Some here would argue that, but there are others who know better (or have just plain given up).
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.
And starships with engines the size of walnuts? And walnuts with engines the size of starships? Oh, the possibilities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s odd, because you always have the most interesting things to say. 