Can there ever be a Theory of Everything?

[bhobba]

What are the mathematical clues to this startling unexpected symmetry?

Beats me.

If I knew I would be earning my Nobel prize.

Its unlikely to be anything like what happened before - super-symmetry, which is its logical conclusion seems a dead end.

Its simply a belief that the self similarity as we peel away the onion rings will continue as per what Murray Gell-Mann said.

Thanks
Bill

 

[lucas_]

Beats me.

If I knew I would be earning my Nobel prize.

Its unlikely to be anything like what happened before - super-symmetry, which is its logical conclusion seems a dead end.

Its simply a belief that the self similarity as we peel away the onion rings will continue as per what Murray Gell-Mann said.

Thanks
Bill

How many years I have to study before I can have your mathematical knowledge and atyy knowledge too? I have spent 10 yrs reading over 100 laymen books on physics. I'm already 45 yrs old. I can't go back to college again. If only physicists would do their job. We could have spent our time elsewhere instead of spending so many hours a day studying it from scratch. But mainstream physicists are just so close minded. They only focused on what they expected to see. Not knowing that the very clues they ignored are keys to the full unification and and answer to that radical unexpected symmetry you talked about. But since the clues are banned in this forums.. and mainstream physicists ignored it.. then it is left to us who have witnessed them to pave the way. If we failed, then physics have to wait for a hundred years more for the real final theory because physicists are doing it blind, they will improve by leap and bounds if they have the clue ("the clue sprung from the soil of observational physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical..." Minkowski words will be repeated soon again).

 

[Delta2]

We have at least two theories of everything namely string theory and quantum loop gravity but the problem with these two theories is that they are not experimentally tested or verified for any result that may predict within the framework of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method at least not with current day's technology. So we can't say if they are true or false because the scientific method cannot be applied for them. In these days we are living String theory QLG,Quantum Physics and GR are just theories. It is the scientific method that is our one and only method with which we decide which theories are true , which are false and which are partially true. I think the physics needs to go one step beyond and find other methods with which to test the validity of any theory.

 

[bhobba]

How many years I have to study before I can have your mathematical knowledge and atyy knowledge too?

Don't worry - there is still plenty of time to go into the detail.

Start with this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471827223/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465075681/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036678/?tag=pfamazon01-20

There are associated video lectures for the last two:
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/classical-mechanics/2011/fall
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter

Work your way through it, take your time and post with any questions.

Once you have done that get back and we can chat about your next steps.

Regarding the other stuff we will see how you feel once you have learn't the detail. Remember guys like Einstein that made the big breakthroughs were very well versed in the current theories of their time. That's really the only way to see the issues they have.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I think this is what Hawking has realized (again, this is Hawking - not me!). He decided that there may be no such thing as a ToE because we don't know (and probably will never know) exactly how Nature works.

Maybe the blog has confused you, I recommend reading the book instead, which gives a much clearer view on what Hawking is talking about. When it comes to "reality" he is basically referring to the implications QM put on what could be considered real (i.e. existing/there all the time), and when it comes to the Theory of Everything he is naturally referring to a unified quantum theory, including all the four fundamental forces. A theory of everything does not mean that we would know absolutely everything about everything... although a unified quantum theory will give us a lot of 'power' in that direction.

"But the division of natural forces into four classes is probably artificial and a consequence of our lack of understanding. People have therefore sought a theory of everything that will unify the four classes into a single law that is compatible with quantum theory. This would be the holy grail of physics."

Newtonian gravity matched observations. So it became entrenched in a ToE. But was it actually a ToE? No - suppose we suddenly invent rockets and the universe is opened up to us. Suddenly, we need a new "ToE".

Newtonian gravity can never be wrong, it will always work the same way – within its domain. This is how science works. When a new theory comes along, it expands the domain and deepens our understanding, whilst at the same time it includes previous knowledge and verified facts in the new framework.

"Can theories built upon a framework so foreign to everyday experience that were modeled so accurately by classical physics? They can, for we and our surroundings are composite structures, made of an unimaginably large number of atoms, more atoms than there are stars in the observable universe. And though the component atoms obey the principles of quantum physics, one can show that the large assemblages that form soccer balls, turnips, and jumbo jets - and us - will indeed manage to avoid diffracting through slits. So though the components of everyday objects obey quantum physics, Newton's laws form an effective theory that describes very accurately how the composite structures that form our everyday world behave."

