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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a "Theory of Everything" (TOE) in physics, exploring what fundamental mysteries and phenomena it should explain across various fields such as general physics, astrophysics, and particle physics. Participants express their views on the scope and implications of such a theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a TOE should explain dark matter and energy, the nature of black holes, and the relationship between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
  • Others argue that the definition of a TOE varies, with some seeing it as a unification of fundamental forces while others believe it should encompass all conceivable phenomena.
  • A few participants suggest that consciousness must be included in a TOE, while others contend that this topic leans more towards philosophy than physics.
  • Some express skepticism about the feasibility of a TOE, citing that it may not be able to explain emergent phenomena like superconductivity.
  • There are discussions about the implications of reductionism and whether a TOE can adequately address complex phenomena without oversimplifying them.
  • Participants also mention the need for a TOE to clarify interpretations of quantum mechanics, including wavefunction collapse and entanglement.
  • One participant humorously suggests that a TOE should predict lottery numbers, highlighting the speculative nature of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on what a TOE should encompass, with multiple competing views and ongoing debates about its definition and implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the inclusion of consciousness and the ability of a TOE to explain emergent phenomena.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the nature of a TOE, including its potential limitations and the complexity of phenomena it might address. There is an acknowledgment of the unresolved status of certain scientific questions and the dependence on definitions of key terms.

Rorkster2
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
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'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


A good theory of everything should explain everything.
 


DaleSpam said:
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
 


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.
 


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


bahamagreen said:
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.
 


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
 


Rorkster2 said:
...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.
 


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


Next week's lottery numbers.

:smile:
 
  • #10


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.
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12


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.
 
  • #13


Rorkster2 said:
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.
 
  • #14
ZapperZ said:
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?
 
  • #15


mr. vodka said:
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.
 
  • #16


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?
 
  • #17


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.
 
  • #18


I'd hope that a TEO would shed light on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, what wavefunction collapse means, and how entanglement works.
 
  • #19


ZapperZ said:
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... ?)
 
  • #20


New question for those who see it: What is the most intriguing mystery of our universe?
 
  • #21


Rorkster2 said:
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.
 
  • #22


Drakkith said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #23


Rorkster2 said:
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.
 
  • #24


ZapperZ said:
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.
 
  • #25


Rorkster2 said:
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.
 
  • #26


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.
 
  • #27


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.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Exploring the Troubles with Dark Matter and the Quest for a Theory of Everything
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Graduate What would be the impact of the discovery of the Graviton in the world?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad All possible models to explain the hierarchy problem?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Other What are areas of research that pertain to Grand Unified Theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate How were you exposed to probability theory in physics?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Singularity structure being valid for all QFTs?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Is every physical theory non physical
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Graduate 25 Years of the End of Science (or at least the end of physics?)
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD application)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Graduate Clarification regarding argument in EPR paper
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K