No. We're never going to have a Unified Field Theory, because when you unify the fields, you lose them. You end up with a Unified Theory.
No, you don't. Or else we'd not have fields in our unified electrweak model.
Also see
Unified Field Theories and Einstein by S C Tiwari at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0602/0602112.pdf and note the quote
"Einstein, in his last paper on the subject, admitted that perhaps the concept of field was inadequate for the unified theory which he was seeking".
Einstein did very little right after about 1930. Not helped by the fact he didn't even know about the weak and strong forces. And his idea hasn't played out despite more than 50 years since he died.
Hawking has made the obvious point, that even if we do manage to create a GUT, there is no way to determine the likelihood of the greater number of chaotic systems. This means, that when we think we have the equation right, there is the shadow that a spontaneous reaction would change everything.
This is precisely the claim you made and I corrected which prompted your "I know more than you" physics challenge on PhysOrg.
You're wrong.
A GUT would be writing down the equations of motion (or more specifically, the Lagrangian) for a quantised setup for the 4 fields. That's all. We can write down the equations of motion for plenty of chaotic systems. Besides, 'chaotic' implies deterministic, which quantum mechanics isn't.
The existence of chaotic systems has nothing to do with finding a GUT. Obviously you learnt nothing from that thread.
I was informing our friend, that a unified theory could never be totally sure to be correct, because at any point in the future, or some unbeknown event in the past, can suddenly alter and drastically change a theory.
Our friend wanted to know where the proof of such a claim is, [especially] when we may have found the theory... i was simply pointing out that line of thought was erreneous. Instead, if we do accomplish a theory of everything, then there is no way we can know its future or past state UNLESS...
... He had a time machine that can say otherwise. This is why any attmept at a unified theory would be incomplete.
So despite claiming to know about GUTs on PhysOrg and despite being corrected on pretty much everything you said, you still haven't even looked up what a GUT is.
And you wonder why Ben and I have to keep correcting you.
When i said, ''A time machine that predicts the future,'' it may have been a bad example. But in the end, the analogy was to show the uncertainty inherent in the future.
And that's irrelevent.
We cannot even solve the equations of motion for an electromagnetic system but we have a full quantum theory for it, unifying electric and magnetic concepts. We cannot solve the equations of motion for an electroweak system but we have a full quantum theory for it, unifying weak and EM concepts.
Besides... don't GEM equations combine gravito-electromagnetic forces together>
Classically.
It is easy for you to to say " Unifying electromagnetism and gravity is a pretty useless enterprise", but is not so easy to prove any credence of such a statement. You are free to prove your statement if you think you can. My guess is that a large number of people would find immense usefulness in being able to manipulate electricity to accomplish the manipulation of gravity, or, to somehow manipulate gravity and get the result of manipulating electricity.
That isn't a unified model, that's a dual model.
As I said, Kaluza Klein compactification leads to a theory with gravity and classical electromagnetism in it but it's not phenomenologically useful. To have a model which allows manipulation of gravity and under some transformation gives you electromagnetism would be useful, except it'll be more complicated than just doing electromagnetism directly. Similarly for gravity. Classically they are pretty straight forward for most practical things.
There
is a dual mapping between the strong force and gravity which is very useful precisely because the strong force is very much more complicated, due to things like strong coupling and confinement. It's known as the AdS/CFT correspondence in string theory and is a huge area of research.
Your response to my post(s) subtly hint that you are not willing or able to confront the issues of considering the unification of electricity and gravity. Electricity, in the form of quantum physics, is superlatively well established theoretically. It is reasonable that unification will require scrapping of current gravity theory and invention of a new gravity theory based on compatible field equations.
Perhaps you somehow are bashful about openly admitting that current gravity theory will have to be trashed.
Have I guessed right?
No, you haven't guessed right. GR is experimentally verified to a huge degree. This means that any new theory must reduce to GR at lowish energies, just as GR must (and does) reduce to Newtonian gravity at very low energies. All dual models and models which already combine gravity and electromagnetism lead to the same result, that GR is a valid classical limit of gravity. It's only at tiny distances (and so high energies) that the difference is apparent.
If you knew a bit about physics you'd know this already.
