Return to Answer

In order to answer the question, we should first look at what value a "theory of everything" would provide.

1. Offer a simpler explanation for things we observe in nature than the existing theories
2. Explain observations observed in nature which are not sufficiently explained by existing theories
3. Make predictions for the outcomes of events which weren't observed yet. "If X happens, then Y should be the outcome"

The first two are mostly of didactic value because they provide a better way to explain to people how the universe works.

The third is where we have possible applications. If your theory makes new predictions which contradict the predictions of competing theories, then there might be a way to create an experiment to test the theory.

For example, your theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a frog". The competing theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a pigeon". Nobody tried this before. So some scientists decide to try it. The outcome is a featherless, wingless, green amphibian. That means your theory got verified and the competing theory got falsified.

That means something got to be wrong about the competing theory. But hat does not mean your theory is confirmed to be correct. It only was confirmed to be applicable to this specific experiment. Does it work on any hamster or just this one? Does it work on any particle accelerator or only this specific one? Does it work all the time or were we just lucky? And is that animal actually a frog or is it maybe in fact a very frog-like pigeon?

A different experiment might have a different outcome than your theory predicted. That means your theory got falsify it just like the previous theory was falsified.

When a theory got confirmed by many different experiments performed by many different people in many different circumstances, then people might come to the conclusion that the theory is very likely mostly correct under most conditions and that it might be worth the risk to try building commercial products which work based on that theory.

And then someone's hamster-to-frog-transmuter suddenly creates a rabbit. Now the whole world is in uproar because something got to be wrong about the "theory of everything" and we need a better theory which also explains this new observation and makes a prediction about the circumstances under which this will happen again.

In order to answer the question, we should first look at what value a "theory of everything" would provide.

1. Offer a simpler explanation for things we observe in nature than the existing theories
2. Explain observations observed in nature which are not sufficiently explained by existing theories
3. Make predictions for the outcomes of events which weren't observed yet. "If X happens, then Y should be the outcome"

The first two are mostly of didactic value because they provide a better way to explain to people how the universe works. But they don't create any new insights. They only make existing insights more palatable.

The third is where we have possible applications. If your theory makes new predictions which contradict the predictions of competing theories, then there might be a way to create an experiment to test the theory.

For example, your theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a frog". The competing theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a pigeon". Nobody tried this before. So some scientists decide to try it. The outcome is a featherless, wingless, green amphibian. That means your theory got verified and the competing theory got falsified.

That means something got to be wrong about the competing theory. But hat does not mean your theory is confirmed to be correct. It only was confirmed to be applicable to this specific experiment. Does it work on any hamster or just this one? Does it work on any particle accelerator or only this specific one? Does it work all the time or were we just lucky? And is that animal actually a frog or is it maybe in fact a very frog-like pigeon?

A different experiment might have a different outcome than your theory predicted. That would mean that your theory got falsified just like the previous theory.

When a theory got confirmed by many different experiments performed by many different people in many different circumstances, then people might come to the conclusion that the theory is very likely mostly correct under most conditions and that it might be worth the risk to try building commercial products which work based on that theory.

And then someone's hamster-to-frog-transmuter suddenly creates a rabbit. Now the whole world is in uproar because something got to be wrong about the "theory of everything" and we need a better theory which also explains this new observation and makes a prediction about the circumstances under which this will happen again.

In order to answer the question, we should first look at what value a "theory of everything" would provide.

1. Offer a simpler explanation for things we observe in nature than the existing theories
2. Explain observations observed in nature which are not sufficiently explained by existing theories
3. Make predictions for the outcomes of events which weren't observed yet. "If X happens, then Y should be the outcome"

The first two are mostly of didactic value because they provide a better way to explain to people how the universe works.

The third is where we have possible applications. If your theory makes new predictions which contradict the predictions of competing theories, then there might be a way to create an experiment to test the theory.

For example, your theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a frog". The competing theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a pigeon". Nobody tried this before. So some scientists decide to try it. The outcome is a featherless, wingless, green amphibian. That means your theory got verified and the competing theory got falsified.

That means something got to be wrong about the competing theory. But hat does not mean your theory is confirmed to be correct. It only was confirmed to be applicable to this specific experiment. Does it work on any hamster or just this one? Does it work on any particle accelerator or only this specific one? Does it work all the time or were we just lucky? And is that animal actually a frog or is it maybe in fact a very frog-like pigeon?

A different experiment might have a different outcome than your theory predicted. That means your theory got falsify it just like the previous theory was falsified.

When a theory got confirmed by many different experiments performed by many different people in many different circumstances, then people might come to the conclusion that the theory is very likely mostly correct under most conditions and that it might be worth the risk to try building commercial products which work based on that theory.

