# Ok, say we got a theory of everything. Now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 24, 2003, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490 "2003-09-24T06:19:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/21 "2003-09-25T08:01:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cletus \* > … PS **Zenster** , you must be a very fun person to hang out with IRL. 😃 Some here would argue that, but there are others who know better (or have just plain given up). ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/22 "2003-09-25T14:21:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MonkeyMensch \* > **But Derleth, isn’t any predictive power of a theory limited by the accuracy of the information plugged into it? If you don’t have perfect information of starting conditions then no TOE or GUT is going to help.** Exactly. GIGO applies. (GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.) But if we can measure fairly well and we have only limited uncertainty effects to worry about, we should be able to get good results out of a TOE. ---
**Author:** ![Sarcastro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@Sarcastro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarcastro)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/23 "2003-09-25T21:10:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*_Build robots the size of molecules?_ \*\* And starships with engines the size of walnuts? And walnuts with engines the size of starships? Oh, the possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/24 "2003-09-25T22:30:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > \*\*Exactly. GIGO applies. (GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.) But if we can measure fairly well and we have only limited uncertainty effects to worry about, we should be able to get good results out of a TOE. \*\* Again, the issue of floating point error raises its ugly head. We can’t do long-term predictions of complex systems because error propagates and multiplies. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/25 "2003-09-25T22:48:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ultrafilter \* > \*\*Again, the issue of floating point error raises its ugly head. We can’t do long-term predictions of complex systems because error propagates and multiplies. \*\* I’m aware of that, believe it or not. Hence my statement about `limited uncertainty’: As long as we know our own limitations, we can run the equations to derive values that go from precise to ten decimal places (predictions of what’ll happen in the next few seconds) to off by an order of magnitude (predictions of what’ll happen in the next few weeks). Forecasting is an iffy business in any case, and good equations can only move back the point where the results become worthless. Will a TOE give us benefits we can’t even imagine? I think it would. Will a TOE nullify everything we’ve learned about everything we can’t learn? No. There’s nothing to draw back the veil of rounding errors, probabilities, and uncertainty that Quantum Mechanics dropped on physics. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/26 "2003-09-25T23:26:17Z")
Any good scientist should know hgow to work out their experimental error, quantum uncertainty is however quite distinct from experimental error as though values can be measured with arbitary accuracy it places a definte limit on our abilty to predict the behaviour of a system. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/27 "2003-09-26T03:44:34Z")
Physicists will never be out of a job. Yes, the Theory of Everything (presuming that it even exists and that we ever find it) will reduce all problems to just solving an equation. But that makes the situation seem simpler than it actually is. Some equations are very difficult to solve, and some are actually impossible. But it gets still messier: Most equations are not only unsolvable, but it’s unknowable that they’re unsolveable. So there will always be more equations which can be solved, but which we don’t know that they can be solved (much less how). And physicists will always be looking for those cases. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/28 "2003-09-26T06:13:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sarcastro \* > And starships with engines the size of walnuts? And walnuts with engines the size of starships? Oh, the possibilities. Ummmm, no. Starships with engines the size of protons (disregarding the containment shrouds)? Yes. Read up on singularity drives and get back to me in the morning. ---
**Author:** ![cletus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@cletus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cletus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490/29 "2003-09-26T07:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > **I’m aware of that, believe it or not. Hence my statement about `limited uncertainty’: As long as we know our own limitations, we can run the equations to derive values that go from precise to ten decimal places (predictions of what’ll happen in the next few seconds) to off by an order of magnitude (predictions of what’ll happen in the next few weeks). Forecasting is an iffy business in any case, and good equations can only move back the point where the results become worthless.** Wouldn’t uncertainty and the principles of quantum mechanics pretty much invalidate the usefulness of a TOE? That seems to be what yall are saying but perhaps I’m missing something. Couldn’t the number of fruitful applications of a TOE be covered just as well with numerous smaller equations? Seems to me a TOE would be great for opening our eyes to previously unsuspected ideas but it wouldn’t have much practical uses (did I just contradict myself there?). On a related note, would chaos theory be a more meaningful field of research regarding real world applications? What about number theory or statistics? Someone please tell me if I’m comparing apples and oranges here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*Some here would argue that, but there are others who know better (or have just plain given up). \*\* That’s odd, because you always have the most _interesting_ things to say. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-say-we-got-a-theory-of-everything-now-what/203490.md?page=1)