Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[kristalris]

I really mean that it is quite possible to "think" one is doing physics while just about everyone else thinks one is not. This can be difficult to judge at times, new ideas are speculative and usually very technical. But sometimes it it very clear what is not physics.

 

 

 

I would expect it to come from people who really understand the issues and technicalities. Modern physics at this level is very mathematical and requires a good grasp of well established physics. Also it requires some knowledge of how to do research, including interacting with other researchers. This culture and specialised knowledge more of less requires at least the experience of completing a PhD in a relavent subject.

 

That said, it is not impossible for an "outsider" to make contributions, but I find it unlikely. I don't think we really have any good examples of "outsiders" making contributions to modern theoretical physics today. But I am willing to be corrected on this.

 

 

Do I care if major contributions come from "outsiders"? I don't think I care, I just acknowledge that it is unlikley.

 

 

 

It is certianly amazing that people are thinking about a TOE and that it maybe possible for mankind to achive this.

 

I must admit, I do not understand the need for reaching a TOE quickly. I don't understand why humans are driven by the quest for knowledge. Nor do I understand why people want to climb mountains or go to the Moon. There are lot of things I don't understand about mankind.

Ultimately if TOE is reached it will be of course done by an outsider who knows physics, like Einstein IMO.

 

I believe in the need for speed as I said before because MN is a mass murderer: cancer, MS, meteors super volcanoes climate change you name it. I'm convinced that reaching TOE will have just a large an impact as QM and GR.

[swansont]

 

I believe in the need for speed as I said before because MN is a mass murderer: cancer, MS, meteors super volcanoes climate change you name it. I'm convinced that reaching TOE will have just a large an impact as QM and GR.

 

What makes you think a physics TOE will have any direct impact outside of physics? Diseases, etc., cannot be reduced to physics.

[ajb]

Ultimately if TOE is reached it will be of course done by an outsider who knows physics, like Einstein IMO.

You mean someone who knows todays physics as well as Einstein knew the physics contemporary to him? Well it is hard to really judge knowledge like that, but sure.

 

Or are you suggesting that Einstein was an "outsider"? This was far from the case.

 

I believe in the need for speed as I said before because MN is a mass murderer: cancer, MS, meteors super volcanoes climate change you name it. I'm convinced that reaching TOE will have just a large an impact as QM and GR.

I doubt a cure for cancer would come readily from a TOE. Quantum mechanics applied to biology may help here, but this really outside my comfort zone. I also doubt it will help much with the prediction of volcanoes or help us with climate change.

What makes you think a physics TOE will have any direct impact outside of physics?

Whatever happens, I am sure it will not be a very quick process going from TOE to applications and technology. Questions in philosophy may well follow quickly as well as mathematics, but engineers will not be so excited by it all!

[kristalris]

 

What makes you think a physics TOE will have any direct impact outside of physics? Diseases, etc., cannot be reduced to physics.

Sorry got to go, was in process of answering to more but here a link between QM and medicine:

 

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bss.phy.cam.ac.uk%2F~rea1%2FTalks%2Fphysics_of_mri_print.pdf&ei=EpEoUtauJbSb0AXp5ICwAg&usg=AFQjCNHp27rpL8QFku6vpkQgkOXZThT0bQ&sig2=QcknJBrh2L56weK8n1PC-Q&bvm=bv.51773540,d.d2k

 

Further more fundamental physics has always had an effect outside physics take the laws of Newton leading to legalism in law (belief that a Just sttae would be possible following strict laws. failed miserably but we are doing it again. And the fact that we started using strict spelling.

 

You simply don't know what will come out of it all, just as I guess Einstein couldn't and wouldn't have foreseen what QM would bring.

 

Got to go/

[ajb]

You simply don't know what will come out of it all, just as I guess Einstein couldn't and wouldn't have foreseen what QM would bring.

True, but the scientists I know are looking for a TOE are not really looking at the potential applications. That has to be secondary once (assume we do) find a workable TOE. But then as this will be a theory that gives us new physics at high energy the applications are not likely to be easy to find. Cosmology would likely benefit as well as astrophysics in the extreme. Mathematics will feed off and into these developments. I don't expect a cure for cancer or anything like that to simply follow.

 

Particle physics has made many contributions to medicine due to spin-off technologies. The experimental hunt to verify a TOE could also have spin-offs, but again the energy scales here make this unlikely.

