The Grand Theory of Everything

[DaveS]

I always wonder where science will eventually lead... At the mo it is rather strange actually! You have physics which is pointing towards God (in my view), you have biologists that are pointing away from God and you have Chemistry that is split down the middle!

 

[RoboMastodon]

I always wonder where science will eventually lead... At the mo it is rather strange actually! You have physics which is pointing towards God (in my view), you have biologists that are pointing away from God and you have Chemistry that is split down the middle!

what? Science does not say anything about God.

 

[DaveS]

Quantum theory..

 

[Locrian]

...says nothing about God.

This isn't to suggest there aren't religious scientists or that people don't interpret aspects of science as to bolster their particular religion, but you can be assured QM says nothing about any Christian, Hebrew or Muslim God.

Edit: Looking at your original post, I think it's fair enough to say science these days points to one in your view, and it might not have been fair for those words to be reinterpreted as saying you think science says something about God,

but that doesn't change what science does and doesn't say.

 

[DaveS]

...says nothing about God.

This isn't to suggest there aren't religious scientists or that people don't interpret aspects of science as to bolster their particular religion, but you can be assured QM says nothing about any Christian, Hebrew or Muslim God.

Edit: Looking at your original post, I think it's fair enough to say science these days points to one in your view, and it might not have been fair for those words to be reinterpreted as saying you think science says something about God,

but that doesn't change what science does and doesn't say.

Exactly. In my view.

I personally believe that QT/QM does point towards on omnipotent force in the universe. This I interpret as God, which makes me atleast deist although I follow by the saying 'the best religion is the religion which brings you closest to God'. Christianity is the religion that does this for me.

 

[Mongoose]

Exactly. In my view.

I personally believe that QT/QM does point towards on omnipotent force in the universe. This I interpret as God, which makes me atleast deist although I follow by the saying 'the best religion is the religion which brings you closest to God'. Christianity is the religion that does this for me.

Just don't fall into the trap that Einstein did, whereas his religion affected his scientific reasoning. In his debates with Niels Bohr, he kept using the argument "God does not play dice".

 

[DaveS]

Just don't fall into the trap that Einstein did, whereas his religion affected his scientific reasoning. In his debates with Niels Bohr, he kept using the argument "God does not play dice".

That wasn't so much to do with religion though rather than his understanding of QT at the time. At the time QT did seem very random due to gaps in knowledge which to Einstein, the 'leader of the logical universe side' could not possibly agree with.

As a side note, slightly ironically it was Einstein that 'prooved' or made viable QT in the first place..

 

[Yamialpha]

Just don't fall into the trap that Einstein did, whereas his religion affected his scientific reasoning. In his debates with Niels Bohr, he kept using the argument "God does not play dice".

Judging by what I read on a website, when Einstein used the word "God", he was speaking metaphorically about the universe itself. The website claimed it's a common misconception that Einstein believed in a deity or anything divine that transcends space and time. I'll try to find the website.

 

[Mongoose]

Judging by what I read on a website, when Einstein used the word "God", he was speaking metaphorically about the universe itself. The website claimed it's a common misconception that Einstein believed in a deity or anything divine that transcends space and time. I'll try to find the website.

Man, and all this time I've thought Einstein was highly religious.

 

[Yamialpha]

It came as a surprise to me too. Even my encyclopedia refers to Einstein as deeply religious. Another misconception was Einstein as a terrible student. The website claimed that with subjects that pure memorization, mainly history, he was a terrible student. However, they say he was a terrific math student. Then again, I've also heard claims that one year in school he failed math. It makes me believe that as a younger child he was a terrific math student, but then as he got older and better developed his abilities and began studying at home, he began to resent school and his math grades declined as a result.

 

[Locrian]

It is certainly true that most of what is popularly known about Einstein is more myth than reality. The fact that he is so well known by the public is actually a bit of a conundrum - he was a great scientist, but frankly there were better in the 20th century. If it was his contributions that have made him so famous, how come almost no one knows anything about what they really were and how he actually came up with them?

The public probably digs Einstein for other reasons. He had crazy fluffy hair. He smiled some. He acted kinda wierd. It's nice to think that to be a great scientist, someone is also almost completely broken in other areas. It makes people feel better when physicists, while apparently "smart," clearly have deep personality problems that prevent them from being a well-balanced human being. Nevermind the fact that just about no physicists acted like Einstein before or after - including the ones who produced much more science.

People also like him because he has a popular image as being a maverick. He was bad at math. He had no physics degree. He just thought of his theory of relativity, sitting in a patent office.

That's all bunk of course. He was better at math than 99% of the rest of the population - he was just no mathematician. He had a degree that would compare to at least a masters in todays terms. He had a lot of help. Above all, there was already extensive evidence for everything he described in SR. He did a great job of putting it together, but it is not an example of some rebel outside the mainstream upsetting the physics world.

