Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: socratus on 08/07/2009 16:04:18
-
How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
I ask this question because between Real Laws
( Newton’s , Maxwell’s, Einstein's, Lorentz’s,
Schrödinger’s, Dirac’s . . . .etc.) there are many ‘ black holes’
and ‘ white spots’ ( time, dark energy, dark mass, graviton,
quark, Higgs boson, . . . and 1000 another elementary particles.)
Comments.
1.
Unity? That's news :) But physics keeps striving to reduce the number
of equations necessary to describe everything -- so called unification.
It began when Newton unified gravity on earth with gravity in space.
1 equation.
Unification continued when Maxwell reduced all the experiments
on electricity and magnetism to just 4 equations.
It continued with Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations. You might say
it unifies space and time. General relativity unifies gravitational
mass with inertial mass.
Then equations of motion for atoms were described by quantum
mechanics -- such as Schroedinger Equation & later Dirac Equation.
These form the common unification of chemistry.
Then quantum electrodynamics was discovered, which unified
electromagnetism with the quantum theory. Some of theory's
predictions (such as the fine structure constant) have been
experimentally verified to something like 10 or 12 decimal places,
a huge measure of success for any physical theory.
Meanwhile the strong & weak nuclear forces were partly
de-mystified: The weak force was found to be unified with
electromagnetism (electro-weak force), while the strong nuclear
force involves quarks of various kinds, with specific rules of
interaction best described by group theory.
And so it goes. The 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation,
sometimes called "God's Equation" -- the ultimate unification.
" Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
/ --Albert Einstein /
/ by xprofessor /
2.
i think there is unity in most laws but not all, after quantum physics
basically there is no real law, we think of time, gravity and matter
in certain ways but in reality they are random forces with mostly
predictable outcomes but not 100 %, then there is parallel
universes and things as such where physical laws go the
wayside , just like black holes. , so in reality , not much unity.
/ by newyorkguy /
3.
Their is the laws of the microverse and laws for the macroverse
(verse = universe) I wonder if they apply 100% at their own
extents and reduce (perhaps exponentially) as they come closer
toward the other one meshing in the in the middle. thus the
macrocosm still deals with quantum physics at
say .00000000000000000000000000000 1% near the size
of say our solar system where "normal" laws of say gravity
exist at 99.9999999999999999999999999% and vice versa
at say the size of an atom it is the other way...?????
?? hhmmmmmmmm???? just perhaps.
/ by guardian /
4.
I want it to be simple and not too magical.
/ by SuperA /
5.
Yours is a very profound question. I can tell from your question that
you are ready to be let in on the "Dirty Little Secret" of Theoretical Physics:
We have NOT yet figured everything out. The universe is governed by whole
sets of "Laws" that do NOT agree and are mutually exclusive.
This is a great embarrassment. We assume we live in an orderly, rational
universe that makes sense. Perhaps when Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity are unified we will have a better answer to your question.
A paraphrase from NOVA - Elegant Universe with Graham Greene
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/pro…
/ by OldPilot /
================ . .
P.S.
I think that now our Physics looks like the Augean stables.
And if we want to clean them we must start from
understanding not new but the old abstract models:
ideal gas, ideal black body, entropy, electrical harmonic
oscillators, point -particle . . . etc.
====== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
-
The more I think about this the more I conclude that the whole business of Science is there merely to satisfy the human mind.
Why 'should' there be an ultimate truth? A TOE may only be a construct of our brains / minds.
Science has done very well to set up localised models which allow us to make fairly good predictions but what's to say that there has to be an ultimate reductionist truth?
Science is very useful (it's been my 'thing' always) but is it really more than our brains' way of coping?
-
The more I think about this the more I conclude that the whole business of Science is there merely to satisfy the human mind.
Why 'should' there be an ultimate truth? A TOE may only be a construct of our brains / minds.
Science has done very well to set up localised models which allow us to make fairly good predictions but what's to say that there has to be an ultimate reductionist truth?
