CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009)
[back]
TOPIC:
The fairness principle and the ultimate theory of not everything by Giovanni Amelino-Camelia
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 10:20 GMT
Essay AbstractI build a ``case for noteverything", with 3 levels of analysis. I first contemplate the complementary realms of ``faith" and ``science" and place the concept of ``theory of everything" firmly in the faith category. I then consider how ``mindsets of faith" affect scientific work, and compare the vast emptyness produced by the last few decades of the theory-of-everything fashion to the long list of wonderful discoveries produced by the ``noteverything mindset", which I illustrate through the examples of Planck's description of blackbody radiation, Einsten-deBroglie wave-particle duality and Fermi's powerful rudimentary theory of weak interactions. Finally I argue, of course less objectively, that even as a choice of faith the ``theory of everything" is rather awkward. A natural alternative is faith in a ``fairness principle", here proposed as a modern version of a principle first formulated by Kepler, which would imply that our journey of discovery of more and more things will not end or saturate.
Author Bio born in Napoli, Italia Undergraduate studies: univ of Napoli PhD studies: Boston University postdocs: MIT, Oxford, Neuchatel, CERN presently: tenured researcher at the Univ "La Sapienza" in Roma, Italy FQXi member (selected for a Large Grant in august 2008)
Download Essay PDF File
Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 01:38 GMT
The universe is causal. Demanding causality cannot be wholly encapsulated within a self-consistent mathematical model is indefensible. Proclaiming deities and paranormal cobwebs is frank cowardice. Human understanding isonly limited only by committees and their peer votes.
The singular biblical sin is knowledge: the tree of Knowledge, Gomorrah being burned from history for sins of the mind, the Vatican refusing to look through Galileo's telescope, the Flintstones as a documentary. You walk in others' small footprints and bask in their big noises. Important people work to create the future, not gather to mourn it.
report post as inappropriate
J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 02:23 GMT
Mr. Amelino-Camelia,
Thank you for a well written and thought provoking essay. I believe that we need have no fear of ever encountering a point in history when there will be no more mysteries of the universe to discover, no more puzzles to solve. I base this belief on the observation that the more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how little we really know about it and the more we realize how little we truly understand it.
I further base my belief on the scientific fact of evolution. By the process of natural selection, our brains gradually have become better adapted to making new discoveries about our natural environment, which has so far worked to our advantage in terms of survival. If we succeed in navigating the precarious phase of evolution in which we currently find ourselves (i.e., having brains ideally suited by evolution for survival in a hunter-gatherer society, but armed with weapons of mass destruction), then our further outlook on the far side of these precarious evolutionary waters should be promising indeed, hopefully finding us a race of beings whose knowledge of science will be tempered by an equal or greater degree of wisdom.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility." -- A. Einstein
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 04:28 GMT
I also have another argument against TOE. I optical fibers the pulse propagation is described by the nonlinear Schrodinger equation (NLSE) which has famous solitonic solutions. Now the NLSE is derivable in certain anharmonic region from Maxwell’s equations. You can consider Maxwell’s equations as the TOE of light, and still, NLSE has very different characteristics and uses inverse scattering (a completely different math) for solving it.
Similarly in medicine we fully understand now the circulatory system, the bones, etc, but we are still battling cancer. The point is that even after a TOE, emergent phenomena will keep physicists employed. Mathematics is infinite and so are the physical phenomena.
Still, the case for and against a TOE is open and I am not sure either way, what I do know is that physics axiomatization (Hilbert’s sixth problem) is mathematically feasible and this may one day be what people will understand by a TOE.
On a separate issue, I was wondering what would your response be to the claims of Nosratollah Jafari, Ahmad Shariati in gr-qc/0602075? Thanks.
report post as inappropriate
Sascha Vongehr wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia!
Thank you for having the guts to point to the fact that faith is a big and largely detrimental factor in the scientific community. This is one of my main points, and I will just add that it is not “even nowadays”, but especially nowadays, and not in spite of, but not surprisingly at all accompanied by vehemently denying any similarity with...
view entire post
Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia!
Thank you for having the guts to point to the fact that faith is a big and largely detrimental factor in the scientific community. This is one of my main points, and I will just add that it is not “even nowadays”, but especially nowadays, and not in spite of, but not surprisingly at all accompanied by vehemently denying any similarity with religious/esoteric mindsets. But let’s stick to the very core of your essay:
You have statements like: “when really we are not doing anything else but describe the worldview that is most appealing to us” [page 4]. I am sure you would admit that your main thesis is exactly falling into this very trap: “there will be a saturation in our ability to discover more and more things. But I find this hypothesis unpleasant and, in an appropriate sense, unfair” [p 3]. Well, the world is not fair! Anyways, because of your desire and your human “instinctive aspiration” [p 4], you “passionately argue however that this is likely not the case” [p 2 ]. What you feel is “not the case” is the “certain level of saturation” [p 2], “a saturation in our ability to discover more and more” [p 3].
You “advocate a perspective on the history of physics that provides some encouragement for this intuition” [p 2], but the human history is short and does thereby distort the understanding of underlying evolutionary mechanisms. In fact, your argument is much like the “oh the old Romans already claimed that the world will end soon with a youth like this, but it still did not”. Were the Romans wrong? No, just their intuition about the length of involved time scales was slightly off.
I encourage you to think less anthropocentric and widen your perspective towards inclusion of fundamental aspects of algorithmic evolution. You will come to understand that so called S-curves (rather than exponential growth) are the standard. Charles S. Pierce (1935) already proposed that long term evolutionary development must cause it to gradually lose its spontaneous character (reach the top of its S-curve) in any substrate (be it molecular, genetic or memetic). Nowadays, we call this emerging memetic terminal differentiation, were “terminal differentiation” originally comes from the description of the development of for example seeds or stem-cells towards specialized tissue (organs) – anyways, it is applicable to any substrate since algorithms are by definition substrate independent.
You are right in pointing out the detrimental influence of the somewhat religious “theory of everything” mindset. I encourage you to go beyond this symptom and look for the systemic origins.
Sascha
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 09:47 GMT
Hi Mr Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,Mr Vongehr,all ,
Interesting essay .
I agree too Mr Vongehr,Your analyse is pragamatic.
we are babies of the Universe still and the pleasure to learn and to always search the truth is essential ,fundamental ,basic ,rational ,logic,systematic .
A fundamenatl theory evolves too ,improves itself by complementarity .
I d like insist on...
view entire post
Hi Mr Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,Mr Vongehr,all ,
Interesting essay .
I agree too Mr Vongehr,Your analyse is pragamatic.
we are babies of the Universe still and the pleasure to learn and to always search the truth is essential ,fundamental ,basic ,rational ,logic,systematic .
A fundamenatl theory evolves too ,improves itself by complementarity .
I d like insist on the difference between the universal faith ,and the human religions ,it's totally different in its system on Earth .
The universe which evolves ,complexificates ,harmonizes itself shows us the building towards harmony ,thus a certain universalism is evident ,totally different than a human interpretation .
The faith ,this universality improves the equations ,it's a catalyzer of the research of truths and truth .
Let's take the entropy ,the energy ,without this evidence of ultim entropy ,our knowledges shall be differents,the problem of a weak evolution on Earth is due to the actual system which is the monney ,and the individualism ,we could evolve more quickly in a complemenatry system focus on priorities and harmonious systems but our story shows us the human instinct and the possible effects of the chaos ,just due to our young age and this past .
The problem of this planet is the human instinct and the global systems of individualism and not universalism and humanism .
We adds problems due to the bad governance at this moment and the lack of universalism and thus respect of all creations .
It's just a question of evolution and time ,we evolve fortunaly and the future will be better but I am afraid about the short time and our possible exponentials due stil to a bad human comportments where the knowledge of sciences is not a priority.
It's time to harmonise some systems around us ,the universality is that ,the sciences reponsability is so ,sos,so important ,well I hope what not only a weak part of people understand this reality ,and the need to harmonize.
The sciences can harmonise all systems .Our Earth is a system thus it's possible .
Regards
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Owen Cunningham wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 19:19 GMT
Ultimately this topic hinges on what it means to understand something. The two folk definitions of understanding I'm familiar with are: "If you can explain something simply, then you understand it" and "If you can predict how something will behave, then you understand it." I think it will ultimately be possible to achieve the first type of understanding with respect to the universe, but I don't think the second will ever happen. Science has trained us to equate predictive power with explanatory power. We should be prepared for the possibility that 100% explanatory power still translates to some amount of predictive power that, while nonzero, is still less than 100%.
report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 01:36 GMT
Hi Giovanni-
I think that the fairness principle is interesting from a philosophical perspective. However, an unlimited number of reasonable principles can be imagined. For example, the principle of parsimony, symmetry principles, the beauty principle (beautiful must be good), etc.
In my opinion, absolutely fundamental characteristics of nature should be used to guide us to a unified theory of physics. In my essay "Ultimate Possibilities of Physics", I explain that this is possible and results in a coherent theory, which explains and predicts many features observed in nature.
Sincerely,
Ben Baten
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 10:13 GMT
Hello all ,
I agree Mr Baten ,indeed the nature shows us the fundamenatls .
I am horticulteur too ,botanist and ecologist .It's a passion in fact ,I like plant and cultivate flowers ,vegetables ,trees....The nature and its splendids creations show us the truths ,the truth .
All has a spherical comportments without any doubt .All is correlated with these spheres...
view entire post
Hello all ,
I agree Mr Baten ,indeed the nature shows us the fundamenatls .
I am horticulteur too ,botanist and ecologist .It's a passion in fact ,I like plant and cultivate flowers ,vegetables ,trees....The nature and its splendids creations show us the truths ,the truth .
All has a spherical comportments without any doubt .All is correlated with these spheres ,spherisation,rotations ,spheroids ,circles ,ellipsoid ,tori,...all .
Since 12 years I class animals and vegetals ,more atoms ,molecules ,amino acids ,proteins,cells ,animals ,vegetals ,minerals ....more a cosmological link .
It's evident when we see the whole ,let's take the favotite sports of human too ,with spheres dur to the optimized rotation and movements .
Let's take our waves ,....
The seeds ,eggs ,....even the virus ,
Let's take the big revolution of our Earth ,the rotations ,the wheels ,the pullies ,the rotors,....even an wind system ,eolian.
Let's take our brain ,our glands ,our eyes ,our hands ....
We evolve in a spherical dynamic .
All is always balanced in two forces where the balance is the sphere .
The sphere and its properties is our fundamental ,the spheres evolve ....with its spherical lifes .
The nature is fundamental and its creations too ,and the objectivity is a reality ,the sphere relation is fundamental ,any system can contradict this fact of spheres ,spheroids ,circles ,ellipsoids ,tori ,......because we see them simply .The Theory of spherisation of the Universe by quantuùm spheres and their specific rotations is an simple evidence where the eyes see this reality ....a fundamental theory evolve and rest and furthermore we see it in all cen,ters of interest .
Math ^physics ,chemistry ,biology ,astronomy,philosophy,sociability,civilization,technology ....all is linked .The complexity returns to the simplicity ,simply .
Sincerely
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia!
Conscious observer has no faith. He is aware of consciousness itself. He is not a believer he is a knower.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear Giovanni
Excellent Essay. I have discovered that finding and opening that sought after door, or reaching that mountain peak, can only ever give us a new horizon. It opens up to view areas of nature far greater than that we knew before, but it also gives us far more to explore. Amost unfairly more! as we've been trapped with no way ahead for some time now.
I was stopped in my tracks by your comments on nesting dolls, and a new theory of noteverything, perhaps with "..limited realm of applicability and lacking mathematical rigor." to "..play a key role in changing a fundamental paradigm." as Fermi's theory.
I've become convinced, and think I've now largely proven, that such a theory, even a beautiful one, cannot now do that. Please view my own essay, ('Perfect Symmetry') and article link hidden in the posts under, that achieves this. It's fields within fields, from a galaxy cluster down to a single accellered proton, and Doppler provides the only maths needed for unification without paradox. It's an almost 'naive' unification model it's so simple, but you are absolutely right, it only brings us a slightly clearer view of the distant past and the origin of the universe.
But to change a ruling paradigm? Not with our current half closed eyes and minds. J.C.N.Smith above amplified my point well. Our brains simply haven't evolved enough and aren't ready for it yet. Or please tell me you think I'm wrong?!
Peter Jackson
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
I agree with you on your main point about *theory* of everything, but I do not quite agree with the “case for noteverything”.
Thus, although the main reason why the term ‘theory of everything’ appeared, as I see it, is the dominant pyramidal view of the organization of *natural sciences* (with physics at the bottom), the more interesting question about ‘everything’ is this. Do we need the *representational formalism* for everything, i.e. the universal form of data representation?
