What's the point of the so-called 'law of everything', the ultimate physical theory...

what's the point of the so-called 'law of everything', the ultimate physical theory? the unifying theory of the universe?

Imho it's just a delusion; from a philosophical viewpoint, wouldn't it be inferred from a set of axioms given for granted? how can that be 'the end'?
Physics is an open field per se. How can it become a closed theory i.e. how can every physical truth be derived from the axioms?

Am I missing something?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Yvzx5bcthdg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel_metric
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Am I missing something?
Yes, at least 12 years of physics education, for your opinion to even matter.

It's just a theory that can unify all the theories we have about physics into one shindig, ie. Unifying relativity and qm

two theories that work for different situations..
doesn't that bother you, instead of having on theory that works for ALL situations?
that's the point of physics.
If you want axioms, go do math.

quote every words

a theory from which all derives, what would be more elegant, useful and make clear the understanding of the universe?

oh, you're right, Gödel was a fucking nobody...
jeez man, get yourself together. well known physics professors doubt the existence of a unifying theory, and that's the answer you can give me?
Do you know what epistemology is?
Do you even know what theory means?
Come on, prove me wrong, explain me why string theory, for example, is just an explanation and not a theory.

that's actually not the point of physics. there is not a 'single point' in physics. It depends how you do it. Mainly, it's trying to explain how things work, not getting them into a single theory. There's a huge difference.
Still, it depends; to paraphrase Einstein's words, 'to know what a physicist does don't ask him directly, look at his work'

The law of everything is God.

Oddly enough, that is something most people could fall for, having a unifying theory and 'worshipping' it.

Sadly, God is just an explanation. It doesn't give you a way to infer anything about the world.

Well for now it may as well be God because we don't know.

Still, it could not be called a 'theory'. It's just an explanation. A big one, for everything. But where's the fun, then?
It's like saying there are little demons under the ground, that attract everything that is let loose.
How is it possible? Demons.
Why a shot bullet has a parabolic trajectory? Because Demons like it but not so much, so they will make it move in a parabola. You're just post-dicting, nay, explaining things.
You can't make any prediction out of it... so where's the fun?

>Mainly, it's trying to explain how things work, not getting them into a single theory.
beautiful oxmoron
back to pop science videos.

>But where's the fun, then?
you're fucking retarded

10/10, got me to reply

excuse me?
are you aware of your logical phallacy? that is, to explain how everything works, you must have a common explanation for the variety of it? that's fucking insane.

...

please, enlighten me on how thanks to God we are able to speak on a fucking board, through cellphone or computers. or maybe it's because we have laws which actually enable us to do something with them. To use them, manipulate them. that's what I mean by fun.

Jesus, I thought this board was something, but it's far worse than /b/. you're literally giving nothing to the discussion.

youtube.com/watch?v=Yvzx5bcthdg

say something man, I'm genuinely not bait and I don't know why you'd think so.
All I said was that the point of physics was not to unify everything. It was to understand how the universe work. Why, why does it have to work following a single law? what is the proof, the spark, the clue for it? THAT'S what pop science and media makes you think. as I said, there are professors who honestly doubt the possibility of a unifying theory, why should it be bait?

>law
I meant theory

I'm not him, I'm God is the concept of overarching control so if we did work out everything and found out that everything was being created and dictated from a single source then that by definition is God.

everything is explained with one formula. this would be the most sexy thing humans can archive.

So let me get this straight. If (and it's definitely not the case) General Relativity could explain everything, then GR would be God? I mean, if we were to found a unifying theory, would that be God? It would still be a product of mankind, 'spoken' in a language (i.e. mathematics) created by humans
Or would it be a manifestation of God? (I'm getting really metaphysical right now, and I'm not really feeling comfortable hahaha)

Or maybe they're two different things? Like, God and the laws of nature. and if so, who would 'prevail', who would obey who? Is God above the laws of physics or vice versa? It's bugging me lately.
The Greeks, for example, figured it out saying that gods could not alter the Fate (Laws of nature?) of mankind. They merely followed it.
You don't need to answer me on this, it's mainly food for thought :)

For those who think physics isn't just applied mathematics, please answer this question:

How do you define an electron?

And there's no way a single formula could explain everything.
A single theory? maybe. But a formula? Too many variables to put into consideration. And let's not speak about conservation/uncertainty principles. where would you put them?
Still, I agree. That would be sexy as fuck.

nice one, senpai.

