It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Theory of Everything

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:45 AM
Can a theory of everything be found - does it and can it exist

My theory:

1. A Theory of Everything does not exist.

2. A Theory of Everything will never exist.

The very popular and interesting physicist Michio Kaku believes his current String Theory will finally yield A Theory of Everything
- The unknown AlienView says it will never happen.

It has been said that Albert Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life looking for A Theory of Everything and failed

That was a long time ago - And yet, and apparently, all the other physcists that have come since have also failed,


I say because they are all making a gross error in the assumption that there exists an 'everything'
- In simple language can you define everything? - since when?, for how long? where? - Where and when is everything?

Everything has not yet happened - And until and when existence ends there is no way to calculate what is everything.

The existence of everyting is totally hypothetical - and any theory of everything will also be hypothetical.

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, FRS was a German theoretical physicist whose discovery of energy quanta won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. --Wikipedia


edit on 21-2-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:56 AM
a reply to: AlienView

Can there be an everything in an infinite universe . Just thinking out loud .
edit on 21-2-2018 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:00 AM
a reply to: AlienView

I think that depends on what definitions we are applying to the notion of "everything".

In physics terms, what is meant by a theory of everything, is essentially a unified theory which works precisely as well at the quantum scales, as it does on the macroscopic scale, meaning that its apparent implications apply equally well to quarks and small particles besides, as they do to large bodies like gas giants, stars, and black holes.

Using that definition, with appropriate contextual limitations, I can see a time when a theory which finds itself applicable to all scales of physics, rather than the small or the large, but not both, comes about, and relatively soon, I should think. The pace of scientific progress has been astounding in the last decade, ever faster, ever greater leaps being taken on the road to comprehending the universe in which we live. Baby steps compared with the size of the road ahead, but leaps and bounds compared to what came before, both in terms of the implications of discoveries, but also in terms of the amount of progress made in a given chunk of time.

People say that one should not hold ones breath... Wise indeed. But that does not mean that something right around the corner is not about to take your breath away.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:01 AM
depends how you define everything

there will always be unknowns. for example, one day we might understand all things in the universe, but we would still not know what lies beyond.

if you mean combining physics and chemistry, special relativity and quantum mechanics, then that will happen. it's just a matter of time

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:17 AM
What if all those values and parameters we determined and now use in our equations (like radioactive decay times, Gravity on earth etc) shift constantly? But so subtle and inside of the measurement errors that we just miss the big picture of what´s really going on?

Then there is the question, is the universe really infinite? In the sense of you can travel a "perceived straight line" and not end up at the same exact position you started in a finite amount of time.

Like traveling around the globe, theorethically, if you travel a "straight line", you will end up at your starting point.

I´m not into quantum mechanics, maybe someone with more knowledge can clear this up:
Would it be possible that there is some sort of "template" that determines the result of the quantum wave function as it manifests into what we (as in laymens terms) know as matter?

Sort of like a screen(template), you throw sand (possible quantum states) through it and as it passes through, stuff manifests. Probably total hogwash but I have to ask. Probably not the first one that came to this train of thought, too.

Sort of like deserializing objects but instead of 1/0, it´s "quantum level stuff". Different waves cancel each out because of the screens property and you get the result. Like a filter, only that it´s combining waves as they pass through, instead of blocking most of them. This might be a naive question to the way better informed members here.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:32 AM
a reply to: AlienView
"Everything is connected to everything else," is an ancient concept that can be traced back to India, China, the Hermetic texts and even the Bible to name a few. Leonardo da Vinci was even quoted to have said "Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else."

Maybe there is already a Unified Field synthesized to a working model of Chaos Theory on steroids in the works? The question is, is Consciousness a big part of it?

edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:36 AM
a reply to: verschickter

".....and inside of the measurement errors that we just miss the big picture of what´s really going on?"

That in simple terms is the whole point - Or and again as Planck stated:

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” ― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

'IF' someone or something was to give a valid theory of everything they would have to be outside of everything
-which is impossible - And based upon the unity of what theories when? - How can anyone be sure that
the current known theories are all that is? - Before Einstein there was no Relativity.

Aliens might land tomorrow and finally show us how the Qunatum Space Drive operates, which is based upon another
theory of gravity that no Human physcist is even aware of.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:40 AM
a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

"......The question is, is Consciousness a big part of it?"

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:42 AM
a reply to: AlienView
Yeah, baby!

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:04 AM

originally posted by: AlienView
I say because they are all making a gross error in the assumption that there exists an 'everything'
That's not why we don't have a theory of everything. We have two theories that nobody has figured out how to fully unify, so the problem isn't whether "everything" exists or not, it's that we haven't figured out how to rationalize the two theories at small scale and high mass.

Small scale and high mass relate to two gaps in our knowledge created by the incompatibility of the two theories:
1. We can't fully describe the state of a black hole
2. We can't fully describe the physics of the earliest part of the big bang

At lower energies than those two special cases, the two theories we have are quite comprehensive and can work together enough to describe just about everything else we understand. We don't understand dark matter, but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit into those two theories. We won't know if it does or not until we figure out what it is.

