Grand Unification Theory

Relativity prefect explains the effects of gravity at the super-atomic level with a few exceptions, and Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains the subatomic world, but they are completely incompatible with each other. As a logical thinker, that annoys me.

My thought is that the gravitational constant is wrong. I think the vibration of strings ripple through the universe causing what appears to be a constant G, but actually ends up being variable depending on distance. Trying to prove it, haven't gotten too far yet :P I think gravity travels, and does so many times faster than the speed of light. Which doesn't violate relativity and would explain why in quantum mechanics, you can feel the effect of an event before you can see it.

Discuss GUT.

Isn't gravity not travelling faster then the speed of light an essence of relativity?

Yes, but in 4 dimensional space. The current thought is that the universe has 12 dimensions and I think gravity can travel much faster in the micro dimensions. Modern thoughts of gravity is that it leaks into "micro dimensions," this might explain why gravity behaves so badly in the subatomic world.

I think that gravity kind of randomly vibrates around these dimensions and has an average speed of c. Similar to how electrons can move at c, but through copper wire, they travel at around c/3, because they don't take straight paths. Same as how you can slow down the speed of light through glass and other materials. This random motion of gravity may explain why subatomic particles seem to jump randomly per the Geisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

Einstein saw the universe as a big flexible sheet, when in reality, it's a sheet that's folded over and over again at every point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Which doesn't violate relativity and would explain why in quantum mechanics, you can feel the effect of an event before you can see it.

---

Does the phenomenon have a name? I also thought that gravity traveled at the speed of light and did not exceed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader

Does the phenomenon have a name? I also thought that gravity traveled at the speed of light and did not exceed it.

---

Yes, it's part of Geisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

And yes, gravity does travel at the speed of light, in the super-atomic level. I think it can travel far faster at the subatomic level. The current theories of gravity (including Einstien's) break down completely at the subatomic level, they just don't work. I think showing gravity traveling faster than light in sub-space can fix it.

I think rather than thinking of gravity working in a perfectly straight line, it takes random paths that average out to be straight. I think that the speed of light is only the universal speed limit in 4D space, not 12D space.

It's widely thought that gravity leaks into micro-dimensions, I think gravity vibrates in and out of our 4D space in these dimensions. This would explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other 3 forces and why it behaves so strangely in micro-meaurements. The random motion in and out of our 4D space can account for why particles can move from one point to another without passing through the space between them.

I need the proof that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, but I can't find it. I know that if you combine them, you get gravity of infinity squared, I think I can fix it by speeding up gravity in the micro world.

Think about it for a moment and it because obvious that gravity can travel faster than light (if it's as small as I think it is.) Every point in the universe looks like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-alternate.png

Those folds aren't next to each other, in our 4D world, every piece of that fold occupies the same space. If gravity can get lost in the folds, that means that it can travel along those folds. So it has to travel across the entire fold (but not jump across it,) to get to the next point in space. Meaning that at the micro-dimension level, it MUST be traveling many times faster than light.

Space is folded over itself 10 times (according to string theory, I might come up with a different number,) and time is still only 1. So, to travel though 3D space that's folded 10 times, gravity has to travel much faster in these extra dimensions.

this is a great idea ninja, did you research to see if anyone has thought something similar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Yes, but in 4 dimensional space.

---

Hm, that's interesting.

Quote:

---

The current thought is that the universe has 12 dimensions and I think gravity can travel much faster in the 8 micro dimensions.

---

Since when twelve? As far as I know, people think of it being eleven.
First ten, now eleven.

I'm not sure if gravity could travel faster then light in the micro dimensions,
I'm no physicist, but somehow it doesn't seem quite right to me.

We don't really have any clue what the fourth spacial dimension would
really be, we can abstractly imagine, how a dimension can be folded that
it is not apparent to us or our intuition, but to claim that they travel faster
in these, doesn't really change the fact that it doesn't in the first three.

Quote:

---

Modern thoughts of gravity is that it leaks into "micro dimensions," this might explain why gravity behaves so badly in the subatomic world.

---

Do you have a source?

Quote:

---

I think that gravity kind of randomly vibrates around these dimensions and has an average speed of c. Similar to how electrons can move at c, but through copper wire, they travel at around c/3, because they don't take straight paths. Same as how you can slow down the speed of light through glass and other materials. This random motion of gravity may explain why subatomic particles seem to jump randomly per the Geisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

---

Now I'm confused. Are you talking about Heisenberg?