Interestingly, so far, we have actually relied on such representational formalism for everything, the numeric formalism: the number is the universal currency in science. So the answer to the question is ‘yes’.
However, as I discuss it in my essay, the more fundamental question about ‘everything’ has to do with whether we need to replace the numeric representational formalism for everything with another one.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 17:13 GMT
That could be well if the name "evolutive "was inserted in the name ?
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Juan Ramos wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 23:16 GMT
Giovanni:
I agree, the Universe is far more complex and full of information to put it in a single theory of everything.
On my essay (which should be available soon) I posulate only the UNIVERSE itself can contain all the rules we are looking for.
For us, there will allways be things to discover, and new theories to postulate, each of them a little better than the other ones, but never, ever complete.
Uncle Al:
Even if the universe is causal (which I might agree), who says the rules that govern it are finite?
report post as inappropriate
Juan Ramos wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT
Wait!
I just found the theory of everything.
For any given event or succes in the universe:
If it can be explained completly using quantum physics use quantum physics.
if it can be explained completly using general relativity use general relativity
else just say it works as you saw it.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 19:19 GMT
Hi Juan Ramos ,
It's well that ,I suppose what the name is the Theory of Spherisation ,a GUT of Rotating Spheres ,here is the ultim Gauge my friends and thus this theory will rest and will evolve .
Thus EUREKA hihihihiihi don't be frustrated we can all work together ....if you want of course dear friends .
I am too arrogant ,I am going to have still people against me but it's like that when you find something important and revolutionnary .
The jealousy is human like the vanity but we evolve hihihi fortunally
I have read your essay dear Juan ,verry funny to read .A good humor ,well placed with pragamatism .
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 13:53 GMT
Faith is one of many things that keep us from watching things as they are, so I try to be allways open and respectful to anyones beliefs. Most beliefs have a reasonable part in them. --as long they don't make people kill each other --
the quest to produce a TOE will surelly lead us to some good conclusions even if it does not produce a TOE.
I think there is enogh of us to walk the different paths.
But each of us has to take a position.
It's a great thing most essays do take a position
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 17:16 GMT
One of my friend says always that .
It's better to include ....never to exclude ....it's fundamental for the real respect .
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 23:57 GMT
I agree mostly with your assessment about TOE's. First off a TOE about quantum supergravity is not likely to tell us that much about how to predict hurricanes. I tend to prefer TODOE, "Theory OF Domains Of Experience." Given certain aspects of physics which appear incommensurate a unification amounts to some physical recognition about how these separate domains are in fact equivalent in some scheme.
Even string theory, if for now we assume this works at some foundations, is really an effective theory. It valences chaotic quantum foam or fluctuations from the lower energy world. The string world sheet in a sense "covers" them. So there is admitedly some domain of ignorance, which in principle could be open to investigation. I think that strings are Skymrion field effects from quantum codes and Planck sphere packings. This might take physics a bit closer to the absolute Planck scale. A closer theory might be mathematically codified by the "monster group."
The "end of physics" is probably coming whether we like it or not. I hope that we can arrive at a reasonable effective theory of quantum cosmology. We might push further if we are lucky to deeper underlying structure to that. I also hold out some hope for some body of empirical data which will support this. Yet we might find in time that we are in a sense lost and can't access data. It is my dread that we might already be there are near there with regards to quantum gravity.
I also suspect that physics might become a sort of applied service science tied to other areas of science, say biophysics. Even more we might find that the biggest area of late 21st century physics will be health physics or Earth physics. We might be forced before terribly long to get serious about cleaning up our mess here.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 00:40 GMT
Interesting approach ,
"I also suspect that physics might become a sort of applied service science tied to other areas of science, say biophysics"
Personnally I also suspect that physics become a kind of mathematical extrapolations without a real physical sense .
I name that the imaginaries .I prefer the reals .
The sciences are all linked ,even the math must be fundamentals .
A biological system is a pure creation of physics ....
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 09:32 GMT
Hope what the physics shall help this planet ,it's essential in my opinion .
I imagine the collaboration focus on priorities for our fellow man .
Let's imagine ,Lawrence ,Florin ,Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,Super Dr Cosmic Ray,Jason the creative ,Georgina ,Dr Corda ,Mr Smith ,Mr Johnstone,Brian ,Amrit,Ben Baten ,...I am persuaded what we can invent many concrete systems to improve the quality of life towards a prosperity .
They need helps .....and the scientists are so so important .
I wouldn't hurt anybody ,just catalyze a little .Sorry if I have been too arrogant .
I respect all of you ,be sure ,I am always impressioned by your capacities and potentials .
Take care all
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Member Louis Crane wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 19:10 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
I do not think faith has anything at all to do with the motivation for looking for a unified theory. The reason I continue to look for it is that the theories of fundamental Physics as we know it are very similar to one another, all of them are classically just differential geometry, and curvature is always the fundamental variable. The three branches of theoretical Physics, relativity, gauge theory and dirac theory of fermions correspond to the tangent bundles of manifolds, abstract bundles, and spin bundles. This is such a strong formal coincidence that looking for a common unifying structure is natural.
In his infamous book on gravity, Feynman said it was a miracle Einstein found the exact lagrangian, then went on to say the similar methods couldnt possibly apply to matter. The advent of Yang Mills theory was only a few years away when he said this. So fancy schmancy mathematics isnt such a bad idea after all.
Having a TOE doesnt make the world less full of mystery. Complex systems have emergent phenomena which cannot be deduced from the underlying physical laws.
For many purposes Faraday's "electric theory of matter" is already a unified theory. Does the fact that lightning and chemistry have the same underlying force mean the world is any simpler?
So no, I dont think Physicists are motivated by faith at all.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 12:02 GMT
Hello Mr Crane and Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,
I agree Mr Crane ,it's well said and well resumed.All fundamenatls Theories shall rest ,are unified and shall evolve too towards this ultim unification with our evolution time of course.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Narendra Nath wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 06:36 GMT
Faith is funadamental to science as to any other human activity. Tying to religion is just a matter of mind for some who may have developed allergy to religions as these were considered opposed to science. it is not true in Asian continent where the religions never oppesed search for truth by any means, science was lauded and encouraged. Faith boosts the energy and consciousness leevls of any individual and provides one enthusiasm and vigour to persue the search for truth. Personally i rate the developments in Physics to be dependent on three pillars, concepts/precepts,experimetal observations and mathematical theory. The latter two are mere tools while the first provides the basic ground work for the understanding. It comes out of a discerning mind that is disciplined and unbiased, capable of independent thinking. It is here that consciousness gets involved too.
May we all ma
report post as inappropriate
Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 04:20 GMT
‘ … The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute …’
If the universe creates itself out of nothing and continues to do so, then the sum of everything inside of it, including spacetime itself has somehow to remain nil, so things certainly do not have an absolute kind of existence, a reality outside the universe –the ‘somehow’ being the main subject of...
view entire post
‘ … The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute …’
If the universe creates itself out of nothing and continues to do so, then the sum of everything inside of it, including spacetime itself has somehow to remain nil, so things certainly do not have an absolute kind of existence, a reality outside the universe –the ‘somehow’ being the main subject of physics. If (see Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe) particles, stars and galaxies create each other and so only exist to each other as far as they interact or keep exchanging the energy they need to exist, then they have no absolute existence, no reality outside of interactions, outside their universe. The idea that an object can have an absolute kind of reality, as if there’s some higher realm, some authority outside the universe to whom it exists and can be observed is a purely religious notion. Anyhow, since we consist of particles, the ‘outside world’ is not completely independent from us, hence Schrödinger’s cat.
‘ … Our present formulation of the fundamental laws of physics is inapplicable to contexts in which both quantum mechanics and general relativity play a non-negligible role (…) that quantum mechanics and general relativity both played crucial roles at the big bang…’
The reason for this inapplicability is that general relativity is a classic theory, formulated around the notion that objects do have such an absolute kind of existence, that is: that the mass of particles only is the source of their interactions and not (as quantum field theory in fact says) also their product. Besides the universe having no need for a bang to get started (so there isn’t even a singularity where the two theories can clash), the mass definition I propose seems to have all basic elements to build a relativity theory with quantummechanics at its heart and so is free from the flaws of the present version. The problem, then, is that we believe the mass of particles to have an interaction-independent component, as if there’s an unassailable holiest of holy inside the particles which cannot be affected in any way, and which indeed would create black holes with finite horizon diameters, with sigularities at their center. If, however, the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of their interactions, then there can be no singularity, no points of infinite density and zero volume, nor can the hole have a finite horizon diameter. Though the mass density of objects may have no limit, the density of any real object has a finite value.
‘…From “within” each doll it should only be possible to get information on neighboring dolls …’
If particles to keep existing, keep exchanging energy, then with this exchange they communicate all information about all particles in their universe, so a particle, like a hologramfragment, contains all data of the whole, be it that this information is less definite, more vague the smaller the fragment is.
‘… an effect of gradual saturation of our ability to uncover new phenomena (…) the substantial lack of progress … of the last quarter of a century…’
To me the origin of this ‘saturation’ seems to lie in our excessive respect for ideas and concepts which may have passed their sell-by date, in our aversion to leave the comfort of our belief in the gospel truth as proclaimed by our revered patriarchs of physics, in our lazyness or lack of imagination. If what has been useful in simpler times now obstructs its development and has become cause of our misery, then physics perhaps needs an overhaul which doesn’t spare cherished concepts like those of charge and antiparticles, of the idea that gravity is exclusively attractive. As outdated ideas produce inconsistent theories, we perhaps construct problems which nature itself isn’t aware of, problems we cannot solve as we created them ourselves and in the process cultivate the idea that the universe itself is impossibly complicated, as if it had to get at least a PhD in physics before being able to create itself.
The job Copernicus started apparently is far from finished: after acknowledging that every point is at the center of its own universe, part two is to finally admit that as there’s no clock outside the universe, no point from which unambiguously can be determined what precedes what, the concept of causality has become useless in physics. Only in a universe produced by some outside intervention things can have an absolute kind of reality, an interaction-independent existence, being only related by having the same creator, their behaviour more a kind of side-effect of the properties they’ve been provided with rather than related to the need, the effort to keep existing themselves. In a universe where things create each other, they are far stronger related than causality can account for.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 10:37 GMT
Giovanni
A well written essay. But there is a well known syndrome in history. When war breaks out the generals tend to refight the previous war; i.e. the war they experienced first hand as junior commanders in the front line. The war that is over.
While I agree that there are always individuals with the Alexander/Caesar/Napoleon complex who believe they can conquer the whole universe, the TOE war ended a long time ago. Hawking surrendered many years ago. Weinberg has (almost) faded gracefully from the scene. Davies, who through his popularisations did more to promote the concept than any other individual, has Talleyrand like emerged unscathed. Having a good nose for where the action is, he has moved on - beyond physics.
You are refighting a war that is over while the new war thunders around our ears. The front line is Emergence versus Reductionism. Old war horses like Weinberg are urging on the reductionists. Emergentists such as Laughlin are posing challenges that threaten to overwhelm them. If they do and if Biologists or Cognitive Scientists get the upper hand in the Consciousness battle, then physics as the fundamental science, with or without the Higgs will, have to surrender its sovereign power. It will become a backwater of science.
University enrolments already confirm this. Apart from emphasisng a basic fact of human psychology that some of us have delusions of grandeur, your essay is about the recent past of physics; not its ultimate future.
report post as inappropriate
Bee wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 13:52 GMT
Hi Giovanni,
A very interesting and well written essay, though it meanders around the actual answer to the question what is possible in physics. If I apply some good will, what you are arguing could be summarized as since we'll never know whether a "TOE" is really a theory of everything, we can't conclude from it what's possible or not, even if we had it. Which is basically what I said in my essay :-)
Anyway, what is more in the focus of your essay is the accusation that those researchers who strive to find a theory of everything are lead by faith and not by rationality. Well, I can't exclude that this is indeed the case for some physicists, but it doesn't match with my experience. There are just researchers who think mathematical consistency is the better guide, and there are researchers that believe testability is the better guide. And there have to be people of both kinds. You write
"Over the last decade a small community of quantum-gravity phenomenologists has found ways to devise data analyses that provide genuine Planck-scale sensitivity, at least for a few effects that could plausibly characterize the quantum gravity realm."
