Do you think there will be a real grand unified theory in

No, because the possibility that physical laws change at different scales can't be ruled out.

>>8880101
If I was trying to come up with the dumbest fucking answer to this question it would be this one.

Anyway, I think it's possible that it could happen very soon. Fields like string theory and quantum loop gravity seem to be so close to making major breakthroughs.

>>8880101
couldn't that change be accounted for in the universal theory if that was true?

>>8880097
No because I do not believe they are all unified.

File: streiggt.jpg (79KB, 680x1019px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 680x1019px

>>8881072
>they
I'd advice against being physical realist like that.
Just like force is at best an integral over lots of data in quantum mechanics (where there's only states being evolved by some energy operator), or mass is just a conglomerate of coefficients in a energy density (Lagrangian) summed up in this and that way, we have no good reason to believe any of the words in out theory thus far have physical significance at the bottom. Neither, even if there is a "real theory" would it have to be comprehensible (e.g. small Kolmogorov complexity) to humans. Say there are such things as particles and each and everyone follow their own rule, who happen to be similar enough that we form a theory where they follow some relatively simple differential equation, or whatnot. Humans may remain under the illusion that individual particles don't follow incomprehensible rules.
Following the same lines, even if there are fundamental interactions, and even if they are not unified, doesn't rule out we can't work out a good unified theory. Just like Newtonian mechanics is a good theory with many illusionary concepts, there are just averages of notions in a more microscopic theory.

>>8880097
We already have one

Grand unified conjectures exist, we just lack the experimental means to verify them.

>>8881191
If each particle follows its own rule how come they seem to all follow newtonian physics in the macro scale?

>>8881548
>Grand unified conjectures exist, we just lack the experimental means to verify them.
quoted for truth

>>8881069
Not necessarily. Would a universal theory be able to account for physical laws in other universes for example? If the laws scale to an infinite/infinitesimal degree, then we would be unlikely to capture that in a single theory.

>>8882325
Are you in middle school or something? You seem to have a very poor grasp of what you are talking about.

t. math grad student

>>8880101
String Theory doesn't a priori depend of scale. Yeah the string length is generally around the Planck length, but it is connected to the string coupling constant. And despite being called constants, couplings tend to vary with renormalization and such.

>>8880097
What would the world be like today if everyone in this photograph never existed?

>asking for a friend

>>8881191
this, the father of the modern scientific method also thinks that way (Newton). Science does not discover the universe, it describes it.

>>8881573
weird probability effects, see

https://youtu.be/v1GdgD77AQ4?t=9m20s

>>8882811
Probably about 35-50 years behind.

>>8883866
Cassiopeia project hell yeah nigga