Talk:Theory of everything/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Possibility of a TOE

Also, I can inform you that TOE (physics) actually is about a combination of QM and general relativity, so the fact that Alexander is a phenomenologist and instrumentalist is of no metaphysical meaning to this TOE page. But it might in fact be because of the lack of this TOE especially , that Mr. Gieg has developed these theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.140 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the name "Theory of Everything", at least as far as it's referring to a physical theory, is that it's imprecise. A more appropriate name would be, say "General Theory of All Physical Phenomena", or something like that. That's because Physics doesn't study "everything", only a subset of it. It doesn't study, for example, where Mathematics or Logics come from. For Physics, Mathematics and Logics are "givens", something that simply "is there", available for physicists to use.
As for a philosophical (metaphysical) "Theory of Everything", it's just impossible. The reason is simple: a "Theory of Everything", to really be "of everything", would have to be able to explain itself under its own terms. Now, a theory is, by definition, a formal construct. Being formal, it's dependent on a formal language. But Gödel has proved that no formal language can express itself. Thus, any "Theory of Everything" would necessarily lack at least its own explanation (and probably more), meaning it's not "of everything", but only, again, a theory describing a subset of "everything".
As for instrumentalism and phenomenology, those two aren't needed in the above argumentation, but I'll talk a little about both for the sake of completeness. They'd apply to the meaning of an hypothetical "General Theory of All Physical Phenomena". If such a theory came to exist, an instrumentalist would look at it and say: "It's cool indeed, but this doesn't change the fact that you don't know at all whether those beautiful mathematical entities the theory talks about, be them strings, aether, space-time distortions, quanta etc., are something that exists in reality, or whether they are just a clever way to describe with high precision, by way of unobservable fantasies that aid our reasoning but have no reality in and of themselves, all the macroscopic phenomena we actually observe."
A phenomenologist would add to this: "Not only what the instrumentalist says, but also no one can affirm there's a real world 'out there'. We have access only to sensory perceptions recombined by our minds into conceptual wholes we ordinarily call 'things', but are better called 'phenomena', to make it clear we're talking about things as perceptions, not things-in-themselves. Sure, we can study phenomena 'out there' as if they were real entities in themselves, but that's imprecise. In fact, what we're studying are our own perceptions, or as happens in the sciences, arbitrary formal constructs in correlation with these perceptions. As for the 'out there', meaning a space-time outside our perception, we cannot say anything about it, not even that it 'exists' in any meaningful sense of the word, except as the phenomenal background in which distinct phenomena develop. What's outside our perception or outside a formal system cannot be known. Only perceiveds, perception itself, and formality are known. And from these, only what's formal is scientific."
All sciences are de facto instrumentalist and phenomenological. It's lack of philosophical rigor that leads both scientists and common people to believe (and this is a pure belief) that science talks about concrete realities, not about formal systems built upon purely perceptual phenomena. Such a naive belief is a jump to conclusions, and jumping to conclusions is never scientific. -- alexgieg (talk)
Thank you for the clear insight. I think we both agree this pertains to TOE (philosophy). As such, that indeed has deep metaphysical issues. The only thing I can add to that is a quote from Albert E. himself;
"The eternal mystery of the world is it's comprehensibility", where one could in fact ask the question as to why, if it's not "REAL", why it all works out so beautifully? ( Not including any non-local theory ofcourse, this not being determinism)
So if Albert E. can't answer this question, I'm not even gonna try :)
But the objection still stands, that instrumentalism and phenemologism are only metaphysically prefferred, if science can't explain everything. But as SR states, a new macroscopic theory should indeed help with many such problems, maybe all problems, and for sure with problems imagined unexplainable such as 'immediatism' and 'over-unity', and how there are shapes and sizes ( info on how matter relates to energy )
Why the link of logic and mathmatics with 'realness' is not found is perhaps then more a problem of neuro-science, where conciousness and abstractability are closely related?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.83.20 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

More to the point even is one of the last sentences on this TOE (physics) page, if physicalism is true, a physical TOE would coincide with a philosophical theory of everything

Next to the fact that the author of SR is a software model engineer, and self-taught theorethical physicist, he is also a philosopher. One of the main physical implications of SR's correct metaphysical and mathmatical thought, is the non-existence of a vacuum. You know, a physical/metaphysical vacuum is where there is literally nothing there. One of the more famous metaphysically/mathmatically correct quotes of Mark Fiorentino is

"You cannot put something into nothing".

Think about that for a minute..

Thought about it?

This in itself implies a 5th dimension. It implies this dimension is solid (From What is outer space?) Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.83.20 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Journalism

A continuation of TOE science communcication, leaving from wiki/Talk:Theory_of_everything#TOE_science_communication where whe have left off

From Journalism Wikipedia:NOT#OR

Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.