Science is very useful (it's been my 'thing' always) but is it really more than our brains' way of coping?
The LAWS must unify, or we are describing things that don't actually exist.
/ Allen Francom /.
So, do we actually exist or no ?
According to sophiecentaur the answer is ‘ No ’.
=======================================
-
Comment.
Aether is unity. The design of the universe is one.
/ Mitch Raemsch /
======== .
#
Is it possible to write/ describe Aether by the formula: T=0K or No ?
Socratus.
-
Comments.
#
Something to do with the process of potential, I'd say.
/ ZerkonXXXX /
==== .
Hi, ZerkonXXXX.
Would you agree if I say :
1.
What in Vacuum is hidden 99% of unseen
potential antimatter/ antienergy ( dark matter/energy).
2.
We can see result of these potential antimatter/ antienergy
as 1% of visible matter and energy in the World.
Socratus.
# #
The unity of physical laws is the "Capernaum" conservation
of energy in stasis.
Capernaum:
Rendered in Greek as "Kαφαρναουμ (Kapharnaum)".
In Arabic, it is called Talhum, and it is assumed that this refers
to the ruin (Tell) of Hum.
/ Musatov. /
=============== .
Hi, Musatov.
I think your answer isn’t complete.
The complete name of the physical law is:
" The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass".
So, you need to finish your comment.
Socratus.
========= .
-
The LAWS must unify
This is merely a belief, based on a very limited experience of the Universe. Yes, we have no evidence that the 'Laws' we have found do not apply elsewhere but the desire for a totally Unified Theory may only be the result of the way our minds work.
Is there really any fundamental reason to expect that a single model (in any terms that we could ever understand) must exist?
I am all in favour of the reductionist Scientific Method and I think it is a great, pragmatic way of predicting things and developing technology BUT I think the assumption that there exists, somewhere, some sort of ultimate truth may be groundless.
-
I am all in favour of the reductionist Scientific Method and I think it is a great, pragmatic way of predicting things and developing technology BUT I think the assumption that there exists, somewhere, some sort of ultimate truth may be groundless.
All the laws we produce are describing functions which are valid over limited ranges. They work pretty well in linear portions of the universe. However much of the universe is quite non-linear. Therefore the laws will not work there very well.
-
My point is stronger than that. I suggest that the 'Laws' which we all crave are litle more than a good system for making things work. Out consciousness demands that it can 'know' certain things. It is the last bastion of 'faith' and Scientists seem unable to do without it. We 'have to' believe that there is an ultimate set of answers (or even ONE answer). We have invented Maths, which is self consistent, but it is based on axioms and any implications due to the use of Maths may not constitute proof of anything ultimately 'true'.
Our experience is that any Laws, we come up with, seem to work on the basis of Maths and it certainly seems that mathematical consistency is necessary. BUT, beyond this, we can't extrapolate. Why should we expect Science, finally, to get more and more simple as we reach some sort of 'lowest level'?
Why shouldn't it, in fact, diverge or never reach a resolution?
The best analogy I can think of is the way that chaotic functions behave as you look closer and closer into them, with no limit. That is, of course an argument based on an axiomatic premise and may not mirror reality. But can we say that a model based on axioms can lie outside the whole set of reality? If Maths was fabricated by 'brains' / 'minds' then, if it can generate bottomless scenarios, does not that imply the bottomless nature of the real world?
-
How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
#
By wearing special Unity glasses !
/ Don Stockbauer /
===================== .
Do we see Universe only using Math glasses?
Socratus.
-
I do not see Maths as sufficient but , in view of overwhelming evidence, I see Mathematical consistency within 'the envelope' as being necessary for Science to progress. It still represents the acid test for new ideas because it demands consistency where a subjective view can be fooled by an attractive new idea.
Your question implies that you think we could do without Maths.
-
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always provided a stable,
natural (?) language in which to describe phenomena but it may not be the
ultimate 'natural' language of the universe!
Einstein sought to understand ‘his [God's] equations’ but perhaps the 'universe'
has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble efforts to describe it using
mathematics!
Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand
the universes’ own hidden language?
/ Conclusion from a long math comment.
Author unknown. /
-
Einstein was not aware of the present theories of the way our conscious mind works. He would only have had access to Philosophy, in its classical sense, which tries to explain it all in terms of a few axioms of logic and assumes that is the way forward. I am sure that he would have viewed things in a different way, had he been alive today. Despite what a lot of posts suggest on these Fora, he was a very smart cookie.
I must say, I find the idea of it all depending on the way we see it and how our minds try to cope with it all - rather than the Universe having some fixed structure with immutable Laws.
This way of looking at it explains away the clashes between the Science - Religion camps. They are both right 'in their own way'.
-
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always provided a stable,
natural (?) language in which to describe phenomena but it may not be the
ultimate 'natural' language of the universe!
Einstein sought to understand ‘his [God's] equations’ but perhaps the 'universe'
has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble efforts to describe it using
mathematics!
Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand
the universes’ own hidden language?
/ Conclusion from a long math comment.
Author unknown. /
JerryGG: I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa at a distance. Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves.
Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive solutions.
All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
-
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always provided a stable,
natural (?) language in which to describe phenomena but it may not be the
ultimate 'natural' language of the universe!
Einstein sought to understand ‘his [God's] equations’ but perhaps the 'universe'
has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble efforts to describe it using
mathematics!
Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand
the universes’ own hidden language?
/ Conclusion from a long math comment.
Author unknown. /
JerryGG: I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa at a distance. Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves.
Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive solutions.
All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments. Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
==============================================================
All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
/ JerryGG: / jerrygg38 /
======== .
So.
1.
The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron)
existing is connected with the measuring.
2.
The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.
3.
The region of using measuring instruments is limited.
4.
Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?
5.
Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld
somehow in another way?
====== .
Does we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?
Of course. Maybe 1000.
-
Reflections on a Self-Representing Universe
By CambridgeBlog ⋅
/ By Shahn Majid. /
#
Space and Time debate needs to involve not only scientists
but the wider public.
. . . in fact, theoretical physics is in need of fresh profound ideas
The reason is that scientists’ ideas have to come from somewhere,
from sitting around in cafes, from contemplation of art.
We don’t know where the key revolutionary idea
is going to come from.
Put another way, to progress, scientists need now to see
what Science is, which means they have to step outside it
and see it in part as a non-scientist.
#
I want you to ask yourself what does someone have
to say about quantum gravity?
What does that person have in common with a theoretical physicist?
My approach as a theoretical physicist is to use
mathematics and the scientific method to explore the issue,
while a carol singer is surely using other means to ‘connect’.
As a scientist I am 1000% committed to the Scientific Method
but I see it as a particular way of exploring reality.
One that we might now need to understand better by seeing
it from the outside.
What I am going to argue now is that what we know about
quantum gravity — what we have seen in earlier posts — is telling
us that the Scientific Method itself is perhaps the fundamental
‘metaequation’ of physics.
In other words, just maybe, as we search for the ultimate theory
of physics we are in fact rediscovering our own assumptions
in being Scientists, the Scientific Method?
#
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/reflections-on-a-self-representing-universe/
================ .
-
Comment.
It seems there are very real limitations to seeing the universe
with our extended senses. Sense data is perhaps nearing the
boundary imposed by time and distance, our observable
universe but a tiny part of a much greater whole.
Finite mind trying to understand infinite reality using
abstract tools of doubtful logic is perhaps a non-starter.
At least our minds are capable of reasoning how the
universe might be, and perhaps even our wildest imagination
will never do justice to how it really is.
If we could see it for real, it would lose the magic
of its eternal mystery.
/ A P /
============ .
-
1.
The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron)
existing is connected with the measuring.
2.
The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.
3.
The region of using measuring instruments is limited.
4.
Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?
5.
Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld
somehow in another way?
====== .
Does we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?
Of course. Maybe 1000.