 

But yes, we will never really know until it happens.

Edited September 5, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

Sorry got to go, was in process of answering to more but here a link between QM and medicine:

 

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bss.phy.cam.ac.uk%2F~rea1%2FTalks%2Fphysics_of_mri_print.pdf&ei=EpEoUtauJbSb0AXp5ICwAg&usg=AFQjCNHp27rpL8QFku6vpkQgkOXZThT0bQ&sig2=QcknJBrh2L56weK8n1PC-Q&bvm=bv.51773540,d.d2k

 

Further more fundamental physics has always had an effect outside physics take the laws of Newton leading to legalism in law (belief that a Just sttae would be possible following strict laws. failed miserably but we are doing it again. And the fact that we started using strict spelling.

I am well aware of MRI. That's not my objection. You talk of a cure for cancer from a TOE, which implies that the difficulty in curing cancer stems from insufficient physics knowledge, but you have only asserted this.

 

 

You simply don't know what will come out of it all, just as I guess Einstein couldn't and wouldn't have foreseen what QM would bring.

Oh, but you do. Where does that insight come from?

—————

 

I ran across this a little while ago, and it seems to apply here: the reductionist argument is false. There are things in nature that are not uniquely determined, so you can't predict chemistry from a complete knowledge of physics, and likewise for biology. The can be no such thing as a TOE that extends beyond physics.

 

http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2011/08/why-biology-and-chemistry-is-not.html

[kristalris]

True, but the scientists I know are looking for a TOE are not really looking at the potential applications. That has to be secondary once (assume we do) find a workable TOE. But then as this will be a theory that gives us new physics at high energy the applications are not likely to be easy to find. Cosmology would likely benefit as well as astrophysics in the extreme. Mathematics will feed off and into these developments. I don't expect a cure for cancer or anything like that to simply follow.

 

Particle physics has made many contributions to medicine due to spin-off technologies. The experimental hunt to verify a TOE could also have spin-offs, but again the energy scales here make this unlikely.

 

But yes, we will never really know until it happens.

Agree. You (as in "we" , but you understood that in this way) simply don't know.

 

My position on this is that only via imaginative guessing as a fantasy if you like (done best by that minority that is open minded) wil you on an integral topic as TOE see where you should start testing in order to see if a TOE can be reached and what it holds. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

So why be in a hurry? Well we don't know (thus neither do I ) if it will not render great gain for humanity. (Apart from it being fun trying And the attempts give spin offs worth while.)

 

Now for sake of the argument say my concept on TOE is absolutely true. Would that mean that we get to a TOE? No, it might prove even though being absolutely true unverifiable due to insurmountable measurement problems. even if the proposed simulation of the balls in the box go to order. But now lets say we do succeed within the decade via also high energy research to get a bunch of formulas and constants that are extremely accurate predictors. Although even if true part of the exact truth will remain then undetectable i.e. the smallest particle.

 

What would that potentially hold? Well maybe a magnetism "radar" to detect meteorites at extreme ranges, because it is > c in between the crystal. Stronger beams to deflect or destroy. That might work if you work accurately enough just above the chaos threshold. Because in my concept there is a level of chaos that is inherently unpredictable. If you have the fundamental formulas then you might get extremely fast computers to simulate our environment to an extreme degree of accuracy.

 

I am well aware of MRI. That's not my objection. You talk of a cure for cancer from a TOE, which implies that the difficulty in curing cancer stems from insufficient physics knowledge, but you have only asserted this.

 

 

 

Oh, but you do. Where does that insight come from?

—————

 

I ran across this a little while ago, and it seems to apply here: the reductionist argument is false. There are things in nature that are not uniquely determined, so you can't predict chemistry from a complete knowledge of physics, and likewise for biology. The can be no such thing as a TOE that extends beyond physics.

 

http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2011/08/why-biology-and-chemistry-is-not.html

And had a reaction in the making on the previous post but seem to have lost it because the system invited me to look at a new post in my thread So I looked and lost.

 

Anyway I'm not making a reductionist argument in my concept IMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism) I see these as worthwhile models to look at the problem from one perspective. And yes that fails IMO.

 

A cure for cancer? See my reaction to AJB. Along those lines if my concept is correct and you thus get to work much more fat and accurate just above a level of chaos, and get super super computers then a cure for many diseases comes with reach. De dream or fantasy sure. Like what QM has held for humanity is mindboggling. had Einstein not leapt that wouldn't of happened.

