What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory?

What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced
When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory?

On Apr 22, 6:51 pm, Tareq
wrote:
What was the main difficulty that faced Einstein
when he tried to unify GR with electromagnetism ?
Thanks

If by "electromagnetism" you mean the Standard
Model/Quanta theory, then the answer is simple
enough: The main difficulty that faced Einstein when
he tried to unify GR with SM/Q theory was, of course,
that Gravity doesn't really "exist" (as a "force").

Therefore there are NO "mediating" sub-particles for
"gravity" (so there can never be any to be found).

And so even proposing such particles theoretically (as
part of a mind-experiment) will create insurmountable
obstacles to their "integration" with particles that do
really exist (and are almost fully explained in SM/Q).

Which SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

It would be like trying to "unify" SM/Q theory with
the works of Shakespea Both work marvelously
BECAUSE they are altogether different things and
exist by incompatible rules. Try to "unify" them,
however, and you instantly run into some really
marvelous problems... something akin to insanity.
(Trying to explain Shakespeare in terms of SM/Q
theory would be as insane as trying to explain SM/Q
theory in terms of Shakespearean blank verse.)

"I am a poet, sir. I know babble when I see it."

That's what happened to Einstein, and to everyone
who has tried the futile exercise since. The Standard
Model/Quanta "forces and particles" work within their
"discovered" frameworks/architectures across logical
and reasonable distances... beyond/outside which they
of course cease to work--thereby proving that it is
through their mediating sub-particles that they work.

"Gravity" on the other hand is purely an "observed
effect" in the universe: There is no point trying to
find a "sub-particle" mediating the "pull" between a
bit of mass at one end of the universe to another bit
of mass at the opposite end of the universe. No such
"mediating particle" exists; and if there really were
geniuses they would have immediately seen that NO
SUCH MEDIATING PARTICLE COULD POSSIBLY EXIST).

And yet Gravity's "pulling effect" (of one little bit
of mass at one end of the universe for that other
little bit of mass at the other, opposite end of the
universe) does "appear" to be occurring. Why didn't
Einstein and other so-called geniuses try to open an
entirely new approach to try to explain this obvious
self-evident "visible effect" of gravity (than the ole
"hardly possible" particle physics one)...? Because he
was a human being after all (something we tend to wish
to forget (for Einstein most especially of all); and
in the end all human beings are prisoners of the time
in which they live: The SM/Q explanation was the only
reasonable avenue of inquiry open to him (and to all
the other antiquarians forever remaining among us).

"Gravity" works. It just doesn't work "because of" the
solutions in Standard Model/Quanta theory. And any
attempt to explain gravity in terms of SM/Q particle
theory is bound to fail (unless it's a sham, or "hyper
science fiction*" stuff, of course--although we've
certainly seen plenty of THAT since Einstein's time).

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

* Hyper science fiction: Something so utterly
nonsensical (such as string theory and other
mathematical graffiti) that the only point to
trying to understand it is to have a good laugh.
(And, of course, we all know the correlation
between humorless apes & their low IQ.)



On Apr 15, 6:41 pm, "B-Hate-Me"
B-Hate-Me@home wrote:
"sdr" wrote in message
ups.com...

[The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
result of an evolution--and as with any
evolution, there is always enough time
allowed for all the factors involved to bring
about the overall harmony and consistency
which eventually gives the impression to
those who believe (like those who believe
that the universe erupted magically from the
Big Bang Bean),

Not according to "M" theory, which is pretty much
accepted as the standard model.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...767bc35417d159

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a35c05e902a5fd

http://groups.google.com/group/gac.p...0f2d13f2ae2375

'Nuf said...

There are many theories in this human condition
or ours (such as the universe-orbits-the-earth, or
the-earth-is-flat one, et al) which in their time
were thoroughly believed by the most prominent
and respected scientists/philosophers, and were
held to be the absolute God's Truth by the greatest
majority of living persons: That never meant for an
instant that they were true; and no matter the amount
of validation given them by the vast numbers of the
wise (sin hammers) that hammered away with them.
(Astronomers/mathematicians never missed a beat
describing/predicting with phenomenal accuracy the
"heavenly movements" of a universe that orbited our
little planet earth.)

those who believe that all
the problems HAD to have been solved from the
start... and that therefore the only possible
answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
without it arguing a God).

*I* can

I tend to believe that you indeed can. (I have no
doubt that if you set your brain to it you can also
prove that a mouse created the world.) Unfortunately
that is the nature of the brain. [Nothing personal.]

The fact underlying my statement above is basic
and incontrovertible: No matter what you may think
or wish, once you argue that "something came from
nothing" you are arguing GOD. In other words...
"magic." [That is why the Pope who believes that
"evolution is unproven" also loves Big Bang Theory.]

You cannot propose conditions in a pre-Big Bang
existence to be identical to those post-Big Bang,
otherwise you must find an alternate definition for
THE Big Bang itself ... than "THE Big Bang." And
therefore any attempt to rationalize the Big Bang
in terms of present-universe virtual particle theory
understanding is rather all "suspect" at best.

Get over it. Move on to another human epoch.
From that of unfounded creative babbling (or,
assumptions often/always contradicted by facts,
many or few. ... to a human epoch of proposals
based on facts NOT contradicted by any other
facts, or only contradicted by obvious prejudices).

The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

I have no illusions about the human species. When
I posted my proposal I fully expected a century or
more would have to pass before most people finally
got sick of mental delusions and other stand-ins
for creationism and finally began to explore the FACT
that the universe is an evolutionary process and not
some magical trick. Almost a decade has passed. Now
all I need do is wait another 90-some more years...

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.