Theory of Everything

To re-cap, I've explained that string theory unravels the central problem of modern physics, which is hot to reconcile quantum physics and general relativity. It can furthermore explain the properties of particles and the properties of the forces. It unites all of the four fundamental forces. It’s mathematically very elegant. And it has confirmed predictions such as black hole entropy. I will repost my Brian Green quote from R1: “from one principle—that everything at its most microscopic level consists of combinations of vibrating strands—string theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter”. Since Pro’s not understanding 1-dimensionality, I will illuminate it. Pro states that the universe is made up of 3-dimensional particles. So hey have width, height, and length. We could therefore, in principle, examine this particle and dissect its parts. Anything that has 3-dimensions can be segmented--not necessarily physically but conceptually--into its spatially differentiated parts. This means the particle is not entirely fundamental because it has parts. Matter thus must reach some fundamental point, which the standard model calls a dimensionless point-particle. However, connect two points, and you have one-dimension. Connect a number of them and you have more dimensions. So dimensionless particles can easily make up three-dimensional space. A loop has 1 dimension because it has length. In principle, you could segment the loop into its parts as differentiated by its length, but conceiving of the fundamental constituents of matter as loops is what makes string theory so powerful. When the strings move, they trace a three-dimensional pattern. I obviously don’t think the “whys” are unimportant. I merely think Pro’s applying them promiscuously. Asking for a definition of energy is unimportant since it’s a well-defined physical quantity. Asking why the fundamental constituents of matter are the way they are is futile since the very premise of this debate assumes that we must reach a point where science cannot go any further. If Pro’s case does not need sources, that just reveals how weak it is. It doesn't even call for evidence. Pro thinks this is a philosophy debate. It is not. Perhaps if this was 384 BC, Pro’s theory would count as a ToE. Since it does not even pretend to be science, it cannot possibly fit the modern standard of a ToE. “String Theory hasn't even been validated or observed. It's the math behind String Theory that makes it appealing. ” This is, at least, better than not being even capable of empirical confirmation. Pro’s theory is so poorly defined that scientists wouldn't even know how to test it. It doesn't even make predictions or care for what science has to say. Let’s be clear, no possible ToE has been validated as of yet, including string theory. That’s why my only claim is that string theory is the best candidate. Pro seems to think quantum physics is not settled science. In the very 1st round I quoted that QP is "the most precisely tested and most successful theory in the history of science" and stressed how fundamental it is to modern physics. Pro could bring up his own evidence rather than groundless assertions. The various interpretations of QP and some of the gaps in our understanding of it are not settled, but QP as a fundamental branch of science is very well-established and underlies almost all of what modern physics has achieved. As stated, Pro’s notions of space as a cosmic container within which the contents of the universe rest is heavily outdated. Einstein uprooted this notion. As Einstein predicted, objects do not orbit in a curved path through flat space; they orbit in a straight path through curved space. The galaxies’ huge masses distort space. Light travels through this space and results in this phenomenon. If Pro followed my source he would have found a very clear explanation as well. Quote: “'Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? ' No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself. .. no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. ” This is what I summarized briefly. Pro’s failure to understand why his notions are outdated and contradict GR is entirely his own fault. Pro still hasn’t shown why his theory escapes the need to meld the bridge between QP and the classical world. I think Pro misunderstands me. I don’t deny that they underlie each other. How could I if I’m arguing for a ToE? I’m saying any ToE needs to provide a framework to unite them. String theory does do this by uniting QP and GR. Pro’s theory does not even make an effort to do so. I don’t believe Pro understands the gravity of this central problem. Uniting QP and GR is pretty much the gordian knot of modern physics. Pro has not adequately eliminated thermodynamics’ conflict with his theory. He simply states that the last 13.8 billion years is just one snapshot of the universe unfolding and that it will eventually arise at equilibrium. The problem is, there is literally no empirical evidence to support this. If all we've observed is ordered energy converting to disordered energy and never back again, why would we have any reason to believe the fundamental force of the universe is equilibrium-achieving? Entropy will increase until the entire universe is one great inferno of thermal energy. All evidence supports that this is the state the universe is heading towards rather than equilibrium.