Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Our Physics Theories begin to Converge
* * *
(April 8, 2010) I forgot to post my comment this was a reply to:
From more of a philosophic view while I agree with most of your views, as the issue for me is a non-issue I have to disagree with both the conclusions and the stance of the article. It does not matter that we find no exceptions to Lorentz- such evidence is beyond experiment. Things like minimum distance and just how much continuity or discontinuity of space is the case certainly can have a more integrated whole as a conception. The issue of locality or non-locality is more complex than that discussed. The question is then is the basic one as to if our mathematics describes our reality more fully or not given what attitude we have to chaos. What is your position on conservation of parity with the strong force? If the math is intelligible what does it matter if the position matches or not if things cannot be seen to independent effects? )
* * * The following comment I posted on The Reference Frame blogspot received a thoughtful and courteous reply from Lubos:
Dear ThePeSla, by definition, different physical hypotheses and theories always have different empirical consequences. If they don't have different consequences, they're physically equivalent.
It may be easier or harder to find the consequences but they always exist. It used to seem hard to distinguish hidden-variable theories from proper quantum mechanics but it could have been done, too. For the particular case of Lorentz-symmetry breaking, by terms of order one terms, and especially for a Lorentz-breaking discrete character of space at any length scale, the consequences are very striking and lethal.
Such hypotheses are excluded by the very simplest observations - they contradict the very basic rough patterns of reality. You may think that everything goes in physics but that's because you don't understand the stuff at a technical level. There can't be any "discreteness" in the sense that the laymen imagine and there can't be any "chaos" in the same sense. Any sign of "chaos" - any multi-state structure of elementary particles and their simple arrangements - in fundamental physics would destroy interference and it would ruin the predictions of any QFT/string-like theory we use. Chaos is not possible at this elementary level. The particles can have an internal structure but the observed states must be as unique as we observe.
The strong force preserves parity up to the QCD theta-angle which is however extremely small. Not sure how it's related to anything else here.
We can directly measure, at least by a repetition of an experiment many times, whether the positions of two particles or events coincide. So it's just not true that this match "cannot be seen". It can be seen by as many independent effects as you wish. Every possible particle interaction is an independent effect that can decide whether two positions match or not. A theory that maps two coincident positions to two different positions in a different reference frame is excluded because it predicts that the interaction can't occur. In such a theory, events can't be objectively assigned to regions. Theories with non-additive energies or nonlinear dispersion relations suffer from this flaw, http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/02/locality-and-additivity-of-energy.html
2 days ago, 12:10:52 AM
* * *
Last night my roommate Bonpa recieved some books from Scientific American book club and one I found rather clear and interesting even in the discussion with the formulas- I especially liked the authors symbolism D and its quantum like formulation |1)- and philosophically it said many things I have most independently thought about and asserted about space and dimensionality (Is does help to read such things because in isolation one can never be sure his vision is a rational one or if it is just some valid but irrelevant way of organizing one's thought- in shore the question for me is who can be called a genius or a crackpot- especially when this occurs better well placed people with degrees? Who then are our peers and if there is conflict what does this tell us about our thinking.
The book was called The Foundation of Physics, it put mathematics really as more of a result of the primary physics rather than the other way around. Now I did not think the view, essentially one of the varieties of quaternions and the E8 concepts and the idea for example that time is different from the other concepts as 3 + 1 in four space or we can have 2 + 2 systems, the choice of what is discrete or not even occuring in whatever wave or particle formulation, Heisenberg's view equivalent or not in the description of the quantum world.
The issues is after all one of ontology and epistemology in the sense the later is the realm of experiment, and the arrow of time (third thermodynamic law aside as not as fundamental) essentially there because of the non-conservation of space and time. Some of the philosophical principles I indeed thought out separately and for decades but the book from my eyes only hints at a quasic view as an omnium or theory of everything. Parts of it by different authors where it relates to five fold symmetry and DNA are somewhat less than explicitly logical, indeed to take the four units GUAC and match them on some primitive zero point level with space time mass and energy seems a little mystical as much so as Plato's metacube to me, or maybe a holonic thing a little arbitrary. The unified viewpoint does not go far enough to understand the underlying analogy and geometry applied to the organic world where presumably biology and physics are to be one discipline (and psychology).
Yet the book clearly compares stances in the physics that would make clear the differences of view and the nature of dimensionality and measurement. As I had such a model of course I was able to understand the posters on sciencechatform that the administrators and moderators seem could not and they usually dismissed and unscientific. Eventually I was not allowed to discuss it even in the unified metaphysics and epistemology thread. But to what extent do we know and trust anything by some cherished agenda right or wrong? How else can we proceed in what is perhaps an informal forum that skates around and puts in human words what is after all rather abstract and deep research? We suspend belief or have to believe at time before we move on to better comprehension and breakthroughs and in that sense any such conversation between scientists is a living moving research.
