Parameters of Theory of everything.

[MJ kihara]

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title?

Or even to come near to that title?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title?

Or even to come near to that title?

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

 

[joigus]

It would have to explain all the coupling parameters and all the mixing angles of the standard model.

It would have to explain why there are exactly 3 families of fermions, (electron, tau, mu) and corresponding quarks (u,d; c,s; t,b) --families of particles.

It would have to explain not-so-well understood components of gravity (vacuum energy and dark matter)

There is a swathe of accidental events that would not necessarily have to be included.

Example: Why did a Mars-sized planetoid collide with Earth circa 3.9^* billion years ago?

Why did the Permian, Cretaceous, etc, extintions take place? Why am I here, drinking some wine, talking to you? (that's certainly part of everything),

etc.

Those are considered historical contingencies. Other cosmological problems you would be forgiven for not being able to explain, like matter-antimatter asymmetry, details on CMB etc.

* 4.5? I don't remember.

I almost forgot: It wouldn't hurt to know (if possible) why all dimensions are unobservable except for 4.

All in all, that's a decent summary of what scientists understand by "theory of everything".

Edited August 28 by joigus
minor addition

[MigL]

A 'theory of everything' seems a little too ambitious.
Keep in mind we don't have a viable GUT  yet, that unifies Electroweak and Color interactions, and if we did, verification of such candidate theories would require energies that could only be achieved by a collider the size of the Moon's orbit.

Then, one that unifies a viable GUT with Gravity, would require verification energies several orders of magnitude larger.
And at those energy densities, you are simply creating micro black holes; not verifying anything.

[Mordred]

 On a different angle in line with the parameters involved as per the title lol.

 You would need all the parameters of the standard model, those parameters directly involve any coupling constants of the different fields in question in direct relation to any momentum terms.  Couplings such as Higgs couplings, Dirac and  Yukawa couplings as they pertain to groups U(1), SU(2),SU(3). For gravity the SO(3.1) group.

In covariant derivative form a representation can be expressed as follows.

\[\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}\]

 At higher energy levels  each field will decouple from the fields involved. This is oft described for example John Baez as running of the coupling constants.

At these higher temperatures all particle interactions of the different fields have symmetry to each other and become indistinguishable from each other.

Gravity may or may not involve a graviton. Just to make that clear. Also one can include a covarisnt derivative form under current SO(3.1) in the above. Leaving it out is intentional as the other fields involved are all renormalizable.

 

Edited August 29 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It would have to explain all the coupling parameters and all the mixing angles of the standard model.

It would have to explain why there are exactly 3 families of fermions, (electron, tau, mu) and corresponding quarks (u,d; c,s; t,b) --families of particles.

It would have to explain not-so-well understood components of gravity (vacuum energy and dark matter)

There is a swathe of accidental events that would not necessarily have to be included.

Example: Why did a Mars-sized planetoid collide with Earth circa 3.9^* billion years ago?

Why did the Permian, Cretaceous, etc, extintions take place? Why am I here, drinking some wine, talking to you? (that's certainly part of everything),

etc.

Those are considered historical contingencies. Other cosmological problems you would be forgiven for not being able to explain, like matter-antimatter asymmetry, details on CMB etc.

* 4.5? I don't remember.

I almost forgot: It wouldn't hurt to know (if possible) why all dimensions are unobservable except for 4.

All in all, that's a decent summary of what scientists understand by "theory of everything".

The explanation is so excellent...esp the combination not just matter-anti matter asymmetry but also why did extinction take place and other explanations.

I also think it could also be highly speculative since establishing it's limit would be extremely difficult,the crown  👑 for such a theory would  remain as long as is able to offer more predictions and explain observations more than any other theory of the day.

[kba]

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title?

Or even to come near to that title?

It would have to explain simpliest action of Matter. If it could define simpliest interactions, it could construct the Universe. Like you build the house using standart bricks.

Edited August 29 by kba

[chron44]

 

Excerpt from a list of ToE criteria: (This page isn't in use anymore, not at least this posting presented here.)

The green lines are some criteria for a ToE presented there, not all of them, thought. And the grey lines are my own comments for about 20 years ago, so have indulgence with my not that well understood remarks for each criterion given. (I didn't fully cope what the list maker had in mind.)
I was most intrigued by this list then, and tried to comment and understand what the guy meant by his list.

