B Question regarding 'beauty' in the theories that go beyond the standard model

DarkMattrHole
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
is there value in looking for beauty? Is there beauty in the standard model, other theories?
There has been a lot of talk about the value of beauty in theoretical physics. There seems to be a lot of little things that are beautiful because they make sense, according to what we already know, like the discovery of anti-particles, and recently the Higgs. The standard model was revealed partly by looking for esthetically pleasing things like symmetries and finding them along the way.

Should we continue looking for points of beauty to find the things that would possibly explain the structure of standard model and go beyond?

Have there ever been ugly discoveries, or discoveries that reveal a more ugly universe?

There have been a lot of humbling discoveries. There have been spooky discoveries, but even spooky action at a distance could be made beautiful if it was explained, even by a theory that keeps all the particles in the universe bounded tightly together and in near instant communion within some collapsed dimensions, while allowing them infinite range within the three dimensions we experience. (correct me if I'm wrong but this is how i understand string theory works) thanks all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DarkMattrHole said:
... within the three dimensions we experience
Just as an aside, we do NOT experience three dimensions, we experience four.
 
Thanks, phinds. I will try to be more precise.
 
I came across the following paper by Mir Faizal, Lawrence M Krauss, Arshid Shabir, and Francesco Marino from BC. Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything Abstract General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities‎. ‎This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated {within} spacetime; instead‎, ‎it must explain the very {emergence} of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of...
How would one build mathematically an infinite number of spatial dimensions theory? I can concieve mathematically an n-th vector or ##\mathbb{R}^{\infty}##, I had done so in my Topology course back then. But obviously it's not empirically possible to test. But is a theory of everything ought to be "finite" and empirical? I mean obviously if there are only 4 interactions (currently known); but then again there could be more interactions around the corner. So to encompass it all seems to me...