Relativistic mechanics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, relativistic mechanics refers to mechanics compatible with special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). It provides a non-quantum mechanical description of a system of particles, or of a fluid, in cases where the velocities of moving objects are comparable to the speed of light c. As a result, classical mechanics is extended correctly to particles traveling at high velocities and energies, and provides a consistent inclusion of electromagnetism with the mechanics of particles. This was not possible in Galilean relativity, where it would be permitted for particles and light to travel at any speed, including faster than light. The foundations of relativistic mechanics are the postulates of special relativity and general relativity. The unification of SR with quantum mechanics is relativistic quantum mechanics, while attempts for that of GR is quantum gravity, an unsolved problem in physics.

As with classical mechanics, the subject can be divided into "kinematics"; the description of motion by specifying positions, velocities and accelerations, and "dynamics"; a full description by considering energies, momenta, and angular momenta and their conservation laws, and forces acting on particles or exerted by particles. There is however a subtlety; what appears to be "moving" and what is "at rest"—which is termed by "statics" in classical mechanics—depends on the relative motion of observers who measure in frames of reference.

Although some definitions and concepts from classical mechanics do carry over to SR, such as force as the time derivative of momentum (Newton's second law), the work done by a particle as the line integral of force exerted on the particle along a path, and power as the time derivative of work done, there are a number of significant modifications to the remaining definitions and formulae. SR states that motion is relative and the laws of physics are the same for all experimenters irrespective of their inertial reference frames. In addition to modifying notions of space and time, SR forces one to reconsider the concepts of mass, momentum, and energy all of which are important constructs in Newtonian mechanics. SR shows that these concepts are all different aspects of the same physical quantity in much the same way that it shows space and time to be interrelated. Consequently, another modification is the concept of the center of mass of a system, which is straightforward to define in classical mechanics but much less obvious in relativity – see relativistic center of mass for details.

The equations become more complicated in the more familiar three-dimensional vector calculus formalism, due to the nonlinearity in the Lorentz factor, which accurately accounts for relativistic velocity dependence and the speed limit of all particles and fields. However, they have a simpler and elegant form in four-dimensional spacetime, which includes flat Minkowski space (SR) and curved spacetime (GR), because three-dimensional vectors derived from space and scalars derived from time can be collected into four vectors, or four-dimensional tensors. However, the six component angular momentum tensor is sometimes called a bivector because in the 3D viewpoint it is two vectors (one of these, the conventional angular momentum, being an axial vector).

Relativistic kinematics

The relativistic four-velocity, that is the four-vector representing velocity in relativity, is defined as follows:

${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mathbf {U} }}={\frac {d{\boldsymbol {\mathbf {X} }}}{d\tau }}=\left({\frac {cdt}{d\tau }},{\frac {d\mathbf {x} }{d\tau }}\right)}$

In the above, τ is the proper time of the path through spacetime, called the world-line, followed by the object velocity the above represents, and

${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mathbf {X} }}=(ct,\mathbf {x} )}$

is the four-position; the coordinates of an event. Due to time dilation, the proper time is the time between two events in a frame of reference where they take place at the same location. The proper time is related to coordinate time t by:

${\displaystyle {\frac {d\tau }{dt}}={\frac {1}{\gamma (\mathbf {v} )}}}$

where γ(v) is the Lorentz factor:

${\displaystyle \gamma (\mathbf {v} )={\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {v} /c^{2}}}}\,\rightleftharpoons \,\gamma (v)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-(v/c)^{2}}}}.}$

(either version may be quoted) so it follows:

${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mathbf {U} }}=\gamma (\mathbf {v} )(c,\mathbf {v} )}$

The first three terms, excepting the factor of γ(v), is the velocity as seen by the observer in their own reference frame. The γ(v) is determined by the velocity v between the observer's reference frame and the object's frame, which is the frame in which its proper time is measured. This quantity is invariant under Lorentz transformation, so to check to see what an observer in a different reference frame sees, one simply multiplies the velocity four-vector by the Lorentz transformation matrix between the two reference frames.

Relativistic dynamics

Relativistic energy and momentum

There are a couple of (equivalent) ways to define momentum and energy in SR. One method uses conservation laws. If these laws are to remain valid in SR they must be true in every possible reference frame. However, if one does some simple thought experiments using the Newtonian definitions of momentum and energy, one sees that these quantities are not conserved in SR. One can rescue the idea of conservation by making some small modifications to the definitions to account for relativistic velocities. It is these new definitions which are taken as the correct ones for momentum and energy in SR.

The four-momentum of an object is straightforward, identical in form to the classical momentum, but replacing 3-vectors with 4-vectors:

${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mathbf {P} }}=m_{0}{\boldsymbol {\mathbf {U} }}=(E/c,\mathbf {p} )}$

The energy and momentum of an object with invariant mass m₀ (also called rest mass), moving with velocity v with respect to a given frame of reference, are respectively given by

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E&=\gamma (\mathbf {v} )m_{0}c^{2}\\\mathbf {p} &=\gamma (\mathbf {v} )m_{0}\mathbf {v} \end{aligned}}}$

The factor of γ(v) comes from the definition of the four-velocity described above. The appearance of the γ factor has an alternative way of being stated, explained in the next section.

