Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 6:54am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Georgina Parry: on 3/5/09 at 22:59pm UTC, wrote Lawrence said "Curiously Hamiltonian systems have an emergent fractal...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 3/5/09 at 15:43pm UTC, wrote Strange attractor physics has an emergent fractal system of symmetries. ...

Georgina Parry: on 3/4/09 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote It is a dynamic system, to which Noether's theorem would not apply, I would...

Georgina Parry: on 3/4/09 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote ...That motion giving rise to gravity.

Georgina Parry: on 3/4/09 at 19:59pm UTC, wrote Noether's theorem is not applicable to systems that cannot be modelled with...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 3/3/09 at 14:53pm UTC, wrote The mathematics defines certain symmetries, which by the Noether theorem...

Georgina Parry: on 3/2/09 at 20:51pm UTC, wrote Mathematics, just like any other language, should be the servant of the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The End (of Cosmology) is Nigh [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Grace Stemp-Morlock wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 17:11 GMT
Scientific American has a podcast up (part 1 and part 2) of a AAAS press conference that I attended last week on the state of cosmology. I encourage you to listen to it, though I warn you that cosmologist Lawrence Krauss’ vision of the future out dooms even Al Gore’s. That’s impressive.

Dire predictions of impending catastrophes of epic proportion are par for the course at the AAAS. However, usually they are contained to minor things like the decimation of world fisheries, complete melting of the polar ice cap, a worldwide pandemic, or desertification of half the continental United States. Not this year. This year the whole Universe is going to pot.

Or so said Krauss, inaugural Director of Arizona State University’s Origins Initiative and theoretical physicist (pictured with William Shatner!). In a press briefing before his lecture, titled “Our Miserable Future,” Krauss discussed how the challenge of describing such huge ideas in theoretical physics is pushing falsifiability, the essence of science, to its very limits.

“We’ve been living in a golden age of cosmology, and the question is what’s going to happen in the near future,” said Krauss. “We’re getting so close to threshold questions about the universe that we might be at the limits of falsifiability, and our ability to definitively rule out ideas might become limited because the grandeur of the ideas that we’re testing might become so great.”

Krauss discussed FQXi’s Alan Guth’s (also on the panel) idea of inflation, and the problem that almost any observation can be used to support inflation and almost no observation can be used to disprove inflation.

However, Guth, a theoretical physicist at MIT, believes that in the next 10 years we will find observations that will be able to explain dark matter, and he suspects as well that dark energy might be similar to vacuum energy.

Krauss is a little more depressed and less optimistic concerning dark energy, believing that this mysterious force is driving theoretical physicists “wild and mad” to create ideas like multiple universes each with a slightly different fundamental cosmic constant. That scenario would mean that our universe is just a chance collection of fundamental constants that are conducive to life, or as Krauss put it, “the universe is the way it is because there are astronomers that can go out to measure them.”

And, unfortunately, the picture of the future Universe is not getting better as our Universe keeps getting pushed further and further apart.

“The future of the universe based on what we can measure now is completely miserable. The longer we wait the less we’ll see of the universe, the more of the universe will disappear, the fewer the measurements we’ll be able to make based on nature, so even our present ability to falsify the Universe will get worse. And, these crazy ideas may lead to a change in the nature of science,” said Krauss.

In a hundred billion to maybe a trillion years, Krauss envisions a Universe where all evidence of the Big Bang and the Universe we observe today will have completely disappeared. This will leave an observer in that future believing in a static, eternal island Universe, which is exactly what physicists believe hundreds of years ago and we discovered was completely wrong.

“The good news about the universe is that as bad as it is now it’s going to get a lot worse, so you should enjoy it now,” said Krauss. Seems like good advice.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 22:00 GMT
Maybe we are all a bit doomish these days. Wake up and smell the Kafka, I say. Most people are not so much worried about the cosmos, as they are employment.

There are several levels of doom here of course. Clearly the foundations of physics is relying upon data that is increasingly oblique or indirect. RHIC has reported some signatures of amplitudes similar to soft black holes on p-branes. The LHC might get more signatures of amplitudes or small channels for quantum gravity. The look for gravity waves filling the universe (a gravity background radiation) might give hints on the earliest form of the universe. The GLAST or now Fermi has detected radition which suggests neutralino decay (a dark matter candidate) and so forth. Things such as other universes and some exotic ideas I doubt can be directly tested. Cosmology and the foundations of physics does appear to be headed into such huge uncertainties in its contact with empiricism that the subject may end. I hope that in the next 25 years we might get a reasonable theory of quantum gravity and some data, however distant that might be, to support it.

