Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: andreasva on 23/03/2018 14:25:00
-
It's a deep question, and one that can only be answered through human logic and consensus. Or to be fair, intelligent life, if it exists elsewhere in the universe. I think most people would agree that the odds are pretty good it does, but consensus eludes the scientific process. In some way's though, the whole point of physics is reaching consensus, isn't it? I think we rely a little too much on mathematical logic and hard evidence at times, rejecting the human element in the process. There is an answer for everything, and of that I have 0 doubts. From our perspective, we may not know that answer with absolute certainty, but there's always an answer. There are no gray areas in reality, just things we can or cannot obtain with absolute certainty using mathematical logic, or through observations.
The laws of physics is one of those things. We can only reach consensus on its origin through human reasoning, because the laws of physics are a derivative of the infinite, but they're certainly not infinite in nature. We have physical limitations. Life and death, for example.
I think the root of physics is pretty simple, personally. It comes down to the age old question of, something versus nothing. We've all pondered this same exact question many times in our lives. At least, I'm fairly certain anyone reading this thread has. Call it a logical deduction with a high degree of certainty, given we're all on this forum asking stupid questions like this.
What is something logically?
1
What is nothing logically?
0
It is these two numbers that forms the basis for all reasoning and logic, and all of physics. This is our natural base binary mathematical logic for all that was, is, and all that will ever be.
What can we say about these two numbers?
We consider 1 real, and 0 imaginary. I'm not really convinced imaginary properly describes 0 to me, personally. Nothing seems pretty real to me, or at least the potential in 0. 0 is the absence of 1, and inversely, 1 is the absence of 0. 0 works pretty well in a computer too. Some people describe 0 as an infinite number, but I don't see this either, really. To me, 1 and 0 describe opposing states. So, the best we can say about either number logically is,
1≠0
The above statement is true. It is a self evident fact of nature. Anyone care to debate?
Above all other logic, this simple mathematical statement is the base for all reasoning, physics, and mathematical logic. It is from this basic natural inequality that we can deduce equality. It is what allows us to exist, and the laws of physics to exist. A lot can be said from this base inequality.
1=1, 0=0, 1-1=0, 1>0, 0<1, 1+0=1, 0+0=0, etc, etc.
All the complexities in the universe arise from this simple inequality, which is neither infinite, nor static. It just hangs out there, daring us to question its meaning. And we do, all the time, never arriving at an ultimate conclusion, or more importantly, consensus. It means something different to everyone asking the question. It spawns debate, religion, and science.
Religion answers the statement with brute force, where science attempts to define it, either mathematically, or physically, dancing around the answer timidly while never reaching a conclusion. The true answer is out of reach for either group, so the best we can hope for is a mutual consensus on the problem. I think that's physics ultimate end game. To know the answer we're all asking, but to answer the above, consensus is the only tool available. It's why we're here on this forum, isn't it? Am I right, or am I wrong? Do you agree with my hypothesis? That's what it's all going to come down to in the end. Do we agree on a solution.
My hypothesis is infinity. It is the engine of creation. It is > 1, and < 0, and we are the finite result that lies in the middle. Space keeps steadily moving outwards trying to find it's furthest most limits, which is a place with no destination, while the potential for nothing always exists in the wake left behind, forever defining a potentially smaller point of nothing. Our universe is carved from the energy of these opposing states, so we are =<1 and =>0. We possess elements of both halves of infinity, but are not infinite ourselves. We are finite.
Then again, I may just be running off the rails right now...
I do know one thing for certain. Most physicists hate infinity. It's a concept, not a reality, so I've been told countless times in my life.
I disagree with that guess. Infinity is a state, alive and kicking, which lies outside our perception of reality. It's not about quantities, or unresolved formulas like pi, or infinite number sets. It's a physical state driving creation. Infinity is the engine of creation. It's where all the energy propagates, and cascades down into the universe(s) we understand.
