CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
The Laws? of Physics by Kevin H Knuth
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Kevin H Knuth wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 20:32 GMT
Essay AbstractPhysics is traditionally conceived of as a set of laws that universally governs the behavior of physical systems. These laws, however they are decreed, are believed to govern the behavior of not only everything in the universe, but the form of the universe itself, that is, the very nature of space and time in which everything is conceived to be embedded. The laws of physics distinguish the probable from the improbable, and separate the possible from the impossible. But is this law-based description of the universe too anthropomorphic? Are we really to believe that when we release a rock from our hand that it is somehow compelled by this decree and thus obliged to fall to the ground? Or are there deeper reasons why the rock does what it does every time it is released? In this essay, I discuss the nature of physical laws, the subtleties that arise when attempting to distinguish between determined and derivable laws from accidental or contingent laws. Other perspectives, based on information processing, are briefly introduced.
Author BioKevin Knuth is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics at the University at Albany (SUNY). He is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Entropy. He has 25 years of experience in applying Bayesian and maximum entropy methods to the design of machine learning algorithms for data analysis applied to the physical sciences. His current research interests include the foundations of physics, autonomous robotics, and the search for and characterization of extrasolar planets.
Download Essay PDF File
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 13:08 GMT
Dear Kevin,
It was a joy to read your essay. It goes through several different perspectives on the foundations, which you discuss with great insight. For example the possibility that laws may be tendencies or habits rather than normative. Maybe we can view as habits spontaneous symmetry breaking or increase of entropy. Could it be that all laws are like this? In this case, can we ever rule out the possibility of a a higher ordering and more permanent principle, governing the changes which led to such formation of habits? Of course, it is most plausible that the true laws are the unchanging ones, and even if the habit proposal may be true, it is so for less fundamental consequences of the eternal laws. But even if such laws-as-habits are the result of more fundamental ones, it is plausible that there is a way by which the universe adjusted its parameters that we thought to be constants and even some of the laws that we thought as universal, as you well described. But the part that made me most curious was the final, where you mention information-based perspective involving optimal processing as a source of the laws. I think this part worth being expanded much more, since it was very interesting and original. Once more, excellent essay! I wish you success with the contest!
Best wishes,
Cristi Stoica, Indra's net
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 12:46 GMT
Thank you so much for your kind words Cristi. In retrospect, it would have been good to expand the short section on the information-based perspective. This is my perspective, and I did not want to run the risk of it dominating the essay, which was much more of an exploration of ideas. I look forward to reading your essay, and I am delighted to see that it is rated quite well.
Ines Samengo wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:10 GMT
Dear Kevin,
I truly liked your essay (don't look for my mark, I'll rate all essays at the end, I just say this not to be confounded with some other voter).
In particular, I liked the distinction between contingent and determined laws, a matter to which I also dedicated quite some thought, only to arrive at the same impression as you: that the division between them is not truly sharp....
view entire post
Dear Kevin,
I truly liked your essay (don't look for my mark, I'll rate all essays at the end, I just say this not to be confounded with some other voter).
In particular, I liked the distinction between contingent and determined laws, a matter to which I also dedicated quite some thought, only to arrive at the same impression as you: that the division between them is not truly sharp. One could claim that determined laws are fixed by the requirement of consistency. Yet, consistency implies that no two realities, one the opposite of the other, can be derived from the theory. Yet, the notion of ‘opposite’ is not always clear. We are used to thinking that any statement has its opposite, that is the case in the formal logical systems we usually employ in mathematics. But what is the opposite of a physical reality? What should be the two things that cannot simultaneously happen in the universe? If we could answer this question, we might be able to deduce which should be the determined laws. In fact, the more we know about the world (going up to truly high speeds, or to really tiny or huge scales) the more it seems that weird things can happen, things that in earlier times would have been though of impossible, almost, of inconsistent. We now know that the notion of simultaneity is observer-dependent, in earlier times that would have been considered illogical, perhaps even inconsistent. We also know that in the quantum realm, what happens or does not happen depends on the observer, and that unobserved variables have no defined values. Again, a fact that in earlier times would have seemed inconsistent.
