Theory of everything
| The facts of the matter Physics |
|
| May the mass times acceleration be with you |
| Let's get physical! |
| Atoms trying to understand atoms |
A theory of everything (or the Unified Field Theory) is a scientific theory that would successfully model everything we know about physics. It would describe the gravitational, the weak nuclear, the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic forces in a single unifying framework.[1] The scientific consensus uses a separate model for gravity than the one used for the other forces; a theory of everything would bridge the gap between these and put everything under the same model. As things now stand, general relativity offers the best description of gravitational interactions while quantum mechanics addresses the remaining ones in the Standard Model of particle physics, which already accounts for special relativity. Hence, formulating a theory of everything is typically synonymous with unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics. Such a theory would, in principle, explain everything about physics as we know it.
A proper theory of everything does not currently exist, but some of the smartest people around the globe are working to get us closer to one. Then, there are the cranks working in the opposite direction...
Such a "theory of everything" differs from the so-called "Grand Unified Theories", which exist but do not include gravity and do not agree with experimental data.
Cranks[edit]
Theories of everything are popular with cranks and crackpots, often to ridiculous failure.[2] There are numerous open questions in physics
, and questions about the fundamental nature of reality we want to answer. These gaps in knowledge attract cranks, despite the frequent lack of understanding about the surrounding knowledge that creates the gap in the first place. Physicist Angela Collier argues the draw comes from a desire to feel important and special within the field of physics, and feelings of inadequacy and frustration causing a rejection of mainstream physics theories.[3] As a result, some cranks will create elaborate, incoherent explanations for things like dark matter and wild gestures at quantum gravity that don't demonstrate serious understanding.
Such theories can range from incomplete attempts do actual physics to absolutely off-the-wall nuttiness. One is technically worse, but at the end of the day, they're all crap. The crackpots can dress up their broken ideas with strange metaphors and evocative language, and even inject a few equations in there, but they can't hide the void at the center of their theories: they don't know what they're talking about.
Some examples of crank theories of everything include:
- Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance
- Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity
- Dewey Larson's Reciprocal Theory
- The Electric Universe theory
- Gene Ray's Time Cube[note 1]
- Wilhelm Reich's orgone theory[note 2]
- Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe[note 3]
- Whatever the hell this is?[note 4]
See also[edit]
- Grand Unified Theory
- String theory (one candidate for such a theory which is not without controversy)
- Quantum gravity
- Theory of evolution
Notes[edit]
- ↑ An edge case; the Time Cube is mostly focused just on the structure of time, and it's also so batshit that it's hard to even call it a theory.
- ↑ Also an edge case, since orgone is essentially a form of vitalism, but it was granted the explanatory power of a theory of everything in a lot of cases.
- ↑ Edge case; Langan calls it a theory of everything but also seems not to know that a unified field theory would actually entail
- ↑ Edge— oh, who the hell are we kidding? Where do you even start?
References[edit]
- ↑ See A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Ch 10.
- ↑ Why is Einstein's general relativity such a popular target for cranks?, The Conversation, Nov 23, 2015
- ↑ physics crackpots: a 'theory' by Angela Collier