The unification of physics

[Philosophy Explorer]

I feel certain that I've stated often enough that time is not infinitely divisible and that when I speak of continuous change I speak of change at Planck speed, which is the speed of light. I thought I made it clear enough that an atom changes into another atom at the speed of light because that is the speed at which changes take within it. Literally trillions of trillions of trillions of discretely different events occur in an atom every second so to the think of the atom as a "piece of stuff" is absurd because an atom is a process.

The Phil that was you at the start of the reading of this post has winked out of existence and been replaced by a new Phil.

Then let me ask you this. The Phil (or Leo or anyone else that goes out of existence), what type of change does that take for it to happen? Why am I still referred to as PhilX over here and you as Obvious Leo (or our offline names?) My answer to this question would be a change in personality would be required as a minimum.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I feel certain that I've stated often enough that time is not infinitely divisible and that when I speak of continuous change I speak of change at Planck speed, which is the speed of light. I thought I made it clear enough that an atom changes into another atom at the speed of light because that is the speed at which changes take within it. Literally trillions of trillions of trillions of discretely different events occur in an atom every second so to the think of the atom as a "piece of stuff" is absurd because an atom is a process.

The Phil that was you at the start of the reading of this post has winked out of existence and been replaced by a new Phil.

Then let me ask you this. The Phil (or Leo or anyone else that goes out of existence), what type of change does that take for it to happen? Why am I still referred to as PhilX over here and you as Obvious Leo (or our offline names?) My answer to this question would be a change in personality would be required as a minimum.

PhilX

Is this a serious question or are you just taking the piss? Haven't I just finished explaining that every single atom in the universe is changing into a different atom in each and every Planck interval, in other words at the speed of light. Incidentally this is a completely uncontroversial proposition which any physicist will confirm. The "you" that is "you" is simply an emergent property of the behaviour of atoms so "you" are becoming a new "you" at the speed of light. I'm fucked if I know how I can express this point in a simpler form of language but I can assure you that is it an absolutely irrefutable FACT. However if you think about this carefully you'll find that it's a slightly different way of thinking the world that we're ordinarily accustomed to.

I've made this same point over and over but I'll make it one more time. The problem with physics is not a problem of physics but a problem with the way we think the world. The unification of physics is nothing more than a matter of embracing a paradigm shift in conceptualised thinking. Copernicus did it and Darwin did it so you can do it too.

[surreptitious57]

It bothers me if I hear a credible scientist declare dismissal of philosophy but then feign credibility in it to argue why their suggested theories do
using the expertise of philosophy. So my point is that if we accept a clear distinction then philosophy takes the reigns OR include philosophy with
in the realm of science as two parts of it. If it is included within the topic then the scientific empirical method belongs only to the practical part while the theoretical parts require an expanded function that includes a different but inclusive method to proceed

The theoretical parts are merely provisional until a potentially falsifiable theory can be discovered. Even if a hypothesis is true or sound
it is non scientific by definition less it can actually be tested. And applying philosophical principles such as logic or reason while entirely
valid would not be scientific. And therefore for reasons of clarity and practicality it is far better if the two disciplines are kept separate

[Obvious Leo]

The problem of physics was ALWAYS the problem of the observer and this has been known for almost 100 years. They even had a major conference in 1927 specifically to discuss the problem of the observer but they simply couldn't figure it out and they eventually settled on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It was during this period that the logical positivists held sway in physics and they were simply incapable of seeing that the problem of the observer was implicit in the spacetime paradigm because the spatialisation of time quite literally implied that time does not exist. Thus the notion of modelling reality as a process was quite impossible because processes are purely temporal phenomena by their very definition. When reality is modelled as a process the problem of the observer simply disappears because the observer is simply made of matter and energy like everything else in the universe so the observer simply becomes a process embedded within a process. Newton modelled his universe by placing the observer outside the system looking in but in the ding an sich universe we place the observer inside the system looking out and looking "out" in this case specifically means looking BACKWARDS down the arrow of time. I'm not bullshitting you, Phil, this slightly altered perspective makes every single paradox and counter-intuitive absurdity in physics simply vanish. Absolutely ALL of them can be explained in such a way that a child could understand them.