And isn't the Uncertainty Principle the fact that you are changing an
experiment by observing it, the more 'light you add' the faster the particles
move? Therefore never being able to have an uninfluenced outcome?
That two measurenment units can not always be measured independently
from one another?

Quote:

---

Einstein saw the universe as a big flexible sheet, when in reality, it's a sheet that's folded over and over again at every point.

---

Yeah, I agree. Einstein would probably be pretty surprised over modern physics.

Quote:

---

Yes, it's part of Geisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

---

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you mean Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle..

Some of the stuff seems to be at odds with what I have read about it, can
you provide sources? Again, where does the 12th dimension come from?
In what way does Heisenberg say that gravity can travel faster then the
speed of light?

Entanglement is a different phenomena, as far as I know, since there is
no time difference at all, thus no distance has been travelled.

Quote:

---

I need the proof that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible

---

While relativity discribes large objects that have a solid surface and behave
accordingly to exact math and not due to randomness, if you get on the
quantum level you have a very differently structured surface, quantum
fluctuation and a universe that seems to be built only on randomness.
In a way, large objects and subatomic particles behave contradictory,
I'm sure there are finer distinctions in the math of it all, but that goes
too far for me. Have you ever seen the mathematical explanations of
string-theory? Whoosh.. :)

Althoug string theory has, as far as I know, done the best job combining
quantum mechanics and relativity. And I think, if they would ever find the
anti-materia in the LHC particle accelerator, it would be a big step forward
in terms of a grand unification theory.

Do you know David Gross? Or Brian Greene?
David Gross: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM7SnUlw-DU

Can you provide sources for your claims? I'm open to any ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

And isn't the Uncertainty Principle the fact that you are changing an
experiment by observing it, the more 'light you add' the faster the particles
move? Therefore never being able to have an uninfluenced outcome?
That two measurenment units can not always be measured independently
from one another?

---

I think the Uncertainty Principle deals more with what you mentioned in the second half of your post, the fact that when dealing with quantum mechanics, the velocity and position of a particle both can't be accurately known. So the more precisely you know the velocity of an electron (or any other sub-atomic particle, I think), the less precisely you can know of its position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catbus

I think the Uncertainty Principle deals more with what you mentioned in the second half of your post, the fact that when dealing with quantum mechanics, the velocity and position of a particle both can't be accurately known. So the more precisely you know the velocity of an electron (or any other sub-atomic particle, I think), the less precisely you can know of its position.

---

yea, that's how I understand it. that's what I meant, too. Well put :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Since when twelve? As far as I know, people think of it being eleven.
First ten, now eleven.

---

I mistyped, I meant 11. 10 spacial dimensions, plus time.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure if gravity could travel faster then light in the micro dimensions,
I'm no physicist, but somehow it doesn't seem quite right to me.

---

Gravity doesn't seem right to anyone, it's the biggest problem with physics. If gravity appears to travel at C in macro-dimensions, it must be traveling way above c in micro dimensions. They are not part of Einstien's space-time, so it doesn't' violate Relativity.

Quote:

---

We don't really have any clue what the fourth spacial dimension would
really be, we can abstractly imagine, how a dimension can be folded that
it is not apparent to us or our intuition, but to claim that they travel faster
in these, doesn't really change the fact that it doesn't in the first three.

---

Imagine a powerline, as seen from 50 miles. It looks 1 dimensional, however, when you get closer, you see that it also has height and width on a micro-scale in comparison. As does each dimension of space.

Quote:

---

Do you have a source?

---

I'll find one, but not now. I forget what the woman's name is who came up with the idea, but I think she works at Princeton.

Quote:

---

Now I'm confused. Are you talking about Heisenberg?

---

Oops, yeah, I meant him. What you described is the common way of saying the theory, but there is a mathematical side to it too, which shows where particles are expected to be, within a certain margin of error.

Here's a nice explanation of string theory, I think the scientists who predicted the leaking of gravity is in it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

yea, that's how I understand it. that's what I meant, too. Well put :)

---

That's because they're moving in and out of our 3D world. We're just seeing a cross section of them. Youtube something called "Flatland" for a good explanation of cross-sections from other dimensional objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Gravity doesn't seem right to anyone, it's the biggest problem with physics. If gravity appears to travel at C in macro-dimensions, it must be traveling way above c in micro dimensions. They are not part of Einstien's space-time, so it doesn't' violate Relativity.

