Help to understand the universe

Post Reply New Topic

According to (link)Sean Carrol, this equation explains everything in the observable universe.
[img][800:353]http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Everyday-Equation-1024x353.jpg[/img]
Is it anyone here that can explain this, or that knows about one or more website(s) that can explain this

The exponentiated part looks like a quantum field Lagrangian, part of it being the standard model of particle physics, so I think it must be an evolution equation that describes how a system changes from one configuration to another within a certain amount of time. The part labeled "other forces" is represents the quantised electromagnetic, weak and colour fields, the terms labeled matter represents the Dirac field and lastly we have the Higgs field. The terms labeled "space-time" and "gravity" look like they represent the curvature of space-time in accordance with Einstein's theory of general relativity but it isn't quantised, so the equation must be referring to quantum fields in curved space-time, also called semi-classical gravity. So actually no, this equation doesn't yet explain everything because it still doesn't have a complete account of quantum gravity, which no one has been able to formulate yet.

The one thing that annoys me to no end is when people post an equation without defining the variables! Especially when it's in a peer-reviewed journal, and you can't figure out what on earth any of their variables mean! I don't dabble in quantum mechanics or theoretical physics nearly enough to know them by heart lol.

Also remember that when you have generalized equations like this, they often aren't as simple as they may initially appear...each term may represent an entirely new equation, filled with more equations and more equations and.....

There is a cure. Read the article that is being referenced. It will either define the elements of the equation or give references to other articles and books. Eventually you can decode the equation. It might not be easy. Most professional articles assume the reader has done graduate level studies in physics and mathematics.

ruveyn

I was referring more to a handful of chemistry papers I had the pleasure of drudging through recently, rather than this one. And I have seen plenty where they simply won't define what they're using at all and just assume you're a mind-reader lol. For example they were using several composition variables without defining whether they were mass, mole, % volume, or concentration...a nightmare I tell you! And it really gets fun with the ambiguous variables like x, y, R, and g.

And would it really be so hard to just say "R=radius, W=work", and whatever else? I'm assuming that's what those two stand for lol. Makes everyone's lives easier!

I agree with you. I was forced to read lots of confusing papers, even on fields where there is not a single convention.

For example papers using the Fourier transform. There are many different ways to do it: signs convention, assumed constants, etc. And each convention changes the numerical results.

Then you have different conventions for Navier Stokes equations. Different letters used by different authors, and also Vectorial notation, Matrix and Tensor equations, Einstein index notation, parts of the equation assumed non present, etc. It's a hell.

Even if they reference books using the same conventions (which is non guaranteed), I may not have these books on reach. They may be on the library, but is a week end and the library is closed, or sometimes the book is not on my country, because we use another school...