Authors: Abed Peerally
Members of the public and intellectuals do appreciate that the universe appears to be something beyond explanations. It is a colossal miracle, because there is no evidence of any kind, capable of indicating how such an impossible reality could have arisen, without attributing it to superintelligent induction, based on nothing like the science and physics we know of. We should not use the limitation of human knowhow, to claim that it all of existence arose from nothing, or from a few grams of vacuum energy, based on science which did not exist. This third article is the last, before the author publishes his Theory of Everything, in his coming book, later this year, 2018. Elaborating a genuine Theory of Everything (TOE) is obviously a very demanding proposition. To start with, you can never be certain it has been correctly formulated, because we are just humans, created without the capacity to possess supernatural knowledge. The TOE remains the only universal unified concept having a future, after Glashow two years back openly admitted that the Grand Unified Theory of his and Georgi, of 1974, was dead. To start with, the TOE should be an all-encompassing model that provides answers to many questions from scientists and the public about the origin and nature of our universe. Historically, the seeds of a theory of our universe were sown in efforts to produce a field unification theory, in 1864, when Maxwell published his dynamical theory of electromagnetic field. This influenced Einstein in 1905 to use Maxwell’s constancy of the speed of light to unify space and time into the concept of spacetime. Later Einstein conceived of curved four-dimensional spacetime to describe gravity in his General Relativity. Some years later Weyl in 1919 came up with the gauge electromagnetic field theory, which eventually led to the concept of Grand Unified Theory, which was believed to be one in which all forces would merge into a single force, due to different fields being able to “merge” into a unified one. 2 Kaluza in 1921 envisaged General Relativity as a 5-dimensional entity in which Klein, in 1926, suggested that the fourth dimension could be curled up to illustrate gravitational force. These varied developments were the earliest attempts at trying to understand the universe in unified field theories, and it was in this rather confused context, as from 1930, that Einstein embarked on an ambitious journey into a 25 year-dedication to formulate a classical Unified Field Theory, which never materialised, and he was still scribbling some equations on his last day in 1955. A decade later, there started a new realisation about unifying the electromagnetic force with the Weak Interaction, arising from the work of Higgs, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam that produced the unified Electroweak Theory, the unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces. This trend encouraged physicists to contemplate that perhaps at very high energies, not yet possible under contemporary technologies, all forces might unify into one grand unified theory, the GUT, which when unified with gravity, would produce a theory of everything. Recent data suggest that a Grand Unified Theory is either a theoretical curiosity, misunderstood, or a mirage. Speculations went much further, for there have been suggestions that a GUT, championed by Salam and others, would produce at the highest energy a single combined field of all forces, from which would emerge evidence of the occurrence of superparticles, for each of the standard particles in today’s physics. The important questions are why the universe requires such physical entities and how do they fit into the final explanations of the realities of our laws of nature, for instance the nature of consciousness and other phenomena of existence, like Darwin’s theory of evolution or black holes or the Big Bang theory, or even about the origin of our universe. This being so, several efforts, in the physics and cosmology domains, try to dig into the strata of universal knowledge to search for our ultimate relevance and future, but the topic of finding a TOE was seen to be even more elusive. However, scientists were convinced that the Theory of Everything was first and foremost a concept of our ultimate realities and of existence. It is believed it would harbour major components of physics in intimacy with philosophy. You need philosophical inspiration to see the physics, which then tells you how the philosophy should be like, or you need to see the philosophy to understand why the physics is as it is. The physics is pure physics and the philosophy pure philosophy, but they might both be imperative towards understanding the origin and the meaning of existence. What we have currently is a collection of narratives about the origin of our universe, all spinning around contrasting centres of philosophical influence. Even here in intellectual work, there is an implication of entropy for once the culture of defining various theories of everything has reached a certain maximum, the true Theory of Everything could find a greater likelihood to emerge. In 3 entropy, including intellectual entropy, there will be factors of determinism and indeterminism, such that they would interplay in the process of the evolution of ideas, where entropy would ensure we always move from maximum order, with loads of data, to maximum disorder, in framed concepts on which little more conceptual work is possible, a fact which means that the Theory of Everything, describing the most evolved universal tenets of existence, would represent the most disorderly intellectual system, at the highest intellectual entropy. That would be the universal explanatory key conceived by humans for humans, based on philosophy and physics, to unlock the mysteries of the universe that was masterminded by a Supernatural Power.
Comments: 29 Pages. Last paper in the author's series on Theory of Everything
[v1] 2018-02-16 14:42:23
Unique-IP document downloads: 31 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.