Let's just drop the Theory of Everything... down the lift!

[Rosanella]

Is this a sign that Scientists have reached exasperation or are they onto something?

Left-click here-->Scientists Drop Theory of Everything Down Elevator Shaft | LiveScience

What I don't quite understand, is why do we need a 'theory of everything'?

If the Universe is more of a 'multi-verse', then we might just need to put up with theories applicable do different circumstances, different physical realms that is. Just like we have Newton Laws that we can apply to motion in straight line and some circular motion, and then we have Einstein theory when it comes to particles, energy and so on and so forth.

[Budding Star Gazer]

at a guess i'd say scientists need a theory of everything so they can fit all those questions they cant answer into a nice little package, like dark energy how do they know its there has buzz lightyear just got back from a 350000 year round trip with a sample lol

and as for down the lift shaft give the poor guys a break its more technical than off a roof

[brianb]

What I don't quite understand, is why do we need a 'theory of everything'?

Why not? It's so messy having different theories for different scales ...

[ronin]

The scales appear to be the large and the small so not really so many. Also we assume that what we know now is everything.

Chances are very great that we still have a lot to learn on all scales. so we simply do not have all the information yet.

Seems that until just a few years ago the expansion rate and acceleration of the universe was wrong before evidence was found to contradict the then believed state.

Had a talk where it was pointed out that 2 very fundimental properties of the universe we had one wrong until 12 years ago and the other a bit less then 10 years. So since then many things have changed.

How long since dark matter became common in astronomy? After that is dark energy which made it's appearance later still. Is there something else out there? or two somethings, or three , or.........

We have a LOT to learn and understand.

Equally I recall that years ago the question was: Is there a theory of everything. Sometimes it seems that having asked is there? we have assumed that there is.

[brianb]

I recall that years ago the question was: Is there a theory of everything.

Aww c'mon ... even fundamentalist religions claim there is a theory of everything ...

[Macavity]

I suspect there has always been (will always be) a motivation for "unification" of theories. These can lead to simplification... perhaps even prediction and confirmation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

It seems quite a while since we had much of the latter though...

[Rosanella]

Why not? It's so messy having different theories for different scales ...

True, but we might just have to deal with it because the Universe is not square, triangle or even a sphere as we know it. In fact, we're not sure, we don't actually know....

By all means, let's explore as long as we're not getting detracted from 'other' possibilities that might actually be out there. Physics books will keep growing in size .... that is the direct consequence of discovery and exploration.

Aww c'mon ... even fundamentalist religions claim there is a theory of everything ...

In my humble opinion, the reason behind fundamentalist religions believing in a theory of everything it is purely because they support the theistic principle of the 'all unifying and creating force they call 'God'. Then if looking for a 'theory of everything' is looking for 'God' , well, are we sure that there's only 1 God? (and what about a Goddess anyway? ... ) And who created God in the first place?

But do we want to got there?....

Enough with my ramblings...this machine crashed as I was typing so I better stop

[ollypenrice]

True, but we might just have to deal with it because the Universe is not square, triangle or even a sphere as we know it. In fact, we're not sure, we don't actually know....

By all means, let's explore as long as we're not getting detracted from 'other' possibilities that might actually be out there. Physics books will keep growing in size .... that is the direct consequence of discovery and exploration.

In my humble opinion, the reason behind fundamentalist religions believing in a theory of everything it is purely because they support the theistic principle of the 'all unifying and creating force they call 'God'. Then if looking for a 'theory of everything' is looking for 'God' , well, are we sure that there's only 1 God? (and what about a Goddess anyway? ... ) And who created God in the first place?

But do we want to got there?....

Enough with my ramblings...this machine crashed as I was typing so I better stop

Do we want to go there? I do, but it ain't allowed!

I wouldn't want to give the theory of everything a hard time. Looking for it is something we do because the history of science is also the history of simplification, unification and generalization. The search for a TOE is likely to improve smaller scale theories or open new investigative directions. It is hard and it is speculative, which is healthy.

One or two posts here seem, as usual, to accuse scientists of thinking they know everything. I have no idea where this comes from because they simply don't think that. Science is a culture of doubt, which is why it is different from... other sytems of... you know! Belief.

Olly

[Psychobilly]

I for one am quite happy to accept the universe for what it is ... a pretty nice place to take some "ooh aah" pics of from time to time...

