What if... we solve fundamental problems in physics. Everything is waiting for a theory from which nothing can come
What will give us the answer to such mysteries as dark matter and dark energy, the mystery of the beginning of the Universe, the nature of gravity, the advantage of matter over antimatter, the direction of time, the unification of gravity with other physical interactions, the great unification of the forces of nature into one basic, up to the so-called theory of everything ?
According to Einstein and many other outstanding modern physicists, the goal of physics is precisely to create a theory of everything (TV). However, the concept of such a theory is not unambiguous. Known as the theory of everything, ToE is a hypothetical physical theory that consistently describes everything physical phenomena and allows you to predict the result of any experiment. Nowadays, this phrase is commonly used to describe theories that attempt to make a connection with general theory of relativity. So far, none of these theories has received experimental confirmation.
At present, the most advanced theory claiming to be TW is based on the holographic principle. 11-dimensional M-theory. It has not yet been developed and is considered by many to be a direction of development rather than an actual theory.
Many scientists doubt that something like a "theory of everything" is even possible, and in the most basic sense, based on logic. Kurt Gödel's theorem says that any sufficiently complex logical system is either internally inconsistent (one can prove a sentence and its contradiction in it) or incomplete (there are trivially true sentences that cannot be proved). Stanley Jackie remarked in 1966 that TW must be a complex and coherent mathematical theory, so it will inevitably be incomplete.
There is a special, original and emotional way of the theory of everything. holographic hypothesis (1), transferring the task to a slightly different plan. Black hole physics seems to indicate that our universe is not what our senses tell us. The reality that surrounds us can be a hologram, i.e. projection of a two-dimensional plane. This also applies to Gödel's theorem itself. But does such a theory of everything solve any problems, does it allow us to confront the challenges of civilization?
Describe the universe. But what is the universe?
We currently have two overarching theories that explain almost all physical phenomena: Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) i. The first explains well the movement of macro objects, from soccer balls to galaxies. he is very knowledgeable about atoms and subatomic particles. The problem is that these two theories describe our world in completely different ways. In quantum mechanics, events take place against a fixed background. space-time – while w is flexible. What will the quantum theory of curved space-time look like? We do not know.
The first attempts to create a unified theory of everything appeared shortly after the publication general theory of relativitybefore we understand the fundamental laws that govern nuclear forces. These concepts, known as Kaluzi-Klein theory, sought to combine gravity with electromagnetism.
For decades, string theory, which represents matter as being made up of tiny vibrating strings Or energy loop, is considered the best for creating unified theory of physics. However, some physicists prefer kcable-stayed loop gravityin which outer space itself is made up of tiny loops. However, neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity has been experimentally verified.
Grand unification theories (GUTs), combining quantum chromodynamics and the theory of electroweak interactions, represent the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions as a manifestation of one unified interaction. However, none of the previous grand unified theories has received experimental confirmation. A common feature of the grand unified theory is the prediction of the decay of the proton. This process has not yet been observed. It follows from this that the lifetime of a proton must be at least 1032 years.
The 1968 Standard Model unified the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces under one overarching umbrella. All particles and their interactions have been considered, and many new predictions have been made, including one big unification prediction. At high energies, on the order of 100 GeV (the energy required to accelerate a single electron to a potential of 100 billion volts), the symmetry unifying the electromagnetic and weak forces will be restored.
The existence of new ones was predicted, and with the discovery of the W and Z bosons in 1983, these predictions were confirmed. The four main forces were reduced to three. The idea behind the unification is that all three forces of the Standard Model, and perhaps even the higher energy of gravity, are combined into one structure.
2. The Langrange equation describing the Standard Model, divided into five components.
Some have suggested that at even higher energies, perhaps around Planck scale, gravity will also combine. This is one of the main motivations of string theory. What's very interesting about these ideas is that if we want unification, we have to restore symmetry at higher energies. And if they are currently broken, it leads to something observable, new particles and new interactions.