[Obvious Leo]

The theoretical parts are merely provisional until a potentially falsifiable theory can be discovered.

Consider it done.

[Obvious Leo]

This is why the unification model of physics has been impossible to find despite 100 years of diligent searching by some of the finest minds to be found amongst the human species.

" A fool is somebody who repeats the same action and expects a different outcome"....Albert Einstein

A man will fly to Mars merely by flapping his arms before physics can be unified under the spacetime paradigm.

[Scott Mayers]

It bothers me if I hear a credible scientist declare dismissal of philosophy but then feign credibility in it to argue why their suggested theories do
using the expertise of philosophy. So my point is that if we accept a clear distinction then philosophy takes the reigns OR include philosophy with
in the realm of science as two parts of it. If it is included within the topic then the scientific empirical method belongs only to the practical part while the theoretical parts require an expanded function that includes a different but inclusive method to proceed

The theoretical parts are merely provisional until a potentially falsifiable theory can be discovered. Even if a hypothesis is true or sound
it is non scientific by definition less it can actually be tested. And applying philosophical principles such as logic or reason while entirely
valid would not be scientific. And therefore for reasons of clarity and practicality it is far better if the two disciplines are kept separate

The problem I am seeing though is about where such a theory IS effective but the explanation can be variable. As such, for instance, if one agrees to the general conclusion but believe a different explanation is required that both fits and is improved, it gets dismissed offhand based on this pre-requisite that a theory MUST state something NEW to which also requires a NEW prediction. For much of my own ideas, they are about interpretation but not against the present observations nor the math being used. But it will get ignored as because only the initial author of the theory that 'works' is granted acceptance of their own interpretations and explanations even where better ones may fit.

For instance, I interpret Einstein's relativity as valid but have a contention with the assumption that time itself is what is altered rather than the matter in some accelerated or inertial frame. This seemingly trivial alteration may not alter his theory's end result particularly but for what it is borrowing from some other area or gets applied to other theories, the interpretations or explanations alter how other theories elsewhere are interpreted in error.

Let me think of a simplified example.

Imagine that in some court case we determine legally that some person is guilty of some crime. But the explanation, for instance may be that some male had hated some woman to which motivated his action. But even though this person may be guilty regardless, perhaps a different possible motive may fit that while making him guilty still alters what others may use to generate some other theory.

So, to expand, imagine that many such 'confirmations' of this behavior has granted a similar conclusion upon many cases where men have also been charged under the same explanation but also have another other common justification.

Then, a decision to create a law is based on the interpretation of these confirmed cases that base their argument on the induced conclusion that men cause violence against women because they hate them.

Even while these cases can act independent as 'true' based on their input and output conclusions, the validity of the latest conclusion may be faulty merely on a misinterpretation of the explanation of motive for those other original cases. But the way it operates in the institution is to preserve the original interpretations of the authorities who proposed the motives that work. We are not allowed to redress the old cases by altering the interpretation but are forced to find some novel cases in the future to redress this instead, even if unnecessary. In fact, with regards to things like physics, much of our past observations are not even able to find novelty. For instance, the distant quasars are interpreted as unusually powerful and large galaxies that do not exist up close. Yet I have an alternate explanation that also preserves their distance but the way light travels at such distances alter the way we perceive them. So I would be dismissed offhand since I cannot re-present the phenomena in any different way than it is already perceived. I'd be forced to try to find some other new phenomena and appeal to the present explanation by default unless I can disprove the practical means which the original authors present is false.

[Scott Mayers]

The problem of physics was ALWAYS the problem of the observer and this has been known for almost 100 years. They even had a major conference in 1927 specifically to discuss the problem of the observer but they simply couldn't figure it out and they eventually settled on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It was during this period that the logical positivists held sway in physics and they were simply incapable of seeing that the problem of the observer was implicit in the spacetime paradigm because the spatialisation of time quite literally implied that time does not exist. Thus the notion of modelling reality as a process was quite impossible because processes are purely temporal phenomena by their very definition. When reality is modelled as a process the problem of the observer simply disappears because the observer is simply made of matter and energy like everything else in the universe so the observer simply becomes a process embedded within a process. Newton modelled his universe by placing the observer outside the system looking in but in the ding an sich universe we place the observer inside the system looking out and looking "out" in this case specifically means looking BACKWARDS down the arrow of time. I'm not bullshitting you, Phil, this slightly altered perspective makes every single paradox and counter-intuitive absurdity in physics simply vanish. Absolutely ALL of them can be explained in such a way that a child could understand them.