~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~

www.motionmountain.net/research.html#req

6. The fundamental constituents must determine all observables. They must also determine all coupling constants and particle masses. (If they did not, the theory would not be final.)

This point, simply spoken, does support my thesis in some posts above here of the (correlation for) Microcosm and Macrocosm and ToE. But this list point is more or less precise about this criterion.

7. The fundamental constituents must be the only unobservable entities. (If they were observable, the theory would not be final; if more entities would be unobservable, the theory would be fiction, not science.)

I don’t know how the list maker does argue for this point – but to my understanding the list maker does build this ToE criterion on the theory of quanta and QM. And also on the logical situation of only one unobservable. – If it were two or more – the logic and physics? in this ToE, would collapse. Probably the first part of point 7 is built or made upon the logical and physical? impossibility of two or more unobservable entities. The maker of this list has my regards of a physical and logical thorough understanding of the nature and the criteria of ToE. This judgment, by me, of the list is based of all list points. In fact I’m almost chocked over the way this list expresses ToE. I can here almost understand that Hawking and Mlodinow does throw in the towel – not by exhaustion – but by chock. That, for to return to point 7, the list maker only accepts one (1) unobservable is probably also based on the search of a “pure logic” that a ToE theory hopefully would manifest. (The human natural? search for truth and logic.) I must say that I’m a bit unclear about this point 7. It would be nice to hear what the list maker has to say about this.

8. Non-locality must be part of the description; non-locality must be negligible at everyday scales, but important at the Planck scale. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)

This point is as it says based on quantum theory and GR and both having legal demands on a ToE.

9. Physical points and sets must not exist at Planck scale, due to limitations of measurement precision; points and sets must only exist, approximately, at everyday scales. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)

This point Nr 9 does manifest the standard model of elementary particles – which almost all is confirmed. Only, for the moment, lacking one or two definitions. Simply this point does manifest particles as electrons or protons and such.

10. The final theory cannot be a set of equations. (If it were, it would contradict the limits to measurement precision.)

This point Nr 10 is a hard criterion for a ToE. – But probably the list maker is right. A set of equations does probably diverge the mathematics and physics. Especially when ToE goes from Microcosm up till Macrocosm scale. The base equation would, of course, allow other equations drawn upon the base. But a set of independent equations does rather soon diverge the physical accuracy. How can Hawking and Mlodinow support such physics?

OK, the list is astonishing, but also a bit chocking. Seeing forward to some other views.

~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~

(Maybe the list is a bit obsolete these days.)

/chron44

Edited August 29 by chron44
edited link

[MJ kihara]

9 hours ago, chron44 said:

 

Excerpt from a list of ToE criteria: (This page isn't in use anymore, not at least this posting presented here.)

The green lines are some criteria for a ToE presented there, not all of them, thought. And the grey lines are my own comments for about 20 years ago, so have indulgence with my not that well understood remarks for each criterion given. (I didn't fully cope what the list maker had in mind.)
I was most intrigued by this list then, and tried to comment and understand what the guy meant by his list.

~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~

www.motionmountain.net/research.html#req

6. The fundamental constituents must determine all observables. They must also determine all coupling constants and particle masses. (If they did not, the theory would not be final.)

This point, simply spoken, does support my thesis in some posts above here of the (correlation for) Microcosm and Macrocosm and ToE. But this list point is more or less precise about this criterion.

7. The fundamental constituents must be the only unobservable entities. (If they were observable, the theory would not be final; if more entities would be unobservable, the theory would be fiction, not science.)

I don’t know how the list maker does argue for this point – but to my understanding the list maker does build this ToE criterion on the theory of quanta and QM. And also on the logical situation of only one unobservable. – If it were two or more – the logic and physics? in this ToE, would collapse. Probably the first part of point 7 is built or made upon the logical and physical? impossibility of two or more unobservable entities. The maker of this list has my regards of a physical and logical thorough understanding of the nature and the criteria of ToE. This judgment, by me, of the list is based of all list points. In fact I’m almost chocked over the way this list expresses ToE. I can here almost understand that Hawking and Mlodinow does throw in the towel – not by exhaustion – but by chock. That, for to return to point 7, the list maker only accepts one (1) unobservable is probably also based on the search of a “pure logic” that a ToE theory hopefully would manifest. (The human natural? search for truth and logic.) I must say that I’m a bit unclear about this point 7. It would be nice to hear what the list maker has to say about this.