The kinetic energy, K, is defined as

${\displaystyle K=(\gamma -1)m_{0}c^{2}=E-m_{0}c^{2}\,,}$

And the speed as a function of kinetic energy is given by

${\displaystyle v={\frac {c{\sqrt {K(K+2m_{0}c^{2})}}}{K+m_{0}c^{2}}}={\frac {c{\sqrt {(E-m_{0}c^{2})(E+m_{0}c^{2})}}}{E}}={\frac {pc^{2}}{E}}\,.}$

Rest mass and relativistic mass

The quantity

${\displaystyle m=\gamma (\mathbf {v} )m_{0}}$

is often called the relativistic mass of the object in the given frame of reference.^[1]

This makes the relativistic relation between the spatial velocity and the spatial momentum look identical. However, this can be misleading, as it is not appropriate in special relativity in all circumstances. For instance, kinetic energy and force in special relativity can not be written exactly like their classical analogues by only replacing the mass with the relativistic mass. Moreover, under Lorentz transformations, this relativistic mass is not invariant, while the rest mass is. For this reason many people find it easier use the rest mass (thereby introduce γ through the 4-velocity or coordinate time), and discard the concept of relativistic mass.

Lev B. Okun suggested that "this terminology ... has no rational justification today", and should no longer be taught.^[2]

Other physicists, including Wolfgang Rindler and T. R. Sandin, have argued that relativistic mass is a useful concept and there is little reason to stop using it.^[3] See mass in special relativity for more information on this debate.

Some authors use m for relativistic mass and m₀ for rest mass,^[4] others simply use m for rest mass. This article uses the former convention for clarity.

The energy and momentum of an object with invariant mass m₀ are related by the formulas

${\displaystyle E^{2}-(pc)^{2}=(m_{0}c^{2})^{2}\,}$

${\displaystyle \mathbf {p} c^{2}=E\mathbf {v} \,.}$

The first is referred to as the relativistic energy–momentum relation. It can be derived by considering that ${\displaystyle {\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$ can be written as ${\displaystyle {\frac {p^{2}}{\gamma ^{2}m_{0}^{2}c^{2}}}}$ where the denominator can be written as ${\displaystyle {\frac {E^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$. Now, gamma can be replaced in the expression of energy. While the energy E and the momentum p depend on the frame of reference in which they are measured, the quantity E² − (pc)² is invariant, and arises as −c² times the squared magnitude of the 4-momentum vector which is −(m₀c)².

It should be noted that the invariant mass of a system

${\displaystyle {m_{0}}_{\text{tot}}={\frac {\sqrt {E_{\text{tot}}^{2}-(p_{\text{tot}}c)^{2}}}{c^{2}}}}$

is different from the sum of the rest masses of the particles of which it is composed due to kinetic energy and binding energy. Rest mass is not a conserved quantity in special relativity unlike the situation in Newtonian physics. However, even if an object is changing internally, so long as it does not exchange energy with surroundings, then its rest mass will not change, and can be calculated with the same result in any frame of reference.

A particle whose rest mass is zero is called massless. Photons and gravitons are thought to be massless; and neutrinos are nearly so.

Mass–energy equivalence

The relativistic energy–momentum equation holds for all particles, even for massless particles for which m₀ = 0. In this case:

${\displaystyle E=pc}$

When substituted into Ev = c²p, this gives v = c: massless particles (such as photons) always travel at the speed of light.

Notice that the rest mass of a composite system will generally be slightly different from the sum of the rest masses of its parts since, in its rest frame, their kinetic energy will increase its mass and their (negative) binding energy will decrease its mass. In particular, a hypothetical "box of light" would have rest mass even though made of particles which do not since their momenta would cancel.

Looking at the above formula for invariant mass of a system, one sees that, when a single massive object is at rest (v = 0, p = 0), there is a non-zero mass remaining: m₀ = E/c². The corresponding energy, which is also the total energy when a single particle is at rest, is referred to as "rest energy". In systems of particles which are seen from a moving inertial frame, total energy increases and so does momentum. However, for single particles the rest mass remains constant, and for systems of particles the invariant mass remain constant, because in both cases, the energy and momentum increases subtract from each other, and cancel. Thus, the invariant mass of systems of particles is a calculated constant for all observers, as is the rest mass of single particles.

