The general assumption for a Grand Unified Theory of the laws of physics would be a law that explains all the movements and motion in the universe.

That would be, let's use simple language, like naming all the chemical elements and how they react to each other. So you would have atoms and particles and how they attract to each other or repel each other. Then you would have rocks which are made of certain elements, stars made of certain elements, dust made of certain elements and so on. And the Grand Unified Theory would be a theory explaining exactly what happens each time chemical component A or matter A encounters matter B.

First big problem when designing a Grand Unified theory: the laws of motion are unpredictable. The more astrophysicists observe the universe, the more surprises they get as to the laws of motion. Some atoms attract. Other repel. Some attract at a certain fast speed. Others at a very slow speed.

But then you also have “boomerang” type motions. You also have atoms jumping up and down. And you have atoms that can teleport (true story!). And then you have all the effects that I won't name because there are too many of them. There are optical effects, mechanical effects.

More importantly, sometimes the laws contradict each other. You could have a law stating that an object will follow another object at the speed of propulsion, but then, in inexplicable ways, the object does not follow that speed, or even more surprisingly, the object remains static.

Second big problem when designing a Grand Unified Theory: the universe is too vast to observe all the objects, their chemical properties, and the details of how they might interact with each other.

A country the size of China is hard enough to study. A country the size of Palau is hard enough to study. Now imagine studying the vast universe.

There are certain obvious laws of motion. That objects fall. That their collateral wind carries neighboring objects with them. That whichever object propelled by the bigger force and bigger in mass will carry the smaller object around with it. There are many such laws (I'm trying to avoid jargon here).

But then the further you travel around the universe, the more surprising things you will find.

Surprises that are possible would be large, heavy objects, propelled by larger objects, yet that remain static. Their chemical composition would explain why being hit by a larger force does not propel the object.

Or you could have rocks or asteroids bouncing up and down. Or falling in a “worm hole” and bouncing back up. Or going round in circles.

Point I'm trying to make is until we will not have observed the entire universe in all its complexities, designing a unified, complete theory would be impossible.

But still, some physicists insist that you can design a Grand Unified theory, others even claim to have designed the Grand Unified Theory.

I took a look at their work. Here's what it looks like, using an analogy. It would be like explaining the human body by discussing “cells” exclusively, and nothing else. So in the beginning of humanity there were cells. Cells grew to form organisms. Cells then grew to become bodies. And the human body universe is an interaction of cells. There's the Grand Unified Theory of the human body.

So that's the Grand Unified theory they offer. That the universe is made of waves. And that those waves interact. Some say in the form of “strings” others claim that the waves have some kind of motion.

But just as you can not explain the human body without discussing muscles and tissue and blood flow and layers and organs, you can't discuss the universe as a series of waves, without discussing celestial objects, both known and unknown.

So there are millions of factors that are often omitted. There's the temperature factor. The radiation factor. The speed factor. The density factor. The optical factors and optical illusions (because it is us humans observing the universe after all!). The dust factor. The wind factor. And not to mention the fact that waves seem to function differently in one place than they would in another.

So we know enough about the universe to navigate it, send satellites and space missions, and send rovers to distant planets. We know enough about the universe that we know what goes on within reasonable distance of our planet.

But, we have another problem: the laws of physics, just like everything else, evolve in time and in space.

So even if you were to give a series of the laws of physics, within the next million years or so, the laws will no longer apply. New chemical dynamics, new elements will form, an explosion will trigger novelty, or some kind of evolution will take place.

Or we will discover a couple of laws that had always been around and yet that we never thought were true, or had never observed.

In sum, studying the universe is like being a soccer fan in Europe. If you know the big names and the big teams, you'll make a lot of friends and enjoy lots of fun nights out at the pub discussing the vagueries of European soccer. If you study every single team, player and statistic, people will forget to invite you to that night out at the pub. True story!