What areas in physics would you like the Theory of Everything to explain?

[Rorkster2]

What areas in physics would you like the "Theory of Everything" to explain?

What are some of the mysteries in general physics, astrophysics, particle physics, etc would you like to see addressed when a theory of everything is finally forged?

For me it would have to be what is dark matter/energy, why virtual particles exist, ties general relativity and quantum mechanics together, what determines half-life's of particles, the nature of back holes, and finally how does quantum entanglement exist.

There is a lot to our universe, what do you see as a fundamental mystery or process that should be included in a hypothetical 'Theory of Everything'.

 

[Dale]

A good theory of everything should explain everything.

 

[Rorkster2]

A good theory of everything should explain everything.

Ok ok you got me. Touche. But let me be entertained by life's greatest puzzles one by one

 

[Drakkith]

This depends on what you mean by a "Theory of Everything". I've seen at least one definition that just unifies the fundamental forces. Then there's the theory that actually describes or explains EVERYTHING imaginable. That latter one seems impossible. I can't see a day where we run out of questions.

 

[bahamagreen]

If it does not explain consciousness it is just another theory of not everything.

 

[Rorkster2]

If it does not explain consciousness it is just another theory of not everything.

That sounds more of a medical/philosophical question then a creation theory criteria. Personally, I believe once you get enough nerve paths together that transmit information (threw lots of evolution) you will naturally end up with something that is self aware. Even what it means to be self aware can be debated.

I think there will be a time the not to distant future where a computer surpasses the number of circuits and processing capacity then a human brain and will give rise to self aware machine.

 

[Rorkster2]

The Theory of Everything, at this point, is unknown and very little is out their, other then string theory, that attempts to pull everything together, and string theory has many skeptics (including myself). One day something will turn up that offers some pretty good explanations.

One way of looking at my question is that I am wondering what matters and phenomenon in nature would give credibility to an everything theory if it was able to explain them in a simple and logical way in addition to explaining the relationship of General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics

 

[bahamagreen]

...you will naturally end up with something that is self aware.

Well, if you accept as a sufficient explanation of consciousness that it just emerges "naturally" then there is no need to look any further. I can present the final formal theory of everything right now...

TOE: Everything happens naturally. Q.E.D.

 

[Studiot]

What areas in physics would you like the "Theory of Everything" to explain?

Next week's lottery numbers.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As I understand it a theory of everything would not explain everything but will explain the underlying physical laws behind everything. So it would be able to tell you all the processes going on in a dice role but it's not going to tell you what the role will be. Unless you somehow can observe what's going on at a fundamental level and plug this into a TOE calculator.

Wrt consciousness it's the same. A TOE might come out tomorrow and it still wouldn't help us much. We'd still have to study the brain further and understand what generates consciousness, the only advantage would be there would be no processes that couldn't in theory be explained by the TOE.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ha! Forget about these esoteric phenomena. A "Theory of Everything" will not be able to derive Superconductivity!

1. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/28.pdf
2. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf
3. http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210162
4. R.B. Laughlin, Rev. Mod. Phys., v.71, p.863 (1999).
5. P. Anderson, Science v.177,p.4 (1972).

Zz.

 

[PhanthomJay]

The Theory of Everything must shed light on what is Nothing, if such a concept exists, and give some explanation , other than "meaningless", as to what was happening before the Big Bang.

 

[arul_k]

What are some of the mysteries in general physics, astrophysics, particle physics, etc would you like to see addressed when a theory of everything is finally forged? .

1. Inertia

2. The nature of electric and magnetic fields.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Ha! Forget about these esoteric phenomena. A "Theory of Everything" will not be able to derive Superconductivity!

1. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/28.pdf
2. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/1/32.pdf
3. http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210162
4. R.B. Laughlin, Rev. Mod. Phys., v.71, p.863 (1999).
5. P. Anderson, Science v.177,p.4 (1972).

Zz.

I'm very interested in what you're implying, but at the moment I don't have the time to go through those articles. Could you sketch the idea? I wonder if it's not a semantical issue. How would a theory of everything not be able to predict superconductivity yet be able to be a theory of everything? Isn't that a contradictio in terminis?

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm very interested in what you're implying, but at the moment I don't have the time to go through those articles. Could you sketch the idea? I wonder if it's not a semantical issue. How would a theory of everything not be able to predict superconductivity yet be able to be a theory of everything? Isn't that a contradictio in terminis?

Consider the possibility that TOE is the theory of everything for REDUCTIONISM! All those references are pointing to emergent phenomena that defy derivation when they are broken apart to their basic constituents.

I do not buy the concept of TOE. And I have many prominent physicists who also do not buy such a thing.

Zz.

 

[nonequilibrium]

I see. But aren't you building a strawman then? I'm pretty sure the whole idea of reductionism is to reduce to the simplest without leaving anything out as an emergent phenomenon (a bit like Einstein's quote: make it as simple as possible, but not any simpler). Reworded: are there any reductionists who could regard a theory that cannot (in principle) derive superconducitivity as correct?

 

[ZapperZ]

I've already given you the gist of the arguments in those papers I cited. If you wish to learn more, or question the idea, then you have to do your own effort in learning those arguments by reading those links.

Zz.

 

[dipole]

I'd hope that a TEO would shed light on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, what wavefunction collapse means, and how entanglement works.

 

[nonequilibrium]

I've already given you the gist of the arguments in those papers I cited. If you wish to learn more, or question the idea, then you have to do your own effort in learning those arguments by reading those links.

Zz.

Fair enough.

On topic: Concerning the TOE, I'd like to see if it describes the universe as constituting of particles or fields (or... ?)

 

[Rorkster2]

New question for those who see it: What is the most intriguing mystery of our universe?

 

[Drakkith]

New question for those who see it: What is the most intriguing mystery of our universe?

I don't think this would be on topic for the thread.

 

[Rorkster2]

I don't think this would be on topic for the thread.

A. It is
B. It's my thread. I could ask about Seth Rogan movies if I wanted to.

 

[Drakkith]

A. It is
B. It's my thread. I could ask about Seth Rogan movies if I wanted to.

You are mistaken. ALL threads should remain on topic at all times or they can be locked. (Within reason of course) Whether you created it or not is irrelevant.

 

[chiro]

Consider the possibility that TOE is the theory of everything for REDUCTIONISM! All those references are pointing to emergent phenomena that defy derivation when they are broken apart to their basic constituents.

I do not buy the concept of TOE. And I have many prominent physicists who also do not buy such a thing.

Zz.

I read the first link and I just want to clarify: are you saying that a TOE won't have the possibility to exist at all, or just for the reductionist mathematical descriptions we have today?

By reductionist mathematics I am talking about the explicit, atomic, independent way of characterizing systems as opposed to say the requirement that everything is implicit including the definitions themselves.

 

[ZapperZ]

A. It is
B. It's my thread. I could ask about Seth Rogan movies if I wanted to.

Thread hijack is not allowed, even if it is a thread you created. Multiple topics in a thread creates utterly confusing discussion. So create another thread for a different topic.

Zz.

 

[Rorkster2]

I'm sorry zapper if you will get utterly confused with the question of what are mysteries of the universe in a thread first about the answeres behind the mysteries of the universe. Guess you'll have to lock this thread now because I'm not retracting the above question.

 

[ZapperZ]

And I'm sorry for you that you can't follow the rules that you've had agreed to and are having problems with creating another thread. This thread is locked.

Zz.