Ok I just finished watching the Horizon programme about Einstain's theory of everything it was a good programme though i did get lost in parts 😀
But anyway Einstain was a deeply religious man and one of his aims was to try and prove the existence of god or the devine and that was the basic aim of his theory of everything. Unfortunately he died before he was able to complete his revisions to the theory...and now scientists have picked up on his quest for the theory of everything, I'm not posting this to debate physics etc but to mention a random thought that occured to me...maybe the reason why Einstain wasnt able to complete the theory of everything is because its that tiny part of life that isnt measrable by maths and science maybe its the thing that makes us human makes us feel makes us create and distroy and makes each and every one of us unique...I know for a fact that am not explaining myself properly 😀
But maybe its to do with conciousness and our ability to feel things like guilt and remorse for our actions which I think maybe the thing that separates us from all the other living things on this planet our ability to recognise that our actions have consequences and that doing something could potentionally cause harm to another...:D:D
I dunno actually its just a thought maybe I should go away and think about it some more so that i can explain what I mean properly
RE: theory of everything
The Special Theory of Relativity views time as a dimension. It finds that space and time are interchangeable. They can rotate into each other in a mathematically precise way. Reality is space-time.
"All reality resides in and issues from the Absolute. By a process of Self-conception, the Absolute manifests Being/Existence (Sat) and all that issues from it. The principle of time emerges when Being extends itself subjectively to become Consciousness-Force (Chit). The principle of space emerges when Being extends itself objectively to become an object to its own Self-Conscious experience. Space and time are different expressions of the same reality.
To human consciousness, time is a reflection of subjective inner reality and space is a reflection of objective external reality. But for Sat, there is no inner or outer. All is the Self-Conscious Being seen from the perspective of divided consciousness. What is subjective experience of imagination to one person is objective experience of reality to another. What is objective at one moment in time is retained as subjective experience afterwards. What begins subjectively as conception in mind becomes later objective reality in life and sometime later is converted back again into subjective experience in memory."
-SA
RE: theory of everything
Hi Willowtree and Naru,
I thought it was an excellent programme and look forward to the next one.
haven't time to write just now, but this page about it from the BBC is good:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/einstein_symphony_prog_summary.shtml
Judy
RE: theory of everything
I have always sympathised with Einstein, partly because I like he started (and finished) my working life as an Examiner in a Patent Office. I have always had a sneeking suspicion that the dual interdependency of inertia and speed on Planks constant, that gives rise to uncertainty principle, could be a product of practical limitations to observational ability and not to absolute reality. In other words, I would like to believe that there IS such a thing as the duality of an absolute position AND absolute velocity of a particle, that is conceptionaly different from the OBSERVATIONAL impossibility of such a duality.
Leo
RE: theory of everything
Hi Willowtree
I just posted something up on Einstein in the 'Scientific Matter' forum under the "Einstein's Legacy" threat that may be of interest to you. There is a lot of evidence that Einstein wasn't the genius he has always been made out to be, but actually stole ideas from those around him. For example, most people wrongly assume he first came up with E=mc2. There are a handful of his contemporaries who are the real geniuses.
Having said that, he was a brilliant man, but not a genius. And perhaps not as moral as we have always believed him to be.
Andrew