The mass of systems and conservation of invariant mass

For systems of particles, the energy–momentum equation requires summing the momentum vectors of the particles:

${\displaystyle E^{2}-\mathbf {p} \cdot \mathbf {p} c^{2}=m_{0}^{2}c^{4}}$

The inertial frame in which the momenta of all particles sums to zero is called the center of momentum frame. In this special frame, the relativistic energy–momentum equation has p = 0, and thus gives the invariant mass of the system as merely the total energy of all parts of the system, divided by c²

${\displaystyle m_{0,\,{\rm {system}}}=\sum _{n}E_{n}/c^{2}}$

This is the invariant mass of any system which is measured in a frame where it has zero total momentum, such as a bottle of hot gas on a scale. In such a system, the mass which the scale weighs is the invariant mass, and it depends on the total energy of the system. It is thus more than the sum of the rest masses of the molecules, but also includes all the totaled energies in the system as well. Like energy and momentum, the invariant mass of isolated systems cannot be changed so long as the system remains totally closed (no mass or energy allowed in or out), because the total relativistic energy of the system remains constant so long as nothing can enter or leave it.

An increase in the energy of such a system which is caused by translating the system to an inertial frame which is not the center of momentum frame, causes an increase in energy and momentum without an increase in invariant mass. E = m₀c², however, applies only to isolated systems in their center-of-momentum frame where momentum sums to zero.

Taking this formula at face value, we see that in relativity, mass is simply energy by another name (and measured in different units). In 1927 Einstein remarked about special relativity, "Under this theory mass is not an unalterable magnitude, but a magnitude dependent on (and, indeed, identical with) the amount of energy."^[5]

Closed (isolated) systems

In a "totally-closed" system (i.e., isolated system) the total energy, the total momentum, and hence the total invariant mass are conserved. Einstein's formula for change in mass translates to its simplest ΔE = Δmc² form, however, only in non-closed systems in which energy is allowed to escape (for example, as heat and light), and thus invariant mass is reduced. Einstein's equation shows that such systems must lose mass, in accordance with the above formula, in proportion to the energy they lose to the surroundings. Conversely, if one can measure the differences in mass between a system before it undergoes a reaction which releases heat and light, and the system after the reaction when heat and light have escaped, one can estimate the amount of energy which escapes the system.

Chemical and nuclear reactions

In both nuclear and chemical reactions, such energy represents the difference in binding energies of electrons in atoms (for chemistry) or between nucleons in nuclei (in atomic reactions). In both cases, the mass difference between reactants and (cooled) products measures the mass of heat and light which will escape the reaction, and thus (using the equation) give the equivalent energy of heat and light which may be emitted if the reaction proceeds.

In chemistry, the mass differences associated with the emitted energy are around 10⁻⁹ of the molecular mass.^[6] However, in nuclear reactions the energies are so large that they are associated with mass differences, which can be estimated in advance, if the products and reactants have been weighed (atoms can be weighed indirectly by using atomic masses, which are always the same for each nuclide). Thus, Einstein's formula becomes important when one has measured the masses of different atomic nuclei. By looking at the difference in masses, one can predict which nuclei have stored energy that can be released by certain nuclear reactions, providing important information which was useful in the development of nuclear energy and, consequently, the nuclear bomb. Historically, for example, Lise Meitner was able to use the mass differences in nuclei to estimate that there was enough energy available to make nuclear fission a favorable process. The implications of this special form of Einstein's formula have thus made it one of the most famous equations in all of science.

Center of momentum frame

The equation E = m₀c² applies only to isolated systems in their center of momentum frame. It has been popularly misunderstood to mean that mass may be converted to energy, after which the mass disappears. However, popular explanations of the equation as applied to systems include open (non-isolated) systems for which heat and light are allowed to escape, when they otherwise would have contributed to the mass (invariant mass) of the system.

Historically, confusion about mass being "converted" to energy has been aided by confusion between mass and "matter", where matter is defined as fermion particles. In such a definition, electromagnetic radiation and kinetic energy (or heat) are not considered "matter". In some situations, matter may indeed be converted to non-matter forms of energy (see above), but in all these situations, the matter and non-matter forms of energy still retain their original mass.

For isolated systems (closed to all mass and energy exchange), mass never disappears in the center of momentum frame, because energy cannot disappear. Instead, this equation, in context, means only that when any energy is added to, or escapes from, a system in the center-of-momentum frame, the system will be measured as having gained or lost mass, in proportion to energy added or removed. Thus, in theory, if an atomic bomb were placed in a box strong enough to hold its blast, and detonated upon a scale, the mass of this closed system would not change, and the scale would not move. Only when a transparent "window" was opened in the super-strong plasma-filled box, and light and heat were allowed to escape in a beam, and the bomb components to cool, would the system lose the mass associated with the energy of the blast. In a 21 kiloton bomb, for example, about a gram of light and heat is created. If this heat and light were allowed to escape, the remains of the bomb would lose a gram of mass, as it cooled. In this thought-experiment, the light and heat carry away the gram of mass, and would therefore deposit this gram of mass in the objects that absorb them.^[7]

Angular momentum

In relativistic mechanics, the time-varying mass moment

${\displaystyle \mathbf {N} =m\left(\mathbf {x} -t\mathbf {v} \right)}$

and orbital 3-angular momentum

${\displaystyle \mathbf {L} =\mathbf {x} \times \mathbf {p} }$

of a point-like particle are combined into a four-dimensional bivector in terms of the 4-position X and the 4-momentum P of the particle:^[8][9]

${\displaystyle \mathbf {M} =\mathbf {X} \wedge \mathbf {P} }$

where ∧ denotes the exterior product. This tensor is additive: the total angular momentum of a system is the sum of the angular momentum tensors for each constituent of the system. So, for an assembly of discrete particles one sums the angular momentum tensors over the particles, or integrates the density of angular momentum over the extent of a continuous mass distribution.
Each of the six components forms a conserved quantity when aggregated with the corresponding components for other objects and fields.

