Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There is no theory of everything

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 02:08 AM
Original message
There is no theory of everything
A couple of unrelated articles.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/setting-the-record-straight-no-simple-theory-of-everything.ars

Setting the record straight: no simple theory of everything
By Matt Ford | Last updated March 31, 2010 9:39 PM

A bit over two years ago, news sources and science blogs lit up when a pre-print paper from Dr. A. Garrett Lisi came to light that proposed a novel theory of everything—one theory that accurately describes all four of the universes fundamental forces. Current theories have demonstrated that three of the four fundamental forces and their associated particles can all be obtained from different symmetry operations (think rotations and reflections) of an algebraic group called a Lie group The pre-print, hosted by the on-line repository arXiv, proposed that, within the complicated symmetry group E8, all four forces of nature could be described and united.

The hype that ensued ensured that a search for the term "surfer physicist" now leads to press stories about Lisi's ideas, and spawned an entire Wikipedia entry for the paper alone. As an engineer who specializes in theoretical work, it seemed to me to be a case of "give me enough parameters and I can fit a horse." Our in-Orbiting Headquarters physicist, Dr. Chris Lee, described it as solid, but noted it had some serious shortcomings.

In the intervening years, the paper—to the best of my knowledge and research ability—has not made it through peer-review to publication. A new paper, set to be published in an upcoming edition of Communications in Mathematical Physics, formally addresses the idea, and not only finds that Lisi's specific theory falls short, but that no theory based on the E8 symmetry group can possibly be a "Theory of Everything."

The new paper, which is also freely available as a preprint through the arXiv, is highly technical and lays out its case as a proof to a mathematical problem that attempts to define the criteria for a valid theory of everything. The authors begin by laying out three key criteria that a pair of subgroups on a Lie group must have in order to be a 'Theory of Everything.' The first is a trivial, yet purely mathematical, restriction that must hold true between the chosen sub-groups. The second is that the model cannot contain any "'exotic' higher-order spin particles." The final issue is that the gauge theory employed in our group must be chiral—a limitation dictated by the existing Standard Model.

<snip>


http://thedartmouth.com/2010/04/16/news/Gleiser

‘Theory of Everything’ cannot be found, professor says
Marcelo Gleiser, whose book, “A Tear at the Edge of Creation,” was recently published, spoke on Thursday.
Ashley Mitchell / The Dartmouth Staff
By Grace Afsari Mamagani, The Dartmouth Staff
Published on Friday, April 16, 2010

The age-old scientific and philosophical search for a unifying theory of nature fails to acknowledge the limitations of the scientific process and the asymmetry of natural phenomena, physics and astronomy professor Marcelo Gleiser writes in his new book, “A Tear at the Edge of Creation: A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe.” Beginning with the foundations of philosophy, Western culture has attempted to identify the fundamental substance of the universe and a single explanation for all that exists, Gleiser said during a public lecture in Wilder Hall Thursday evening.

The patriarchs of modern science — including Galileo, Kepler and Newton — adopted the Pythagorean ideal of a geometrical explanation for universal phenomena, according to Gleiser. In the 20th century, scientists such as Schrodinger and Heisenberg continued the search for this “theory of everything,” which is pursued today by superstring theorists, he said.

The research aiming to discover this “final theory” is misguided, Gleiser said, because such a theory can never be verified. Although scientists can develop a theory that incorporates all presently known phenomena, their scope of knowledge is limited by the range of current instruments and observations. Other phenomena that are not yet detectable may disprove the theory, Gleiser said.

<snip>

“The main theme of the book is that science and philosophy have been looking or courting the wrong muse,” Gleiser said in the interview. “Instead of looking for this perfect, old-fashioned aesthetic of science called beauty, why not look at the imperfect?”

<snip>

The rarity of intelligent life and the “beauty” of asymmetry — already glorified in modern and postmodern art and literature — supports a new kind of anthropocentrism, according to Gleiser.

“We have a new mission to be the guardians of life, and not the destroyers,” Gleiser said. “It’s definitely empowering. If there is hope for humanity, it is for finding a common goal.”


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sure there is...they are looking at it the wrong way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. How do you know what you claim to know?
How do you know that there's a theory of everything that presumably has yet to be discovered? How do you know that those investigating are going about it the wrong way?

How do you know that the most accurate picture of the Universe isn't multiple theories describing separate phenomena?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. logic/reason sez there must be a TOE.... if scientists haven't figuredit out yet...they looking at
it wrong.....

E = T(space)(mass)(S)

Evolution

Time

Singularity

mass = geo/bio

Evolution is Time, etc

accounts for all levels of polyverses

and differing structures shapes and pulses

GUT + TOE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Uh huh.
As long as that's a coherent argument in your head, I'll leave you be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I noe, it takes Time and Practice....peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. I thought this one was interesting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yet that in itself is a sort of ToE. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mochajava666 Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. According to Walter from the Big Lebowski
You want a TOE? I can get you a TOE, believe me. There are ways, Dude...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. The term "theory of everything" bugs me.
It's a unified theory of the basic constituents of the universe, but not all phenomena can be reduced to physics. Things like like Life, Natural Selection, Society, etc. are emergent phenomena that, although dependent on physics for their existence, follow their own laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. The reason there will never be a theory of everything
Edited on Wed May-05-10 06:02 PM by bananas
If you have a theory expressed as a finite set of statements, then there are statements which can be either true or false without contradicting the theory, the only way to know is to perform an experiment. Stephen Hawking finally realized this around 2002:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/

Stephen Hawking
"Gödel and the end of physics"

<snip>

Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true.Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Goedel's theorem.This says that any finite system of axyoms, is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.

<snip>

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.wIthout it, we would stagnate. Goedels theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians.I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

Thank you for listening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. You want a ToE? I can get you a ToE
Believe me, there are ways, Dude. You don't want to know about it, believe me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mochajava666 Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Well played. Beat me to that one.
I was a little slow whipping out my Big Lebowski. Until the next TOE reference, see you around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Catch ya later on down the trail.
:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. But there is a fact of everything.
Make that THE fact of everything.

Fortunately, it's self-evident, so I don't have to worry my purdy little head over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 08th 2024, 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC