No Theory of Everything

[PhDP]

I'm curious to see how many people here think we will never achieve the Theory of Everything (TOE). I think it's quite plausible. In fact I can think of may reason why we couldn't find it; our intelligence is too limited, our maths are too limited, we're unable to collect enough information, we're unable to test some important theories or even worst, the TOE of everything might not even exist.

[iNow]

I think we will successfully unify our theories, and most likely come up with better ones, but I find the uncertainty described by QM a compelling indicator that we will never "know the mind of God."

 

 

I knew I should have read that book by that wheelchair guy.

[merlin wood]

Perhaps it's just that a successful theory of everything is such that a modern physicist is very unlikely to discover it.

 

Hence it seems like all physicists who think that there could be such a theory also think that this would be an account that unifies gravity theory with quantum mechanics or theory. Whereas the behaviour of matter and energy that gravity theory explains is of a quite different kind to the behaviour that quantum mechanics describes.

 

So,for example, gravity theory is able to explain the orbital motion of bodies by decribing how they can resist gravity in virtue of their momentum. Whereas this is not so in the case of electron orbitals that resist the charge force around the atomic nucleus.

 

Also, there are no large scale observable equivalents to the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement. And then, what's more, unlike gravity theory, there's no account in quantum theory that explains these unique kinds of behaviour of quantum objects by describing enough details of a cause from its effects upon objects in motion.

[Severian]

In some sense there can never be a Theory of Everything. Even if we can describe the universe with one equation, we will still wonder 'Why that equation?'.

[Royston]

A TOE would have to describe the four forces, evolution, social sciences, consciousness...and anything else you'd care to wave a stick at, in one neat equation...I'm not convinced that's possible, but that's just my opinion.

 

I think possibly a unification of the four forces maybe possible, but I'm not sure that would be a true TOE or not, depends how far the theory extends.

 

Like Severian said, we may be able to describe 'how', everything operates, but not 'why.'

[BenTheMan]

Snail---

 

I disagree, but it is all semantic. Generally ``theory of everything'' is just a theory of quantum gravity.

 

Personally I think it's a question of energy scales. If we are somehow able to probe very high energiew, then we should be able to TEST quantum gravity, and we have a very good record of understanding things that we can test. It could be that we start testing the Planck scale at the LHC, in which case we will see a theory of everything within our lifetimes.

 

And Severian and Snail are right, too. If, for example, string theory turns out to be right, then we have to ask, ``Why strings?'' We will always be led to the same answer---``That's just the way it is.'' (This is why you should never believe anyone who tells you that science disproves God Science just constrains God's parameter space.)

[YT2095]

can someone explain to me what "Everything" actually means?

[bombus]

Einstein did it before he died. Unfortunately the set of equations he came up with had an infinite number of solutions.

 

Maybe that's the way God likes it.

 

A circle is a square with infinite sides after all...

 

can someone explain to me what "Everything" actually means?

 

A 'unified field theory' that combines the laws of electromagnetism and gravitation.

[BenTheMan]

can someone explain to me what "Everything" actually means?

 

``Everything'' is generally a way to understand to mean gravity + quantum mechanics. (bombus forgets that Einstein stopped doing physics in 1930, and that there are two additional forces that he left out.)

 

As somone pointed out earlier, ``everything'' is kind of a grandiose word, and it isn't expected that we can derive, say, feminism from string theory.

[antiflash]

i would like to know:

Who even said that there is even a theory of everything.

or.

how can there even be a theory of everything and how do we even know it can exist.

 

When i grew up(in my bubble), it seemed to me, all things advancing were things being rethought--you know figuring out "we were wrong to begin with." oh well...

[fredrik]

I guess the question is difficult to nail but I personally think that each answer to the question will cause the original question to be revised and refined. My goal is more to understand how theories evolve, in response to external as well as internal interactions.

 

The TOE I am looking for will be more like a generic framework for the scientific method. Once this is understood I think physics is not the only application. I think a good framework should be able to operate at any level of complexity - it should have the property to scale properly over complexity ranges. And the reason why I think so, is that it is necessary for an observer independent framwork. I think different hypotethical observers observer reality from different complexity scales.

 

Ben likes to think of energy scales, and similarly I like to think in terms of generic complexity scales, which I think is ultimately related.

 

IMO, I think a "TOE" will be more than just traditional physics, it will probable tangent more to intelligent learning models which may have wider applications, and thus be of more use to mankind in modelling complex systems that is an increasing challange in many fields.

 

I think the TOE should unify "physics" with a generic scientific method and intelligent information processing. I personally can't imagine ever settling with strings as the ultimate answer. If that is the answer, I would be quite suspect that the question was wrong

 

/Fredrik

[vincent]

Ben likes to think of energy scales, and similarly I like to think in terms of generic complexity scales

 

No, when it comes to physics, Ben likes to think in terms of physics.

[BenTheMan]

No, when it comes to physics, Ben likes to think in terms of physics.

 

I think he's refering to some earlier conversation, where I was talking about effective field theories.

[Quartile]

A unification theory of gravity and electromagnetism would still fall very short of being a "theory of everything."

 

I would think that since human beings can be considered individual 'particles' of mass (just the same as planets, which aren't particles at all but are described as such by gravity) we should also be considered in a TOE.

 

If we werent considered in a TOE we would have to consider our mass as operating seperately from the rest of the universe, which would then keep this theory from being a theory of "everything."