The other cosmic doom due to the expansion of the universe into a nearly de Sitter-like configuration. Of course I have a hard time worrying about that. Much before those tens of billions of years the sun will crap out on us. I have grim doubts humanity will be moving into interstellar space. Then before then the sun will heat up in the next several 100 million years so any highly evolved species today is extinct. Then there are the other transient events like asteroid impacts and such.

Of course the Al Gore doom is the real doomsday problem. I doubt in the natural history of this planet there has ever been an animal life form our size, dietary requirements, and certainly not the massive resource demands that impose, which numbered 6.8 billion at one time! We appear to be some sort of large two legged species of locusts in an swarm. Billions of ground apes exponentially rampaging out of control. Yeah, now that is the serious problem! This is manifested in eco-collapses, global warming, emergent diseases, loss of arable land and so forth.

So we have two competing doomsdays here. One is that we may well be approaching the limits of what is knowable about the universe. Wolpert invokes Godel theorem arguments to say this is in fact certain:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362v2

Let us assume there is nothing to do about our predicament on Earth, so we are heading into a global collapse by the middle of end of this century, or maybe earlier. The question is do we reach cosmic doom before planetary doom?

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 23, 2009 @ 22:22 GMT
Lawrence,

Pushing the reset button has its benefits on occasion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 02:15 GMT
In my opinion..

We are not observing the objective reality of the material universe itself but electromagnetic radiation emitted or reflected, (i.e information) that is spreading out across 3D vector space. The expansion of the universe is an "illusion".

The image of the universe is formed from a patchwork of ancient electromagnetic radiation, prone to interference, reflection, refraction and delay, distorted in the wake of the objective universe as it moves through 4D space. This image is interpreted as the universe spread out across space over time, which is a subjective interpretation of reality not objective reality itself.

Within the objective (material) universe there is an increasing aggregation of matter, from the sub atomic particles released during inflation, into larger and larger structures, as the 4D universe gains in kinetic and mass energy and contracts, as it moves along the 4th dimension as it's potential energy declines. (The energy of the universe is being stored in matter and structures as mass energy. The objective material universe is increasing in complexity and order, not increasing in entropy and disorder.)

The objective universe is actually spread out within the spatio-energetic continuum of Eternity where there is no time dimension only 3 Vector spatial dimensions and the Scalar-energetic dimension, along which the matter of the universe progresses continually but not all in unison. The relative position of matter altering according to energetic variables.

from The Prime Quaternion model.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Buck Field wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 19:45 GMT
What I don't understand is why Krauss does not take the same stance that one would use with his "fish in a pond" example, i.e.: that we, like the fish, happen to be at a particular intersection of conditions (aquatic for the fish, dimensional for physicists), and that the judgment it is "unique" or "special" only reflects fish/physicist irrational sense of importance, rather than some profound, universal desire to create either pond fish or bow ties and elbow patches.

With a nod to Lawrence, I am working toward making us an interstellar species, despite a significant likelihood of ultimate impossibility and that such research could change our priorities enough to make such a long-dreamed of capacity seem unimportant.

My twitter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 24, 2009 @ 22:53 GMT
Leonard Susskind wrote a sort of fish story. I attach it to this post.

I wrote a book titled "Can Star Systems Be Explored?" It concerns the physics required to send a space probe to another star, within about 25 light years. It is a way of dicsussing some undergraduate topics in physics in a new way. In there I also discuss how daunting it would be to send astronauts to another star.

Lawrence B. Crowell

attachments: fishstory.txt

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Buck Field wrote on Feb. 25, 2009 @ 19:18 GMT
Interesting attachment, Lawrence.

In “Fishstory II”, claims of the physicists (like Weinburg) are quoted referring to the detection of universal constants that must be fine-tuned for our kind of life. Is that a fair summarization?

Unless these physicists have a clear, consistent definition of time, space, matter, force, and energy, then it would be improper to even use the terms...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 26, 2009 @ 03:03 GMT
Buck,

"Rapidly increasing complexity of theory, built upon poorly supported assumptions indicates paradigm crisis and the need for revolutionary change, which is not receiving significant resources for study, planning, management, education, and administration."

Bravo!

I would agree that what we are witnessing is 'punctuated equilibrium,' as applied to theoretical evolution. I wouldn't worry about allocation of resources though. That falls in the 'give them enough rope' category.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 03:51 GMT
There is something "stringy" about the foundations of physics. Indeed string logic has been found as a way of understanding certain quasi-particles in solid state physics. So it is more than epicycles.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 06:13 GMT
Director Krauss should not be pessimistic.

