Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

John Millar: on 10/31/09 at 21:30pm UTC, wrote I would tend to agree with Ari's definition. A Theory of Everything should...

Ari: on 10/28/09 at 5:44am UTC, wrote Greetings, Thank you for your comments. I agree that the proof relies on...

Jonathan Dickau: on 10/9/09 at 1:37am UTC, wrote Greetings, I just read your essay, and I'm not sure whether I like it or...

Ari Stophrenic: on 10/2/09 at 11:59am UTC, wrote Essay Abstract Since the beginning of civilization, the ultimate...


Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

Forever Fiances: "Welcome to Forever Fiances, an invitation company in San Diego. Since 2008,..." in Vita Nuova

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which change is happening, is sequential..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "In the many cat version as time progresses there are less and less cats..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Musser,this article is very interesting.Max Tegmark speaks about an..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Lorraine, Thanks for sharing,we speak about our main global..." in Till Next Time

click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

October 21, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: On the Non-Existence of TOEs by Ari Stophrenic [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ari Stophrenic wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 11:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

Since the beginning of civilization, the ultimate goal of science has been to discover one theory that is capable of both describing and predicting all physical phenomena in the Universe. Over the centuries since that time, many theories have been presented as candidates for the Theory of Everything (TOE), but as yet not a single theory has been successful in describing all of the known laws of physics. In this paper, we outline a proof that TOEs cannot exist, and that at best we can search for approximations to the full laws of nature.

Author Bio

Studied physics formally as an undergraduate student, before shifting careers. Continued to take graduate courses informally in physics and mathematics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 01:37 GMT

I just read your essay, and I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I feel you may be on to something, in the belief that there will always be something to learn, and in the assertion that there is no one theory which adequately explains all observable aspects of our universe. Perhaps there never will be, or can be.

I tend to feel like there is too strong a focus on finding one theory which, by its rightness, excludes all other theories - which we can call a Theory of Everything. I wrote in my contest essay that we should instead try to link up useful pieces of theory, as a more fruitful approach to ultimate unification.

But although the proof was clever, it was only the clever way you defined some of the important terms - that allowed you to make a proof which appears valid. This does not clearly show that a TOE (as it is more commonly defined) is a strict impossibility, nor will it keep people from trying.

I do like that you allowed for many possible TOEs to coexist, in your formulation. I tend to believe that when several different theories all point to a similar result, this generally indicates there's something of note, worthy of further investigation. So; I feel that though there may be no absolutely valid TOE, there may be any number of practical TOEs that describe our universe well. Why settle for just one, right?

Good Luck,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ari wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 05:44 GMT

Thank you for your comments.

I agree that the proof relies on how one defines a TOE. I tend to think that if it is meant to be a theory of everything, then there should be nothing in it that needs to be measured or selected. For example, string theory is suggested as a possible theory of everything, but it still includes selecting symmetry groups and arbitrary valued parameters. To me, that means that even if it describes everything, you still need another theory to explain why each parameter takes the values it does. That is really why I define TOEs that way - so that the theory actually describes everything with no further input.

Of course as you say, there could be several theories which all approximate reality even if there is no final theory of everything.

Good luck to you to.

Ari Stophrenic

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Millar wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 21:30 GMT
I would tend to agree with Ari's definition. A Theory of Everything should by virtue of its name predict EVERYTHING in the Universe. To me that should include the value of every coupling constant. I don't think a TOE can be a TOE if it relies on measuring these things.

Just my two cents worth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.