[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

    I've decided that a TOE  (Theory of Everything) is overrated.   What we need is a system that is realistic ; easily implemented and  will make the world a better place.

This is what I propose:

(i)    We have a collection of theories.
(ii)    Different theories will cover different bits and pieces of stuff that arise here and there.
(iii)   Theories are judged on their usefulness and ability to make predictions, especially if these can be tested.
(iv)   Some elegant thories will also be kept beause we're human and it's inevitable we will do this.
(v)   Chips or "fries" cannot be served with the potato skin left on, it's not better.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Best Wishes.

[Origin]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.  Keep the skins on I say!

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

Not the reply I had hoped for but thank you for your time.  I will add this new data and information to my analysis and it may lead to an improvement.

(item v, provisional)   People must be offered the choice to have fries without the skin left on.
(item vi,  provisional)   We may also be able to reduce food waste.  Origin can have the skin from the potatos.

Best Wishes.

[alancalverd]

I keep the skin on.

Chop 55 - 65 mm (long axis) spuds into π/6 (+/- 5%) radian wedges, toss them in flour with salt and pepper, spray with unsaturated Olea europea lipids, and give them 1200 s at 478.15 K in an air fryer.

Peeling is a waste of time and flavor, and the skin helps maintain structural integrity, thus permitting a wider range of input material.

[Bored chemist]

spray with unsaturated Olea europea lipids

How do you remove the saturated ones?

[alancalverd]

Don't buy them. Or in the case of natural olive oil, just accept them as part of the spec tolerance.

Most of the edible sat fats are solid, waxy, or at least high viscosity at room temperature, and don't spray too well, so not really a problem in this application.  If you like lard- or dripping-cooked chips, I wouldn't recommend an air fryer or predipping in flour.

[paul cotter]

How have new theories become cooking lessons? Not that I object but Eternal Student may.

[alancalverd]

It's not what you ask, but who you ask.

My grandmother had a fish and chip shop and my son is a chef. ES asked about fried potatoes, and I have some family expertise in the matter.

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

Not that I object but Eternal Student may.

   Thank you but I'm not too worried about this thread.   All people who have replied have my thanks.  I may not be following the thread after today.

Best Wishes.

[paul cotter]

Okay then, cooking lessons are finished, anyone interested in getting this thread back on track? I for one would disagree with ES as further unification of our disparate theories would be of great benefit in understanding our universe. Just look at the benefits that flowed from Maxwell's unification of magnetic and electric phenomena into electromagnetics. Obviously the outstanding problem is the incompatibility of GR and quantum. Whether a T O E can be arrived at I don't know but efforts in that direction could easily provide new insights and benefits.

[Zer0]

If the Pursuit of T.o.E. is equivalent to shoving Square pegs in Round holes...

Then We can keep pushin harder & harder & harder..

Doesn't seem like there is a way around it anywhichways!

ps - Muddy water, let stand, becomes Clear!
(Tzu)

[Halc]

Just look at the benefits that flowed from Maxwell's unification of magnetic and electric phenomena into electromagnetics. Obviously the outstanding problem is the incompatibility of GR and quantum.

What benefits do you suppose might come from a theory that works at the intersection of those two, such as describing the earlier moments of the big bang?

Just to illustrate: consider inflation theory or dark matter. Those are really useful for explaining what we see, but what benefits to our lives came from those ideas? I think that's the question ES is getting at. Less emphasis on perfect knowledge and more emphasis on solutions to problems.

[paul cotter]

While I wholeheartedly agree with your final sentence, Halc, pure research often has unexpected beneficial offshoots. I am not a physicist and as such I cannot predict what benefits might accrue. Just look at what quantum theory has led to, masers/lasers, magnetic resonance technology in diagnostics and chemistry and semiconductors to name just a few applications. New all-encompassing theories could open up brand new  areas of technical applications but I accept this is not guaranteed. I personally would very much appreciate any deeper understanding of this at times mind boggling universe in which we find ourselves.