Although I prefer my own over your interpretation, we definitely agree here that we have to redress interpretation. Even the fact that you and I have other explanations that may BOTH have valid options, these will get discredited by default and make any possibility of fixing the problems in physics impossible permanently.

[surreptitious57]

This is why the unification model of physics has been impossible to find despite 100 years
of diligent searching by some of the finest minds to be found amongst the human species

A hundred years is nothing. It took over four hundred for the theory of gravity to be discovered. And that was easy compared
to what is being looked for today. So expecting the Universe to give up its secrets within a human lifetime is wishful thinking
of the highest order if past history is any thing to go by. Instead one has to be incredibly patient with regard to such matters

[Obvious Leo]

. It took over four hundred for the theory of gravity to be discovered.

Theories aren't discovered. Theories are invented.

these will get discredited by default and make any possibility of fixing the problems in physics impossible permanently.

A rather pessimistic view, my friend, but not without a kernel of truth. It was Max Planck who first said that new theories in science will never get a look in before the old ones are so rotten dead that nobody can put up with the stink anymore. This is a paraphrase because I don't recall his exact words but this is what he meant. Feyerabend and Kuhn said much the same thing.

However if you come with up a theory which yields a testable prediction which differs from that offered by current theory then you're well on the way to being taken seriously. Even better if your prediction can be tested by a repeatable experiment which is comfortably within the budget and expertise of ANY university physics department. The philosophy of the bloody obvious is such a theory.

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. I don't particularly want to clutter up this thread with an argument which belongs in another one but I thought of you when I wrote this:

For the sake of convenience and familiarity I'll use the same terminology as the physicists use when speaking of the atom but it is important to stress that there is no valid reason for supposing that the atom can only be modelled in this way, or even if the model of the atom is the best way of modelling the world at all. There could very well be an infinite number of different ways in which reality can be modelled at this scale but this just happens to be the one we've settled on because it works. The moment we decide that there's a better way of doing this we can chuck all these ideas in the bin and start all over again. This qualification is critical because that's how science works.

This goes to the Why these laws? and Why these constants? questions you posed as an argument in favour of the Goldilocks theory. As you can see my philosophy is uber-Kantian which means these questions are meaningless. The laws and constants are a property of the theory and not of reality and we can chuck the laws and constants out at the drop of a hat if we refine the current theory or choose a different theory. In principle the number of possible theories could be infinite, although I'd prefer to think not for aesthetic reasons. However the stringies reckon it could as many as 10^(500). Bearing in mind that there are only 10^(80) atoms in the universe this is a shitload of different ways of modelling an atom.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein

In fact the constants of the SM are the most inconstant constants imaginable. Some have lasted a decade or two but most of them never reach puberty before some bright spark comes up with a better way of doing it.

I mention this to you only in passing and not for the purpose of revisiting the argument but this is the point I probably didn't make well enough in the Goldilocks thread. It might also give you an idea of how much respect I've got for the CRAP. ( Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle). Without question the CRAP would make Immanuel Kant turn in his grave.

[Scott Mayers]

these will get discredited by default and make any possibility of fixing the problems in physics impossible permanently.

A rather pessimistic view, my friend, but not without a kernel of truth. It was Max Planck who first said that new theories in science will never get a look in before the old ones are so rotten dead that nobody can put up with the stink anymore. This is a paraphrase because I don't recall his exact words but this is what he meant. Feyerabend and Kuhn said much the same thing.

However if you come with up a theory which yields a testable prediction which differs from that offered by current theory then you're well on the way to being taken seriously. Even better if your prediction can be tested by a repeatable experiment which is comfortably within the budget and expertise of ANY university physics department. The philosophy of the bloody obvious is such a theory.

My point though is that if you propose a theory that already is 'tested' as a prediction based upon a prior theory, we are presumed to default to the original author's interpretation even if both theories operate on the same prediction. So it would only matter who gets there first to propose their explanation. This is absurd.

