An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

[Jonti]

Something reasonably accessible on this at backreaction.blogspot ...

This is without doubt cool: He has a theory that contains gravity as well as the other interactions of the SM. Given that he has to choose the action by hand to reproduce the Standard Model, one can debate how natural this actually is. However, for me the question remains which problem he can address at this stage. He neither can say anything about the quantization of gravity, renormalizability, nor about the hierarchy problem. When it comes to the cosmological constant, it seems for his theory to work he needs it to be the size of about the Higgs vev, i.e. roughly 12 orders of magnitude too large. (And this is not the common problem with the too large quantum corrections, but actually the constant appearing in the Lagrangian.)

To make predictions with this model, one first needs to find a mechanism for symmetry breaking which is likely to become very involved. I think these two points, the cosmological constant and the symmetry breaking, are the biggest obstacles on the way to making actual predictions.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If god wanted us to understand the universe he would have made it 2-dimensional and really quite small...

 

[Dillinger4]

In what way is that "everything"?

Sorry.

I am not a scientist. I suppose the theory of everything is misleading. Its usually called the GUT - Grand Unified Theory.

A theory that can predict how these forces will act together, it would lead to some pretty amazing technology.

For example, if we knew how all particles might react under these combined forces, we could technically predict the future - at least on a molecular level.

I suppose its called a 'Theory of Everything' because if one could know it, you could build up from it and know a lot of stuff.

 

[Dillinger4]

Leaving aside the debate about the impossibility of this: if we did do it are we thus saying that our concious experience of debating on the internet could be determined by 'looking' at our microphysical structures? Would this not rule out emergence?

Of course it would be impossible, but we would have high probabilities of being able to predict the actions of particles.

AFAIK, Quantum Mechanics is all about these probabilities.

I am not sure about being able to predict anything larger than particles, because the combined probabilities of them behaving in certain ways would probably be too large to measure. In theory, at least, it is possible. I think. I could be entirely wrong on all of this.

What is emergence btw?

 

[kyser_soze]

What is emergence btw?

'Sum greater than parts' is, I think, the easiest way of describing it. It's when something happens from a set if interactions that is different from, and greater then, the sum of it's parts - human consciouness/intelligence is thought to be an emergent property since it's more than the sum of it bioelectrical and chemical constituents.

I think...

 

[citydreams]

Apart from the maths, I was impressed this dude is described as a beach bum. New Scientist quoted his reaction to discovering the GUT as "holy crap!"