We can produce theories which attempt to explain what happends below the measuring instruments. The scientific method always wants a correlation between measurements and theory. Therefore in the end we must revert to philosophical methods and multiple solutions as possibilities.
-
We can produce theories which attempt to explain what happends
below the measuring instruments.
The scientific method always wants a correlation between measurements and theory.
Therefore in the end we must revert to philosophical methods
and multiple solutions as possibilities.
[/quote]
===========================================================
What do you mean saying:
‘ philosophical methods and multiple solutions as possibilities.’ ?
Again debates about debates, discussions about discussions,
tautology conversations about Nature’s Laws . . . ?
-
“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Heisenberg
-
A great quote, which demonstrates the humbleness of the 'truly great' Scientist.
(Unlike what we find in the baseless assertions made bt so many contributors. Fools rush in . . . . . )
-
“What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
-Heisenberg
======================
Questions.
1.
Why do Physicists say: ‘ rest mass’ and never
‘ potential mass/energy E= Mc^2 ‘ ?
2.
We know many electron’s parameters, but:
Why we don’t have electron’s formula ?
3.
What was before ‘big bang’ or ‘vacuum’ ?
4.
What was before gravitation or vacuum ?
==== .
Maybe these questions can help to check
if the brain is dogmatic or no.
===========================
-
Why we don’t have electron’s formula ?
There is a 'formula', in the Schroedinger wave equation, which tells you how it behaves in a bound state and a description of its wave properties in its de Broglie wavelength. What more do you want?
You will always be disappointed if you are after something involving just what you know already. The new stuff that Science finds out is often outside the envelope and can't be described in terms which are inside the envelope. There is not a formula 'for' anything in Science - a formula just describes behaviour.
What was before ‘big bang’ or ‘vacuum’
The question is meaningless because space / time only relate to the situation within (or 'after') what we call the period since the BB. The question might have a meaning if it used the word "outside" rather than "before".
I don't think you can allow yourself to be as concrete as you clearly would like to be.
-
Why we don’t have electron’s formula ?
There is a 'formula', in the Schroedinger wave equation, which tells you how it behaves in a bound state and a description of its wave properties in its de Broglie wavelength. What more do you want?
You will always be disappointed if you are after something involving just what you know already. The new stuff that Science finds out is often outside the envelope and can't be described in terms which are inside the envelope. There is not a formula 'for' anything in Science - a formula just describes behaviour.
What was before ‘big bang’ or ‘vacuum’
The question is meaningless because space / time only relate to the situation within (or 'after') what we call the period since the BB. The question might have a meaning if it used the word "outside" rather than "before".
I don't think you can allow yourself to be as concrete as you clearly would like to be.
================================================================
Quote
Why we don’t have electron’s formula ?
/ sophiecentaur /
There is a 'formula', in the Schroedinger wave equation,
which tells you how it behaves in a bound state and
a description of its wave properties in its de Broglie wavelength.
What more do you want?
========= .
S.
Dualism of particle.
1.
/ sophiecentaur /
There is a 'formula', in the Schroedinger wave equation,
which tells you how it behaves in a bound state and
a description of its wave properties in its de Broglie wavelength.
=== .
S.
OK.
Where is an electron’s formula as a particle?
=== .
/ sophiecentaur /
You will always be disappointed if you are after something
involving just what you know already. The new stuff that
Science finds out is often outside the envelope and can't be
described in terms which are inside the envelope.
====== .
S.
The aim of Science to describe in a simple terms
what are inside the envelope of Universe.
======== .
/ sophiecentaur /
There is not a formula 'for' anything in Science -
a formula just describes behaviour.
== .
S.
‘ a formula just describes behaviour’ of an electron or as a math
point, or as a ball which is elastic and can change its sphere.
It is not enough.
==== .
Quote
What was before ‘big bang’ or ‘vacuum’
/ sophiecentaur /
The question is meaningless because space / time only relate
to the situation within (or 'after ‘) what we call the period
since the BB.