Scientists in the future may have a far greater understanding of the universe and its beginning and end.

Having no ability to read the minds of that generation he can not assume that they will base their concept of the universe on the "old" electromagnetic image. (Which informs or should I say misinforms the subject reality of today's cosmologists.)

Why does he consider a change in the nature of science a bad thing? Surely huge changes are decades overdue.

The future of the universe is just great. It is coming together in objective material reality just as it should.

Increasing in beauty and complexity. Don't be sad that the old image will be gone, think of what the universe will have gained.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 14:12 GMT
It is a matter of scale. As we have pushed our understanding of the universe we are working theory which involves very small scales, the Planck length L_p = 10^{33} cm, or the very large for the entire observable universe. Further, such work strives to unify these two extremes. It is also very hard to experimentally probe things. The high energy accelerator and the telescope probe these two extremes, but as we do we rely upon data to support theory that can become increasingly distant or oblique.

Things may not be completely impossible, and we may get some signatures from nature which lend tentative support for theory, however approximate that might be. In 25 years or so we may have some fundamental idea of quantum cosmology and gravity. If we put men on the moon I think we can do this. In the long run though it may be possible that cosmology and particle physics faces questions that we are simply unable to really address. The foundations of physics may well in time become a sort of philosophical endevour.

As George Harrison put it, "All Things must pass."

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 14:14 GMT
Erratum: the Planck length is L_p = 10^{-33} cm --- the dreaded minus sign error again.

L. C.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
Lawrence,

"Things may not be completely impossible, and we may get some signatures from nature which lend tentative support for theory, however approximate that might be. In 25 years or so we may have some fundamental idea of quantum cosmology and gravity. If we put men on the moon I think we can do this. In the long run though it may be possible that cosmology and particle physics faces questions that we are simply unable to really address. The foundations of physics may well in time become a sort of philosophical endevour."

I think you overlook the intellectual dynamic. If progress isn't being made, the overwhelming impulse becomes taking apart what has already been constructed and reworking it, for better, or worse. If the theory cannot be advanced further, than the pressure is to examine the weaknesses of the theory. I think that while our current understanding of reality seems incredibly complex and advanced on the surface, various of the underlaying assumptions will not stand up well to fresh examination. Simply put, future generations of physicists are not simply going to kneel down in homage to complexity and not examine it from every possible angle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 19:43 GMT
It has less to do with smarts than it does with scale. The resources and energy required to directly interact with Planck scale or string scale physics is enormous. We may know these things somewhat indirectly. We understand things about the interior of the Earth by measuring seizmic waves, not by any Jules Verne direct probing or exploration. Nobody is going to the Earth's core. We may never probe Planck scale physics directly, but only get indirect signatures of things. Our limits are less intellectual as they are just plain physical.

Anybody getting the sense that the moon landing may have been a one time deal. We may not get back there, and the dreams of starships and the like seem to be fading away. We may simply be limited at large to Earth. It is sort of the same thing again, we have physical limits. We can push the envelop for now to see how far we go --- what else can we do?

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 21:20 GMT
Priorities and focus may well change. Who will care if distant electromagnetic signals are undetectable, when the business of just staying alive becomes the main priority.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Feb. 27, 2009 @ 22:39 GMT
Lawrence,

It has less to do with smarts than it does with perspective. Epi-cycles were far more conceptually complex than a heliocentric model. I suspect that trying to model them actually benefited the development of advanced math, but the vast intellectual effort expended still didn't make them right.

As you point out, physics is reaching the limits of exploring the extremes, but this overlooks the fact that we have only a very general understanding of what's right in front of our eyes. There is this mindset among physicists that if we can only see a little further, or probe a little deeper, it will explain everything. That's just not going to happen.

It really is a basic fallacy, just like any other human desire, where if we can just reach some goal, it will solve all our problems. Our brains are navigation instruments and they are designed to propel us toward some goal, which we have idealized. We have a very primitive moral code that idolizes the inherent attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental, good vs. bad. This creates a distinctly linear perspective, such that if a little is good, a lot must be that much better. There is little ingrained respect for reciprocity, reaction, laws of unintended consequences, balance, etc. In fact the whole idea is usually derided as moral relativism. While physicists and scientists in general are at the head of the pack in trying to really figure out what is going on, they are still overwhelmed by and often perpetuate the political forces which compartmentalize knowledge, so there isn't a strong incentive to see grand patterns not exclusive to ones own specialty. Thus the push to study the extremes, formulate ever more fantastical theories and despair over the fact that such endeavors have natural limits.