Yes my intense physicist friend, the question of parity in the strong force seems to have little to do with it and I just wanted your sense of things- and yet in this book it seems to significantly discuss such concepts as say the foundation for string and gauge and theories of gravitational spin (amazingly the authors also saw the real part of the zeta function as the explanation for particles of half spin as this book published in 2007 I note I only reached such a conclusion here in the last year- surely if I am not dreaming in some private region of locality then that I reach similar conclusions or parallel ones tells us something about such concepts.)
I notice also that some of the physicists referred to and their methods are not well received by say people working as experts in the particle accelerators- the likes of say Smolin or Penrose (and his twistor theory the authors discussed as having a place without judgment on him as commentary). I concur and have said so and basically it requires of us a wider view of physics, not just the philosophy.
I see also that some of the holographic ideas are not developed or where they are they seems to be one sided or turned on head in relation to a higher or lower "dimenison" but to see the possibilities worked out- even the idea of metrical effects in a flat space (which I thought I was way out on a limb here and am still in that I see no need for renormalization as much as the authors do.) Yet where to now in this understanding? In any case the more integrated view of physics between the Newtonian and so on, the question of light and space masses or not, the idea perhaps of a generational effect of quarks if they could change like neutrinos, and the idea of a majorama particle and a host of revised philosophical ideas like that of Zeno not resolved as much as some say, Conway and the surreals, and proven the zeta zeros finally as the physics implies to go beyond it in a multiverse sense perhaps along with the realization that as they point out the galaxies are the equivalent of parallel worlds and the elements can be seen as continuous beginning with neutronium and so on, is after all a refreshing and satisfying step toward a better theoretical understanding of the problems of quantum and relativity unification as a theory. I mention also the influences of our computer based ways to explore our reality by such authors.
I am continually amazed when posting ideas which in a sense goes out into cyberspace and vanishes (as if the real world turns out to be Farmville on facebook after all) but who hears even face to face between each other (and people are much more important than theories) I was going to work more on my short story Dog Tracks but this book was compelling and synchronous in the issues on my mind. What can I say but my work has reached a finishing or rest point and yet, as I was trying to understand but did not post despite my spurt of creativity in Chicago- the book came which came close to resolving this very issue of a geometry space question- the so called magic numbers of shell structures, which I had not quiet resolved enough to make an intelligible communication.
Thanks Lubos, I understand what you said and the viewpoint but am still thinking. And I am sure there is still more to come if we don't get dizzy from the ride and winds of enquiry.
* * *
I forgot to comment on the idea of in three space the Klein's bottle seems to make singularities in the intersection as a model of representation. In helping my son with his physics and construction courses last week I explained no only the abstract nature of dimensions to the formulas of measure but how he was seeing the world from blueprints to space or space to blueprints and how hard three space was as if the authors were trying to show why the world is three space as a central issues (that and I told him only knots made in three space and as the authors pointed out some such analogs of these surfaces only made in four space... Also his wife teaches autistic children- issues of the mind where I look for cures and wonder if in the end knowing things will help or not our dreams and mental health if indeed it is a disease as newscientist posted diverse views lately...)
* * *
A comment on Irradiance and his camera ideas debated on the science chat forum today- again with the above book Zero to Infinity the Foundation of Physics by Peter Rowlands we can clearly sort out the issues discussed and it makes me think that forum or such forums are really on the periphery of relevance to any creative thinking and expertise in physics or our educational system. linford86 's arguments against his camera ideas in specific details of the physics views involved are simply pooh poohed within a narrow vision- and why? I myself have suggest in a way beyond the formalism of this book a direction posted here of a new way to view particles in such devices as the LHC. I think Irradiance's concepts have a solid promise and perhaps his statement of intellectual property is justified but it is about money in a way. Of course one cannot patent really, say the Sphere! If so you all should give me a few pennies for my ancestors 4 cycle gasoline engine and perhaps a few micro cents for ball bearings and basketballs, not to mention the drug aspects of our shared genetic engineered codes. But good luck to him- at least for recognition may those that play alpha dog given him an argument on his own higher level of practical issues and visions. There is nothing wrong with a good theory that is a correct one even if it is just on paper. I would only suggest to him that he look deeply into the negative indexes of light- and Linford86 how dare you speak up to Lincoln like that as if you knew the way he sees things! and Irradiance a little study of magic squares and projective space would help firm up your argument- contrary to linford86 's opinion a lot of fundamental physics does exactly what you say as the heart of our cyclopic views of physics in its question of linearity in general- engineers as dreamers have a hard time with patents as did my ancestor and the Otto cycle, but they are far better than those who trap science into some part of the picture of insistence on measure only when to the more modern or future eye this model of say your descent into time as a continuous thing- even the idea of infinite time and the relation to non-locality and so on are common sense things apparently we are teaching some with confidence in there non-theory work, wrong.