 

[Gort]

Newtonian gravity can never be wrong, it will always work the same way – within its domain. This is how science works. When a new theory comes along, it expands the domain and deepens our understanding, whilst at the same time it includes previous knowledge and verified facts in the new framework.

Nobody said Newtonian gravity could be wrong. It's a very good Theory of Something (ToS). There's lots of good ToS's. Theories that are valid within certain constraints, initial conditions, geometries, etc. But its not a ToE. It doesn't claim to be.

...when it comes to the Theory of Everything he is naturally referring to a unified quantum theory, including all the four fundamental forces. A theory of everything does not mean that we would know absolutely everything about everything... although a unified quantum theory will give us a lot of 'power' in that direction.

Of course a ToE doesn't mean we'll know "absolutely everything about everything", but it DOES imply that about the physical world. That's what a ToE is. By definition. And somehow, we'll have to test that it applies to "absolutely everything about everything". That's the question - can we make that test and how will we know when we get a positive result?

 

[bhobba]

That's what a ToE is. By definition.

That's not what a TOE is. In a sense we already have a TOE in that it agrees with all known experimental results. It however is aesthetically ugly. We want something without that ugliness eg the large number of parameters that needs to be put in by hand. As one theorist expressed it the standard model has parts of dazzling beauty and other parts that are a kluge - we want to get rid of the kludge.

Thanks
Bill

 

[rootone]

I think that there will always be a theory of almost, but not quite, everything.
There will always be something that we don't quite get, but we carry on striving to get to it.
That has to be a good thing, well definitely is not a bad thing.

 

[Gort]

In a sense we already have a TOE in that it agrees with all known experimental results. It however is aesthetically ugly.

Please explain what "it" is. I suppose we can define ToE any way you'd like, including a sum of "Theories of Somethings" or ToS's. In that sense, we do have lots of ToS's. The fact that we have to put ToS's together (stitched like a quilt) is "ugly", I suppose. But I subscribe to the idea that a ToE is a SINGLE theory or framework. As an example of an attempt, David Deutsch (a quantum physicist at the University of Oxford) tried to develop a framework that could encompass all physical theories by determining a set of overarching “meta-laws” that describe what can happen in the universe and what is forbidden. See http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.5563.pdf.

 

[bhobba]

Please explain what "it" is..

I thought it was rather obvious.

The standard model and an effective field theory of gravity.

It has a number of ugly issues eg the already alluded to large number parameters and the Landau pole in the Electroweak theory.

I personally don't know what a TOE will look like except it won't be ugly - it will all be the dazzling beauty some parts of the SM have.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Gort]

I thought it was rather obvious.

The standard model and an effective field theory of gravity.

It has a number of ugly issues eg the already alluded to large number parameters and the Landau pole in the Electroweak theory.

Thanks
Bill

But that's my point! Those are two ToS's. And it is quite naive to think that they cover it all. A few questions they don't attempt to answer: Why do fundamental constants have the value they do? Planck's constant, Gravitational constant, charge on the electron, ...etc.
And why do particles have the mass they do? Frank Wilczek (Lightness of Being) says "Although it's accurate to say that the Higgs field allows us to reconcile the existence of certain kinds of mass with details of how the weak interactions work, that's a far cry from explaining the origin of mass or why the different masses have the values they do. ...We really don't understand the masses of neutrinos...and a welter of other particles..."
No, we haven't unified the four "fundamental" forces or the potentially large number of yet undiscovered fundamental forces (per Gell-Mann). So we have no ToE.

 

[friend]

I don't believe you can get a ToE that explains everything unless you derive your physical model starting solely from the principles of logic. Otherwise, you will have some parameters without explanation that are inserted by hand because there is no explanation for them. But it seems the only way to explain "everything" is to start from reason to begin with. The alternative seems to be to be satisfied with some curve-fitting, engineering equations that are used only because they so far predict outcomes. That may be the best we can do. But it by no means is an explanation for why things obey these equations. As I understand it, the only complete system of language is propositional logic. So if you want a "complete" explanation, you need to start with logic. Just my opinion.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Of course a ToE doesn't mean we'll know "absolutely everything about everything", but it DOES imply that about the physical world. That's what a ToE is. By definition.

Have you really thought that claim through??

