Can science be unified?

[QuantumT]

If all branches of science seek the same goal: A unified field theory, or a TOE (theory of everything), why not cross reference results?

I recently attempted to do that between supersymmetry and the holographic principle (on another forum), and all I got was that I didn't understand the math behind, or the science in general.

I refuse to accept that. It seems fundamentally wrong.

Both theories are about the same thing: This universe. This Reality. They have different perspectives, as

- Supersymmetry is about particles and their opposite "cousins" in "another dimension".
- The holographic principle is about information distribution on a larger scale.

But particles and information distribution is the same deal. The information in the hol.princ. is particles!

Nature can't be divided into mans choices! Nature is not divided. So why does scientists insist that one field of research cannot be compared to another?

[Philosophy Explorer]

My belief is yes. At one time, elliptical equations and modular forms were regarded as different mathematical
objects until Andrew Wiles proved them the same which solved Fermat's puzzle (read Fermat's Enigma by Simon Singh). You should also read up on Langland's Program.

PhilX

[-1-]

I didn't understand the math behind, or the science in general.

I refuse to accept that. It seems fundamentally wrong.

Alas, more and more people are refusing to accept they don't understand math.

[-1-]

Why do scientists insist that one field of research cannot be compared to another?

The funding comes from different sources. You can't mix the funding available. Otherwise the whole system of science, along with its carefully maintained fragile cosmic world order, would collapse.

[-1-]

If all branches of science seek the same goal: A unified field theory, or a TOE (theory of everything), why not cross reference results?


All theories are about the same thing: This universe. This Reality. They have different perspectives...


Nature can't be divided into mans choices!

You see, once science is unified, then there is no reason to say reality is not unified. Once reality is unified, then there is no reason to say the supernatural, including theism, is not natural.

Everything becoming natural, real, scientific, will necessitate that scientists accept the natural world of the supernatural as part of nature... and that is the last thing scientists are willing to refuse.

So they don't want to diffuse the situation, and therefore they stick with the grass root tactics, which had been spelled out beautifully by Monty Pythons now world famous quote from Life of Brian:

"We are all different."

[HexHammer]

In less than 5 years it will be unified.

[-1-]

In less than 5 years it will be unified.

starting... now. (The clock is tickin'.)

[Eodnhoj7]

It would have to unify religion, psychology, the mathes, biology, astronomy, etc....not just physics and "x".

[TimeSeeker]

If all branches of science seek the same goal: A unified field theory, or a TOE (theory of everything), why not cross reference results?

I recently attempted to do that between supersymmetry and the holographic principle (on another forum), and all I got was that I didn't understand the math behind, or the science in general.

I refuse to accept that. It seems fundamentally wrong.

Both theories are about the same thing: This universe. This Reality. They have different perspectives, as

- Supersymmetry is about particles and their opposite "cousins" in "another dimension".
- The holographic principle is about information distribution on a larger scale.

But particles and information distribution is the same deal. The information in the hol.princ. is particles!

Nature can't be divided into mans choices! Nature is not divided. So why does scientists insist that one field of research cannot be compared to another?

The simple answer is complexity and pragmatism.

Take QEM and compare it to quantum chemistry.
How many chemical reactions can we simulate and over what time-scale now that the standard model is so accurate!

And the answer is “none that we couldn’t do with the old tools of chemistry”.

The computational cost for deriving even the most basic of chemical reactions from the laws of physics is HUGE! And the reward is exactly the same as doing it the old way so why bother?

Much the same argument as to why we still use Newton’s laws on Earth instead of the equations of General Relativity. We don’t actually need that much precision.

[Eodnhoj7]

If all branches of science seek the same goal: A unified field theory, or a TOE (theory of everything), why not cross reference results?

I recently attempted to do that between supersymmetry and the holographic principle (on another forum), and all I got was that I didn't understand the math behind, or the science in general.

I refuse to accept that. It seems fundamentally wrong.

Both theories are about the same thing: This universe. This Reality. They have different perspectives, as

- Supersymmetry is about particles and their opposite "cousins" in "another dimension".
- The holographic principle is about information distribution on a larger scale.

But particles and information distribution is the same deal. The information in the hol.princ. is particles!

Nature can't be divided into mans choices! Nature is not divided. So why does scientists insist that one field of research cannot be compared to another?

The simple answer is complexity and pragmatism.

Take QEM and compare it to quantum chemistry.
How many chemical reactions can we simulate and over what time-scale now that the standard model is so accurate!

And the answer is “none that we couldn’t do with the old tools of chemistry”.

The computational cost for deriving even the most basic of chemical reactions from the laws of physics is HUGE! And the reward is exactly the same as doing it the old way so why bother?

Much the same argument as to why we still use Newton’s laws on Earth instead of the equations of General Relativity. We don’t actually need that much precision.

Precision comes at a cost considering with the increase in precision with x comes a simultaneous lack of precision with y. This dualism of precision/non precision comes at a cost of fracturing respective sciences where a universal vagueness about the nature of reality occurs.

[WarnerLot]

Spiral Out: I would ask this: why would science require complete objectivity?

So that its statements are conclusive and not open to interpretation.

PhilX

[bahman]

If all branches of science seek the same goal: A unified field theory, or a TOE (theory of everything), why not cross reference results?

I recently attempted to do that between supersymmetry and the holographic principle (on another forum), and all I got was that I didn't understand the math behind, or the science in general.

I refuse to accept that. It seems fundamentally wrong.

Both theories are about the same thing: This universe. This Reality. They have different perspectives, as

- Supersymmetry is about particles and their opposite "cousins" in "another dimension".
- The holographic principle is about information distribution on a larger scale.

But particles and information distribution is the same deal. The information in the hol.princ. is particles!

Nature can't be divided into mans choices! Nature is not divided. So why does scientists insist that one field of research cannot be compared to another?

That is duty of particle physicist to find the theory of everything if reductionism is true. Otherwise we have no chance to understand reality. That is true because whole is always bigger than sum of parts.