The Lagrangian of the Standard Model is the only equation describing particles i influence of the Standard Model (2). It consists of five independent parts: about gluons in zone 1 of the equation, weak bosons in the part marked with two, marked with three, is a mathematical description of how matter interacts with the weak force and the Higgs field, ghost particles that subtract the excess of the Higgs field in parts of the fourth, and the spirits described under five Fadeev-Popovwhich affect the redundancy of the weak interaction. Neutrino masses are not taken into account.
Although Standard Model we can write it as a single equation, it's not really a homogeneous whole in the sense that there are many separate, independent expressions that govern the various components of the universe. Separate parts of the Standard Model do not interact with each other, because the color charge does not affect the electromagnetic and weak interactions, and questions remain unanswered why interactions that should occur, for example, CP violation in strong interactions, do not work. take place.
When the symmetries are restored (at the peak of the potential), unification occurs. However, the symmetry breaking at the very bottom is consistent with the universe we have today, along with new kinds of massive particles. So what “out of everything” should this theory be? The one that is, i.e. a real asymmetric universe, or one and symmetrical, but ultimately not the one we are dealing with.
The deceptive beauty of "complete" models
Lars English, in The No Theory of Everything, argues that there is no single set of rules that could combine general relativity with quantum mechanicsbecause what is true at the quantum level is not necessarily true at the level of gravity. And the larger and more complex the system, the more it differs from its constituent elements. “The point is not that these rules of gravity contradict quantum mechanics, but that they cannot be derived from quantum physics,” he writes.
All science, intentionally or not, is based on the premise of their existence. objective physical lawswhich entail a mutually compatible set of fundamental physical postulates describing the behavior of the physical universe and everything in it. Of course, such a theory does not entail a complete explanation or description of everything that exists, but, most likely, it exhaustively describes all verifiable physical processes. Logically, one of the immediate benefits of such an understanding of TW would be to stop experiments in which the theory predicts negative results.
Most physicists will have to stop researching and make a living teaching, not researching. However, the public probably doesn't care whether the force of gravity can be explained in terms of the curvature of spacetime.
Of course, there is another possibility - the Universe simply will not unite. The symmetries we have arrived at are simply our own mathematical inventions and do not describe the physical universe.
In a high-profile article for Nautil.Us, Sabina Hossenfelder (3), a scientist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Study, assessed that "the whole idea of a theory of everything is based on an unscientific assumption." “This is not the best strategy for developing scientific theories. (…) The reliance on beauty in the development of theory has historically worked poorly.” In her opinion, there is no reason for nature to be described by a theory of everything. While we need a quantum theory of gravity to avoid a logical inconsistency in the laws of nature, forces in the Standard Model do not need to be unified and need not be unified with gravity. It would be nice, yes, but it's unnecessary. The standard model works well without unification, the researcher emphasizes. Nature clearly doesn't care what physicists think is beautiful mathematics, Ms. Hossenfelder says angrily. In physics, breakthroughs in theoretical development are associated with the solution of mathematical inconsistencies, and not with beautiful and "finished" models.
Despite these sober admonitions, new proposals for a theory of everything are constantly being put forward, such as Garrett Lisi's The Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, published in 2007. It has the feature that Prof. Hossenfelder is beautiful and can be shown beautifully with attractive visualizations (4). This theory, called E8, claims that the key to understanding the universe is mathematical object in the form of a symmetrical rosette.
Lisi created this structure by plotting elementary particles on a graph that also takes into account known physical interactions. The result is a complex eight-dimensional mathematical structure of 248 points. Each of these points represents particles with different properties. There is a group of particles in the diagram with certain properties that are "missing". At least some of these "missing" theoretically have something to do with gravity, bridging the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
4. Visualization theory E8
So physicists have to work to fill the "Fox socket". If it succeeds, what will happen? Many sarcastically answer that nothing special. Just a pretty picture would be finished. This construction can be valuable in this sense, as it shows us what the real consequences of completing a "theory of everything" would be. Perhaps insignificant in a practical sense.
