Talk:Grand unification theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High importance within physics.

Help with this template

Comments:
This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

I have absolutely no idea what any of this is about, but I was hoping to find a basic introduction to the concept of a GUT accessible to a layperson. I realize it's difficult to dumb down the concept, but this is after all an encyclopedia, not a specialized textbook. Could someone take a crack at re-writing this article so a dumb life scientist like me can understand it?


Contents

[edit] Having a physics degree does not help

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)

Yes, I have a degree in physics from a good university, but the technicalities of this article are far beyond my training. We really need an expert in here... - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
On the matter of re-writing, the statement leading off this page, asking that articles be expanded while keeping the techie stuff, is very laudable, but IMHO (based on many years of science writing) the whole thing needs starting again from scratch. If this were to come the way of editors on, say, New Scientist magazine, they'd pay off the original author with a kill fee, then hire someone else to start over. Some articles are just so bust they're "write-offs" and I think this is one. I'd be happy to have a go at the re-write, but I'm concerned that the result would be a mass troll attack plus endless reversions. Are there any precedents more experienced Wikipedians feel able to cite here, to give some assurances ??! Robma 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Create a heading Basic Overview of Grand Unification Theory or History of Grand Unification Theory near the top for starters. This should let you begin to rewrite the article in a way that makes sense, preferably without equations (at least for an overview). List the original forces in layman's terms. Overview the history of achievements in partial unification. If any other section wants to get crazy after that, let them, but keep this section clean and simple. Reference the old Nova episode or a high school physics textbook if you have to. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Physicists are just catching up with Relativity!

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.--SurrealWarrior 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GUTs don't include gravity

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)

[edit] Poisoned by a plethora of pictures

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)

You are right on several counts: all or almost all of those diagrams should be removed. Its also true that "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." although it may be possible to give the lay reader some inkling, which this article currently fails to do. linas 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GUT and religion?

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)

If you've heard it from various sources, list those sources so they can, if noteworthy, be cited, and so the claim's origin and noteworthiness can be assessed. Whether it's included in the article or not, though (which will be based on whether it's a common or noteworthy enough view to bothering mentioning), it's patent nonsense. "Disproving" religion is like disproving spirituality, leprechauns, or Batman; it's absurd and a waste of time. If you mean that it contradicts certain religious hypotheses or doctrines, that may be, although I doubt it does so any more than the field of cosmology and astrophysics in general has; I don't recall the Bible mentioning anything about the electroweak force or quantum physics. -Silence 18:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. GUT no more disproves divine intervention than does QCD or any other theory of physics. Adding sources that claim that any physical theory disproves divine anything is entirely inappropriate for this article (or any other physics article). If its truly notable, and not some crank web page, then a philosophy article might be merited. But I really doubt a non-crank would ever say such a thing. linas 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Clockmaker hypothesis is of interest. linas 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary

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

Such a definition would be incorrect, so this change is inadvisable. Perhaps somebody should look at changing the Wiktionary definition? -- Xerxes 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How about "A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force"? -- trlkly 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if the definition is incorrect, it is a starting point. Lay people have heard gravity mentioned with the theory before, so it would be important to note that it is not part of the theory. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar on physical cosmology?

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)


[edit] What counts as unification?

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.

[edit] Wrong title?

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

[edit] Proper intro and understanding

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)

I think you're on the right track. Clarity should be first and foremost. I trust that if you do make an error, somebody else will have the knowledge to correct you. So let us know on the talk page when you've started, and good luck. MMetro 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I started with my first suggestion. Whenever I have more time I will try to make more contributions --DFRussia 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)