[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Is the Final Theory of Everything generally accepted in the Scientific World today?  From what I have read, many of accepted theories have been shown to be wrong by the New Theory.  Thanks for opinions.  Joe L. Ogan

[JP]

There is no scientifically accepted final theory of everything.  A goal of a lot of theoretical physicists is to explain all four fundamental forces in one theory, which is often called the "theory of everything," but no one has managed to do it yet in an experimentally verifiable theory.

[Mr. Scientist]

Some scientists won't accept a unification of the forces as a final theory - suffice to say, there are many elements to a final theory.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22021325/Unified-Field-Theory-and-Consciousness [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Hi, All I know is what I read on the Internet.  There is a book, apparently written by Stephen W. Hawkins.  It is on Internet at Google.  I am not the Scientist.  I am just trying to find out if it is believed.  Have you read it?  I have read excerpts of it and it seemed logical to me.  I am not promoting the book.  I assumed that you Scientists would be familiar with it.  I find it a little disconcerting to be jumped on because I asked a question.  I do not feel compelled to prove anything.  I appreciate your comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

A Breif History of Time perhaps?

[JP]

I'm sorry if you felt jumped on. You asked if there was an accepted theory of everything and I was just answering the question.  If it's a book by Stephen Hawking, then he's a proponent of finding a theory that includes gravity, but neither he nor any other physicist has put together an accepted "theory of everything" yet.  It's an area that a lot of people are working on, however.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Stephen W. Hawkins? do you mean Hawking?

[Mr. Scientist]

That's more than obvious. Thank you for stating that for the OP - Trivialities like this are unimportant, Madidus.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/booksummary.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Hi, all.  I have just placed the URL about the final  theory above.  I am not trying to sell the theory.  I hope that you will, at least, take a look at it.  Much of what he says makes sense to me.  I do not know any theory that is set in concrete.  I just think that one should keep an open mind about things scientific.  Thanks for your comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

No final theory will be deducted, i'm afraid to say.

[Vern]

No final theory will be deducted, i'm afraid to say.

If you start with a certain two premises you are logically driven to a unification theory that is consistent.
Premise: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Premise: Space and time are invarient.

As far as I could tell, the final theory linked a couple of posts up, does not provide a logical path to anything.

[Madidus_Scientia]

That's more than obvious. Thank you for stating that for the OP - Trivialities like this are unimportant, Madidus.

No, the devil is in the details, some might try to propagate misinformation by impersonating authorities on the subject. Since I doubted that Stephen Hawking put forward a theory of everything, the subtle difference in name was a red flag for me.

I wasn't trying to point out a spelling mistake, but to rule it out.

[Mad Mark]

A final theory of everything would have to account for Dark Matter/Dark energy. What actually is the fabric of Space time,Does a Multiverse verse exist,even how do you create a stable Hydrogen atom without anti matter destroying it?
Where does Gravity come from and where is it going? What is the fate of the Universe?
Are we not just fooling ourselves when we use such a term  theory of everything.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

I must confess that I do know.  I am not a scientist but I have always had an interest in it.  Some people call the author a Quack.. He has had a scientific training.  Some of the things that he says appear very interesting.  I do not mean that I have agreed to all that he says.  I do know that, when new theories have been proposed, they were generally met with resistance.  I think that is human nature.  I had thought that Scientists would be a little more open to new ideas.  No criticism implied.  If you think that it is wrong, I believe you are right to so say.  I shall try to keep learning as long as I live.  I appreciate your comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Geezer]

I've been reading the free chapter. He certainly writes well, but I think I detect a flaw in his argument regarding energy and gravity. He may be more interested in selling books than anything else.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

What is the flaw?  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

That's more than obvious. Thank you for stating that for the OP - Trivialities like this are unimportant, Madidus.

No, the devil is in the details, some might try to propagate misinformation by impersonating authorities on the subject. Since I doubted that Stephen Hawking put forward a theory of everything, the subtle difference in name was a red flag for me.

I wasn't trying to point out a spelling mistake, but to rule it out.

Actually, i believe it to be a language thing - i think you've given this post too much thought psychologically.

[Mr. Scientist]

No final theory will be deducted, i'm afraid to say.

If you start with a certain two premises you are logically driven to a unification theory that is consistent.
Premise: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Premise: Space and time are invarient.

As far as I could tell, the final theory linked a couple of posts up, does not provide a logical path to anything.

To have a theory of everything would require knowledge about the entire future of the universe with complete accuracy - which would be... to say the least vern... pretty much impossible

[Geezer]

What is the flaw?  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

I didn't get to the end yet (fell asleep!) but he seems to be suggesting that it takes an ongoing source of energy to maintain planets in orbit. I don't think that's true. The effect is no different than a flywheel. Once you spin up a flywheel, it stores energy. It will continue rotating indefinitely if it can't transfer energy to anything else. The planets actually do lose a little energy as they rotate and I believe their orbits do change over time. If there was an ongoing source of energy applied, that would not be the case.