Why we can’t achieve a Grand Unified Theory in Science

The arrival at a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) has been a pursuit for a large number of scientists throughout the later years of the development of science. It has remained a matter of passion particularly for physicists. It was believed as a last pursuit of Einstein that evaded him even in his deathbed. Recently I was reading a book by Eric D Beinhocker titled `The Origin of Wealth’. The book aims at introducing and expounding the view of economics as an `evolutionary’ rather than `equilibrium pointing’ mechanism. Anyways be that as it may, the book is particularly critical of traditional economists choice of assumptions far removed from actually existing conditions in the economy. Economists in their rigour to attune economics made assumptions a la the scientific process of postulating on the basis of assumptions.

It is the nature of these assumptions that will form the core of the argument of my piece today. Assumptions have been an inexcusable part of the scientific process since the advent of modern science in the late renaissance period. Often these assumptions are very skilfully arrived at and their utility in solving a majority of scientific questions is beyond argument. Every student of science knows from proving his Bernoulli’s theorems and Gas laws how necessary such assumptions are. It is not these assumptions mind you that I see as a cause for our incapability to reach a GUT. It is rather the scale of the assumptions that I feel is the underlying cause of our failure. Science in its broad sweep covers matters as varied as that pertaining to the charm and colour* of the quark to the speed at which galaxies move away from each other. Scientist have reliably arrived at conclusions regarding such parts of nature as varied in terms of magnitude as quarks and galaxies based on assumptions that vary in their order of magnitude accordingly. The order of magnitude of these assumptions in their variance forms a basic dissymmetry that prevents the unification of scientific theories. This is because these assumptions are generally outside the set of the experiment and are not explained by the conclusions regarding the experiment.

Thus I believe that it is only by ensuring a minimum set of assumptions that we can work towards a unified theory. Thus minimum set should be well defined and capable of being the basis of all our scientific endeavours. Such a set would probably originate at a microcosmic level. It would of course call for a reworking of quite a few of our explanations for macro cosmic phenomenon on a rigorously mathematical basis involving umpteen numbers of calculations. This would require computing power far beyond tens of magnitudes of what we have in supercomputers today.

Hence I believe that in the present scenario we should be satisfied with what we have in terms of macro and micro theories based on assumptions with the corresponding scale and forego the quest for a GUT.

* This colour is not our traditional pigment but rather a term that scientist use for a particular trait of the quark