Implications of a "theory of everything"

In summary, the conversation discusses the different definitions of a "theory of everything" between normal people and physicists. While normal people may see it as answering questions about the meaning of life, physicists see it as a theoretical framework that unites all fundamental forces of nature. There is a debate about whether physicists glorify these theories for their mathematical elegance or if there are deeper consequences, such as solving other fundamental questions of the universe. The conversation ends with a suggestion to do more reading on reliable websites and ask specific questions in a technical forum.
  • #1
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
  • #2
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
  • #3
Physics Slayer said:
I think normal people and physicists
Excuse me?
Are you trying to be insulting?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Physics Slayer
  • #4
Physics Slayer said:
I am not calling Physicists abnormal although some of dem are a bit wonky
That's exactly what you are doing!
 
  • #5
The PC expression for physicists is differently normal, although most will accept being called 'special'.
 
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters
  • #6
Thread is locked for Moderation..
 
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
  • #7
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

Suggested for: Implications of a "theory of everything"

Replies
4
Views
663
Replies
3
Views
895
Replies
1
Views
724
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
911
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top