Force

In special relativity, Newton's second law does not hold in the form F = ma, but it does if it is expressed as

${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} ={\frac {d\mathbf {p} }{dt}}}$

where p = γ(v)m₀v is the momentum as defined above and m₀ is the invariant mass. Thus, the force is given by

${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} =\gamma (\mathbf {v} )^{3}m_{0}\,\mathbf {a} _{\parallel }+\gamma (\mathbf {v} )m_{0}\,\mathbf {a} _{\perp }}$

Consequently, in some old texts, γ(v)³m₀ is referred to as the longitudinal mass, and γ(v)m₀ is referred to as the transverse mass, which is numerically the same as the relativistic mass. See mass in special relativity.

If one inverts this to calculate acceleration from force, one gets

${\displaystyle \mathbf {a} ={\frac {1}{m_{0}\gamma (\mathbf {v} )}}\left(\mathbf {F} -{\frac {(\mathbf {v} \cdot \mathbf {F} )\mathbf {v} }{c^{2}}}\right)\,.}$

The force described in this section is the classical 3-D force which is not a four-vector. This 3-D force is the appropriate concept of force since it is the force which obeys Newton's third law of motion. It should not be confused with the so-called four-force which is merely the 3-D force in the comoving frame of the object transformed as if it were a four-vector. However, the density of 3-D force (linear momentum transferred per unit four-volume) is a four-vector (density of weight +1) when combined with the negative of the density of power transferred.

Torque

The torque acting on a point-like particle is defined as the derivative of the angular momentum tensor given above with respect to proper time:^[10][11]

${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\Gamma }}={\frac {d\mathbf {M} }{d\tau }}=\mathbf {X} \wedge \mathbf {F} }$

or in tensor components:

${\displaystyle \Gamma _{\alpha \beta }=X_{\alpha }F_{\beta }-X_{\beta }F_{\alpha }}$

where F is the 4d force acting on the particle at the event X. As with angular momentum, torque is additive, so for an extended object one sums or integrates over the distribution of mass.

Kinetic energy

The work-energy theorem says^[12] the change in kinetic energy is equal to the work done on the body. In special relativity:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Delta K=W=[\gamma _{1}-\gamma _{0}]m_{0}c^{2}.\end{aligned}}}$

If in the initial state the body was at rest, so v₀ = 0 and γ₀(v₀) = 1, and in the final state it has speed v₁ = v, setting γ₁(v₁) = γ(v), the kinetic energy is then;

${\displaystyle K=[\gamma (v)-1]m_{0}c^{2}\,,}$

a result that can be directly obtained by subtracting the rest energy m₀c² from the total relativistic energy γ(v)m₀c².

Newtonian limit

The Lorentz factor γ(v) can be expanded into a Taylor series or binomial series for (v/c)² < 1, obtaining:

${\displaystyle \gamma ={\dfrac {1}{\sqrt {1-(v/c)^{2}}}}=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }\left({\dfrac {v}{c}}\right)^{2n}\prod _{k=1}^{n}\left({\dfrac {2k-1}{2k}}\right)=1+{\dfrac {1}{2}}\left({\dfrac {v}{c}}\right)^{2}+{\dfrac {3}{8}}\left({\dfrac {v}{c}}\right)^{4}+{\dfrac {5}{16}}\left({\dfrac {v}{c}}\right)^{6}+\cdots }$

and consequently

${\displaystyle E-m_{0}c^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}m_{0}v^{2}+{\frac {3}{8}}{\frac {m_{0}v^{4}}{c^{2}}}+{\frac {5}{16}}{\frac {m_{0}v^{6}}{c^{4}}}+\cdots ;}$

${\displaystyle \mathbf {p} =m_{0}\mathbf {v} +{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {m_{0}v^{2}\mathbf {v} }{c^{2}}}+{\frac {3}{8}}{\frac {m_{0}v^{4}\mathbf {v} }{c^{4}}}+{\frac {5}{16}}{\frac {m_{0}v^{6}\mathbf {v} }{c^{6}}}+\cdots .}$

For velocities much smaller than that of light, one can neglect the terms with c² and higher in the denominator. These formulas then reduce to the standard definitions of Newtonian kinetic energy and momentum. This is as it should be, for special relativity must agree with Newtonian mechanics at low velocities.