Yet, you are just hiding your own "faith" in the word "plausible," which expresses your own "believe". I am very sure the the majority of our colleagues would disagree on the "plausibility of this Planck-scale sensitivity". And why is that? Because the approaches you are referring to lack mathematical consistency, but let's not dwell too much on that here. Research being what it is, we don't know which criterion is eventually the more useful one. It might very well be that your colleagues are right and once they have sorted out the maths, they will be able to make a strikingly correct prediction. It might very well be you are right and it's more useful to demand predictions first, even on the expenses of mathematical consistency. But neither of both is more than an expression of personal opinion, possibly spiced up with anecdotes from the history of science.
And as Louis said above, even if there was a TOE as in a final fundamental theory (though we could never prove it is), this wouldn't mean the end of physics, since it is far from clear - in fact even doubtful - we would be able to derive all emergent features we observe from that theory. I commented on that in my essay. It would just mean that the "frontier of knowledge" shifts elsewhere and physics recalibrates its direction, and many other fields of science have done throughout the centuries. Best,
Sabine
report post as inappropriate
Bee wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 14:06 GMT
Oh, forgot: your mentioning of an "ultimate theory of not everything" with the infinite series of nesting dolls is the same as Paul Davies' infinite tower of turtles (as in contrast to the levitating superturtle). I commented on that in my post
Turtles all the way up.
report post as inappropriate
NN wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 14:43 GMT
May be my Sept 28 post is not worth any significance to to the author of thr essay. i need be responded to in that case. My apologies.the end part of that posting seems to have gotten erased and i have no way to reconstruct it now.
report post as inappropriate
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,
In my understanding that the formalisation of TOE is the ultimate evolutionary probabilities of physics, in that all theories of not everything to be generalised in fairness principles, is the objective you have described in this article, am I right. I fully agree that there is no end for ultimate physics as there is major constrains on quantification of gravity for the interpolation of scale transformation in renormalization.
The Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model also have fine structure constant problem same as in Lambda-CDM model of cosmology. The inability of this model to describe the origin of dynamics of the universe is also states the same that there is no end for ultimate physics. Thank you..
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 19:17 GMT
Fortunally Mr Crane arranges the squarisation ...
"Having a TOE doesnt make the world less full of mystery. Complex systems have emergent phenomena which cannot be deduced from the underlying physical laws."
Always full of mysteries due to our EVOLUTION ....bzzzzzzzzz the fly of the bee without name .Apis vulgaris thus hihihihi let's smile a little .
I repeat too a fundamenatl theory evolves and rest .....never confound ...
Steve vespa spherica ,hymenoptera in spherisation hihihi
report post as inappropriate
Philip Vos Fellman wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 21:29 GMT
Giovanni:
Thank you for a fine paper, relating your key points with superb clarity. I have long felt that the most ill-informed statement a physicist could make in front of virtually any audience (and I have seen this more times than I can count, particularly when someone announces a result which is relatively singular in nature anyway) is "of course, once we have a complete picture of nature..." (usually implying that this is just over the horizon).
I also felt that you raised some key epistemological issues, and that particularly from the standpoint of category theory, there are deep flaws in the "theory of everything" approach which lend it the flavor, ab initio, of an impossible enterprise. Not only is there the whole compass of the Hilbert/Gödel debate here, but I like the way your paper reveals the hidden infinite regress in the theory of everything approach. T.O.E.'s contain far too many assumptions about mapable, known and knowable categories, most of which, as you so succinctly point out are either unnecessary for the enterprise of scientific discovery, or are downright inimical to it. The TOE approach is also one which if I might verge on the self-referential, "promiscuously mixes language and meta-language" and by extension improperly mixes or creates ill-defined relationships between scientific method or framework and results.
Cheers,
Phil
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 11:18 GMT
Hi all ,
When I read the essay on this thread ,I was happy to see in fact the sense of this work .Never a theory is finished ,it's a good analyze indeed because we are youngs at the universal scale .Thus I agree.
On the other side this kind of essay is a little too personal and a lack of universality is present .
I think what like in all centers of interest ,a balance is necessary for a whole point of vue evidently .
The quest of the truth isn't a play but a real work where all is balanced in correlation with our 3D laws and the time constant .
The faith is an universality and permits to encircle our rule of human like catalyzers of our ecosystems .I insist on the difference about the human inventions and the universal creations and fundamentals .Our eyes show us the reality which evolves like all .
In the research of the truth ,many theories are falses but some are trues ,there the difference with the reals and imaginaries are essentials .
The philosophy is an universality where ineteracts the fundamentals .
Kinds Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 18:41 GMT
hihihi I know now ,it's sabine ,the bee ,hihihi ,mu curiosity helped me a little .It's a bad habit for me ,it's not a bad habit in fact ,it's well to be curious I think ,without that we know nothing in fact hihih
I am going to read your paper ,I am nice you know ,bizare sometimes but pragmatic and nice hihihi
Hope I will be quiet ,I take my medicaments you know ,let's go stevi some neuroleptic to stabilize your hormons hihihih
Let's laugh a little dear friends ,it's good for health ,sciences ,faith ,universality and laughs = eureka
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 23:58 GMT
Fundamental sciences should have reached maturity. Thomas Eagar listed all novelties in his discipline for intervals of five years each. After a period of acceleration, the number of essential contributions reached a climax and fell to zero while simultaneously the number of conferences, publications etc. continued to grow.
Let's hope for revealing very basic mistakes. I consider the chance pretty high. Why? I do not hate but I love contradictions, ambiguities, non-causalities, and signs of arbitrary instead of natural decisions.
Given, mathematics will abandon Cantor's aleph_2. The world would certainly not immediately benefit much from such overdue correction. Bad ghosts and white holes are likewise irrelevant. After how many years can the presumably negative outcome of LHC's search for SUSY be judged? I do not suspect a flaw of everything, just an almost ubiquitous trifle.
I agree with Uncle Al: Any science has to be based on the traditional concept of causality while, in particular, rigorous mathematical formalism can be unfair.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 04:14 GMT
Greetings Giovanni,
I enjoyed your essay and have quite a few points of agreement in my own contest
essay. I argue that instead of looking for a single theory to knit our world-view together, we should be looking for a broader framework, and using as connecting pieces many bits of knowledge we already have.
A lot of people feel it's important to find that one theory which, by its rightness, excludes the possibility for any other theory to be correct. I am instead of the opinion that; if there are a number of well-framed theories, all pointing to a similar result, this is compelling evidence that what they point at is something important to examine or investigate. I am at a loss to see why people would want just one working description. I explore the opposite extreme in my paper.
I think each step in the ladder of theoretical understanding is important, as your essay also indicates. But my essay stresses that we should be attentive to developing broader frameworks for our knowledge, instead of looking for TOEs prematurely. My idea is that the search for Quantum Gravity has been too driven by what you refer to as the TOE mentality, and preventing us from discovering the road to ultimate unification. I based my essay on a couple of articles I'd written more than 10 years ago, and it appeared that not much had changed since then.
I'm glad to hear that there is some progress on testable Quantum Gravity formulations. Are you familiar with the Relativistic QM experiments being conducted with Graphene? I can look up a reference.
I may have a few more comments or questions, but that's all I have time for now.
All the Best,
Jonathan J. Dickau
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 06:33 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
While insisting that the end of fundamental physics is nowhere in sight, you do acknowledge the "recent standstill", ie, the lack of new discoveries. If, as I believe will be the case, there will be neither Higgs nor new particles found at the LHC, then the end may be closer than you think. I am assuming that by fundamental physics you mean particle physics, and that a TOE...
view entire post
Dear Giovanni,
While insisting that the end of fundamental physics is nowhere in sight, you do acknowledge the "recent standstill", ie, the lack of new discoveries. If, as I believe will be the case, there will be neither Higgs nor new particles found at the LHC, then the end may be closer than you think. I am assuming that by fundamental physics you mean particle physics, and that a TOE means only that it is consistent with all currently available experimental data.
You seem to view this as the end of the world, and a desire for a 'theory of everything' as almost evil. You ask "who could want that", referring to the end of fundamental particle physics. I assure that many tax-payers would want it, but I also believe that many physicists would far prefer a theory that led to true comprehension of the nature of the universe versus the eventual end of fundamental physics due to a "saturation" in our ability to discover more and more things. (Physics as consumption?) Perhaps the CERN and LHC workers resist such a notion, but I wouldn't be surprised to find your view a minority one among all physicists. I believe that more people enter physics in a search for understanding than to pursue an endless rat-race of data acquisition/particle collection.
Other commenters above have touched on several of these themes, including your "faith" in your approach, clearly derived from your personal desires. As one stricken with the "theory of everything" virus, I prefer an ultimate understanding to an eternal quest. I would deem it "unfair" if such were denied mankind, in favor of an endless accumulation of facts.
As to the feasibility of such a TOE, assume for a moment that nothing new is discovered at the LHC. Does that mean we're stuck with the Standard Model? Not on your life. The lack of a Higgs almost guarantees that QCD is wrong, even nonsense. Most current views are those formed beginning in 1900 when only alpha, beta, and gamma rays were known, and Planck's constant. The experimental and theoretical tools imposed a framework that was necessary to model "point" particles slammed from minus infinity and measured at plus infinity. Second quantized creation/annihilation operators and symmetry/matrix analysis techniques were favored as tools for discovering collision products. But if the particle zoo is complete, new 'non-point' analysis techniques may be possible, so that "looking back" from 2000 becomes completely different than "looking forward" from 1900. That is, the tools of explanation may be vastly different from the tools of discovery.
If there are no new particles found, what would a new theory do? It would resolve/explain the many mysteries currently existing in particle physics and cosmology. How could the Standard Model achieve so much and yet be drastically wrong? In the same way that you describe how Fermi's 4-point model, while completely missing bosons, still managed to "describe and predict several weak-interaction processes."
A poor analogy, but not completely useless, may be to consider the search for fundamental particles as analogous to the search in biology, pre-1950, for proteins. Today we believe the human is made up of about thirty thousand different proteins, so let's be generous and grant you thirty thousand more fundamental particles to be discovered as we progress to the Planck realms. Discovering all of these proteins would have been of questionable value, but the discovery of the DNA structure and mechanism was ultimately valuable. We don't need to discover any more fundamental particles. We need a DNA-equivalent idea.
Finally, you remark that a Theory of Everything would endow us with God-like powers. It's hard to know just what you mean but I assume you are referring to ultimate engineering capabilities, which may or may not follow. Others have remarked that 100 percent explanatory power does not necessarily mean 100 percent predictive power. Emergent phenomena tend to resist prediction, and the most interesting physics of biology and even materials science are truly complex in comparison to fundamental particles, and the "discovery" which you lament as missing will still occur in these fields.
It may be that your remark about God-like powers is due to your imagining a Reductionist fantasy, whereby everything, matter, life, consciousness is derived from elementary building blocks (a la Lego). For an alternative possibility, read my essay, but if you vote, please don't shoot the messenger.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
nnath wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 06:25 GMT
i tend to agree with the brief comment of Edwin Klingman. The simpler the theory the more likely it will enhance Physics, provided the concepts/ precepts have been chosen in consistency with the study of Nature done thus far.
report post as inappropriate
Aaron P wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
A nice bit of fun Giovanni, some light relief, but well expressed. I really can't see us running out of mountains to climb. Especially with a complete new range now in sight. You really must go to the 'Perfect Symmetry' essay by Peter Jackson and do some exploration through the layers and links. Very few have seen it so far but there's a well of holy grail hidden there. I think you may be the man to find it.
To the future
Aaron
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 06:59 GMT
Giovanni,
A very good treatment of the wider aspects of a TOE. I liked its combination of science and humanism with both taken to a deep level.
Have some fun and take a look at this effort at extending the wonderfully ugly "old quantum theory" at: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/514
This theory will definitely not bring an end to physics :)
Wishing you the best in this contest,
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
There are people who enjoy chasing mysteries, and there are people who defend the mysteries. The two categories are not disjoint: you may want to defend a mystery because you like to explore it. When we read a joke, or a detective novel, we keep ourselves away for reading the last line before reading the whole story.
I enjoyed reading this essay, because it was well written and the arguments were as good as they can be. The essay attacks the idea of a theory of everything along three lines: 1) that searching a TOE is based on an unjustified faith, and not on science, 2) that this research was sterile for physics, 3) that the objective should not be the TOE, but the fairness principle.
I will try to explain now why I think that the main idea of the essay is not very correct, and not entirely healthy for science.