-
You are on a logical track. Let me go first, directly to the question asked in the title of the thread, "Where do the laws of physics come from?" My supposition is that they have always existed, and are a set of invariant natural laws that govern an infinite and eternal universe full of an infinite amount of energy (energy, in my view, is gravitational wave energy traversing all space to and from all directions, based on an infinite past history of the relative motion of objects with mass).
-
"Where do the laws of physics come from?" My supposition is that they have always existed, and are a set of invariant natural laws ...
I would agree with that. The scientific process is one of discovery rather than invention.
Words or maths? Well, you can describe Pythagoras in words, but it is the maths that makes it useful. Both are language, choose the right tool for the job.
-
My supposition is that they have always existed, and are a set of invariant natural laws that govern an
I would definitely concur with the initial sentiment, but I do have to stop at infinite. In my mind, there's just too many issues with an infinite universe. For example, that would suggest we have been around forever, and that's a pretty long time. I think the universe would be filled with massive black holes at this point. I would think we would see them careening into other galaxies periodically. We don't. In addition, things in our galactic window appear to be receding. An infinite universe would suggest creation is an ongoing process, so galaxies should be replenishing on a continual basis to fill in the gaps. The universe would also have to be filled with plenty of matter to make that happen. Hydrogen clouds or nebula's would be everywhere, waiting to spawn new galaxies. We should see a lot of nascent galaxies forming between gaps. We just don't. Most of the things we see are well established, and have been around quite a long time. The universe appears to be thinning out.
The expansion thing really bothers me too, not just on an infinite level, but on any level. What would we be expanding into? A bigger infinity? Nothingness? I've certainly asked this question numerous times over the years, and the answers are as vague as the possibility in my mind.
That being said, perpetual is an interesting possibility. That's somewhere between infinite and finite. It's possible our universe recycles itself. I think it's pretty likely personally. It takes all the energy in a universe to make a universe, would be the rationale.
In general though, I consider our universe to be an isolated finite entity, sealed off from surrounding universes. We could be a single quantum fluctuation in a greater universe. Who knows, right? So many possibilities at this point.
Not saying an infinite universe isn't possible, I just can't see the logic in it at this time. Given everything we already know. I consider it unlikely.
-
The scientific process is one of discovery rather than invention.
I don't know about that Collin. Sometimes you have to invent something, to discover something. CERN would be a pretty good example, but even theories themselves are inventions. You couldn't discover anything about relativity until Einstein invented the theory.
Words or maths? Well, you can describe Pythagoras in words, but it is the maths that makes it useful. Both are language, choose the right tool for the job.
Consensus is a huge part of science already. It does have its pitfalls. Consensus has a way of clouding objectivity, while turning unknowns into beliefs. It can also divide people into differing consensus groups. Much like religions I suppose. Words are definitely a slippery slope, void of math and/or logic. I do recognize the conflict.
-
I don't know about that Collin. Sometimes you have to invent something, to discover something. CERN would be a pretty good example,
I would still draw a distinction between the invention and the discovery. Inventing an experiment or procedure is part of the process of discovery, but not the discovery itself.
but even theories themselves are inventions. You couldn't discover anything about relativity until Einstein invented the theory.
We are in danger here of using the word invention in 2 different ways in the same paragraph.
I would consider scientific theories to be descriptions of how the universe appears to work, rather than inventions. In his famous theory, Einstein was writing about a puzzle regarding the symmetry in electrodynamics, his insight was fundamental, he said we are looking at this from the outside, why not look at it from the perspective (reference frame) of the moving wire or magnet, then you can see what is really happening. This was his discovery.
Consensus is a huge part of science already. It does have its pitfalls. Consensus has a way of clouding objectivity, while turning unknowns into beliefs.
A scientific theory has to be observable and repeatable, it needs to make predictions that are verifiable (falsifiable). When such a theory is first published it needs to be checked to see whether others can repeat the results, the first stage of this is peer review to see whether the suggestion is consistent. If there is sufficient experimental evidence that the predictions are repeatable the theory is accepted. This testing process is objective.