Theory of everything

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A theory of everything (ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.^[1]:6 Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.^[2]:122

Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QFT are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used.^{[3][4]:842–844} As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QFT is apparently only an issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve this conflict, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of GR and QFT into a seamless whole: a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena. In pursuit of this goal, quantum gravity has become an area of active research.

Eventually a single explanatory framework, called "string theory", emerged that intends to be the ultimate theory of the universe. String theory posits that at the beginning of the universe (up to 10⁻⁴³ seconds after the Big Bang), the four fundamental forces were once a single fundamental force. According to string theory, every particle in the universe, at its most microscopic level (Planck length), consists of varying combinations of vibrating strings (or strands) with preferred patterns of vibration. String theory further claims that it is through these specific oscillatory patterns of strings that a particle of unique mass and force charge is created (that is to say, the electron is a type of string that vibrates one way, while the up-quark is a type of string vibrating another way, and so forth).

Initially, the term theory of everything was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a grandfather of Ijon Tichy – a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of the 1960s – was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis claims^[5] to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.^[6] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of theoretical physics research.

Historical antecedents

From ancient Greece to Einstein

In ancient Greece, pre-Socratic philosophers speculated that the apparent diversity of observed phenomena was due to a single type of interaction, namely the motions and collisions of atoms. The concept of 'atom', introduced by Democritus, was an early philosophical attempt to unify all phenomena observed in nature.

Archimedes was possibly the first scientist known to have described nature with axioms (or principles) and then deduce new results from them. He thus tried to describe "everything" starting from a few axioms. Any "theory of everything" is similarly expected to be based on axioms and to deduce all observable phenomena from them.^[7]:340

Following Democritean atomism, the mechanical philosophy of the 17th century posited that all forces could be ultimately reduced to contact forces between the atoms, then imagined as tiny solid particles.^[8]:184[9]

In the late 17th century, Isaac Newton's description of the long-distance force of gravity implied that not all forces in nature result from things coming into contact. Newton's work in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy dealt with this in a further example of unification, in this case unifying Galileo's work on terrestrial gravity, Kepler's laws of planetary motion and the phenomenon of tides by explaining these apparent actions at a distance under one single law: the law of universal gravitation.^[10]

In 1814, building on these results, Laplace famously suggested that a sufficiently powerful intellect could, if it knew the position and velocity of every particle at a given time, along with the laws of nature, calculate the position of any particle at any other time:^{[11]:ch 7}

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

— Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Introduction. 1814

Laplace thus envisaged a combination of gravitation and mechanics as a theory of everything. Modern quantum mechanics implies that uncertainty is inescapable, and thus that Laplace's vision has to be amended: a theory of everything must include gravitation and quantum mechanics.

In 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted discovered a connection between electricity and magnetism, triggering decades of work that culminated in 1865, in James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, it gradually became apparent that many common examples of forces – contact forces, elasticity, viscosity, friction, and pressure – result from electrical interactions between the smallest particles of matter.

In his experiments of 1849–50, Michael Faraday was the first to search for a unification of gravity with electricity and magnetism.^[12] However, he found no connection.

In 1900, David Hilbert published a famous list of mathematical problems. In Hilbert's sixth problem, he challenged researchers to find an axiomatic basis to all of physics. In this problem he thus asked for what today would be called a theory of everything.^[13]

In the late 1920s, the new quantum mechanics showed that the chemical bonds between atoms were examples of (quantum) electrical forces, justifying Dirac's boast that "the underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known".^[14]

After 1915, when Albert Einstein published the theory of gravity (general relativity), the search for a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism began with a renewed interest. In Einstein's day, the strong and the weak forces had not yet been discovered, yet, he found the potential existence of two other distinct forces -gravity and electromagnetism- far more alluring. This launched his thirty-year voyage in search of the so-called "unified field theory" that he hoped would show that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand underlying principle. During these last few decades of his life, this quixotic quest isolated Einstein from the mainstream of physics. Understandably, the mainstream was instead far more excited about the newly emerging framework of quantum mechanics. Einstein wrote to a friend in the early 1940s, "I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn't wear socks and who is exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions." Prominent contributors were Gunnar Nordström, Hermann Weyl, Arthur Eddington, David Hilbert,^[15] Theodor Kaluza, Oskar Klein (see Kaluza-Klein theory), and most notably, Albert Einstein and his collaborators. Einstein intensely searched for, but ultimately failed to find, a unifying theory.^{[16]:ch 17} (But see:Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations.) More than a half a century later, Einstein's dream of discovering a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics.

Twentieth century and the nuclear interactions

In the twentieth century, the search for a unifying theory was interrupted by the discovery of the strong and weak nuclear forces (or interactions), which differ both from gravity and from electromagnetism. A further hurdle was the acceptance that in a ToE, quantum mechanics had to be incorporated from the start, rather than emerging as a consequence of a deterministic unified theory, as Einstein had hoped.