 

Any way I'm convinced a TOE (maybe not a law of everything though) is reachable within the decade. And that it holds potential enormous gain.

[ajb]

My position on this is that only via imaginative guessing as a fantasy if you like...

I totally agree that this is your position on a lot of things.

 

So why be in a hurry?

Are we in a hurry? I am not sure that a TOE is seen as something we must quickly strive for. That is not to say that I don't think it is important or that we should not be working towards it, but it is not the "ultimate goal" of physics.

 

What would that potentially hold? Well maybe a magnetism "radar" to detect meteorites at extreme ranges, because it is > c in between the crystal. Stronger beams to deflect or destroy.

 

More fantasy.

 

Any way I'm convinced a TOE (maybe not a law of everything though) is reachable within the decade. And that it holds potential enormous gain.

People have hoped for a TOE within a decade, for well decades. It maybe close, maybe not. Again, the gains are great and maybe unexpected. A TOE is a unification scheme of the forces found in the standard model with gravity. It will be some quantum theory, though that may be a little different to what we usually mean by a quantum theory. It is not really a "Theory Of Everything" in that it does not explain everything.

 

So okay, quantum mechanics has been useful in aspects of medicine. So have particle theory spin-offs, we have many imaging techniques and nuclear medicine. There has been similar spin-off from space science.

 

But what about general relativity?

 

So we may have spin-offs from testing relativity and we have the GPS system. Great, but has any Dr used the field equations in medicine at all?

 

A TOE will shed light on the fundamental laws of nature for sure. It may well change how we think of gravity in the extreme and give us a new understanding of the cosmos. Great, but will it shed any light directly on cancer? I doubt it.

 

...had Einstein not leapt that wouldn't of happened.

Why single out Einstein? Other scientists have made big contributions also.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ajb

[kristalris]

A.I totally agree that this is your position on a lot of things.

 

 

 

B. Are we in a hurry? I am not sure that a TOE is seen as something we must quickly strive for. That is not to say that I don't think it is important or that we should not be working towards it, but it is not the "ultimate goal" of physics.

 

 

 

C. More fantasy.

 

 

D. People have hoped for a TOE within a decade, for well decades. It maybe close, maybe not. Again, the gains are great and maybe unexpected. A TOE is a unification scheme of the forces found in the standard model with gravity. It will be some quantum theory, though that may be a little different to what we usually mean by a quantum theory. It is not really a "Theory Of Everything" in that it does not explain everything.

 

E. So okay, quantum mechanics has been useful in aspects of medicine. So have particle theory spin-offs, we have many imaging techniques and nuclear medicine. There has been similar spin-off from space science.

 

F. But what about general relativity?

 

G. So we may have spin-offs from testing relativity and we have the GPS system. Great, but has any Dr used the field equations in medicine at all?

 

H. A TOE will shed light on the fundamental laws of nature for sure. It may well change how we think of gravity in the extreme and give us a new understanding of the cosmos. Great, but will it shed any light directly on cancer? I doubt it.

 

 

I Why single out Einstein? Other scientists have made big contributions also.

Indeed a dream, or fantasy i.e. imagination is that what feeds the desire to reach any goal by the creative minds that make it possible for the non/less creative minds to have something to learn out of books, after the creative minds have lead the way. All to a greater or lesser extent.

 

Creative minds know that. If we didn't use our imagination we would still be living in caves. The dream or fantasy to build a pyramid to the dream of Einstein in a thought experiment before his study of physics. That sparked it of. And not some book wisdom. Or by people who only point out that it is unwise to difficult, not sure of success. Although this pointing out of problems is also important because this more female trait out of the production department is the usual vast majority if it isn't organised properly you will end up as we do in a mounting bureaucracy, as we observe in science as well.

 

You see this in courtrooms / large businesses / societies more and more major issues are incomprehensibly ruled not on the major issue but on pitty formalistic issues. In a way that gives lawyers - and justly so - a bad name. Hairsplitting and what not.

 

A maths teacher who is helping a client of mine was so shocked but what he has witnessed that he has helped me make some video's as work in progress to tell a story both of the mathematics, the psychology and indeed the current physics on TOE. It is in dutch and still work in progress but anyway on the blackboard on the left you see the mathematical problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8JGUoZvwFg

 

You want to jump over the canyon to the truth on any given probandum. When you have a lot of data you can fill up the gap and have a negligible fault rate. You may be deterministic, say Rutherford. With less and less data the gap gets wider and you go via empirical statistics trough Bayesian - intuitive - statistics to Bayesian probabilistic reasoning ultimately to verbal logic (which you may check via Bayes BTW).

