What do you think the "Final Theory" will look like?

[zerotwoone]

I just want to know what you guys think the final theory will look like.

[pantheory]

I just want to know what you guys think the final theory will look like.

I think that the " final theory" will be much simpler in almost every way, as well as more logical than any of today's theories. Most everything in theory's models that have excessive complication will be eliminated. All of the major theories of today such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model Particle Theory, The Big Bang Theory, -- all will be almost entirely replaced by simpler conceptual models that will have kinship with each other enabling them to all be tied together theoretically. Mathematics will then become more of a servant of these models rather than the foundation essential.

//

Edited November 7, 2011 by pantheory

[Dekan]

I think that the " final theory" will be much simpler in almost every way, as well as more logical than any of today's theories. Most everything in theory's models that have excessive complication will be eliminated. All of the major theories of today such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model Particle Theory, The Big Bang Theory, -- all will be almost entirely replaced by simpler conceptual models that will have kinship with each other enabling them to all be tied together theoretically. Mathematics will then become more of a servant of these models rather than the foundation essential.

//

 

All serious-minded people must share your dissatisfaction with today's theories. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics offend logic. Hence can't be true. And the Standard Model has far too many arbitrary particles. "Big Bang" raises questions about what happened before it, which can't be answered.

 

Thus all these theories don't make sense. But - does the Universe have to make sense? Why can't it, at heart, just be random? In the same way that the game of Roulette is random.

 

In Roulette, you have a wheel divided into 36 compartments. The croupier spins the wheel, and throws a ball onto it. No-one can determine what will then happen - which compartment the ball will end up in. There's no "Final Theory" of Roulette.

 

Why then should we expect to find a "Final Theory" of the Universe. Bearing in mind that the Universe supposedly contains, not 36 neat compartments and 1 ball, but squillions of electrons, protons, neutrons, trontrons, whatever, zipping around all over the place.

 

Isn't seeking a "Final Theory" of the Universe, just as futile an endeavour, as seeking a "Winning System" at Roulette?

[uncool]

All serious-minded people must share your dissatisfaction with today's theories. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics offend logic.

Please explain.

Hence can't be true. And the Standard Model has far too many arbitrary particles.[/QUOTe]

No, they are not arbitrary. Every particle is there for a reason. And really, you think that 16 particles is too many?

"Big Bang" raises questions about what happened before it, which can't be answered.

For one thing, that's going too far. It's not that they can't be answered; for what we know right now, they can't be answered now, but will be answered in the future.

Thus all these theories don't make sense. But - does the Universe have to make sense? Why can't it, at heart, just be random? In the same way that the game of Roulette is random.

 

In Roulette, you have a wheel divided into 36 compartments.

Actually, 38. There are 36 normally numbered spaces and then two spaces labelled 0 and 00.

The croupier spins the wheel, and throws a ball onto it. No-one can determine what will then happen - which compartment the ball will end up in. There's no "Final Theory" of Roulette.

That actually isn't true; there are ways of predicting which compartment the ball will be in based on mechanics. Often computers are necessary, but they have been used.

Why then should we expect to find a "Final Theory" of the Universe. Bearing in mind that the Universe supposedly contains, not 36 neat compartments and 1 ball, but squillions of electrons, protons, neutrons, trontrons, whatever, zipping around all over the place.

 

Isn't seeking a "Final Theory" of the Universe, just as futile an endeavour, as seeking a "Winning System" at Roulette?

It is precisely as futile - not at all.

=Uncool-

[Myuncle]

I just want to know what you guys think the final theory will look like.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about having one, we don't need it, especially now. Give me stem cells, give me humanoid robots, take me to a colonized Mars, but please don't give me any final theory .

[pantheory]

All serious-minded people must share your dissatisfaction with today's theories. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics offend logic. Hence can't be true. And the Standard Model has far too many arbitrary particles.

Yeah, I agree that a lot of people share these opinions of these models.

 

"Big Bang" raises questions about what happened before it, which can't be answered.

The Big Bang model I think is probably wrong in almost every way, where the other models above I believe have at least some theoretical validity and will retain some of their characteristics if/ when they are replaced.

