“Ultimately, we hope to find a fundamental theory that explains everything with no input parameters.”

—  Nathan Seiberg

[Where Is Fundamental Physics Headed? (public talk), 2014, https://www.sns.ias.edu/sites/default/files/Where%20is%20Fundamental%20Physics%20Heading%20Public.pdf]

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Ultimately, we hope to find a fundamental theory that explains everything with no input parameters." by Nathan Seiberg?
Nathan Seiberg photo
Nathan Seiberg 4
American physicist 1956

Related quotes

John C. Slater photo

“This fact, that all charges are integral multiples of a fundamental unit, is still one of the unexplained puzzles of fundamental physics. It does not in any way contradict electromagnetic theory, but it is not predicted by it, and until we have a more fundamental theory that explains it, we shall not feel that we really understand electromagnetic phenomena thoroughly. Presumably its explanation will not come until we understand quantum theory more thoroughly than we do at present.”

John C. Slater (1900–1976) American physicist

[John Clarke Slater, Nathaniel Herman Frank, Electromagnetism, Courier Dover Publications, 1969, 0486622630, 11]

Laura Mersini-Houghton photo

“If gravity is a fundamental force, then it has to be explained by an expanded version of general relativity, a more complete, a more fundamental theory. Whether that is quantum gravity of something more radical that requires a paradigm shift like, for instance, our research in multiverse theory, nobody knows at the moment.”

Laura Mersini-Houghton (1969) Albanian cosmologist and theoretical physicist

[Why Is Gravity So Elusive? Frank Wilczek, Erik Verlinde, Laura Mersini-Houghton, 4 December 2017, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lui9qZ6cDs] 11:20 of 40:44

Bhagat Singh photo

“Non-violence is backed by the theory of soul-force in which suffering is courted in the hope of ultimately winning over the opponent.”

Bhagat Singh (1907–1931) Indian revolutionary

As quoted in The Sikh Review, Vol. 55 (2007), p. 173
Context: Non-violence is backed by the theory of soul-force in which suffering is courted in the hope of ultimately winning over the opponent. But what happens when such an attempt fail to achieve the object? It is here that soul-force has to be combined with physical force so as not to remain at the mercy of tyrannical and ruthless enemy.

Grady Booch photo

“Ultimately, discovery and invention are both problems of classification, and classification is fundamentally a problem of finding sameness. When we classify, we seek to group things that have a common structure or exhibit a common behavior.”

Grady Booch (1955) American software engineer

Source: Object-oriented design: With Applications, (1991), p. 133

P. J. O'Rourke photo

“She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.”

P. J. O'Rourke (1947) American journalist

Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President over Donald Trump, May 7, 2016 http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477339063/conservative-author-pj-orourke-reluctantly-backs-clinton on NPR

“Prediction of the future is possible only in systems that have stable parameters like celestial mechanics. The only reason why prediction is so successful in celestial mechanics is that the evolution of the solar system has ground to a halt in what is essentially a dynamic equilibrium with stable parameters. Evolutionary systems, however, by their very nature have unstable parameters. They are disequilibrium systems and in such systems our power of prediction, though not zero, is very limited because of the unpredictability of the parameters themselves. If, of course, it were possible to predict the change in the parameters, then there would be other parameters which were unchanged, but the search for ultimately stable parameters in evolutionary systems is futile, for they probably do not exist… Social systems have Heisenberg principles all over the place, for we cannot predict the future without changing it.”

Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993) British-American economist

Source: 1980s, Evolutionary Economics, 1981, p. 44

Alvin M. Weinberg photo

“The philosophy of science is concerned with how you decide if a scientific finding is correct or true. You have to establish criteria to determine if the finding or theory is valid. Validity is a fundamental problem in the philosophy of science, but the fundamental problem in the philosophy of scientific administration is the question of value.”

Alvin M. Weinberg (1915–2006) American nuclear physicist

Two scientific activities are equally valid if they achieve results that are true. Now, how do you decide which activity is more valuable? The question of value is the basic question that the scientific administrator asks so that decisions can be made about funding priorities.
Interview http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbgbar.htm by Bill Cabage and Carolyn Krause for the ORNL Review (April 1995).

Stephen Hawking photo

“I don't believe that the ultimate theory will come by steady work along existing lines. We need something new. We can't predict what that will be or when we will find it because if we knew that, we would have found it already!”

Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author

Science Watch (September 1994)
Context: I don't believe that the ultimate theory will come by steady work along existing lines. We need something new. We can't predict what that will be or when we will find it because if we knew that, we would have found it already! It could come in the next 20 years, but we might never find it.

“Needless to say, there is no formal or mathematical content to ID—a “theory” that explains everything, explains nothing, and predicts nothing. ID cannot explain why millions of species were created and then became extinct. Even more importantly, it cannot explain “mistakes” in the design of living organisms such as us.”

Mordechai Ben-Ari (1948) Israeli computer scientist

Source: Just a Theory: Exploring the Nature of Science (2005), Chapter 2, “Just a Theory: What Scientists Do” (p. 39)

Frank Wilczek photo

“To put it crudely, theorists can be tempted to think along the lines “If people as clever as us haven’t explained it, that’s because it can’t be explained – it’s just an accident.” I believe there are at least two important regularities among standard model parameters that do have deeper explanations, namely the unification of couplings and the smallness of the QCD θ parameter. There may well be others.”

Frank Wilczek (1951) physicist

"Multiversality" (2013)

Related topics