Gravity and electromagnetism could always peacefully coexist as entries in a list of classical forces, but for many years it seemed that gravity could not even be incorporated into the quantum framework, let alone unified with the other fundamental forces. For this reason, work on unification, for much of the twentieth century, focused on understanding the three "quantum" forces: electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces. The first two were combined in 1967–68 by Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam into the "electroweak" force.^[17] Electroweak unification is a broken symmetry: the electromagnetic and weak forces appear distinct at low energies because the particles carrying the weak force, the W and Z bosons, have non-zero masses of 80.4 GeV/c² and 91.2 GeV/c², whereas the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, is massless. At higher energies Ws and Zs can be created easily and the unified nature of the force becomes apparent.

While the strong and electroweak forces peacefully coexist in the Standard Model of particle physics, they remain distinct. So far, the quest for a theory of everything is thus unsuccessful on two points: neither a unification of the strong and electroweak forces – which Laplace would have called 'contact forces' – has been achieved, nor has a unification of these forces with gravitation been achieved.

Modern physics

Conventional sequence of theories

A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the ToE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up:

Theory of everything

Quantum gravity

Space Curvature

Electronuclear force (GUT)

Standard model of cosmology

Standard model of particle physics

Strong interaction SU(3)

Electroweak interaction SU(2) x U(1)Y

Weak interaction

Electromagnetism U(1)EM

Electricity

Magnetism

In this graph, electroweak unification occurs at around 100 GeV, grand unification is predicted to occur at 10¹⁶ GeV, and unification of the GUT force with gravity is expected at the Planck energy, roughly 10¹⁹ GeV.

Several Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) have been proposed to unify electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces. Grand unification would imply the existence of an electronuclear force; it is expected to set in at energies of the order of 10¹⁶ GeV, far greater than could be reached by any possible Earth-based particle accelerator. Although the simplest GUTs have been experimentally ruled out, the general idea, especially when linked with supersymmetry, remains a favorite candidate in the theoretical physics community. Supersymmetric GUTs seem plausible not only for their theoretical "beauty", but because they naturally produce large quantities of dark matter, and because the inflationary force may be related to GUT physics (although it does not seem to form an inevitable part of the theory). Yet GUTs are clearly not the final answer; both the current standard model and all proposed GUTs are quantum field theories which require the problematic technique of renormalization to yield sensible answers. This is usually regarded as a sign that these are only effective field theories, omitting crucial phenomena relevant only at very high energies.^[3]

The final step in the graph requires resolving the separation between quantum mechanics and gravitation, often equated with general relativity. Numerous researchers concentrate their efforts on this specific step; nevertheless, no accepted theory of quantum gravity – and thus no accepted theory of everything – has emerged yet. It is usually assumed that the ToE will also solve the remaining problems of GUTs.

In addition to explaining the forces listed in the graph, a ToE may also explain the status of at least two candidate forces suggested by modern cosmology: an inflationary force and dark energy. Furthermore, cosmological experiments also suggest the existence of dark matter, supposedly composed of fundamental particles outside the scheme of the standard model. However, the existence of these forces and particles has not been proven.

String theory and M-theory

Since the 1990s, some physicists^[who?] believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in some limits by one of the five perturbative superstring theories, and in another by the maximally-supersymmetric 11-dimensional supergravity, is the theory of everything. However, there is no widespread consensus on this issue.

A surprising property of string/M-theory is that extra dimensions are required for the theory's consistency. In this regard, string theory can be seen as building on the insights of the Kaluza–Klein theory, in which it was realized that applying general relativity to a five-dimensional universe (with one of them small and curled up) looks from the four-dimensional perspective like the usual general relativity together with Maxwell's electrodynamics. This lent credence to the idea of unifying gauge and gravity interactions, and to extra dimensions, but did not address the detailed experimental requirements. Another important property of string theory is its supersymmetry, which together with extra dimensions are the two main proposals for resolving the hierarchy problem of the standard model, which is (roughly) the question of why gravity is so much weaker than any other force. The extra-dimensional solution involves allowing gravity to propagate into the other dimensions while keeping other forces confined to a four-dimensional spacetime, an idea that has been realized with explicit stringy mechanisms.^[18]

Research into string theory has been encouraged by a variety of theoretical and experimental factors. On the experimental side, the particle content of the standard model supplemented with neutrino masses fits into a spinor representation of SO(10), a subgroup of E8 that routinely emerges in string theory, such as in heterotic string theory^[19] or (sometimes equivalently) in F-theory.^[20][21] String theory has mechanisms that may explain why fermions come in three hierarchical generations, and explain the mixing rates between quark generations.^[22] On the theoretical side, it has begun to address some of the key questions in quantum gravity, such as resolving the black hole information paradox, counting the correct entropy of black holes^[23][24] and allowing for topology-changing processes.^[25][26][27] It has also led to many insights in pure mathematics and in ordinary, strongly-coupled gauge theory due to the Gauge/String duality.

