No Theory of Everything

[Vts]

Because the belief that the Universe, with all its complexity, stems from one principle, or one formula, is by itself idealistic.

 

I understand that role of a scientist is to observe and to say it as it is, not to engage in a search for explanation of "everything" based on the idea that there is one unifying principle.

 

Although I realize that such idea makes us look for something and, while we are looking, we make discoveries.

[Royston]

Because the belief that the Universe, with all its complexity, stems from one principle, or one formula, is by itself idealistic.

 

I'm not sure that's correct, what drives a reconciling between QM and GR is that there's a discrepancy to be solved, not the belief that it will be solved. If any problem in physics, or science in general for that matter, was just shrugged at, because said scientists hit a brick wall, I think progress in the sciences would be very slow indeed.

 

I understand that role of a scientist is to observe and to say it as it is, not to engage in a search for explanation of "everything" based on the idea that there is one unifying principle.

 

Unless you're making the same mistake I did i.e taking the word 'everything' at face value (see earlier post), then my previous point still stands. A unification of the four forces, a la quantum gravity, is not proposing an explanation of 'everything' in that sense of the word.

 

Although I realize that such idea makes us look for something and, while we are looking, we make discoveries.

 

Indeed

[merlin wood]

I'd say attempting to combine general relativity with quantum theory to produce a testable theory of everything is rather like trying to combine cheese with chalk to produce a digestible meal.

 

So that you could call general relativity the digestable cheese in that it sufficiently justifies and describes a cause called gravity from its effects upon objects in motion to explain their behaviour. Whereas the indigestibly chalky quantum theory provides no such explanation of the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement.

 

While it can be thought that the quantum behaviour is so unlike the effects caused by any force that it just could not be explained by any theory of quantum gravity like string theory or loop quantum gravity.

[merlin wood]

I'd say attempting to combine general relativity with quantum theory to produce a testable theory of everything is rather like trying to combine cheese with chalk to produce a digestible meal.

 

So that you could call general relativity the digestable cheese in that it sufficiently justifies and describes a cause called gravity from its effects upon objects in motion to explain their behaviour. Whereas the indigestibly chalky quantum theory provides no such explanation of the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement.

 

While it can be thought that the quantum behaviour is so unlike the effects caused by any force that it just could not be explained by any theory of quantum gravity like string theory or loop quantum gravity.

 

...But rather, the alternative thought can be that the universe that includes the atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds, the species of living organisms including trees and human beings,the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and galaxy walls and clusters around cosmic voids is of a certain form. While modern physics still only recognises push or pull causes that are all the known forces. So that the questions can be asked How could any properties possibly be described of such causes to explain any or all of this material form and its organisation? Does it make sense that all this universal natural arrangement of matter is merely the result of these forces? For, surely, doesn't all matter as this has been found to consist almost all of the space between its subatomic components persist as atoms and molecules despite the action of the forces and thus there needs to be described something in addition to these forces that causes this persistence?

 

Then the evidence of quantum physics can be considered and, especially when considering the observable form of matter and a systematically worked out alternative interpretation, reasons can be found to reject the indeterminate, Copenhagen type interpretation of quantum mechanics. But to conclude instead that the evidence of quantum waves is of matter components and photons with a particular universal form of behaviour as objects in motion,, while quantum entanglement measures the simpest kinds of natural organisation. And the only quantum interpretation that seeks to explain these forms of behaviour in terms of objects in motion describes a cause that is distinct from any of the forces.

 

So that it could be enquired Could the only account that may be called a theory of everything be one that explains all that can't be described as, or just as effects caused by the forces? So this account would need to examine together enough natural and experimental evidence of where it acts so as to sufficiently justify and describe enough details of a universal cause and its various effects in addition to the forces?

Edited June 4, 2008 by merlin wood
typo + addition

[Yuri Danoyan]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34731