I'm not that pessimistic about humanity's future. I think we will transition from top predator of the planetary ecosystem to central nervous system of the planetary organism, but that's an entirely different discussion, having more to do with politics, economics and other social modeling, ie. religious assumptions. It requires a more robust understanding of bottom up process than over reliance on top down control methods. After that, we will start terraforming wherever possible. The organic desire to seed is irresistible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 28, 2009 @ 09:51 GMT
good idea: However, Guth, a theoretical physicist at MIT, believes that in the next 10 years we will find observations that will be able to explain dark matter, and he suspects as well that dark energy might be similar to vacuum energy

and in centre of galaxies vacuum energy transform in elementary particles, in black holes matter transform back into vacuum energy

this circulation is permanent

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 28, 2009 @ 22:32 GMT
The current theory of black hole formation and structure, although generally accepted, is speculative and not fact. It is therefore not unreasonable to offer an alternative explanation for black hole formation and structure that equally well fits the evidence and can also explain the phenomenon of dark matter.

According to the the Prime quaternion model the gravitational effect of matter that is extra universal but neighbouring our universe in 4D space, can be detected and gives rise to so called dark matter. i.e. the unseen continuation of our universe (which can not be observed as we are only able to encounter a "slice" of 4D space in our 3D known universe)

Gravitational effects can be detected because the unseen mass causes distortion of observable 3D space, affecting objects within observable 3D space, but no light is seen from the object because it is not within the slice of 4D space that our universe occupied, when that electromagnetic image of the universe was formed.

The depth of the "gravity well " is due to both the amount of matter ( which is the sum of its 4D volume ) and its angular momentum. The greater the kinetic energy giving rise to the angular momentum the further afore will be the matter. The centre of a galaxy will have a very large angular momentum.

To us a black hole appears empty because the mass is outside of our known universe. It is not in the future but always in 4D space afore relative to the known universe. Further along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. The gravitational pull of the unseen mass will still be detected however. It will be a part of the dark matter.The gravitational pull of this un-seeable matter holds together galaxies that should otherwise fly apart.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 1, 2009 @ 02:46 GMT
....according to current models.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 1, 2009 @ 19:42 GMT
Dark energy is likely to be associated with vacuum energy. I have some problems with how those theories are formulated. The cosmological constant, here called L, multiplies the metric so that in a vacuum problem the Einstein field equation is

R_{ab} - 1/2Rg_{ab} = 8pi(G/c^4)Lg_{ab}.

Now the Ricci curvature R_{ab} is then proportional to the metric

R_{ab} = (R/2 + 8pi(G/c^4)L)g_{ab}.

This is called an Einstein space, where the curvature of the spacetime is constant. Spaces of this sort have certain moduli space properties for sourceless self dual forms. In other words there is no physical source for the curvature. Yet saying this curvature is induced by a source runs into some troubles IMO.

Dark matter is likely due to supersymmetry, and the likely candidate is the neutralino, which is a condensate state of the Higgs with the supersymmetric pair of the neutrino and gauginos. The Fermi spacecraft has detected ~ 1TeV gamma rays near the galactic center which suggest neutralino decay.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parrry wrote on Mar. 2, 2009 @ 03:09 GMT
Lawrence,

Doesn't the burgeoning population of particles within the Standard model disturb you? not to mention various other terms for the imagined and unseen.It needs pruning not more and more particles to make it fit with the latest theoretical misadventure. I found your last paragraph particularly disturbing. Would it be rude of me to say "pixies,elves, faeries and goblins?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 2, 2009 @ 14:07 GMT
The standard model reduces the population of particles! With the standard model there are only three doublets of leptons and another three for quarks. The gauge content of the standard model determines (Z, W^{+/-} and gamma} as the electroweak interaction. If the strong nuclear force is included (SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)) there are the chromo-gauge particles called gluons. There are of course open questions on how the family of quarks etc is connected to the spectrum of gauge particles. Yet I will defer discussions on technicolor and the rest for now.

The huge panoply of mesons and hadrons we observe come about from how these elementary particles are "put together." It is similar to what happens with atomic physics. The quantum physics for how an electron spectrum is comparatively simple. However, putting that together for complex atoms leads to some very complicated atomic spectrum --- but it all works very well. Much the same happens with QCD + EW theory, or the standard model.