 

Thus all these theories don't make sense.

I think there are logical flaws in all these models.

 

But - does the Universe have to make sense? Why can't it, at heart, just be random? In the same way that the game of Roulette is random.

 

In Roulette, you have a wheel divided into 36 compartments. The croupier spins the wheel, and throws a ball onto it. No-one can determine what will then happen - which compartment the ball will end up in. There's no "Final Theory" of Roulette.

Of course the universe has a lot of randomness as well as a lot of uniformity and predictability. But logically random does not make sense. I believe theories should not violate rules of logic, where Quantum Theory comes to mind. This is based upon my belief that one day we will learn enough about reality to be able to organize it solely using logical perspectives. At that time I think it will begin to make sense as a whole.

 

Why then should we expect to find a "Final Theory" of the Universe. Bearing in mind that the Universe supposedly contains, not 36 neat compartments and 1 ball, but squillions of electrons, protons, neutrons, trontrons, whatever, zipping around all over the place.

This depends upon whether everything in reality is inter-related to everything else. I happen to think that it is, therefore a theory of everything would then be possible, or even necessary and inevitable.

 

Isn't seeking a "Final Theory" of the Universe, just as futile an endeavour, as seeking a "Winning System" at Roulette?

I agree that this certainly is the opinion of many, but I believe otherwise.

 

BTW, I think your posting expresses a pleasant demeanor while still disagreeing, which for many people is not easy to do, thanks

Edited November 8, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

Unless a theory explains everything in the universe in terms of the one type of particle of which the universe is ultimately composed, it will not be a final theory. If the question was about what physicists will accept as a final theory, then the answer might very well involve putting all the nonsense physicists have come up with over the last century inside a pretty shape, much like Lisi’s exceptionally complex theory of nothing.

 

The major hurdle physicists need to overcome to find a proper final theory, is their religious attachment to current theories, in particular those of Einstein, which is reminiscent of the renaissance attitude to Aristotle. It may be true that general relativity describes the solar system better than Newtonian mechanics; but when applied to the motions of galaxies it does not work, it is disproved by observation, therefore it is wrong.

 

Of course physicists could not accept that, so they invented dark matter. But if the galaxies are crawling in dark matter, why isn’t the solar system? It would only have taken a sprinkling of dark matter to explain the precession of mercury, and revive Newtonian gravity. But back in the 19^th century physicists were open to even questioning the inverse square law, until Gerber came up with a formula to explain the precession of Mercury, which was later incorporated into general relativity.

 

Trying to join general relativity to quantum mechanics, is never going to result in a proper final theory. What physicists need to do, is realise that real scientific progress comes from disproving existing models, not from holding a religious attachment to them.

 

 

[superball]

Even if there was one billion different particles It would still be possible to categorize them perhaps into 4 or less parts?

 

Perhaps like this, particles are divided into 2 piles. positive charge particles, and negative. Below, or above the plane of enlightenment.

 

If we found negative mass particles, and they are called anti particles they would still have there anti particle negative, or positive charges, in the negative reality scene, below the plane of enlightenment.

 

speculation of course, but perhaps...

 

 

respectfully super ball.

[Bignose]

All serious-minded people must share your dissatisfaction with today's theories. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics offend logic. Hence can't be true.

 

When, o when was it dictated that the Universe must be logical to you?

Edited November 19, 2011 by Bignose

[immortal]

The major hurdle physicists need to overcome to find a proper final theory, is their religious attachment to current theories, in particular those of Einstein, which is reminiscent of the renaissance attitude to Aristotle. It may be true that general relativity describes the solar system better than Newtonian mechanics; but when applied to the motions of galaxies it does not work, it is disproved by observation, therefore it is wrong.

 

The theory of general relativity has been tested with very high precision and saying that the whole theory is completely wrong seems to me a rather outrageous statement. Earth dragging space and time as it rotates. A better statement is to say that it fails to account for the observations produced in a particular case. Both Newtonian mechanics and General relativity tries to explain the behaviourof matter and light in large gravitational fields and its not that one is better and the other is bad. The Newtonian mechanics was re-constructed at the speeds of light, general relativity didn't completely overthrew it

 

The paper says,

 

 

Einstein's theory of general relativity has been highly successful at explaining how matter and light behave in strong gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a wide variety of astrophysical observationsEinstein's theory of general relativity has been highly successful at explaining how matter and light behave in strong gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a wide variety of astrophysical observations.

