What is the theory of everything.?
460477
42- the theory from Hitchhiker guide to the Galaxy Clever\n\nString Theory- although this is anUnified theory of everything it is not the lone one. \n\nThe theory of everything is a single theory that unifies everything else. Something that would tie for instance F=ma to E=mc^2 and still be able to explain chaos theory, it's pretty new cutting edge stuff.
704220
String theory is just a theory.  It was made up to try to explain physical phenomena.  Scientists are still trying to prove or disprove it.\n\nThe infamous Einstein theory of relativity, is still that:  a theory.  It did not explain everything in the universe, either.
846023
theorotical physics is a subject based on quantum physics.......... basically there are no practicals in this subject and it depends only on theory
492769
the most widely acceted theory is the bing bang theory \nthere is also one "statis state theory" but it has a lot of discrepancies\n\n\n4 more info:\n\nhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978prpl.conf..399R\n\nhttp://www.gitamrta.org/bigbang.htm\n\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
1021796
I don't think matter does come from nothing. First of all, we don't know what matter is, but I don't think we have any good reason to expect that matter/energy is fundemental.  I think the entire idea of anything coming from nothing is nonsensical. \n\nMax Tegmark speculates that nature is fundmentally based on mathematics. This seems to make a great deal of sense. Physicists have always been amazed at the degree that mathematical truths have been reflected in the physics we observe.  Why should there be this incredible isomorphism between systems of mathematics and the nature we observe. It would seem the simplest explanation might just be that nature is mathematics, where mathematics can be thought of as necessary truths about logical systems.\n\nI think part of the reason people have this picture of something coming from nothing is that they have what I consider a false picture of the nature of time.  Time is not something apart from the universe. Indeed Einstein argued that time is not distinct from space at all but rather there is a unified idea called Space-Time. \nSo rather than picturing the universe as a dynamic entity changing in time, perhaps one should look at the universe as a static unchanging entity which we describe by space-time. With this picture the idea of something coming from nothing is revealed as meaningless, and there is just this static unchanging reality.\n\nMan tends to talk about systems in terms of layers of understanding. Our picture of the universe is like this, with our understanding progressing to lower and lower layers. At first we just understood reality in terms of objects ( people, tables, trees etc. ) Then science revealed these objecs in terms of atoms. Then physicists described the atoms in terms of electrons protons and neutrons, Then came quarks. Then came string theory which is still speculative but at least one physicist has speculated that String Theory can most easily be explained as a layer directly over the set of mathematical logical axioms.\n\nIf we look at the universe just in terms of our matter/energy space/time layer (how we usually picture it). We know that The first law of thermodynamics states that the sum total of mass/energy is constant. However what many people do not know is that gravitational potential energy is considered to be negative. This allows the mass and energy we observe to increase with time as long as there is an equal amount of gravitational potential energy formed as well. In fact the total amount of mass energy may well sum up to zero. So essentially the mass/energy we observe was able to form because the rapid expansion produced a huge amount of negative gravitational potential energy to balance it.\n\nIf reality is based ( the lowest conceptual layer) on mathematics then the issue of why reality exists goes away, because then reality simply reduces to the class of what is necessarily true.
636657
Which part of the theory? Remember theories are setup as place holders until disproven. They are not right or wrong as such.
383637
How do you define what a universe is?  I define the universe as everything there is.  Obviously the set containing everything does not allow the existence of something outside of it.  In other words, if you were to show me evidence of another universe I would say that what you have shown me is part of this universe.\n\nBy my definition there can only be one universe.  Do you have a different definition of what a universe is?
389781
Basically that something designed the entire universe/world.  Might be God or might be called something else.
311305
how do you understand anything?  We can't understand everything there are things beyond our comprehension.  Try to think about this, does space end?  Is it infinte?  what is infinite?  You kno?
363851
Life could be a theory too...how do you prove that you exist? Try reading Descartes' Meditation...
1041383
My dear- in truth- EVERYTHING is theory. And yes, that includes the Bible...and the Koran...and the Torah...and the Bahagavad Gita....and Einstein's theory
998600
Thank you...I don't remember the question you refer to, but I will research it.  I think if you click on my name, you can go to my 360 blog.\n\nMy theory is really universal knowledge, that we all share, as one.  I have studied A Course In Miracles for years, and it has transformed my life...and many other teachings (all teachings actually teach the same thing).  \n\nThanks again.
1056252
lol\nThat's a good one.\nNice theory.\n☺
1058278
A Grand Unified Theory of Everything cannot be explained in such fashion. I would recommend reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.
1131830
You're asking a very complicated question using very simplified terms. And yes, given enough time and mathmatics we CAN calculate every aspect of the known and unknown universe. The only problem is, is that we don't understand much at all of the known universe. Not even electricity or what causes Electromotive Force. We have theories, but thats all we have. Einstein spent the rest of his life at Princeton trying to produce the "Theory of Everything". P.S. His Nobel didn't come from his paper on "relativity". Every microsecond or better results in somethings repeating themselves and other things not. Hence "Chaos Theory"! But what really can be counted on at this point are things called "Physical Laws of the Universe", which may change at a given moment. It's good mental masturbation. Try reading the Tao of Physics, if you can find a copy.
1023775
The universe is full of surprises.  Things have baffled us in the past, and will continue to alter your current understanding of the universe.  The theory of the Holographic universe may be our current understanding that the whole is contained is every part that makes up the whole.  Every atom is a universe, and every universe is also an atom.
1104172
You don't understand the definition of a theory and a fact do you? I presume, judging from your words, you believe that a theory is essentially a conjecture, a guess, that sort of thing? Well, you thought wrong.\n\nScientific definitions and mathematical definitions are far different and more precise than everyday language. For us, a salt is that white stuff that preserves foods and gives the food, obviously enough, that "salty" taste. In chemistry, a salt is any ionic compound formed by anions and cations so that the net charge of the compound is neutral. \n\nIn that same manner, a theory is not just a "guess." Theories and facts are not rungs on a ladder of credibility - they complement each other. Theories are really models for explaining a series of natural phenomena, backed by strong evidence. Theories explain facts. Again, they are not "guesses."\n\nAnd, in that manner, evolution is both a theory AND a fact. There is the theory of evolution, which explains it, and there is the fact of evolution. This is similar to the theory of gravity; how the theory explains the fact that gravity exist, and the reason why apples fall down and hit us on the head. \n\nThere is plenty of evidence to support evolution and it is a strongly-backed theory. Also, all theories are incomplete and subject to revision. That applies to all theories - not just evolution. The atomic theory expanded over the last century as the Bohr model evolved into the current electron-cloud model. \n\nAlso, another misconception to clear up - there is nothing proven in science; there is just evidence to support it.\n\nAlso, people who criticize evolution often forget that it doesn't deal with the origin of life, it is NOT random, that the concept of uniformitarianism in science make evolution valid, etc.\n\nI suggest you read a little.