[Zer0]

Hmmm!

Looks like the @OP has deserted the Thread.
(for good)

Perfect time for a Hijacking!
(ho hoh hooh)


Here we goe...

Why is it so Hard to formulate an Understanding of Quantum Gravity?

If a basket full of apples can be weighed n mass found out.
& if the quantity of apples is known.
Then why can't individual " Mass " be obtained thru simple Deduction?

ps - plz b nyc!
: )

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

Looks like the @OP has deserted the Thread.

   I'm alive.  However, you are welcome to take over.

Why is it so Hard to formulate an Understanding of Quantum Gravity?

    The short answer is that I don't really know.    It's easy to find articles written about how a theory has been (sucessfully) quantised   BUT   the attempts to do something that fail don't tend to make the journals or become good material for any magazine: "In this article we are going to spend hours going through an attempt to quantise a theory.   It doesn't end up making sense or working at all.... but we're going to run a 6 hour session on it anyway."

If a basket full of apples can be weighed n mass found out.

     This is often half the problem.    "Mass" isn't what we have come to think it is.   In classical physics, things have a mass and it's a property that just should exist for any particle.    Gravity is especially concerned with this mass because mass is the most important source of gravitation.   Newton's laws of gravity have   F = GMm/r²  and the mass is the ONLY source of gravity.    General Relativity broadens the sources of gravity slightly,  anything that is a source of what is called   "stress-energy" and appears in the stress-energy tensor is a source of gravity.    Mass is still the most important thing, this is the major source of gravity  but  other things like a flow of momentum through space can also be a source of gravity.
     One easy and naive way to start trying to quantise a classical theory is as follows:
(i)  Objects (e.g. particles like an electron) that were involved no longer have their state described by some properties they are assumed to posses like their position, momentum, energy or favourite Pop Music.    Instead the state of all particles involved is described by a wave function for that particle.
(ii)  These properties,  like momentum and position,  are replaced by operators that act on the wave function.

      For example,  momentum is a well understood thing in classical physics.   In Quantum mechanics, the property of momentum or the value of an objects momentum is replaced by an operator that acts on the wave function which represents that object.   The conventional correspondance is that "momentum" is obtained by just taking the derivative of the wave function with respect to the x co-ordinate  (ignoring some multiplication by a constant).

     So we have a fairly good starting point for quantising some theory that depends on classical momentum.   Sadly,  gravity depends very much on the mass of an object and not on its momentum.    "Mass" is something that is not handled well in most quantum theories.   Specifically, it's a paramater a particle is allowed to have, you are allowed to know it in advance, it never incurs any change over time.  This is very different from some other property like momentum - that can change with time and we don't just "know" it all the time - it is something you're only going to obtain by applying an operator to the wave function.   
    To even begin to formulate the wave function for an object we would want to use something like Schrodinger's equation.   In Schrodinger's original formulation, the mass, m, of a particle appears as a parameter you must already have for the particle you are building the wave function for:



   You don't have to appreciate the above equation (it's the time-dependant Schrodinger equation)  you just need to see that it has the symbol  "m"  in it.   It's on the right hand side in one of the denominators of the fractions,   there's  a  ħ/2m  factor in front of a derivative.   

     In basic Quantum Mechanics, all the information, everything that is knowable, about the system is supposed to be encoded by the wave function.   "Observables" are operators acting on the wave function, so you don't always know what position the particle will be in until you measure it.   As the wave function evolves, it will come as no surprise that a particles position can evolve.    Mass, m, is evidently very different.   You had to know what it was just to set up the Schrodinger equation in the first place and it remains known, it is always going to be precisely m, at all times.   No measurement is ever needed to know that.      Moreover, if we measure some other observable,  say momentum, then we typically perform a wave function collapse  (using the Copenhagen interpretation)  -   you throw away SOME of the components of the wave function that were not selected by this measurement.  BUT it isn't chaos - the remaining wave function continues to evolve by the Schrodinger equation that we have.    However, if we measured the mass and discovered that this had changed, then we're in a lot more trouble:   Yes, some serious changes in the wave function will have happened, like some components being eliminated, but that is not enough.   The entire Schrodinger equation that we were using has to be thrown away!   The mass, m, that appeared on the RHS of that equation has changed.

