dis any physicists solve the Grand Unified theory yet?
438820
No, but some physicists think they have.  String theory is the most popular unifying theory, but it makes no testable predictions, meaning that its really more philosophy than hard science.  There are other theories out there too.  For example , Heim Theory involves extra dimensions in which the speed of light is different in order to unify the four fources (electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity).
389972
Your speculations are shared by some professional physicists and astronomers. Of course no one can prove anything at this time in our scientific history because we have no way of knowing what's going on inside the event horizon of black holes. Indeed, the laws of physics as we understand them won't even work there, so viable theories can't be developed.\n\nAs for God -- I'm not a religious fundamentalist fanatic by any means, but it seems to me that at the very least there has to be some sort of Prime Entity or First Cause that "invented" the laws of physics that make such things as big bangs, black holes, multiverses, etc., possible, even if this universe is nothing more than an accident.\n\nGod should be spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
845910
I think nobody....because the gravitatory force is very weak.\n\nThe nuclear and strong forces hold together particles
172469
Think of them not as linearly parallel but Trans-dimensionally apart/separated.   See the Inflationary Theory/Model of the Universe for more detailed explanations.   ...And if you need help with the Math/Physics of it just give me a call in Universe # 91234536544232329767543.  :-)
328729
Well, if you want to break it down even more, the universe only consists of minscule, vibrating strings.  At least, that's the most widely accepted theory in fundamental physics right now.\n\nThe beauty of it all is how much complexity can arise from such simple fundamentals.
39911
Just to expand on the answer by "twertyto", the answer to your question is "We don't know yet". This is one of the major questions in physics right now. There are some ideas but none of them have been proven either mathematically or in laboratory experiment. It is believed by most leading minds in physics that once we learn the exact relationship between gravity and the other known forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear), we will then understand how gravity works. To understand this relationship will take what is called the "grand unified theory", which is not yet a theory at all but a hoped-for theory to be developed in the near future. The "grand unified theory" would explain how gravity is related to mass and energy and the "known forces" mentioned above, and would do for gravity what Einstein's "E=MC2" (relativity) did for understanding the relationship between mass and energy. (Some quick background: E=MC2 explained the exact relationship between mass and energy, showing they are both different aspects of the same thing, and can therefore be converted into each other). \n\nTo sum this up in a simple fashion: scientists believe that gravity, energy, mass and even time are all made of the same "stuff" at some super-fundamental level, but they haven't yet figured out this fundamental level. Once someone does (which would pretty much be a guaranteed Nobel prize), we will know how gravity works. Until then, we can only speculate.
500484
Now you have me thinking of the prayer ...\n\n"Our chaos theory which art in an post big bang expanding universe hallowed be thy data ... "\n\nNah, it will never catch on :-)
478296
Fermat's Last Theorem has been solved ashas the Four Color Theorem. The Poincare conjecture has recently been solved. Trisecting a general angle with unmarked straightedge and compass has been shown to be unsolvable (although it is possible with marked straightedge and compass).\n\nHigh on the list of open problems:\n\nRiemann Hypothesis.\nP=NP?\nTwin prime conjecture.\nAre there any odd perfect numbers?\nProof of existence of solutions to Navier-Stokes equations.
205433
At this point the big thing we're looking for is the higgs boson.  until we find that, all are ideas of what gravity is are unconfirmed.  All we can do is describe how it behaves.
603503
Good question. However I can say that not one it the world of physics has gotten this one right Yet.
71475
Well yes and no, Albert Ensitie composed a theory "The Theory of Unification" that his theory of reltavity and Electro Magatism could co-exist in ont theory this was in the 1930s. Now there might be something Enstine never thought of, tiny string inside quarks that could explain the entire universe in a single equation The Theory Of Everything. Later in the 1940s quantime mech where discorvered. This was much stronger than gravity and in which consists the strong force and the weak force, The strong holds the atom thogther and the weak lets protrons and newtrons attach to is leaving off radition a sit dose so. But every time we try to put Quantime mech and The Theory of reltavity, nothing makes is reasonable. Thats where string theory comes in, that this might link Quantime mech and Reltivity. So no the Theory is not being disproven but proven.
690504
in its present form, it can't describe the state of the universe at time=0.  Thus, it doesn't answer the question of where did all the mass and energy come from
42946
There are two major theories of modern physics: Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Both work well, with QM being applicable to atomic and smaller sizes, and GR to large (Solar size, galaxy size, etc.) things.\n\nThe major question in physics today is: how do we combine QM and GR so that they are two aspects of one larger theory. This postulated theory is usually called a Unified Theory or Theory of Everything or something like that. String theories are attempts to do this (so far all are still incomplete).\n\nThe major difference between QM and GR is that nn QM energy comes in discrete levels (all way to small for us to notice). However in GR space-time is continious. So it is not instantly clear whether space-time is continous or quantized in a unified theory.\n\nFor consistency between these space quantization would have to be on extremely small scales. This would almost certain occur (if it did) at distances called the Planck length, which is ~ 10^-33 cm. (This is about one billion trillion times smaller than an atomic nucleus.)\n\nQuantization of time would then be the interval for light to cross this distance, about 10^-43 seconds. It is because of a lack of a unified theory that physicists can't say anything about the conditions of the universe before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. (Of course that is still pretty good.)\n\nThe short answer is: no one knows, but the scale of quantization would have to be much, much smaller than any known elementary particle.
233899
Laney, first of all allow me to say that I'm incredibly glad and pleasantly surprised to hear of your genuine interest in this field.   You are to be truly commended for your intellectual courage and abilities.  ...But to address your question, there are in fact thousands of great explanatory/layman-type books out there on Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, Gravity, Philosophy, Reality, and associated topics like cosmology, etc.  Some of them even dating back to the mid 70's, that nonetheless are still wonderful reads.  ...Theoretical physics at the level that we are talking about here, though, is unfortunately a seven-headed exotic mathematical monster that is not even accessible to most physicists, much less the lay person.   Having said that, and as you know, there have been courageous attempts by talented physicist like Brain Greene (and many others before and after him) to make our latest theoretical/scientific visions of the physical world/universe available to the general public.   ...Since you mentioned that you are NOT mathematically inclined, but did enjoy Greene's The Elegant Universe, the first thing that came to my mind (and the book that I would recommend most) was in fact Greene's newer work called "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" - in case you haven't read it yet.    \n\nAmong some of the other more recent titles worth mentioning also are:\n\nThe Great Beyond - by: Paul Halpener (A very nice book)\n\nThe Cosmic Landscape - by: Leonard Susskind\n\nHiding in the Mirror - by: Lawrence M. Krauss\n\nThe Road to Reality - by: Rofer Penrose\n\nA First Course in String Theory - by: Barton Zwiebach (This is a very nice book but a lil' more mathematically oriented than you might enjoy - let's say undergraduate physics level) \n\nI also highly recommend:  The Five Ages of the Universe - by: Fred Adams\n\nThat should keep you busy for a while - Good Reading!  ;-)
402813
No, I think it'll take too long for them to join together.  They're generally so far apart that the gravitational pull on each other is very very small.  Besides, the universe is constantly expanding, so instead we'll end up in a position where everything is just cold and the density of matter is very small.  That's just one theory, though.
193032
The above answers are interesting but, modern physicists speak extensively about 'multiverses'.  So, does one universe end at the edge of another? or, do they 'co-exist' in space and time? OR??????
1166211
I do not know you that well yet...............\n\n\nHow about a physics question or something challenging?