I understand the main goal of all physicists is to unite quantum

[Waveparticle]

I understand the main goal of all physicists is to unite quantum mechanics with general and special relativity so that all physical laws hold true on any scale. Does this mean that in the future possibly one equation may be able to describe everything?

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand the main goal of all physicists is to unite quantum mechanics with general and special relativity

I'm a physicist. That's not my "main goal".

If you look at the percentage of area of study of practicing physicists, you'll notice that the largest percentage are in Condensed Matter Physics. As far as I know, their goal is also not to unite quantum mechanics with GR.

So your original premise is not valid. Only a small percentage of practicing physicists have a mail goal to unite QM with GR.

Zz.

 

[Waveparticle]

Wouldnt you rather know the answer to that question than to any other question you could possibly be contemplating.

 

[MTd2]

Only a small percentage of practicing physicists have a mail goal to unite QM with GR.

You do know that even professional theoretical physicists delude themselves with the opposite idea, right?

 

[planethunter]

I will be starting a masters degree in applied physics this spring, and at one point in my journey to this program, it was my dream to possibly one day come close to finding the "theory of everything".

I think once you put your feet on the ground and realize that there are other really interesting areas of physics, like nanotechnology and semiconductors, that whether or not you can unit the 4 basic forces into one equation is not imperative anymore.

Its a very theoretical topic to endeavor into, and one I think that doesn't pay very well for a physicist trying to make ends meet :)

 

[ZapperZ]

Wouldnt you rather know the answer to that question than to any other question you could possibly be contemplating.

Actually no. Maybe I'm not smart enough. But find physics fascinating not because of the BIG questions, but the numerous little ones. And more often than not, these smaller little ones have fundamental ramifications to those BIG questions. Just look where the Higgs mechanism came from.

Furthermore, if you don't believe me, open any edition of Phys. Rev. Lett. Tell me how many papers are on or related directly to "GUT".

Notice that I'm not arguing for the importance of these things. I'm contradicting your assertion that all physicists have this as their main goal. In fact, the reality is definitely contradictory to such a statement.

You do know that even professional theoretical physicists delude themselves with the opposite idea, right?

I have no idea what you just said here. I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of "professional theoretical physicists" and what they are deluding themselves with.

Zz.

 

[Fra]

I understand the main goal of all physicists is to unite quantum mechanics with general and special relativity so that all physical laws hold true on any scale. Does this mean that in the future possibly one equation may be able to describe everything?

Most responses focues on your note rather than the second question.

I personally do not expect that the future understanding, that we still don't have, will necessarily take the simple form of eternally true and objective equations that imply the future from initial conditons. It could be that the understanding will take a different form, such that all there is are "effective equations" and that our task is instead to try to understand how the effective descriptions evolve into; and interact with; each other. And all that, may again not necessarily be described by an equation but that may evolve more like in the darwinian evolutionary sense. It doesn't prevent us from progress it would just mean that the structure of what we're looking for (or that SOME PEOPLE are looking for;) may be different than what we have today.

I think the problem is that to make statements like "that laws hold true at all scales" to be falsifiable, but we don't have access to all scales. Neither does it make sense to think of laws as eternal when the universe as wel know it seem to have finite age.

/Fredrik

 

[member 11137]

Most responses focues on your note rather than the second question.

I personally do not expect that the future understanding, that we still don't have, will necessarily take the simple form of eternally true and objective equations that imply the future from initial conditons. It could be that the understanding will take a different form, such that all there is are "effective equations" and that our task is instead to try to understand how the effective descriptions evolve into; and interact with; each other. And all that, may again not necessarily be described by an equation but that may evolve more like in the darwinian evolutionary sense. It doesn't prevent us from progress it would just mean that the structure of what we're looking for (or that SOME PEOPLE are looking for;) may be different than what we have today.

I think the problem is that to make statements like "that laws hold true at all scales" to be falsifiable, but we don't have access to all scales. Neither does it make sense to think of laws as eternal when the universe as wel know it seem to have finite age.

/Fredrik

The research of a unique equation describing the universe is hidding something else: perhaps the hope to discover a place where the world would live in a unified and peaceful configuration? But it is no more physics; only the background behind physics, metaphysics. So I stop here.

 

[Fra]

GUT vs TOE

Another little point about the title here, is that GUT is somethine less ambitous than TOE.

Usually GUT means unifying EM,Weak and Strong interctions (not gravity).
TOE means unifying ALL forces + gravity.

So far, there is neither a objective consensus of TOE nor GUT.

/Fredrik

 

[Waveparticle]

I understand that most physicists are looking at smaller problems but isn't the overall mission of theses smaller goals to eventually help contribute to a unified theory. Even if it won't happen in our generation were still leading future generations to closer ideas.

 

[Fra]

I understand that most physicists are looking at smaller problems but isn't the overall mission of theses smaller goals to eventually help contribute to a unified theory.

I think the overall mission is always survival, and general improvement. Most knowledge mankind has acquired, like medical science, physics, chemistry, social science etc are of great utility to us all. Understanding the environment where you exists and live increases the odds of survival and improvement.

From that human perspective I think, the most immediate and relevant goals of physics that can be defended from a politicial and economical perspective is mostly technical advancement of both processes, materials etc. Just consider where we would have been without semiconductors and transistors. All this stuff is what I think are the big values, and why society finds it rational to fund physics reasearch.

The more philosophical aspects that amounts of unified theories are probably marginal, and should be marginal if you see if if from a rational community perspective. It would be irrational to invest a significant amount of tax money on things that borderline to mental masturbation, or just appeal to a minority of intellectuals that can extremely aroused by these things.

I consider myself among those that get excited about these things, but in the big picuture it stil makes sense that this remains marginal. But that doesn't mean it's less interesting. I would have to say that although it doesn't appeal as much to my own personal intellect, a lot of the research in say biotechnology, medicin, chemistry, material physics are FAR more important in the big picture because of the high practical utility.

I think those that really have good ideas, and are confident in these "commercialy minor" but maybe philosophically or intellecually interesting things will understand this and just keep working on it. One can't expect massive publich funding for these things.

I think your idea that the unification etc is the big goal may partly be true in a more philosophical perspective, but not from the real world science and funding in the context of society.

/Fredrik

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand that most physicists are looking at smaller problems but isn't the overall mission of theses smaller goals to eventually help contribute to a unified theory.

Nope.

Zz.

 

[Waveparticle]

From that human perspective I think, the most immediate and relevant goals of physics that can be defended from a politicial and economical perspective is mostly technical advancement of both processes, materials etc. Just consider where we would have been without semiconductors and transistors. All this stuff is what I think are the big values, and why society finds it rational to fund physics reasearch.

The more philosophical aspects that amounts of unified theories are probably marginal, and should be marginal if you see if if from a rational community perspective. It would be irrational to invest a significant amount of tax money on things that borderline to mental masturbation, or just appeal to a minority of intellectuals that can extremely aroused by these things.

/Fredrik

Thank you, this answer has helped me understand everything much better. The problem i have is that i forget that not everyone is as interested in finding these ultimate questions as i am. It actually upsets me when i try to explain the magical properties of quantum mechanics and string theory to my parents and friends and they look at me like they don't care and arent interested in the slightest way. It puzzles me that not everyone wants to know where everything comes from and why things are the way they are. Thank you for putting things back into perspective.