Implications of a "theory of everything"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physics Slayer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory of everything
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differing interpretations of a "theory of everything" (TOE) between the general public and physicists. While the public often associates it with existential questions about the meaning of life, physicists view it as a theoretical framework that unifies the four fundamental forces of nature. The conversation raises questions about whether physicists elevate theories like string theory due to their mathematical elegance or for funding purposes, and whether a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) could address deeper cosmic questions, such as the information paradox or baryon asymmetry. The dialogue also touches on the importance of understanding the precise definition of a theory in scientific contexts, emphasizing that it does not pertain to philosophical inquiries about purpose or meaning. The thread concludes with a suggestion for further reading on TOE models and encourages participants to engage in more focused discussions in appropriate forums.
Physics Slayer
Messages
26
Reaction score
8
I think normal people and physicists have different definitions of a "theory of everything", normal people (I am not calling Physicists abnormal although some of dem are a bit wonky) usually mean something along the lines of meaning of life/why we exist/ purpose in life etc.
Physicists on the other hand refer to a theoretical framework that unites all four fundamental forces of nature, at it's face value this doesn't sound very grandiose(to a normal person atleast) and definitely doesn't sound like something worthy of the title of "theory of everything". Do physicists glorify these theories (eg:super string theory) only because of their mathematical elegance(or because they want funding👀) or are there other deeper consequences of having a GUT?(like answering some other fundamental questions of the universe, something like the information paradox or Baryon asymmetry etc.)

I haven't studied string theory or any other GUT, heck I'm till solving block on incline problems but I'm curious about the latest developments in physics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Physics Slayer said:
I think normal people and physicists have different definitions of a "theory of everything", normal people (I am not calling Physicists abnormal although some of dem are a bit wonky) usually mean something along the lines of meaning of life/why we exist/ purpose in life etc.
That would be an error of the word 'theory' made by these 'normal people'.

A theory has a specific meaning - and its not about answering 'why' questions or attributing 'meaning'.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Physics Slayer said:
I think normal people and physicists
Excuse me?
Are you trying to be insulting?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Physics Slayer
Physics Slayer said:
I am not calling Physicists abnormal although some of dem are a bit wonky
That's exactly what you are doing!
 
The PC expression for physicists is differently normal, although most will accept being called 'special'.
 
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters
Thread is locked for Moderation..
 
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
Thread will remain locked for numerous PF rules violations by the OP.

Physics Slayer said:
or are there other deeper consequences of having a GUT?(like answering some other fundamental questions of the universe, something like the information paradox or Baryon asymmetry etc.)

If you really want to learn more about the various TOE models and current status, do some reading at reliable websites. Then, if you have questions about that reading, start a new thread in the appropriate technical forum (using the B=Basic thread prefix), post links to your reading, and ask *specific* questions about that reading. Have a nice day.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
Back
Top