Requirements for a theory of everything

[FrankSh]

There is a thought-provoking list of requirements for the theory of everything on the site
http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html#req
At least the points 22 and 23 are not in agreement with string theory. Can all this be correct?

Here is the list (the author uses "final theory" instead of "theory of everything"), in which
I added the numbers:

• 1. The precision of the final theory must be complete; the final theory must describe all motion and all experiments, and explain all open issues from the millennium list. (If it did not, it would neither be final nor unified.)
• 2. Any modification of the final theory must be impossible; it must be 'hard to vary'. (If it could be modified, it would not be an explanation.)
• 3. In the final theory, vacuum and particles must not differ from each other at the Planck scale because of limitations of measurement precision. Thus vacuum and particles must be described by common fundamental constituents. (If common constituents did not exist, the theory would not describe black holes.)
• 4. The fundamental constituents must be extended and fluctuating, (If they were not, they would not explain black hole entropy, spin, the observer-invariance of space-time homogeneity, and spatial isotropy.)
• 5. The fundamental constituents must be as simple as possible, to satisfy Occam's razor. (If they were not, the theory would be fiction, not science.)
• 6. The fundamental constituents must determine all observables. They must also determine all coupling constants and particle masses. (If they did not, the theory would not be final.)
• 7. The fundamental constituents must be the only unobservable entities. (If they were observable, the theory would not be final; if more entities would be unobservable, the theory would be fiction, not science.)
• 8. Non-locality must be part of the description; non-locality must be negligible at everyday scales, but important at the Planck scale. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)
• 9. Physical points and sets must not exist at Planck scale, due to limitations of measurement precision; points and sets must only exist, approximately, at everyday scales. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.)
• 10. The final theory cannot be a set of equations. (If it were, it would contradict the limits to measurement precision.)
• 11. Physical systems must not exist at Planck scale, due to limitations of measurement precision; systems must only exist, approximately, at everyday scales. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity cannot be unified.)
• 12. Due to limitations of measurement precision, the universe must not be a physical system. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity cannot be unified.)
• 13. Due to limitations of measurement precision, each Planck unit is a limit value for measurements. Infinitely large or small quantities do not exist. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity cannot be unified.)
• 14. The Planck scale description of the final theory must imply quantum field theory, the standard model of elementary particle physics and general relativity. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity would not be unified.)
• 15. Planck's natural units must define all observables. They must also define coupling constants and particle masses. (Otherwise, the theory would be neither final nor unified.)
• 16. The relation to experiment must be as simple as possible, to satisfy Occam's razor. (Otherwise, the theory would not be falsifiable.)
• 17. The final theory must depend on the existence of a background, as background-independence is logically impossible in physics. (Otherwise, the theory would not be a description of nature.)
• 18. Background space-time must be equal to physical space-time at everyday scale, but must differ globally and at Planck scale. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity would not be unified.)
• 19. The big bang is not an event. (Otherwise, sets and points would exist, and quantum theory and general relativity would not be unified.)
• 20. Circularity in concept definitions must be part of the final theory, as a consequence of it being 'precise talk about nature'. (Otherwise, the theory would not be final.)
• 21. An axiomatic description of the final theory must be impossible, as nature is not described by sets at the fundamental level; the final theory must leave Hilbert's sixth problem without a solution. (Otherwise, the theory would not be final.)
• 22. Due to the limits to measurement precision, space is undefined at Planck distance, and the dimensionality of physical space at Planck distance is undefined. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity cannot be unified.)
• 23. Due to the limits to measurement precision, symmetries are undefined at Planck distance. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity cannot be unified.)
• 24. Due to the limits to measurement precision, nature is similar at Planck scale and at cosmic horizon scale. (Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity cannot be unified.)

The guy claims that all points are deduced by combining the Compton wavelength and the Schwarzschild radius. But if that is true, string theory is out.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Frank, and welcome to ToeQuest. Hope you enjoy your visit...

[FrankSh]

Point 10 is the most intriguing to me. Einstein wrote equations for candidate TOEs even on his deathbed - and here comes the opposite statement.

[Bogie]

None of us will be around by the time the final theory arrives that is in accord with the listed requirements .

