MJ kihara

Maybe if you can explain Raychaudhuri equation in a manner that tends to be more visual ( math and diagramatical explanation) it would be of more help to such posters.

We talking past each other....am asking about you saying gravity field couples with its self,you are telling me the results of non linearity of GR equations.Am not against GR if you have been following the thread keenly. From the experience i have gotten so far from the forum...someone can have mastered scientific jargon like a pro physicist but be short of internalized scientific insight. I hope the Theory of everything will be a theory easily understood by everyone given minimum possible explanations. I should partially recuse my self from this thread.

With what results? What is the practical application obtainable by renormalizing gravity and its impact on physical observations made in the universe? Adding up from which limit? You know what's the most difficult thing...? Finding the most simple,easy and straight forward solution to any problem.

I suppose limit of a curvature in two dimension is a straight line and a point. A straight line,gravity equals zero while a point in a vacuum there is zero point energy. Then it's clear that there is a limit at which gravity can be described as a curvature....new concept/concepts are supposed to be introduced that merges the issue of zero point energy and curvature...since zero point energy is always there,it creates a phantom idea of gravity gravitating (gravity generating more gravity) leading to circular thinking. Since gravity influence everything including dark matter...I think no new force is supposed to be introduced, however, a new concept in explanation of gravity beyond a curvature is paramount. My thinking is something that goes wit; Normalization condition The probability that its position x will be in the interval a ≤ x ≤ b is the integral of the density over this interval:where t is the time at which the particle was measured. This leads to the normalization condition Probability functions should be /if not, must be introduced in explanations of gravity...i think this should help us link quantum world and general relativity world.

Thanks for the answer. Can this be an indication of new physics? It seems we need to modify our current understanding of gravity...including introducing more properties of a graviton in a manner consistent with Zero point energy. Is there a limit to a curvature?

Going back a little bit for clarification. When it comes to gravity,where is the effective cutoff/Singularity conditions supposed to be for us to conclude gravity has been renormalised?

Wikipedia... renormalization. Renormalization specifies relationships between parameters in the theory when parameters describing large distance scales differ from parameters describing small distance scales. Physically, the pileup of contributions from an infinity of scales involved in a problem may then result in further infinities. When describing spacetime as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are not well-defined. To define them, or make them unambiguous, a continuum limit must carefully remove "construction scaffolding" of lattices at various scales. .....My take is a continuum limit is introduced at various scales for there to be stability in the universe ...for gravity it's the graviton at quantum scale ,structure formation (asteroids,planets,stars, galaxies e.t.c) at global scales and at edges of the universe wherever it is which is ever changing due expansion.Therefore,the issue of gravity not being renormalizable to me it's difficult to comprehend.

????? A ToE with no link between standard model and general relativity?

Then linking graviton to the curvature can be an excellent thing.

Other fields acting upon spacetime producing an effect perceived as gravity,then gravity acts upon other fields... is it not a case of gravity gravitating? Making gravity difficult to renormalize....this option don't seem to produce a solution for renormalizing gravity.

Effect without cause?

Then you don't know if it's there or not.

Its interesting. Mass induces gravity to infinity that extent to quantum harmonics/quantum pseudo harmonics (speculative). It's a transition from quantum realm to classical realm...we can predict with certainity the position of earth on its orbit, however where is earth if you narrow down to it's center of gravity(it's singularity)? Anyway,lots of temptation to go off topic(TOE).

Thanks. Hope probability renormalization condition can also be employed. Wikipedia(wave function).....This leads to the normalization condition:because if the particle is measured, there is 100% probability that it will be somewhere.

Given my interests and going by my posts in this forum,I might not be a good arbiter on this topic. However,the issue with gravity not being renormalised to me seem controversial since it's being looked at from the angle of UV divergence ( an issue am trying hard to internalize) and Feynman higher order loop integral. If the perspective changes it might help...since QM involves probability and it's more fundamental, unlike GR,I think probability renormalization should be used in arguments of renormalised gravity in a manner consistent with arguments of GR.

The last paragraphs from the article...“The world is probably much more complicated than we ever could have imagined,” ....“If we set our sights high, we get deep insights.”

Going by the order of fundamentality...I think this should be criteria of getting a theory of everything. 1- pose a simple/ probably controversial basic question in philosophy and try to answer it. 2-Use the answer in step one to develop a mathematical statement/equation. 3-Use whatever you got in step two to develop a physic model. 4- Use the model that you get in step 3 to answer physic problems,of course the model should be in agreement with standard model and general relativity...and of course,since you want TOE it should merge them seamless. 5-Having satisfied step 4 more than any theory of the day,try answering other non resolved problems from other branches of science chemistry and Biology...and since we exist it should be able to explain theory of evolution..this is a critical parameter that you can't run away from. 6-Finally the theory having satisfied step 1 to 5 should be able to explain new scientific observations and make further scientific predictions that are testable in the immediate future and further into the future,this point determines the extent to which such a theory will retain the crown 👑 of A theory of everything.

Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue. We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe. Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue. We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe.

My opinion is that,The title Theory of everything..it's clear as it is written without further complications,among the three branches of science I think physics is more fundamental,maybe the reason why physicist would want to own the title... however,since the title is more general in it's statement then it's not wrong to look from more fundamental thing than physic,going by your post, mathematics and philosophy seem a good area to look for such a theory which should then be verified by physic since it has to be able to explain and predict physical phenomena.

Physic and math seem intertwined to the best of my knowledge so far,it's critical source of information to other branches of science(chemistry & biology). My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics? Since we are in speculation section,let use assume this scenario,you are in a planet with the knowledge you have, this planet has homosapiens who have just become aware of themselves i.e they now seem to start drawing things like their fingers and what seem to be circles and triangles..you have a few minutes probably ten minutes to take off and leave them without coming back...is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period?

Should it be just for fundamental understanding/just the foundation for knowledge? whereby,by knowing it, it would be enough to be able to know/derive why a rock fractured and the science behind psychology...I mean fundamental source of knowledge to explain/give reasons/predict almost everything if not everything.

I think this post is a hijack of thread since you are talking of the 'list maker' you own thought is critical, from the scientific knowledge you have acquired over time. The use of 'Must be' seem to restrict something that should attempt to explain/offer explanation for everything.

The explanation is so excellent...esp the combination not just matter-anti matter asymmetry but also why did extinction take place and other explanations. I also think it could also be highly speculative since establishing it's limit would be extremely difficult,the crown 👑 for such a theory would remain as long as is able to offer more predictions and explain observations more than any other theory of the day.

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title? Or even to come near to that title?

At R=0 is a point,a solution when gravity renormalised to that point, hope am not wrong about that. Since Einstein modeled gravity using geometry(Einstein manifold equating to available energy content ),we seem to have been stuck on our further understanding of gravity. Is there a limit to the extent to which you can use geometry to explain something like a point? What are parameters used to determine a point?