Is there a real need for a theory of everything (ToE)?

In summary, the conversation discussed the challenges of finding a unified theory that connects quantum field theory and special or general relativity. The standard model, while it has been successful in predicting the existence of certain particles, is still not fully proven and there are many particles that have not been observed yet. The possibility of other particles, such as those proposed by supersymmetry, has not been ruled out. The conversation also touched on the mystery of dark matter and dark energy and the limitations of current experiments like the Large Hadron Collider. The need for further research and discovery in the field of particle physics was also mentioned.
  • #1
zdroide
15
0
I been studying quantum field theory and standard model lately. I not see how a unified theory could fit between quantum field and special or general relativity. One being for big objects and the other for microscopic one. In fact, standard model not seem to be all proven. Many particles are not yet observe, not counting some others particles not include but theorized. There is such a zoo of particles that a cat will loose his kittens there.
Other then understanding what inside black holes or the initial singularity, quantum field theory might stop where the other one begin, some event horizon...

Photon being both wave and energitic particle, link both theory in a way.
Gravity do not exert any effect inside particules,
Is Higgs field proven or do we need graviton to link both theory?
Still linking may not unified them.
Why it is not acceptable that one begin where the other finish, at the atomic level?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
zdroide said:
Many particles are not yet observe

Please name some.
 
  • Like
Likes Doc Al, mfb and Demystifier
  • #3
zdroide said:
I been studying quantum field theory and standard model lately. I not see how a unified theory could fit between quantum field and special or general relativity. One being for big objects and the other for microscopic one.
Is special relativity for big objects or for microscopic ones?
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #4
The discovery of the Higgs boson/field completed the search for particles expected by the standard model.
However it has not ruled out the possibility of other particles existing, for example those proposed by super symmetry.
If any are found then the model needs to be improved, but at present there is no strong reason to predict more particles.
There is of course the mystery of dark matter and dark energy, but undiscovered particles are not the only possible explanation for them.
 
  • #5
As long as we know situations where the two theories must be compatible and both apply, it is intellectually unsatisfying to be switching from one to the other and get discontinuous results. I believe that the slow "evaporation" of a black hole is one example.
 
  • #6
Vanadium 50 said:
Please name some
Why do we run accelerators and others experiment?
Please name some reason...

I should had write:Not found and precisely measure.
To each particles there is anti-particles. Some antimatter was found but not all.
Some other particles was theorized but not confirm yet, some are to explain supersymmetry like sfermion, squark, sgluon.
Others like Graviton and sterile neutrinos could be theory or fact. I personably cannot understand if there are possible, but they are mention in literature.
I see also some mismatch between measurements and theory. One example is neutrinos that supposed not to have mass, but found to have some it look like.
Same go with Higgs boson, no one knew what mass it would have.
I do not know if z boson are measure, since it need as much energy as Higgs to collide.
The difference between theories and measurements is that one is a mind calculation and the other is proof or disproof of those theory.
First generation particles and elementary particles are not direcley observable, there effect are, from my understanding.
What an electron smasher would produce?
I have doubt that there is nothing else to be found.
Every time we think we know, new questions get unanswered.
 
  • #7
rootone said:
The discovery of the Higgs boson/field completed the search for particles expected by the standard model.
However it has not ruled out the possibility of other particles existing, for example those proposed by super symmetry.
If any are found then the model needs to be improved, but at present there is no strong reason to predict more particles.
There is of course the mystery of dark matter and dark energy, but undiscovered particles are not the only possible explanation for them.

Thank you for your answer, this is also my understanding.
Could you explain me what LHC are looking for now.
I think they are smashing bigger part on the atomic scale like gold or lead atoms.
Do you have any idea of next goal and what is going one lately?
What about antimatter?
 
  • #8
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

EDIT -- Thread will remain closed. The OP has been reminded to post references when making scientific statements, and to do some research on their own before asking broad questions here.
 
Last edited:

Related to Is there a real need for a theory of everything (ToE)?

1. What is a theory of everything (ToE)?

A theory of everything, also known as a unified theory, is a hypothetical framework that seeks to explain and unify all physical aspects of the universe, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmological structures.

2. Why do we need a theory of everything?

A theory of everything is important because it would provide a complete understanding of the fundamental laws and principles that govern the universe. It would also unite the currently separate theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics, which are both highly successful in their respective domains but are incompatible with each other.

3. Is there evidence for the existence of a theory of everything?

Currently, there is no direct evidence for a theory of everything. However, there are theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity that aim to unify the fundamental forces of nature and provide a framework for a theory of everything. These theories are still in the early stages of development and require further testing and refinement.

4. What are the challenges in developing a theory of everything?

Developing a theory of everything is a daunting task and there are several challenges that scientists face. One major challenge is the difficulty in testing these theories, as they often involve extremely small or large scales that are beyond our current technological capabilities. Additionally, there is still much we do not know about the fundamental laws of nature, making it challenging to create a comprehensive and accurate theory.

5. Will a theory of everything ever be possible?

It is impossible to say for certain whether a theory of everything will ever be possible. Some scientists believe that it is within reach and that with further research and advancements in technology, we may be able to develop a unified theory. However, others argue that it may be beyond our understanding and that we may never be able to fully explain all aspects of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
937
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
335
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
611
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
576
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top