Godel's theorem, Hawking and GUT

[dpa]

Hi all,


Stephen Hawking extended the Godel's Theorem to physics and hence expressed that single TOE does not exist.
So, :shy: does that mean that single GUT cannot exist as well? I guess not, in a sense that GUT might not necessarily mean TOE.

I just want opinions.

Sincerely
DPA

 

[tom.stoer]

strange;

I would say that a ToE can exist, but that we are not able to construct a proof

 

[Demystifier]

Stephen Hawking extended the Godel's Theorem to physics.

Can you provide a reference or link for that claim?

 

[martinbn]

Can you provide a reference or link for that claim?

Of course, post number 1 is where that claim was made.

 

[Demystifier]

Of course, post number 1 is where that claim was made.

Sure, but I want to see what EXACTLY Hawking said in HIS own words. Because in the form dpa expressed it sounds as something said by a crackpot.

 

[martinbn]

Sure, but I want to see what EXACTLY Hawking said in HIS own words. Because in the form dpa expressed it sounds as something said by a crackpot.

Yes, that's why i was joking that the first to make that claim was him.

 

[dpa]

check this. I might have got it wrong. Help me.

damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/

 

[friend]

Hi all,


Stephen Hawking extended the Godel's Theorem to physics and hence expressed that single TOE does not exist.
So, :shy: does that mean that single GUT cannot exist as well? I guess not, in a sense that GUT might not necessarily mean TOE.

I just want opinions.

Sincerely
DPA

I doubt we're going to find a GUT until we do find a TOE. Is it even humanly possible to generate the energies needed to test a GUT?

Obviously, the goal of physics is not to find every mathematical statement that's true. So Godel's incompleteness theorem does not apply.

 

[Demystifier]

damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/

Yes, that's it. It is nice to see that Hawking is not a crackpot.
Namely, he does not EXTEND the Godel's theorem, but merely uses it as an analogy illustrating the (certainly not new) idea that the final physical theory of everything might not exist.

 

[dpa]

ah sorry
my word was misleading.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

What does a theory of everything even mean?

I recall reading that Lord Kelvin said at the start of the 1900's that the field of physics is done, i.e nearly completed to describe every natural phenomena. He didn't account for the two revolutions that followed, QM and GR.