 

In the top you see an eye of MN from the front and a nose drawn from the bottom. Depicting that we usually over there know a lot about very little and what we know doesn't add up. Say QM eye and GR nose. So jumping the divide using QM and GR respectively you have a narrow gap. However if you change the probandum to say TOE you need to marry the two and you will see the gap grow to infinity. Because you need to answer all questions then and can't if you take TOE literally as meaning everything, as you should. Verbal logic is then the norm. And drawing a picture of MN starts off with a sketch. If you can observe and draw you know this. Then busting an idea because in the begin phase some lines are out of place is idiotic.

 

Of course if you look at the drawing of the dogs you will see one is better drawn than the other. Simple we used to have a german pointer so i observed that better hence one line suffices to capture the image.

 

Another point is the dots and making something out of it. To see a line a picture when you have little data (as on TOE). For that you need imagination, or fantasy if you like. If you don't have that you wouldn't have a clue as what and where to start looking for data. Which dots are important? All? For the unimaginative that is the case. They need an authority to tell them what to see. Hence preoccupation with authority questions, and their own authority.

 

And for everyone: too may dots makes that you don't see the forest from the trees. To few dots and you can't make head or tails. if you are creative and see a hare as metaphor for hypothesis true yet more creative also see on the same data duck = untrue. This also shows you where to look for extra data for wing or whiskers.

 

You may of course cross out irrelevant data. Now people with no imagination who are conscientious could deem that irritating and start acting like a nagging bitch. On these details in their eye's of imperfection. very good if relevant i.e. wing or whisker, a pain in the ars if irrelevant.

 

Hence the psychology of the Normal knight (with a normal distribution on his helmet) good in production in his castle of books, narrow minded. Excellent for production. Low risk tacking do as your told hard working. Very much on authority. (Actually one looks in the mirror saying something on someone else.) Nothing wrong with that - on production issues that is - . he looks on the other abnormal knight as a failed knight crusader. A knight that can also perform with little knowledge and experience with a wikipedia print on his head. This one takes risks makes mistakes and uses the L plate shield for the very important formula in research: the formula of OEPS. Learn from the mistake and carry on. This one should go in research department so that the normal knight sees that it has authority.

 

The dogs show the majority minority problem. This is why you always get into a clogging up of any society if you don't organize it properly. In a democracy you can force this upon the normal knights if you get the insight that you want the open minded creative in charge of research. In schooling, law and science,

 

edit: BTW all humans are according to this variant of the Big Five personality traits (that you should see IMO as a rule of thumb) means that everybody is both knights and all dogs. I.e. you play bos dog to your subordinates, yes dog to the boss, and naughty playful dog to your kids. I.e. you score high or low on all five traits. And it is all male /female. edit

 

Then on to physics and TOE. I show that physics infringes on several points explained in the rules of string and stick i.e. evidence and proof: one of which is not deeming GR and QM as the best laws of physics we ever had. Not seeing that we never have observed time slow down but only an atom clock do that (hare / duck?) and a photon speeds up back to c and get redshifted to pay for this whilst curbing in (hare / duck?).

 

No fantasy. Good observation and logic.

 

Al the mumbo jumbo of something from nothing, pretzel shaped universes are clearly seeing MN as a pear shaped something, whereas it is extremely probably an oval.

 

Are we in a hurry for TOE: logically if we want to minimize the risk of say great loss of life yes. You agree not to know that means you don't exclude the possibility. Risk is chance times effect. The effect is mass murder by MN possibly to be dealt with via TOE, ergo we are in a hurry.

 

This has to do with current science and logic. No fantasy. Logic takes precedence over any democratic scientific convention yet doesn't at the moment. That is a major problem in all of society including physics. You can see that in the way you approach the problem of TOE.

Edited September 6, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

Wow, what a great wall of text!

 

Are we in a hurry for TOE: logically if we want to minimize the risk of say great loss of life yes.

I have never heard anyone who works in fundamental physics say anything about how they want to save lives with their theories It is not a typical motivator and I am sure ant grant proposal on string theory, loop quantum gravity, SUSY field theories, semiclassical gravity and so so do not say "because it will save lives". This is a big stretch of what the theory is likely to achieve.

