The roots and fruits of string theory
https://cerncourier.com/the-roots-and-fruits-of-string-theory/
Well, the fruits of a string theory is still yet to be found.
It's weird that to us that a so well known force as gravity is so very difficult to integrate with the other forces like electro-magnetic, strong and weak forces between elementary particles.
The string theory need 11 dimensions. Does that make any sense?
But then why not. Einstein's general relative theory require 4 dimensions where as Newton's laws only require 3.

The problem with trying to develop a GUT may well be that Gravity is not an intrinsic force--per se. Gravity is a result of three dimensional hyperbolic geometry. It is the warpage of space. The equation Force =mass times gravity tells us that gravity itself is not a force. Objects like to be in their lowest energy state hence they will roll (move) downhill--just as we all fall towards the Sun only to be balanced out by centripetal force.

Why does mass warp space ?? perhaps we need to look more at what free space really is.

equation Force = mass times gravity

More correctly Force = mass times acceleration.
The Newton's Second Law include both inertial mass and gravitational mass.
Which means that gravity is a force.

Gravity is a result of of three dimensional hyperbolic geometry. It is the warpage of space.

Yes. But it doesn't explain gravity due to matter.
That matter have any mass at all is because of the Higg's boson.
And all other natural forces are the result of interactive particles like the gluon, photon, Z and W boson...

Oh. Gravity is not part of the Standard Model.

I think I need a drink. TGIF:)

Apparently, it is believed that at the 'big bang' and immediately thereafter, all the forces, including gravity were unified as one. It seems that we would have to recreate the conditions that existed at that time, on a much smaller scale, in order to properly understand how gravity fits in with the other fundamental forces of nature. Besides providing a unified theory of these forces, we might also find that this unified force would allow us to control gravity, much as we can currently generate and control electromagnetism.

It's highly unlikely to recreate the conditions that existed when all forces were unified.
And even if we could there is no way to make any measurements from what I think would be a new Universe and doesn't have any properties that we can measure.
And for that matter, no one knows for sure if our Universe was created in a Big Bang with all forces unified. That theory is still a theory.
Even that Big Bang happened in the first place is a theory as well.

The experimental evidence of the Big Bang is given by the cosmic microwave background radiation, which George Gamow foresaw in 1946 at 3 k. It was found at 2.7 K in 1964 by two Bell Telephone engineers, not astronomers, who preceded Robert Dicke, an astrophysicist who wanted to built an antenna to check for it. They gained a Nobel prize.
Tullio

---

It's true that our Universe was small in the beginning. VERY small.
But there is no way to tell how small it was back then.
The only evidence of the Big Bang and it's size is given by the cosmic microwave background radiation that started 350 thousand years after the Big Bang.

Before that time the only way to determinate the size is to use math using extrapolation.
Oops. Sorry folks. Math breaks down when you come to when our Universe was VERY young.
Especially if you go back to when the size was less then a Planck length at the time before a Planck time.
Anyway. My point is that there is the possibility that our Universe didn't started out of nothing.
It could be that our Universe maybe have existed for eternity but for some reason started to grow from a VERY small region 13.8 billion years ago.

Oops again. Eternity doesn't exist in a physical world since time is a property of space-time:)

I suppose that, at some point in the past, it would have been deemed highly unlikely to be able to create temperatures of over 5 trillion degrees C. in an experimental apparatus, and then to observe or measure anything meaningful. Never-the-less this was done with the Large Hadron Collider, several years ago.

No doubt, recreating the much higher temperatures that existed before force decoupling is beyond our current abilities. But that's merely a statement about the present, not necessarily the future.

I'm satisfied that the 'big bang' is a likely enough scenario to warrant speculations about experiments that might someday be performed to recreate its conditions in a limited, controlled space.

No doubt, recreating the much higher temperatures that existed before force decoupling is beyond our current abilities. But that's merely a statement about the present, not necessarily the future.
I'm satisfied that the 'big bang' is a likely enough scenario to warrant speculations about experiments that might someday be performed to recreate its conditions in a limited, controlled space.

