched surface. The greater the mass, the larger the marble. Large masses will make depressions in the surface, as there is nothing to support the stretched surface. When you have such a depression, other marbles, especially small nearby marbles, will roll towards the marble. Larger or further marbles don't feel the effect of the depression as much; far marbles are on a relatively 'flat' region, and large marbles are in a depression of their own (read: have a large mass and inertia) and are not likely to move towards another large marble. The closer those two marbles are, however, the better the likeliness of them falling together, as their depressions become closer until there is just one larger depression. Okay, so my analogy is a bit hard to explain. If I had something to show you, I could do it much better than in words. Light interacts and is affected by gravity because of these depressions in space-time. Consider light to be a very tiny, extremely fast moving marbles on the stretched sheet (a photon has an equivalent mass because of its speed... don't ask me to remember what it is, however; all I know is it's very tiny). As they roll past a depression at high speeds, they are indeed turned by the depression, but not drawn in either; their high speeds keep them right on going, in a very slightly bent path. Einstein theorized this, and it was proven during a solar eclipse back in the early 1920s or sooner, even (for some reason the year 1917 pops to mind, but that could be just a guess). So now you might ask, where am I going with this? Well, my point is this: gravity, to the best of scientists knowledge, works differently than the other three fundemental forces of nature (should that be Forces, now that I think of it?) The other three work on enough of a related basis (particles of transmission and other things beyond my comprehension), and gravity, as far as we know, has nothing else related. One last thing. Someone better at physics can perhaps answer this for me. What exactly defines a fundemental force? There is so much that we think we know, but who are we to say that these, and ONLY these, are the fundemental forces of nature? What if gravity is just different, and does not fall into place no matter what we do? And what if there is another force we're not aware of? As unlikely as it sounds, we cannot say we know anything. And that is why I do not believe we will see a GUT by 2050.
Appologies if the post was confusing or if I contained incorrect information. Like I said, I know comparatively very little about Physics, but I do "know" that we always think we know something, and hundreds of years down the row we find out, "Oh wait, we were wrong. This is what's really true." We can never say we know everything. - Harukaze, a rambling moron:)
I have to agree. We are must closer to nanotechnology simply because of our current work in quantum mechanics. Now I'm new here, so I probably missed the article, but I will point to mankind's first organic computer chip. Granted, the thing is still in testing, but this is a supreme and wondrous breakthrough! If you don't know what I am talking about, this chip is designed to be inserted into the human body for the purpose of creating and distributing insolin(sp?) to the bloodstream of those with diabetes. Granted, the entire chip is not organic, but the combination of living cells and miniaturized circuitry simply astounds me. Getting off track, somewhat, but my point here is this: if we have the technology to make a living cell, can it be much further until we create nanomachines? While at first the two technologies might seem somewhat unrelated, I will point out that the circuitry of the organic chip is small enough to be on the cellular (or smaller) level. Also, the interaction of machine and organics can lead to the ability of nanomachines to reconstruct living tissue. The next step is to further decrease the physical size of the technology, which is up to the quantum physicists. I predict (based on not much, granted, so I shall be horribly inaccurate) that we will have this technology in thirty or so years. Why thirty? Well, I figure we do have quite a ways to go in the quantum mechanics field before we can construct something small enough; then we need a way to program the little buggers:) Finally, we need to be able to have them physically carry out their job (thus the organic chip technology). If you feel like contesting my prediction, go ahead, but don't expect me to defend my own words here, since I admit right here and now that I am basing the prediction on almost nothing.
As a candidate for a BA in Physics, I have to put in my support for this. In a seminar I took when I first arrived at college, one of the things we mentioned was how much money went into various governmental programs. Some examples were science research, education, military, etc. If I am remembering correctly (and if I am not, then forgive me; it has been well over a year since I was told this), then science was very very low on the list, whereas military was several times more costly than even the second-most expensive item listed. Science barely costs any money at all, when taken in to view with everything else the government wastes money on; who seriously thinks our Air Force needs a several billion dollar fighter jet it will never use? Oh, and if it was not for our scientists hard at work to develop the atomic bomb (something many see as the symbol of all that can go wrong with science), then we would have been the ones to be hit with the atomic bomb, and Hitler would likely have won the war (would you stand up to the only power in the world to have a nuclear weapon, a power who is not affraid to use it?). No, I am not saying that it was a good thing we bombed and killed so many civilians (in fact I would prefer not to start that debate, since I myself despise the way in which that technology was used). My point is simply that science is important, no matter how you may think otherwise. Would you want to life in a Nazi state today? Oh, and one last thing. If you are so eager for scientists to shut up, then why use a computer at all? To reitterate Edwin's statement, computers are one of the most obvious results of scientific research. If the scientists shut up, then they will have all the new computers, and maybe you might have an 8088 left all for yourself:) - Harukaze
Considering the short, meaningless post that came before, I am surprised to find such a well-worded reply here. I am new here to Slashdot, so I do not yet know all the regulars, but I think you should write science book/article reviews. You seem to be able to look at the matter critcally without simply taking one side or the other. I look forward to seeing more of your posts. - Harukaze
Slashdot Mirror
I have comparatively little understanding of Physics (especially when you look at who wrote the original article), so I likely don't know what I am talking about, but here is the problem with finding GUTs as I see it. So far, Gravity has truly refused to budge and allow itself to be combined with anything. Yes, it seems to fit with the EM force, but unlike EM, gravity has no none particle of transmition. Scientists have hunted for but found no such thing as a gravitron. Personally, I doubt they will; this particle must be able to penetrate any and every substance known to man, else we would be able to construct a permanent anti-gravity chamber with materials alone. Not even the more powerful (read: high frequency) EM waves/particles can do that, as far as I know.
