[BKLYNH2]

Originally Posted by KenP

Sorry, Dennis and I often have spirited discussions on different theories, taking differing sides just for the purpose of debate. Let me explain further:

During one arguement, Dennis and I debated two of the most important, yet conflicting laws of physics; he choosing The General Theory of Relativity and myself choosing Quantum Physics.

Inconsistencies arise when one tries to join the quantum laws with general relativity, a more elaborate description of spacetime which incorporates gravitation. Resolving these inconsistencies has been a major goal of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics. Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, have labored in the attempt to discover a "Grand Unification Theory" that combines not only different models of subatomic physics, but also defines the universe's four forces--the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity--as being different variations of a single force or phenomenon.

It comes down to this, Wilfred: Are all things in nature actually super-tiny bits of strings that are vibrating strands of energy? If so, string theory would merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, and would explain the origin of space, time, and the universe itself. Or is the theory, as some critics claim, just extraordinarily complex mathematics which may have nothing to do with physics and a theory of nothing, not everything? If so, physicists are back to the drawing board in their quest for the Holy Grail of physics?an ultimate theory of everything.

Quite simple, actually.

Yeah - You guys have just been smoki'n the reefer a lot, haven't you.