Of course the big problem is gravity, where potentially there might be signatures of quantum gravity in the multi-TeV range of energy. There the standard model might be seen as some low energy phase condition, where at high energy matters of large extra dimensions and even string theory might enter in.

Standard Model rules!

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgin Parry wrote on Mar. 2, 2009 @ 18:54 GMT
Lawrence,

then perhaps it should just be considered science...fiction rather than fantasy. The Standard model needs revision. All of the bosons can go with the simplification of the Prime Quaternion model, as all forces are generated by dynamic interaction of particles within 4D space rather than transfer of particles.

However well the bosons have worked mathematically they should not be assumed to have any real existence but to be nothing more than an abstract means to handle the observed result of dynamic interactions. There is no such thing as a gluon, graviton or virtual photon or Higgs boson, not to any of the mention any of the spawn of these abstract mental fabrications.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 2, 2009 @ 19:13 GMT
To consider this according to quaternions one needs to consider the icosian system (the 120 cell or dodecahedrachoron), which is a root representation of the E_8 group. The "magic" of this exceptional group is that the root space of the group is also the group itself. The dual to the 120 cell in 4-d is the 600 cell (icosahedrachoron) with 120 vertices that are quivers of quaternions. The standard model will embed in such a system.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 2, 2009 @ 20:51 GMT
Mathematics, just like any other language, should be the servant of the intellect and not the master.

The prime quaternion model will work with the standard model so long as it recognised that non of the bosons are particles that interact but are merely descriptions of dynamic interactions in which no particles are actually transferred.

Likewise it will work with the mathematics of relativity, so long as it is recognised that relativity is confined to subjective reality in which time is experienced.

The difference is important.

On the one hand a model that explains all of the fundamental questions, works with existing laws of physics, works with relativity and, with adjustment of the current interpretation, also works with the standard model is found. Then the mathematics to describe that model has been ascertained.

On the other hand mathematics that appears to work is found and then an attempt is made to form a model of reality that conforms to that mathematics. Just because the mathematics works it does not make the interpretation of that mathematics correct.

Creative writing is great if you love science fiction and fantasy. Creative mathematics is no doubt great if you happen love that kind of thing. However both should be recognised for what they are and not mistaken for reality of any kind.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 3, 2009 @ 14:53 GMT
The mathematics defines certain symmetries, which by the Noether theorem tells us correspond to conservation principles. A symmetry then defines some quantity which is conserved, such as isospin or some other quantum number. So the standard model is probably embeded into some extended system, which defines a more general class of symmetries than the standard model.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 4, 2009 @ 19:59 GMT
Noether's theorem is not applicable to systems that cannot be modelled with a Lagrangian. Such as dissipative systems with continuous symmetries that do not necessitate a corresponding conservation law.

There is a fundamental asymmetry in the universe, namely continuous afore ward motion along the 4th dimension of all matter, from higher to lower potential energy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 4, 2009 @ 20:01 GMT
...That motion giving rise to gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 4, 2009 @ 20:19 GMT
It is a dynamic system, to which Noether's theorem would not apply, I would think.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 5, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
Strange attractor physics has an emergent fractal system of symmetries. These types of systems usually involve complex gain/loss mechanism which can't be understood in their fine details. Curiously Hamiltonian systems have an emergent fractal system as well, which are associated with breakdowns of KAM surfaces and the loss of certain symmetries or constants of motion.

With gravitation there is a Lagrangian L = sqrt{-g}R, for R the Ricci scalar. We should expect at the root foundations that conservation principles should apply and conform to some sort of symmetries. This might happen though in ways which are more general than unitarity principles.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 5, 2009 @ 22:59 GMT
Lawrence said "Curiously Hamiltonian systems have an emergent fractal system as well, which are associated with breakdowns of KAM surfaces and the loss of certain symmetries or constants of motion." Thats excellent to hear. Thank you

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 06:54 GMT
cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat

manfaat qnc jelly gamat

Obat Tradisional Kista Nabothian Tanpa Operasi

cara menjadi agen qnc jelly gamat

cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat

cara mengobati gondongan pada anak

cara mengobati kanker nasofaring secara alami

obat pembersih sisa janin setelah keguguran

cara mengobati kanker pankreas secara tradisional

obat tradisional benjolan di leher sebelah kanan

obat tradisional tipes untuk orang dewasa

obat tradisional untuk menghentikan haid berkepanjangan

Obat Tradisional Pembekuan Darah Di Otak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.