    I'm just trying to indicate that mass, m, is treated very differently to every other observable characteristic that a particle may have.   In essence, it isn't treated by the Schrodinger equation at all.   It is unique among properties of a particle,  this thing  -  the mass - is something which we are always allowed to know.   It is information that is external to the evolution of the wave function and we do not need to obtain this information by applying some operator to the wave function.

     There are more sophisticated Quantum theories where "mass" is handled very differently.   For many years, "mass" was considered as a big stumbling block for most quantum theories because it just does not appear as a natural quantity arising from the theory.   Most recently we have made progress with Quantum Field Theory where there is the Higgs mechanism to allow a mass parameter, m, to be assigned to elementary particles.   
     Anyway, the main point I'm trying to make is that even though  "mass" would seem to be a really basic thing that everyone can understand - it's actually a very hard thing to understand and model in Quantum Mechanics.    Since gravity has always been heavily associated with "mass" as its source, it has never been that surprising (to me) that developing a quantum theory of gravity would be difficult.   
(However, as I said, I just don't get to see most of the failed attempts so I can't reliably tell you what their problems were).

Best Wishes. 

[Zer0]

I donno why nobody else chooses to respond to this Gem of a Thread...

Anyways, Relativistic Mass seems Complex.

How does one possibly fathom to measure Quarks?

& Is it True that in general there are 3quarks, but can be more than 3?

ps - surely it's not like the Sum is lesser than the Parts.
Is It?
: (

[alancalverd]

What is currently missing from quantum gravity is any evidence of or requirement for quantisation.

As far as we know, any particle with mass also has a gravitational field, and that field is continuous and spherically symmetric at a reasonable distance from the particle. If you want to quantise it, you need to invent an entity that sucks and is (quasi)continuously radiated in infinite quantities from everything without changing any property of the source.

It boggles my mind.

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

What is currently missing from quantum gravity is any evidence of or requirement for quantisation.

   I would generally agree.
   Although if you have evidence for the quantisation of just about everything else, it then becomes almost impossible for gravity not to be quantised.    If it couples to quantised objects then its effects and observed values can only be a discrete range of possibilities.   That may be a infinite set of possibilities but they would be discrete rather than continuous.
    Example:  If there can only be a mass   of 1Kg   or  1.1 Kg  and never   √2 Kg,  then you can never observe a gravitational field produced by a mass of √2 Kg.

If you want to quantise it, you need to invent an entity that sucks and is (quasi)continuously radiated in infinite quantities from everything without changing any property of the source.

    I'm not so sure.   We have reasonably quantised the electroweak force.  So, on a macroscopic scale a simple static positive charge is constantly radiating photons because these are the gauge bosons that will cause an electrostatic attraction with anything else in the region.   Keeping the description and model as simple as possible,  the charged particle isn't losing mass or energy and dwindling away to nothingness as it emits these.   In simple terms we would declare the force carrying photons to just be "virtual particles" and they are "borrowing" their energy from  ?   lets call it  "the quantum background" rather than directly decreasing the mass of the charged particle, they are short lived and all energy is paid back in a very short time.
     Although the quantum theory of gravity isn't fully developed, the name we will give to the force carrying boson does seem to have been adopted already - it's the graviton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton


Best Wishes.

[McQueen]

(i)    We have a collection of theories.
(ii)    Different theories will cover different bits and pieces of stuff that arise here and there.
(iii)   Theories are judged on their usefulness and ability to make predictions, especially if these can be tested.
(iv)   Some elegant thories will also be kept beause we're human and it's inevitable we will do this.
(v)   Chips or "fries" cannot be served with the potato skin left on, it's not better.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Best Wishes.

I agree with the OP,  Its more like a path made with broken flag stones than a single theory.