Science & the Theory of Everything

[Idolator]

I've been wondering about this for some time, and I'm sure I have more to say about it, but for now let me introduce four ideas:
Some people believe that there is a "THEORY of EVERYTHING." I define this (feel free to disagree) as: a single frame of logical (philosophical) reference which describes most everything in the universe that matters.
*Or philosophy, or religion, or whatever
Some people believe that "Science" is an attempt to develop such a THEORY.
There is a significant correlation between these two groups of people.
Not only 3., but the subgroups described in 1 and 2 are not often any good at science.

[Berthold]

As far as I know, it's an attempt to unite the four (or meanwhile three) basic forces; as such a legitimate field of theoretical physics, and nothing mystical or esoteric.

[Manitoumulegirl]

I think you are confusing the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which mosty has to do with physics, not philosophy, and not so muh the other branches of sciences -such as biology.

Science is NOT religion, in case that concept has escaped your mind.:rolleyes:

[skepticalbip]

I think Berthold hit it on the head. Religions already have a "Theory of everything". - Namely.. "Goddidit".

What is being sought in physics is not a single theory for everything but a theory that will unite the forces. Other sciences are independently seeking answers to other questions. Personally I am beginning to believe that physics' search for a GUT may have an incorrect basic assumption - that gravity is a force like the other three and not mearly the geometry of spacetime. Could this be why that graviton has been so elusive?

[Schneibster]

Well, actually, considering that EM can be described as a field theory, and also as a quantum theory, and finally as a quantum field theory, no, I don't think that's why the graviton is so elusive.

What, you don't like the field theory of the EM force?

[skepticalbip]

Nothing at all wrong with the field theory of EM. I am just beginning to believe that it could well be that gravity is fundamentally a differerent animal than the other forces. Would it really be a disaster for science if it turns out that it can't be united? The quest for a GUT seems to have become a matter of faith that gravity can be united with the other forces... The assumption that a GUT can be found could well be correct but I don't see it as apocalyptic if it can't, if gravity is eventually found to be better modeled otherwise.

Such a rethinking of gravity may not be as "pretty" as one equation but then recognizing reality should be the goal not some hoped-for symmetry that satisifies a preconceived faith. I would like to see a GUT proven... It would make for a simpler model. But I will not see it as a catastrophe if a more complex but more accurate model wins the day.

[Streamwinner]

There may be some convergence among fields, though. Specifically, the move towards relational systems theories and foci on functionality and pragmatics. We can see these happening in a number of fields, including philosophy, applied philosophy like the social sciences, and physics. Interestingly, this stuff has already been talked about thousands of years ago.

[robto]

To clarify a few points:

Physicists talk of four "fundamental forces":
1) gravity
2) electromagnetism
3) the strong nuclear force and
4)the weak nuclear force.

The Standard Model unifies 2&4.

GUTs (Grand Unified Theories) are proposals to unify 2, 3, &4. These have not been experimentally proven. They do NOT include gravity. To paraphrase Pogo, they're not so grand, not so unified, and not so fizzical.

TOEs (Theories of Everything) are proposals to unify 1, 2, 3, & 4. These have not been experimentally proven, either.

The problem with treating gravity as a separate, non-quantum phenomenon is that gravity gives you a way to "observe" a quantum system. For instance, you could measure a particle's position by measuring its gravitational effects on another particle. This would break the quantum superposition, unless the gravitational field can be in superposition, too (which is only possible if there is quantum gravity).

I discuss some of these issues in my book (now available in paperback!), The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Almost-Everything-Standard-Physics/dp/0452287863/ref=ed_oe_p/002-7640579-7908024?ie=UTF8).

[Kyle]

Thanks for your clarification Robto. Concerning this paragraph:

The problem with treating gravity as a separate, non-quantum phenomenon is that gravity gives you a way to "observe" a quantum system. For instance, you could measure a particle's position by measuring its gravitational effects on another particle. This would break the quantum superposition, unless the gravitational field can be in superposition, too (which is only possible if there is quantum gravity).

Which experiments have done this? This sounds to me like you are arguing there is a problem because it conflicts with experimental data that does not exist yet.

[Idolator]

This thread completely and totally missed my intent.

[dug_down_deep]

Many people are confused about what science is 'for', if it can indeed be said to be 'for' any one purpose. Is that what you're getting at? I haven't seen this correlation you speak of, though.

[robto]

Thanks for your clarification Robto. Concerning this paragraph:



Which experiments have done this? This sounds to me like you are arguing there is a problem because it conflicts with experimental data that does not exist yet.

I should have made it clear that I was speaking "in principle". That is, there is a theoretical difficulty with treating gravity as classical and everything else as quantum. You are right - there are no experiments that probe this disconnect (gravity is too weak compared to the other forces to detect its effects). If we could perform such experiments, we might be in a better position to create a true quantum theory of gravity.

This thread completely and totally missed my intent.

Are you sure? I thought we were just disagreeing with you. As with other posters, I don't see that those who talk about a TOE are particularly bad at science. On the contrary, they're some of the best scientific minds around.

[Vitalstatistix]

Nothing at all wrong with the field theory of EM. I am just beginning to believe that it could well be that gravity is fundamentally a differerent animal than the other forces. Would it really be a disaster for science if it turns out that it can't be united? The quest for a GUT seems to have become a matter of faith that gravity can be united with the other forces... The assumption that a GUT can be found could well be correct but I don't see it as apocalyptic if it can't, if gravity is eventually found to be better modeled otherwise.

Such a rethinking of gravity may not be as "pretty" as one equation but then recognizing reality should be the goal not some hoped-for symmetry that satisifies a preconceived faith. I would like to see a GUT proven... It would make for a simpler model. But I will not see it as a catastrophe if a more complex but more accurate model wins the day.How can it not be possible to unite? Something had to have happened during the planck epoch.

[skepticalbip]

How can it not be possible to unite? Something had to have happened during the planck epoch.It depends on what model you are using. All models of our expanding universe do not have this "starting point". The model that you have to assume for the question to be meaningful may be wrong. This is essentially what I was referring to with my "what if" speculation. It is begging the question to say that the four forces can be unified because the universe started with them unified. It is a statement of faith - assumed to be true because that is the predominate theory today. It may be correct but then we really don't know.

[Berthold]

This thread completely and totally missed my intent.


Are you sure? I thought we were just disagreeing with you. As with other posters, I don't see that those who talk about a TOE are particularly bad at science. On the contrary, they're some of the best scientific minds around.
It seems the OP meant something else entirely. The meaning of TOE, though, is already occupied, at least in mainstream usage in a scientific context.

[Idolator]

It seems the OP meant something else entirely. The meaning of TOE, though, is already occupied, at least in mainstream usage in a scientific context.
That's the gist of it, yeah. I probably should have been clear that I was using "Theory of Everything" in a slightly idiosyncratic way.

I mean that many people, particularly theists and certain IIDB posters, seem to think that science is supposed to be a search for some kind of fundamental truth; and when science necessarily fails at this goal, they use this as license to adopt some even more ridiculous body of knowledge.