In my essay, I propose a parallelism between mathematical and physical theories, a parallelism that tries to separate contingent from determined laws. I claim that only when the separation is evident we have a conceptual theory. Yet, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the distinction can be made on sharp theoretical grounds. Nothing ensures we can make the distinction in the universe we know, and nothing guarantees that it can be done in any other possible universe. If the separation between the two types of laws cannot be done, the universe in question will still exist, but we will not be able to say we have a conceptual theory about it. The whole point is, of course, is to define what a possible universe is. But that is a tricky question. We only live once, and we only gather evidence once. But no theory can be constructed gathering data in a single trial. So we must parse our evidence into ‘similar trials’, and from our single experience, construct ensambles that can be used to construct and test theories. Such a construction is only legitimate if we have some prior knowledge of what is similar and what is not. That notion will allow us to group our experience into multiple trials of one single situation. So it would seem that the distinction between what is determined and contingent depends on our priors...
Ok, this message got long. Sorry if the message is not too clear, I'm thinking as I write. Not a very clever stategy, but hey, I'll send it anyway, just to say I liked your thoughts a lot, and that they triggered quite a bit of thinking from my side. But I'm still circling in them, I fear...
Thanks for that!
Inés.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Inés,
Thank you for your kind words, and your interesting perspective on my essay. I am intrigued and am eager to read your essay. Thank you again!
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Professor Kevin H Knuth,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Kevin,
I carefully read your interesting essay. There is a typo in the table for Mercury.
With formulas such as Titus-Bode and Koide, there are 2 ways:
1. Reject
2. Improve
Both after a thorough analysis. Formula for Titus Bode low has several problems, and it does not even coincide because it does not work for Neptune and Pluto. Still rightly not yet completely rejected.
The Koide formula has only one problem. It contains three charged electrons and the proton that is also electrically charged, is not found in the formula. This has been corrected in my papers.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1509.0135v1.pdf
and
http://gsjourn
al.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5605
With the same approach, the meaning of some Planck units in my essay was obtained.
With best wishes,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 12:54 GMT
Dear Branko,
Thank you for your comments.
"There is a typo in the table for Mercury."
Oh no! Apparently, adding 4 is still not one of my strengths!
Thank you for pointing me to your papers on the Koide formula. This is a topic of great interest for me, and my graduate student James Walsh and I have made some progress toward understanding this result using Influence Theory, although it is still premature to publish.
Thank you again!
James N Rose wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 04:15 GMT
I find it difficult to evaluate scientific logic arguments (propositions) when they are placed in context of depictions of qualities of a Creator or godhead, even if the assumption is made that such creative deity is the highest exemplar of Supreme Rational Logician and brings into existence nothing but .. logical perfect relations and entities.
Metaphysics considerations can only imagine propositions and then ask questions. It cannot generate objective results and absolute answers.
Even if cross compared with mathematical or geometric framings ... there is no way to realistically educe comments to the current question, when done in light of personal unverifiable qualities a writer would have of their own image of an ultimate "creator".
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 13:01 GMT
Thank you for your comments.
The creator was invoked for three reasons. First, because the idea of a creator has been forefront in our early attempts to understand the universe. And the idea has not quite gone away, where even in the scientific community we find it transformed into the concept of universe as "computer simulation".
Second, since antiquity, many thinkers who have granted a creator with ultimate power have maintained that a creator must be consistent. This insistence on consistency is critical, and its importance even to those who insist on a creator must be emphasized. Third, the laws of physics appear to be fine-tuned to life. This is not problematic if there is a multiverse and we just happen to live in one of the nice universes. BUT if the laws of physics are derivable from consistency requirements, which may very well be the case, then there is no reason for this universe to be life-friendly. This is a problem.
Thank you for your comments.