The question might have a meaning if it used the word
"outside" rather than "before".
====== .
#
‘ space / time only relate to the situation ‘
/ sophiecentaur /
S.
Of course you are right.
But.
Situation 1. – Space and time. ( something real)
Situation 2. – Space/Time . ( something mystical )
========= .
/ sophiecentaur /
I don't think you can allow yourself to be as concrete
as you clearly would like to be.
S.
I try.
========== .
-
Socratus
You want a formula for an electron as a particle. In many collisions you can treat it as a billiard ball - with Momentum and KE - and get the right answer. Take the photo electric effect, for instance. Take the Mass Spectrometer.
You are SOOOO hard to please sometimes!
-
Socratus
You want a formula for an electron as a particle.
In many collisions you can treat it as a billiard ball -
with Momentum and KE - and get the right answer.
Take the photo electric effect, for instance.
Take the Mass Spectrometer.
You are SOOOO hard to please sometimes!
================================================
/ sophiecentaur /
Socratus
You want a formula for an electron as a particle.
== .
Socratus.
Yes. (!)
=========== .
/ sophiecentaur /
In many collisions you can treat it as a billiard ball - with Momentum and KE - and get the right answer.
Take the photo electric effect, for instance.
Take the Mass Spectrometer.
Socratus
Sometime electron is as a math point.
Sometime electron is as a firm billiard ball.
Sometime electron is as a elastic billiard ball.
Sometime electron can lose all its parameters.
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ From an article./
============= .
/ sophiecentaur /
You are SOOOO hard to please sometimes!
======= .
Sorry.
It is because I have a simple peasant brain.
What to do?
No everybody is professor.
============== .
Best wishes,
Socratus.
-
Don't get clever with me young man!!!
I am a man.
I am a father.
I am a sailor.
I am a teacher.
And a few other things.
WHICH AM I?
Now think about an electron.
Cheers my boy.
-
Don't get clever with me young man!!!
I am a man.
I am a father.
I am a sailor.
I am a teacher.
And a few other things.
WHICH AM I?
Now think about an electron.
Cheers my boy.
====================================
We have two different points of view.
One is interesting to know: WHICH AM I?
Other want to understand : Who Am I ?
Who/ What is Electron?
======= .
#
The world of electron.
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ Valery Brusov./
===== .
-
Who/ What is Electron?
It is all the things we see it as.
"which is it?"
It is whichever we observe at the time.
Science may be reductionist but there is a limit to how far we can go. It is too much to expect that, if we look closer, we will find an electron to be three gear wheels connected by a tiny chain and driven by an small steam engine. As far as I am concerned, we will look deeper and find more, new, things. The hope / belief is that the new things we find will be common to objects other than electrons. But will that tell us what an electron "is"? Should we expect it to?
-
"The perpetuation of science equates to safety in numbers" Andrew K Fletcher
I have enjoyed reading this thread and found it thought provoking.
-
"The perpetuation of science equates to safety in numbers"
And what does Andrew K Fletcher mean by that?
-
I think he means that you can do 'a Science' on your own and it will be valid.
-
It is all the things we see it as.
"which is it?"
. . .
As far as I am concerned, we will look deeper and find more,
new, things. The hope / belief is that the new things we find
will be common to objects other than electrons.
But will that tell us what an electron "is"?
Should we expect it to?
=====================================================
I think that Human being have enough intellect
also to understand : ‘Who/ What is an Electron? ‘
====================================
-
That's a matter of faith, I think.
-
That's a matter of faith, I think.
================================================
Do you prefer this thought ?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe.
/ Albert Einstein. /
== .
Sometime is difficult to quarrel with Einstein
but sometime is possible no agree with him.
#
Somebody is optimistic person.
Somebody is pessimist.
But maybe is right one, who knows
when to be optimistic and when - pessimistic.
#
Our history always was mixed with the
human stupidity and the human wisdom.
=== .
#
It is good when the Faith confirms with the Physical Formulas.
I think this is the way of our Faith.
======================================= .