Good enough explanations, guys - thanks.
From what I've read in Hawking's books - the Unified Theory will literally explain everything scientific.
I've also deduced that Professor Hawking believes that if we "know" everything (as proposed in the Unified Theory), that we will then know everything God knows, bringing us to the literal end of time on earth.
This is some pretty deep stuff on several levels, especially the religious significance coming from the foremost brainiac in the world.
Have we lost the rest of you, yet - 'cause I know there's no punchline.
If my understanding is right, the Grand Unified Theory equation would essentially allow us to convert electricity to gravity (Like mass into energy and back, it may take A LOT or not.....) and that would have some radical applications for travel and possibly time.
Having just plodded through a good chunk of 'A Brief History of Time', I'm with Dan in the corner wearing a dunce cap. That stuff is fascinating but hard to wrap the old cranium around. It defies logic that something can be in 2 places at once, but it can at both the microscopic and santascopic levels!
Theoretically, and via a couple of different ideas, everything is made out of "stuff" and you could change it between different form given the right mechanism. The big hickup that they are trying to solve the last time I read up on it, which was about 3yrs ago, was quantum gravity, gravity is a force that seems to refuse to be "digitized." Quantum stuff gets it's name from everything coming in specific sized bunches, if they are small enough they appear to be continuous so the macro level stuff appears to be "analog". The publications I'm failure with seems to point towards a particle called a graviton holding the gravity rather than a stretch of a string. So if you could generate gravitons with electricity, then you can generate "electric gravity".
I should stay out of this as my scientific education comes via PBS and some reading, but..... I think the jury is still out on the possibility of negative gravity. Which could explain Warp Drive, which we just don't have yet. We know it'll happen - I saw it on TV.
Tedly - I read "A Brief History of Time" twice - and saw the movie. Made my head hurt. And how did I manage to warp a thread on Santa into a discussion of theoretical physics? I scare me sometimes.
Coorect me if I am wrong, but isn't gravity one of the few things that has no negative equivilant?
I'm even less versed than CTX-SLPR, but it's one of those natural mysteries. Is gravity really just an attactive force? Makes me wonder, have you ever seen the example of 3D space Curving to explain gravity? Lik the ball causing a depression on a plane so everything falls into it? What's not to say on the bottom side where it's raised up things fall away from the object, aka anti-gravity. But the universe gets strange when things get really big or really small.
You're forgetting an important part of the equation. Santa has Christmas Magic and operates outside the the rules of physics
This is an easy answer, Santa has the ability to slow down time, so he just takes his time to make all the deliveries and even takes a break now and then to eat the cookies and drink the milk left for him at most houses. We also made sure to leave out some oats for the Reindeer !!
;D
Coorect me if I am wrong, but isn't gravity one of the few things that has no negative equivilant?
I'm even less versed than CTX-SLPR, but it's one of those natural mysteries. Is gravity really just an attactive force? Makes me wonder, have you ever seen the example of 3D space Curving to explain gravity? Lik the ball causing a depression on a plane so everything falls into it? What's not to say on the bottom side where it's raised up things fall away from the object, aka anti-gravity. But the universe gets strange when things get really big or really small.
There's debate on that, some say there is a 5th Force (gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic are the established 4) that functions like antigravity but its very weak and I've not read much on it recently to know if it's been debunked or still in consideration. Fermilab on Fundemental Forces: http://ed.fnal.gov/tchrbkground/theory.html
There is also explanations where things with 0 charge and 0 quarks (sub nuclear particles) will have effectively no antiparticle because they have no intrensic defining factor since the "anti" properties require an inverse. In this case things like a graviton would be it's own antiparticle and all would have a positive attractive pull.
I tend to support the particle based theories but I'm no expert. What will be interesting is what will happen if you smash gluons or gravitons together because you can get electron/positron pairs from smashing photons (energy to matter conversion). It's how a PET scan works actually.
Comment