 

"Our measurement agrees 99 percent with what is predicted by general relativity, which is within our margin of error of plus or minus five percent," said Pavlis. "This is a significant improvement over our 1998 measurement, which had an error margin of plus or minus 20 percent using the best gravitational model available at the time."

 

Trying to join general relativity to quantum mechanics, is never going to result in a proper final theory. What physicists need to do, is realise that real scientific progress comes from disproving existing models, not from holding a religious attachment to them.

 

Real scientific progress comes by fine tuning the little wrong assumptions in the theory or the existing models and fixing it not by completely overthrowing existing models. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics has with stood the test of the times and both are one of the most intellectual theories of mankindand it is not that one is right or the other is wrong its just that few assumptions of the model might be redefined or reconstructed and I don't think physicists choose religious attachment over scientific attitude to come to conclusions.

[uncool]

 

The major hurdle physicists need to overcome to find a proper final theory, is their religious attachment to current theories

You have been asked to substantiate this before. You have failed to do so. You have demonstrated a religious attachment to your own theory.

, in particular those of Einstein, which is reminiscent of the renaissance attitude to Aristotle. It may be true that general relativity describes the solar system better than Newtonian mechanics; but when applied to the motions of galaxies it does not work, it is disproved by observation, therefore it is wrong.[/QUOTe]

Please demonstrate this.

 

Of course physicists could not accept that, so they invented dark matter.

Before you go on, please explain precisely which observations caused physicists to hypothesize the existence of dark matter.

But if the galaxies are crawling in dark matter, why isn’t the solar system?

It is.

It would only have taken a sprinkling of dark matter to explain the precession of mercury, and revive Newtonian gravity. [/QUOTe]

Actually, no, it wouldn't. You don't seem to understand exactly what dark matter is, nor how it explains any observations.

But back in the 19^th century physicists were open to even questioning the inverse square law, until Gerber came up with a formula to explain the precession of Mercury, which was later incorporated into general relativity.

 

Trying to join general relativity to quantum mechanics, is never going to result in a proper final theory. What physicists need to do, is realise that real scientific progress comes from disproving existing models, not from holding a religious attachment to them.

And again, newts, you have not yet demonstrated any religious attachment by physicists. You are projecting.

=Uncool-

[newts]

The theory of general relativity has been tested with very high precision and saying that the whole theory is completely wrong seems to me a rather outrageous statement. A better statement is to say that it fails to account for the observations produced in a particular case.

 

Real scientific progress comes by fine tuning the little wrong assumptions in the theory or the existing models and fixing it not by completely overthrowing existing models.

 

What I meant was that it is wrong to claim that general relativity explains the large scale structure of the universe, when it only works for the solar system. People claim that it explains the structure of the universe a few seconds after the big bang, which is ridiculous when it does not even account for the orbits of stars.

 

Were Kepler's elliptical orbits a fine-tuning of crystal spheres and epicycles?

 

You don't seem to understand exactly what dark matter is, nor how it explains any observations.

 

I thought it was an imaginary substance that was invented so that physicists did not have to admit the deficiencies of general relativity. And I thought it explained observations because physicists are free to put as much as they want wherever they want, and since it is invisible nobody can claim it is not there. But maybe it does exist, along with quarks and unicorns.

Edited November 20, 2011 by newts

[derek w]

the ultimate free lunch (0 = +1 -1),is the best theory i have heard.

[uncool]

I thought it was an imaginary substance that was invented so that physicists did not have to admit the deficiencies of general relativity.

And you would be wrong. The problems that dark matter solves exist in Newtonian mechanics, too. It is a thermodynamic problem, not a relativistic problem.

And I thought it explained observations because physicists are free to put as much as they want wherever they want, and since it is invisible nobody can claim it is not there. But maybe it does exist, along with quarks and unicorns.