---

So are you are saying, different dimensions, different physical laws?

super-symmetry of string theory would state quite the opposite, or not?
But I might be wrong. Also I might have misunderstood what you wanted
to say here..

Quote:

---

Imagine a powerline, as seen from 50 miles. It looks 1 dimensional, however, when you get closer, you see that it also has height and width on a micro-scale in comparison. As does each dimension of space.

---

Yea, I know this particular example, as to how one could imagine these
weird dimensions being there. But that doesn't tell us much about them.
That's what I meant, we have theories where they are and can even
make sense of them being there, but it kind of ends there. Right?

Quote:

---

Oops, yeah, I meant him. What you described is the common way of saying the theory, but there is a mathematical side to it too, which shows where particles are expected to be, within a certain margin of error.

---

If you have something that describes that side of the Uncertainty Principle,
also in accordance to your claims, I would gladly read it. Whenever you have
the time, I wouldn't probably read it right now anyway.

Quote:

---

Here's a nice explanation of string theory, I think the scientists who predicted the leaking of gravity is in it too.

---

Missing a link there? :)

Edit:

Also, you are not proposing string theory exactly for a unification, or are you?

No, I'm saying that if we think of these folded dimensions are making space larger than we see it, the weakness of gravity works out and if you think of the micro-particles as higher dimensional particles that we only see a cross section of, the predictable uncertainty of electrons can probably be mapped mathematically. I don't believe randomness can exist in the universe. And I'll bet that if the patterns of possible positions of electrons are mapped, we can also map the folds in the microdimensions, and I'll bet the problems with gravity go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Geisenburg Uncertainty Principle.

---

Heisenberg :)

Very interesting. I suppose that is why physicists are so desperate for new
empirical data brought forth by particle accelerators and such.

But I think I understand what you mean. I'll wait for other inputs now :)
thanks

Anti-matter is not theory anymore, many scientists have made and contained it.

I'll bet it's even possible to prove the size of a fold. Electromagnetism travels in 3D, because it's waves are too big to fit in the tiny little folds of micro dimensions. Theoretically, you should be able to make waves that are infinitely small. I"ll bet physicists will come to a cap, where they can't make light of waves smaller than a certain amount, because they it will leak into the folds and behave differently.

Having micro dimensional folds also solves the singularity problem. Einstein's equations explode at singularities. But folded space can't be compressed, only warped, so a 3D singularity will still have space in micro-dimensions, which will cause Einstein's math to work again.

Basically this level of theoretical physics is insanely mathematical. If you don't understand how to work with mathematics in 11 dimensions and you don't understand things like differential geometry then basically you don't understand what any of this is about.

Sorry to be the cynic here but that's what it comes down to. When physicists try to convey some sense of what they're doing to laymen all they're really doing is painting pretty pictures, like the shadows on Plato's cave wall. You can't actually work with the theory by conceptualising the pictures, or trying to understand the movements of the shadows. Only those who have seen the fire have the ability to do that; and if they discover something, perhaps to cast another shadow for us to glimpse.

Note that I don't claim to have any real understanding of such deep physics either; and it's only an assumption that you do not, so please correct me if I am wrong.

I generally agree. Also new findings will be reserved for physicist or abstract
mathematicians in 99% of the cases. But, there are other branches as well
that make use of findings in theoretical physics and need an academic or at
least a more in depth approach to the topic - and it works, to a certain degree.

I'm trying to say that there is a grey area. From simplistic metaphors to the
full mathematical picture, there are many stops. And it's possible to understand
enough, to get a picture that, even when more simple, is not wrong or can be
still useful to one and it is possible to realize why what is important for which
theory to be correct and what that would imply. Because if it comes down to
it, none of the physicists has any idea what the hell all this means either.

I think people should be encouraged to also think about this kind of stuff.

Did I make any sense? I'm not sure :-/

Understanding of differential geometry is not my problem. I did plenty of that in college and did some last night, I haven't forgotten how. If you can do differential geometry in 2D, you can do it in 11D, it's just that much harder :P

You can do GR geometry..?

I'm not great at it, but yes. You usually learn that in Calc 3 in college, I took 4 years of calculus because I do physics simulations in software. I actually used some differential geometry for my senior thesis, more specifically: Navier–Stokes. :)

If you understand integrating in 1D, it's not that much of a leap to go to 2D, and if you can do 2D, you can go up to 3...