But hey, if you spend the last 2/3 (or more) of your career producing no science of any interest, at least you can make cute quips that will be misquoted for centuries.

Whoops. Pardon the (poorly written) lecture. Nothing to see here.

 

[Yamialpha]

Here it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7406337/

The two myths about Einstein I mentioned.

A widely accepted myth, based on numerous accurate quotations, is that Einstein believed in God. But he made it clear in many of his letters that he did not, once going so far as to call the idea "a lie which is being systematically repeated." God, he said, was his convenient metaphor for the wondrous structure of the universe as expressed in scientific discoveries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7406337/[/url]]
Parent like the idea that Einstein did not learn to speak until the age of 3 and that their Johnny could "yet become an Einstein." But Einstein "applies himself if a subject holds an interest for him," Janssen says. "Very early on you see that the guy is unbelievably good at math and physics and unbelievably bad at languages or history or things like rote memorization."

 

[Wandering_Raven]

I do not know that even if there was a GUT, that we would be able to understand it or explain it. However, there may be some merit in all "fields" being unified, but perhaps not "everything" - space is not the same as light. before that happens, however, I think we may have to re-think the way we look at some aspect of our world - in the same way that the disintigration of the Wave Theory of Light paved the way for Debroglie and Einstein.

As for science having nothing to say about God, that may not be entirely true. The concept of Intelligent Design - the complexity and infromation contained in biological processes and the difficulty in a satisfactory evolutionary explanation - has real scientific weight behind it. One scientist I know has suggested using a computer model to obtain the maximum amount of information the universe can achieve on its own - and comparing it to the information contained in life here. if the amount is equal to or less than that of the universe, then there is no problem. The problem comes if the number exceeds that which the universe can supply - then it's source must come from outside the universe.

God may play dice - but he knows the outcome everytime anyway
moral: Don't play dice with God

 

[KerrMetric]

As for science having nothing to say about God, that may not be entirely true. The concept of Intelligent Design - the complexity and infromation contained in biological processes and the difficulty in a satisfactory evolutionary explanation - has real scientific weight behind it.

No it has not. It is as scientific as darning socks - and far less useful. When it makes no predictions and does not suffer being falsified then it is not science but crap.

One scientist I know has suggested using a computer model to obtain the maximum amount of information the universe can achieve on its own - and comparing it to the information contained in life here. if the amount is equal to or less than that of the universe, then there is no problem. The problem comes if the number exceeds that which the universe can supply - then it's source must come from outside the universe.

Well your "scientist" needs to learn some cosmology and general relativity because this is nonsense.

 

[funyun]

Hi,

Well, I opened this topic to discuss.. well everything! Do you think there will ever be a grand theory? Is it possible? If it is, what will lead to it?

I personally think that there maybe a grand theory but, chances are, it will be so unbelievably complicated at first that no one will realise what they have come across and forget about it. With refinement however Ithink it could be as simple an equation (if one is possible) as E = mc2... that is when looking at it.

Also, what do you think will lead to it? What direction is best to find it?

I strongly believe that we will eventually formulate a precise, accurate, and succinct mathematical description of all physics, on all scales, for all places.

The phrase on the tip of everyone's tongue is "string theory". The truth is, we don't really know what string theory is telling us, but we do believe it is putting us at least on the right track by making us ask the right kinds of questions.

Personally, I believe the breakthrough is going to come from research into the Holographic Principle, which is a fascinating conjecture that arises when one considers placing both general relativity and Uncertainty together. I think it's the chink in the supposedly impenetrable armor of the mystery surrounding quantum gravity, and that research into both it and string theory, as it now stands, is going to give us little answers here and there from which we'll eventually be able to put the thing whole together. It's not an impossible problem, it's just a very big one.

 

[funyun]

It is certainly true that most of what is popularly known about Einstein is more myth than reality. The fact that he is so well known by the public is actually a bit of a conundrum - he was a great scientist, but frankly there were better in the 20th century.

Possibly. Alongside Heisenberg and Born and a few of the other QM crowd, he was certainly the most important of the 20th century. He may be overrated in terms of pop culture. In terms of physics, he is not.

If it was his contributions that have made him so famous, how come almost no one knows anything about what they really were and how he actually came up with them?

Because most people don't care about such things. The people who matter are the ones who know what he did and why what he did was so important. The ones who actually make scientific progress are the ones who know what he did. That Freddy Nobody on the street doesn't know or understand or care doesn't make a lick of difference as to how why he was so important. The simple fact that he took what was there and formulated what he did from it was a huge leap forward.

Nevermind the fact that just about no physicists acted like Einstein before or after - including the ones who produced much more science.

So it's quantity above quality? No one is saying he was Newton. No one is saying he was Euler. And he may not have truly had the mind for math or science lesser known scientists (this century or others) had, but again, his accomplishments are remarkable. That's not a pitious reflection, it's a genuine fact. Relativity is a pillar of modern science.