Again, you have shown no understanding of the reasoning behind quarks. You have no reasoning why you believe quarks don't exist, and no knowledge beyond layman's misinterpretations of the theories. No, if you want to dispute the existence of either quarks or dark matter, show that you understand the precise reasoning behind their supposed existence before making any statements on the matter.

=Uncool-

[Appolinaria]

 

Thus all these theories don't make sense. But - does the Universe have to make sense? Why can't it, at heart, just be random? In the same way that the game of Roulette is random.

 

In Roulette, you have a wheel divided into 36 compartments. The croupier spins the wheel, and throws a ball onto it. No-one can determine what will then happen - which compartment the ball will end up in. There's no "Final Theory" of Roulette.

 

Why then should we expect to find a "Final Theory" of the Universe. Bearing in mind that the Universe supposedly contains, not 36 neat compartments and 1 ball, but squillions of electrons, protons, neutrons, trontrons, whatever, zipping around all over the place.

 

Isn't seeking a "Final Theory" of the Universe, just as futile an endeavour, as seeking a "Winning System" at Roulette?

 

But randomization does make sense. How do you know chance itself is not just an effect caused by this "final theory"?

[John]

It should be noted that human beings evolved to interact with the universe on scales at which the more startling results of relativity and quantum mechanics aren't immediately obvious (which, of course, is why they're startling). Therefore, it's understandable that said results aren't intuitive and don't necessarily "make sense" until one reaches a sufficient level of education in physics to see how they're derived. I myself am willing to accept them despite my own lack of said education, based on the facts that a) experimental results agree with the theories to a high degree of accuracy, and b) the scientific consensus is therefore that, while said theories may not be complete, they are at least accurate enough to be useful, and will likely play some part in whatever final theory is eventually found.

 

Of course, it is possible that some result, or set of results, will be found that will completely destroy both theories. However, given how accurate they are, the odds that they're totally wrong seem fairly slim. This is why the scientific community is attached to them. It's not some religious adherence to dogma, devoid of evidence or logical basis. It's confidence borne of mountains of evidence supporting both theories.

 

As for the form a final theory might take, who knows? While there is an idealistic notion of some simple equation that neatly ties together everything we observe, it's possible that the universe doesn't ultimately fit into something to tidy. Calculations based on the final theory might still require loads of processing power to perform, and simplified approximations may be necessary. There may end up being several competing theories that all explain the universe equally well, and then we'll be in a pickle trying to decide which one truly reflects reality.

 

And then maybe the next Ed Witten (or the current one, if the theories are developed soon enough) can announce that he's found some wonderful symmetry that ties them all together.

 

We'll see.

[tar]

well, supposing that the universe was different 13 billion years ago, than it is now, I would guess that the universe is evolving, that is, doing some things that it has not done before

 

not a simple game of chance, where the ball drops in one of 38 slots

 

But a changing game of chance, where each "result" sets the conditions for the next roll.

 

If the universe is doing such, then I would guess it is not finished doing it yet.

 

Thus arriving at a final theory would be a bit premature. One would have to wait for the universe to finish what it is doing, and then make the pronouncement.

Edited November 20, 2011 by tar

[newts]

The problems that dark matter solves exist in Newtonian mechanics, too.

I realise that, but the point I was making is that when Newtonian mechanics failed to exactly account for the precession of Mercury, physicists started questioning its very basis. Yet in this more religious era, general relativity can fail drastically to account for the motions of the galaxies, yet all physicists are prepared to do is invent an imaginary being called dark matter, so that they can continue to worship Einstein.

 

Therefore, it's understandable that said results aren't intuitive and don't necessarily "make sense" until one reaches a sufficient level of education in physics to see how they're derived.

I think the correct spelling is 'indoctrination' not 'education'

[uncool]

I realise that, but the point I was making is that when Newtonian mechanics failed to exactly account for the precession of Mercury, physicists started questioning its very basis. Yet in this more religious era, general relativity can fail drastically to account for the motions of the galaxies, yet all physicists are prepared to do is invent an imaginary being called dark matter, so that they can continue to worship Einstein.

