Physics is by its nature not intended to search for a grand unification.

In physics, we like simple and widely applicable theories. By "simplicity", physicists usually mean a mathematical theory based on the minimum possible number of postulates. By “broad applicability” we mean theories capable of explaining a wide class of phenomena, even if they are not related to each other at first glance. A classic example is Einstein’s general theory of relativity. It is based on a small number of simple principles, and successfully explains the orbits of the planets in this and any other solar system, black holes, gravitational waves and the expansion of the Universe.

When theories are simple and widely applicable, physicists call them "beautiful." Nobel laureates Steven Weinberg and Frank Wilcheck compared such theories with the works of Mozart, with skillfully made perfect designs in which each note, as if according to God's plan is in its place: remove one, and the composition will collapse. Similarly, beautiful theories possess mathematical integrity, as if revealing some deep natural truth, a kind of hidden code of Creation. The Universe has many layers, from the largest to the smallest, each of which is described by its own math. But are they part of a larger composition, a single unifying tonality, resonating through all of nature?

So hope all physicists who are looking for the final theory that weaves together many layers of physical reality into one mathematical integrity. We can call it the ultimate dream of Plato, the search for a single simple and widely applicable theory. Over the past 40 years, these searches have inspired many of the world's smartest scientists. But today we already see the limitations of this desire to reduce nature to mathematics, arising from a lack of experimental evidence and several theoretical obstacles - including the possibility of the existence of multiple universes and related difficult questions.
')
The modern concept of the quest for unification is string theory, suggesting that the fundamental essences of nature are vibrating tubes of energy, and not point particles of matter. Different vibrations correspond to the different particles we observe, just as the different vibrations of the violin string correspond to different sounds. When I took up theoretical physics in the mid-1980s, our main task was to find a unique solution to string theory: our Universe, with all its particles and interactions. We believed in early success, that nature really was a mathematical code in a 10-dimensional space-time, in nine spatial and one time dimension. Ideally, the six hidden spatial dimensions should have determined the physics we observed in three ordinary ones: bend them in one direction, get one universe; Fold into the other, get another. The attraction was in the uniqueness of the solution - one geometry for additional measurements, which would tell us everything that is necessary. No single theory could be simpler, broader, or more beautiful.

Alas, this was not to be. Rewind three decades ahead and find out how everything has changed radically. Physicists were stunned by the fact that instead of a single solution there was a great multitude - according to some estimates, a unit with 500 zeros, each of which offers its own version of additional dimensions, its own version of the universe. It is assumed that each of them has its own set of fundamental constants, such quantities as the electron mass and its charge, the force of gravitational attraction - the quantities that determine the physical properties of nature. And where is our Universe among this variety of possibilities? We know that if we could slightly correct these constants, life would have become impossible - we would not be here. In other words, we live where we live, because we could not live anywhere else - our Universe is one of the few that allows us to exist. This, of course, is true, but from a scientific point of view, it does little. Whats worse, it sounds like a tautology. String theory has evolved from a theory that is able to mathematically prove the uniqueness of our Universe, into a theory that allows countless universes to exist, with no favorites.

We need to reconsider the way of reasoning that led us to this crisis. The problem is rooted in a deeper philosophical problem - the root cause. People, creatures immersed in the flow of time, with a clear start and end, from time immemorial, were puzzled by the initial conditions. How can something come from nothing? What assigns the properties of this something (i.e. the values ​​of the fundamental constants) at the beginning? Who ordered it? Who ordered us?

Our mistake is that from a scientific point of view these are the wrong questions.

Physicists work on a very clear platform. To determine the development of the system in time, it is necessary to designate its initial conditions, the state of the system at zero time. This implies knowledge of the system at its inception, something that we obtain through measurements. In cosmology this is impossible. We can limit the initial conditions and the values ​​of the fundamental constants depending on what we know about the universe today, but we cannot be sure that our conclusions are final. The evidence we collect today about the distant past may give us an incomplete picture of what happened. And the multiverse only moves the problem of initial conditions to another level, without solving it.

Any theory that attempts to explicitly determine the initial conditions of the Universe, and through them the values ​​of the fundamental constants, does what the physics are not intended for. Are we at a dead end, being forced to accept the values ​​of the constants as they are? On the current platform, yes. And trying to get around this problem, even if it is inspiring, will be just a walk around the bush.

But all is not lost. The search for a simple and comprehensive theory obscured a more global view of the nature of physics. Physics is the construction of a constantly changing and self-correcting description of natural phenomena. It detaches itself from the metaphysical fabrications about the nature of reality, which is more connected with our search for meaning than with the way nature works. In other words, physics is an expression of intellectual submission. We learn to live in ignorance, and in return we get the opportunity to gradually progress.

So, there is nothing wrong with the seemingly arbitrariness of the existing laws of physics, and in the rejection of dogma, which says that beauty is in simplicity, and truth is in beauty. If physics is understood as a descriptive explanation, free from the search for a union, then it is possible to get rid of the existential fear of not knowing everything. Perhaps our current dilemma is a symptom of something bigger, some deep change in the methodological nature of physical theories. Perhaps we need to approach them from a historical point of view, abandoning the fruitless search for an explanation of the root cause and eternal truth. It is quite possible that the nature of physical theories reflects their descriptive construction, piecewise and gradual, derived from our imperfect and incomplete awareness of reality. And there is nothing wrong with that.