I am confused because in an earlier stream of questions you were asking me about much more advanced things than this that would suggest that unification was familiar to you. So I find it hard to know how best to answer your questions. And I am reluctant, since it also suggests that you’re not really making any effort to understand… just following up with another random question almost immediately. I can’t play this game.

With respect, I think part of the danger is often not with popularization as with people not having the patience (or whatever) to dig a little and read the many coherent accounts of this that are out there. Popularization requires both parties to move toward each other. The explainer and the explainee. I think that in order to understand what’s going on, you need to do more than just ask me streams of random questions. The knowledge will not enter your head and stay there without real effort on your part.

Have you tried googling for some of these things you’ve been asking before asking me? There are many excellent sites out there with ready answers to many of those things. There’s a lot of junk too, but you can often figure out what’s going on by looking at multiple sources. Please try it.

I appreciate that you are interested and that you want to know more, but as we’ve discussed before you constantly pepper lots of fragmented questions about lots of disconnected things all over this blog, and expect me to just answer them, while there is little evidence of you having tried to learn a little about some of it on your own. I repeat: - I do like conversation and people asking questions, but I am neither google nor wikipedia. My advice is to get hold of one of the very very many good books on the subject that has a bit more detail (take “Inward Bound” by Pais, since you said you had some mathematical background so you won’t be afraid of some equations, although they can be ignored and still get a lot out of the book) and read it. Properly. Trying to get a coherent picture of what is going on by asking me streams of disconnected questions every day is not going to teach you anything if you don’t take the time and effort to learn it from such a coherent source. All you will serve to do is frustrate me, yourself, and alienate streams of readers who can’t work out what is going on in this long, fragmented “conversation” that has gone on for several comment threads. I love answering questions, and trying to point people to interesting sources, etc., trusting that they will go look at those sources, and take the time to understand, and maybe do a bit of reserch on the web themselves, etc. That does not seem to be what is going on here, so I am not going to continue in this mode because it is not working for any of us.

Best,

-cvj

I only know the basics from reading science books so this is where it can get confusing as I said earlier about how this popularisation can cause confusion.

So we often hear about how at the big bang all 4 forces were united and then as the universe cooled the 4 forces I suppose ’separated’. We hear about how they are trying to unite all 4 forces. Ok so I dont understand the notion of ‘uniting.’

I’m sorry, but I’m confused. Sometimes you ask questions at one level and sometimes another, so please forgive me not knowing how to answer your many questions. Last week we discussed details of electroweak symmetry breaking at your request, which was all about uniting the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces. Now you say you don’t know what uniting forces means. I am confused.

-cvj

Yes I have read many (popular) books about it and so I know about this issue but I don’t really know what they mean when they say ‘unite all 4 forces of nature.’ I’m just looking for a general answer to this question.

thanks.

Non-renormalizability is the primary technical issue that arises when you try to formulate it as an ordinary QFT. I do not know what at level you are wishing to get an answer. However, there are many readily available sources to read about this issue. Did you try looking for some on the web for example?

Best,

-cvj

Clifford one thing I have never understood is the problem of uniting gravity with QFT. They say that there is some inconsistency. In a nutshell how do you explain this problem? Is it purely mathematical?

thanks

-cvj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2un9rO2ZF4g

On a slightly different note, you might like this!

Guru

I think its ignorance and misconceptions. But the reason for this is that its not possible for a person to understand the precise nature of math without actually studying it himself and therein lies the ignorance.

well for example once I was speaking to a friend about our future careers, and I mentioned mathematician. She replied ‘what is a mathematician?’ Another friend simply assumed that math was good for doing sums when one goes grocery shopping. And so there is a misconception about what a mathematician is and does.

In the case of math or string theory, what other stereotypes are there that characterises the work they do?

There are single minded obsessive people in several fields: Science, art, commerce, music, politics, law, bus-driving, etc. There are also people who are outstanding in these fields who do not stand out as particularly weird. So why do we allow one stereotype to serve as the model in physics and mathemtics?

-cvj

Solving problems or fabricating theories does take a single minded obsessive solitary mindset which only strengthens the notion that they are eccentrics. So the question is which side of the argument is true?

-cvj