[socratus (OP)]

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.

[lyner]

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?

[socratus (OP)]

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 ’.
=======================================

[socratus (OP)]

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.

[socratus (OP)]

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.
========= .

[lyner]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[lyner]

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?

[socratus (OP)]

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.

[lyner]

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.

[socratus (OP)]

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. /

[lyner]

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'.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[socratus (OP)]

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.

[socratus (OP)]

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/

================ .

[socratus (OP)]

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 /
============ .

[jerrygg38]

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.

[socratus (OP)]

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  . . . ?

[BigLuca]

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Heisenberg

[lyner]

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 . . . . . )