Unification

[kamil]

Its the dream of modern physics to create a 'unified theory'. But why do we think a UNified theory does exist? What if the Four fundamental forces, matter, space-time are all seperate and there is no linkage between them? It would be very elegant but how do we know it exists?

Also, if we create a theory that explains all phenomena, wont the theory be more abstract rather then physical?? And how would this be a part of physics if it wouldnt concern nature, and how would we be able to prove it experimentally.

From what I heard about string theory, is that the strings vibrating differently is what causes different things to exist. So therefore we cant just make up anything that will theoretically explain everything without it even bieng true? :lol: :)

[sanctus]

I like the sentence: "science is not about truth but about the best approximation we can make of it".

 

I guess this answers already quite a lot about your question. But the thing about the unified theory, people believe that it exists and wait for experimental proof if it doesn't come, one day there will come a great mind who will come up with a new theory.

[CraigD]

Its the dream of modern physics to create a 'unified theory'. But why do we think a UNified theory does exist?

What makes “Grand Unified Theories” and “Theories Of Everything” so attractive, I think, is not just their formal elegance, but Science’s experience over the centuries with discovering that seemingly unrelated “fundamental” stuff is related by more fundamental, underlying stuff.

So therefore we cant just make up anything that will theoretically explain everything without it even bieng true?

It’s important to distinguish between physical theory that is known to only approximate reality (such as classical mechanics), and one that is thought to exactly describe it (such as quantum mechanics – with some pesky outstanding bugs, such as gravity, worked out), but that make predictions that are impractical to verify (such as unification of bosons, which require Big Bang-like conditions). We can only hope that, as humankind and technology advance, we’ll be able to conduct experiments on increasingly grand scales to confirm increasingly fundamental predictions.

 

So, no, although “just making up” formalism to describe reality can be of great practical use, the ultimate goal of Science is a single formalism that can in principle predict all observable phenomena – even ones no experimenter may every actually be able to observe, or no calculator be able to use to even make testable predictions. Since testability is arguably the defining characteristic of Science, it’s paradoxical that the scientific method may ultimately lead to models that are not practically scientific :(

 

It’s frustrating when our imaginations outrun our ability, but a frustration that’s been part of being human since our pre-history.