A theory of everything?

[Philophile]

A theory of everything (ToE) is a proposed theory which combines consistently the two well known and well verified theories in physics of general relativity and quantum field theory. If one could find such a theory, it could help understand questions of dark matter and black holes, as well provide the most fundamental description of our universe. There are two major candidates for a ToE, string theory (or M-theory) and loop quantum gravity. Both, however, still have issues, even after being worked on for 30+ years, as well as no experimental verification. Recent experiments at the LHC (large hadron collider) don't help: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... ments.html

My thoughts are that there are three possible reasons why such a ToE has not been discovered. Either scientist are not trying hard enough (doubtful), we need to wait for more data (could take a generation), or more interestingly, such a ToE is fundamentally impossible. This is the question I wish to discuss here:

Is a ToE fundamentally possible?

I propose there is something fundamental about the universe which is unknowable. Given we live in the universe, and take measurements within it, we interact with the universe. The only completely closed system is the universe itself. Thus one could only completely understand the universe by observing it from outside the universe. Since this is not possible, neither is a ToE.

Or is it that a current candidate for a ToE will get closer and closer to the physical reality of the universe as it gets modified and changed, but only reach an exact description as time goes to infinity?

[Atreyu]

A theory of everything (ToE) is a proposed theory which combines consistently the two well known and well verified theories in physics of general relativity and quantum field theory. If one could find such a theory, it could help understand questions of dark matter and black holes, as well provide the most fundamental description of our universe. There are two major candidates for a ToE, string theory (or M-theory) and loop quantum gravity. Both, however, still have issues, even after being worked on for 30+ years, as well as no experimental verification. Recent experiments at the LHC (large hadron collider) don't help: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... ments.html

My thoughts are that there are three possible reasons why such a ToE has not been discovered. Either scientist are not trying hard enough (doubtful), we need to wait for more data (could take a generation), or more interestingly, such a ToE is fundamentally impossible. This is the question I wish to discuss here:

Is a ToE fundamentally possible?

I propose there is something fundamental about the universe which is unknowable. Given we live in the universe, and take measurements within it, we interact with the universe. The only completely closed system is the universe itself. Thus one could only completely understand the universe by observing it from outside the universe. Since this is not possible, neither is a ToE.

Or is it that a current candidate for a ToE will get closer and closer to the physical reality of the universe as it gets modified and changed, but only reach an exact description as time goes to infinity?

My view is that what is ordinarily called 'ToE' is basically a fancy name for a working, practical, and complete model of cosmology, which indeed modern science does not have.

As far as whether or not it will ever be "worked out" by modern science, I would say no. But it's possible to have one, because it already exists and was developed long ago, only it is not known by modern science, nor will it ever be because they don't know where to look for it. Nor will they ever have the inclination to do so, since they will naturally always be under the very strong impression that they can arrive at it by themselves.

[Sy Borg]

That is an interesting link. I've long favoured string theory but if it's not true then it raises questions as to what is happening at Planck scale. In relation to understanding the very large, we have the stated problem of not being able to observe the universe from the outside, although we should surely be able to improve our observations and understanding over time.

At the moment we are a long way off. We have little understanding of 95% of the known universe and there are things much we don't understand about gravity, the most fundamental of the forces.

I currently have been thinking that gravity might just be a property of ever-expanding spacetime as it interacts with matter. The space time is constantly pushing outwards from itself. As it encounters a large mass it must push into the mass. Perhaps it compresses, with the compression increasing the closer it is to the surface? Any holes?

Still, the big picture does seem to have an unattainable aspect to it because there may be patterns in the universe's actions like seasons or el Nino phases) that are too long and large for us to perceive. Perhaps the very small will be easier to probe. With luck, small scales may reveal fractals that resonate up the scales from Planck to universal, which might allow us to make predictions about the universe's behaviour, even if we cannot observe it from the outside.

[HZY]

All theories are based on observation. A theory of everything must be based on observation of everything. Have we observed everything?