Yes. But would it become possible to measure the outcome of the experiment that should create a new Universe without any space, time, forces and matter?
What is that we can measure from a infinitesimal single point in our space?
We cannot even measure anything that is inside a black hole that we even doesn't have to create.
But I'm open for suggestions:)

I may be mistaken, of course, but it occurs to me that the four forces united as one may not amount to no forces, but instead, a single force with the properties of all four. Thus it might be detectable as a gravitational field, an electromagnetic field, and as the appropriate radiation for both the weak and strong nuclear forces, all simultaneously.

But all those fields needs both space and matter to exist.
And time of course. Without time nothing happens.
And if they all are mixed to one. How to separate them when measuring them?
Sigh, are we lost? :)
Perhaps not. Studying Black Holes and also trying to figure out more of the Quantum World perhaps will give us some clues what a Universe really is.
Overcoming the measurement problem that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem#Interpretations

Symphony of Science - the Quantum World!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU

In the latest book by Carlo Rovelli I found the Hawking formula of the entropy S of a black hole of area A at the event horizon. It is: c exp 3 * k A/4 h G
where k is the Boltzmann's constant, G is the Newton constant, h is the Planck constant divided by 2 Pi.
Hawking has asked it to be engraved on his tomb, where Ludwig Boltzmann has S = log W (W probability of a state).
Tullio

---

When you can explain physics in '"simple" equations then you know you are right.
It also means that it make sense:)
Hawking equation. (Actually Bekenstein-Hawking)
“I would like this simple formula to be on my tombstone.” Hawking said.

Boltzmann equation carved on his gravestone.

Hawkin lies now next to Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey. No equations though.

There are also of course the Dirac equation and Maxwell's equations.

Then Carlo Rovelli comes and say that explains that time doesn't really exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgsoI4ZUkUA
Does that make any sense? LOL:)
Well, perhaps he's right when there are also theories that we actually live in 2D world, the so called holographic principle that is a derivation from Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind about black holes surfaces...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

I've read the book by Carlo Rovelli, really a collection of articles published in Il Corriere della Sera and other newspapers. He is a good writer, besides being a researcher of quantum loop gravity. I especially liked two articles, one dedicated to Bruno de Finetti, a mathematician, and another to Roger Penrose.
Tullio

---

What is Loop Quantum Gravity - with Carlo Rovelli
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrb3FGal-oo
Aha:)
I know that Carlo has wrote the book "La realtà non è come ci appare" (Reality is not what it seems).
I have only seen some programmes when he explains his ideas about that.
Mindgobbling to say the least.
Well he isn't alone:)
BBC Horizone https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21ss62

Some papers you may have missed:

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA_2014030411260713.pdf
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20140305/AZB3-11402066.pdf
https://biocoreopen.org/ijbb/Hypothetical-Life-on-Venus-Objects-of-unidentified-Nature-at-Venera-9-and-Venera-13-Landing-sides.pdf
https://globaljournals.org/item/4907-new-type-of-hypothetical-venusian-fauna-found-at-the-venera-14-landing-site

Please let me be clear that I do think it makes sense to revisit old data in light of new approaches and ideas.

Who knows what you might find, right?

I haven't missed the Venus exploration and the pictures from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera
But what you are doing is called abductive reasoning giving links that suggest there is life on Venus.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
In this case reduced to "If it looks like a duck then it probably is a duck."
That's a non-scientistic way to reason and to me it doesn't make sense.

> it doesn't make sense.

So I posted in the right forum after all, then?

> it doesn't make sense.
So I posted in the right forum after all, then?

Yes.
I think our Scandinavian word for science, Vetenskap and in German Wissenschaft, is more describing what science really is.
Translation to that is perhaps "Knowledgehood" which means that hypothesis and theories are not really science until they are proven right all the time and is universal in our space.
But that idea doesn't work so well in reality so we sometimes have to do with theories.
The scientific community always approach new theories with peer and review.
Yes. To check if it make sense:)

世界万物是不是都是由量子构成的？