Narendra Nath replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 06:59 GMT
Author Kevin response to James Rose objections on the use of the word' God the Creator'.He still did not use the word but only as godhead! May i say that Nature is supreme and it has logic in its cosmic thinking of creating this beautiful Universe and then chosing Man to appear billion of years after the creation. There too is a logic behind the creation of the Earth around the star , our Sun.We have done nothing as human beings to even add an iaota to this logical creation. To add to Rose objections, may i add the ancient ancestors of ours in the Indian continent like Bhaskar who gave the correct value for the speed of light by just meditating and looking inwards hard and full of sacrifice and conscientious labour. Similar is the recognition to such anonymous wise men we have had who could visualise the force concept of gravity long before it was so recorded by modern science, as developed only during past atmost 1000 years. I too am an experimental Physicist and we know the history how philosophy gave rise to Physics and other sciences, as we branched of Physics from philosophy. Man is a thinker and thoughts have their own neurons working behind in the brain. Man has understood the understanding of such marvels of Nature gradually and i feel we have a lot of work ahead left in differnt branches of science.Best thinking bu us too takes place between gaps in the train of thoughts when cosmos is free to interact with us more effectively. Einstein alimony in support of this argument!
In our age group, we consider Biology to depend on Physics as primary to the tools used to understand basically what happens in living systems , relative to what goes on natural processes we observe through using Physics. One day, it may become possible for a Physicist to learn from a Biologist as to how things need to be understood!
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Narendra,
Thank you for your comments.
Francesco D'Isa wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Kevin,
thank you for sharing your essay, which I found very interesting and pleasurable to read.
You write that
> Some laws leave us with the impression that the situation could have been otherwise, whereas there are other laws for which it is more or less inconceivable that they could have been different (Hogan, 2000). For example, one might be able to imagine that the gravitational force could be weaker or stronger (with Newton’s gravitational constant having a different value), or that the speed of light could be much slower, but it is far more difficult to imagine that two times two could be something other than four, or that an object could have a left side without there being a right side.
I enjoyed that you state that it's "more difficult to imagine" and not impossible that even mathematics could be different. In my text about absolute relativism and Nagarjuna I approach similar questions, but from a philosophical point of view.
All the best, I wish you luck with your paper.
Francesco D'Isa
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 13:03 GMT
Thank you Francesco, for your comments.
I agree. The word impossible is a very hard constraint. I don't feel I understand things well enough to make such strong statements.
I look forward to reading your work.
Thank you again!
Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 19:10 GMT
Thanks to you!
bests,
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 21:23 GMT
Dr. Knuth:
What do you think of the music of the spheres - the relation of orbital measures to the harmonic musical scale that is pleasing to humans?
I suggest that questioning why should wait until at least we have a unity in R and QM - the next ToE. Until then all this is just metaphysics.
Hodge
post approved
Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Kevin,
Thanks for a very interesting meditation on the nature of fundamental laws and where they come from. You make an excellent point, that it can be hard even to distinguish between what’s determined by some underlying logic and what’s just accidental.
I see that the main theme of your work gets mentioned only briefly – i.e. that much of the mathematical structure of physics is derivable from consistency requirements inherent in the nature of quantitative information. The question you raise here at the end is whether this kind of approach can possibly explain the “fine-tuning” of many different physical parameters needed to support a habitable universe.
My current essay deals with many of the same questions, and also focuses on fine-tuning, though not in relation to the existence of life. I try to show that the contingent aspects of physics – those not derivable from consistency – can in principle be explained by another basic requirement relating to information, its contextuality. I argue that no kind of information can be measured, or even meaningfully defined, apart from a context of other related kinds of information. Since this contextual information must also be empirically determinable, in other contexts, this sets very strong constraints on the structure of any universe that can define and measure any type of information.
I hope you’ll take a look and let me know if the argument makes sense to you. Among other things, it offers an interesting perspective on your opening question – how and why do things “obey” the laws of physics?
Thanks again for your thoughtful and entertaining contribution.
Conrad
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 06:24 GMT
Dear Conrad,
Thank you for your comments.
I intended in my essay to focus on aspects of the nature of physical law that I had not previously given a great deal of thought. I have found that this essay contest provides a great opportunity to think about things, and in ways, that I would not normally have the time and opportunity for. For this reason, my professional perspectives on physical law took somewhat of a backseat to these thoughts. However, at the end when discussing the fine tuning of the physical constants for life made me consider my information-based perspective. I do not really see how such a perspective could resolve this issue, and that continues to be interesting to me.
Thank you for your comments about your perspectives. I look forward to reading your essay.
Thank you again!
Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 07:06 GMT
Hope author and other commentators react to my posting here and i do not mind even a strong rebuttal and criticism of views experessed by me!
report post as inappropriate
Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Kevin,
I liked your essay very much. Wheeler said that the greatest advance in science by Newton was, that he was able to separate the contingent properties from the lawful properties.
The connections of the physical constants is very interesting. And in the current paradigm they cannot be questioned, since they are part of the god given laws. What is your personal view? What mechanism could fix these constants to the values they have?
In
my essay essay, I adopt some sort of conventionalism like Poincaré: Newton’s first law is conventional and enables us to define the fundamental properties of the system: mass and momentum. Only then the second law becomes an empirical law. In my essay I assume that in order to make the first law possible, the universe/environment of a system must be approximately infinite and homogenous or almost empty. By changing universal conditions or near a black whole, the fundamental concepts would change and hence our laws would change. In that sense the laws themselves are contingent depending on the state of the universe.
I hope you find time to read and comment on my essay.
Luca
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 06:31 GMT
Dear Luca,
Thank you for your comments.
My current thinking is that much of physical law is derivable in the sense that it represents constraint equations that enforce consistent quantification of physical phenomena. I believe that constants, such as the fine structure constant, are forced by symmetries as well and are derivable. The problem then is that I see no way to explain how these laws are tuned to life. This is something that will require more thought once we better understand the nature of such laws.
I look forward to reading your essay.
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
Member Ken Wharton wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 16:18 GMT
Hi Kevin,
Very cool essay -- quite interesting examples!
I will say you piqued my interest when you started off talking about our laws as 'anthropomorphic', and wished you had gotten back to that issue a bit more. Varying constants is interesting, but doesn't really seem to fall in the 'anthropomorphic' category as I see it. What else did you have in mind when you used that term?
Also, I suspect you're not merely interested in the values of the constants, but rather other aspects of fundamental physics. I wonder whether you think even the form of our dynamical equations might be too anthropomorphic...?
Finally, you seem to be considering the possibility that these constants are changing with *time*. Does that mean you see time itself as being more fundamental than the laws we see obeyed at any one moment in our universe? What about space? (Constants could vary over space as well, presumably...)
Cheers! -Ken
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Ken!
Thank you for your kind comments!
I did actually mean 'anthropmorphic' (man-shaped) when was initially talking about the physical laws. The fact that we call them 'Laws' or 'Laws of Nature'. We think of these as rules that things must obey. 'Obeying rules' is a very human-centric perspective. I did not really come back to it because I used it as a means to discuss the idea that even a Creator would be able to create in an unconstrained manner. My mere mentioning of a Creator seems to have ruffled some feathers, but the point was that there are constraints that cannot be broken. 2 + 3 is not ever going to be 10. Everything would break. And that is meaningful.
I myself don't believe that the constants change. Pi doesn't. What really is important is that we really do not understand why some constants have the values they do. Until we understand that, we cannot know that the values cannot change, and we cannot know whether other universes might have constants with other values. That was really what I was going for.
But the fact that this universe is nicely tuned for life, the anthropic principle (of or relating to humans), is interesting. This is especially true if there are reasons why the constants have the values they do. Then, it seems that things will be difficult to reconcile.
Thank you again!
Kevin
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 02:46 GMT
Nice thinking about gravity Dr Kevin H Knuth
You are asking Very important questions...."The laws of physics distinguish the probable from the improbable, and separate the possible from the impossible. But is this law-based description of the universe too anthropomorphic? Are we really to believe that when we release a rock from our hand that it is somehow compelled by this decree and thus...
view entire post
Nice thinking about gravity Dr Kevin H Knuth
You are asking Very important questions...."The laws of physics distinguish the probable from the improbable, and separate the possible from the impossible. But is this law-based description of the universe too anthropomorphic? Are we really to believe that when we release a rock from our hand that it is somehow compelled by this decree and thus obliged to fall to the ground? Or are there deeper reasons why the rock does what it does every time it is released?....."
Hope you will have a look at another Gravity based essay also...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,
Thank you for your kind words and for pointing me to your essay. I do hope to find the time to read it.