8. Non-locality must be part of the description; non-locality must be negligible at everyday scales, but important at the Planck scale. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)

This point is as it says based on quantum theory and GR and both having legal demands on a ToE.

9. Physical points and sets must not exist at Planck scale, due to limitations of measurement precision; points and sets must only exist, approximately, at everyday scales. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)

This point Nr 9 does manifest the standard model of elementary particles – which almost all is confirmed. Only, for the moment, lacking one or two definitions. Simply this point does manifest particles as electrons or protons and such.

10. The final theory cannot be a set of equations. (If it were, it would contradict the limits to measurement precision.)

This point Nr 10 is a hard criterion for a ToE. – But probably the list maker is right. A set of equations does probably diverge the mathematics and physics. Especially when ToE goes from Microcosm up till Macrocosm scale. The base equation would, of course, allow other equations drawn upon the base. But a set of independent equations does rather soon diverge the physical accuracy. How can Hawking and Mlodinow support such physics?

OK, the list is astonishing, but also a bit chocking. Seeing forward to some other views.

~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~

(Maybe the list is a bit obsolete these days.)

/chron44

I think this post is a hijack of thread since you are talking of the 'list maker' you own thought is critical, from the scientific knowledge you have acquired over time.

The use of 'Must be' seem to restrict something that should attempt to explain/offer explanation for everything.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I think this post is a hijack of thread since you are talking of the 'list maker' you own thought is critical, from the scientific knowledge you have acquired over time.

The use of 'Must be' seem to restrict something that should attempt to explain/offer explanation for everything.

I think the list is flawed, but it’s not off-topic.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I think the list is flawed

I would agree.

A 'Theory of Everything' needs to deal only with the fundamental interactions and how they account for the 'reality' we measure and observe.
I would not expect Maxwell's equations to be applied to Psychology, even though we know mental processes and states are governed by the voltages of electrical impulses in the brain.
Similarly, I would not apply a 'Theory of Everything' to a rock fracture, even though we know that process is governed by a combination of gravity and electromagnetic interaction.
Once complexity rears its  head, the best we can do is perturbative computational analysis.

Edited August 30 by MigL

[MJ kihara]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I would agree.

A 'Theory of Everything' needs to deal only with the fundamental interactions and how they account for the 'reality' we measure and observe.
I would not expect Maxwell's equations to be applied to Psychology, even though we know mental processes and states are governed by the voltages of electrical impulses in the brain.
Similarly, I would not apply a 'Theory of Everything' to a rock fracture, even though we know that process is governed by a combination of gravity and electromagnetic interaction.
Once complexity rears its  head, the best we can do is perturbative computational analysis.

Should it be just for fundamental understanding/just the foundation for knowledge? whereby,by knowing it, it would be enough to be able to know/derive why a rock fractured and the science behind psychology...I mean fundamental source of knowledge to explain/give reasons/predict almost everything if not everything.

[Mordred]

You would never be able to account on a single theory cover everything. The most one can reasonably expect under physics is as described above by Joigus, myself and Migl. In essence every fundamental particle interaction encapsulated under the groups of the irrep equation I posted above with the addition of a renormalization for gravity.

Even with that irrep equation one doesn't calculate from it. It encapsulates numerous formulas under each group irrep including numerous tensors too many to list.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Even with that irrep equation one doesn't calculate from it. It encapsulates numerous formulas under each group irrep including numerous tensors too many to list.

Something like this?:

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

[Mordred]

Yeah that's the one lol needless to say it's far more convenient to extract the terms and relations needed lol.

 

[MigL]

Interesting magazine Joigus; thanks.

A much more relevant article from that same magazine

Whatever happened to the theory of everything? | symmetry magazine

[kba]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Whatever happened to the theory of everything?

It just changed its name ). Almost everyday I receive an anonce of published paper about some "unification" theory from my only e-mail subscription.

Edited August 30 by kba

[MJ kihara]

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

The most one can reasonably expect under physics

Physic and math seem intertwined to the best of my knowledge so far,it's critical source of information to other branches of science(chemistry & biology).