I already agree that a 'testable' theory is better. But it is NOT essential in all cases. QM vs Relativity act in distinct areas that are valid by explanation for their domains but CAN be reconciled by altering the explanations in the details only. Did you follow my example above where I used independent court cases where each are correct in resolution where they work but can lead to false independent conclusions elsewhere even if the different case is also independently 'true'.

My logic:

A person A predicts that some phenomena will be X because they trust Y true. And each prediction by Y proves X. Yet Y might be explained to be true because Y <= Z.

A person B predicts that another phenomena will be R because they trust S true. And each prediction by S proves R. Yet S might also be explained to be true because S <= Z.

Thus Z connects the two but since the theory by person A and person B operate in distinct areas the authorities of each remain distinct unless a 'new' experiment is created to demonstrate Z that doesn't invalidate A or B's authority.

This logic is dismissed to preserve the political authorities of these areas distinctly. Yet the new interpretation using Z even without further experiments or novelty is necessary here. Thus, a new test is unnecessary.

EDIT: I added the implication symbol <= to clarify that Z implies both Y and Z without necessarily being 'equal'.

[Obvious Leo]

My point though is that if you propose a theory that already is 'tested' as a prediction based upon a prior theory, we are presumed to default to the original author's interpretation even if both theories operate on the same prediction. So it would only matter who gets there first to propose their explanation. This is absurd.

Tell me about it. I've got explanations for exactly the same data coming out of my ears which are far simpler than the ones currently on offer. Neurons that fire together wire together and the neurons of the entire priesthood of physics are wired together in an extravaganza of groupthink which should reduce any philosopher worthy of the name to tears.

Thus, a new test is unnecessary.

The problem in all cases with a dodgy theory is figuring out which question to ask of it which might falsify it. This is not easy for the current models because they are intrinsically tautologous. If you design your theory specifically to predict what the observer will observe then you can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what your theory has predicted. Don't be fooled by the confected joy at the "discovery" of the Higgs boson because all that was just a PR stunt to keep the dollars rolling in. The real thinkers in particle physics were secretly shattered that the Higgs fell right in the predicted mass range because it told them exactly NOTHING.

[Scott Mayers]

You might notice too that a Z can be found when each theory is kept apart can appeal to a third idea that is politically favorable. With respect to Relativity and QM, to me, the Big Bang was preferred over the Steady State model because Z => a Deistic God [where Z = Big Bang]. Thus it is less discouraged politically to desire a theory where some Z => a no God [where Z = Steady State or ?]. And I believe this is another reason why the extended idea to require a testable NEW experiment has been proposed as it prevents others from dislodging the present paradigm.

So while you, I, or some other person could have a valid theory that improves upon science, the extended requirement of a novel experiment or observation makes it difficult on the levels of the very large or very small. This is because the phenomena of these have been exhaustively observed and do not change. But if you, as you say, have such a novel test, kudos to you as this at least is one factor I lack at present in my own theory external to a different logical approach itself.

[PoeticUniverse]

At its ultimate level, What IS is quantized/discrete, so there can be no more subdivisions or parts to it, thus it’s the finite basis which is unbreakable, and thus unmakable, which shows that What IS has to be ever, with no beginning.

The icing on this cake of something above is that Nothing cannot be, as well as that ‘Nothing’ didn’t happen, if one still wants ‘it’ to be possible, plus that ‘it’ would still ‘be’, and so there wouldn’t be anything now.

These monads, as Leo refers to them, then, must be non composite, and as such the only basis from which change/transformation occurs in the ‘now, there being no other source, for what is ever has no ‘before’ or ‘outside’. Nor can they go away, and, so all that goes on must have root in the basis of their information processing, which grants the ‘it’ of what goes on from ‘bit’.

The monads are relational, with the ability to influence any other, and so no background is required, and this seems to be the most promising route for the Holy Grail of constructing a theory of quantum gravity.

Earlier quantum gravity attempts used a background and later ones tried to make the equations independent of a given background, but having no background is better, although the price or the glory is the giving up of space as fundamental, the primacy then going to time, with the base constituents doing the work as time goes along, rather than having a pre-built block of all past and future already made rather instantly, somehow, such as in the 5th dimension.