Unified Field Theory, Falsifiablity, Religion

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Where would the speculative unified field theory stand as per falsifiablity? How (at least in principle) could you make an observation that would show the unified field theory proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made? Perhaps by positing a nonexistent realty?

Quote:

In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

Any-who as to the precept of falsifiablity my question goes to how to falsify a theory which encompasses the nature and behavior of all matter.

My understanding of the scientific use of falsifiablity suggests that (at least in principle) you would need to make an observation that would show the unified field theory proposition to fall short of being a tautology, (a statement true by virtue of its logical form) even if that observation is not actually made.

So could you falsify such a Theory of Everything by positing a nonexistent realty in which the TOE did not apply (at least in its entirety).

Further given that religion can neither be confirmed or falsified and therefore is untestable, it is still possible to falsify religion if you posit a nonexistent realty?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,380 • Replies: 35

No top replies

Re: Unified Field Theory, Falsifiablity, Religion

Chumly wrote:

Where would the speculative unified field theory stand as per falsifiablity?

The predictions of a unified field theory are a superset of the predictions made by its constituent field theories. If someone makes an oberservation refuting any of these, that also refutes the unified field theory. As a consequence, every unified field theory is at least as refutable as any of the specialized field theories it unifies.

I have no idea what a "nonexistent reality" is -- if it doesn't exist, how can it be real? But even if I knew, I couldn't see any need to resort to one as a test of unified field theories.

0 Replies

Seems to be going to a lot of trouble just to deal with peoples' imaginary friend superstitions. It's much easier to say: "Oh Yeah, prove it." and move on.

0 Replies

Thomas:
Thanks. So I gather you are saying that as long as the constituent field theories are falsifyable so must a unified filed theory. But if so then why is Newtonian physics falsifyable but yet the predictions of Quantum Mechanics have never been falsifiability disproved after a century's worth of experiments?

By nonexistent reality I meant a speculative realty upon which one could falsify the TOE if it turned out it was not possible to do so otherwise. I know it's stretchy but I was having fun!

Set:
Yes sure. The religious part was an rumination/afterthought. The main point has to do with how falsifiability might work under given conditions.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

But if so then why is Newtonian physics falsifyable but yet the predictions of Quantum Mechanics have never been falsifiability disproved after a century's worth of experiments?

Because on a subatomic scale, quantum mechanics makes different (and, as it turns out, more nearly correct) predictions than Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, for phenomena on a subatomic scale, quantum mechanics is not a superset of Newtonian mechanics. They are distinct theories.

0 Replies

OK, but can't Quantum Mechanics under the right circumstances, apply to phenomena on a large scale of which the world of Newtonian Mechanics also holds sway?

Macro quantum mechanics

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

OK, but can't Quantum Mechanics under the right circumstances, apply to phenomena on a large scale of which the world of Newtonian Mechanics also holds sway?

Of course they can. And under those circumstances, the two theories are dijoint as well.

0 Replies

Thanks. Do you have any comments on the meaning and applicability of falsifiability?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

OK, but can't Quantum Mechanics under the right circumstances, apply to phenomena on a large scale of which the world of Newtonian Mechanics also holds sway?

Macro quantum mechanics

Now, I'm not going to say that there is NO very speical circumstance where QM can predict properties and happenings of macroscale objects, but for nearly everything we would like to calcuate at lager-than-atomic levels, QM falls short.

The TOE is sought because it would combine Einstein's relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Relativity overcame Newtonian physics because the equations produced from relativity began more accurate calculations. Newtonian physics do accurately supply us with calculations that match our observations, as long as we do not observe too closely. In the centuries since Newton, we have developed more precise means of measuring observations. The mroe precise measurements are closer to the calculations produced from Relativistic equations than those of Newton. However, even GR and SR equations only work for objects larger than atoms and whatnot. Quantum Mechanics is the opposite. They are only accurate for objects and forces on a microscopic level. Scientists have tried to combine the two sets of equations, but the results aproach infinity, which points to a broken equation. The TOE (String theory as it stands now) allows us to make assumptions that provides meaningful answers when Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are combined.

If you want to get a better understanding, Brian Greene has a really good book called "The Elegant Universe." It explains Relativity and how it overtook Newtonian physics and the basics of String Theory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
QOTD: Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

0 Replies

Thanks USAFHokie80,
I'm glad to see you are sticking around!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Chumly wrote:
But if so then why is Newtonian physics falsifyable but yet the predictions of Quantum Mechanics have never been falsifiability disproved after a century's worth of experiments?

Because on a subatomic scale, quantum mechanics makes different (and, as it turns out, more nearly correct) predictions than Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, for phenomena on a subatomic scale, quantum mechanics is not a superset of Newtonian mechanics. They are distinct theories.

nicely done, once it was recognized that there was a break point with the mass of the object ruining the validity of newtonian equations, the theoriticians looked for new rules.

it is possible that one day the assumptions made in the QM equations will be pushed beyond their limits of valid definition. and a whole new way of looking at things will emerge.

if the history of science teaches anything, it is that what we know today is less than what we know tommorow.

but i wish they would hurry the hell up on time travel, i'm gettng too old to travel much.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Thanks. Do you have any comments on the meaning and applicability of falsifiability?

Sorry, Chumly, this question somehow excaped my notice when you asked it. I must say it's rather broad. What kind of comment do you have in mind?

0 Replies

Thanks. I've read a bit about it and from what little I have gleaned it seems there may be quite a range of views, even lurching into the philosophical as to exactly the what, how, who, where when of falsifiability. Is this the case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

How pivotal is falsifiability to modern science? Is it used as an acid test? Is it taught in high school science classes for example?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

How pivotal is falsifiability to modern science? Is it used as an acid test? Is it taught in high school science classes for example?

It is pivotal in the everyday practice of scientists. No scientific magazine would print an article that advances an obviously unfalsifiable theory. But this has been true long before Popper. What he did in effect was to describe common scientific practice with a cohesive theory.

But scientists didn't need Popper to tell them that some theories are just not worth bothering with. ("Some stones fall upward, but I can't show it because they have all flown away already.") They have known this by instinct, probably since the days of Galileo and Bacon. If a theory like this crosses a scientist's mind, chances are he immediately ignores it and moves on; if he writes it down, his peers will make fun of it. If he submits it to a paper, the reviewers will tear it apart and send it back. The reason is that the theory is not falsifiable. But it's possible you would never hear the word "falsifiable" in any part of the conversation and correspondence. That's because most scientific practice is taught through experience and emulation, not revelation by authority figures.

Accordingly, even though falsifiability is pivotal, scientists usually wouldn't test for it formally. And I never heard of the concept explicitly taught in high school, even though most of our science teachers were quite good.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

but i wish they would hurry the hell up on time travel, i'm gettng too old to travel much.

We've always had time travel - thing is though, so far we've only got one-way tickets.

0 Replies

Much thanks Thomas!

0 Replies

This is a review of a new book attacking string theory... thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2214707,00.html

0 Replies

Thanks Shapeless!

0 Replies

Two quotes from Karl Popper:

Quote:

There are, moreover, degrees of testability: some theories expose themselves to possible refutation more boldly than others....Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical.

Quote:

We do not know how to test an isolated purely existential assertion.

0 Replies

The world of sub atomic seems so divorced from my everyday life. The quotes you provided are intriguing. However Thomas (above) seems to be suggesting that Popper is an "after the fact theorizer" (for want of a better phrase).

0 Replies

Unified Field Theory, Falsifiablity, Religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know