A brief overview of the history of physics / By Olivier L

[socrat44]

In Theory, Can We String the Universe Together?
By Olivier Loose , On May 30, 2020 , In Theoretical Physics
------
''Physics explains how our material Universe works. However, its theories do not currently form a satisfying whole. For example, the theory that describes the fundamental forces and building blocks of our physical world excludes gravity, and we do not comprehend how the Universe was born.''

''For this reason, string theory has set the objective of integrating all the current explanations of how our Universe functions, from the very small to the very large, into one coherent Theory of Everything.''

https://acircleisround.com/2020/05/30/i ... KY0ZJgxEKw

[charon]

we do not comprehend how the Universe was born

one coherent Theory of Everything

That's all.

[socrat44]

we do not comprehend how the Universe was born

one coherent Theory of Everything

That's all.

1 - Quantum mechanics + Quantum gravity = Problem
2 - Extra dimensions = Supersymmetries = Problem
'' So far, no experiment has been able to observe such extra dimensions.''
3 - The candidates for Dark matter = Problem
4 - Graviton = Problem
5 - ''we cannot find a way around infinities.'' = Problem
6 - String theories + superstring theories + M-theory = Problem
7 - The Standard Model of particle physics = Problem
8 - The hierarchy puzzles = Problem
9 - The black holes + black hole entropy / information = Problem
10 - Expanding Universe Unexplained /Dark energy = Problem
11 - Cosmological Singularities = Problem
--------
https://acircleisround.com/2020/05/30/i ... KY0ZJgxEKw
-----------

After manipulating with different formulas and extra models
physicists get modern view of our universe.
=======

[charon]

Sorry, no. They think that by fitting all these different ideas together they'll come up with the whole. Not so. A mixture of partial concepts, however exhaustive, isn't the whole. Whole means whole, meaning as one.

Besides, they'd have to be quite sure that they had all the possible bits first. Is that possible? I doubt it, otherwise there'd be nothing left to find out.

Take a broken plate. You could find every single little infinitesimal tiny piece and glue it all together but it'll never be the whole, unbroken plate. I know this is a bit depressing but there it is.

For one thing, the whole isn't something static, fixed. It's not like a plate. The whole of everything isn't static, it's undergoing change all the time. Things come and go, birth and death, creation and destruction, all that stuff.

That's the nature of the universe, if by the universe we mean the whole. And you know they're suggesting multiple universes now.

Probably the best they can come up with would be some kind of equation or formula but it would be so generalised, so abstract, so obscure, that it wouldn't mean very much, if anything. I mean, you may as well draw a perfect circle and call that the whole, but it's only a symbol, which has been done before, of course.

So what's to be done? I don't think science can ever resolve this because science is a means of gathering knowledge. No knowledge can contain the whole because knowledge is always a part of the whole, it can never be the whole itself.

The fact is the whole is the unknown. The word 'the whole' isn't the actual whole. It's not unknown in the sense it remains to be discovered and therefore known in the future. It may be forever unknown because of its nature.

There is a way out of this but it's not in the realm of science. The human being can come upon the whole when he himself is whole. That is, devoid of any fragmentation and the mental mechanism that fragments everything.

We look through a prism, as it were, that breaks everything up. When that stops there is wholeness. When all separation and division stop there's oneness. So one has to become fully aware of the prism, see it in operation, its causes and effects, its nature.

The trouble is the prism is oneself. That means one has to 'not be' for the whole to be. That means it can never be experienced by us. Reality is not an experience, it just is.

But the moment we say we want to capture it there's the beginning of breaking things up again. So any mental movement at all is the ending of wholeness. In silence the whole is, and that silence isn't separate from the whole. It's not that 'we' are silent, there's only that state of nothingness. Then the whole is, by whatever name.

I know you don't like this sort of thing but it's factual. Just see the logic of it and let it sink in. That's all you have to do, then the rest takes care of itself.

[socrat44]

A brief overview of the history of physics
-------
Entropy
1 - Boltzmann wrote that entropy is "missing information"
2 - Wilhelm Ostwald said : ''The entropy is only a shadow of energy.''
3 - Henri Poincare called "entropy " as a " surprising abstract "
4 - Lev Landau wrote: " A question about the physical basis of the entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
5 - Entropy as an effect of “Dark energy”
6 - John von Neumann said to "the father of information theory" Claude Shannon: " Name it "entropy" then in discussions you will receive a solid advantage, because nobody knows what "entropy" basically is ".
Conclusion:
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
/ Richard Feynman /
=================