I am forced to split my comment, because of its length.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 09:17 GMT
Claim 1: Searching a TOE is based on an unjustified faith, and not on science
The "faith" behind the idea of unification is that:
a) nature obeys a set of laws
b) these laws are consistent one another
Clearly, any attempt of doing science is based on the idea that there are laws to be discovered. And when we test the candidate laws, we opposed them to the experiments,...
view entire post
Claim 1: Searching a TOE is based on an unjustified faith, and not on science
The "faith" behind the idea of unification is that:
a) nature obeys a set of laws
b) these laws are consistent one another
Clearly, any attempt of doing science is based on the idea that there are laws to be discovered. And when we test the candidate laws, we opposed them to the experiments, we develop logical consequences and test them, or compare them against well established results. So, every attempt of doing science is based on a) and b). But a) and b) also lead to the idea that there must be a set of consistent laws which rules "everything".
Not, the "faith" part, in my opinion, would be if one will believe that having these laws may endow us with omniscience or something like this. I exclude this possibility from our discussion (although great minds may believe this). What remains when the majority discuss about TOE is a complete set of rules satisfying a) and b).
If somebody want to reject the idea that there is (in a mathematical sense) a complete and consistent set of laws for the universe, then he either reject the possibility of science in principle, or our capability of finding them. The present essay seems to propose that there is a set of laws, but there is an infinite way, continuously progressing, but never reaching them all. While I consider this idea very plausible, I don't think there are compelling reasons to adopt it.
"A key problem here is that the only claim that can be verified (or falsified) scientifically is the claim that a given theory is consistent with all presently available experimental data. The claim that a certain theory will also be consistent with the outcome of all future measurements that the human race will perform is a possible choice of faith but could never be described [3] as an established scientific fact."
But isn't any theory proposing that it is, and it will ever be confirmed by experiments? Do we know a theory which is totally confirmed, such that it is impossible for future falsifications of it to occur? For example, the theory relativity, after a century of confirmation, is sometimes considered wrong by one physicist or another. So, it is always a matter of faith that a theory will last. The ones who are searching for a TOE know this very well. But this should not stop them: they try to find the Theory of "Everything we know so far". It is an unfair criticism to say that their research is based on faith, as opposed to the research of more incomplete theories. It is an incomplete theory (aka "of not so everything" more likely to be true than a complete one? No, of course. But it is indeed difficult to find the complete theory, it is more likely to discover incomplete pieces of the puzzle.
I agree with the discussion of free parameters. Indeed, there is no compelling reason to rule them out of a TOE, and there is always possible to formulate a theory so that some of the parameters appear to be free. Perhaps it is more appropriate to search for a theory with a minimum set of free parameters.
Yes, the complete set of physical laws is independent from man, but this is not a reason that we should not search it, or that we will never find it. The same can be said about every progress we made in physics. All the discoveries we made were independent from man, and we still were able to make them. This argument works as well against science, if it works against TOE.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 09:24 GMT
Claim 2: the research of TOE was sterile for physics
Let's say that there are two problems under research, a simple one, and a complicated one. In general, simpler problem are solved easily, with less resources, in less time, than the difficult ones. The difficult problems may remain unsolved for years, for generations, and even forever. Should we try to solve only the simple problems?...
view entire post
Claim 2: the research of TOE was sterile for physics
Let's say that there are two problems under research, a simple one, and a complicated one. In general, simpler problem are solved easily, with less resources, in less time, than the difficult ones. The difficult problems may remain unsolved for years, for generations, and even forever. Should we try to solve only the simple problems? Clearly no. I think that the great progresses were made when complicated, apparently impossible problems were attacked, although a lot of important progress (probably the majority) was made from solving simple problems. Maybe the progress arising from solving difficult problems was more spectacular, and maybe we tend for this reason to underrate the importance of the progress caused by solving small problems. I think that they both are important. Finding a TOE is clearly one of the most difficult problems. But ruling it out on the basis that little progress was contributed by this research to the TOE itself, or to other branches of physics, is unfair. One expect that difficult problems consume lot of resources, and that the result is not guaranteed.
"it is legitimate to suspect that at least part of the responsibility for the many decades of failures of quantum-gravity research should be attributed to the enormous influence of the theory-of-everything fashion."
There is a lot of research on quantum gravity not based on TOE. I remember Rovelli saying that LQG is not a TOE, it just tries to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity. Clearly string theory has more aspirations as a TOE, but this is because some particles emerged in this theory, which is hoped that correspond to the particles in the real world. I mean, string theorists believe that they can obtain the standard model and gravity with the same stone. Maybe they are wrong, and maybe they spend a lot of time without making progress in physics. If they are right, then many of their results will turn to be of great value. If they are wrong, then many of their results will turn out to be trash, or at most to be interesting math, but even in this worst case, it would be unfair to blame this for the lack of progress in Physics.
"The quantum-gravity problem can be naturally described as a combination of many different challenges [7] for the present formulation of the laws of fundamental physics, but according to the theory-of-everything mindset the only acceptable efforts of development of formalisms to be used in the investigation of the quantum-gravity problem are efforts directed toward a theory that simultaneously solves all of these aspects of the problem."
There are many articles trying to solve particular problems, and there are many articles trying to sole many such particular problems at once. This has little to do with the mindset, rather is a strategy. A physicist may have a vision of how a particular phenomenon or even the entire physical world is, and may try to formulate it rigorously. There are simply different strategies. You may believe that it is a better strategy to solve one piece of the puzzle at a time, but there are many situations in which solving several problems at once is the best approach.
"Clearly the pioneers of the wonderfully ugly \old quantum theory" were not concerned with the "noteverthing" nature of their results. It is fortunate that the theory-of-everything epidemic was evidently still under control at the time, since there could not be a fully developed quantum mechanics without first going through the old quantum theory."
I agree with this passage, because indeed many important results can be obtained when we try to solve apparently small, or at least "noteverything" problems. But the quest for universal principles also led to important breakthrough. Newton called gravity "the universal attraction". Galileo's principle of relativity was supposed to be universal, and it was the idea of making it universal that led to special relativity. And the idea of making it even more universal led to general relativity. Of course, searching for universal principles may lead to dead ends, and I will refer here to Pythagora's school, and to Kepler's idea of the planetary orbits as expression of the fundamental beauty of regular polyhedra. Generalizing too much is not good. When the adepts of TOE do this, they are, of course, mistaken, and they transform physics in numerology. But generalizing against TOE is equally wrong.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 09:29 GMT
Claim 3: the objective should not be the TOE, but the fairness principle.
Who, if would find the TOE, would keep it secret, to let the other the pleasure of discovery? Who, when will see an article describing the true TOE, will avoid reading it, to have the pleasure of solving himself the puzzle?
"A theory of everything would endow us with God-like powers, masters of the laws of the...
view entire post
Claim 3: the objective should not be the TOE, but the fairness principle.
Who, if would find the TOE, would keep it secret, to let the other the pleasure of discovery? Who, when will see an article describing the true TOE, will avoid reading it, to have the pleasure of solving himself the puzzle?
"A theory of everything would endow us with God-like powers, masters of the laws of the Universe."
This is unrealistic and unreasonable faith, indeed. So let us not discuss as all, or the majority, or at least many of the TOE searchers believe this.
"The idea of getting a theory of everything is the idea of the end of fundamental physics. Who could possibly want that?"
This is an exaggeration, again. It is like saying that knowing the axioms of geometry is the end of geometry. Yes, it may be the end of trying to find the complete set of axioms, but not the end of geometry. Moreover, even if Euclid stated the axioms long time ago, researching these axioms led to great progress, like non-Euclidean geometries, Erlangen program (which led to the great idea of the role of symmetry in geometry and physics), Hilbert's program, and of course, the related results on the difficulties of the axiomatization of the set theory and the number theory.
"How would our condition be bearable without the intrigue of possibly discovering still new phenomena?"
This danger, even if TOE will be find, is absent. You may say that there is the danger that, if Perelman proved Poincare's conjecture, you can no longer be the first one to do this, but you still can make contributions, and you can still have other areas where you may research. If somebody believe this, and if he will have an epiphany and discover and understand the TOE, would he keep it secret, just to allow the rest of us the hope to find it, or parts of it?
"This provides the basis for my "fairness principle", which I do not know how to describe sharply, but basically assumes that every generation of humans will have roughly the same opportunity of being challenged and intrigued by fundamental physics."
This really is faith, and I will not argue against it. I just don't know what the future generations will face, I am sure that they will have their challenges, but this cannot rule out the possibility of finding the TOE. Possibly, they will at least have the possibility to devise more sophisticated experiments to find some new decimals of some constants, but I cannot know.
"Of course this "fairness principle" is neither better nor worse than any other choice of faith, but I encourage especially my youngest readers to embrace it, since I find that it puts us in the best mindset for research in fundamental physics."
This may be true, and helpful. My own recommendation for putting us in the best mindset for research in fundamental physics is: "work on a problem until you are sure you can understand it completely and that you can explain it to others". I do not imply that there are researchers who don't adhere to it, I just say that I would like to apply it myself more often.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 09:52 GMT
Conclusion
I tried to explain that the essay above fails to show that
1) searching a TOE is more "faith-based" than doing physics in general
2) searching universal laws is more sterile than solving easier problems
Yet, I agree that the third claim
3) all generations will have an equal share of doing fundamental physics research
may be useful, although...
view entire post
Conclusion
I tried to explain that the essay above fails to show that
1) searching a TOE is more "faith-based" than doing physics in general
2) searching universal laws is more sterile than solving easier problems
Yet, I agree that the third claim
3) all generations will have an equal share of doing fundamental physics research
may be useful, although there is no evidence for its validity. The point I consider good in this essay is that it prepares the researchers for the possibility that they will not find the TOE. I see the main point of the essay that:
i) each researcher should be aware that he or she may not find the TOE or contribute to its discovery, but still can do important research
In my opinion, there is a second one, although the author of the essay will not agree with me:
ii) each researcher should be aware that it is possible that other research team will find the TOE, but he or she still can make important discoveries
I would add:
iii) even if TOE will be discovered and you did not had the chance to contribute to the discovery, you still have the challenge and pleasure of understanding and mastering the theory, and to develop and test it
iv) if someone is discouraged by the possibility that a TOE will appear and steal from us the joy of discovery, then he or she can use the mindset of the principle of fairness. But some others may be motivated by the perspective to contribute to the discovery of the TOE.
I believe that fundamental research has, as an important component, the quest for a unified theory* of fundamental physics.
_______________________
*The term "TOE" is misleading, because it claims too much, but I used it in this review because it is customary.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 14:35 GMT
i see that the author has attempted the essay text to be factual and has expressed that the end of Physics is far away. He is right when we examine the way Physics ahs developed over the years. lately it finds itself devoid of new ideas/concepts and that is why it is presently limited mostly to new mathematical corallories of earlier research and experiments are becoming increasingly dependent on technological developments that are becoming increasingly costly. What is lacking is the novelty or innovative aspects by way of fresh ideas/ concepts. Only the later aspect requires a freshness of approach. tejindre's essay provide one such ray of hope by way of mesomorphic regionn of physics taht lies in between classical and quantum mechanical. thus providig smoothness to the two extremes of appraoch made like classical and quantum. There are difficulties in looking at problems that may require such an approach where neither h can be taken as zero or what its value is. The early universe in my view provides such a scenario because of the extreme conditions prevailing then. The stars were emerging from cosmic dust which itself took a long time to generate from the nucleons, nuclei and atome/molecules. One ne3eds massive single structures that are in between atoms and macroscopic matter. may be large nanostructured crystals of heavier elements than carbon may be attempted. It is the technique of preparation that is needed to evolve such structures and the today's experimentalists have a challenge before them, where Physicists and chemists need to work in close collaboration with life scientists to plsn innovative approaches towards such an objective. i wish i could be more specific but i hope some intelligent and imaginative young scientist w2ill come with freshness and free approach for such innovativeness.
report post as inappropriate
Author Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
dear all
I have just found out that there are already some comments to my essay. Perhaps it is best if I start by just making a few remarks that appear to be relevant for common features of several comments.
A general observation is that it seems that some of the aspects of the essay which I considered more marginal actually end up being of particular interest for several readers,...
view entire post
dear all
I have just found out that there are already some comments to my essay. Perhaps it is best if I start by just making a few remarks that appear to be relevant for common features of several comments.
