/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9802297]

How close are physicists of formulating the GUT (Great Unified Theory)?

[Anonymous No.9802303]

>>9802297
> are we they yet?
> are we they yet?
> are we they yet?

Well get there when we get there. But we’re closer than we started

[Anonymous No.9802307]

>>9802297
Far

[Anonymous No.9802316]

>>9802307
Why?

[Anonymous No.9802320]

About 350 meters

[Anonymous No.9802324]

>>9802303
What meaningful and relevant discoveries have physicists made so far for unifying quantum mechanics and relativity?

[Anonymous No.9802329]

>>9802297
Time to derail thread.

[Anonymous No.9802332]

>>9802329
>discovery copyright
Pretty sure you aren't allowed to copyright math

[Anonymous No.9802333]

>>9802329
Derailing threads is for immature dicks. Don't be a brainlet and let things take a natural course without shit spewing monkeys such as yourself.

[Anonymous No.9802337]

>>9802332
>>9802333
working wonderfully.

[Anonymous No.9802338]

>>9802332
Also:
>Math
No

[Anonymous No.9802341]

>>9802297
Discoveries don't happen overnight. We aren't very close.

[Anonymous No.9802347]

>>9802297
Quite close if you're willing to believe the central hypothesis of string theory, that the strong strings of seminal volumes can unsettle the centre of voluminous pendules, which is of course nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9802364]

>>9802297
Dont know dark matter
Dont know dark energy
Dont know if qm is non local
Evidence that electrons are not fundamental
Evidence that barons has thousands of quarks instead of a few
Dont know what spin is
Cp violation

Physics of the 1900s broke more things than it fixed. We are a long ways off, but another newton or einstein might get us close overnight, so who knows.

[Anonymous No.9802392]

>>9802364
What evidence do we have that electrons are not fundamental ? afaik we'd need accelerators many orders of magnitude stronger to confirm it

[Anonymous No.9802421]

>>9802392
Supposedly theres been experiments that electrons have internal structure, but I cant func much info about it. Same with the quark proton statement, but my prof. Worked on that stuff, said people are actively looking at those areas.

[Anonymous No.9803446]

so far it seems the deeper we go we just discover that what we thought was "fundamental" was just an expression of a deeper system of physics

the real question is when will we hit a true singularity of information
I doubt such a thing really exists but humans are bound to hit a information wall in a practical sense

[Anonymous No.9803455]

>>9802364
>Dont know if qm is non local
>Evidence that barons has thousands of quarks instead of a few
>Dont know what spin is
>Cp violation
"no"

[Anonymous No.9803456]

Is there a summary of whats been going on in physics in the last 5 years? I havent been keeping up so id like to know whats been happening with string theory/twister theory/supergravity/loop quantum gravity/ads-cft corresponding/whatever else. are they dead? are they still being worked on? is somethign new the theory of the day?

[Anonymous No.9803458]

>>9802297
We already have plenty of GUTs, but no way to actually test them.

>>9802364
You're a moron with no clue what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.9803461]

>>9802316
Relativity holds us back.
Idealism and science is a suicidal combination.

[Anonymous No.9803463]

>>9802324
Such as developing QM and relativity.

[Anonymous No.9803464]

>>9802337
What the fuck am I looking at here?

[Anonymous No.9803607]

>>9802421
people are always proposing different theories and testing more accepted ones. No doubt people have published physics articles conjecturing the existence of internal structure in the electron, but so far it doesn't seem to be useful in understanding what we see by assuming no structure, since it's difficult to find.

[Anonymous No.9803619]

I did it for you guys, no need to thank me thank synchronicity

[Anonymous No.9803627]

>>9803619
Is the tattooed monkey legit or are we being scammed. I've seen his magnetism videos and the experiments seem to work.

[Anonymous No.9803630]

>>9803627
I posted that picture and I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.9803715]

>>9802337
>phi^2+phi=phi^3

[Anonymous No.9803765]

>>9802324
They've unified quantum mechanics and SPECIAL relativity, creating quantum field theory, which accounts for 3 out of 4 fundamental forces.

[Anonymous No.9804007]

>>9803715
>phi^2+phi=phi^3
why are you quoting that? didnt you know about that identity? it follows directly from the definition of phi.

[Anonymous No.9804514]

>>9802297
>How close are physicists of formulating the GUT (Great Unified Theory)?
happened already. see string theory.

inb4
>unproven

our technology is to shitty to test it

[Anonymous No.9804516]

>>9803461
>some bullshit

back to /x you super brainlet

[Anonymous No.9804520]

>>9803464
How a magnetic field works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hk66QYFeqk

[Anonymous No.9804587]

>>9802320
Or 3.7 × 10-14light-years

[Anonymous No.9805009]

Got a guy here who's already formulated a GUT

[Anonymous No.9805457]

>>9802297
I'm going to laugh my ass off when it turns out there isn't one.

Yes, common sense says there has got to be one -- but since when did common sense have shit to do with the more esoteric areas of physics? We assume there is some universal rule applicable at all scales -- but there is no real reason to make that assumption.

[Anonymous No.9805539]

>>9802297
We have pretty much exploited all our current tools to formulate scientific theories. To create new ones we need

a. a new set of mathematics that enables you to formulate data in a new, better way and thus have a fuller understanding of nature (like non-eucledian geometry enabled relativity-theory).

b. new data through new experiments like even larger particle accelerators or giant telescopes (like how the capability to measure different kinds of radiation enabled quantum theory).

[Anonymous No.9805696]

>>9804007
>phi = 2.4 radians
>The identity doesn't hold
Fake + gay

[Anonymous No.9805775]

>>9805696
are you just pretending to be retarded?
phi^1 = 1.618
phi^2 = 2.618
phi^3 = 4.236

1.618 + 2.618 = 4.236

[Anonymous No.9806010]

>>9802297
>>9802329
It's retarded, we've seen it before 2014

[Anonymous No.9806012]

>>9802329
Cannot even write a DATE properly

[Anonymous No.9806317]

>>9805539
Both of which we're doing and making progress in...

I don't understand your claim that we've exploited all the current tools.

[Anonymous No.9806322]

>>9802297
Any day... right now... very soon... five years maximum... ten years maximum... soon, soon, I promise...

[Anonymous No.9806557]

>>9805457
Nice, you managed to display your lack of knowledge on the subject with a cover of anti intellectualism all in just 3 improper sentences! I just love knowing you can vote.