My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics?

 

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Something like this?:

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

Since we are in speculation section,let use assume this scenario,you are in a planet with the knowledge you have, this planet has homosapiens who have just become aware of themselves i.e they now seem to start drawing things like their fingers and what seem to be circles and triangles..you have a few minutes probably ten minutes to take off and leave them without coming back...is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period?

[chron44]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:21 PM, MJ kihara said:

For a theory to qualify as a theory of everything what are the expectations for such a theory to qualify for such a heavy title?

Or even to come near to that title?

Wasn't this the subject to discuss in this thread? And, personally of what I understand is that a ToE only is applicable to physics.

 

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Physic and math seem intertwined to the best of my knowledge so far,it's critical source of information to other branches of science(chemistry & biology).

My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics?

Mathematics can cover "everything" and all disciplines. When the human world and conditions are limited. -Math has no boundaries to describe whatever. The "problem" with a ToE is that the human intellect for the moment lack knowledge about necessary parts of physics for to craft a ToE. The same goes for philosophy, it can analyze whatever, when it usually is regarding human conditions. So the difference between philosophy and physics, to my view, is that the first can cover whatever and physics is bound to the universal laws and conditions, which are limited. Still, maybe can be described with math. This is the challenging option in a ToE.

 

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Since we are in speculation section,let use assume this scenario,you are in a planet with the knowledge you have, this planet has homosapiens who have just become aware of themselves i.e they now seem to start drawing things like their fingers and what seem to be circles and triangles..you have a few minutes probably ten minutes to take off and leave them without coming back...is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period?

This last issue is not quite regarding the initial quest of yours. It partly covers physics but mainly is a philosophical wondering. It's not physics.

/chron44

Edited August 31 by chron44

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, joigus said:

Something like this?:

Regex is simpler: [01]*

(meaning an infinite number of zeros and ones, forming any binary number you need).

 

Edited August 31 by Sensei

[MJ kihara]

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

Mathematics can cover "everything" and all disciplines. When the human world and conditions are limited. -Math has no boundaries to describe whatever. The "problem" with a ToE is that the human intellect for the moment lack knowledge about necessary parts of physics for to craft a ToE. The same goes for philosophy, it can analyze whatever, when it usually is regarding human conditions. So the difference between philosophy and physics, to my view, is that the first can cover whatever and physics is bound to the universal laws and conditions, which are limited. Still, maybe can be described with math. This is the challenging option in a ToE.

My opinion is that,The title Theory of everything..it's clear as it is written without further complications,among the three branches of science I think physics is more fundamental,maybe the reason why physicist would want to own the title... however,since the title is more general in it's statement then it's not wrong to look from more fundamental thing than physic,going by your post, mathematics and philosophy seem a good area to look  for such a theory which should then be verified by physic since it has to be able to explain and predict physical phenomena.

[chron44]

 

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

My opinion is that,The title Theory of everything..it's clear as it is written without further complications,among the three branches of science I think physics is more fundamental,maybe the reason why physicist would want to own the title...

 

This is how Wikipedia initially explains ToE.

 Excerpt:
 "A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe. Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics."
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

It's how ToE is defined. Maybe one can add chemistry and biology, but with another name or abbreviation.

 

[studiot]

Consider the following:

 

Unstable atoms, numbered 1 through 100, sit in a row.

Would any proposed TOE be able to predict the order in which these atoms will decay ?

 

IOW is a TOE allowed to be probabilistic ?

[MigL]

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period

No.  Starfleet's Prime Directive forbids that.

And it is also just silly.
More than 90% of members involved in this discussion don't even know what the terms in that equation mean ( myself included ); what use would it be to a primitive race ?

 

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics?

If you meant 'fundamental difference between', then philosophy would tell you not to ask a dumb question like previous one, as it is useless.

 

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

IOW is a TOE allowed to be probabilistic ?

Of course.
QM is probablistic; it makes amazingly accurate predictions.

Or are you asking whether a ToE might resolve the probabilistic aspects ?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

IOW is a TOE allowed to be probabilistic ?

Let's hope so, bc the alternative kinda sucks...

Edited August 31 by dimreepr