A general observation is that it seems that some of the aspects of the essay which I considered more marginal actually end up being of particular interest for several readers, which surprises me but of course is not necessarily a bad thing. But just for clarity I want to organize my comments with the structure of two parts: a first post (this one) on the issues that I considered central for the essay, and a second post (later) on other parts of my essay
With respect to "what is ultimately possible in physics" each one of us of course is fascinated by different perspectives. The “possibility issue” that carries most significance for me is the idea, nowadays very popular, that it might be possible to reach in a not-so-distant future the end point of fundamental-physics research (of course still leaving us with several challenges at the level of the phenomena that "emerge" from the fundamental laws, but that is another issue)
Both the fact that we did not have any major discoveries for a while, and the content of a large part of the recent fundamental-physics literature appear to make a strong case that this possibility is real. But I believe (and tried to argue) that this is just an illusion, and intended to center my essay on two observations
(1) the realm of the TOE concept is outside science because it aspires to a characterization that lies beyond the reach of the scientific method, but in spite of this the myth of TOE is affecting in very profound way the strategies we have recently followed. We must be open to the possibility that this might have been at least in part responsible for the lack of discoveries in fundamental physics of the last few decades
(2) the variety of scientific discoveries that science has produced were achieved following a large variety of intuitions and strategies... several were accidental... very many of them were of my preferred type (the type I illustrate with the contributions of Bohr-Somerfeld, de Broglie, Fermi...)... some perhaps were achieved by scientists driven by a certain intuition of formal/conceptual nature (many authors would claim that General Relativity was discovered in this way).... But in the recent/modern literature it seems that the deBroglie-Fermi(-Glashow)-type methodology is "out of fashion" and I argue that this is a horrible mistake, probably responsible at least in part for the recent standstill of fundamental physics
In relation to other comments I should perhaps stress that, while I evidently find reasons for concern with respect to this myth of the TOE, I am instead not at all uncomfortable with research programmes that are driven by "conceptual intuition", rather than experimental/phenomenology input, as long as these research programmes use this for attempts to establish genuine scientific facts. The arrival point of course must be experimental, but en route I am guessing it is legitimate to adopt any personally-preferred balance of "conceptual intuition" and "experiments/phenomenology"
I do feel that "conceptual intuition", which perhaps we might also describe as "elegance-driven strategies", has been a bit overrated in recent decades. Intuitions aiming for example for "unification" or "mathematical rigor/elegance" have contributed to some successes of physics and are certainly worth pursuing further hoping that they may lead to other discoveries. But to think that this was and should be the main strategy for science amounts to neglecting the way in which most discoveries were made
Because of my research interests I am often told that I "put the cart in front of the horse" because I look for ways to test experimentally theory proposals whose logico-mathematical consistency has not yet been fully established, and I take these characterizations as compliments, but probably they are not intended as such. The image most modern physicists have of theory work is that you first find a perfect theory (even most of those who don't fall for TOE still essentially look for "perfect theories") check that it is formulated according to rigorous mathematics, and that it answers all the known puzzles, and then, only if all this is successful, it would be legitimate to attempt experimental tests. It seems that only a minority of colleagues is aware of the fact that most key discoveries were not made following this strategy.
view post as summary
Author Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 18:34 GMT
PART 2: I would say that it is only a marginal aspect of the perspective I propose the one that concerns trying to characterize how our human nature ends up so frequently leading us to the assumption that
- Nature is "elegant" (and by the way we of course have a very good sense of what is elegant)
- what we have seen is all there is
I do believe strongly that when a discovery fits well with our perception of "elegance", then it means the discovery is not that big after all. I much prefer discoveries that force us to rethink our entire worldview and forcefully (better yet, unpleasantly) impose upon us the need to acquire a new "sense of elegance". And we have had some. Fortunately our views concerning "elegance" have evolved quite a bit from the times of Aristotle's Earth-surrounding crystalline spheres....and I am ready to bet they will keep evolving, mostly following (rather than driving) the experimental discoveries
From the posts I also see that, as a result of the clumsy wording I found, readers end up attaching more meaning than intended to my brief remarks on a mathematical toy model with structure resembling the one of nesting dolls. The essay emphasizes that I fortunately have no idea what is ahead of us, not even behind the next corner, so with the nesting dolls I was definitely not trying to propose some sort of actual model. It was the best way I found for giving some structure to my amusement with the idea of a toy model that could be used to illustrate the concept of "fundamentally noteverything". In a certain sense my essay is about "de facto noteverything" and all I care about is the "de facto level" ( in an appropriate sense, I would reserve the label "exists" only to the "de facto level") but it was amusing to contemplate the possibility of finding a formalization of "fundamentally noteverything"
many thanks to all readers, and particularly those who choose to offer criticism or encouragement. Hopefully using this feedback and getting myself more educated on some relevant subjects I might at some point be in a position to strengthen my "case for noteverything". After finishing the essay I find myself subtracting time from my "number-crunching day job" to really study (rather than glance at) the works of some of those who have thought most carefully about the scientific method and the "demarcation problem"....I am starting to get the impression that these challenges are not easier than quantum gravity...and it appears hard (though, intriguingly, perhaps not absolutely impossible) to develop a "phenomenological approach" or even just a "perturbative approach" to these subjects...
cheers
Giovanni
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 03:31 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
Your response is long enough to satisfy the commentators on your post. You are correct when you say that the limitation of language and expression cause misunderstandings, specially in website discussions. Face to face meetings are the best to reduce such distractions, as we have in workshops/conferences,etc. In fact my own essay on this forum puts similar emphasis, being myself an experimentalist. You are already on top in the competition and certainly wish you to continue your outstanding achievement till the end of this healthy competition.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Giovani ,
Happy to see your answers .It was time hihihi
I try to encircle your aim in physics ,
I d like say one thing very important .When a theory is fundamental ,it hasn't any strategy .Like in our Universe ,any strategy is real .
A fundamental theory and its equations evolves,it is a process of rationality .
Any words or laguages are necessary to encircle the music of our Universe and its laws .
I agree what many theories are ironics but don't confound .
The imaginaries and reals ,all is there ,pragmatism or ...
All fundamentasl equations and theories are in complemenatrity because they superimpose themselves very simply .
Like a beautiful puzzle .It exists virtual puzzles and real puzzles .The most important is to make the correct balance ,pragmatically and with rationality .
Our physicality is our physicality ,some models thus are on the good road if the border is created .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
Admittedly I feel unable to learn anything from your musing. I explain the high ranking of your essay to very appealing words in your abstract: " I ... place the concept of ``theory of everything" firmly in the faith category."
While I vote for a return to science instead of faith-based rigorous science fiction, you did not tackle what I consider a possible reason why science putatively made a jump in the early 20th century but seems to make not much fundamental progress now. Those who intend applying for a patent have to criticize the belonging state of the art first. New ideas arise from analysis of deficits. Why not look for possibly overlooked or ignored fundamental mistakes first? Was Hermann Weyl the last one who admitted: "We are less certain about the ultimate foundations of mathematics"?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 20:49 GMT
Hello Dear Eckard,
I have some difficulties to encircle why people confound all in fact .
I admit wht the actual sciences are like sciences fictions but not all .I don't like in fact the generalization .Always in all extrapolations of the mind ,a pragmatic balance is necessary .
It's the same when you say about the faith .What is the faith ,it's not a play ,a dream .No it's personnal .There where that becomes relevant ,it's about the universality .Let's admit dear Eckard that we aren't fate .The supranatural doesn't exist .But there is a reality which we can't ignorate.
Personally I think what our Universe is a fantastic equation in evolution towards the perfect harmony between mass systems(spheres) and their creations .
We can't ignorate our evolutive past which shows us the evolution and the improvement .When a mind is open to the universe ,it's faith is universal ,it's totaly different than a human invention .
The sciences show us the musics of properties ,the fact to be catalyzers if we want is a proof of the equation like a cause of this Universe .The things are well organized .How do the elemenatry particles know how they must become in fact ,the fact to have a code in a space in evolution and in a constant of time is too a proof of this ultim equation of building .We are a results dear Eckard ,and all results have a cause .I d like have your point of vue about that .Can we consider the sciences without any universality ,I think no .
I am sometimes desesperated to see so many confusions about sciences ,it's simple in fact ,I beleive too much confusions exist at this moment .
Reals or imaginaries ....
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Nick Mann wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 23:13 GMT
Dr. Amelino-Camelia,
Very interesting paper. You haven't achieved your community ranking for nothing.
Out of curiosity, would you characterize superdeterminism as faith-based?
report post as inappropriate
Author Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 01:52 GMT
dear Nick
thanks for the encouragement and for a stimulating question.
It seems to me that there are many versions of superdeterminism in the literature, but let me focus on the term "superdeterminism" as used to describe certain attempts to reformulate quantum mechanics with a local hidden-variable theory.
In this respect I can comment that according to my ultra-old-fashioned ultra-narrow definition of science two theories with the same set of observable predictions are strictly equivalent scientifically.
So the academic study of the strutural differences between two theories with the same observable predictions would be a study of "not science" (which a provocatively like to call "faith")
But let me stress that finding equivalent reformulations of a known theory can be a key resource for science if used as part of a strategy to describe new phenomena. The fact that two theories are scientifically equivalent does not imply that they are equally powerful from the perspective of looking for deformations or generalizations of the (single) theory in question.
Let me take the liberty to illustrate this also making some publicity to the work of Antony Valentiny, a friend who has also benefited from FQXi support. A particularly interesting part of Antony's research takes off from the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave equivalent reformulation of quantum theory. But Antony's path led him to investigate a modification of the pilot-wave formulation of quantum mechanics (involving nonequilibrium distributions in Antony's framework) which are outside the domain of standard quantum physics. Antony has a new scientific theory, which in principle (and hopefully also in practice) is falsifiable.
cheers
Giovanni
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
Your key argument seems to be that "a theory of everything" is a drawback and a hindrance to the honest pursuit of physics, and also offends your sense of "how things should be". But as I indicated in a previous comment, many physicists are inspired to understand the universe, not merely to collect data endlessly.
You say that the only thing that can be verified...
view entire post
Dear Giovanni,
Your key argument seems to be that "a theory of everything" is a drawback and a hindrance to the honest pursuit of physics, and also offends your sense of "how things should be". But as I indicated in a previous comment, many physicists are inspired to understand the universe, not merely to collect data endlessly.
You say that the only thing that can be verified scientifically is that a given theory is consistent with all presently available experimental data.
Giovanni, I am mystified why you claim "it is far too easy to end up being convinced that our reasoning is really unbiased objective conclusions, when really we are not doing anything else but describe the world view that is most appealing to us."
Why do you exclude the fact that a theory of everything should also make predictions?
In fact, now -- before the LHC comes back online -- is the perfect time for new predictions.
My essay predicts no Higgs will be found, but the theory goes beyond that to predict that no new particles at all will be detected, with the possible exception of resonances of currently existing particles: No Higgs, no axion, no SUSY, no new particles! And this includes "gravitons", that is, no gravity waves will be discovered (outside of LHC).
Certain predictions of my theory have already been discovered, such as the "perfect fluid" seen at RHIC when QCD was predicting a "weak quark gas". Also, the negative core of the neutron, when all QCD theories predict a positive core. In addition, I predict that the b to d quark decay produces two gammas, rather than the one now seen. Only one is seen because two gammas are filtered out, interpreted as pi-zero decays. I also predict a possible five gamma decay of tau-taubar, just as my theory predicts the recently seen J/psi three gamma decay.
Unless I am mistaken, these predictions are more solid and more detailed than any other essay in this contest. I hope these comments will be saved and remain accessible on the FQXi site, as it should be only a year or so until LHC will prove my predictions true (or false).
If prediction still means anything in physics, then I hope all FQXi participants take note of the above.
Finally, you say that "the urge for a theory of everything (whatever that could mean) is so overwhelming that the obvious mismatch..."
What is could mean is, as you stated above, compatibility with all known experimental data, and it should make sense of current mysteries of physics, of which there are many. And it should make predictions, as I have above. Of all of these, the predictions may be the most significant, so hold on to these for the next year. When you find them to be true, you can come back and study my theory.
If I have missed anyone else's predictions, I wish someone would point them out to me.
Thanks for your consideration,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 18:23 GMT
Cristinel,
You are right that searching for a Theory of Everything is no more based on faith than doing physics in general. The thing that is often not realized is that all science is based on faith. Man’s current scientific method generally begins with the creation of a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a belief of how you think something works in reality when the way that it...
view entire post
Cristinel,
You are right that searching for a Theory of Everything is no more based on faith than doing physics in general. The thing that is often not realized is that all science is based on faith. Man’s current scientific method generally begins with the creation of a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a belief of how you think something works in reality when the way that it actually works is still unknown. This is faith, pure and simple. It may be just based on wishful thinking, which would be a case of blind faith, or it may be based on information provided by previous observations of the world, which would be faith guided by observation. All faith whether scientific or not (religion, etc.) can be of either type. The next step in the scientific method is to design experiments to test the hypothesis for its degree of validity (or in today’s negative way of looking at everything, to try to falsify it). The fact that such experiments are necessary demonstrates that there is inadequate evidence to consider the hypothesis more than a matter of faith until more information is acquired to justify it to be a valid theory. Even if the results of the experiments are all favorable, so it is then considered a valid theory, it is still not considered to be the inerrant truth, but is only properly considered to be the closest to the truth that is currently known, if no other theories of equal or greater validity exist. A true scientist would always keep his mind open to the possibility that a better theory may still be out there somewhere because he understands that all theories are just approximations of reality (except the one that is just a full accounting of reality in that area) and it is generally not possible to know if the current favored theory is that one because some new observation may show it to be lacking in some area. Science necessarily starts with faith and works toward knowledge of absolute truth, but always falls short of its goal, so faith is still a part of all of science at all levels and will remain so unless man were to someday truly obtain absolute truth in all areas or otherwise gain a complete knowledge and understanding of all of reality. I consider that to be very unlikely in this world, but then that is just a matter of faith based on my observations of man’s science.