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Prof. Knuth,
very interesting essay, congratulation! I feel that what you say is a good attitute towards a relaxation of classical determinism, still maintained by a major part of the physicalist program.
Concerning this, I think you might appreciate my essay (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3017)
Good job, high rating.
Best wishes,
Flavio
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Flavio,
Thank you for your kind comments. I do hope to find the time to read your essay!
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 23:42 GMT
Hi Kevin,
One section of your essay caught my attention:
"Kepler was inspired by a comment attributed to Socrates in Plato's Politeia VII where he notes that musical harmony is the sister science to astronomy (vander Schoot, 2001), Kepler worked to relate each of the spheres to a musical harmony."
Not quite realizing I was relating cosmology to music, I created the graviton as the cosmological equivalent to a guitar string. It surprised me how far I was able to take this.
Check out my essay "The Thing That is Space-Time" perhaps it should have been titled "The Music of the Ether". I think you will find it interesting and fits with your "Laws?".
Appreciate it if you can take the time to let me know what you think.
Thanks for your thought provoking essay on what is fundamental.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Don,
Thank you for your kind words.
I am glad that they struck a chord with you!
Thank you for pointing me to your essay. I do hope to find the time to read it!
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 15:57 GMT
Hi Kevin,
Your essay this time is fine, but going over what you wrote before and all the references made me believe that you have similar idea/conclusion to mine, although mine looks very strange and different. Particularly I think you are basing your system on "causal sets", so I think the relations between events(probabilities build up in my system) is the key to the structure. I appreciate if you take look at
my essay. Thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets
An earlier FQXI contest essay by you which I really like
https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Knuth_fqxi13kn
uthessayfinal.pdf
another paper that resembles our systems
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.2072.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Adel,
Thank you for your comments, and kind words regarding my earlier essays.
You have certainly captured my attention by referring to my work and Dr. Kastner's work. I do hope to find the time to read your essay.
Thank you again,
Kevin Knuth
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 07:46 GMT
Nice essay Kevin.
It's good to see someone else writing on the observer aspects of laws. You might look to some of later Eddington (as I'm sure you have before) on how your consistency conditions for the laws come from aspects of measurement - not sure this would resolve the biophilic aspect, but might be relevant.
I think Ken above spotted a terminological issue relating to "anthropomorphic". I assume you mean just "anthropic" in cases such as varying constants?
Best,
Dean
report post as inappropriate
Member Dean Rickles wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 00:19 GMT
Nice essay Kevin.
It's good to see someone else writing on the observer aspects of laws. You might look to some of later Eddington (as I'm sure you have before) on how your consistency conditions for the laws come from aspects of measurement - not sure this would resolve the biophilic aspect, but might be relevant.
I think Ken above spotted a terminological issue relating to "anthropomorphic". I assume you mean just "anthropic" in cases such as varying constants?
Best,
Dean
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:20 GMT
Dear Dean,
Thank you for your comments.
Most of my work is indeed focused on how consistency conditions arise from symmetries related to measurement, or more precisely, quantification. It does not appear to resolve the biophilic aspect, which has me in a bit of a quandary.
Regarding the terminological issue. I had correctly used anthropomorphic to refer to the concept of laws. I did not extend that description to the latter part of the essay where I was discussing the anthropic biophilic aspect of the laws of physics. So I hope that this clears up that confusion.
Thank you again!
Kevin
David Brown wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 09:45 GMT
" ... the Koide formula remains a curiosity, much like the Titius-Bode Law." Is the Koide formula somehow related to the fact that some quarks have charge 2/3 ? Is there a Koide-variant-formula with 1/3 instead of 2/3 that is somehow related to the fact that some quarks have charge 1/3 ?
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:24 GMT
Dear David,
Thank you for your comments.
The 2/3 does not appear to be related to the charge of quarks, and there does not appear to be a 1/3 variant. Instead, the relation appears to be some sort of (geometrical?) relationship among masses across generations.
It is not well-understood, nor is it known if it is an accidental relationship, which is why it remains only a curiosity.
Thank you again,
Kevin
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear Kevin
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Kevin
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Steven,
Thank you for your comments and for pointing me to your essay. It sounds very interesting and I hope to find the time to read it.