Adding this primary reliable source as a reference would make wikipedia a secondary source not a primary source. Please get your facts straight.

So it's still about either adding an "invariant laws" piece as only a metaphysical piece, with either one of these references

Einstein letter to Felix Klein (A. Einstein)


or with this reference as to the current status in invariant laws

these would be then added to the recent addition


an addition with only a 'new laws' reference, without the current status reference would be outdated but still correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.83.20 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a news piece about the discovery of a new law, accepted as such by the scientific community, and a news piece about the opinion of an individual who believes he discovered a new law. I myself could invent a "new law" and manage to get some scientifically illiterate journalist publish a news piece about it in some secondary or tertiary generic and scientifically illiterate online news source.
Can you show some reliable scientific journal, say, Nature or PNAS, reporting on the discovery of this new law? If no, why not? -- alexgieg (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong in your premise. This is not about the new law, but all about the possibility thereof.

This should indeed be the question. Should it stand in between determinism and approximations?

For completeness sake; of course...

But indeed there would be a problem linking this kind of subtractive approach, which is in itself very referencable, to this news about a subtractive approach, as where there is no verifibility as to wether this is the subtractive approach mentioned in relativity. The only clue here available that it does abide to relativity laws, is that it's called

  • Super (SR) Relativity; where there is clear direction as to the extension within and to relativity, following "Lorentz",

In the "car fuel" article, a physicist reading invariance mechanics, would immediately think about Lorentz, within relativity

  • Objections against / "Lorentz" (A.Einstein); which says relativity is wide open to unite with "Lorentz". this for sure meaning the subtractive approach, because of the importance of Lorentz invariance in such a possibility, and the subsequent possibility of a 'new law' on it's own.

So these references would indeed have to be both included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.83.20 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For other references also see these googlepages --83.134.75.215 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A cookie

I will give a cookie to the first person who can point a mistake(-><-) on this phrase:

A theory of everything (TOE) is a hypothetical theory of theoretical physics

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.185.223 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's theory, so theoretical physics is a given! You can't mix hypothesis, which is proposed answer about something, as theory is much closer to a given answer, a solid guess!
It's a tautology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.12 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was saying that the theory of everything was just a theory. I chuckled when I read that. Hopefully I wasn't being silly and laughing at the wrong thing. :< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.25.220 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Everything is a name, a folder perhaps that contains all note able scientific contributions. every theory since man began to write. Theory of Everything should be call the Super Teacher, anyhow are everybodies theories correct? The scientific communities do not always agree, but will concurr on specific laws, and there applied sciences. Scientists have accumulated an atlas of experimentation since the early days of commercial and governmental development projects. That information is todays subject matter by a broader audience, as the interest and new discovery employs further quest to identify better with an experience life forms have come to cheerish honor and analyse to its foundations, It is the respect of posterities that we keep these special records and gifted contributions, for advancement. In the TOE multiple tables are availible to use as tools and guages like applied mathamatics one formula introduced with others to confirm or result. within this folder of applied mathimatics reside fundimental basic knowledge, revolutionary discover and unique insite BENEFITED by ageless curiosity driven by a sensation in the human apparatus to evolve. TOE is not the theory its the blackboard of our intuitions and what knowledge in our possesion available to confirm our hypothosis that will directly respond with predictions. Predictions require result, yet the scale of our predictions are no longer simple experimentation, When Einstien, predicted the bending of light, that prediction could only be observed outside our Planet. This was a monumental experiment, never been done before, His predictions needed multiple scientific disciplines in order to confirm and his prdiction eventually was cornfirmede with the help of photography and a solor eclipse in addition with some good nautical navagation, vuala, light was observed bending and confirmed by the community! So a theory of everything simply implies under this asumed name all related field of study are malgamated to support another potentially monumental prediction, That will be the theory. Also included are the very possibilities that a unifying theory will even exist, when and whats it's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.43.109 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, for one, that phrase should end in a period. Also, when defining a phrase, one should not use a word in that phrase to define it.24.243.103.249 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Combining the theories

Combining the elements, forces of the universe is impossible, even Einstein knew that...but did not say it publicly, he worked on it until the end of his life.

