Is a Grand Unified Theory of physics possible? (Darwin, doom)

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I am very skeptical that there can be one.

Whether you believe in naturalistic evolution or creation, humans are made to adapt with our environment. We are very proficient at anticipating and predicting how nature behaves around us; this is key to our survival. Our spacial awareness and our capacity for reason has given us the adaptability to create the advanced science and technology we have today.

However, the microscopic world is not our environment. With quantum physics we seem to have hit a boundary of what we can decifer about nature. With uncertainty, non-locality and particle-wave duality, our concepts of space and logic are challenged. Is this because we are outside the comfort of the environment we are adapted to? What reason to we have to believe that we can peek through the curtain of quantum physics and have the logic, intuition and awareness to see how nature truly operates?

No doubt in my mind that there will be one theory to describe the natural world one day. How large that theory may become is another matter.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I am very skeptical that there can be one.

Whether you believe in naturalistic evolution or creation, humans are made to adapt with our environment. We are very proficient at anticipating and predicting how nature behaves around us; this is key to our survival. Our spacial awareness and our capacity for reason has given us the adaptability to create the advanced science and technology we have today.

However, the microscopic world is not our environment. With quantum physics we seem to have hit a boundary of what we can decifer about nature. With uncertainty, non-locality and particle-wave duality, our concepts of space and logic are challenged. Is this because we are outside the comfort of the environment we are adapted to? What reason to we have to believe that we can peek through the curtain of quantum physics and have the logic, intuition and awareness to see how nature truly operates?

Very interesting! I'll have to come back to this thread.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

That hydra of a theory?

To be honest I don't know much. I was of the belief that there were five major variants and that they were not infact exclusive but merely different interpretations of the same theory. It's all rather interesting in any case.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

However, the microscopic world is not our environment. With quantum physics we seem to have hit a boundary of what we can decifer about nature. With uncertainty, non-locality and particle-wave duality, our concepts of space and logic are challenged. Is this because we are outside the comfort of the environment we are adapted to? What reason to we have to believe that we can peek through the curtain of quantum physics and have the logic, intuition and awareness to see how nature truly operates?

Good points, all.

To be precise, a Grand Unified Theory would be a set of equations from which all of our other physics equations could be derived. This is not necessarily the same as seeing "how nature truly operates" (although I suppose it would be, from my perspective). Secondly, it is useful to note that we have been able to develop a (fantastically useful) theory of quantum physics, despite the fact that (as you pointed out) quantum physics is very difficult to understand intuitively.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

To be honest I don't know much. I was of the belief that there were five major variants and that they were not infact exclusive but merely different interpretations of the same theory. It's all rather interesting in any case.

Your better off asking Mr. Sprinkles about String theory; the specifics have always been way over my head.
From what I last remember, the 5 major types has been outdated by some new one, which incorporates their general principle. Might have changed; I read that article some 2-3 years ago
On a side note-complex mathematics suck.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Your better off asking Mr. Sprinkles about String theory; the specifics have always been way over my head.

Hey, they're over my head, too.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Hey, they're over my head, too.

Doh. I figured you'd know more than me.
Anybody actually work with one of the equations in it? I work with chaos math and the equations they use make my work look like arithmetic.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Good points, all.

To be precise, a Grand Unified Theory would be a set of equations from which all of our other physics equations could be derived. This is not necessarily the same as seeing "how nature truly operates" (although I suppose it would be, from my perspective). Secondly, it is useful to note that we have been able to develop a (fantastically useful) theory of quantum physics, despite the fact that (as you pointed out) quantum physics is very difficult to understand intuitively.

That is a good point. Afterall, we were able to "discover" the odd nature of quantum physics (uncertainty, non-locality, dualisms), despite it being odd.

[Comet]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Doh. I figured you'd know more than me.
Anybody actually work with one of the equations in it? I work with chaos math and the equations they use make my work look like arithmetic.

We use some basic calculus in my job in regards to the quantum. It works for the "real life" senarios, at least the government accepts them. Yet, nobody really knows... we go off of what we "know".