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 15:38 GMT
Kevin,
Your abstract comments about laws;
'these concepts are part of the dogma of science as a belief system' and that
'In this sense reductionism, as an act of seeking simple underlying explanations, is ultimately critical to our understanding'. Seemed to give way to a mostly historical resume and analysis of origin. Interesting, fundamental and nicely written indeed but was I wrong to feel a little disappointed not to find ways to escape dogma? Or do you accept we're doomed to live with it?
I also argue and exemplify a specific reductionist approach and though you only touched in it's value was more sated by your examples, a worthwhile reminder for those caught up in the more fashionable emergence.
I know you've considered QM but avoid it here. Maybe wisely, but is it not the prime case of illogical laws? I ask as I've tested parameters for 3yrs and seem to have broken through to a classical mechanism by changing a hidden assumption; using the Poincare sphere (4 vectors inc. orthogonal 'curl') instead of singlet states, and all as Bell predicted.
Very few so far have read carefully enough to follow the complex ontological mechanistic 'measurement' sequence (part due to embedded dogma!) but I hope you can. Declan Trails short code & plot confirms the CHSH>2 Cos^2 derivation. (also Gordon Watson's partial algorithm heads the right way). A few redefinitions emerge and non-locality disappears.
I hope you can help.
Well done for yours. Very Best of luck in the judging.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your kind comments.
Your comments about dogma are interesting and relevant. I mainly wanted to point out that this is dogma, and that science, in this respect, is a belief system. It's not usually how we think about science and perhaps by highlighting that it might help us to view science through different eyes. I cannot say that you were wrong to not find ways to escape this dogma. Is the dogma wrong? I do not know. Reductionism is clearly been fruitful. Yet emergence happens for a reason, so it may be possible to understand those reasons using simple explanations as well... reductionism again.
My previous essays have discussed aspects of my work, which involve specific reductionist approaches. I have tried to avoid that in this essay sticking to ideas that are not necessarily related to my research. I wanted to keep things fresh and to revisit the big picture.
I did avoid QM here mostly because my perspectives on QM are heavily biased by my research involving QM. Was I wrong to not share these perspectives? Or was it better to spare the reader from an essay littered with a summary of my research, and to give myself to step back and think beyond my research area? Either way, this essay is the direction that I went.
I do hope that I get the opportunity to read your essay.
I wish you the best of luck as well!
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:13 GMT
Kevin,
Thanks, and for your positive comments on my essay. My response there is here; (I haven't yet seen you 'bias' with QM except around it's edges. Do send a link).
Kevin,
I greatly value your unencumbered (with beliefs) thoughts. To recognise we're all 'heavily biased' goes far to overcome the cognitive dissonance plaguing advancement. Is dogma wrong? Yes! Is doctrine? most likely! All building needs foundations but the moment we forget they're provisional we're in a fatal rut.
So to the model; 3yrs since showing Dr B's
Red/Green Sock Trick 'Classic QM' works! It's overly compressed in this
100 second video but at least it's some pictures to help frame a new mental model. You should also go through the 8 point quick mechanism checklist a dozen posts up
{on mine}(though missing detail like elliptical polarity at the Pm channels etc).
Did you see Declan Traill's supporting code & plot yet? You also need to refresh on the discrete field dynamics you've liked previously for which classic QM was just a falsification exercise. (It has vague links with your own 'causal sets' approach).
But it needs all the help it can get to penetrate the dogma/doctrine! We have some, and once you've worked it through and overcome the trauma I hope you may collaborate. Are you familiar with Froher by the way? Gordon Watson is also on the right lines and includes a link.
My respect for you was high has just increased, as has my score of your essay I dare say. Is that right? Well just a bit!
Very best. Look forward to your questions and chatting more.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:29 GMT
Hmmm, it seemed to have been hit with 1's (as mine was) & dropped to 6.4! now 6.6 after my 10. I'll put in a good word with Traill & Watson who don't seem to have visited yet.
Hope you get in the finals, and best of luck with the judges. As an academic at least you'd be in the frame! (lol)
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:31 GMT
Thank you, again, Peter, for your very kind words.
