4 ms·

Downvotes might be because the article distinguishes between a theory of quantum gravity and a theory of everything: > Physicists would much rather have all th

Downvotes might be because the article distinguishes between a theory of quantum gravity and a theory of everything: > Physicists would much rather have all these forces unified to one, which means that they would all come from the same mathematical structure. [...] At the energies that we have tested it so far, the symmetry would have to be broken, which gives rise to the standard model. This unification of the forces of the standard model is called a “grand unification” or a “grand unified theory,” GUT for short. > What physicists mean by a theory of everything is then a theory from which all the four fundamental interactions derive. This means it is both a grand unified theory and a theory of quantum gravity.

Kednicma 6y ago
As she says, that's specifically "grand" unified theories (GUTs). A theory of everything might be imagined as similar to a GUT, in that they should both have all of the same stuff on the blackboard and arranged into roughly the same sorts of equations, but a theory of everything might not be able to express all four forces in terms of just one force. Indeed, what we mean by "force" is two different things entirely: in GR, "force" is the shape of the fabric of space, while in QM, "force" is purses of coins (I don't want to say "packets of data") traveling through that space. I don't quite agree with Wikipedia [0] on this; they say: > Unifying gravity with the electronuclear interaction would provide a theory of everything (TOE) rather than a GUT. GUTs are often seen as an intermediate step towards a TOE. We all have different opinions on this terminology, it seems! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory
- Strilanc 6y ago
  Yes, I was also surprised about that particular definition of "theory of everything", but it is the one used by the article.
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  Her terminology and Wikipedia's terminology match 100%. Are you certain you're using the correct terminology?

Kednicma 6y ago

As she says, that's specifically "grand" unified theories (GUTs). A theory of everything might be imagined as similar to a GUT, in that they should both have all of the same stuff on the blackboard and arranged into roughly the same sorts of equations, but a theory of everything might not be able to express all four forces in terms of just one force. Indeed, what we mean by "force" is two different things entirely: in GR, "force" is the shape of the fabric of space, while in QM, "force" is purses of coins (I don't want to say "packets of data") traveling through that space. I don't quite agree with Wikipedia [0] on this; they say: > Unifying gravity with the electronuclear interaction would provide a theory of everything (TOE) rather than a GUT. GUTs are often seen as an intermediate step towards a TOE. We all have different opinions on this terminology, it seems! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

Strilanc 6y ago
Yes, I was also surprised about that particular definition of "theory of everything", but it is the one used by the article.
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
Her terminology and Wikipedia's terminology match 100%. Are you certain you're using the correct terminology?