Jump to content
sapan soni

theory of everything

Recommended Posts

Does Hawking have a theory of everything? This is news to me.

 

I believe Hawking is generally a supporter of string theory, but acknowledges that using it as a theory of everything has not been as forthcoming as once hoped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to a bit more specific in your questions, sapan soni.

 

What, exactly, in the book, do you ask for clarification? We can't really summarize the book for you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically most of the book defines in scientific terms why KFC is better than Mcdonalds, he then concludes his theory as using your imagination to create and collaborate with other similar minded people which then pays off in the form of sporadicating a medaclorianoid race who go to war with the medaclorianites for total domination of the energy that created the universe (ELECROLITES, as he calls them, always referenced in capitals for effect i believe)

 

god....it wasnt that hard now was it?

 

He also used words with "Q" far too many times, the Quickness of the Quantum Quark Quacked its way home......while Quantifying its own existence

Also if your an avid reader and have a rather lucid imagination, the whole book was aucostrated in a rather monotone voice which only very slightly resembles a robot. Not that one can shout in our own mind anyway, our brains only have 1 volume....

 

i think hes trying to work on a theory that unifies the dimensions and energy into a single equation of relativity, i also think he took a leaf out of the wrong book made from the right apple tree.....whose seeds spread far and wide?

 

hawking's whole persona creates a self indulgent image in my mind of a person whom required acceptance but was far too disabled too be socially adaptive and therefore used his imagination to recreate physical laws in his mind, in other words he probably cant explain a mathematical function without contradicting himself and he has no friends, the book is a good modern day adaptation for something but i dno where this is actually going so i think ill contradict myself here and say that actually hawking's was trying to define big macs as a complete opposite to Kentucky fried chicken but yet they are one and the same? what would you compare the big mac to otherwise?

 

hawking is trying to create mathematical proof for existence by unifying the hierarchy of physics

 

if this explanation is not up too your standard for scientific explanations then i wholly accept that my semi-retardation in the scientific framework has reached its peak and that i shall never be a true scientist, though my degree will say otherwise i guess some people may argue that computers are not science in the conventional terms of discoveries but design and creation

 

DISCLAIMER ive not read the book...lol?

 

You need to a bit more specific in your questions, sapan soni.

 

What, exactly, in the book, do you ask for clarification? We can't really summarize the book for you ;)

 

i would like you too indulge me in hawking's constant if at all possible? i mean using science as a base what procedural steps do we take to come to his conclusions? what actual visual proof do we have that we cant discern as some form of illusion (in other words what equipment are we using to verify what we see) and finally this may be going 1 step too far but could you please break down the mathematical formula too its most fundamental base and explain what these numbers mean in physical terms as your defining them?

 

something to do with black holes in the universe i believe and the release of the energy that goes into them

 

i will be extremely appreciative of your reply and thankful at the minimum for your time reading this... :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bekenstein--Hawking law of black hole entropy is

 

[math]S_{BH} = \frac{kc^{3}}{4 G \hbar} A[/math],

 

where [math]k[/math] is Boltzmann's constant, [math]c[/math] is the speed of light, [math]G[/math] is Newton's gravitational constant, [math]\hbar[/math] is Planck's (reduced) constant and [math]A[/math] is the surface area of the black hole horizon.

 

Sometimes the mix of constants [math] \frac{kc^{3}}{4 G \hbar}[/math] is known as hawking's constant. Berkenstein had the right form of this law before Hawking but was unsure about the numerical factor in the denominator.

 

The amazing thing about this law is that the entropy is proportional to the surface area and not the volume. This means that all the information about a black hole is encoded in this surface.

 

The basic reason as to why black holes have an entropy at all is because they have a temperature. This temperature is the famous Hawking temperature. Understanding the statistical physics involved, ie. wanting to understand the microstates leading to the entropy is difficult. These states are not obvious, but string theory has provided an answer, and loop quantum gravity also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The amazing thing about this law is that the entropy is proportional to the surface area and not the volume. This means that all the information about a black hole is encoded in this surface.

 

 

 

Do you think this could lead to an understanding of why the cube root of A^3 + B^3 is probably irrational and why the sine wave (where every point, by definition, is a square root) is so important in mathematics, science and engineering? I am no mathematician but am interested in Fermat's last Theorem and have a feeling these thoughts are relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think this could lead to an understanding of why the cube root of A^3 + B^3 is probably irrational and why the sine wave (where every point, by definition, is a square root) is so important in mathematics, science and engineering? I am no mathematician but am interested in Fermat's last Theorem and have a feeling these thoughts are relevant.

 

I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing. Weak force, strong force and electromagnetic force we understand but are missing the link; gravity. So it may exist, but is not the theory of everything.

 

We do have a central equation known as the standard model of particle physics Maybe worth looking it up and understanding it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

 

Tony that is surely 1 or 2 dimensional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Hawking think string theory is the m-theory? Or is that just Brian Green and Michio Kaku?

Edited by questionposter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Hawking think string theory is the m-theory?

 

The superstring theories are "contained" in M-theory as limits, so is an 11 dimensional supergravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The superstring theories are "contained" in M-theory as limits, so is an 11 dimensional supergravity.

String theory isn't even science yet its accepted as an m-theory, so the limits for m-theories are philosophy? Otherwise how can they put limits possibilities when we still have no idea why everything is the way it is?

Edited by questionposter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

String theory isn't even science yet its accepted as an m-theory, so the limits for m-theories are philosophy? Otherwise how can they put limits possibilities when we still have no idea why everything is the way it is?

 

 

I don't follow what you are asking.

 

Not much is really known about M-theory, other than it is a theory of M2 and M5 branes in 11 dimensions and that the 10 dimensional superstring theories and 11d supergravity come out as perturbative theories expanded about different vacua. We know how to relate the different superstring theories via dualities, the U-duality (combination of S and T) in string or M-theory. This we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this inturn have relation to the kabala dimensional qualities outline to the M-theory as limit to he 11 demensional supergravity?

The superstring theories are "contained" in M-theory as limits, so is an 11 dimensional supergravity.

 

 

Would this inturn have relation to the kabala dimensional qualities outline to the M-theory as limit to he 11 demensional supergravity?

 

 

http://snd.sc/Mix42f

CAn any one explain me Stephen Hawking's Theory of Everything?

Edited by IsraelUnoone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAn any one explain me Stephen Hawking's Theory of Everything?

 

Once he did dream that could obtain one. He never got one, of course.

Edited by juanrga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.