There are two possible types of theories of everything and the approach that will be best to identify it in entirety depends on which type truly represents reality. The type that is usually sought after is one in which there is a single simple base of structure and everything else is built up upon that base. This is usually considered the best case scenario because one could hope that some relatively simple equation or small set of equations could be the source of all more advanced structures such that the understanding of more advance structures could be extrapolated if one could understand the base equation(s). This is the type most often sought after and there is much basis in observation to believe that it may be the type that conforms to reality. It is also the type that best fits the concept of intelligent design of the world. The second type and the one that would be most likely to come from a world based on chance happenings is one based on many separate basic systems that came about randomly probably at different times with no common base so that getting a complete understanding of any one base (its basic equation(s)) would only allow you to extrapolate those understandings that result from that base. In such a world, you would need to get an understanding of all of the bases and their equations to be able to extrapolate all more advanced structures. The Theory of Everything in that case would be the complete set of all of the bases' equations plus all interactions between bases and their extrapolated structures. This type of world would be much more complex and, therefore, difficult to understand. The approach of searching for the Theory of Everything would be more successful if the world conforms to the first type of structure, while the approach of searching more generally for new knowledge would likely work better if reality conforms more closely to the second type of structure. The main problem with current searches for the Theory of Everything is that one must have a sufficient base of observational data to allow such a theory to be reasonably determined and at this time there still is a lack of adequate observational information and adequate interpretations of currently available information to allow man to adequately resolve the base structure to the degree necessary to find the base equations. At this time man still considers energy photons and matter particles to be the base structures instead of resolving to the level of the motions that make them up, so inadequate information is being considered to get any true understanding of the properties and interactions of those motions and their relationships with the dimensional system in which they exist. Current theories, therefore, do not take the various interactions of these motions with each other in the structure of the dimensional system into consideration and are thus incomplete and inaccurate.
A fairness principle only makes sense in a world that was made by a being intelligent enough to be able to conceive of and believe in the concept of fairness and to see the benefit of including it in his creation. There would be no likelihood that such a principle would be incorporated into the design of a world governed by chance happening because concepts like fairness are the result of higher intellectual processes.
Congratulations. I think that you may now hold the record for the longest multiple post here. I was worried that I held that distinction, so now I feel much better knowing that I am not alone.
Giovanni,
You are right that there are yet many places and things in the world that man is not currently aware of. Man’s understanding is currently greatly limited by a lack of ability to observe and work outside of a very narrow scale range in many areas, such as size and motion amplitude, etc. Other limitations are the result of not extrapolating and understanding the basic structure beneath the level of energy photons and matter particles, etc. that would allow man to understand what generates them and to explain how they can be changed from one to the other and what causes the rest mass structure of matter particles and the dynamic mass, frequency, and wavelength structure of energy photons and matter particles, etc.
It is true that advancement in science is tied to observational experimentation, but there is another element that has been primarily overlooked in recent years and that is instruction in the area of pattern recognition in the experimental data. Man should have long ago recognized from observation of experimental data that both matter particles and energy photons are composed of motion. From that basic observation it is not extremely difficult to get a general idea of how that motion must be contained in these entities to generate their observed properties, but while in the past some recognized such patterns through being gifted with such abilities or acquiring them through life experiences, this type of structural pattern recognition ability has actually been trained out of today’s scientists.
You are right that first there must be observations. Then there must be the recognition of overall patterns in the observed data. Then a hypothesis can be generated to explain the patterns. Next experiments must be designed to test the validity of the hypothesis and if it passes the tests, it can be considered a valid theory. So-called theories that began as math models rather than from observations of reality and have not been experimentally tested against observed reality are little more than conjectures or beliefs lacking evidence. They are in essence the cart without the horse.
When we look at the world we do see that it is structured with many small subassemblies combined together to generate larger more complicated subassemblies, which are in turn combined together with other subassemblies to create still more complex larger assemblies, etc. in much the same way that man designs a complex structure such as a car, except they generate an overall system that is much more complex than a car. All of these structures combine and work together often in very complex ways according to complex rules or laws. It is this organized structure that allows man to use science to gain an understanding of the world by observing and learning the rules by which it functions and their interactions that occur in the various hierarchical structures of which the world is composed. A world based completely on random happenings could not be understood by science. It is a reasonable possibility that a world that is composed in the manner that we observe this world to be, may very well have at its base a simplest structure that is built on a simplest concept (rule or law). The problem is that to get to that most basic law you must start from a level of observation that is at least somewhat close to it and man is not that close yet. It is like trying to fully understand how a tree works when all you have seen so far is the bud at the end of a small branch and a few smaller offshoot branches with leaves on them. You may think that you have a good understanding of the tree, but you still don’t even know that such things as a trunk and roots exist. Man is currently in that position in his endeavor to understand the world around him. It doesn’t mean that there is no theory of everything (the most basic law upon which all others are built). It is just that man is nowhere near close enough in his current level of understanding of the world to be able to extrapolate it out because there are still too many other layers of structure to uncover before it becomes visible. Because of this, you are right that the most effective approach is to work on all fronts to overcome scale problems and work through the levels until arrival at the most basic law. It will then be obvious.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
NN wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 10:21 GMT
The curser came to clear the format written by me, beware!
The competition is soon to end. This essay emphasized the singificance of experimental approach. Let us hope some innovative ideas get implemented to raise the level of Physics soon, e.g. the reported attempt of a Vienna group to test the varaitionalness of Planck's constant in between 0 and h, say for nanostructured heavy samples involving the mesomorphic region of Physics proposed by Tejinder in this forum. Experimentalists have not been keen on FQXI forum. May be the Organisation of FQXI has theoretical dominance. Such biases may not result in upgrading the broader picture of Physics involving all the aspects like, conceptual, empirical, experimental and theoretical. Dominance of mathematics in Physics may not help Physics grow, but it does help
in formating the conceptaul ideas.
report post as inappropriate
Author Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 21:37 GMT
dear Edwin and Paul
your posts appear to adopt perspectives that are very significantly different from mine, but my essay is not really about priority/supremacy among perspectives. It is perhaps about the survival of one of the possible perspectives. I felt compelled to write an essay because I find that the type of narrow view of science I could discuss is gradually disappearing from the...
view entire post
dear Edwin and Paul
your posts appear to adopt perspectives that are very significantly different from mine, but my essay is not really about priority/supremacy among perspectives. It is perhaps about the survival of one of the possible perspectives. I felt compelled to write an essay because I find that the type of narrow view of science I could discuss is gradually disappearing from the fundamental-physics community. But I would not go as far as claiming that the narrow perspective I advocate and adopt is the only fruitful perspective. What I do feel is that if this narrow characterization of science (and the strategy for doing science that it leads to) are somehow eradicated completely, it would be a terrible loss. Other, broader, perspectives can be effective and have been effective, but it would be objectively incorrect to deny the effectiveness of the type of mindset that I describe in my essay. I actually would venture saying (and do suggest in the essay) that among the many perspectives that have proven valuable for the development of science the one I describe has the best proven record of achievements. Some would argue that I am describing an "old way of doing science" and that the modern times require us to "replace it with new ways". I would rather argue that it is natural that with science reaching new levels of maturity we discover new types of fruitful perspectives and mindsets, and of course exploring Nature from a multitude of perspectives can only be a positive, but nothing of what we have learned renders in any way obsolete the mindset I describe in the essay.
Some of the specific observations you make in your posts can be discussed in relation to these points:
Edwin writes "many physicists are inspired to understand the universe, not merely to collect data endlessly". I am honestly unable to imagine what the expression "understand the universe" could actually mean. Please be certain that here I am not "playing dumb" (or "playing smart"). I realize I am in a minority because the use of the expression "understand the Universe" is objectively very common. But I never figured out a way to give meaning to this expression. The mindset I describe in the essay is of course at least in part inspired by this. But even those who found a way to give meaning to "understanding the Universe" should not then consider my case for a certain mindset for doing science obsolete. We all need to "collect data endlessly"! My narrow characterization of science is centered on the collection of data. Some of us will use them to understand the Universe, others will stop at the level of describing aspects of the Universe. I am characterizing debates on this distinction between "describe some" and "understand all" as very interesting debates that however lie outside of science, since they concern something that cannot be established experimentally. I would argue that we can be certain that the "anomalies" of the orbit of Mercury were not due to a new planet (Vulcan), but we can instead debate endlessly about the demarcation between "describe some" and "understand all". In a certain sense it does seem to me then that science stops at the level of "describe some", leaving the prospect of "understanding all" beyond the reach of science. But this is not some sort of "philosophical supremacy", but rather just a result of the fact that "describe some" is less than "understand all" (even assuming "understand all" has any meaning).
From a similar perspective I can also offer some comments to Paul’s remark that in doing science we do have at least one type of faith which is at the very start of any research program when we formulate "a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a belief of how you think something works in reality when the way that it actually works is still unknown", using Paul's words. I would say that there is indeed a danger to end up having faith in a hypothesis, thereby introducing possibly some bias in its investigation, but this danger can be avoided. According to the mindset I advocate it is perfectly legitimate to formulate appealing hypotheses, but only intended as candidate tools for our exploration of Nature. We test them experimentally to establish their effectiveness (or lack thereof), but without imagining that a successful hypothesis is taking us any closer to “the truth”. This puts us in the healthy mindset of going ahead using/adopting the hypothesis as long as it works, but well prepared to abandon the hypothesis at the first robust indications that it is running out of effectiveness.
Cheers
Giovanni
view post as summary
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 03:02 GMT
Dear Paul, dear Giovanni,
Paul, you developed and explained well my affirmation that "searching a TOE is no more "faith-based" than doing physics in general", and you provided in the mean time your own interesting view.
You said:
"The main problem with current searches for the Theory of Everything is that one must have a sufficient base of observational data to allow such a...
view entire post
Dear Paul, dear Giovanni,
Paul, you developed and explained well my affirmation that "searching a TOE is no more "faith-based" than doing physics in general", and you provided in the mean time your own interesting view.
You said:
"The main problem with current searches for the Theory of Everything is that one must have a sufficient base of observational data to allow such a theory to be reasonably determined and at this time there still is a lack of adequate observational information and adequate interpretations of currently available information to allow man to adequately resolve the base structure to the degree necessary to find the base equations."
Let us say, for simplification, that we are trying to induce general laws from particular measurements of a system, for example to find how a quantity y depends on another quantity x. We draw some dots, representing (x
1, y
1), (x
2, y
2),..., (x
n, y
n) and then try to find a function f which connects them, so that y
i=f(x
i). Let's consider that our measurements are precise, and that the dependence of y on x is exact. In this case, there is a large set of possible functions f which fits through all the data, and each new data helps us eliminating them. But new data doesn't necessarily help us too much coming with an equation y=f(x).
What I mean is that we have too much data, not too little, and it is difficult, if not impossible for us to handle it in order to induce the fundamental laws. In time, we may try many sets of laws which fit this data. Any new observation will help us filtering the theories we proposed until that date. So, I see two stages (I am simplifying much the problem, to emphasize the idea):
1. find all possible functions f which fits all the data, let's say {f
1, f
2, ...f
k}
2. conduct new experiments covering as much x data as possible, to eliminate some of the functions f, hopefully all but one.
The first point is difficult for us because of the complexity of the data. When we will have the first possible f, we can say we have a candidate unified theory. But it is impossible to have all. After that, if we have two or more such candidates, we go to the step 2, but we cannot cover all possible x data. We will make our choice by considering the predictions of the possible candidates so far: we conduct experiments for some x for which f
i(x) and f
j(x) are not equal. So I would replace 1 and 2 with
1'. find some possible functions f which fits all the data, let's say {f
1, f
2, ...f
k}
2'. conduct new experiments covering some x data which can differentiate between the candidates proposed at 1'
with the mention that it is possible that the new data inspire us to add new candidates, so perhaps we will cycle between 1' and 2'.
