Looking for a Unified Field and not in basketball

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unless yer an ubernerdgeek, like me, this one is not gonna much appeal to you. Then again, it may 'cause it won't just be about science.

Close enough for government work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/

Test 2 shows FTL particles and NOT tachyons. Tachyons are a theoretical particle, the minimum speed of which is the speed of light. Roughly 186,000 miles a second. Tachyons can move much faster than that, but not slower.

Afore you jump my case, I tell you this is information I got from a Florida State physicist. He also told me "no one really believes they exist." This is from an interview in the 90s.

So what if this is correct? What if 186KPS is not the "ultimate speed limit" as the article states. Fortunately the article also gives us that information.

This is either physics or federal budget math. Not sure which.

"If it's correct, it's phenomenal," said Rob Plunkett, a scientist at Fermilab, the Department of Energy physics laboratory in Illinois, in September. "We'd be looking at a whole new set of rules" for how the universe works.

And? This is news?

Not hardly.

As long as man has been watching the world and universe, man has been "discovering" new sets of rules to explain what is observed. http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm

Nu'clar devices split the atom.

At one time man was certain everything in creation was a mixture of earth, fire, air and water. At one time man was convinced the world was flat and the center of the universe.

At one time the atom was considered the smallest unit of matter. It could not be split or further divided.

As science advances, a few questions are answered.

More questions are raised. A favorite of mine is: why is helium at near 0K absolutely frictionless?

Seems like the more science knows, the more it becomes a Socratic equation: "All I know is that I know nothing."

As I understand things right now (and I very well could have this wrong), there are two theories which are held as explanations for the universe. For some reason, String Theory and Chaos Theory come to mind. Probably wrong. If so, someone correct me and I'll update this.

Absolute proof. The universe is stranger than you can imagine.

Regardless, the two items can be proven (with such proofs as we have now), but are also contradictory. There's an awesome experiment done with light (both a wave and a particle) which can't be reconciled with both theories.

So, scientists have been hard at work searching for a Unified Field Theory which will bring everything together and make it a tidy lump sum. That the people with more brainpower than me haven't found it yet continues to annoy them nearly as much as armadillos annoy me.

Now, the people who get paid to study things like this say the universe is infinite.

Ah. So if the universe is really infinite, then anything, no matter how improbable, must exist.

Or does it? If the universe really is infinite, a lack of something must also be a highly improbable circumstance.

Myself, I found a unified field theory a while back. It accounts for everything, including infinity and all its improbabilities. I just can't provide the proof many people demand. So, they say I am wrong.

But they can't provide proof my unified field theory is wrong.

Lack of proof is doesn't mean it's not true. It merely means we haven't found the proof.