By your personal definition of ToE, it must include the tools for analyzing Mona Lisa (i.e. the data/measurement) and thereby construct a set of equations that explains/predicts the emotions that went through Leonardo da Vinci while painting her...

This is definitely not physics definition of ToE.

 

[Gort]

I give up. I will define all terms used. Didn't think it was necessary in a QM forum.

Physical world - 3rd definition from the Oxford Dictionary - "Relating to http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/physics#physics__3 or the http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/operation#operation__3 of natural forces generally".

 

[Gort]

...thereby construct a set of equations that explains/predicts the emotions that went through Leonardo da Vinci while painting her...
This is definitely not physics definition of ToE.

Perhaps you need some background on the Physical World, such as offered by the Open University - http://physicalworld.org/index.html

 

[ZapperZ]

I read all of this with a bit of amusement, considering that Vanesh and I already went through the debate of ToE (or lack thereof) and emergent phenomenon way back in 2005!

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/whats-wrong-with-qm.68265/page-9#post-514756

These 5 references will get you up to speed on why many prominent condensed matter physicists think that the so-called "Theory of Everything" is really a ToE for reductionism.

1. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/28.pdf
2. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf
3. http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210162
4. R.B. Laughlin, Rev. Mod. Phys., v.71, p.863 (1999).
5. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393.extract

Zz.

 

[atyy]

I read all of this with a bit of amusement, considering that Vanesh and I already went through the debate of ToE (or lack thereof) and emergent phenomenon way back in 2005!

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/whats-wrong-with-qm.68265/page-9#post-514756

These 5 references will get you up to speed on why many prominent condensed matter physicists think that the so-called "Theory of Everything" is really a ToE for reductionism.

1. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/28.pdf
2. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf
3. http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210162
4. R.B. Laughlin, Rev. Mod. Phys., v.71, p.863 (1999).
5. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393.extract

Zz.

Condensed matter physicists are the worst, they claim to have a ToE: everything is emergent, even the ToE!

 

[lucas_]

It's possible the Theory of Everything is dangerous. For example. If we were living in a false vacuum, and future scientists keep experimenting on the TOE, what if they caused a phase transition of the false vacuum then everything vanishes in an instance.

Maybe there are times when "Ignorance is just Bliss".. at least we get to keep everything..

 

[Gort]

I read all of this with a bit of amusement, considering that Vanesh and I already went through the debate of ToE (or lack thereof) and emergent phenomenon way back in 2005!

Thanks! So much for the Forum's search function (or my inability to use it).

I think this was only resurrected because Hawking apparently argued (in 2010) that there would never be a ToE (this point was argumentative by several contributors - whether Hawking really said that, and if he did, what it meant). Fair enough. There were some good arguments and points made.

Although you quoted some interesting sources, I don't think any tackled the question Hawking (apparently) answered.

 

[bhobba]

And it is quite naive to think that they cover it all.

I specifically stated they had problems and don't answer tons of questions. We want a TOE to do that and more. We also want it to be 'beautiful'. Just as an example think about the Landau pole. It doesn't interfere with predicting anything we can actually measure but it's very ugly. Evidently Weinberg and Feynman had a debate about it - Feynman thought it a real issue - Weinberg not so much - what it boiled down to is what you are willing to accept in a theory. If it was there in a final theory most would say it wasn't achieved. Whether such will ever come about is another matter.

This all started from when you wrote:

Of course a ToE doesn't mean we'll know "absolutely everything about everything", but it DOES imply that about the physical world.

Indeed with a TOE we will need to know everything about the physical world. But it's more than that - colloquially it can't look like a kludge eg it should not have things like tons of constants put in by hand and Landau poles.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Gort]

Certainly agree with that. But the question is - can it (ever) be done?

Indeed with a TOE we will need to know everything about the physical world.

Can we ever know "everything about the physical world" (which implies an objective reality), or, as Hawking (apparently) said "it doesn't matter what is actually real and what isn't, all that matters is what we experience as reality".

Sorry to bring up "reality" again. I think its tied up with any ToE. Just MHO.

 

[bhobba]

Can we ever know "everything about the physical world" (which implies an objective reality),

I think your idea of knowing everything about the physical world and mine may differ.

For me its simply being able to predict anything we can actually observe - for you it seems to require this 'reality' thing which doesn't worry me in the least.

What really worries me is it must not be 'kludgy' - it must be beautiful in the sense of Gell-Mann.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dale]

This has gotten silly.