How close are we to a grand unified theory?

[Braznor]

Will String theory get proven as the one explaining it all? Does it really do so?

How close are we to one anyway?

Also do you think that there are chances there could be actually no Grand unified theories at all. Perhaps a fundamental disconnect between two or more pillars of reality, creating it the way it is.

 

[silverpig]

If string theory is correct (or at least on the right track), then we won't know for a long long time. As of right now, it relies on things we have no idea how to test. Does it explain everything? Right now definitely not.

How close are we? Honestly no one knows. The only time we'll ever know just how far we are is when we know everything. There might be piles of new physics we have no idea about still out there. It has long been thought that the standard model covered all of the particles in the universe, and that there were 4 fundamental forces. We're tidying up the section on neutrinos now, and have unified 3 of the fundamental forces into one theory. At first glance we might be 1 force away.

However, more things have popped up mainly due to astronomers. Dark matter (probably) requires a doubling of the number of particles in the standard model. That brings us from 'almost there' to maybe halfway. Then there's dark energy. We have no idea whatsoever what to do with this stuff. We don't even know what it is. The only thing we can really do now is claim ignorance.

To answer your last question: I have no idea.

 

[Gneisenau]

It's had to think we could be close to a grand unified theory, when there are so many versions of string theory. There's nothing unified about 5 (Or something like that.) versions of the same theory.

 

[SsupernovaE]

Originally posted by: Gneisenau
It's had to think we could be close to a grand unified theory, when there are so many versions of string theory. There's nothing unified about 5 (Or something like that.) versions of the same theory.

That's what M-theory is all about.

 

[Anampersand]

The way I read it, the problem with string theory is that it has not come up with ANY way of conceivably proving it. It is an untestable hypothesis.

I thought this was great:
http://tinyurl.com/3avlyc
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin (Paperback - Sep 4, 2007)
http://tinyurl.com/3avlyc

 

[silverpig]

Heh, Lee Smolin is a strong proponent of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), the current frontrunner to quantizing gravity that is different from string theory.

He's a smart guy; I got to see him speak last year.

 

[Anampersand]

Apart from discussing the metatheoretical issues in physics today, he chews into the politics and sociology affecting physicists. He suggests that only politically correct string theorists are getting jobs, and that it would take a wool-gather like Einstein to do the creative work that would get us out of the current doldrums, but that this person is unlikely to be able to eat in the current market.

It's a crime that physics is not better supported in this country. Lots of frustrated post-Docs around!

 

[imported_bloom]

I just saw Atom by Ahmed Khalili, it's a fantastic documentary series about breakthroughs in Physics in the last century. Judging by what I inferred, I'd say were far from it.