 

Once again, you show that you do not understand the reasoning behind dark matter. Once again, you impute religious feeling to physicists without being able to demonstrate it.

 

Newts, you are acting in an extraordinarily hypocritical manner. I have asked you in the past to demonstrate any level of understanding of quarks, and you have shown nothing more than the media-driven version without knowing any of the actual reasons why they are hypothesized. Your continual posting in this manner only demonstrates how much you are willing to propagate untruths.

=Uncool-

[John]

I think the correct spelling is 'indoctrination' not 'education'

 

Perhaps, but if you disagree with mainstream physical theories, formulate better ones that match experimental results at least as accurately as the current ones. Physicists aren't out to worship Einstein. Their goal is to understand how the universe works. Relativity and quantum mechanics are the best descriptions we've come up with so far, but research to improve upon them continues. If it becomes apparent that relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong, then there will be skepticism/resistance perhaps for a while, but eventually they'll be discarded in favor of whatever more accurate theory is developed. This is how science works--there are social factors to consider, of course, but the field as a whole adapts to new discoveries.

[pantheory]

Perhaps, but if you disagree with mainstream physical theories, formulate better ones that match experimental results at least as accurately as the current ones. Physicists aren't out to worship Einstein. Their goal is to understand how the universe works. Relativity and quantum mechanics are the best descriptions we've come up with so far, but research to improve upon them continues. If it becomes apparent that relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong, then there will be skepticism/resistance perhaps for a while, but eventually they'll be discarded in favor of whatever more accurate theory is developed. This is how science works--there are social factors to consider, of course, but the field as a whole adapts to new discoveries.

I like your posting and attitude, nicely presented

 

....if you disagree with mainstream physical theories, formulate better ones that match experimental results at least as accurately as the current ones.....

This would seem like a valid statement in principle but it is my opinion that it does not work in practice. Even if one could get a valid non-mainstream idea published in a mainstream journal, which is extremely difficult to do, my experience is that relatively few if any potential readers will bother reading an idea that they have never heard of before, or will dismiss such ideas out-of-hand after a brief perusal without even trying to understand or consider the possibilities of them.

//

Edited November 21, 2011 by pantheory

[John]

I like your posting and attitude, nicely presented

 

Well, thank you.

 

 

This would seem like a valid statement in principle but it is my opinion that it does not work in practice. Even if one could get a valid non-mainstream idea published in a mainstream journal, which is extremely difficult to do, my experience is that relatively few if any potential readers will bother reading an idea that they have never heard of before, or will dismiss such ideas out-of-hand after a brief perusal without even trying to understand or consider the possibilities of them.

//

 

This is an example of the social factors I mentioned, which are an unfortunate result of the human element in science. I have a perhaps naive expectation that the better theory would eventually win out, though. The recent neutrino results at CERN, if confirmed, will open up new avenues for theorists to explore. While it's probable (and understandable) that new theories presented by established scientists in the field will be taken seriously more easily than those presented by laymen (like myself, though I'm not likely to try amateur theoretical physics any time soon), if a random amateur does come up with something amazing, I imagine it will gain traction in time. Sometimes it takes decades or even centuries, but the truth has historically found a way to gain acceptance, despite people's efforts to stop it.

[pantheory]

John,

 

..... I have a perhaps naive expectation that the better theory would eventually win out, though.

I agree with you. I believe eventually the better theory will win out also. But history has shown that often the author of technical paper(s) and founder of a theory dies and maybe 50 to 100 years later or longer the theory is rediscovered and "eventually" wins out. Unfortunately "eventually" can involve a long period of time One prime example was Gregor Mendel and the theory of genetics, and of course there are many other examples.

 

The recent neutrino results at CERN, if confirmed, will open up new avenues for theorists to explore. While it's probable (and understandable) that new theories presented by established scientists in the field will be taken seriously more easily than those presented .......

Even if not confirmed and one or more errors are found in the experiment concerning the possibility of faster-than-light neutrinos, the OPERA experimental results still may lead to new physics related to observations and contentions but unrelated to faster-than-light neutrinos. Such a discovery might have a big impact on present-day theory. As a theorist I consider this as real a possibility as faster-than-light neutrinos. Here is the theoretical error(s) that I presented/ proposed concerning the CERN/ OPERA results: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60916-not-faster-than-light-neutrinos/.

