This page is not a forum for general discussion about Grand Unified Theory. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Grand Unified Theory at the Reference desk. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I understand quantum mechanics just enough, not to make any great discoveries in the field, but enough to understand the basics. Special Relativity is the same way. I found something interesting though, relativity implies both wave-particle duality and supersymmetry! A wave is a carrier of eneergy from place to place. A paritcle can be viewed as a carrier of mass from place to place. Relativity says energy is the fourth-dimensional extendsion of momentum (which is mass times velosity). This implies that waves are fourth-dimensional extendsion of particles! This also implies that the carriers of energy (Bosons) are extendsions of the carriers of mass (Fermions)! Wave-particle duality and supersymmetry. It seems so simple I'm surprized that this was overlooked for so many years.--Surreal Warrior 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When people say GUT, they don't mean a theory which includes the unification of gravity. I think the term "theory of everything" is reserved for that. Phys 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
PS: I think they are both silly names. Phys 14:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree; the article is far too technical, even for this poor physics grad. I may have a shot at revising it. But it's going to be a big job....Robma 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any need for the insane amount of particle interaction images in the section towards the bottom? I fail to see what they contribute to the article other than to create a feeling of "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I've heard from various sources, that GUT could possibly scientificlly disprove any possibility of divine intervention, making it quite contreversial in the science world. I think this shoud be included in the article. Anyone else? (annon poster User:204.38.47.183 on 10 Feb 2006)
One place this page could start with is the definition listed in the Wiktionary. I was interested in learning details about GUT and so naturally went to Wikipedia to get some general information. The first sentence in Wikipedia on GUT completely floored me. I had never heard of hypercharge and quantum chromodynamics. Sure they sounded vaguely familiar but I had to look them all up to find out that they were not that close to what I was expecting to find out about GUT which is:
"A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the gravitational force"
This above is the definition found in Wiktionary. Granted according to the Wikipedia page, this definition is not entirely correct, but it is a good starting point because it uses terms that are more familiar to anyone with a standard college ed. If someone started here, they could connect the dots between these familiar terms and the more advanced ideas such as "gauge theory, quantum chromodynamics, etc."
Sue Lange
Why is there a sidebar on physical cosmology in this article? It doesn't have anything directly to do with grand unification. HEL 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear from the article if the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) symmetry that we're familiar with from the standard model counts as a unification, in the sense that it describes all forces in quantum mechanics at once. This symmetry while successfull, appear somewhat contrived, but that alone wouldn't be enough to motivate all the newer theories listed here.
AFAIK, "Grand unification theory" is not a term used by physicists. Instead as per the lede, one talks about "Grand Unified Theories" (GUTs), and also the process of developing them, namely "Grand unification". I guess this is a minor point as GUT and Grand Unified Theory redirect here. Does anyone else think it would be worth asking an admin to delete the Grand unified theory redirect and move this article there (this being the only way to retain the history & talk pages, I believe)? PaddyLeahy
As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page... this article is unreasonably complex and offers very little for almost every reader. I am enrolled in an honours degree in Physics and most of this article is far too intimidating for me to read. It should definitely have a section such as Basic overview of Grand Unification Theory so that someone interested can at least know a little about it without having to read 100 other articles.