I leave the "BIG" Science and theologoical thinking to those who want or feel the need to do it...

I find my TOE's on the end of my feet... I guess in the context of this thread it was just another one of those convenient TLA's we all love....

Peter...

[Rosanella]

...

We have a LOT to learn and understand.

...

We'll never stop, I hope...

....I guess in the context of this thread it was just another one of those convenient TLA's we all love....

Peter...

I'm sorry Peter, what is a TLA?

Do we want to go there? I do, but it ain't allowed!

I wouldn't want to give the theory of everything a hard time. Looking for it is something we do because the history of science is also the history of simplification, unification and generalization. The search for a TOE is likely to improve smaller scale theories or open new investigative directions. It is hard and it is speculative, which is healthy.

One or two posts here seem, as usual, to accuse scientists of thinking they know everything. I have no idea where this comes from because they simply don't think that. Science is a culture of doubt, which is why it is different from... other sytems of... you know! Belief.

Olly

I have not noticed accusations, rather a debate. That too is healthy.

[George Jones]

I'm sorry Peter, what is a TLA.

TOE is an example of a TLA, a Three-Letter Acronym.

[brianb]

TLA, a Three-Letter Acronym.

Also XTLA - extended three letter acronym; VLTLA - very long three letter acronym ...

[Rosanella]

TOE is an example of a TLA, a Three-Letter Acronym.

Also XTLA - extended three letter acronym; VLTLA - very long three letter acronym ...

I see...Thank you both for clarifying

Apologies, I have a natural disdain for abbreviated words so I'm not very updated on the latest acronyms.

[ollypenrice]

A natural disdain for abbreviated words? I'm impressed! The French don't do as much abbreviating as we do, I notice, and my friends Jean-Pierre and Marie-Jo call each other Jean-Pierre and Marie-Jo, which an English couple surely wouldn't do. They do sometimes call each other other things but those are even longer...

Back on the TOE, I think one interesting thing here is that the history of science is now feeding back into the practise of science. It might not have occurred to early natural philosophers to look for unifying theories but now it does because, with hindsight, we have learned that many theories have advanced by being generalized.

History may not be bunk after all.

Olly

[brianb]

They do sometimes call each other other things but those are even longer...

A different TOE - terms of endearment?

[toml42]

Is this a sign that Scientists have reached exasperation or are they onto something?

Left-click here-->Scientists Drop Theory of Everything Down Elevator Shaft | LiveScience

What I don't quite understand, is why do we need a 'theory of everything'?

If the Universe is more of a 'multi-verse', then we might just need to put up with theories applicable do different circumstances, different physical realms that is. Just like we have Newton Laws that we can apply to motion in straight line and some circular motion, and then we have Einstein theory when it comes to particles, energy and so on and so forth.

actually, it turns out that most of Newtons laws are generalisations of Einsteins. despite being technically wrong, we still use and teach them because for everyday use they're so close to the correct answer that it doesn't matter, and Einsteins equations can be horrendously complicated.

I highly expect it's the same case with Einsteins laws. They could be a generalisation of some theory yet undiscovered, yet we'll keep using it regardless, because it's 'good enough' for all but the most extreme cases. maybe if we're lucky, this higher theory will unify Einsteins laws with other branches of physics, that'd be lovely because it would simplify everything a lot! no rule saying it's the case though.

and this in turn might be a simplification of some yet higher theory...

what keeps me up at night though, is how could we ever know when the succession of generalisations and simplifications ends? does ultimate truth even exist? could we comprehend it? how would we even know when we got there? if our generalised theories get so accurate that we can find no difference, does it even matter?

[ollypenrice]

I think tom142 and I are just using 'generalizied' in a different way from each other. I would call Einstein's mechanics more 'general' than Newton's because they will work in a wider range of circumstances. Even as locally as Mercury, Newton's are breaking down.

I absolutely agree that a wider theory (to coin a neutral term!) is likely to come along. However, if it takes another 250 years it will be a bit late for me (at 57) which is a shame. I'd love to know what it will be.

It's worth noting that Newton himself was far from happy with his theory of gravity, implying instantaneous action at a distance - something he considered absurd. We see with hindsight that he was already looking in the right direction for the next theory, since GR does away with instananeous action at a distance. (The curvature of spacetime already exists around a planet before another body even approaches it.)

