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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the need for a theory of everything (ToE) in the context of quantum field theory, the standard model, and general relativity. Participants explore the compatibility of these theories, the existence of undiscovered particles, and the implications of current scientific understanding.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about how a unified theory could reconcile quantum field theory with general relativity, noting the distinct domains they seem to address.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the completeness of the standard model, with references to many particles that have not yet been observed, including those theorized by supersymmetry.
  • Questions are posed about the Higgs field's status as proven and the necessity of gravitons for unification, highlighting uncertainty about the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics.
  • Participants discuss the intellectual dissatisfaction with switching between theories that yield discontinuous results, using black hole evaporation as an example.
  • Some participants mention the existence of antimatter and theorized particles like sfermions and sterile neutrinos, expressing uncertainty about their existence and implications.
  • Discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental measurements, such as neutrinos having mass and the Higgs boson's mass, are noted, indicating ongoing questions in the field.
  • There is a request for clarification on what the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is currently investigating, particularly regarding the search for new particles and the role of antimatter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity or feasibility of a theory of everything, with multiple competing views and ongoing uncertainties expressed throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in current understanding, including the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical and theoretical aspects. There is also a recognition of the evolving nature of scientific inquiry, where new discoveries often lead to further questions.

zdroide
Messages
15
Reaction score
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
zdroide said:
Many particles are not yet observe

Please name some.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Doc Al, mfb and Demystifier
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   Reactions: mfb
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K