Theory of everything was possible when all the forces were held together at the beginning of time, since they split (after big bang, within our universe, not within multiverse where light did not reach us yet), atoms split and went their different aways, changed or combined into other forms, structures. I think theory of everything, something close to it is possible but not fully, mathematical formula would be complicated! {{{ BoxingWear - BWear - Miranda }}} (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Theory of everything is yet to be found. So, Wikipedia should use this page for allowing scientists to express their views freely; every view should be available for everyone to read; there should not be any deletions. And readers should give their feedback encouraging every attempt if it is correct. One such theory has been formulated by me, but peer-reviewed journals are afraid of their prestige,learned referees lack courage to take risk; and so the scientific community is being deprived of the right theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.99.11 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Force

Shouldn't the nuclear force be on the breakdown chart below Strong Force ? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The nuclear force is the strong force (aka the strong nuclear force). PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I cannot get my head around how all the sciences are intrarelated in there language of communicating, intuitivly I imagine the theory of everything will have too bring together the reletive formulation in overlay of data,they would in that case require symatrial metre, this would require more intelectual resorces than i have too bring too bear on this topic,but considering history ,the tower of baael comes too mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munkey corpse (talkcontribs) 16:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Four radical routes to a theory of everything. New Scientist.

Here is an interesting article:

"Four radical routes to a theory of everything." 02 May 2008 by Amanda Gefter. New Scientist. Magazine issue 2654.

Full article:

Here is another article:

"Our world may be a giant hologram." 15 January 2009 by Marcus Chown. New Scientist. Magazine issue 2691. Full article:

I don't pretend to understand either article. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is another related article:

"How to map the multiverse". May 4, 2009 by Anil Ananthaswamy. New Scientist. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

теория ЭМР (Электромагнитного резонанса) вращающихся масс на примере планета Земля.

Теория единого поля как частный случай теории ЭМР ,расчет частотного спектра геомагнитного поля ядра земли и его строение.

  ядро земли и мониторинг землетрясений
 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2605&start=195
 http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=49543&st=0

cтроение земли

 http://forum.web.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2599

Или альтернативная физика ,от автора ,имеющая перспективу : - при освоении дальнего космоса(передвижение со скоростями , близкими к скоростям света). - генерции энергии - мониторинг ЗМТ. - создание ЧД(пространства , невидимым локаторами). - управление сознанием и т.д. и т.п. авторский алгоритм , советую просмотреть. от автора Арсеньева А.А. Россия Приморский край г.Арсеньев —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.102.37.96 (talk) on 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as translation utilities can tell me, this appears to be a personal fringe theory based on an analogy with electromagnetism, and the supporting links provided are discussion forums. Material in this article should be based on sources that satisfy WP:RS, and should already be recognized to some degree by the scientific community (per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Godel's Theorem

Godel's Theorem makes use of the fact that an infinite series of steps or statements cannot be formally proven within a formal logic, as the practicality of independent verification is sadly wanting. Thus, its fundamental relationship to Cantor's Diaganol slash, in which it seems intuitive to conclude that the suggested conclusion is true, because the premises are so straight-forward, but a formal proof would require not only a) the soundness of the start, and b) the soundness of the recursive step by itself, but further c) that the recursive step be applied infinitely, until a qualitative transformation results from the infinite quantity.

(A. a finite list of numbers, arranged in a grid, B. a sample taken at a diagonal through the grid, and added as a new number to the list, or tacking on additional digits as necessary, C. that a new number can be generated in all finite samples until the list created is an infinite list of numbers each with infinite digits)

Thus, one solution that presents itself is to decide if this and other infinite-regress arguments can be accepted as true, by the introduction of a new principle, without rendering obviously (and not-so-obviously) false statements to be so "proven" as valid within the resulting system. --65.37.105.102 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) TheLastWordSword--65.37.105.102 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Even such a solution would not invalidate the proof in the larger sense, that a formal system can, and must, fail to prove its own validity. Why this might imply that human beings cannot ultimately understand the physical universe, however, seems unclear to me. It means only that human beings can never prove the "validity" of human reasoning in total, which is far different from proving the validity of human reasoning concerning the laws of physics. If I ask you "What do you know of physics?", the answer can be valid or invalid. If I ask you "Why do you bother to study such an esoteric and useless subject as physics at all?" the nature of the answer is likely to be far different (!!!) but ultimately, there is no formally valid answer to offer. (Much to our shared dismay.) --TheLastWordSword (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Godel's Theorem applies not to 'underlying rules' or axioms but rather to formulae derived many iterations down the line. Of course the initial axioms would be consistent. Thus there is no 'definitional' explanation for the difference of opinion among physicists on TOE and Godel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.58.46 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Phrase "Theory of Everything"

The article states that the term "Theory of Everything" was coined by John Ellis in 1986. If you look at that letter in Nature, John Ellis says: "Less seriously, I plead guilty to coining TOE as a non-anatomical acronym for Theory of Everything in an article that appeared in Nature (323, 595–598; 1986)." He is claiming responsibility for the acronym, not the phrase itself, and he's not very serious. mahaabaala (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)