And then someone's hamster-to-frog-transmuter suddenly creates a rabbit. Now the whole world is in uproar because something got to be wrong about the "theory of everything" and we need a better theory which also explains this new observation.

In order to answer the question, we should first look at what value a "theory of everything" would provide.

1. Offer a simpler explanation for things we observe in nature than the existing theories
2. Explain observations observed in nature which are not sufficiently explained by existing theories
3. Make predictions for the outcomes of events which weren't observed yet. "If X happens, then Y should be the outcome"

The first two are mostly of didactic value because they provide a better way to explain to people how the universe works.

The third is where we have possible applications. If your theory makes new predictions which contradict the predictions of competing theories, then there might be a way to create an experiment to test the theory.

For example, your theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a frog". The competing theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a pigeon". Nobody tried this before. So some scientists decide to try it. The outcome is a featherless, wingless, green amphibian. That means your theory got verified and the competing theory got falsified.

That means something got to be wrong about the competing theory. But hat does not mean your theory is confirmed to be correct. It only was confirmed to be applicable to this specific experiment. Does it work on any hamster or just this one? Does it work on any particle accelerator or only this specific one? Does it work all the time or were we just lucky? And is that animal actually a frog or is it maybe in fact a very frog-like pigeon?

A different experiment might have a different outcome than your theory predicted. That means your theory got falsify it just like the previous theory was falsified.

When a theory got confirmed by many different experiments performed by many different people in many different circumstances, then people might come to the conclusion that the theory is very likely mostly correct under most conditions and that it might be worth the risk to try building commercial products which work based on that theory.

And then someone's hamster-to-frog-transmuter suddenly creates a rabbit. Now the whole world is in uproar because something got to be wrong about the "theory of everything" and we need a better theory which also explains this new observation and makes a prediction about the circumstances under which this will happen again.

In order to answer the question, we should first look at what value a "theory of everything" would provide.

1. Offer a simpler explanation for things we observe in nature than the existing theories
2. Explain observations observed in nature which are not sufficiently explained by existing theories
3. Make predictions for the outcomes of events which weren't observed yet. "If X happens, then Y should be the outcome"

The first two are mostly of didactic value because they provide a better way to explain to people how the universe works.

The third is where we have possible applications. If your theory makes new predictions which contradict the predictions of competing theories, then there might be a way to create an experiment to test the theory.

For example, your theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a frog". The competing theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a pigeon". Nobody tried this before. So some scientists decide to try it. The outcome is a featherless, wingless, green amphibian. That means your theory got verified and the competing theory got falsified.

That means something got to be wrong about the competing theory. But hat does not mean your theory is confirmed to be correct. It only was confirmed to be applicable to this specific experiment. Does it work on any hamster or just this one? Does it work on any particle accelerator or only this specific one? And is that animal actually a frog or is it just something which looks like one at first glance?

A different experiment might have a different outcome than your theory predicted. That means your theory got falsify it just like the previous theory was falsified.

When a theory got confirmed by many different experiments performed by many different people in many different circumstances, then people might come to the conclusion that the theory is very likely mostly correct under most conditions and that it might be worth the risk to try building commercial products which work based on that theory.

In order to answer the question, we should first look at what value a "theory of everything" would provide.

1. Offer a simpler explanation for things we observe in nature than the existing theories
2. Explain observations observed in nature which are not sufficiently explained by existing theories
3. Make predictions for the outcomes of events which weren't observed yet. "If X happens, then Y should be the outcome"

The first two are mostly of didactic value because they provide a better way to explain to people how the universe works.

The third is where we have possible applications. If your theory makes new predictions which contradict the predictions of competing theories, then there might be a way to create an experiment to test the theory.

For example, your theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a frog". The competing theory says: "If we put a hamster into a particle accelerator, it should turn into a pigeon". Nobody tried this before. So some scientists decide to try it. The outcome is a featherless, wingless, green amphibian. That means your theory got verified and the competing theory got falsified.

That means something got to be wrong about the competing theory. But hat does not mean your theory is confirmed to be correct. It only was confirmed to be applicable to this specific experiment. Does it work on any hamster or just this one? Does it work on any particle accelerator or only this specific one? Does it work all the time or were we just lucky? And is that animal actually a frog or is it maybe in fact a very frog-like pigeon?

A different experiment might have a different outcome than your theory predicted. That means your theory got falsify it just like the previous theory was falsified.

When a theory got confirmed by many different experiments performed by many different people in many different circumstances, then people might come to the conclusion that the theory is very likely mostly correct under most conditions and that it might be worth the risk to try building commercial products which work based on that theory.

And then someone's hamster-to-frog-transmuter suddenly creates a rabbit. Now the whole world is in uproar because something got to be wrong about the "theory of everything" and we need a better theory which also explains this new observation.