Theory of Everything

H

hansda

Valued Senior Member
I was searching the net for "theory of everything". I found this site quite interesting.

I understand that "M-theory" has the potential to be called as "theory of everything" but it is not yet being termed so. Can anybody explain why "M-theory" is still falling short to be termed as "Theory of Everything"?


Is there any other theory which can be considered as "Theory of Everything"?
 
hansda said:
I was searching the net for "theory of everything". I found this site quite interesting.

I understand that "M-theory" has the potential to be called as "theory of everything" but it is not yet being termed so. Can anybody explain why "M-theory" is still falling short to be termed as "Theory of Everything"?


Is there any other theory which can be considered as "Theory of Everything"?
Click to expand...

Loop quantum gravity is an alternative theory. Since neither theory has reached the point where it can be tested, it would be premature to accept either as a theory of everything.
 
hansda said:
Is there any other theory which can be considered as "Theory of Everything"?
Click to expand...
Sean Carroll PhD has developed an equation that describes a wave on one side of the equation then has all four forces on the other side of the equation, but I don't think it is really a Theory of Everything. He included the Higgs in it that I guess could describe gravity. I think it could lead to more of a Grand Unified Field Theory rather than a Theory of Everything. It would be more like everything that then affects a wave. The main difference being that it just includes all of the fundamental forces of nature. It wouldn't be able to describe a baseball for instance, only the waves in the ball, not the whole object itself. I think there is some debate on what a true "Theory of Everything" would be.
 
In my opinion a theory of everything would explain everything. It would be almost unimaginable large. Everything could be reduced to this theory. By this definition, we are quite far from one and I think it's very doubtful if one could ever be made by humans in whatever time our culture and survival is here. It would not necessarily have to explain specifics any more than the laws of mathematics describe specifics, but every specific would have to be able to be reduced to this theory if it were to be a true theory of everything in my opinion. Every specific could be explained by following this theory and no theory could improve on it. Maybe that's too step for a practical theory of everything though, I don't know. Could be :).
 
How would you know when you have discovered and have a complete understanding of 'everything'?
 
hansda said:
I was searching the net for "theory of everything". I found this site quite interesting.
Click to expand...
That's a puff-piece, hansda. It's promotional material. Michael Duff is trying to "sell" M-theory to the public even though physicists have by and large rejected it.

hansda said:
I understand that "M-theory" has the potential to be called as "theory of everything" but it is not yet being termed so. Can anybody explain why "M-theory" is still falling short to be termed as "Theory of Everything"?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't predict anything. Or you can turn that on its head and say it predicts anything.

handa said:
Is there any other theory which can be considered as "Theory of Everything"?
Click to expand...
Nothing that's well developed. Not that I know about anyway. I used "Theory of Everything" as a subtitle for relativity+, which in hindsight was a mistake. It's too grandiose. Like Layman suggested, unified field theory is better.
 
mathman said:
Loop quantum gravity is an alternative theory.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between "M-theory" and "Loop quantum gravity"?


Since neither theory has reached the point where it can be tested, it would be premature to accept either as a theory of everything.
Click to expand...

Why both these theories are considered as "potential" for "theory of everything"?
 
Layman said:
Sean Carroll PhD has developed an equation that describes a wave on one side of the equation then has all four forces on the other side of the equation, but I don't think it is really a Theory of Everything. He included the Higgs in it that I guess could describe gravity. I think it could lead to more of a Grand Unified Field Theory rather than a Theory of Everything. It would be more like everything that then affects a wave. The main difference being that it just includes all of the fundamental forces of nature. It wouldn't be able to describe a baseball for instance, only the waves in the ball, not the whole object itself.
Click to expand...

What is Sean Carroll PhD's equation, you are talking about?


I think there is some debate on what a true "Theory of Everything" would be.
Click to expand...

What is the debate about "theory of everything"?
 
Tenver said:
In my opinion a theory of everything would explain everything. It would be almost unimaginable large. Everything could be reduced to this theory. By this definition, we are quite far from one and I think it's very doubtful if one could ever be made by humans in whatever time our culture and survival is here. It would not necessarily have to explain specifics any more than the laws of mathematics describe specifics, but every specific would have to be able to be reduced to this theory if it were to be a true theory of everything in my opinion. Every specific could be explained by following this theory and no theory could improve on it. Maybe that's too step for a practical theory of everything though, I don't know. Could be :).
Click to expand...


phyti said:
How would you know when you have discovered and have a complete understanding of 'everything'?
Click to expand...

When some theory is able to explain everything, i think it can be considered as "theory of everything". It can be a general theory also.
 
Farsight said:
That's a puff-piece, hansda. It's promotional material. Michael Duff is trying to "sell" M-theory to the public even though physicists have by and large rejected it.
Click to expand...

I think Michael Duff is just arguing about M-theory. Prof Hawking also supports M-theory as a "potential" for "theory of everything". Here is another link.

Because it doesn't predict anything. Or you can turn that on its head and say it predicts anything.
Click to expand...

Why M-theory is being considered as "potential" for "theory of everything"?

Nothing that's well developed. Not that I know about anyway. I used "Theory of Everything" as a subtitle for relativity+, which in hindsight was a mistake. It's too grandiose. Like Layman suggested, unified field theory is better.
Click to expand...

What is relativity+?

What is "unified field theory"?

How "unified field theory" is better than "theory of everything"?
 
Tenver said:
In my opinion a theory of everything would explain everything. It would be almost unimaginable large. Everything could be reduced to this theory. By this definition, we are quite far from one and I think it's very doubtful if one could ever be made by humans in whatever time our culture and survival is here. It would not necessarily have to explain specifics any more than the laws of mathematics describe specifics, but every specific would have to be able to be reduced to this theory if it were to be a true theory of everything in my opinion. Every specific could be explained by following this theory and no theory could improve on it. Maybe that's too step for a practical theory of everything though, I don't know. Could be :).
Click to expand...

I have developed a theory and this theory also can explain everything to some extent.
 
hansda said:
When some theory is able to explain everything, i think it can be considered as "theory of everything". It can be a general theory also.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. Unless you know there are no more undiscovered forces or particles or phenomena (such as dark matter, etc.), you can't call any theory a 'TOE'.
 
phyti said:
You miss the point.
Click to expand...

What point do you think i missed?

Unless you know there are no more undiscovered forces or particles or phenomena (such as dark matter, etc.), you can't call any theory a 'TOE'.
Click to expand...

Four forces of nature are already discovered. Do you mean there can be some fifth force?

As such discoveries are ongoing process. There always will be some scope for more discovery.
 
The thing is though , in order to get to theory of everything , I would think that it would take somebody and/or somebodies , to think out side the box
 
Thinking outside the box does no good at all unless you know what's in the box.
 
AlexG said:
Thinking outside the box does no good at all unless you know what's in the box.
Click to expand...

Of course which some do extremely well

They know the box and find that the box is limited in its understanding of what experiments present to us

Empirically
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top