Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. May 31, 2016 #1
    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2016 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Please name some.
  4. May 31, 2016 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Is special relativity for big objects or for microscopic ones?
  5. May 31, 2016 #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.
  6. May 31, 2016 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    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.
  7. Jun 1, 2016 #6
    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.
  8. Jun 1, 2016 #7
    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?
  9. Jun 1, 2016 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Jun 2, 2016
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook