I see my question about Einstein’s theory drew little interest. However, it had a purpose. Not being burdened with the vast storehouse of knowledge of the rest of you, my simple mind is rather straight forward. I was not interested in just the ever-present now versus the ever-changing now, I was leading up to Einstein’s search for the unifying theory, the unifying force which is the center of everything and has been a quest of many. For me, one not even proficient in quadratic equations, but one who has much interest in the Bible and Christianity, the answer seems to be right in front of us. LOVE!
I know that will label me as a simpleton, not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of such a problem, but instead one who offers a nonsensical solution, but I see love as a dynamic force, one that affects the external, one that can move the atoms and molecules and even the cosmos, one that comes straight from God. Isn’t that what the Bible says? In fact, the Bible says God IS Love! If God is Love and if God is the Center of it all, well .... ???
I suspect those of you more Biblical facile than I can even provide ample citations for such.
I don’t know if you are aware, or not . . .
Will and Ariel Durant spent more than 50 years of their adult lives studying all of recorded history to see what they could glean in terms of functionally powerful themes and lessons.
A reporter or some such once asked Will, if he could reduce all they’d learned into once sentence. He said he could reduce it into 3 words:
LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
Just to pose such a question irrefutably proves that you are no "simpleton," nor a person lacking in "sophistication." (Chuck the latter in any case, IMHO.)
If I understand you correctly, you were asking about Einstein's search for a "unifying theory"; and, were he to find it, how that would stack up against what the Bible teaches.
Just some thoughts: (1) Einstein, indeed, was in search of the fundamental, universal, "unifying theory" that could account for the order and process of the entire Universe. He, of course, failed at this: One of the four fundamental forces of nature, gravity, refused to behave! (2) Though most of the Neo-Darwinists/metaphysical materialists out there that I regularly talk to scream bloody murder whenever I so much as suggest that Einstein had a deeply religious sense of Reality, I am convinced he did. Like Newton, he was deeply motivated by the desire to disclose God's Order, which lies behind all phenomenal Reality. Einstein had the charming habit of referring to the Creator God as "the Old One," or "the Old Man."
Technically Einstein wasn't "religious" in the common sense of publicly attending church/synagogue services on a regular basis. He was "religious" by sheer habit of mind and heart....
In short, dear Mind-numbed Robot, you will not find your answer in Einstein. But he's asking the very same question you are.
May God ever bless you!
Dimension space has three variable expressions, length or linear, planar or length and width, and volume, or length width and height taken together. If the big bang is an accurate description of how dimension space came into being, then the complexity of dimension space would have manifested from simplist to most complex, from point to linear to planar to volumetric.
If, on the other hand, the universe did not start from an initial bang, would dimension space have always been a volume, with lesser expressions like linear and planar?
To consider this conundrum, consider that a photon is a wee bit of space, a pinch of time, and some energy. The photon crosses unlimited expanses of space while remaining always in the present. Thats how sceince can discern what the nature of the star we detect is, what elements and in some fashion what amounts, because the photon is carrying an imprint of the present of the source for the moment it was emitted.
This packet of space, time, and energy is "in" the universe of spacetime and is a lesser expression of the environment where it exists. The universe is constructed "by" information, but it is the wee thing called photon which appears to be the most fundamental "stable thing" of which everything is composed above the seething quantum realm which bubbles and churns real and virtual particles into and almost immediately out of existence.
Albert sought a way to unify the fundamental forces which are discernable when "things" relate to one another. The problem he faced was finding a basic equational expression which would fit for the large reality of planets, stars and galaxies, and remain valid expressions when contemplating the very small, quatum realm of fundamental "things". I wish he had hit upon the notion of viewing the universe in phase states, such that gravity only emerged in the universe when the quantum realm found a way to stablize aspects of the spacetime/energy creation, thus trying to find an equation or set of equations which are valid for the very large and the quantum realm is not necessary since these are two different and distinct phase states of the thing God Created/is creating called "the universe".
I believe the universe has emerged along simplest to more complex strategy. ANd if salvation is any indication of continuing creation ('behold, a new creation'), the act of being born again is yet another phase transition in God's planned design. When the universe shifted from 'only' the quantum state, to have "things" emerge, the quatum state in no way disappeared, just as space, as a volume, has inherent in it the planar and linear expressions (and even the point expressions!). Dimension time works in a similar fashion, expressing variables such as past, present, and future ... time is a volume.
Well, I see I've gone on too long. Please forgive my long-winded post, but take heart in that spiritual reality is an emerging property of the universe which God has created and continues to create. Albert would never have sought to write equations to define spiritual reality which would encompass the quantum realm and the realm of the very large. But in effect, his search for a unified field theory is sort of like seeking to integrate all that has emerged, and it just might not be fashioned for such simplicity.
I’m somewhat familiar with Einstein’s theory, but not enough to comment on it intelligibly.
Having a strong scientific bent, nevertheless, it’s been interesting to have a change in perspective from a focus on the material and natural to what is really important and that is relationship.
Our whole culture and society is performance based and analytical but the most important things don’t fall into those categories.
Love does. It is the heart of relationships.