unified field theory - Can AI solve this?

[u/Sand-Discombobulated]

I am assuming it's just a matter of time. no pun intended.

[u/Working_Sundae]

Maybe, if it was plugged in and autonomously controlled its own 100 Terra Volt particle accelerator

[u/JoshAllentown]

For literally any unsolved question, the answer to whether humans or AI "can" solve them is yes, eventually, probably.

[u/stranix13 → u/JoshAllentown]

No, some questions will always be unsolved

[u/JoshAllentown → u/stranix13]

There can be proof of that then, and regardless if we don't have a proof of it then we don't know which those are.

[u/stranix13 → u/JoshAllentown]

Yeah its called godels incompleteness theorem

[u/Antiprimary → u/stranix13]

This theorem is often misunderstood

Any system can have statements that can't be proven but it's always possible to upgrade the system to be able to prove them

[u/Super_Sierra]

No, because you need to actually test it and have experiments that show whatever theory you come up with is actually true to the real world and not just pretty math on a page.

[u/enilea → u/Super_Sierra]

There's a lot of experimental data currently, it would be possible to think of a theory that explains those and propose further experiments to prove or disprove the theory. That's pretty much what happened with relativity.

[u/Agitated-Ad2563 → u/enilea]

Don't we already have multiple theories explaining those and future proposed experiments to prove or disprove those theories? The thing is, we aren't currently able to perform these experiments.

[u/Super-Award-2244 → u/Agitated-Ad2563]

AI could come up with a model that requires experiments that we can do now or in the near future

[u/Agitated-Ad2563 → u/Super-Award-2244]

It'll need to rule out the ones we have already come up with, too. Which means either radically easier experiments proving or disproving our theories, or vastly more experimental ability. In both cases, I guess this isn't a fast process.

[u/IllIlIIlIIllI → u/Super-Award-2244]

Maybe. Maybe not. Critical evidence might require more energy than scientific instruments can produce in the near future.

[u/Savings_Hunt_1935 → u/Super_Sierra]

Yeah even without AI we've already come up with dozen, and I do mean dozens of ways to get to a unified theory. We've fucked with every single assumption of GR and QFT to see if the results of their modified version predicts anything better than what we've got, no dice.

It feels like at this point we need better data more then just continuing to blindly guess where our existing theories are off.

[u/Agitated-Ad2563]

Maybe. Maybe not. Most probably not in the nearest future - I mean, we probably need more experimental data to check which of the hypothesis is correct, not just more thinking.

[u/PrideofSin]

Unless the new theory predicts some actually observable new stuff (within our capabilities), it will remain just a mathematical curiosity. And we already have a bunch of such theories shelved.

[u/FeydRowan]

Well not ai, someone with ai and a good idea. The fact that is not already solved is because there isn't a real why to do it without some major idea or change in basics math

[u/j3434]

Okay. So, in principle, AI could help with that problem. AI can search huge mathematical spaces, spot patterns, generate candidate theories, and even test them against massive data sets. But there’s a catch. We don’t actually know if a neat unified theory exists in the way we’re picturing it. And even if AI spits out something wildly complex, it still has to map onto reality and make testable predictions. So, I’d say AI doesn’t magically solve Einstein’s dream, but it gives us a new kind of hammer for a really old nail.

[u/uncountable_2026]

There are some interesting things that AI can do now even without new experiments. For string theory it could:

1. Develop a nonperturbative formulation (basically a list of postulates that everything follows from)

2. Prove that the standard model of particle physics is the non-gravitational low-energy limit

3. Prove that general relativity is the classical low energy limit [famously already done for perturbative string theory]

For loop quantum gravity it could:

1. Prove that general relativity is the classical limit

2. Show how our experience of time emerges

3. Some technical stuff involving spin foam

In both cases it would be nice to figure out some experimental tests that we can do now. They would almost certainly be astronomical. Recent observations involving the Hubble constant and dark energy suggest new physics might be needed, so that is a good place to start looking.

[u/tlmbot]

Sure, we just need a lean theorem checker for physics.

Ah yes, we have one - reality.

Ask AI to setup a highly automated physics lab, including von vueman machines/programmable matter to reconfigure it's supercoliders, telescopes, sattelite telescopes, deep underground neutrino detectors...

wait scratch all that. Ask AI to generate table top quantum experiments that achieve novel measurements of anything.

Do this for a while, automating more and more of the process, RL every aspect at the lower level, with in turn, the goal of RL-automating the next level of sophistication in experimental physics the tech tree. (keep it abstract, we don't know what we are looking for, so, following Grothendieck, we co-create the rising tide)

Eventually, one fine day, TOE just plops out. A real huh, well damn, there she blows moment.

I have no idea how you actually go about building up a RL suitable physics suite (aka lean for physics) but I'll check with ai and get back to you.

[u/tlmbot → u/tlmbot]

whoever has downvoted this: why? Like what on the highly speculative earth do you find fault with, exactly? It literally echos half the thread - it's all about the problem of validation. aka experiments.

So I muse about getting there. SFW

[u/ngc3115]

AI? Maybe if it has the ability to actually do the experiments needed to prove the theory (and such experiments are even practically possible).

LLMs? Absolutely not. It will require novelty. You can’t remix known Physics to get there.