I think that, if we don't have all the data available, we should, in principle, be able to create more unified theories. Our present data clearly is fitted by f
0, the true set of laws. So, an intellect powerful enough (infinitely powerful?) should be able to find at least one candidate, f
0, to which we may add some other possible candidates which fit the present data, but which can be invalidated in the future. It is even possible to have more than one f
0 which fits our universe, but there is at least one.
Well, if we believe that the word is mathematical, we can find instead of f
1, f
2, ..., some classes F
1, F
2, ... containing all the f
1, f
2, .... On example is the class of all mathematical structures (Tegmark). Another one, more fitted to the physical theories, is defined in my
World Theory. But these classes are too generic, they contain both structures which fit all the data we have, and structures which don't fit it, and we have no way of picking among the infinite number of such structures the good ones. Having such a way, will help us to realize at least the step 1, if not 1'.
Best regards,
Cristi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 04:54 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
You note that "understand the universe" is a very general term, yet agree that it's in common use. I don't subscribe to the belief that a theory of everything will confer "God-like" powers, or that we'll ever have a theory compatible with all known data but not subject to future revision.
But clearly a correct theory of physics aids "understanding the universe". For example, I received my 16 Oct 2009 issue of Physical Review Letters in the mail yesterday and noted a paper (162001) concerning a "hadron molecule" interpretation of X(3872). The idea is that the X(3872) particle is a hadron molecule formed from the D-zero and anti-D-zero particles. The problem is that the binding is so weak, approximately 0.25 MeV, that no one can understand how the X can appear so promptly in the high energy collision environment. The data is there, we just don't understand it.
Think of a snowflake in a welding torch flame.
The Standard Model assumes the D-zeros, produced in a 1.76 TeV proton-anti-proton collision, are created separately, then must somehow bind weakly into a "molecule", almost immediately.
My theory's particle creation model, based on the C-field vortex has the X(3872) being created in the weakly coupled state in an intuitively simple fashion.
Phys Rev Letters often reports results that don't make sense in the Standard Model but that are easily interpreted in my model, at least qualitatively. I can't calculate the X(3872) cross section, but the PRL paper only uses SM Monte Carlo programs "tuned" to match the data.
There are many particle physics, cosmological, and biological mysteries that I believe are due to our current theories. A "theory of everything" should resolve these mysteries. This is the type of understanding I aspire to, and the broader the theory and the farther its reach, the happier I am. But there will always be mystery.
Congratulations on your top ranking.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
NN wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
i agree with Edwin that the broader the theory, the more likely stand the test of time. Rge author,Giovanni is also right when he emphasis the block by block approach and testing with experiment, to derive furhter theories with greater and greater blocks. This way also we do get to a broader theory. Besides, there can be path breaking concepts that can bring revolutionary change suddenly. The last has not happened for several decades, help me envisage that the intuitional/conceptual appraoch has its own advantages, provided it takes note of all the unsolved problems/mysteries that require a homogeneous way towards solution/resolution. What one needs to under the circumstances, depends on individual knowledge, temperament and training. The latter vary widely and thus let us all best whar we can and leave the rest for time to judge! Be happy and loving towards one and all, even if we differ madly over our approaches towards the solution.
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 20:55 GMT
Giovanni,
I think that our approaches to science may not be as different as you think. If my understanding of your concept is right (you can tell me if I am wrong) we both believe that in order for science to stay connected to reality it must be based on observation rather than man made math models, etc. without observational input and confirmation. We seem to both believe that...
view entire post
Giovanni,
I think that our approaches to science may not be as different as you think. If my understanding of your concept is right (you can tell me if I am wrong) we both believe that in order for science to stay connected to reality it must be based on observation rather than man made math models, etc. without observational input and confirmation. We seem to both believe that observational data must be looked at for patterns that would lead us to possible rules of the structure of, and possible relationships of interaction between, the entities that we observe that generate the resulting data patterns that we observe. These conjectures of the causes of the observed data are the hypotheses. You are right that if one can remain completely neutral in his selection, there is no faith involved. This is usually not completely possible because there are usually several possible interpretations of the data patterns and to select the appropriate experiments to run one must often chose to go with just one of them because of limited time and resources, etc. This action of choice (even if the data seems to lead one more to that choice than to another one) is usually based on the belief that following that hypothesis is more likely to result in the true or best understanding of the cause of the observed data patterns. This belief is faith based on observation even if you are willing to give it up if data from further experiments proves it to be wrong or leads one to believe that another hypothesis is more likely to be a better one to follow. As a result of that faith you make a decision to act that will make it easier to come to the best understanding of the cause(s) of the observed data if you’re faith is right, but may make it harder to get to that best understanding if you are wrong because you will then need to change to a different hypothesis (belief or faith) and do new experiments based on it. Faith is belief and as I said before it can be based on observation or not. What I didn’t cover yet is that faith can be either open or closed. Closed faith does not allow a change in belief even if the observational evidence indicates that it is wrong. Open faith, on the other hand, continually looks at new data and allows belief to be changed if the data indicates a change is needed to make the belief correspond closer to reality. Many people think of faith as existing only in the blind and closed variety, but this is not the case. We cannot function without forming and having beliefs or faith in things and concepts, etc. because they are prerequisites to making intelligent choices or decisions and intelligent choices or decisions are prerequisites to taking intelligent actions, such as deciding what experiments will likely be the most useful ones to perform which leads to actually performing those experiments. If the resulting data from the experiments that are performed always agree with the hypothesis over a period of time, that belief or faith becomes more established in the minds of people as more likely to be a true representation of reality or at least as a close similitude of reality and is then called a theory. One with an open belief system (as I believe you are describing in your communication) will still not consider the theory to be an established closed belief or faith, but will still keep his mind and faith open to further observational data that might show it to be lacking in detail or even to be false. Since all of our observations are indirect, we can never actually have absolute knowledge from those observations. All of our knowledge is, therefore, truly based on belief or faith. It is just faith based on more and more observational data as we make more and more detailed observations over time. The important thing is to keep our faith open and based on observation to the greatest degree that we can in all things. This applies not only to science, but applies to all areas of life, even including areas such as religion, etc. When one understands things at this level it becomes apparent that all things are joined together and that such things as religion and science that most consider to be mutually exclusive really are not. That belief is usually based on the belief that religion is necessarily based on blind and closed faith or belief, but that is not necessarily true because the form of faith that one uses is determined by the user and not by the subject or object of the faith. One is perfectly able to use open faith directed by observation to arrive at the most reasonable religious belief based on observational data. One can even use hypotheses based on observations to direct one into making further observations to test those beliefs and consider the hypotheses that always agree with the observed data to be theories, etc. I realize that this last part may go beyond what you are used to thinking about as a valid object of scientific study depending on how open you have kept your mind in this area, which I don’t at this time know since you have not mentioned your belief in this area in detail at least as far I remember. I do believe from what I have read of your writings here that you may consider faith in a more limited context than I am presenting here, however. It, of course, would be apparent if people were either open minded or closed minded on all things, but that is another one of man’s quirks in that a person can be very open minded in one area and very closed minded in another area because we not only have the ability to chose to keep our faith open or closed and based on observation or wishful thinking, we also have the ability to make different choices concerning one belief than we do for another. In reality we all come short of always keeping our minds open and basing all of our choices on observation concerning all topics or areas of thought. All we can do is to try to do so the best we can.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 21:08 GMT
Cristinel,
I believe it probably is possible to completely describe the world using math, but the end result would be well beyond the ability of any man to follow and completely understand because of the limitations of the math subset of language. As an example, you could probably completely describe a car with a series of math formulas that would give all of the details of the size,...
view entire post
Cristinel,
I believe it probably is possible to completely describe the world using math, but the end result would be well beyond the ability of any man to follow and completely understand because of the limitations of the math subset of language. As an example, you could probably completely describe a car with a series of math formulas that would give all of the details of the size, shape, and connection, etc. of each part to others, etc., but it is generally easier for us to understand the car for our practical uses by observing the car and its parts and having the purpose of each part described to us in general terms and receiving the information as to how each part’s purpose fits into and is joined with the purposes of all of the other parts to generate all of the functions of the car in the same way. All of reality is an extremely complex hierarchical structure with many levels of structure built up upon each other. It is not possible to look at the top level and determine from that alone what all sub levels are like. It would be like looking at a car drive down the street and extracting from its outside appearance and actions every detail about all of its internal parts and how they all work together. If you go back a little over a hundred years to the time that the atom was considered the absolute smallest entity of matter it would not have been possible to construct a math theory based on what was then the limits of current knowledge that would have described all of the details of the next lower hierarchical level of sub atomic particles because you would not have access to all of the necessary variables of that level because they had not yet been observed at that time. The same thing is true today. Man has not yet recognized that matter particles are composed of several motions, so he does not understand why collisions between particles of matter do not always yield the same result, but instead yield several different results with various probabilities of each occurring. Two things must occur to rectify the problem. The first and actually the easiest is to understand a matter particles basic motions and how they interact in the dimensional system to generate the particle’s structure and behavior in interactions. Since matter particles are composed of one motion in each of five dimensions, it is not an extremely difficult concept to understand how they work generally, but making a math model that fully describes the interactions of all of a particle’s motions and all the variations of how the motions of two particles can interact with each other to generate all of the observed output results and their various probabilities is somewhat harder. The hardest part though is to find out how to be able to observe those motions dynamically so that they can be synchronized to produce the desired outcome from a given collision. An understanding of how to do that cannot be gained until the general understanding of how the motions work in relation to each other and the structure of and interaction of motions in the dimensional system through its various interfaces between the dimensions, etc. is understood on a conceptual level because until then all of the applicable variables will not be known, but I will tell you this much. The key is in the fifth vector (dimensional) velocity.
You might be able to construct a mathematical model so comprehensive that you could be sure that there is a place in it to place any possible variable that could exist in reality, but until all of those variables were discovered and inserted it would be of little use. To some degree this is somewhat the condition that string theory finds itself in today, although that group of theories is really not that complete yet.
I will also tell you one more important thing in trying to make a theory of everything, which is that even when you understand all of these things you still won’t be at the lowest level. The world contains many more things and places that man still has no conception of.
To give you a general idea of what you would have to model, consider an entity that is traveling in the lower three dimensions at a composite three-dimensional velocity of about the speed of light. As it travels its dynamic mass (angular motion component at ninety degrees to its composite three-dimensional motion) is dynamically changing from zero to some maximum that depends on its fourth vector velocity and back to zero and then back to the maximum again, but this time the dynamic mass angular component travels in the opposite direction in the three lower dimensions. At the same time it is taking a three-dimensional curved path due to its fifth vector velocity such that its path closes back upon itself to create a cyclical enclosed path of motion. As it travels in its enclosed path it generates a continuously changing three-dimensional angular motion component that generates its rest mass/inertia effect. This gives a basic concept of how a matter particle works. You can see why you do not always get the same result when two of them collide unless you can cause the collision to occur at a point in the cyclical motions of both particles that will generate the desired result. Energy Photons are similar, but they do not possess a fifth vector velocity, so they travel in a straight line and don’t have a rest mass effect. Sub energy particles do not have a fourth vector velocity, so they do not have a dynamic mass effect at ninety degrees to their direction of travel. They only have a very small in line mass effect in their direction of travel. They travel at a three-dimensional composite velocity less than the speed of light and have not yet been discovered by man. Develop the math model that fully describes these entities and you should get the Noble Prize. Man’s current theories seem to accept the probabilities as the limit of man’s ultimate ability to resolve the results of such collisions. They even include grand rationalizations as to why man can never know such things as the position and velocity of a particle accurately at the same time. This may seem true with man’s current understandings and technologies, but it is a fatalistic approach that will only hinder advancement.
I tried to look at your World Theory article, but I could only get to the abstract. When I selected the links that were present on the first screen they only lead me to other links or other abstracts rather than any actual article text. Maybe you can tell me how to navigate to the actual article.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 23:21 GMT
Dear Paul,
I understand your viewpoint and explanation of the difficulties, which we encounter when we try to describe the world. I will rephrase the idea, since I think that I can do this in a way which avoids the discussions about math and new hidden levels of complexity.
The idea is that at any time t we have a set of experimental data, say D
t (I will use such symbols...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
I understand your viewpoint and explanation of the difficulties, which we encounter when we try to describe the world. I will rephrase the idea, since I think that I can do this in a way which avoids the discussions about math and new hidden levels of complexity.