 

Perhaps it would have to do with modelling the evolution of the mind over time, to the point at which we gain "free will."

 

Intelligent learning models sounds interesting..

[BenTheMan]

I would think that since human beings can be considered individual 'particles' of mass (just the same as planets, which aren't particles at all but are described as such by gravity) we should also be considered in a TOE.

 

Man that would be one hell of a lagrangian to write down...

[foodchain]

I'm curious to see how many people here think we will never achieve the Theory of Everything (TOE). I think it's quite plausible. In fact I can think of may reason why we couldn't find it; our intelligence is too limited, our maths are too limited, we're unable to collect enough information, we're unable to test some important theories or even worst, the TOE of everything might not even exist.

 

I think overtime that study of our physical reality will lend itself to utter understanding of such. I do not however see this coming tomorrow, or for some time actually. I mean absolute understanding of everything? I mean as far as math is concerned I think it still cannot work to well with highly unlinear systems, to figuring out how to represent mathematically reality to a real model of such basically. To finally connect all the fields of natural sciences is currently underway in interdisciplinary means, but such will take time. I mean you have fields like biogeochemistry, I am waiting for biochemophysics and such, eventually it might all just be called science, but that too will take sometime…

[bascule]

I'm fairly confident our physicist buddies out there will find some way to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

How much farther we get from there kind of depends on what a unified theory of quantum gravity ends up being, don't you think?

 

Who knows, it could be so inclusive that it ends up being the last scientific statement we can make about reality.

 

Probably not, but we gotta figure that one out first before we can figure out how much else we can figure out

[fredrik]

No, when it comes to physics, Ben likes to think in terms of physics.

 

I don't deny anyone to do what they think is right, because that's exactly what I do myself. I wish you the best of luck.

 

I made what I think is an interesting comparasion: Energy scaling vs Complexity scaling.

 

/Fredrik

 

About my poke on strings, it reflects my sincere current opinion but is in part a joke - that is what the the smiley is for I respect the opinions of everyone who disagree with me.

 

I don't rule out that strings may be something one day even for me, but then I will demand an answer to "why strings". In my own thinking it can appear string like objects too, but they are emergent as superpositions of two distinguishable states. Then higher dimensional objects keeps emerging, since this "string" can develop in new dimensions, but the transformations are probably in principle reversible. Structures that aren't supported int the environment collapse back into the original dimensions.

 

This is why I did have some since interest in your M-theory, and was curious on the research method there.

 

/Fredrik

 

Ben and vincent, do you completely rule out the possibility that strings are not fundamental? Ie. are there string theorists that categorically and fundamentally reject the possibility that the question "why strings" may have an answer, in the sense that in a way strings are not quite fundamental after all? and that to call the final theory string-theory might in fact be a misnomer?

 

/Fredrik

[frgregory]

I suspect that we shall know everything about something, but only ever something about everything. In other words, we might exhaust the Universe (albeit asymtopically) but by definition not the Multiverse (if that can ever be a meaningful concept).

[Goran]

Let consider this for a simple start:

 

What can be positive and negative at the same time?

 

Ok ps3 bitches, I wonna see some real time answers here. Dig in, every little thing can win you a Nobel Jamaika vacation.

 

Clue: Star Treck's tekion discharge.

 

Same old question. If you shoot it, one sees it coming out of the gun and the other sees it going into it.

[thedarkshade]

200 years back from now, saying that one day two people 20000 km away from each other will be able to talk for the issues of the same hour, you would be called crazy! 200 years back from now if you said to anyone that all the people of the world will see the same thing on something called TV, you would be called crazy! And perhaps 200 later form now mankind will laugh with thoughts like this one that we will never find the Theory of Everything. Science shall make it!

[solidspin]

science (math) already did - read A. Garrett Lisi's paper here:

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0770v1.pdf

[merlin wood]

Suppose that the nearest to an account that could be called a theory of is not a unified theory of the forces but a theory that explains every thing that the force can't be described to explain.

 

So although quantum theory an explain much about the visual, chenical and electromagneus proprties of matter by describing the behaviour of electrons am photons, it cannot fundamentally explain how this behaviour is possible by desribing the action of the forces alone.

 

So that quanum theory does not explain how matter persists as atoms and molecules given the powerful action of the forces other than by mathematically describing the principles of this behaviour. So that matter cab described as remaining in its forms and organisation as atoms and molecules despite the action of all the forces. And what makes this this form and organisation possible is the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement. While, unlike the effects of the force, this quantum behaviour can't be explained in terms of a cause and its effects upon objects in motion. Hence there are only various and very conflicting interpretations that attempt to account for such behaviour.

 

Then the universe in general both on the small and very large scale and of living organisms can be observed to be of a particular form. While problems have also arisen in explaining the astonomical evidence of the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, galaxy clusters and cosmic voids by assuming just the action of the forces.

 

Thus it could be asked Could a general theory or explanation of how the universe is in its observe form need to examine a wide range of natural evidence together so as to justify and describe enough details of an invisible cause acting in addition to all the forces?

[Vts]

Why are scientists even trying to find unifying theory?

Wouldn't it imply that Universe is unique, based on a single idea, that is created?

[PhDP]

Wouldn't it imply that Universe is unique, based on a single idea, that is created?

 

Why would it do that ?