And let's not talk about fields... that would also be troublesome hahahaha

Let's talk about operator-valued fields.

Then, let's frolic naked in the garden.

Godel's results are NOT statements about philosophy or physics.

It's possible that infinity exists in reality on another dimensional plane. You can't just solve things with just science and math. Sometimes you need to push it further with Philosophy. Spirituality is key to the cosmos.

>A single theory? maybe. But a formula?
those are the same thing.
Until you realize that, you don't know what physics is about.

Is it the same person spewing this shit in every thread?

>those are the same thing.

Well then, explain Gr with a single formula.
Explain the standard model with a single formula.
Explain QM with a single formula.
Explain termodinamics with a single formula
Hell, explain Newton dynamics (High School material) with a single formula. Ever heard of the 3 principles of dynamics?

It seems to me you're the one who knows jack shit about it.

Science can't explain everything, but that's better than philosophy and "spirituality" which explain nothing.

I'm not , I'm OP.

The first scientist were philosophers. They laid the ground for what we do. 'Nothing' is a bit of a harsh term, don't you think?

No, the first scientists were engineers. They were trying to build right angles and started to notice the relationships between the sides.

The point of a grand theory is prediction accuracy in that it can describe all physical interactions that occurs. It's rather stupid since the major problem in mathematics and physics is the multi body problem.

>Well then, explain Gr with a single formula.
>Explain the standard model with a single formula.
>Explain QM with a single formula.
>Explain termodinamics with a single formula
>Hell, explain Newton dynamics (High School material) with a single formula.
[math] \delta S = 0 [/math]
> Ever heard of the 3 principles of dynamics?
I haven't. Are you talking about Newton's Laws?

Where you from anyway?

Does S stand for entropy? If so, where did you get it from? Does it pop out of nowhere? What's a reversible process? What's Clausius inequality?

Still, how the fuck can you explain them with entropy alone? Seriously. What about Minkowski space-time, the uncertainty principle, the conservation of energy and momentum, ecc.? How do derive them from that one formula?

>Newton's Laws
My bad. You got it, anyway :)

>Where you from
Italy

S is action.
he was a different poster btw.

all your principles are derived by mathematical properties (fourier transforms, and so on).

hm, okay. In my defense, S doesn't have a universal meaning for action only.
Nonetheless, my point is still valid. You need to include the mathematical properties in the theory. For example, you need to include that kind of geometry in GR.
you need to include Galileo's principle in Classical mechanics, otherwise the principle of least action is not enough.
You need to include Pauli's principle in QM.
Otherwise you would be able to derive both GR and QM from that single law alone. Still, if they have a 'common ancestor', why don't they fit together?

How does one infer the elements of the standard model from the principle of least action?

Anyway there's no reason not to take mathematical entities as part of a theory.

...

>Still, if they have a 'common ancestor', why don't they fit together?

Because the action principal isn't what you want when dealing with QM or QFT. You want the quantum version, which is path integrals.

To your merit, philosophy does have its place in pushing science further. But that is so small compared to the real science.
A scientist may question something in the real world and that leads to a theory. This can happen in a romantic sense. In the real world, we just go through thousands and thousands of papers and spend 90% of the time doing math, analyzing data and modeling. To say philosophy helps push a little further is not a stretch if you consider doing philosophy the act of thinking about anything.

For fucks sake, enough with the God discussion!

Everyone would want a theory that explains everything at every scale in every situarion. And yes, such a theory would merely be an explaination of what we experience, because physics is (nothing more than) how we describe this world. To clarify: THIS WORLD, the sum of everything we (can) experience, had experienced and will experience!

Now to the point: It wouldn't be of any problem if there are two theories working completely different, but which lead to the same results.
The problem however is that the two most sophisticated theories we have, namely QFT and ART are contradicting another!

All the more exotic theories like LoopQuantumGravity or Stringtheory or whatever just try to solve this contradiction. Maybe one day, and will it be in 200 years someone will find the solution to this problem. Maybe this solution uses partial results or ideas from todays theoretical physics. Even then we cannot be sure to have found the theory of everything, because there could be more stuff out there, who knows.

But still, till then there are people that at least try to move on, and even if it just fits their own purposes, theres other people on this world that do nothing more with their lifes than wasting them with watchng anime all day long.

It's impossible to derive all/any of the axioms of a system from theorems. That's why nobody calls theories laws anymore

>with the soul purpose
>soul

>phallacy
I had a giggle

Are you sure?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel_metric