The problem is that there are many ‘theories’ that are really hypotheses or speculations, and in that respect this section is misnamed. These are not testable and might reasonably be called inventions, particularly if they are not based on existing evidence and observations. Some ‘theories’ eg big bang are more properly called models and are based on observation and our understanding of how matter behaves or is likely to behave under certain conditions, these might have areas of uncertainty that are open to debate. However, scientific debate on all speculations, hypotheses, models etc should still be objective and based on evidence so should not cloud obectivity.
-
but consensus eludes the scientific process.
Not really.
-
Not saying an infinite universe isn't possible, I just can't see the logic in it at this time. Given everything we already know. I consider it unlikely.
Noting your arguments and objections, infinities are hard to deal with. Nevertheless, arguing for or against cosmological infinities always seems to come right down to the difference between where you and I are at on it. They are real and self evident to me but can’t be proven, and so I consider them axiomatic. You have a problem with them, perhaps for the reason that they cannot be proven and are so hard to deal with, and so my axioms are your imponderables.
-
I would still draw a distinction between the invention and the discovery. Inventing an experiment or procedure is part of the process of discovery, but not the discovery itself.
Yes, I can see your point, but I still think about CERN. CERN didn't really discover much of anything, did it? The discovery came from Higgs, and CERN was built for observations of the discovery. I suppose one could argue science was still (and is still) in the discovery process.
I suppose I would have to concede and say you are correct. I'm splitting hairs and stretching the definition beyond reason.
We are in danger here of using the word invention in 2 different ways in the same paragraph.
I would consider scientific theories to be descriptions of how the universe appears to work, rather than inventions.
There's a lot of cool discovery in these papers. Much of which we haven't observed, so I don't know. I think one might be able think of theories in terms of invention. Of course, as you correctly state, they are describing a potential process, so they are not unique in the inventive sense. They aren't manipulating a process to create something new, rather describing something that already potentially exists.
I guess I would have to say I am wrong here too. I'll have to agree with your reasoning. Theories are not inventions.
A scientific theory has to be observable and repeatable, it needs to make predictions that are verifiable (falsifiable). When such a theory is first published it needs to be checked to see whether others can repeat the results, the first stage of this is peer review to see whether the suggestion is consistent. If there is sufficient experimental evidence that the predictions are repeatable the theory is accepted. This testing process is objective.
There's where everything goes to hell in a hand-basket. I understand full well how it's supposed to work, but in practice, it's a pretty convoluted system you guys deal with. Not saying this in a derogatory sense either, so please don't misinterpret my words in that manner. Human beings are always the X factor. There's very little hard evidence to draw conclusions on just about anything in physics. It's a fragile house of cards built on a foundation of hypothesis. The observations can be interpreted a number of different ways, both rightly, or wrongly. Consensus seems to blossom into offshoots and/or sub groups. When I talk to you guys individually, your opinions on the universe are as diverse and ever changing as one could imagine. Many disregard the Big Bang, for example. The main stream flow of information paints a much different picture. The Big Bang is fact, so I would deduce that the underlying consensus is a Big Bang, although it's hard to find individuals who actually consider that to be the case in reality. And most physicists/science people, lash out at the mainstream, but they're really the essence of what you guys think collectively, so you're only lashing out at yourself in most cases. The main stream tends to leave one to believe their is harmony and full consensus on the primary theories, when there's not, frankly. It's a beautiful ideal to strive for, but I think the community as a whole is still striving to reach that ideal.
That's where the clouds roll in. Theories are like opinions, and everyone seems to have one when you look down in the trenches.
But I do understand what you are saying. What I state is closer to invention, or hypothesis (if I may be so bold in saying), than anything resembling a theory. It's always possible one of these inventions are correct.
I do consider my ideas are based on sound physics and/or reasoning. For example, I don't think spacetime is a relevant concept. I'm not convinced Einstein ever bought into it either, honestly. He started with an aether, but failure to detect the aether seemed to force him down another path. To publish, you have to make testable predictions. He didn't have much choice but to pull the aether out after Mickelson & Morley's failed experiment. The more I thought about it over the years, I deduced time is an energy signature, and not really time in the ethereal temporal manner of a 4th dimension as Einstein proposed in his paper. The results should be exactly the same, so it becomes this minuscule labeling issue on the surface. Time is the aether, I suspect. Only energy has been shown to alter matter, so time must be energy according to everything we have observed up to this point. That's what we observe and the physical evidence suggests. There isn't a third party manipulator of time.
