Thread: Unification theory

Will einsteins unification theory of everything ever be proven within our life time?

Einstein had no Grand Unification Theory (GUT) aka Theory of Everything (TOE). In 1955, he died before developing one. When you consider that he developed his classic Theory of Gravitation (aka General Relativity) in 1916, he worked for nearly 40 years to develop a quantum theory of gravitation without success. Today, scientists are still working nearly 95 years after the development of the classical Theory of Gravitation to develop the quantum theory. Will they do it in our lifetime?

They could do it tomorrow. They could also fail for the next 95 years. Who knows? It is important to have a little background.

Einstein's Theory of Gravitation is the first theory in the history of mankind that was developed without the benefit of experimental evidence. The Theory of Gravitation was guided by the Equivalence Principle, which was no more than an idea of how things probably work. Make no mistake--Einstein's Theory of Gravitation was later verified by physical evidence. His Theory of Special Relativity was exactly the opposite. At its heart, the Theory of Special Relativity says that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant of nature and the same in all reference frames. Well, this was a experimental finding by the Michelson-Morley experiment in Michelson and Morley's search for the luminiferous aether. Einstein merely converted an experimental finding by Michelson and Morley into the basis of his new theory.

My own personal opinion is that a quantum theory of gravity will require a new (and possibly very simple) paradigm shift. Special Relativity is based on a very simple principle, the universality of the speed of light in a vacuum. General Relativity is based on a different (albeit more mathematically intense) but simple paradigm, the Equivalence Principle. The current candidates for the Quantum Theory of Gravitation are not based on simple assumptions. To the contrary, they are rather complex. I believe that the TOE will be developed when a new Einstein steps back and looks at the forest rather than the trees.

Sean Carroll of Caltech states "Gravity is not a force." John Wheeler says "there are no fields, there are no particles, there is only information." Yet people insist on inventing spin foams and the most outrageously contrived ideas. This needs to be de-funded. [1001.0785] On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

... This needs to be de-funded. ...

That is a prescription for ignorance in perpetuity. Many ideas that are commonly accepted today were outrages when they were proposed.

All great ideas begin as blastphemies.
--George Bernard Shaw (1919)

There are already several GUTs that support current scientific observation. The problem is that many of the predictions made by these theories can not be verified with current technologies or energy availoability.

There are also many current scientific observations that evade any known theoretical solutions. So when you state "current scientific observation," as a singular noun, what exactly do you mean? If you mean the collective of all current scientific observations, do please list these GUTs along with the observations they support.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

There are also many current scientific observations that evade any known theoretical solutions.

Of course, we can only hope we never run out of things that we don't understand.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

So when you state "current scientific observation," as a singular noun, what exactly do you mean?

I mean the collective of all current scientific observations, things that we know are true based on the measurable quantities, those things which are apparent from direct observation. I mean that at their theorems (true statements within the model) are derived from observable truths.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

If you mean the collective of all current scientific observations, do please list these GUTs along with the observations they support.

The observations they support are too numerous to mention, because theories which contradict natural observation don't get much attention. The problem is that any theory must make predictions which can then be verified by checking the values derived from the theorems against observed values. For example, Newtonian gravitation was accepted for a long time, but when the ability of scientists to precisely measure astronomical phenomena increased, inconsistencies became apparent (the perihelion advance of orbiting bodies, namely Mercury, is an example).

Some examples of GUTs which support the collective of all current scientific observations are String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and (my favorite, as a budding mathematician) Garret Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".

The problem with these theories is not that they do not support the collective of all current scientific observations; they do this very well (that's why we have not yet thrown them away). The problem is that the power of a theory is in its ability to make predictions of values of things which we have not yet measured, and the predictions made by these theories for values that we are as of yet unable to observe are not yet verifiable.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

That is a prescription for ignorance in perpetuity. Many ideas that are commonly accepted today were outrages when they were proposed.

