Gamechange: Theories Of Everything Can’t Exist, Physicists Show.

42 thoughts on “Gamechange: Theories Of Everything Can’t Exist, Physicists Show.”

1. i dont know… DJ Nate gave us four theories of everything…

2. A proper Theory of Everything would change everything so ….

3. 4% / 4.6% = 5.2173913 AND 71.4% / 24% = 2.975 … wherein in the context of Cosmological numbers, these two numbers (5.2173913 and 2.975) are near exactly the same! Offering that the Matter to Dark Matter to Dark Energy are related (of course according to MTS and CIG Theory). Add in relativity and other minor nuances and they will be the same ratios! Another (as if we needed more proof) support point for CIG Theory. Matter, Dark Matter, Dark Energy Numbers taken from this Sabine YouTube.

4. I think ToE actually exists, but we can't find it. So, from now I, a theoretical physicist, from today challenge Sabine Hossenfelder, that we may find a ToE.

5. Trying to create the theory of everything is the same as trying to create the creator of the universe and all living and non living in it. Mission completely impossible.
   It makes real sense to study the character of the Creator in order to understand the principles behind His creation. In His mercy, He has given us His Word so that we may not walk in darkness.

6. We have demonstrated a new unification principle rooted in discrete recursive mathematics, connecting fundamental quantum interactions and cosmic gravity through a universal recursion formula. This result opens novel avenues for exploring physical laws as emergent phenomena from deep mathematical recursion structures.

   $$
   n = frac{x cdot lnleft(frac{E_b}{E_a}right)}{ln(LZ)} times left(1 + HQS times 10^{-3} times D^{ln(LZ)}right)
   $$

7. I like the arguments, and the limitations of the arguments. I have a different view, more related to the argument that there are phenomena that we cannot prove, even if we know "everything". It comes to us from information theory – specifically Shannon's coding theory. What we observe is equivalent to "code words" in Shannon's theory. For example, we look at some picture of a galaxy far, far away. It's just a 2-dimensional code word of bits. What can we say about it? The problem is that there is unavoidable noise in the observation. We can estimate what the image says, but there is always some probability that noise has obscured something important or significant. Our estimate of the noisy information requires two things. First, it requires that we know what part of the observation is noise, and what part is real signal. The second part is that we have to compare what we think is "real" with our theory to figure out what is really there in the observation. Shannon says that this can work, but only if the first part that estimates the noise can figure out that the S/N ratio exceeds the capacity limit for the second part — the real information signal. If the S/N is too low, then the second part is just a guess. So, when do we know that we are guessing, in the dark? There's the rub!!! We do not really know when we are guessing, to fit some story into our observation. Examples in past history from observations Mars (closer than a galaxy) illustrate. There was a time (just a century ago) when we thought Mars had canals, and water, and even civilization with Martians. Turns out we were just guessing. Oh well.

8. The actual universe seems to falsify this theory…

9. This to me smells like pseudoscience.

10. I am a bit disappointed about Lawrence Krauss. It seems to me that there is too much "Gödel, Escher, Bach" stuff in some heads of physicists and philosophers. Gödel never claimed there are unprovable truths in an "absolute sense." For example, Goodstein's theorem is provably unprovable in PA, but provable in the much stronger system ZFC (which has ordinal numbers). Gödel's Theorem roughly claims that there are unprovable true sentences in every system at least as strong as PA. As a consequence, there can be no "complete closure" of such systems. I strongly recommend to walk through Goodstein's theorem to avoid running mad over diagonal arguments.

11. Thank you, it made me laugh a lot.

12. No More Woke Physics. No Unity. No Purity. Embrace Squiggliness!!

13. The problem is that if you can show for some Postulate P that both P and -P are true, it is possible to prove anything. Literally anything. In other words, simply by proving its existence, it is possible to use that result to prove that 2 + 2 = 5, or any other arbitrary result.

