Why Only Two Theories?

I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things they
talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside the event
horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the quantum level and
we laws for the macro level. I have read many articles on the concept of a
grand unification theory that will find that missing link that allows both
of theses schools of thought to play nice in the sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are actually
many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions? Quantum for small. SR
for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric humans at work here?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

In message , BenignVanilla
writes
I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things they
talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside the event
horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the quantum level and
we laws for the macro level. I have read many articles on the concept of a
grand unification theory that will find that missing link that allows both
of theses schools of thought to play nice in the sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are actually
many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions? Quantum for small. SR
for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric humans at work here?

Well, two is all we seem to need at the moment :-) Surely you don't want
to make life _more_ complicated than it already is?
Minor nitpick - the laws don't break down inside the event horizon but
inside the singularity, which is why some scientists are trying to show
they don't exist.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:17:08 +0000, BenignVanilla wrote:

I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things they
talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside the
event horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the quantum
level and we laws for the macro level. I have read many articles on the
concept of a grand unification theory that will find that missing link
that allows both of theses schools of thought to play nice in the
sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are
actually many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions? Quantum
for small. SR for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric humans at
work here?

If just two sets of law can explain everything (excepting BH, at least for
the time being) why create more ?

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

"Gautam Majumdar" wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.27.18.40.17.884703.3631@XSPAMfree uk.com...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:17:08 +0000, BenignVanilla wrote:

I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things they
talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside the
event horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the quantum
level and we laws for the macro level. I have read many articles on the
concept of a grand unification theory that will find that missing link
that allows both of theses schools of thought to play nice in the
sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are
actually many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions? Quantum
for small. SR for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric humans at
work here?

If just two sets of law can explain everything (excepting BH, at least for
the time being) why create more ?

I am not saying I want to create more, I am just suggesting that maybe our
thinking that laws is laws ain't so perfect. Maybe what is good for our
goose ain't so good for the BH's gander?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BenignVanilla wrote:
I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things
they talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside
the event horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the
quantum level and we laws for the macro level. I have read many
articles on the concept of a grand unification theory that will find
that missing link that allows both of theses schools of thought to
play nice in the sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are
actually many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions?
Quantum for small. SR for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric
humans at work here?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

Physical theories originated in observations of deviations from
Newtonian physics. Many of the deviations are small, and as it happens,
physicists naturally gravitate to the simplest theoretical explanations.
There simply is not enough observational validation of special cases yet
to have a need for additional theories or modifications to explain
deviations. Without observations to bolster a need, a new theory is
just science fiction. Much of what passes for "theoretical physics" is
arguably at the boundary of science and science fiction since validation
is very difficult.

Q

Idea about science is to discover MINIMUM simplest laws that discribe and
predict observation and oberservable events.

Exceptions are probably result of missing part of equation kind of newtonian
vs relativity.

"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...
I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things they
talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside the event
horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the quantum level
and
we laws for the macro level. I have read many articles on the concept of a
grand unification theory that will find that missing link that allows both
of theses schools of thought to play nice in the sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are
actually
many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions? Quantum for small.
SR
for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric humans at work here?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BenignVanilla wrote:

I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things they
talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside the event
horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the quantum level and
we laws for the macro level. I have read many articles on the concept of a
grand unification theory that will find that missing link that allows both
of theses schools of thought to play nice in the sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are actually
many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions? Quantum for small. SR
for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric humans at work here?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com


My understanding is that the two theories are mutually exclusive and
therefore we must be missing something. i.e. if the macro universe is
made up of quantum matter/energy, but quantum theory can't be expanded
to explain the macro universe, then something must be wrong or missing.
The goal of the unified theory is to find out exactly what that is.

-dave

-------------------
http://www.mediacollege.com - Free video & electronic media resources

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:22:48 +0000, BenignVanilla wrote:


"Gautam Majumdar" wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.27.18.40.17.884703.3631@XSPAMfree uk.com...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:17:08 +0000, BenignVanilla wrote:

I was watching a special on BH's the other night, and one of things
they talked about was how our known laws of physics break down inside
the event horizon. So I got to thinking today...we have laws at the
quantum level and we laws for the macro level. I have read many
articles on the concept of a grand unification theory that will find
that missing link that allows both of theses schools of thought to
play nice in the sandbox.

So my question is...why only two? Isn't it possible that there are
actually many groupings of laws under many sets of conditions?
Quantum for small. SR for big. ??? for BH's? Why just two? Egocentric
humans at work here?

If just two sets of law can explain everything (excepting BH, at least
for the time being) why create more ?

I am not saying I want to create more, I am just suggesting that maybe
our thinking that laws is laws ain't so perfect. Maybe what is good for
our goose ain't so good for the BH's gander?

Of course. The laws & theories are the best approximation that we have at
the moment. Newton's law of gravity is a good approximation but Einstein's
one is even better. Who knows, another even better approximation may be
found one day.

The fact that laws of quantum physics & general relativity cannot be
merged into one set of laws, clearly says that something is missing from
our understanding of the universal laws of physics. At the end there
should only be one set of laws governing everything.

What laws should apply to BH (by that I mean the singularity at the centre
of the BH) is mostly conjectural because we cannot observe anything there,
thus cannot falsify anything.


--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

In message om, Gautam
Majumdar writes
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:22:48 +0000, BenignVanilla wrote:



I am not saying I want to create more, I am just suggesting that maybe
our thinking that laws is laws ain't so perfect. Maybe what is good for
our goose ain't so good for the BH's gander?

Of course. The laws & theories are the best approximation that we have at
the moment. Newton's law of gravity is a good approximation but Einstein's
one is even better. Who knows, another even better approximation may be
found one day.

The fact that laws of quantum physics & general relativity cannot be
merged into one set of laws, clearly says that something is missing from
our understanding of the universal laws of physics. At the end there
should only be one set of laws governing everything.

I think you've just confirmed BV's point about human ideas :-)
There's no reason why there "should" be only one set of laws; it's just
the human desire to tidy things up, plus some hints that it might be the
best answer.
But perhaps another century of understanding will show that there really
are two sets of rules.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Are Theories are not complete. If they were we would have TOE. The
quantum theory is better than relativity(SR and GR) We can't leave out
string theory,and its M theory. We find the source that creates
gravitons,and we will see the light at at the end of the tunnel. Untill
then you still have me. Bert