Also, the point of the first section (the one before an actual section is defined.. aka the opening) is to give a very simple and direct explanation of the article. Frankly, "Grand Unification, grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar unified field theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Grand unification is based on the idea that at extremely high energies, all symmetries have the same gauge coupling strength, which is consistent with the speculation that they are really different manifestations of a single overarching gauge symmetry. More specifically, GUTs predict that at energies above 10^14 GeV, the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces are fused into a single unified field
"does not seem like a simple and direct explanation. Lets start by listing some concepts that should not be in the opening: gauge symmetries, hyperchage, chrmodynamics, gauge coupling strength.. etc. Seems to me like only the last sentence is any good, minus the number. I would write something like: "Grand Unification, grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar unfied field theories or models in physics that predicts that at extremely high energies (above 10^14 GeV), the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces are fused into a single unified field
"
Unless someone else thinks they can do a much better job, and are willing to invest the time, I will try to rework and reword the opening to be less intimidating and more inviting. Please discuss here and make suggestions or give reasons for why the opening should be so convoluted --DFRussia 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
counsel on 2/28/01". I think the bit about a court ruling is just gibberish spammed (impressively) to make it look scientific. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Nassim Haramein has come up with a Grand Unification Theory using different results from Einstein's field equations. His argument is that scientists before didn't account for all factors, but his theories work all around. His work is currently under peer-review. An external link to his site is on his wiki page. Ace blazer (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Superforce | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gravity | Electronuclear force | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Color force | Electroweak force | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strong force | Weak force | Electromagnetism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Electric force | Magnetic force | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
something to add? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MMetro, and to remove possible confusion of the sort mentioned by MCP, can we add arrows? --DFRussia (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Although i think the graphic is nice and one should implement something like it, I always have a problem with the way it is displayed - What does it exactly mean if two lines meet? The electromagnetic and weak forces are not really unified in the "electroweak force", which consists of two separate ones, Hypercharge and weak isospin. Maybe one should somehow indicate this composite nature of the weak interactions. Anyone has an idea? Aknochel (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone watching this page please have a look at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Request for Clarification of 'Grand Unified Theory' Page Content Policy ? It's beyond me, a mere mathematician. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the feynman graphs for proton decay should be put in an appropriate context (section on proton decay) or deleted. The section "ingredients" is partly redundant. Anyone wants to give it a shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknochel (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, Grand Unified theory should be stated in terms of changes to the Vacuum energy.--e:Y,?:G 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs)
I would want to put scales of different physical theory in a table or a graph to see how they work and where are there ranges within the physical realm. For example: vacuum energy is approximated from 10^-19 joules per cubic centimeter of "free space" to 10^107 joules per cubic centimeter. In compression to the string theory if it is to be a quantum gravity theory the scale is 10^-33 centimeter.--e:Y,?:G 17:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) --e:Y,?:G 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
What is this article supposed to be about? Is this some kind of an in joke or what? Where some parts of this article are somewhat intelligible, the following paragraphe just does not make any sense to me what so ever. What are and ?!? (What about a definition of the terms that are being introduced?)
"The two smallest irreducible representations of are and . In the standard assignment, the contains the charge conjugates of the right-handed down-type quark color triplet and a left-handed lepton isospin doublet, while the contains the six up-type quark components, the left-handed down-type quark color triplet, and the right-handed electron."
And do you realy mean "isospin" rather than "weak isospin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.197.147 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I am disappointed that a requirement for grand unification is the common interpretation of general relativity as being in conflict with quantum mechanics. In his book "Meaning of Relativity" 5th Edition, Einstein writes, (pg. 165) "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomenon it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers." By setting such a condition the authors have precluded any valid theory. Further, they disallow any non-mainstream theories being listed, and this closes off access to any that may actually be correct, and blocks research into alternate models. T Byron G (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that any serious TOE should start with squaring the circle, so I propose a new section that deals with it. 4.242.236.220 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a new take that I haven't previously seen. It's the same thing developed by Carl Sagan. How can we include a citation to Sagan's work while this idea is considered?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1klrDdOGsNghFnRjYvud73MZjK55J7mI9HDRgE7e4jfY/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TajhLogosWhin (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A space ship is going in a revolution around the Earth two light years away going at a speed so fast that it revolves around the Earth directly over you constantly.
You look up at it and it appears as a fixed point in the sky directly over you constantly as it speeds through space directly over you as the world spins.
Then it decides to go straight thus the distance shooting off of the revolving circle becomes elongated and the light year distance between you too becomes stretched.
Thus the light year distance, the broadcast image of the space ship is stretched and time appears to slow down.
Thus time doesn't actually slow down. The broadcast image does. The people in the spaceship would appear to slow down and so would you. That is only appearance though. Time is not actually slowing down for either of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.114.150 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The physics at the temperature of the GUT symmetry breaking is unclear about whether mass existed at that time. Therefore "masses" is misleading and likely confusing to a non-expert reader. Another acceptable alternative would be "mass-energy". BuzzBloom (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The section seems to be a summary of a single published paper. At a quick glance, it's not highly cited. I also saw there is no Template:Notability_section, the page says notability only applies to articles. How do I request an expert to review notability of the section? Anyone can propose a theory that goes beyond GUT, but does that merit inclusion of its summary into a subsection? ACaseOfWednesdays (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)