Cosmology News Physics

Why physicists crave a grand unified theory

Spread the love

Wordle: Untitled From Matthew R. Francis at Symmetry magazine:

A GUT feeling about physics

Linking the different forces into a single theory isn’t easy, since each behaves a different way. Electromagnetism is long-ranged, the weak force is short-ranged, and the strong force is weak in high-energy environments such as the early universe and strong where energy is low. To unify these three forces, scientists have to explain how they can be aspects of a single thing and yet manifest in radically different ways in the real world.

Stop, wait. Are they prepared to accept the possibility that everything in the uiverse does not resolve into one single thing? Why not?

Some things are only a “mess” if one assumes that a single unifying principle must exist. As an aside, one often hears authoritarians insisting that the way most people live their lives most of the time is “a mess,” and strong interventions are needed.

GUTs also predicted that protons should decay into lighter particles. There was just one problem: Experiments didn’t see that decay.

Evidence is a bitch. Some call for more non-evidence-based science.

Hewett agrees that GUTs aren’t dead yet.

“I firmly believe that an observation of proton decay would affect how every person would think about the world,” she says. “Everybody can understand that we’re made out of protons and ‘Oh wow! They decay.’” More.

Which demonstrates what? Clearly, as envisioned here, GUT is a metaphysical project. Well, that makes it a member in good standing of the current cosmology club.

See also: Earth shatters at new physics find? Fetch really big broom.


In search of a road to reality

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Why physicists crave a grand unified theory

  1. 1

    Darwinists are clearly unhinged at this point, groping in the dark for something, anything, to prop up their dying secular religion. They are failing miserably…and publicly…to my great joy!

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    ‘Evidence is a bitch. Some call for more non-evidence-based science.’

    The desperation, ironically, of scientism’s materialist luminaries, whose conjectures, perforce, become more and more gratuitous and barmy.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “The basic philosophical impulse for grand unification is still there, just as important as ever,”,, (says John Ellis, a particle physicist at King’s College London.)

    And exactly what philosophical impulse could there be behind the belief that there should be a single ‘theory of everything’ or even be a simplified ‘GUT’?

    The belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or even a simplified GUT, does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions.

    Steve William Fuller, who is a philosopher in the field of science and technology studies, puts the hidden Theistic presupposition that scientists, who are trying to find a ‘theory of everything’, or a simplified GUT, like this:

    “So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”
    Steve Fuller – Professor of philosophy Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark

    And indeed professor Steve Fuller is completely correct to say,,,,

    “it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”

    The reason professor Steve Fuller is completely correct to say what he said is because of the ‘incompleteness’ of math. Godel has shown that mathematics is ‘incomplete’.

    Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics – video (excerpted from BBC’s ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ documentary)

    Even Hawking himself agreed that Godel’s incompleteness means that there will never truly be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’:

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable.”
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6

    Moreover, an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.

    Though not directly addressing Godel’s incompleteness, none-the-less, Weinberg, an atheist who had a hand in formulating the ‘standard model’ in the 1960’s, basically agrees with Steve Fuller’s assessment that mathematical descriptions should be limited. He puts the situation like this:

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video

    As to Weinberg’s question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’, Bruce Gordon answers that question rather bluntly, but clearly, here:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    And when the Agent causality of Theists is rightly let ‘back’ into the picture of physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (instead of the self refuting ‘blind’ causality of atheists),

    Agent Causality (of Theists) vs. Blind Causality (of Atheists) – video

    ,,when Agent causality, i.e. God, is rightly let back into the picture of physics, then a empirically backed unification between Quantum Theory and Relativity is readily achieved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death:

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video

    Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video

    (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the “Theory of Everything” – video

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Hillsong- Lord of Lords

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    God created the universe and its measured out. So surely it must have a unified equation behind it. unless it bumps into the REAL spiritual world .
    probably someone will unify these things.
    I don’t follow physics much but it seems to be strange conclusions. This quantum mechanics stuff seems to have problems.
    Maybe its errors in QM that stops getting the bigger theory.
    I don’t know, by the way, if these discoveries are more of a intellectual accomplishment then discoveries. proven, in biology or great inventions.
    However the folks do score it that way.

Leave a Reply