More reading in the Wikipedia article:
Theory of everything

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:15 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Hi, can you share some of your insights regarding Consciousness role in QM? It will be greatly appreciated.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:18 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Word Origin and History for everything Expand
late 14c., from every + thing.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper"

Actually, and in fact, the reason we don't have A theory of Everything - Is no one knows what everything is!

Do you know what everything is? - Do Physcists and the science of physics really think it knows what eveyring is?

A theory of everything to be valid would have to define what everything means - not possible,
not unless you could measure all that exists and exactly what it is composed of.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:32 AM
a reply to: AlienView
Look up the meaning of "theory of everything" and then you can try to communicate in context of what everyone else is talking about when they refer to "theory of everything".

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Hi, can you share some of your insights regarding Consciousness role in QM? It will be greatly appreciated.
Consciousness isn't understood, but one insight I can share is that there are numerous charlatans out there peddling falsehoods about entanglement and consciousness.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:44 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I know what they're talking about - And I'm questioning it on philosophical grounds.

On the other hand I'm not questioning the 'Unified Field Theory' which is not quite the same thing
- because the parimeters are better defined - Physics should not use a word like 'everything' unless it really
means eveything!

This, on the other hand makes sensse:

Unified field theory:

"In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field.

There is currently no accepted unified field theory, and thus it remains an open line of research. The term was coined by Albert Einstein, who attempted to unify his general theory of relativity with electromagnetism. The "theory of everything" and Grand Unified Theory are closely related to unified field theory, but differ by not requiring the basis of nature to be fields, and often by attempting to explain physical constants of nature........".

Quote source:

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:57 AM
a reply to: AlienView
So you looked up the meaning of "theory of everything" and you disagree with that meaning on philosophical grounds?

If so that's your prerogative. We probably shouldn't call the north magnetic pole the north magnetic pole either, when it's actually a south magnetic pole, which to me is way more wrong, but we do and unless you're a very prominent leader it's difficult for one person to try to change the accepted usage of terminology. In common usage there's not much distinction between 'theory of everything" and "Unified field theory"

unified field theory or Theory of Everything

Unified field theory is sometimes called the Theory of Everything

So you're saying it's ok to call it unified field theory, but not theory of everything? Whether or not that's a valid objection, I think we have to accept the fact that until the meanings change, those expressions are used interchangeably in just such a fashion. If you want to convince everyone to stop calling it theory of everything and only refer to it as unified field theory, I can only wish you luck.

edit on 2018221 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: AlienView

Here's my TOE: m - e = time

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:29 AM
a reply to: AlienView

Unified field theory, String theory, M theory-call it what you want but the answer is out of our grasp for now.

The smallest of subatomic particles need the largest scientific device ever created to detect them, detecting these theorized strings would require some kind of magic with our current technology, but hey time will tell and as Arthur C. Clarke once said...well we all know what he said and this is the man who proposed the idea of satellites, and now there are hundreds of then bringing us everything from live sports events to porn.

Science is like that shampoo commercial "It won't happen overnight but it will happen" Look at Einsteins' gravitational waves, they remained a theory for almost a century until they were finally discovered. Until the day comes when we have the tech to find the true power that governs of the universe we will be stuck with the four forces.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:41 AM
Absolutely yes it can be found, but we aren't close to it yet.
I think the greatest physicists who were close were Maxwell, Thompson and Tesla.

Maxwell derived the electromagnetic (EM) wave equation by considering the aether as a fluid and elastic medium.
Tesla maintained the aether was the medium for electric force.

Yet since Einstein and the Michelson-Morley experiment came along and "disproved" the aether we have made little progress.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) reduced energy waves to waves of probability.
General relativity (GR) reduced aether into an abstract "curved space-time".
Whist mathematically accurate, QM and GR have in some ways set us backwards.
Scientists are no longer exploring the aether and fundamentally EM so little recent progress has made.

String theory is a mathematical fudge to unite GR and QM, invoking non-existent multidimensional space so don't hold your breath with that.

Modern science has failed to teach the investigative thought process, and much of what is taught is learned without the question: "Where does this come from?"

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:51 AM
a reply to: Dr X

Little progress?

There has been more progress in physics in just this last decade alone, than in all the period where using terms like aether, to describe any element or facet of the physical universe, was last acceptable (which, just so we are clear, it most certainly is not at this time).

Wakey, wakey Doc... Time to smell the coffee, and of course the 21st century!
edit on 21-2-2018 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error removed.

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:55 AM
I mean little progress from where Maxwell left it!
I'm referring to the "popular science" take on the closeness of the theory of everything.

But you are correct there has been progress, many of the answers have been found in solid state physics.
In particular quasi-particles, quantum fluids and super-fluids which are part of the puzzle.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in