...Well, maybe. As I have noted in "Unlocking the Mystery of the Universe" (part I, II, and III), for the better part of a century, investigators have been on the quest for the Holy Grail of science—a theory of everything (TOE) that unifies all the laws of physics into a single, meta-principle of the universe. Among other things, the TOE would account for the universal forces and elemental particles of nature, as well as the relationships between them.

While the Standard Model of physics has been highly successful in describing the properties for dozens of fundamental particles, as well as the electromagnetic force and two nuclear forces, it doesn’t include gravity, nor give a clue as to how the twin pillars of physics—General Relativity (governing the very large) and Quantum Mechanics (governing the very small)—can be reconciled with each other.

But that may soon change. Garrett Lisi, who has a Ph.D. in physics but works in construction, and serves as a hiking guide when he’s not surfing, has found what he believes is the key to the TOE. It involves an arcane mathematical artifact discovered in the 19th century, called “E8.” E8 is an intricate geometrical pattern that models the inter-relationships and symmetries for objects with up to 57 dimensions.

What Lisi had realised was that he could find a way to place the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points. What remained was 20 gaps which he filled with notional particles, for example those that some physicists predict to be associated with gravity.

Physicists have long puzzled over why elementary particles appear to belong to families, but this arises naturally from the geometry of E8, he says. So far, all the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world.

Lisi's proposal has gotten some high-caliber attention. Prominent physicist, Lee Smolin calls it “one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years."

Needless to say, Lisi has a long way to go before his theory is enshrined as scientific orthodoxy. Promisingly, experiments at the Large Hadron Collider could give it significant heft, something that is not possible with foreseeable techniques for the rival string theory.

At the same time, even if experimental research ultimately verifies the E8 theory, Lisi’s model will only describe how, rather than explain why, the fabric of the cosmos conforms to it. In fact, the most vexing questions of man -- Why is there something instead of nothing; Where did it come from?; Does life have meaning and purpose?; What does it mean to be human?, What is the "good" life?, etc. -- will be left unanswered by this, and any other naturalistically derived, theory.

That's because the real “Theory of Everything” is neither embedded within an esoteric mathematical abstraction nor penetrable with the next generation of particle accelerators; it is revealed in an ancient text that begins, “In the beginning…”

Comments

[Chris B]

The Theory of Everything (TOE) does not deal with explanations of human purpose, divinity or why we (humans) are here. The Theory of Everything seeks to tie together physical fundamentals and mathematical anomalies that describe newtonian, quantum and electromagnetic mechanics. Currently, in physics, we have a set of separate equations that describes each, separately. The TOE is long sought after because all three forces should be relational. Basically, we are looking to tie these forces together in order to better understand specific scientific questions. Physics and more specifically the TOE is not looking to answer human and divine purpose.

[Regis Nicoll]

Chris--You're quite right that TOE does not address the big metaphysical questions of life--nor CAN it, as long as it has been truncated by methodological naturalism. You note that the forces of nature "should be relational"--why should they? Because it would fit nicely with the presupposition that we inhabit a mechanistic cosmos in which everything is fully determined after matter and energy magically appeared out of the quantum vacuum?

[Samuel X]

No... because it would fit nicely with the presupposition that there is only one ultimate cause, at the beginning of the universe when matter, energy, and information appeared miraculously out of absolutely nothing.
God is known to make things beautiful, after all.

Ultimately, the "TOE" is hoped to be a single mathematical expression that describes why the universe works the way it does, which would, by necessity, have no metaphysical implications whatsoever.

(Theory of Everything is not only a misnomer, but incorrect, by the way - the more accepted term is Unified Field Theory.)

[Lee]

Samuel X wrote: "(Theory of Everything is not only a misnomer, but incorrect, by the way - the more accepted term is Unified Field Theory.)"

Actually, TOE is potentially a superset of UFT, since fields are not required for TOE, and TOE would also explain all physical constants of nature.

Isaac Asimov, although an atheist, basically confirmed Regis's point (while actually attempting to deny it) in a short story over 50 years ago: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[Tim]

What he has accomplished is explaining a number of facts, which fits nicely into a ancient, perhaps, modern formula for everthing. Except, however, he too will fail as others before him that are not of God. He will find a big, fat ZERO!

[teri]

WHO CARES!!!!!Good Lord of all the things to be concerned about,this is what is important??? Get real!!!!

[mike3]

Actually there is *no* theory of "everything". That's just it: "everything" is infinite, so there cannot be such a theory, at least not one that could ever be written down anywhere.

The purpose of this theory is the same as all those before it, an attempt to gain more knowledge about things. I'm not sure there any *real* scientist out there seriously believes his theory solves EVERY question in existence (Darnit, the scientific method itself admits this is not possible!). Furthermore, there are questions we do not even know how to ask!

"What he has accomplished is explaining a number of facts, which fits nicely into a ancient, perhaps, modern formula for everthing. Except, however, he too will fail as others before him that are not of God. He will find a big, fat ZERO!"

No. They will not find a big fat zero, but they will not find an infinity either. They will find a one, a two maybe.

There is no "formula for everything" that can be written down in any book or any paper or any finite medium.

Actually, I like the idea that God and only God alone can know absolutely everything, and absolutely no one else can whatsoever. Why is this? Because it means there's always a mystery, always something more to discover, and it puts a cap on our ego as well.

[mike3]

"Chris--You're quite right that TOE does not address the big metaphysical questions of life--nor CAN it, as long as it has been truncated by methodological naturalism."

Even if it was NOT truncated by such methodological naturalism it would STILL be utterly incapable of answering EVERYthing, as EVERYthing is infinite, or even beyond infinite. Any theory we come up with by any method will be finite.

A theory of everything is impossible, period, no exceptions at all. AT ALL!
End of the line! Full stop. It doesn't matter what methods you use, period, it is plain impossible!

[mike3]

In the light of all that, I suggest that the term "theory of everything" be dropped, since what is really being referred to is NOT such a thing. That we can know everything, or that going beyond naturalism will enable it, is utter tripe.

[harryup]

All the theories amount to nothing because as mortals, we can never comprehend God's infinity of time and space of the Universe.

[Jason Taylor]

I thought the theory of everything was 42.