In the late 1990s, it was noted that one major hurdle in this endeavor is that the number of possible four-dimensional universes is incredibly large. The small, "curled up" extra dimensions can be compactified in an enormous number of different ways (one estimate is 10⁵⁰⁰ ) each of which leads to different properties for the low-energy particles and forces. This array of models is known as the string theory landscape.^[7]:347

One proposed solution is that many or all of these possibilities are realised in one or another of a huge number of universes, but that only a small number of them are habitable. Hence what we normally conceive as the fundamental constants of the universe are ultimately the result of the anthropic principle rather than dictated by theory. This has led to criticism of string theory,^[28] arguing that it cannot make useful (i.e., original, falsifiable, and verifiable) predictions and regarding it as a pseudoscience. Others disagree,^[29] and string theory remains an extremely active topic of investigation in theoretical physics.^{[citation needed]}

Loop quantum gravity

Current research on loop quantum gravity may eventually play a fundamental role in a ToE, but that is not its primary aim.^[30] Also loop quantum gravity introduces a lower bound on the possible length scales.

There have been recent claims that loop quantum gravity may be able to reproduce features resembling the Standard Model. So far only the first generation of fermions (leptons and quarks) with correct parity properties have been modelled by Sundance Bilson-Thompson using preons constituted of braids of spacetime as the building blocks.^[31] However, there is no derivation of the Lagrangian that would describe the interactions of such particles, nor is it possible to show that such particles are fermions, nor that the gauge groups or interactions of the Standard Model are realised. Utilization of quantum computing concepts made it possible to demonstrate that the particles are able to survive quantum fluctuations.^[32]

This model leads to an interpretation of electric and colour charge as topological quantities (electric as number and chirality of twists carried on the individual ribbons and colour as variants of such twisting for fixed electric charge).

Bilson-Thompson's original paper suggested that the higher-generation fermions could be represented by more complicated braidings, although explicit constructions of these structures were not given. The electric charge, colour, and parity properties of such fermions would arise in the same way as for the first generation. The model was expressly generalized for an infinite number of generations and for the weak force bosons (but not for photons or gluons) in a 2008 paper by Bilson-Thompson, Hackett, Kauffman and Smolin.^[33]

Other attempts

A recent development is the theory of causal fermion systems,^[34] giving the two current physical theories (general relativity and quantum field theory) as limiting cases.

A recent attempt is called Causal Sets. As some of the approaches mentioned above, its direct goal isn't necessarily to achieve a ToE but primarily a working theory of quantum gravity, which might eventually include the standard model and become a candidate for a ToE. Its founding principle is that spacetime is fundamentally discrete and that the spacetime events are related by a partial order. This partial order has the physical meaning of the causality relations between relative past and future distinguishing spacetime events.

Outside the previously mentioned attempts there is Garrett Lisi's E8 proposal. This theory provides an attempt of identifying general relativity and the standard model within the Lie group E8. The theory doesn't provide a novel quantization procedure and the author suggests its quantization might follow the Loop Quantum Gravity approach above mentioned.^[35]

Causal dynamical triangulation does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Christoph Schiller's Strand Model attempts to account for the gauge symmetry of the Standard Model of particle physics, U(1)×SU(2)×SU(3), with the three Reidemeister moves of knot theory by equating each elementary particle to a different tangle of one, two, or three strands (selectively a long prime knot or unknotted curve, a rational tangle, or a braided tangle respectively).

Another attempt may be related to ER=EPR, a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge).^[36][37]

Present status

At present, there is no candidate theory of everything that includes the standard model of particle physics and general relativity. For example, no candidate theory is able to calculate the fine structure constant or the mass of the electron. Most particle physicists expect that the outcome of the ongoing experiments – the search for new particles at the large particle accelerators and for dark matter – are needed in order to provide further input for a ToE.

Philosophy

The philosophical implications of a physical ToE are frequently debated. For example, if philosophical physicalism is true, a physical ToE will coincide with a philosophical theory of everything.
The "system building" style of metaphysics attempts to answer all the important questions in a coherent way, providing a complete picture of the world. Aristotle is the first and most noteworthy philosopher to have attempted such a comprehensive system in his Metaphysics. While Aristotle made important contributions to all the sciences in terms of his method of logic and his first principal of causality, he was later demonized by later modern philosophers of the Enlightenment like Immanuel Kant who criticized him for his idea of God as first cause. Isaac Newton and his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy constituted the most all encompassing attempt at a theory of everything up until the twentieth century and Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. After David Hume's attacks upon the inductive method utilized in all the sciences, the German Idealists such as Kant and G.W.F. Hegel - and the many philosophical reactions they inspired - took a decided turn away from natural philosophy and the physical sciences and focused instead on issues of perception, cognition, consciousness and ultimately language.

