Observations a TOE must agree with?

[Aztral]

Another silly question here :)

What are some of the cosmological observations a TOE must agree with? (I'm making a list)

Some that I can think of...
a) redshift data (Type 1a supernovas, etc.)

b) element ratios (Hydrogen, Helium,...)

c) bias toward 'matter' rather than 'antimatter'

d) CMB temperature

e) CMB "lumpiness" (side question: Would predicting the 'fractal' dimension of the CMB (I think it's around 3) be sufficient to satisfy this condition?)

f) the particle 'zoo'

g) dark energy / dark matter ratio. (I think this condition may 'follow' from a), but I'm listing it anywayz)

What else am I missing? (note: I'm asking for some of the 'observational' data points that must be hit-not 'theories.')
Ya know I actually saw a good number of these listed in another thread, but 'sigh' I can't find it now.

[bcrowell]

A TOE has to agree with the standard model at low energies, and the standard model gets a, b, d, and e right, so I think you can knock those off.

[Aztral]

Great-thank you.

So, so far I'm on the right track in compiling a list of the 'big' observations that must be explained?

Oh..I forgot. g) dark energy dark matter ratio

Anything else?

[bcrowell]

Oh..I forgot. g) dark energy dark matter ratio


It's not obvious to me that a theory would have to predict this in order to be a theory of everything. I guess it depends on what you mean by "everything." To me, a TOE implies a set of physical laws, but not necessarily a set of initial conditions for the universe, which you could argue g falls under.

-Ben

[Aztral]

It's not obvious to me that a theory would have to predict this in order to be a theory of everything. I guess it depends on what you mean by "everything." To me, a TOE implies a set of physical laws, but not necessarily a set of initial conditions for the universe, which you could argue g falls under.

-Ben

Right! And the more I think about it, the more I realize that in a 'TRUE' TOE some of the items in this list would imply other items (and vice versa). And some items would just be redundant.

[my_wan]

When you specify TOE would a unification theory qualify? The point is that the unification of QM and GR would not necessarily give complete answers to everything that can in principle be predicted by a TOE if you take the acronym at face value.

[Aztral]

When you specify TOE would a unification theory qualify? The point is that the unification of QM and GR would not necessarily give complete answers to everything that can in principle be predicted by a TOE if you take the acronym at face value.

Hi.

I was speaking of TOE, as opposed to a gut or a "toe." :)

[qsa]

Hi.

I was speaking of TOE, as opposed to a gut or a "toe." :)


1. all couplings values and their relations and origin. That includes computing the behavior at all energies (and distances-up to edge of the universe if there is one(CC)). and if there is a physical cut-off or not.

2. the theory must predict particles with their masses explained.Inculding light and its clear interaction picture with matter.

3. What is charge exactly and how does the value come about.

4. the origin of Spin and entanglment.

5. how do particles behave in flight, like the double slit experiment.

6. The real source of the effect of relativity. That is of course includes what is Space and time. and what is vacuum made of.

7. the relation between all of the above.

8. the origin and the fate of the universe or(universes)

But Most of all what is existance made of, if not a mathematical imperative.


I propose a better name for such a theory. Fundamental Model of Reality.