- #1
Physics Slayer
- 26
- 8
I think normal people and physicists have different definitions of a "theory of everything", normal people (I am not calling Physicists abnormal although some of dem are a bit wonky) usually mean something along the lines of meaning of life/why we exist/ purpose in life etc.
Physicists on the other hand refer to a theoretical framework that unites all four fundamental forces of nature, at it's face value this doesn't sound very grandiose(to a normal person atleast) and definitely doesn't sound like something worthy of the title of "theory of everything". Do physicists glorify these theories (eg:super string theory) only because of their mathematical elegance(or because they want funding) or are there other deeper consequences of having a GUT?(like answering some other fundamental questions of the universe, something like the information paradox or Baryon asymmetry etc.)
I haven't studied string theory or any other GUT, heck I'm till solving block on incline problems but I'm curious about the latest developments in physics.
Physicists on the other hand refer to a theoretical framework that unites all four fundamental forces of nature, at it's face value this doesn't sound very grandiose(to a normal person atleast) and definitely doesn't sound like something worthy of the title of "theory of everything". Do physicists glorify these theories (eg:super string theory) only because of their mathematical elegance(or because they want funding) or are there other deeper consequences of having a GUT?(like answering some other fundamental questions of the universe, something like the information paradox or Baryon asymmetry etc.)
I haven't studied string theory or any other GUT, heck I'm till solving block on incline problems but I'm curious about the latest developments in physics.