Also, if I am not mistaken, EM, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces have all been united, and all have particles of transmision. I don't pretend to understand that unificaton nor do I even know offhand what the weak and strong particles of transmission are.
From what I understand, in an Einsteinian (is that a word?) way of looking at things, gravity is caused by a depression in space-time. Think of matter as a marble on a thin, stretched surface. The greater the mass, the larger the marble. Large masses will make depressions in the surface, as there is nothing to support the stretched surface. When you have such a depression, other marbles, especially small nearby marbles, will roll towards the marble. Larger or further marbles don't feel the effect of the depression as much; far marbles are on a relatively 'flat' region, and large marbles are in a depression of their own (read: have a large mass and inertia) and are not likely to move towards another large marble. The closer those two marbles are, however, the better the likeliness of them falling together, as their depressions become closer until there is just one larger depression.
Okay, so my analogy is a bit hard to explain. If I had something to show you, I could do it much better than in words.
Light interacts and is affected by gravity because of these depressions in space-time. Consider light to be a very tiny, extremely fast moving marbles on the stretched sheet (a photon has an equivalent mass because of its speed... don't ask me to remember what it is, however; all I know is it's very tiny). As they roll past a depression at high speeds, they are indeed turned by the depression, but not drawn in either; their high speeds keep them right on going, in a very slightly bent path. Einstein theorized this, and it was proven during a solar eclipse back in the early 1920s or sooner, even (for some reason the year 1917 pops to mind, but that could be just a guess).
So now you might ask, where am I going with this? Well, my point is this: gravity, to the best of scientists knowledge, works differently than the other three fundemental forces of nature (should that be Forces, now that I think of it?) The other three work on enough of a related basis (particles of transmission and other things beyond my comprehension), and gravity, as far as we know, has nothing else related.
One last thing. Someone better at physics can perhaps answer this for me. What exactly defines a fundemental force? There is so much that we think we know, but who are we to say that these, and ONLY these, are the fundemental forces of nature? What if gravity is just different, and does not fall into place no matter what we do? And what if there is another force we're not aware of? As unlikely as it sounds, we cannot say we know anything. And that is why I do not believe we will see a GUT by 2050.
Appologies if the post was confusing or if I contained incorrect information. Like I said, I know comparatively very little about Physics, but I do "know" that we always think we know something, and hundreds of years down the row we find out, "Oh wait, we were wrong. This is what's really true." We can never say we know everything.
- Harukaze, a rambling moron:)
I have to agree. We are must closer to nanotechnology simply because of our current work in quantum mechanics.
Now I'm new here, so I probably missed the article, but I will point to mankind's first organic computer chip. Granted, the thing is still in testing, but this is a supreme and wondrous breakthrough! If you don't know what I am talking about, this chip is designed to be inserted into the human body for the purpose of creating and distributing insolin(sp?) to the bloodstream of those with diabetes. Granted, the entire chip is not organic, but the combination of living cells and miniaturized circuitry simply astounds me.
Getting off track, somewhat, but my point here is this: if we have the technology to make a living cell, can it be much further until we create nanomachines? While at first the two technologies might seem somewhat unrelated, I will point out that the circuitry of the organic chip is small enough to be on the cellular (or smaller) level. Also, the interaction of machine and organics can lead to the ability of nanomachines to reconstruct living tissue. The next step is to further decrease the physical size of the technology, which is up to the quantum physicists. I predict (based on not much, granted, so I shall be horribly inaccurate) that we will have this technology in thirty or so years. Why thirty? Well, I figure we do have quite a ways to go in the quantum mechanics field before we can construct something small enough; then we need a way to program the little buggers:) Finally, we need to be able to have them physically carry out their job (thus the organic chip technology). If you feel like contesting my prediction, go ahead, but don't expect me to defend my own words here, since I admit right here and now that I am basing the prediction on almost nothing.
As a candidate for a BA in Physics, I have to put in my support for this. In a seminar I took when I first arrived at college, one of the things we mentioned was how much money went into various governmental programs. Some examples were science research, education, military, etc. If I am remembering correctly (and if I am not, then forgive me; it has been well over a year since I was told this), then science was very very low on the list, whereas military was several times more costly than even the second-most expensive item listed. Science barely costs any money at all, when taken in to view with everything else the government wastes money on; who seriously thinks our Air Force needs a several billion dollar fighter jet it will never use?
Oh, and if it was not for our scientists hard at work to develop the atomic bomb (something many see as the symbol of all that can go wrong with science), then we would have been the ones to be hit with the atomic bomb, and Hitler would likely have won the war (would you stand up to the only power in the world to have a nuclear weapon, a power who is not affraid to use it?). No, I am not saying that it was a good thing we bombed and killed so many civilians (in fact I would prefer not to start that debate, since I myself despise the way in which that technology was used). My point is simply that science is important, no matter how you may think otherwise. Would you want to life in a Nazi state today?
Oh, and one last thing. If you are so eager for scientists to shut up, then why use a computer at all? To reitterate Edwin's statement, computers are one of the most obvious results of scientific research. If the scientists shut up, then they will have all the new computers, and maybe you might have an 8088 left all for yourself:)
- Harukaze
Considering the short, meaningless post that came before, I am surprised to find such a well-worded reply here. I am new here to Slashdot, so I do not yet know all the regulars, but I think you should write science book/article reviews. You seem to be able to look at the matter critcally without simply taking one side or the other. I look forward to seeing more of your posts. - Harukaze