People also like him because he has a popular image as being a maverick. He was bad at math. He had no physics degree. He just thought of his theory of relativity, sitting in a patent office.
That's all bunk of course. He was better at math than 99% of the rest of the population - he was just no mathematician. He had a degree that would compare to at least a masters in todays terms. He had a lot of help. Above all, there was already extensive evidence for everything he described in SR. He did a great job of putting it together, but it is not an example of some rebel outside the mainstream upsetting the physics world.

No, it really is. Indeed, he was better at math than pop culture lets on. He never flunked math in school, he just never excelled at it. He was very educated. He did have great help, especially from his wife. Much of the information was indeed known-- what he did was take the things we knew, asked an important question, apply the knowledge he had, and totally rethink and reshape the way it had been formulated by scientists before him. And yes, he did do it at the patent office, and yes he did turn physics on its head. A 4-dimensional, maleable manifold that describes actual, physical reality, rather than being just an interesting mathematical construct, was revolutionary. That energy and matter are one and the same was revolutionary. That time is relative to the observer was revolutionary.

 

[Locrian]

That energy and matter are one and the same was revolutionary. That time is relative to the observer was revolutionary.

They were, but Einstein doesn't deserve nearly so much credit for them as he is given. Poincare had already come up with the prinicple of relativity and written quite a bit of it by 1902 - Einstein doesn't cite him, but he was well aware of it, and mentions it in his letters. By 1904 Poincare had given a lecture that suggested the speed of light was constant and included an equation mathematically idential to Einstein's mass-energy relationship. Einstein probably wasn't aware of that particular speech, but it shows that others were right behind him.

And well they should be - Einstein was using the same discoveries they were, though he usually doesn't cite them. Einstein was well aware of experiments done that failed to detect an aether (as is also shown by his correspondence), but he doesn't mention this either. For many reasons if Einstein were to write his Brownian motion and special relativity papers today they would be considered evidence of academic misconduct, though not outright plagiarism.

Of course, his work on the work function is something else entirely.

In any case, when I said there were better physicists I wasn't thinking Heisenberg or Born, though those are great examples. I was thinking Bardeen.

 

[Locrian]

I strongly believe that we will eventually formulate a precise, accurate, and succinct mathematical description of all physics, on all scales, for all places.

I would agree this is possible as well, though I think the timeframe may be quite long. However, I'd like to note that string theory and quantum graivty have nothing to add to almost all important questions in physics today. The only exceptions might be in astrophyiscs, but even there most scientists will gain little.

Whether you believe emergent properties exist or not, reductionism has proven a dismal failure. If we're going to produce a descritpion of physics on all scales, we're going to do it the hard way, one problem at a time, for many, many, many years.

 

[funyun]

I would agree this is possible as well, though I think the timeframe may be quite long. However, I'd like to note that string theory and quantum graivty have nothing to add to almost all important questions in physics today.

That's just simply not true. I'm far from being one of those people who recklessly jumps on the string theory bandwagon and proclaims it the end all and be all of physics, but the implications it gives rise to lead to us asking very importan-- and innovative-- questions.

Whether you believe emergent properties exist or not, reductionism has proven a dismal failure.

You sound like Bohr's Kantian detractor. Reductionism led to strides in quantum theory, and applied quantum mechanics is the engineering basis that runs the very computer you typed that on. Reductionism is not a "dismal failure"; it's the lifeblood of modern physics, responsible for, dare I say, virtually all our contemporary knowledge in most disciplines. Deny that fact for physics if you must, since the process of discovery is somewhat less simplistic, but you must at least acknowledge the triumph of reductionism in biology and chemisty, for example.

I mean, really-- when was the last time frame reductionism was not an integral part of scientific discovery? The 18th century? Back when alchemy was still a semi-reputable scientific discipline? We've come so much farther through reductionism than that whole "trial and error" method before it.

What basis would you assert instead, then?

 

[Locrian]

I'm far from being one of those people who recklessly jumps on the string theory bandwagon and proclaims it the end all and be all of physics, but the implications it gives rise to lead to us asking very importan-- and innovative-- questions.

Name a set of measurements we've taken that conflict with current theory or there is no framework for and would be benefitted by string theory. There aren't any! The big questions these days (cosmological constant, high temperature superconductivity) won't benefit from study in super high energy physics.

I wonder in what way you think reductionism is the lifeblood of modern science? The twenty years of mathetmatical meanderings by string theoriests certainly isn't impressive. The thirty years of wasted time in particle accelerators hasn't provided any value. But then, the past quarter century of condensed matter and materials physics has made huge strides, asking some of the most important questions in modern times. Astrophysics has done equally well - and not by wandering around in theoretical wonderland, but by measuring the brightness of supernovae (and those guys WILL get the nobel one day!).

Remember that you can disagree with reductionism and still study matter on small scales. Those who say something is more than the sum of its parts still agree that it has parts.

Edited, hopefully to make it clearer.