I will have to take the time to go through all the interesting things you are pointing me to!
What work of mine was I referring to?
I will point you to these papers:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09725
https://arxiv.org/abs
/1511.07766
I am working on a more recent paper on influence theory at present, which I hope to have finished by week's end. Next is a more detailed paper on influence theory and QM. We have some insights, and I am working to try to obtain more.
I have found myself to be quite inspired by these contests, and I am looking forward to what ideas come next!
Good Luck in the Judging! It looks like several of us were dinged with unit scores, which is really unprofessional. So good luck!
Cheers
Kevin
hide replies
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 05:55 GMT
The assumption that laws of nature are permanent isn't a dogma. It has been confirmed by any experiment made. Obviously laws could be changing so slow that cannot be measured, but then the claim they are really changing is a metaphysical claim and we will continue assuming that they don't change.
There is no logical reason to invoke a Creator, even less when the Universe is defined as an...
view entire post
The assumption that laws of nature are permanent isn't a dogma. It has been confirmed by any experiment made. Obviously laws could be changing so slow that cannot be measured, but then the claim they are really changing is a metaphysical claim and we will continue assuming that they don't change.
There is no logical reason to invoke a Creator, even less when the Universe is defined as an isolated system.
I see no reason supporting the idea that the design of the universe couldn't be other. So questions as "why is the universe the way it is and not something completely different?" don't make any sense to me.
An algebra of kind 2x2 = 22 is relatively easy to imagine.
Masses aren't "initial conditions"; the state space is (p,q). Masses are parameters. Also in one sense initial conditions aren't accidental, because they are final conditions for previous trajectory.
I don't find anything surprising on Newtonian laws describing the motions of planets orbiting the Sun, but not the number of the resulting planets, and their respective orbits. Newtonian laws don't describe the number of particles neither their mass or energy.
I always find interesting to see some physicists considering the possibility of multiverses, which is a non-physical hypothesis. Discussions about multiverses would be better left to philosophers.
Information Physics is a buzzword. There is no central role of information in physics, and the work of people as Jaynes has simply added confusion and nonsense to physics. I recall here Balescu criticism of the thermononsense school: "
Jaynes' and coworkers theory is based on a non-transitive evolution law that produces ambiguous results. Although some difficulties of the theory can be cured, the theory "lacks a solid foundation" and "has not led to any new concrete result"".
Knuth' work is another rehash of older and debunked ideas introduced in the early times of quantum theory about "observers playing a central role" in Nature, and taken to its extreme by Wheeler's nonsensical "it from bit".
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Juan,
Thank you for commenting.
It is clear that we are going to disagree about many things.
Let me address the one point that I am most familiar with:
> Knuth' work is another rehash of older and debunked ideas introduced in the early times of quantum theory about "observers playing a central role" in Nature, and taken to its extreme by Wheeler's nonsensical "it from bit".
I am Knuth. So it is strange to hear you mention me in the third person in a comment addressed to me. It is true that work was partly inspired by Feynman and Wheeler's absorber theory, which was an attempt at doing away with the electric field. But it is not a rehashing. Fenyman and Wheeler assumed the physics of spacetime and electromagnetism. What I have done, with Newshaw Bahreyni, was to show that the mathematics of relativsitic spacetime is the only possible way of describing a set of causally-related events. We are working to derive (some of) the laws of physics from basic symmetries in the model, which is an entirely different enterprise. We are not naive enough to believe that this could yield anything like a final fundamental theory. The work is aimed to seriously explore what is possible.
I, of course, strongly disagree with your assessment of Jaynes.
and will refocus on your statement:
> There is no central role of information in physics
Wow!!! Really???
Sincerely,
Kevin Knuth
Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 03:49 GMT
Professor Knuth,
Thank you for an excellent overview of the curious role that patterns of numbers have played in the history of mathematics and science, with an emphasis on questioning the depth to which these patterns are fixed within what we observe.
I will readily confess to being both a bit of a tolerant pragmatist regarding most such patterns. I am both a pragmatist in the...
view entire post
Professor Knuth,
Thank you for an excellent overview of the curious role that patterns of numbers have played in the history of mathematics and science, with an emphasis on questioning the depth to which these patterns are fixed within what we observe.