    There was a very real reason that, after Gödel published his result and it became widely understood, there were several cases of mathematicians throwing themselves off of bridges and very tall buildings in their grief. Many of them felt that the very foundations of their thought process had proven to be a crumbling fantasy.

14. Wouldn’t this make the Theory of “Everything” more less as matter of semantics. In other words, does it need to be renamed to something that is more scoped to physics and less literal?

15. Of course, they may not want to admit, they have no clue

16. Sounds like a bunch of quitters.

17. I still think TFT is a complete, self consistent theory of everything. It needs to be tested by others first, but then studied. It may have insight to these questions

18. new album from Ozzy?

19. Something about any theory of everything that I imagine would fall short on is explaining emergent properties. Calculations would be far too complex for a physicist with the ultimate theory of everything to calculate if a set of atoms is going to become a person, and what that person is doing to do next friday night given just the initial conditions of the big bang

    It would "theoretically" explain everything, but it really wouldn't in practice

20. Science is about pragmatism, prediction, repetition, and explaining the past, not truth. It will never find truth and that doesn't negate any of its uses

21. I don't wanna see the theory of everything if it is not mine. Because then physics will end and i will not get the joy that i did that. So like i wont be able to celebrate cause i did not experience the greatness on hand and just read it and i would not be able to learn more physics.

22. These are good arguments coming from a formal logic perspective. The dialectical logic argument is that knowledge is a process. One of the implications of this is that for every step taken towards unification, there will be new things discovered that won't fit within this unification. A theory of everything absolutifies this "everything".

23. A theory of everything is stupid. Unifying fields is valid though, and took under 3 weeks.

24. Incompleteness/impossibility theorems have nothing to do with what TOE's are trying to do.

    All such theorems involve self-referential paradoxes.

    A TOE isn't a self-reference, it's a self-simulation, self-simulation is definitely possible, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be conscious.

25. I have a gut feeling in my toe.

26. Any philosopher would've told you that long ago.
    Krauss is faking intelligence as always.

27. Thank you for being honest when you imply that with math, every theory can be "proven". I have long believed this. As an example, the age of the universe has been "proven" mathematically; I know this to be false. The truth is, the universe is ageless and came into existence just as we see it. What we see is the truth and no theory, no matter how complex or imaginative, can explain away what we are seeing. How can we see galaxies that are older than the universe? Why do we insist that redshift indicates movement? Do our observations result in the need for the multiverse theory? Really? Why cant we just observe the universe and use those observations to substantiate supportable theories? Astronomical/Cosmological theories have become jokes.

28. sexy

29. "If not, call it "beyond the standard model" and publish anyway"… My stomach still hurts from laughing. Love your dark humor!

30. So let's call it the theory of almost everything.

31. Make a video about this paper pleaseee: Unexpected consequences of postquantum theories in the graph-theoretical approach to correlations

32. hold on, doesnt "mathematically impossible" just mean that you can't fully describe with math? To me it makes perfect sense that you couldn''t describe the entirety of the behavior of the universe using only math and that if you tried you would have something like we have now

33. Mathematical chaos in systems as diverse as turbulence and orbital mechanics, and the resulting Strong Butterfly Effect, shows that they didn't think much about their use of Chaitin's Argument

34. Theory of Everything means becoming fluent in the language spoken by the Universe. Things have and will happen with or without someone understanding them. In a sense is about progress and choices, Kardashev levels etc. Do you want to be a powerless observer, or do you want to go out there and explore. "The Universe is ours"

35. Progress. As we live in a dynamic environment in a time field anything in that is subject to change. As a result, there is a relative causality where events and phenomenon may be able to be proven for a time but not genuinely true. ❤

36. Hold my beer

37. denialism that reflects the general argument against breaking the sound barrier which someone then did.

38. Is objective truth not simply an axiomatic result of causality?

39. But theories of All exist or definitions font exist.

40. The scale is not partitioned into separate domains with their own laws

41. You can’t prove anything doesn’t exist, only what does exists

42. This sounds more of philosophy than physics or science.

Comments are closed.