Various Schools of Thought

On the Dog-Headed People Planet, the Dog-Headed People have data left by humans for verification and comparison, but humans have nothing. Faced with an unknown future, humans can only rely on themselves.

The Awakeners and Precursor did give humanity some reminders, but they only made humanity aware of the markers of each subsequent level. They didn't mention a word about the theoretical details, whether it was because they couldn't tell us, because they themselves didn't understand, or because it was to test humanity.

In short, if humanity wants to find Grand Unified Theory, it can only rely on itself.

However, a century later, the experiment has made little progress.

At first, the public had high hopes for the sudden news about the experiment, but as time went on, this expectation gradually turned into disappointment, and then into a joke about "achieving Controlled Nuclear Fusion within fifty years". The reason is that when the experiment first started, a scientist confidently said that the collision experiment would help mankind find experimental traces of the Grand Unified Theory within fifty years.

However, a century has passed, and we're still stuck in the same place. Well, it's not exactly stagnation; at least humanity has collected data from hundreds of collision experiments. Yes, it's been a century since we've collected data from hundreds of collision experiments. It's not that humanity hasn't been working hard on experiments, but rather that each astronomical-scale collision experiment requires an extremely long time.

The particle acceleration phase alone takes a month or two. Add to that the information exchange, the detection of collision results, and the reset and maintenance of the collider, and it's already a slack if we can do ten collision experiments a year. Unless humanity builds a few more Astronomical-Level Particle Collider, but that's impossible. Building even one would require the entire civilization to do it, and the current situation doesn't allow it.

The Awakeners said that if humanity wants to leave this space, it must become Level 4 Civilization. At that time, the exit of the space will naturally appear. Otherwise, no matter how hard humanity searches, it will be impossible to find the exit.

The message is quite clear: on the surface, it tells humanity that we must reach Level 4 Civilization before we can leave, but the subtext is that humanity, through experiments with Astronomical-Level Particle Collider, can find Grand Unified Theory. So much time has passed, and humanity's scientists are still working diligently, firmly believing that the path to Astronomical-Level Particle Collider is correct, and this is the reason why.

First of all, the Awakeners are a benevolent civilization. The extent to which the Awakener 'Illusion'' takes care of humanity makes them believe that he would not deceive them.

But where exactly does the problem lie?

The prolonged failures prompted scientists to reflect on their methods while continuing to improve them.

The problem is theoretical, not experimental—some scientists have put forward the idea that the problem lies in the foundation of Grand Unified Theory of humanity, but that's just a suggestion; they can't provide any evidence to prove where the problem lies.

Another viewpoint suggests that insufficient time or, in other words, inadequate accumulation of experimental data prevented us from finding even the slightest clue in the limited experimental results.

This viewpoint argues that what humanity needs to break through this time is fundamental theory, which is precisely the most difficult and time-consuming area to advance in. They cite the example of how it took approximately seventy years from the work of Faraday and Maxwell to Edison and his true backer, Nikola Tesla, actually mastering Electromagnetic Force. Humanity has only been conducting actual collision experiments for a mere hundred years; this timeframe may be far from yielding the correct answer through trial and error.

This view has gained support from most people, primarily those who are fervent experimental scientists.

Another group of scientists holds a different view. They believe that the experiment was actually successful, but humans simply lack the ability to detect the successful results. In other words, humans are unable to detect any unusual experimental phenomena or new experimental products.

The failure to identify the problem was attributed to the experimental detection technology.

Their argument is not without merit. Historically, physicists have repeatedly and solemnly declared certain phenomena to be "untestable" or "unprovable." This is similar to how some 19th-century scientists pledged that the composition of stars could not be measured experimentally.

In 1852, a French philosopher and social commentator wrote in * the Progress of Philosophy *: "Stars are too far away from us; we know nothing about them except that they are unreachable points of light in the sky." They believed that no machine in the 19th century, or any century thereafter, could provide humanity with enough power to escape Earth and reach the stars.

But as it turns out, humans were later able not only to determine the abundance of elements in stars through their spectra, but also to send probes to stars.

This is the view of scientists who hold the "undetectable" opinion. They believe that there is still room for improvement in current human technology, especially in detection technology. They believe that once detection technology reaches the pinnacle of Level 3 Civilization, it will definitely be able to detect new phenomena and new products from experiments.

However, some scientists hold a different view, believing that other indirect methods can be used to detect or discover new products in experiments. For example, Planck Energy is difficult to obtain, but we may be able to conduct indirect experiments through the area surrounding Planck Energy, thereby making unexpected breakthroughs.

Over time, more and more scientists have come to support the idea of "untestable" atoms, because there are too many examples of this in history. The first is the problem of stellar information mentioned above. The second is the problem of the existence of atoms. When the atomic hypothesis was first proposed in the 19th century, many physicists refused to believe in the existence of atoms, believing that atoms were merely a mathematical tool, and that mathematics had just happened to provide a correct description.

The third issue concerns the existence of neutrinos. At the beginning of the 20th century, humanity had no way to detect neutrinos, but fortunately, some radioactive experiments revealed phenomena that violated the conservation of matter and energy. Later, Wolfgang Pauli hypothesized a new, invisible particle and named it the neutrino.

The course of history is vividly clear, leading many scientists to believe that humanity is now facing a similar situation. This makes some sense, but unfortunately, no anomalies have been found in experiments, leaving scientists without any basis to develop hypotheses or hypothetical particles, just as their predecessors had done.

Everything is perfectly normal. We can't just make things up. After all, scientific research isn't just about having wild ideas; it requires real experimental data or unexpected discoveries as evidence.