To be practical, I like to think of the Theory of Everything to include known science and compatible theory, plus a huge amount of content where proposed tests cannot yet be performed at our level of technology, or even tested at all because there is no proposed way to test it. That total content must be internally consistent and compatible and must address all of the imponderables theoretically and philosophically.

The frequent references to limitations to the ToE at the Planck regime seem to impose an unnecessary restriction by insisting that the Planck regime is the end of physics instead of the limits of our ability to observe and measure.

To me, a successful theory of everything will explain the universe, infinity, and life and describe a philosophy that brings all observations, theories, and speculations into one overall consistent framework. This means to me that there are many different ToEs that could be of equal merit and whose differences can be clearly identified.

[Majik]

Just because you can mathematically describe the properties of some particle or other, doesn't mean you have an explanation for why it can exist in the first place. You will always be testing this smallest particle to see if can be broken up into smaller particles. The only thing that can explain the logical necessity of everything is, of course, logic itself. I would think that a TOE would have to be derived from some sort of logic alone. Or you will still be seeking answers to what is so necessary for the way things are. Wouldn't a complete theory have to rest on some complete system of reasoning, namely, logic?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Mike, and welcome back...

I think it'll take mathematical logic, and just a wee bit of physical experimental proof__also__But, I also feel logic is of the highest priority, as it's oh so necessary to how we interpret and organize the whole and parts, of all our ideas...

I read your papers and noticed you started with one of my favorites, DeMorgan... Are you also familiar with Charles Sanders Peirce's logic and diagramatic logics...?

[WHY 137?]

Point 10 is the most intriguing to me. Einstein wrote equations for candidate TOEs even on his deathbed - and here comes the opposite statement.

I agree with point 10.

It will be a theory that unifies or merges the LEFT Brain (algebra) with the RIGHT brain (geometry).
The last 100 years has been too much algebra...they are not seeing the bigger picture.

The swirling motion implied by symbol this forum TOEQUEST uses, is a step in the right direction toward the right hemisphere of the mind.



namaste

[WHY 137?]

"The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.

you must be LG. Lloyd?

would you mind explaining your statement for a layman?

namaste

[austintorn@aol.com]

All TOEs get to the same point, and for completeness they must say what the most fundamental stuff is made of.

Well, there's nothing to make it out of, and so that is the answer: a positive-negative distribution of nothing.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

you must be LG. Lloyd?

would you mind explaining your statement for a layman?

If finiteness be all there is to our Unverse, as per the standard model__Then...

1. Visualize all finiteness as a marble...
2. If we use the caesium atom's isotopes, as per our atomic clocks, we have accurate enough scientific measurement...
3 Yes, there are newer clocks with even more accuracy, but stick with the caesium...
3. Caesium decays in known ratios with all the other known elements' decay rates...
4. This means all of finiteness is decaying, if the standard model, and standard cosmological model's are correct, as to decay and expansion mechanics...
5. Consider the 1st and 2nd laws of conservation...
6. Consider the size of the present light cone of the finiteness...
7. If all known decays be true, finiteness is losing mass__through decay__to infinity, as decay rads travel in straight lines__as do em-waves...
8. If finiteness is losing mass and energy to infiniteness, can the 1st law hold up...?
9. If the above 8 as listed facts are true__Either the 1st law is wrong, or the std. models are wrong, as such a decrease of mass and energy is not conservation of our Universe...
10. The 1st law would demand no loss of energy, thus mass, thus matter__as there's no energy, without mass and matter in motion...
11. Since the caesium atom is measuring the finite Universe's marble__All must decay to its smallest particle-mass-energy-waves__over cosmological eons...
12. But, if so__Where does a New Universal Mechanics come from?__Which is really asking where'd the big-bang come from__in the first place...?
13. Is the 'Heat Death' model of the Universe true...?
14. If so, how does that square with the 1st law...?
15. If the first law is true, then we need to think up new models of a cyclic Universe__as such logic would show the present models to all be wrong...
16. As, no Universe's from 'no-thing myths' are allowed by the laws of thought, logic, math and science...
17. So, in the end a suggestion__Work toward new models of logical possibilities, as the present std. models all end or start in impossibilities...

LG__Logic / | \ Geometry...

Btw, the 'fundamental stuff' to make our Universe__Is just what you see around you__Decayed back to the FS...