To stop looking for the greater theory is to stop doing science and we wouldn't want to do that! But to believe that one day there will be a complete explanation of everything is to fail in humility and we wouldn't want to do the either. For me, science is a celebration of the unknown even more than of the known. It is a way of coming, in a well informed way, into contact with the great mystery of our being in the certain knowledge that the mystery will not be solved.

Olly

[brianb]

Even as locally as Mercury, Newton's are breaking down.

If you think 0.43 arc seconds per annum is "breaking down". It's perfectly adequate for approximate calculations of the sort that most engineers need to make, even for shooting spacecraft around the solar system at speeds similar to Mercury's. Fact of the matter is, our observations are inaccurate enough that planetary slingshot manoeuvres can be planned using Newtonian gravitational theory but simply cannot be applied without a closed loop feedback mechanism - the corrections applied are far more to cope with the orbits not being known well enough in advance than they are to do with Newtonian gravitation being a simplification.

Also the computations involved in General Relativity are so complex that applying them to every day problems is simply unjustifiable - however there is no realistic option when e.g. modelling the collision of two neutron stars, especially if they happen to be rotating at different rates and/or with unaligned axes.

HHGG: "There is a theory which states that if anyone manages to work out how the universe works and what it is for, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely complicated". Again, inaccurate in a very real sense, but nevertheless a good enough model of the progression of theoretical physics for most purposes.

[toml42]

HHGG: "There is a theory which states that if anyone manages to work out how the universe works and what it is for, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely complicated". Again, inaccurate in a very real sense, but nevertheless a good enough model of the progression of theoretical physics for most purposes.

ha ha, i like that, reminds me of the different stages of science education i've been through.

when i got to uni, the first thing they told us was "ok, so pretty much everything you know is wrong..."

[ollypenrice]

If you think 0.43 arc seconds per annum is "breaking down". It's perfectly adequate for approximate calculations of the sort that most engineers need to make, even for shooting spacecraft around the solar system at speeds similar to Mercury's.

.

Brian, sure, 0.43 arcsecs is small and in a thread about applied science you'd be right to accuse me of nit-picking. However, I think that in a discussion about the generalizing of theories in the history of science the resolution of the anomalous perihelion of Mercury has its place, no? It is a credit to the skills of the observers and the instruments that they made that this anomaly could be detected at all in a pre-eletronic age so I'm not belittling applied science either!

Olly

[brianb]

I think that in a discussion about the generalizing of theories in the history of science the resolution of the anomalous perihelion of Mercury has its place, no?

Sure ... but for me the classic experimental verification of General Relativity is the 1919 solar eclipse imaging experiment, showing the position of stars modified by the Sun's gravitational field ... modified by the politics of an "English" experiment confirming a "German" theory in the light of the then very recent "war to end all wars".

[ollypenrice]

Sure ... but for me the classic experimental verification of General Relativity is the 1919 solar eclipse imaging experiment, showing the position of stars modified by the Sun's gravitational field ... modified by the politics of an "English" experiment confirming a "German" theory in the light of the then very recent "war to end all wars".

Yes, the political context is powerful. Of course GR and E equalling MC squared would later appear as a 'Jewish Theory' in a subsequent kerfuffle... Hitler wanted his physicists to make an atom bomb without it. Funny in a hollow kind of way.

I did read that modern re-evaluation of Eddington's observations concluded that the error estimates in his mesurements were too optimistic and that he didn't really confirm GR after all. Whether this is true or not I don't know. I won't let it worry me either way. The history is the history.

Olly

[Psychobilly]

ha ha, i like that, reminds me of the different stages of science education i've been through.

when i got to uni, the first thing they told us was "ok, so pretty much everything you know is wrong..."

And then when you come out into the real world... you will often find 90% or more of what you learnt is useless for practical purposes ... and approximations and rules of thumb re-appear...

Peter...

[brianb]

And then when you come out into the real world... you will often find 90% or more of what you learnt is useless for practical purposes ... and approximations and rules of thumb re-appear...

Yeah, that's the problem with capitalism - it encourages you to do the shoddiest job that someone will pay you for

[FraserClarke]

And then when you come out into the real world... you will often find 90% or more of what you learnt is useless for practical purposes ...

"Physics always wins"

might take a while to get there for practical purposes -- but physics always wins in the end