All great ideas begin as blastphemies.
--George Bernard Shaw (1919)

When facing such silly statements, I let the sillyness of Nobel Laureates respond. In this case, I'll let Feynman respond retort:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

"One time I was in the men's room of the bar and there was a guy at the urinal. He was kind of drunk, and said to me in a mean-sounding voice, "I don't like your face. I think I'll push it in."
I was scared green. I replied in an equally mean voice, "Get out of my way, or I'll pee right through ya!"

"There’s a certain irrationality to any work on quantum gravitation, so
it’s hard to explain why you do any of it ... It is therefore clear that the
problem we working on is not the correct problem."

"Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific."

Originally Posted by ADH

Of course, we can only hope we never run out of things that we don't understand.



I mean the collective of all current scientific observations, things that we know are true based on the measurable quantities, those things which are apparent from direct observation. I mean that at their theorems (true statements within the model) are derived from observable truths.




The observations they support are too numerous to mention, because theories which contradict natural observation don't get much attention. The problem is that any theory must make predictions which can then be verified by checking the values derived from the theorems against observed values. For example, Newtonian gravitation was accepted for a long time, but when the ability of scientists to precisely measure astronomical phenomena increased, inconsistencies became apparent (the perihelion advance of orbiting bodies, namely Mercury, is an example).

Some examples of GUTs which support the collective of all current scientific observations are String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and (my favorite, as a budding mathematician) Garret Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".

The problem with these theories is not that they do not support the collective of all current scientific observations; they do this very well (that's why we have not yet thrown them away). The problem is that the power of a theory is in its ability to make predictions of values of things which we have not yet measured, and the predictions made by these theories for values that we are as of yet unable to observe are not yet verifiable.

So the thing about a GUT is that it has to unify something. There are 5 ununified string theories...not a GUT. LQG cannot reproduce the entropy of a black hole unless you explicitly artificially set a parameter to match the truth, and it has not been shown to be renormalizable...not a GUT. Lisi isn't even peer reviewed so I won't even waste my time pointing out the idiocy of that man...not a GUT.

By current scientific observations, I mean:

Why the 1% muon antimuon asymmetry at Fermilab? The cosmological calculations from 2006 said the matter antimatter asymmetry in the early universe is only around 6x10^-9. When you're 9 orders of magnitude off, you need to explain it right away. There exist no known explanations.

Why did the proton shrink at LHC? I mean, slow down man, we don't even understand QCD...let's put the spin foams on hold.

Why mass vs flavor, 3 families, and the CKM matrix?

Where's the Higgs anyway? We were supposed to find it a long time ago.

Do gravitational waves exist or not? If you don't know, stop making models of gravity. Seriously, we have no data yet to model.

What's the deal with the Hierarchy problem?? And the Cosmological Constant problem??

Where's a model that explains nonlocal entanglement??

None of your "GUTs" address any of these problems. These are the current observations of physics. I seriously don't understand what you think the observations string theory, LQG, and E8 support.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

When facing such silly statements, I let the sillyness of Nobel Laureates respond. In this case, I'll let Feynman respond retort:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

"One time I was in the men's room of the bar and there was a guy at the urinal. He was kind of drunk, and said to me in a mean-sounding voice, "I don't like your face. I think I'll push it in."
I was scared green. I replied in an equally mean voice, "Get out of my way, or I'll pee right through ya!"

"There’s a certain irrationality to any work on quantum gravitation, so
it’s hard to explain why you do any of it ... It is therefore clear that the
problem we working on is not the correct problem."

"Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific."

How does any of those statements justify cutting off funds for research?

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

Sean Carroll of Caltech states "Gravity is not a force." John Wheeler says "there are no fields, there are no particles, there is only information." Yet people insist on inventing spin foams and the most outrageously contrived ideas. This needs to be de-funded. [1001.0785] On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

All you are doing is ranting and raving about who knows what. This is a discussion forum. All you are doing is dropping quotes out of context and references in support of no particular point. Would you like to contribute to the forum or are you content for the other members of this forum to continue to scratch their heads in response to your posts?