I will readily confess to being both a bit of a tolerant pragmatist regarding most such patterns. I am both a pragmatist in the skeptic that the more broadly a pattern is found in diverse types of data, the more likely it is to be attached deeply within the infrastructure behind that data. Thus words in Europe lead back “only” back to Proto-Indo-European, while the spectral element signatures of elements on the other side of the visible universe lead all the way back to the shared particle and space physics of our universe. In many ways, what we really seem to be doing there is (as you note) not so much looking for “laws” as we are looking for
points of shared origins in space and time of such patterns.
I am a skeptic in the sense that it’s exceedingly unwise both in everyday life and in data analysis to assume that just because you see a pattern that it’s necessarily meaningful or even real. We humans are particularly prone to seeing exactly what we want to see, a phenomenon that itself is a pattern that emerges from our need to make fast, efficient use of relatively slow and limited-capacity neural circuitry. Our brains take a lot of shortcuts.
The delicacy of the fine-structure constant is just the tip of the anthropic tuning mystery. Lee Smolin estimates that when you take the product of all of the tunings needed create a life-as-we-know-it tolerant universe, the odds fall to 1 in 10
229. For some perspective, that is almost as low as the odds of our President saying just the right words in a multicultural sensitivity training session.
I was not aware of the Koide pattern. Since I am currently working on a paper with strong geometric implications for fermions when represented in the right space, such a vaguely geometric pattern might well prove relevant (or not!) So, my thanks for alerting me to it.
Cheers,
Terry
Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)Essayist’s Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:10 GMT
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your kind words and comments.
I didn't intend that the focus of the essay be on patterns per se. I was more interested in pointing out that it is not easy to distinguish or identify a law of physics in the first place, much less deciding on what is fundamental.
The fine-tuning is indeed interesting.
> almost as low as the odds of our President saying just the right words in a multicultural sensitivity training session.
or as low as him attending any sensitivity training in the first place!
This is perhaps evidence that the universe could be even more fine-tuned!
Thank you again!
Kevin Knuth
richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
Kevin,
Nice essay, and definitely vote dogma! It seems the further Academics get their feet under the table and carpet slippers on the more they're happy with the dogma. I've just seen the quote from John Bell posted somewhere; "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better." Darn right.
I think you do. Keep it up. It seems to be a sign of an eminent physicist not to be complacent!
Top marks.
Richard
report post as inappropriate
Author Kevin H Knuth replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:35 GMT
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your kind comments!
I really like Bell's quote:
"Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better."
I agree 100%!
Thank you again!
Kevin Knuth
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 10:47 GMT
Kevin,
Thanks for you reply (27th) & links, which I'll look up. I discussed 'Beables' with Ian Durham. He seemed locked into his own ideas but I've given it a last shot - see post below. Actually I really hope YOU may be able to help!?
P
.....
Ian,
My Feb 24 post outlines the classical mechanism in the essay.
I'm saying that if we start with the Maxwell/(Poincare Sphere) 4 momenta state for electrons and the pairs (rather than 'no' assumption or superposed 'singlet' states) then with a simple momentum transfer ('measurement') mechanism, the entire tranche of QM predictions and findings can be reproduced with classical mechanics & modern photonics.
As a good scientist I'm sure you won't let shock or cognitive dissonance make you dismiss the concept or run and hide. The computer plot confirms the result, so the question is, as an expert, can you identify where the mechanism may be 'wrong' or what it 'misses'?
The key to EPR resolution is that A,B polariser field directions are reversible, and the 'measurement' on interaction is either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' vector (then an amplitude pair subject to y,z axis ellipticity on orthogonal axes).
So if we have A,B +,-, either can reverse setting angle to get A,B +,+ or -,-. Cos distributions are implicit in the Poincare sphere (as I show), applied a 2nd time at the photomultiplier. In between +1,-1 are then Bayesian distributions, so 'undecidable' at 90o.
So beyond a local interference range NO 'action at a distance' is required to explain the outcomes!!
This is such a leap of understanding it needs an acknowledged expert to either falsify or confirm it. Not that difficult a task!
Very best
Peter
PS. Do contact me direct, on; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.