Quote:
Originally Posted by montsnmags
|
Hmmm - interesting.
I think, though, that what that is saying is that one cannot have a theory which "completely represents reality". That's not what physics aims to do - physicists generally aim for the lesser goal of producing a theory which can be used to make useful predictions about the "real world".
Eg, Newton's laws of motion are a perfectly acceptable way of thinking about the motion of objects through space in the overwhelming majority of situations and can be used to make highly-accurate predictions of planetary motion, for the most part. In "extreme" situations, General Relativity provides a closer approximation to "reality", but even it cannot be the "whole truth", since it is a "field theory" and completely inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
There's no reason that one couldn't have a GUT which satisfactorily explains the relationship between the fundamental forces and QM, whilst accepting that it does not represent the "ultimate truth" - the "reality" of the way the universe works. That "ultimate truth" may well be unattainable, but that doesn't mean that practically useful theories cannot be obtained.