But, I really don't want to go off on that tangent right now. Agree or disagree, it's what I see as the most likely outcome. And as much as I like to think I'm correct, it's still an invention in my mind until proven otherwise. And I am incapable. I recognize my limitations in what I suggest.
-
Noting your arguments and objections, infinities are hard to deal with. Nevertheless, arguing for or against cosmological infinities always seems to come right down to the difference between where you and I are at on it.
I think we're closer on the subject of infinities than my writings suggest. Perpetual. Infinite. Nearly the same thing. I think the infinite flows through us, and you consider it is embedded within the cosmos. That fact that we even broach the subject sort of puts on the same path, but it does paint two unique pictures of what it may be.
-
but consensus eludes the scientific process.
Not really.
I wouldn't kid yourself on this. It's not a derogatory statement, or intended to upset anyone. It's an observation of the process from the outside, which I've done for 25 years. I spent a good 10 years on the UNIKEF site. He believed their was no speed limit, and time was nonsense. He also considered the universe, or space, was a unified kinetic energy field. Gravity was derived from the dissipation of energy in the UNIKEF, and creation was an ongoing process.
Just one single example of subgroups.
Then we get into String theory, and Holographic, and many worlds, etc, etc, etc....
Not much consensus when I look around. Just bigger or smaller groups of what people think is going on. The collective sentiment is the main stream view, which ironically, is rejected by most scientists in the field. They tend to distance themselves from the general sentiment.
-
There's very little hard evidence to draw conclusions on just about anything in physics. It's a fragile house of cards built on a foundation of hypothesis. The observations can be interpreted a number of different ways, both rightly, or wrongly.
Am I right in thinking you take this view on, say, the observations of Faraday, Ampere, Gauss etc.
I spent a good 10 years on the UNIKEF site.
Yes, one of the sites which contain a large number of ideas that don’t hold water. At one point it is talking about circles, but uses the formula for spheres to make, incorrect, conclusions.
I'm not convinced Einstein ever bought into it either, honestly. He started with an aether, but failure to detect the aether seemed to force him down another path. To publish, you have to make testable predictions. He didn't have much choice but to pull the aether out after Mickelson & Morley's failed experiment.
In his first paper on relativity Einstein says:
‘The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties’
Although he used the term ether at various times, even as late as 1922, it is clear that he is not talking about the same ether M&M and subsequent investigators were searching for. His ether is more the properties of space which Faraday discussed and which is part of modern physics.
I appreciate your view would probably be that it is a property of time.
-
It's an observation of the process from the outside
From the inside I can assure you that "Science" is very good at consensus.
You seem to be mistaking the lack of consensus among scientists for a lack of consensus in science.
It's a common mistake.
-
Am I right in thinking you take this view on, say, the observations of Faraday, Ampere, Gauss etc.
There are certain aspects in physics that are self evident, but I think when you get down to the most fundamental levels, there's very little we understand. I guess I reach to the why's.
Take the Higgs for example. Does it really tell us anything?
I look at this way.
A 5 year old asks his father where electricity comes from. His dad points to the outlet on the wall. Dad knows that the wires in the wall lead to a power station, and he may even understand that a magnetic field produces an electric current, and understand that electricity is the electrons flowing through the wires, much like water in a hose. Well, the physicists understand it on a much deeper level. He knows the electrons are getting kicked out of the atoms in the copper wire, and knows the structure of the entire atom. The physicist now points to the Higgs field. We aren't much different from that 5 year old child in some ways, who now understands electricity comes from the wall outlet, and not to stick his fingers in it.
We understand the mechanics of many processes through math and observations very well, but we don't know why any of it is happening. CERN is an incredible machine, and a testament to science and mankind. I consider it a technological wonder in comparison to things like the great wall of China. Has it really brought anything new to our understanding? Arguably, not really in my opinion. We already knew the Higg's was there, because that's what the math told us. Now we've seen it. Wonderful.