[kristalris]

Wow, what a great wall of text!

 

 

I have never heard anyone who works in fundamental physics say anything about how they want to save lives with their theories It is not a typical motivator and I am sure ant grant proposal on string theory, loop quantum gravity, SUSY field theories, semiclassical gravity and so so do not say "because it will save lives". This is a big stretch of what the theory is likely to achieve.

I agree, but usually no one is untill some one like Kennedy says "we chose to put a man on the moon in this decade", put up the money and got things going with a hough spin off. ISS wouldn't hang there now hadn't it been for the Apollo program I'm sure. You need a common goal to get things going. In science as well. So why not a TOE within this decade as a goal?

 

That everybody in the Apollo programme had other ideas for joining in is irrelevant. That scientists baring such a goal are working on there own goals thats okay. science as a whole should state high goals that are probably in reach and thus could be as important as QM & GR are. And yes QM and GR have saved many lives though that never was their stated object (cost lives as well BTW but that's Bayes for yah.)

 

If humanity organizes to act wisely on that it will probably do far more good than harm. Even if you don't reach TOE the spin off will pay off for shore.

 

So yes saving lives is in itself a sufficient reason to get on with it, the more so since as you say most scientists are not aware of that.

[ajb]

So yes saving lives is in itself a sufficient reason to get on with it, the more so since as you say most scientists are not aware of that.

It is just not clear that most research will directly or indirectly save lives, and for sure not in the short term. Kennedy was not thinking that going to the Moon would directly save lives, but one could argue that the spin-offs did. But this was not an initial driving force.

 

Making a TOE a goal is possible, one could support that with more grants in suitable areas. But generally things seem to be going more and more applied focused...

 

Anyway, I think your wishing to quickly get to a TOE is based on very loose arguments and not grounded in reality. But you are entitled to your opinions on this.

[kristalris]

It is just not clear that most research will directly or indirectly save lives, and for sure not in the short term. Kennedy was not thinking that going to the Moon would directly save lives, but one could argue that the spin-offs did. But this was not an initial driving force.

 

Making a TOE a goal is possible, one could support that with more grants in suitable areas. But generally things seem to be going more and more applied focused...

 

Anyway, I think your wishing to quickly get to a TOE is based on very loose arguments and not grounded in reality. But you are entitled to your opinions on this.

What reality are you talking about? The reality of observations in physics or the reality of human societies to - inevitably - become more and more bureaucratic? Or both?

[ajb]

What reality are you talking about? The reality of observations in physics or the reality of human societies to - inevitably - become more and more bureaucratic? Or both?

It does seem that society get more and more bureaucratic!

[kristalris]

It does seem that society get more and more bureaucratic!

Agree, also in your opinion the scientific society and the physics society?

[ajb]

Agree, also in your opinion the scientific society and the physics society?

They are part of society and so not immune to general trends. But the answer is yes. There are more regulations, rules and forms to fill in than ever, in my opinion based on talking to others. I know that applying for grant money is very bureaucratic and that they like to have a good idea of the "impact" of the proposed work. Well, it is not always very clear what that impact will be and especially on subjects outside the immediate field of the work, science as a whole or indeed wider society. This is, in part, why I think your idea that saving lives should drive fundamental research.

[kristalris]

They are part of society and so not immune to general trends. But the answer is yes. There are more regulations, rules and forms to fill in than ever, in my opinion based on talking to others. I know that applying for grant money is very bureaucratic and that they like to have a good idea of the "impact" of the proposed work. Well, it is not always very clear what that impact will be and especially on subjects outside the immediate field of the work, science as a whole or indeed wider society. This is, in part, why I think your idea that saving lives should drive fundamental research.

Do you think this bureaucracy is bad? clearly you do. Do you think this bureaucracy is inevitable?

Edited September 6, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

Do you think this bureaucracy is bad? clearly you do. Do you think this bureaucracy is inevitable?

We seem to be drifting off in another direction.

 

It would be possible to use this bureaucracy to steer researchers, but in my opinion this would be very short sighted and not be indicative of creative and innovative ideas. If that is your thinking?

[kristalris]

We seem to be drifting off in another direction.

 

It would be possible to use this bureaucracy to steer researchers, but in my opinion this would be very short sighted and not be indicative of creative and innovative ideas. If that is your thinking?

