The Grand Theory of Everything

[Kahalachan]

I'm not an expert physicist but the dissociation between quantum physics and relativity is interesting. One is more chaotic and based on probability and the other is more orderly and in a way perfect.

Kind of like how we look at the texture of something smooth. It's good to look at from a distance, but subatomically it's rough.

It's interesting how enough chaos, looked at from a distance, produces order.

So a GUT or TOE is unifying chaos and order. Philosophically, it's something we've been trying to do for our whole existence.

 

[five]

On reductionism, who's to say we haven't reduced as far as we can go? The fundamental forces of particle physics have been reconciled, and what's left is gravity. To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that gravity is necessarily a force (or a force that can even be reconciled with the other fundamnetal forces). I think it might be a force in the same way that time is a force (clearly, not).

I see the string theory guys, and the particle physics guys looking for the graviton, and I can't help but just think that it's not going to be found. Maybe they'll find the higgs boson and that'll explain the world, who knows... But gravity waves and gravitons? I'm not so sure that that's how it works.

The way I've kind of figured it to work, which is just my armchair understanding, is this:

Our universe expands with time, and if no matter existed it would expand at the same rate as time. However since matter does exist, the expansion is slowed because matter causes a kind of drag, a negative accelleration on the expansion of time. This negative accelleration is what we would experience as gravity since it would stretch space-time and draw matter together.

Now in the past 10 years or so it's been noted that inflation is accellerating [dark energy..ooh spooky]. And this is something that would tend to make perfect sense since, as the matter pulled apart by the expansion of the universe, the cumulative effect of gravity is lessening. As matter moves apart, expansion accellerates, pulling matter further apart, in turn accellerating expansion. So it should be noted that, in my view, the big bang did not cause expansion, rather expansion caused the big bang and that gravity is not really a force, but a result of matter.

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.

 

[Locrian]

It's interesting how enough chaos, looked at from a distance, produces order.

I think that's an interesting analogy.

However, your crazy horseman scares me.

 

[funyun]

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.

Once again, untrue. The Cosmological Constant is studied in conjunction with dark dark energy. Dark energy is theoreized to have a lot to do with vacuum energy. Finding a quantum gravity field theory would rectify our current outstanding problems with the cosmological constant vs. quantum field theory.

One of the leading contenders for dark matter is sparticles, as predicted by string theory. I would hope you would agree the question of dark matter is a rather large one for astrophysicists. It falls into the laps of particle physicists as well, whether you would admit it or not. Again, I'm not on the string theory bandwagon, but the very fact that there's a very direct theoretical connection there proves your point wrong.

Knowing what happens in a black hole is of interest as it would require a theory of quantum gravity.

In light of these outstanding questions and their applications for particle physics, I'd have to strongly disagree with your statement that "the big questions these days 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!).

Twenty years of mathematical meanderings have led to greater understanding of many fields of mathematics including some important discoveries in geometry. If you don't agree that reductionism has had a huge impact on science over the past century and a half to two centuries, I suggest you read a few books on the history of modern science.

I really don't know how anyone who actually knows anything about the history of high energy physics could say it has been a huge waste of time. Not that I'm singing the praises of the Standard Model either.

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.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing science here, not the magical dream stuff of anti-reductionist, anti-physicalist spiritual hoo-ha.

 

[Locrian]

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing science here, not the magical dream stuff of anti-reductionist, anti-physicalist spiritual hoo-ha.

Hah! I'm guilty of the hoo-ha, but not of the anti-physicalist or spiritual business. This point of view I'm presenting that snubs reducitonism in favor of emergent physical systems is quite common in the materials and condensed matter areas of physics. Laughlin and Pines have a very good article on the subject, if you'd like to read it.

I'm really enjoying that last quote! Just the other day a similar conversation had me called "anti-science" on scienceforums. Here my point of view is anti-physicalist and spiritual. It's much more satisfying the second time around, and I wish I could find a way to extend the conversation before the surprise ending. So what's so anti-physicalist about my point of view here?

 

[Locrian]

Once again, untrue. The Cosmological Constant is studied in conjunction with dark dark energy.

Well I would hope so, given that they are both words that describe the same physical effect. As for string theory helping out, it's not likely. The discovery of dark energy was a mighty blow to string theory and people studying it required years to reconcile a small, positive cosmological constant with the theory. Defining the vacuum state is certainly important to string theory, but they'll be matching observables, not explaining them. Assuming of course they can bring the number of vacuua down below the absurd level its at now.

As for sparticles, they aren't a leading contender for anything until they are observed. Go go LHC.