[Atreyu]

That is an interesting link. I've long favoured string theory but if it's not true then it raises questions as to what is happening at Planck scale. In relation to understanding the very large, we have the stated problem of not being able to observe the universe from the outside, although we should surely be able to improve our observations and understanding over time.

At the moment we are a long way off. We have little understanding of 95% of the known universe and there are things much we don't understand about gravity, the most fundamental of the forces.

I currently have been thinking that gravity might just be a property of ever-expanding spacetime as it interacts with matter. The space time is constantly pushing outwards from itself. As it encounters a large mass it must push into the mass. Perhaps it compresses, with the compression increasing the closer it is to the surface? Any holes?

Still, the big picture does seem to have an unattainable aspect to it because there may be patterns in the universe's actions like seasons or el Nino phases) that are too long and large for us to perceive. Perhaps the very small will be easier to probe. With luck, small scales may reveal fractals that resonate up the scales from Planck to universal, which might allow us to make predictions about the universe's behaviour, even if we cannot observe it from the outside.

No, this is simply not true. A knowledge of the Whole (cosmology) will never be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the Universe, no more than a knowledge of the ecosystem of the entire forest and how it works can be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the trees. And this is exactly what modern science is trying to do --- trying to understand how the forest works by studying all the veins and serrations of some of the leaves on some of the trees....

[Sy Borg]

That is an interesting link. I've long favoured string theory but if it's not true then it raises questions as to what is happening at Planck scale. In relation to understanding the very large, we have the stated problem of not being able to observe the universe from the outside, although we should surely be able to improve our observations and understanding over time.

At the moment we are a long way off. We have little understanding of 95% of the known universe and there are things much we don't understand about gravity, the most fundamental of the forces.

I currently have been thinking that gravity might just be a property of ever-expanding spacetime as it interacts with matter. The space time is constantly pushing outwards from itself. As it encounters a large mass it must push into the mass. Perhaps it compresses, with the compression increasing the closer it is to the surface? Any holes?

Still, the big picture does seem to have an unattainable aspect to it because there may be patterns in the universe's actions like seasons or el Nino phases) that are too long and large for us to perceive. Perhaps the very small will be easier to probe. With luck, small scales may reveal fractals that resonate up the scales from Planck to universal, which might allow us to make predictions about the universe's behaviour, even if we cannot observe it from the outside.

No, this is simply not true. A knowledge of the Whole (cosmology) will never be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the Universe, no more than a knowledge of the ecosystem of the entire forest and how it works can be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the trees. And this is exactly what modern science is trying to do --- trying to understand how the forest works by studying all the veins and serrations of some of the leaves on some of the trees....

The idea of looking for repeating fractals was only touted as a possibility. Nonetheless, if you don't learn about the details you don't gain an understanding either. Taking a top-down approach lacks basis without some kind of theoretical underpinning gained from science's bottom-up approach. Without a body of knowledge attained through a bottom-up approach one's assumptions about the big picture gained from a top-down approach will be built without foundations. Many conflicting myths arose throughout history because people tried to gain an overview without having done much spadework.

The universe has phenomenal effects at all scales and the behaviour at each scale should at least tell us something about the other scales, not to mention being fascinating and important in its own right. Finding related fractals won't tell us everything about phenomena we can't observe directly, but perhaps nothing will. We don't know yet. Ask in ten thousand years' time and see how we're going.

[Syamsu]

Peter Rowlands formulated the theory of everything.

Basically you need to have a more simple fundamental theory from which the 2 current major theories are derived, instead of a new complex theory to connect them.

First the simple observation that all theories heavily depend on mathematics. The key to the toe must be the key to maths. So on one side you will have the physical thing, on the other side you will have mathematics as a 1 to 1 copy of it.

In regular mathematics theory the 1 is obtained by counting. Rowlands instead obtains the 1 by rewriting the 0. The fundamental mathematical relation between 0 and 1 is thus boolean. Etc. Etc. Etc. One can derive a natural mathenatical order in respect to 0, and it turns out this order is the same as the order in the universe. One can derive the universal constants purely from maths without looking at the universe.