Theory of everythingTheory of EverythingRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC) ToE is almost universally capitalized in any physics textbooks and publications (plus the usual abbreviation is ToE, and not TOE). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per nom 64.229.101.17 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose though I don't feel terribly strongly about it. I don't see how it's a proper noun (there could in principle be more than one such theory, that made the same predictions) and the general Wikipedia style is to be spare with upper case. I suspect the capitals in the literature relate to the tongue-in-cheek origins of the phrase. --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really. It's like "Grand Unified/Unification Theory" or "Theory of Evolution" etc... It does not refer to a theory of everything, but rather the "theory of everything", hence "Theory of Everything" and not "theory of everything", in exactly the same way GUT does not refer to a grand unified theory, but the "grand unified theory" hence "Grand Unified Theory". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly sure I'm used to seeing theory of evolution in minuscule rather than caps. I think caps would look a bit strange, frankly. --Trovatore (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
        • It depends on whether you are referring to evolutionary theory "i.e. the theory of evolution" or the "Theory of Evolution". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, no, actually it doesn't. I would find Theory of Evolution strange-looking for either meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, yes, actually it does. Ask any biologist worth their salt out there. Alternatively, you can check out some books about the language of science, such as this. Lowercase "theory" means the details of it, uppercase "Theory" refers to the whole framework. (P.S., no point in me asking this to them again, I already did.)Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
              • You ask 'em. I think you're wrong. The first couple pages of Google hits confirms. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Compare General relativity and Special relativity, both of which also refer to specific models and are occasionally, but not usually, capitalized. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Core ideas of a TOE

For the infinite divisibility of everything, the concept of elementary particle in recent physics should be eliminated and repalced with the concept of "material point". Similarly, in mathematics, we use "point" to define everything like line and plane. As for physical process, the elementary unit should be the encounter of two material points. Thus, the fundamental principle is: When two objects can be treated as two material points, they will combine to a single material point when encountered, and its velocity will be

With this principle, everything could be described in infinite precision, in theory. Nightingale.zj (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Cookie

The following sentence doesn't make sense.

Many candidate theories of everything have been proposed by theoretical physicists during the twentieth century, but none have been confirmed experimentally.

You can never confirm a theory experimentally. You can only disprove it.

So, I would suggest something like

Many candidate theories of everything have been proposed by theoretical physicists during the twentieth century, but all of them have been have been disproven.

The problem is that I don't know if this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.138.62 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Foundation of Theory of Everything

A research article has been published in the journal Indian Journal of Science & Technology & is available on www.indjst.org. The theory presents a different perspective of existence of matter, time, space & radiation besides almost proves the existence of aether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.190.171 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is not about the latest paper on TOE

It's about well established approaches that have been discussed by the scientific community, not about everyone who writes a paper or a book somewhere, especially if it isn't even published. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Foundation of Theory of Everything (Only written material without mathematical formulae & figures)

Sorry for the new post above previous one. This write up while having merit, sets a definite tone as Philosophy. And by nature is to complex for inclusion in this article as content. I appreciate the time and effort it took, yet, I did not take the time to read it in its' entirety. The text cites too many conjectural authorities as references, for demonstrations. This provides a lack of focus. Demonstration must be valid in the argument itself, without requiring the reader to brush up with Aristotle, Descartes, or any other researchers ideas. It needs to stand up on its' own merit in other words. Please don't be offended, the content is well written and may be of value, I wish the writer well and hope he can find a vehicle to present his ideas to interested parties. Jeffrey mcmahan (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a copyvio of the paper at this URL, there's no need to quote it in full on this talk page. I've removed it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Candidate Theories

I'm somehow missing a list of current approaches towards a ToE. I found a recent overview in these slides:

If someone with a little more background could incorporate this list into the article, I'd find that a significant improvement, even though these approaches surely have very different ambitions regarding their explanatory power. I'm not even sure though if my links are always pointing to the right article and even though there is the article Physics beyond the Standard Model, I could not find any list such as the above anywhere on Wikipedia. --Mudd1 (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

/* Alternate Mathematics */ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beercandyman (talkcontribs) 21:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I'd like to point out that Gödel had the incompleteness theorem and the completeness theorem. I believe that most of the problems in reconciling QM and GR is using the wrong number system. We currently use Real numbers but Real number have infinity embedded in their definition. Real number are continuous and yet continuity is not needed compactness is. I define "C" (capital C) equal to the largest number you will need not equal to infinity. For example if you talk about all the undividable quanta in the universe it does not make sense to speak of all the quanta plus one. The rational numbers seem a better choice. If you pick a finite number set to describe the mathematics of physics then Gödel's completeness says you can have a theory of everything.

Another interesting thought is that there could be only 3 1/2 dimensions. Since no one has ever seen or measured anything going backwards in time, time would be a half dimension. I note that string theory only uses integer dimensions and yet if you imagine a compact universe instead of a continuous one fractional dimensions would seem natural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beercandyman (talkcontribs) 21:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)