//

Edited November 21, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

Perhaps, but if you disagree with mainstream physical theories, formulate better ones that match experimental results at least as accurately as the current ones.

Although our theories are very different, on matters of philosophy, Pantheory and I tend to agree, so I concur with what he has said.

 

Actually I have tried introducing one part of my theory (‘an alternative to quarks’, currently down the bottom of page 5), but nobody was that interested, they preferred to just say how brilliant quarks are.

 

Sometimes it takes decades or even centuries, but the truth has historically found a way to gain acceptance, despite people's efforts to stop it.

The problem with your argument that correct theories tend to win out in the end, is that most people’s definition of a correct theory, is ‘one that is currently accepted’. The Lorentz aether theory is certainly a correct description of nature, but it is still not accepted even after over a hundred years.

 

My point on this thread was that physicists’ religious attachment to general relativity and dark matter, prevents them from properly considering a genuine final theory. Everybody who has disagreed with me, has made it very plain that they are so sure that general relativity and dark matter are correct that they have no need to consider alternatives, qed.

 

I have asked you in the past to demonstrate any level of understanding of quarks, and you have shown nothing more than the media-driven version without knowing any of the actual reasons why they are hypothesized.

When I have finished studying epicycles and phlogiston, I may move on to quarks.

[Bignose]

Actually I have tried introducing one part of my theory (‘an alternative to quarks’, currently down the bottom of page 5), but nobody was that interested, they preferred to just say how brilliant quarks are.

 

bullplop! newts, if 'nobody was that interested' how did you get 5 pages? The reason nobody heralded your idea as the next great thing is the lack of evidence for it. Not just lack of evidence showing that your idea was an improvement over the existing idea, but also a total lack of your idea matching known experimental results today. New ideas are great, and new ideas are always needed. With the stagnation that string theory has been in, new ideas are really needed. But you cannot cannot cannot just ignore existing evidence. New ideas have to incorporate all known existing evidence, unless the known experiments can be shown to be flawed in some way.

 

This is the hurdle ALL new ideas have to jump. On the one hand, it is monumental -- there are a vast number of experiments out there, and one needs to be well-versed with the current ideas to know how to properly interpret the known data. On the other hand, it is easy -- the hurdle is right out there, in plain sight, and the concept is simple. Unlike your claims of religion, the acceptance hurdle is very clear -- no 'bishop' or 'pope' or science has to decide it is holy or not, no one has to decide a miracle has been performed, etc. -- you just have to have objective clear evidence and your idea must make predictions that coincide with the known evidence.

 

Despite your numerous claims of religious fanaticism, THIS is the reason the current idea of quarks is preferred. I guarantee that the large majority of scientists would agree that the current theory of quarks is at the very least incomplete if not wrong. But the new idea must also incorporate the known results. A good example is general relativity includes special relativity and also includes Newtonian mechanics. That is, the improvements made by relativity were numerous, but then in the limit of velocities far away from the speed of light, in locations far away from strong gravitational fields --- it reduces to the Newtonian mechanics that everyone learns in 1st semester physics.

 

If general relativity is to be replaced, the replacement must reduce to Newtonian mechanics in the appropriate limits, and reduce to general relativity appropriately, too. You cannot deny that quite a lot of data shows that Newtonian mechanics and general relativity are correct, in their respective areas.

 

So, any new theory has to subsume known accepted data. THIS is why your thread had 'nobody interested' -- you made no objective predictions (i.e. numerical) and from what little was presented did not reduce to known results very easily. And in fact seemed very contradictory to known results -- and you seemed to have little to no interest in addressing that. Is it really a wonder why interest was lost?

 

The above is true for all new or per the title of this thread 'Final' theories. Data we have now cannot just be dismissed -- so one thing for certain is that whatever the 'final' theory is, it will reduce to or mimic an awful lot of our current ideas in the special cases of what we have data for today. It must, unless some extraordinary flaw in the data we've gathered to date is found.