We need a new theory of everything

> Photo by Mor Shani on Unsplash

The theory of everything is a theory that explains everything: every force, every particle, every point of matter and energy in the universe. The problem with the theories of everything is that they must unify so many different theories into one.

Individually, we have a good idea of how matter works and how it is produced. This is called the Standard Model of particle physics. We also have the theory of gravitational force, which explains the universe as a geometric structure in which bending produces gravitational action.

The two ideas are largely incompatible.

If Albert Einstein hadn't appeared in the photograph, if he had contented himself with concerns about Things like Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect, then we might have come up with a completely different theory of gravity, perhaps a much different one. Consistent with other particle theories.

We will never know.

The problem now is that the theory of everything has only one real contender: string theory.

String theory is also not a theory. It is a collection of related theories, any of which may or may not be correct. This article is not about string theory, but about the lack of any paradigm-different approach to all theories.

While there are many attempts to reconcile Einstein's theory with the Standard Model, few are as ambitious as string theory that integrates all forms of particle into one: strings, which create different particle spaces in multidimensional vibrations.

No wonder thousands of papers have been written.

Isaac Newton wanted a theory of everything, so he spent decades trying to understand what these things were made of. Unfortunately, he lived in an era when chemistry didn't even exist and wasted his time on alchemy, a mystical art that was closely related to both science and astrology.

Luckily for us, we're smarter than that.

Or us?

Perhaps efforts such as string theory are merely modern forms of alchemy, based on the language and practice of science, but ultimately it's more about ourselves and the narratives we tell about reality.

More cool-headed people might say we don't need all theories. Maybe there is no such thing. Science is often messy and ugly. Take a look at the three-body problem of Newtonian mechanics – another problem where Newton wasted a lot of time. It cannot be solved in any closed form and allows for chaotic solutions. How can it be really ugly

But beauty and ugliness are not as important as truth in science. The three-body problem is a good example because it shows our arrogance that we seek order and call it beautiful, and that a vast and complex universe like ours acknowledges that chaos has its own beauty.

Although string theory has many aspects of its role in mathematics, making it more convincing than other ideas, I wonder if it perpetuates the 20th-century view of physical processes and needs to be overturned.

Consider that it places an object, i.e. a string, that moves in a space, such as the Calaby-Yau microspace-time. It can also accept quantum field theory without modification because it provides the statistical background to the theory.

Thus, it continues the idea of modern physics in the 20th century that quantum fields representing particles move in space-time manifolds. It greatly modifies the view using strings and multidimensional spaces, but hardly changes the paradigm. Maybe that's not the biggest drawback, not a lack of prediction or complexity.

Physics in the 19th century had its own flaws, many of which have been forgotten. It focuses primarily on Newton's body, not the field. It cannot understand the power of general covariance and equate the coordinate system with reality. It makes absolute trades in time and space.

Are we doing better?

The existence of a string is an absolute reality, no matter how dynamic it is.

Could the 21st century eliminate absolutism? To allow reality to be dynamically shaped in every possible way?

I don't know what the theory looks like, but I know it will be completely general. It does not assume that what exists in the world creates reality; on the contrary, it only assumes that a world exists, thus making itself real. It has no absolute value: no strings, no quantum field theory, just shapes that can be extended indefinitely, and based on that shape, perhaps not, i.e. nothing. To come up with a theory of everything you need is one thing that doesn't start with a thing, otherwise you will reach infinite recursion.

If not everything, what if that is the basis of all things?

When considering what is not a thing but is important to the laws of physics, I think of energy. Energy is like mass. Or it can be expressed as the frequency of light, movement, heat or the possibility of something happening. Fundamentally, energy is just one of many similar quantities like momentum, but it's not the same thing.

I don't necessarily say "everything is energy", but everything is similar to motion, just like energy, but nothing moves, because motion is the basis of all things.

This could be like the pre-geometry of algebra proposed by David Bohm, or some other way of representing the basis of geometry.

What is clear to me is that regardless of whether string theory is successful or not, we will not have a theory of anything until there is any theory of anything (including strings).

Meschini et al. (August 2006). Geometry, Pre-Geometry, and Others. Historical and Philosophical Studies part B: Historical and philosophical studies of modern physics. 36（3）：435–464。 arXiv：gr-qc / 0411053。

(This article is translated from Tim Andersen, Ph.D.'s article "We need a new Theory of Everything", please indicate the source, original link: https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/we-need-a-new-theory-of-everything-f78baf16728d)