What I'm talking about goes a little deeper than things we clearly understand, like Amps.
There's no logical reason for any of this "stuff" to be here, and it fascinates me. Why wouldn't empty space just be empty space for all eternity? Why is there energy? What is energy? Where does it come from, and what sustains it? What is gravity? What is electricity on the most fundamental level? Why does electricity move the way it does? Why do we have a speed limit? What is matter? When you get down to the base fundamental level of the universe, there's no answers. It's just the way it is, isn't an answer for me. That doesn't satisfy my curiosity.
We understand the mechanics of many things, and how they work through math and observations, but we don't know why any of it works. We don't know what's animating existence. For us to exist, there has to be a natural imbalance in fundamental space that perpetuates our existence. Imbalance is the key, or nothing happens. Potential has to be released to experience the energy we exist within. It has to be an ongoing process in my mind, or an equilibrium would be achieved resulting in a stagnate empty void. And that's the greatest potential of all, nothing. Obviously nothing isn't possible, because we're here. Why?
Yes, one of the sites which contain a large number of ideas that don’t hold water. At one point it is talking about circles, but uses the formula for spheres to make, incorrect, conclusions.
Took me a long time to understand enough to understand it was all mostly wrong. All roads lead back to Einstein in my reasoning. I realized it fully in 2008. That's when I flipped everything around and inverted the perspective (right or wrong). The speed limit made sense to me at that point. I could see the inherent dependency between matter and space (time-energy). There's a big difference between understanding something, and knowing something. I knew his theory was wrong. He was a good man, Dan "Mac" McCoin, but he didn't like it too much when I leaned Einstein, and imposed a speed limit on his theory. His overall theory was dependent on limitless motion. He passed away shortly after 2008. He died of cancer from what I understand. He was very patient with me, and explained all the things we had no answers for. Those things he was right on.
I appreciate your view would probably be that it is a property of time.
More like, time is a property of energy, not space. Spacetime is energy in my view, and space itself gets tossed out of the equation and out of reality. We're based entirely on energy. Space can be disregarded in my view. Space is an immovable dimensionless infinite void which we exist within in the form of energy. Space is nothing to us, both literally, and physically. Raw space lies beyond physics, because we are a derivative of raw space. Space in its raw form is an incalculable, and has no meaning to our sense of reality. It's unnecessary to consider space in physics, but it's prudent to keep it in the back of your mind and understand it's where we come from. I think it is the engine of creation and perpetual in nature, leaving behind a finite energy for us to exist within.
-
From the inside I can assure you that "Science" is very good at consensus
The mainstream view is the barometer for scientific consensus. From my experience, scientists tend to distance themselves from the mainstream. They don't like to be associated with it. They tend to loath mainstream views as somewhat parasitic. It's a contradiction. Science has islands of consensus, drifting aimlessly in the unknown, but all trying to reach the same destination. And its a massive beast of bureaucracy and politics collectively. Money rules in science. I certainly don't mean that in a derogatory manner. The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. You need my money to move forward, and you need to go through my local representative to get it, or the military. Or you need to latch onto a big corporation with deep pockets trying to make a profit off your inventions. Everyone's gotta eat, and science has to produce, and tends to have little patience for free thinkers. Theories are great, but they don't necessarily put food on your table, or give you a roof over your head. The foundation of science is capitalistic in nature, as much as it strives to be idealistic. Tuxedo Park was an anomaly. Great book.
You seem to be mistaking the lack of consensus among scientists for a lack of consensus in science.
Yes, I would agree with this statement. Maybe I am mistaking it to some extent in hindsight. You couldn't move it forward without an underlying consensus in general scientific principals. Maybe I'm applying my broader views of the universe on too granular a level. The dangers of writing in more general terms. Yes, you are correct in the context of general principals, and my statement is misleading, or erroneous, when applied to the general principals of science. There is a strong consensus of how things work across all islands.