The idea is that at any time t we have a set of experimental data, say D
t (I will use such symbols as short names, not equations). For each set of data, there is a set of possible theories (=explanations/descriptions, possibly not limited to mathematics, if this is really a limitation) of reality, E(D
t), compatible with that set of data. I consider that E(D
t) should contain all possible theories. I will assume that the data increase with time, hence for t smaller than t', we have D
t included in D
t'. What happens with E(D
t)? I claim that E(D
t) contains E(D
t'). Clearly, each possible theory can be infirmed by new data. No new theory can occur because of new data at t', because it must also be compatible with the data at previous t, therefore it must be already contained in E(D
t).
So, my claim is that there is an abstract set of all theories, and this set is only reduced by new data, and not increased. And I give as example the true theory, the one that really describes the world, which must exist, because the world exists, but we don't know it yet. Therefore, I claim that E(D
2009-11-08) is not empty, only that we don't know yet what it contains.
I would say here that E(D
t) should contain also incredibly complicated explanations, which contain unobservable data at that time, and are usually ruled out by the physicists of the time because of Occam's razor. These theories are more complicated that the current data, but may become meaningful with new data. Such example may be the string theories, and some other quantum gravity approaches (if they would explain all the data we observed so far).
Taking your example with atoms, I would say that E(D
1800-01-01) should contain explanations based on indivisible atoms, but also explanations based on composite atoms (which were not available at that time, and we recognized this only because of new data). So, I would say that there is a knowledge of the possible theories explaining all the data at a time t, K
t:= K(E(D
t)), which changes in a more unpredictable way. Perhaps at the end of the XIXth century it contained a theory, based on Newton's and Maxwell's equations. But now it is empty, because we don't have an accepted theory explaining all the data we have now. And possible it will contain at least one theory, in time. And, of course, it may become again empty, because of new data.
According to this view, it is imaginable that K
t will change with time, so that we will feel that we are going closer, but we will never be confident enough that this is all. But it is also imaginable that we will be able to find a theory which will never be invalidated by new data. So, I would keep my mind open to all possibilities. That's what I wanted to say in my previous comment.
I want to emphasize that even if we would find someday a theory fitting all the data at that time, and which will never be invalidated, despite the new data, there will be potentially infinitely many consequences to be explored, and tests to be passed by the theory (perhaps this is a weak version of the fairness principle?). It is even possible the principles be already known, but the consequences not understood, and that the future generations will understand asymptotically that the theory fits the data.
Thank you for your interest in the link I gave in the previous comment,
I give here the direct link to the pdf.
Best regards,
Cristi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
NN wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:07 GMT
Paul has elaborated in detail that some of us mentioned briefly about the methodology followed in sciences. There is hardly any further need to discuss the issue as he has been very realistic in his detailed elaboration.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 16:19 GMT
This is true.
I referred to rephrasing the idea I presented in the previous comment, not Paul's explanation.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
The voting has closed, but better late than never. I do have some questions about your essay.
First about the fairness principle. Mathematics is infinite and we are always being intrigued and challenged by math. Because of emergent phenomena, the same will be true for physics even if a TOE is found. Here is an example. Maxwell’s equations are the TOE of electromagnetism. Still, light propagation in optical fibers is described in a certain approximation by qualitatively different math which by now has a domain of its own.
Linking the lack of progress with the pursuit of a TOE. Define progress. Is it experimentally verifiable predictions? If yes, due to the energies involved, there are none, but this is not because of the TOE pursuit, but because of the out of reach energy scale, and this is an unfair criteria. Do we know more now than 25 years ago? Yes, and the progress was significant. However, the rate of progress was unsatisfactory. I will argue that not the TOE mindset prevented progress, but the resource monopoly and clout string theory inherited from particle physics is to be blamed for starving alternative approaches. When no genuine predictions are offered, the research program should wait in line with other research programs for funding.
Not even wrong, not even fair, not even fun.
Not even wrong: This is derogatory and only fans the flames of Lubos’ rhetoric.
Not even fair: Is it not fair that Einstein already discovered relativity, or that Maxwell discovered his equations? What is the difference between those 2 examples and the hypothetical TOE?
Not even fun: After the invention of automobile, the world lost the fun in making horse whips. So what? We got Nascar.
Florin
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 21:35 GMT
Nice comment, Florin.
Dear Giovanni,
I wonder, considering that the fairness principle is true, what will happen after 1000 generations: will they have to understand first the previous 1000 theories (of the passed generations) of increased complexity, starting with our present physics, before making the contribution of their own generation? You see, we have to know what was done before, and it is already inconceivably more than it was four generations ago. What about after a billion generations? (This entails speculations about the increased capacity of human mind.) How is this fair?
What about the passed generations, before Galilei? Or did fairness started in the modern world? Should we then expect it to last forever?
Best regards,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
NN wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 02:40 GMT
Author's response to the 'fairness' principle have not been responded, as desired by Cristi, Florin and may i now add myself to that query too. The contest is over for voting but scientific discussions never have any deadlines!It is fair to seek the author's response in a healthy competition.
report post as inappropriate
Author Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT
dear all
concerning one of the points in Florin's post, I already stated briefly in a previous post that my essay focuses on fundamental physics as traditionally intended, and whether research of that type can reach an end point or gradually enter a stage of saturation. We can instead be sure (I hope) that physics will not end, and in particular it will keep challenging mankind in realms...
view entire post
dear all
concerning one of the points in Florin's post, I already stated briefly in a previous post that my essay focuses on fundamental physics as traditionally intended, and whether research of that type can reach an end point or gradually enter a stage of saturation. We can instead be sure (I hope) that physics will not end, and in particular it will keep challenging mankind in realms such as, for example, emergent phenomena and complexity.
Some of the most recent posts also concern the "fairness principle" in ways that provide an invitation to elaborate on some aspects of the spirit of my essay
I see my essay as composed of 3 parts and the third, where the fairness principle is located, is (rather surprisingly) reserved for the "faith arena"
I can't explain why (don't know why it felt right to do so) I took myself into the spirit, the mood, of some "poetic license" for that last third of the essay
In order to adopt the fairness principle, one needs faith, and I have none. But just like most religious persons occasionally doubt their faith, my lack of faith sometimes shakes a bit, and something of the sort of the fairness principle does materialize for me somehow for some brief moments. Before writing the essay I never thought of qualifying this in terms of a "fairness principle" but I am comfortable with the name I found for the essay
surely also most of the authors of posts in this thread are not immune to some sort of "fairness utopia" for the social world. And being affected by this common fairness utopia we are particularly aware of the fact that in some sense experimental data in the social world do not look too good for any principle based on fairness. So perhaps if one was willing to contemplate as reasonable to end an essay like mine venturing in the realm of faith (and clearly it was not so reasonable) perhaps at least one would have expected that my passion for "hard experimental facts" would produce an "unfairness principle"
well, it didn't
and I did take a few moments contemplating whether it could be best to adopt a safer route for my essay...I was particularly concerned about somehow weakening the main thesis of the essay, the first two thirds, by closing the essay with something that significantly diverges from the spirit of the first two thirds of the essay...but it actually did not take that long to reach a conclusion that I can summarize with "well, the heck with it, for once I am gonna have me a fairness principle"
I am explaining this in some detail because it might have appeared that, while "defending" other aspects of my essay, I had not been offering any "defense" against criticism of the fairness principle. I have no defense for it. The fairness principle is not better than any other choice of faith. I could only make room for it in the essay via the provocative pretext of wanting to observe that even as a choice of faith the "theory of everything" could be unpleasant, while there are more optimistic options.
In this respect I found particularly amusing/intriguing the post by Cristi, especially the part describing how future generations would have to learn more and more fundamental physics. The intriguing part of that observation is that somehow it is turning my fairness principle into a nightmare principle: future generations still fascinated by the mysteries of Nature but effectively buried under a mountain of books. Intriguing, amusing, and also relevant for an issue that in my ordinary non-faithful mindset I find very interesting: it seems to me that we are already at a point such that one reaches a solid knowledge of the road before us at an undesireably non-junior age. And I wonder whether this demands that we rethink how we teach physics
Cristi's observation contributes to an already long list of arguments that should make us assume that, while of course no TOE will ever materialize, fundamental physics will gradually reach saturation. I should simply come to terms with the "mortality of fundamental physics", and I am, I have to a large extent, with the exception of rare brief moments when the fairness principle comes to the rescue
cheers
Giovanni
view post as summary
NN wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 01:36 GMT
i enjoyed the struggle Giovanni has shown by explaining 'fairness' principle as a side conclusion to his main theme contained in the earlier 2/3 of his esssay. Then, he also suggests that he is not really a person who holds faith very close to his heart. Such struggles affect a large number of we humans, as we do tend to live in contradictions. The later really are a product of our minds which is wayward and jumpy by nature. The discipling of the mind can only result in a profound presentation. Alternately, it can come out of the blue, as indicated by Einstein for his famous discoveries. He attributed these to be a product of ideas that were not a part of his regular thinking process as these appeared suddenly from outside. What he did was to realise their importance/significance, as he had the tools to implement these ideas.In other words one may associate outside inspiration for this kind admission. Thus, it is best to remain very humble about our works, as a lot of credit may well go to 'others' that we may not wish to acknowledge/admit/confess about!
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 07:15 GMT
The dictatorship of TOE
Dear Giovanni,
It was a pleasure to read your interesting and fair answers to the questions of various visitors of your thread. It is obvious that your fairness principle raises nice discussions, despites being based on faith, as you said. But isn't every new hypothesis based on faith? What are required then to collapse the superposition of hypotheses into a...
view entire post
The dictatorship of TOE
Dear Giovanni,
It was a pleasure to read your interesting and fair answers to the questions of various visitors of your thread. It is obvious that your fairness principle raises nice discussions, despites being based on faith, as you said. But isn't every new hypothesis based on faith? What are required then to collapse the superposition of hypotheses into a concrete result, are one or more crucial experiments. On this basis, it is clear that neither the statement "we can find a TOE", nor its negation, can be falsified. Any candidate to a unified theory, no matter how well is corroborated by the current data, can be rejected by a future experiment. Being rejected, doesn't exclude the possibility of another TOE, but we can always advocate the fairness principle by saying that there may appear new data which contradicts our most recent theory.
I think that a TOE is unfair, in one particular sense: a theory which survived several decades tends to evolve into a dictatorship. Imagine a theory which made prediction after prediction, confirmed for one thousand years. This will make any proponent of an alternative to be regarded as a crackpot anarchist. In fact, there are already such dictatorial attitudes supporting theories, despite not being confirmed yet, or even not being falsifiable. Should we be prepared for such a TOE dictatorship era, by already taking measures to protect the future dissidents? My belief is that we should be prepared, because it is always possible to have a TOE candidate which survives for many years.
Let's assume that from the fundamental physical laws, completed with the emergent phenomena, and by using powerful computers, we can predict the optimal moral laws, the optimal political system, the optimal president of a country or of the world, the optimal religion belief (including among the possibilities various forms of atheism), or the optimal race. I mean, if there is a Theory of Everything, we can develop in a large, but finite amount of time, scientific algorithms optimizing various such "parameters". We can have, as some ex-communist countries had not too long ago, "scientific politics", "scientific atheism" (or maybe a "scientific religion"), only this time "really scientific". And we will add, of course, algorithms predicting optimal mate-matching, and "scientifically designed DNA" for our progenies.
It may be scary to have a TOE, isn't it? It will take our freedom, because any choice other than the optimal one will be unscientific. And how many will take risk of being non-optimal?
I apologize if these words may look like an extreme slippery slope type of arguments. But I think that we should always be aware of "the ultimate truth" and "the right way", as they can take our freedom.
Or, who knows, perhaps a TOE may prevent us from wasting precious time drifting in wrong behavioral patterns, and may allow us concentrate on the essential and effective things, keeping, in the meantime, always open the possibility that our TOE may be totally false. An "open society" of the TOE.
Kind regards,
Cristi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
NN wrote on Nov. 21, 2009 @ 14:09 GMT
Words are words and deeds are deeds. Let us continue our search for truth with faith, devotion, as selfless scientists in the persuit of truth and there is nothing to worry about. Right and wrong are just two words of the same coin! Both Author and Cristi appear equally right to me.
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 17:00 GMT
Butler--Stoica dialogue moved to Butler forum:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/543
Paul N. Butler wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 00:00 GMT
Cristinel,
I answered your latest comments to me on my forum (What’s Ultimately Possible in Physics by Paul N. Butler,) per the desire of the powers that be in FQXI. You can answer it there so as to please them. I’ll look for it there so you won’t have to let me know here.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.