Nope, my point is that it is bureaucracy that more and more prevents us reaching important goals such as TOE. (Or name any other goal BTW)

 

It is psychology i.e. the way the illusionist Mother of Human Nature tricks us that causes bureaucracy.

 

This is not inevitable but quickly solvable - in principle -.

[ajb]

Nope, my point is that it is bureaucracy that more and more prevents us reaching important goals such as TOE. (Or name any other goal BTW)

Maybe, but I am not sure you can blame bureaucracy for the fact that we have no TOE today. Though, there are people like Smolin and Woit that may argue that due to the popularity of string theory other approaches have not been explored.

[kristalris]

Maybe, but I am not sure you can blame bureaucracy for the fact that we have no TOE today. Though, there are people like Smolin and Woit that may argue that due to the popularity of string theory other approaches have not been explored.

Well I take "bureaucracy" as broader than only what civil servants bestow on us. I'd define it as all formal requirements and objections that logically make the reaching of a stated goal on average extremely unlikely or even impossible.

 

So in a meeting where two thirds of the attendees chose to follow the bosses idea to invest in something that clearly in all probability isn't going to work, is a form of bureaucracy. I.e. it ends up in a rule that must be followed. This is one of the (several) motors of why bureaucracy gets a hold on the social process. People who see as an educated guess that something is wrong and dare object are on average a minority.

 

The way to quickly stem this is to always get the team in good order. Like in football a quick change in the existing team by putting the born forward or striker in a different place than a born midfielder. At the highest level the traits become apparent. It's relative. Always put the team in order and you will at every level quickly start spiraling upwards. Otherwise when you've made a bad job of it on average you will spiral downwards.

 

Same thing in all human societies. Put the most open minded quickest thinkers on hand (it is relative) in a "research department" for advice beforehand and "air crash investigation" afterward. Then the production and sales departments in all societies will stay in balance and spiral upward. (BTW every human has a R&D, production and sales department in the head even the caveman).

 

In a democracy this can be enforced because it is not left, right wing or religious. Only then will you get to a TOE quickly, or any other goal.

[ajb]

Well I take "bureaucracy" as broader than only what civil servants bestow on us. I'd define it as all formal requirements and objections that logically make the reaching of a stated goal on average extremely unlikely or even impossible.

Bureaucracy in universities means the administrative system of that university. They can get in the way of things, but I think they are needed in modern universities. I am very appreciative of the administration staff at my own institute, they have been a great help and I would not be able to do what I do without them.

 

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ajb

[kristalris]

Bureaucracy in universities means the administrative system of that university. They can get in the way of things, but I think they are needed in modern universities. I am very appreciative of the administration staff at my own institute, they have been a great help and I would not be able to do what I do without them.

 

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

No it is not getting of topic because the topic is also is on correct scientific procedure.

 

Like you I'm not against administration or rules, but against too much rules and too much unnecessary administration. What is needed is balance. If you don't organise that properly you get more and more rules and stated problems that stand in the way of any goal. That is an important reason why we have not got to a TOE the past hundred years.

 

Not only administration can be a hindrance if this gets out of hand but science as well. Take DSM V the bible of psychiatry / psychology on all diagnoses stating in effect that say 50% to 80% of all humans are mad. So declaring via bureaucratic applying of the DSM system deams all present Einsteins, Newtons mad are in need of pills to provide schooling for them instead of creative schooling. There you go our present Einsteins and Newtons are bureaucratically sent to become milkman etc because they are mad. Another reason why the present scientific procedure is seriously of track. Hence no TOE . Please don't underestimate this effect.

[ajb]

That is an important reason why we have not got to a TOE the past hundred years.

Really?

 

The reason we don't have a TOE is due to the bureaucracy of universities and funding agencies?

 

That is some claim and from someone who has no experience of the bureaucracy involved in running research groups!

[kristalris]

Really?

 

The reason we don't have a TOE is due to the bureaucracy of universities and funding agencies?

 

That is some claim and from someone who has no experience of the bureaucracy involved in running research groups!

Indeed some claim. (edit probably no TOE given that it is probably attainable and due also to society in general) Yet - apart from my lack of authority - simply discernable as an extremely probable educated guess (there is no science to be had on questions like this) by applying what we do know in general on the relevant parameters as widely accepted rules of thumb (sometimes rules of thumb that are claimed to be scientific BTW.)

Edited September 6, 2013 by kristalris