Arguments against

In parallel to the intense search for a ToE, various scholars have seriously debated the possibility of its discovery.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem

A number of scholars claim that Gödel's incompleteness theorem suggests that any attempt to construct a ToE is bound to fail. Gödel's theorem, informally stated, asserts that any formal theory expressive enough for elementary arithmetical facts to be expressed and strong enough for them to be proved is either inconsistent (both a statement and its denial can be derived from its axioms) or incomplete, in the sense that there is a true statement that can't be derived in the formal theory.
Stanley Jaki, in his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, pointed out that, because any "theory of everything" will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything.^[38]

Freeman Dyson has stated that "Gödel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. […] Because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them."^[39]

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."^[40]

Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997) has argued against this view; he points out that Gödel's theorems are irrelevant for computable physics.^[41] In 2000, Schmidhuber explicitly constructed limit-computable, deterministic universes whose pseudo-randomness based on undecidable, Gödel-like halting problems is extremely hard to detect but does not at all prevent formal ToEs describable by very few bits of information.^[42]

Related critique was offered by Solomon Feferman,^[43] among others. Douglas S. Robertson offers Conway's game of life as an example:^[44] The underlying rules are simple and complete, but there are formally undecidable questions about the game's behaviors. Analogously, it may (or may not) be possible to completely state the underlying rules of physics with a finite number of well-defined laws, but there is little doubt that there are questions about the behavior of physical systems which are formally undecidable on the basis of those underlying laws.

Since most physicists would consider the statement of the underlying rules to suffice as the definition of a "theory of everything", most physicists argue that Gödel's Theorem does not mean that a ToE cannot exist. On the other hand, the scholars invoking Gödel's Theorem appear, at least in some cases, to be referring not to the underlying rules, but to the understandability of the behavior of all physical systems, as when Hawking mentions arranging blocks into rectangles, turning the computation of prime numbers into a physical question.^[45] This definitional discrepancy may explain some of the disagreement among researchers.

Fundamental limits in accuracy

No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.^[46] Following this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.

On the other hand, it is often claimed that, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of the mathematics of each new theory, in a deep sense associated with their underlying gauge symmetry and the number of dimensionless physical constants, the theories are becoming simpler. If this is the case, the process of simplification cannot continue indefinitely.

Lack of fundamental laws

There is a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether a theory of everything deserves to be called the fundamental law of the universe.^[47] One view is the hard reductionist position that the ToE is the fundamental law and that all other theories that apply within the universe are a consequence of the ToE. Another view is that emergent laws, which govern the behavior of complex systems, should be seen as equally fundamental. Examples of emergent laws are the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of natural selection. The advocates of emergence argue that emergent laws, especially those describing complex or living systems are independent of the low-level, microscopic laws. In this view, emergent laws are as fundamental as a ToE.

The debates do not make the point at issue clear. Possibly the only issue at stake is the right to apply the high-status term "fundamental" to the respective subjects of research. A well-known debate over this took place between Steven Weinberg and Philip Anderson^{[citation needed]}

Impossibility of being "of everything"

Although the name "theory of everything" suggests the determinism of Laplace's quotation, this gives a very misleading impression. Determinism is frustrated by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical predictions, by the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that leads to mathematical chaos, by the limitations due to event horizons, and by the extreme mathematical difficulty of applying the theory. Thus, although the current standard model of particle physics "in principle" predicts almost all known non-gravitational phenomena, in practice only a few quantitative results have been derived from the full theory (e.g., the masses of some of the simplest hadrons), and these results (especially the particle masses which are most relevant for low-energy physics) are less accurate than existing experimental measurements. The ToE would almost certainly be even harder to apply for the prediction of experimental results, and thus might be of limited use.

A motive for seeking a ToE,^{[citation needed]} apart from the pure intellectual satisfaction of completing a centuries-long quest, is that prior examples of unification have predicted new phenomena, some of which (e.g., electrical generators) have proved of great practical importance. And like in these prior examples of unification, the ToE would probably allow us to confidently define the domain of validity and residual error of low-energy approximations to the full theory.

Infinite number of onion layers

Frank Close regularly argues that the layers of nature may be like the layers of an onion, and that the number of layers might be infinite.^[48] This would imply an infinite sequence of physical theories.
The argument is not universally accepted, because it is not obvious that infinity is a concept that applies to the foundations of nature.

Impossibility of calculation

Weinberg^[49] points out that calculating the precise motion of an actual projectile in the Earth's atmosphere is impossible. So how can we know we have an adequate theory for describing the motion of projectiles? Weinberg suggests that we know principles (Newton's laws of motion and gravitation) that work "well enough" for simple examples, like the motion of planets in empty space. These principles have worked so well on simple examples that we can be reasonably confident they will work for more complex examples. For example, although general relativity includes equations that do not have exact solutions, it is widely accepted as a valid theory because all of its equations with exact solutions have been experimentally verified. Likewise, a ToE must work for a wide range of simple examples in such a way that we can be reasonably confident it will work for every situation in physics.