[Atreyu]

The idea of looking for repeating fractals was only touted as a possibility. Nonetheless, if you don't learn about the details you don't gain an understanding either.

My point is precisely that in fact it is not possible. Regardless of the particular details studied, no knowledge of the Whole can ever be arrived at solely by studying all of the details.

Taking a top-down approach lacks basis without some kind of theoretical underpinning gained from science's bottom-up approach. Without a body of knowledge attained through a bottom-up approach one's assumptions about the big picture gained from a top-down approach will be built without foundations. Many conflicting myths arose throughout history because people tried to gain an overview without having done much spadework.

Science has no theoretical underpinning of how the Universe works as a Whole. It simply doesn't exist. And I never said anything about assuming. I'm merely saying that studying details gives no knowledge of how everything works at the most "macro level". How a knowledge of the Whole could be had is a separate issue entirely. I'm merely saying that it cannot be arrived at using the methodology of modern science, otherwise they would currently have more to offer than just saying that most of the Universe is unknown, i.e. is "dark matter" and "dark energy".

[Jerrygg38]

We cannot ever achieve a theory of everything because all we can do is to attempt to understand what we can see and measure. In my theory of the universe, I have many coexisting universes. In addition I have many different light speeds up to light speed infinity. A theory of everything can only be the theory of what we can see and measure and not a theory of everything.

[Harbal]

A theory of everything (ToE) is a proposed theory which combines consistently the two well known and well verified theories in physics of general relativity and quantum field theory.

I don't think general relativity or quantum field theory will provide us with a theory of everything. For example: when my wife takes her washing out of the machine there is always a sock missing. I don't see how general relativity and/or quantum field theory would help to explain the reasons behind this phenomenon.

[Philophile]

We cannot ever achieve a theory of everything because all we can do is to attempt to understand what we can see and measure. In my theory of the universe, I have many coexisting universes. In addition I have many different light speeds up to light speed infinity. A theory of everything can only be the theory of what we can see and measure and not a theory of everything.

I'm sure a theory based on what we see and measure makes more sense than one that is not, such as coexisting universes with different light speeds.

[Harbal]

I wonder if the missing socks have somehow ended up in a coexisting universe. I suppose it's one explanation.

[Philophile]

A theory of everything (ToE) is a proposed theory which combines consistently the two well known and well verified theories in physics of general relativity and quantum field theory.

I don't think general relativity or quantum field theory will provide us with a theory of everything. For example: when my wife takes her washing out of the machine there is always a sock missing. I don't see how general relativity and/or quantum field theory would help to explain the reasons behind this phenomenon.

A ToE under my definition tries to understand the universe at the most fundamental level. I.e. the foundation on which all physics is built. After that complexity increases all the way up to human psychology and the physics of the laundry process to help explain why your wife cannot find your socks.

[Harbal]

So you say but I can't help being sceptical. Just for the record; it's not only my socks.

[HZY]

A theory of everything (ToE) is a proposed theory which combines consistently the two well known and well verified theories in physics of general relativity and quantum field theory. If one could find such a theory, it could help understand questions of dark matter and black holes, as well provide the most fundamental description of our universe. There are two major candidates for a ToE, string theory (or M-theory) and loop quantum gravity. Both, however, still have issues, even after being worked on for 30+ years, as well as no experimental verification. Recent experiments at the LHC (large hadron collider) don't help: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... ments.html

My thoughts are that there are three possible reasons why such a ToE has not been discovered. Either scientist are not trying hard enough (doubtful), we need to wait for more data (could take a generation), or more interestingly, such a ToE is fundamentally impossible. This is the question I wish to discuss here:

Is a ToE fundamentally possible?

I propose there is something fundamental about the universe which is unknowable. Given we live in the universe, and take measurements within it, we interact with the universe. The only completely closed system is the universe itself. Thus one could only completely understand the universe by observing it from outside the universe. Since this is not possible, neither is a ToE.

Or is it that a current candidate for a ToE will get closer and closer to the physical reality of the universe as it gets modified and changed, but only reach an exact description as time goes to infinity?

ToE can never be because it permanently awaits the next discovery.