What effect could a theory of everything have on science?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications and potential outcomes of a theory of everything (ToE) in science. Participants explore how such a theory might influence theoretical work, fundamental research, and the nature of scientific inquiry itself, while also considering the limitations and challenges associated with achieving a ToE.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion of a final fundamental theory, suggesting that the pursuit of a ToE may be an ongoing endeavor rather than a conclusive endpoint.
  • There are arguments that knowledge of fundamental building blocks may not directly translate to practical applications, such as curing diseases or solving complex equations.
  • Questions arise about how success in finding a ToE would be measured, with some suggesting it would involve a theory that describes all known interactions.
  • One participant critiques a specific paper, arguing that it does not unify existing models but merely samples them, proposing an alternative mathematical structure instead.
  • Concerns are raised about the predictive power of a ToE, with some asserting that it should yield testable predictions, while others note the current limitations in predicting properties of new particles.
  • There is a suggestion that the focus of fundamental research might shift towards philosophical inquiries about the meaning of equations rather than their formulation.
  • Some participants speculate that even if a ToE is developed, it may not significantly change the landscape of scientific inquiry, potentially leading to new terminology and techniques rather than revolutionary insights.
  • One viewpoint posits that the universe is infinitely complex, leading to a pessimistic conclusion that a true ToE may never exist.
  • Another participant suggests that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation could be a viable candidate for a scientific ToE, while questioning the scientific validity of other proposed theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of a theory of everything, with multiple competing views and ongoing debates about its feasibility, significance, and the nature of scientific inquiry it would engender.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the speculative nature of the discussion, the dependence on various interpretations of what constitutes a ToE, and the unresolved questions regarding the predictive capabilities of such a theory.

Robin04
Messages
259
Reaction score
16
I know it's hard to predict but what are the probable outcomes? When I hear about the theory of everything in different situations it always makes me feel that we really want to believe that it will be a final fundamental theory. How could the theoretical work look like after its success? However, I also read that this 'almost there' feeling has always been ruling our hopes and then we suddenly realized that we're not almost there at all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Robin04 said:
I know it's hard to predict but what are the probable outcomes? When I hear about the theory of everything in different situations it always makes me feel that we really want to believe that it will be a final fundamental theory. How could the theoretical work look like after its success? However, I also read that this 'almost there' feeling has always been ruling our hopes and then we suddenly realized that we're not almost there at all.
In some ways it would change nothing. Too many properties are emergent. Knowledge of the fundamental building blocks of the universe likely does not help you cure cancer, send a rocket to Mars, diagnose paranoid schizophrenia or solve the Navier Stokes equation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ryan_m_b, PeroK and fresh_42
jbriggs444 said:
In some ways it would change nothing. Too many properties are emergent. Knowledge of the fundamental building blocks of the universe likely does not help you cure cancer, send a rocket to Mars, diagnose paranoid schizophrenia or solve the Navier Stokes equation.
Yes, but what about fundamental research? How would it change?
 
Robin04 said:
How could the theoretical work look like after its success?
How would we know that we have been successful in finding the "theory of everything"?
 
jtbell said:
How would we know that we have been successful in finding the "theory of everything"?
By having a theory that describes all the known interactions. I'm not trying to go down the hardcore philosophical road about whether we are able to know everything. What made me think about this question is a paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.0770.pdf Unfortunetaly I don't know enough about physics and maths to understand this, but I read some articles and discussion (even here on PF) about it, and lots of people find this a good candidate for a theory of everything.
 
In my opinion the paper only says: Look, ##E_8## is large enough to contain all symmetry groups we have so far as subgroups. To me it seems like as if the known models were labeled by volume one to three and all together by ##E_8-##GUT. It doesn't unify, it samples. My impression with such expansions is always: Why don't we take ##SL(10^{100},\mathbb{C})## to contain literally everything?

But this is only a personal view. I'm no physicist. It's what it looks like from a mathematical point of view.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Robin04
fresh_42 said:
But this is only a personal view. I'm no physicist. It's what it looks like from a mathematical point of view.
That's also how it looks from my view as experimental particle physicist.
If it would be a proper theory it would make predictions that can be tested (at least in principle).
 
Robin04 said:
Yes, but what about fundamental research? How would it change?
My guess is that it would turn into philosophy. Instead of asking what the fundamental equations are, deep thinkers would ask what those equations mean.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Robin04
mfb said:
That's also how it looks from my view as experimental particle physicist.
If it would be a proper theory it would make predictions that can be tested (at least in principle).
As far as I know it predicts the existence of new particles but the theory is not developed enough to be able to say anything about their properties yet.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Robin04 said:
As far as I know it predicts the existence of new particles but the theory is not developed enough to be able to say anything about their properties yet.
Not that simple then...
It is trivial that there has to be something else, without a more specific prediction it is useless.
 
  • #11
Theory Of Everything at best would be great ambition without any path to find the full achievement. One can only focus on a focused topic. "Focused" needs some explanation which maybe other well-educated members could maybe provide.
 
  • #12
What is a "theory of everything"? Is it some unifying concept for micro and macro level physics? Hilbert's 6th problem?

If such theory were developed, I imagine much stays the same. We'd potentially have new techniques/new language/terminology to describe and attack some (open) problems.
 
  • #13
Robin04 said:
I know it's hard to predict but what are the probable outcomes? When I hear about the theory of everything in different situations it always makes me feel that we really want to believe that it will be a final fundamental theory. How could the theoretical work look like after its success? However, I also read that this 'almost there' feeling has always been ruling our hopes and then we suddenly realized that we're not almost there at all.

Virtually every part of the Universe I have studied over may years leads me to conclude there is endless detail: no smallest small nor largest big. Rather we encounter singularities, catastrophes, critical points, and bifurcations into further detail. I am led therefore to pessimistically conclude there is not nor never will be a theory of everything unless that theory claims there is no theory of everything.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
  • #14
To me it seems that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation might well be the only quite scientific ToE, after all! All the rest may well be "unscientific" (yet, maintaining the Born rule somehow) boundary conditions being (re-)applied to it, at every observation act.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K