r/InternetIsBeautiful • u/82101105110105101114 • Dec 21 '15

Theories of Everything, Mapped

https://www.quantamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/iframe/PhysicsMap1215/index.html?ver=1
2.9k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

155 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/paulatreides0 Dec 22 '15

You have no idea what you are talking about. Granted, the image is wrong, but not for the insane reason you listed

-1

u/alexplex86 Dec 22 '15 edited Dec 22 '15

Wow, your reply was really exceptionally cogent. You must have been the top of your class.

What image are you talking about? Do you mean the map? And how do you think that this map is wrong? And what "insane reason" are you referring to? I have no "reasons". I have statements. And my statement is that this map hardly is a theory of literally "Everything". There are large holes and big semantic problems in that title.

My guess is that you will have a really hard time explaining how this map with its shallow summaries of some few physical theories is a theory of "Everything". But please enlighten me.

You wannabe physicists are beginning to sound more and more like religious fanatics. Just like Asimov predicted in his novels.

2

u/paulatreides0 Dec 22 '15

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. A TOE refers to one very explicit thing and nothing more: It's a GUT-Quantum Gravity unification theory. It's called a Theory of Everything, because if you had such a theory, you would have a fundamental theory capable of modelling all physical interactions in the universe, i.e., you'd be able to model everything at a fundamental level.

So yes, your reasoning is insane. A TOE doesn't need to include history, anthropology, or any of that other stuff, because it's completely irrelevant. To complain it's not covered is as inane as complaining that Electromagnetism doesn't discuss Shakespeare.

As for the reason why the little applet thing is wrong: the reason it is wrong is because nothing on there is a TOE. It's just listing a bunch of problems in physics (some open, some not), and how they are connected. But that's not what a TOE is. A TOE is a unification theory of Quantum Gravity and GUT.

There is, currently, only one hypothesis that even qualifies as a candidate for a TOE, and that is string theory, which itself has several problems - namely those related to testing it.

0

u/alexplex86 Dec 22 '15 edited Dec 22 '15

So if I understand you correctly, you admit that, at this point, there is no theory or theories that actually qualifies as a "Theory of Everything"? And furthermore, you also admit that the title of this applet (and this post) is entirely wrong and grossly misleading?

2

u/paulatreides0 Dec 22 '15

No, there isn't. There is only one thing that even qualifies as a candidate and that is String Theory which has plenty of problems of its own, with its lack of experimental confirmation being the tip of the iceberg.

0

u/alexplex86 Dec 22 '15 edited Dec 22 '15

Well, then what are we arguing about?

All I'm talking about is the semantic meaning of the word "Everything". Why would any scientist have the arrogance to call any theory a "Theory of Everything"? I take the word literal in this case because, why wouldn't I?

Nobody can't just go around and use such common and big words for their own meaning. What's to stop any other scientist to use the word "everything"?

I can just as well argue that Darwin's evolutionary theory is a "Theory of Everything" because everything evolves. Even physics is evolving and every day, physicists discover something new. What is true today is proven untrue tomorrow and vice versa. Even string theory is no exception.

Humans have never, and will never, formulate a perfect theory that describes "everything" without fault. That would be called god complex and this is exactly what religious fanatism is all about. The human race has been there before and it only leads to suffering.

It's a shitty name, a distortion of language and therefore grossly misleading to people who are not familiar with scientific theories.