Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- From: "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 06:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 9, 1:52 am, socratus <isra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
From the taoist or Buddhist perspective of philosophy unification isimpossible to deny.
Rather than stand by their form let's suppose that existence is not
unified.
Then there would be a conflict in its form.
We would be forced to consider whether that conflict is in our model
of its form or in the form itself.
Currently we are drawn by skepticism and human limitations to conclude
that the conflicts are in our constructions rather than in the
universe itself. The problem remains open to further construction, and
it seems we will always be caught with this possibility as prisoners
of spacetime; elements of the existence we attempt to decode. Hope for
a clean construction should remain. The problem must be ultimately
left open.
The macroverse/microverse paradigm below seems pretty appetizing.
Did you mean Brian Greene, not Graham Greene in your quote below from
Nova?
A string theory trouble arises because they happily introduce
additional dimensions without deriving spacetime. In hindsight this is
also a problem with all existing theoretical physics. Theory is meant
to explain observation and so to explain the observation of spacetime
is deep physics. If an answer to this consideration exists then that
should lead into much more physics.
I have some simplistic math which does develop support for spacetime
through the dimensional progression
0D + 1D + 2D | + 3D + 4D ...
whose results
0D 1D 3D | 6D 10D ...
are suggestive since 3D, 6D, and 10D are all well supported physical
theories.
The breakpoint '|' in the above progression is an observed behavior on
distance under product of the math
http://bandtech.com/polysigned
There are numerous statements to make on this structured form of
spacetime. For instance the isotropic assumption can be cast aside and
so the Minkowski metric can be considered merely a first step toward
structured spacetime. Isotropic relief can be had upon taking relative
reference frames particle-wise. The electron's spin may be as natural
to spacetime as electromagnetic waves are. The isotropic form which
Maxwell's equations are built from will be shuffled, potentially
simplifying those equations. If Maxwell unified electricity and
magnetism then why do we still need these two disparate terms? The
geometry of eloectromagnetism is embedded in spacetime itself.
- Tim
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 .000000000000000000 00000000000 1% near the size
of say our solar system where "normal" laws of say gravity
exist at 99.9999999999999999 999999999% 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 Greenehttp://www.pbs. org/wgbh/ nova/elegant/ pro…
/ by OldPilot /
6.
#
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 localized 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?
/ sophiecentaur /
7.
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 ’.
S.
======================================= .
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.
#
Aether is unity. The design of the universe is one.
/ Mitch Raemsch /
======== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- From: socratus
- Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- References:
- How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- From: socratus
- How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Are there any books that talk on the rational functions?
- Next by Date: Re: Are there any books that talk on the rational functions?
- Previous by thread: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- Next by thread: Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
