Theory of Everything

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by hansda, Jul 26, 2013.

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    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"?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,426
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tenver Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  8. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    256
    How would you know when you have discovered and have a complete understanding of 'everything'?
     
  9. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    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.

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

    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.
     
  10. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    "Relativity+", your masterpiece of crackpottery, Duffield.
     
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    What is the difference between "M-theory" and "Loop quantum gravity"?


    Why both these theories are considered as "potential" for "theory of everything"?
     
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    What is Sean Carroll PhD's equation, you are talking about?


    What is the debate about "theory of everything"?
     
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182

    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.
     
  14. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    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.

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

    What is relativity+?

    What is "unified field theory"?

    How "unified field theory" is better than "theory of everything"?
     
  15. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,426
  16. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    I have developed a theory and this theory also can explain everything to some extent.
     
  17. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    No point in just saying it, show us.
     
  18. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    This theory which i developed is: "Every action has got an unique technique.".
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  19. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    256
    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'.
     
  20. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,182
    What point do you think i missed?

    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.
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    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
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Thinking outside the box does no good at all unless you know what's in the box.
     
  23. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    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
     

Share This Page