ask a physicist

[CaptainGemini]

Well, I'm still having trouble following the set-up. But, basically, if there is not any set of laws at all (ie, nothing we can understand), like if everything is at the whim of some set of battling D&D deities, then we just can't really do science. But that's an extreme case. Quantum physics has laws, but they are probabilistic and not deterministic, so we try to understand the aggregate statistical behavior of systems. Or we could talk about the laws of physics changing in some well-defined way across the universe --- there are people looking for variations of the strength of the fundamental electric charge over the history of the universe, for example. So I guess it depends on how extreme you mean.

What I am talking about is not a singular set of rules, but multiple sets of rules and the universe existing as an interaction between those sets of rules.

As an example, take quantum mechanics and general relativity. Now, let's say those cannot be combined into a singular set of laws of physics.

How does that change our understanding and study of physics?

Right, when @CaptainGemini suggests for instance that "A halfway point that produces consistent results most of the time out of pure randomness is perfectly possible. It would also produce results that are completely unexpected, but might not be observable from Earth at this time due to current technological limitations." then you'd simply have to explain why we consistently "don't see" this "pure randomness" in our part of the universe. If it is totally hidden then what we see is actually consistent, and we should be able to describe that consistency, and thus there ARE then laws of physics, because that's ALL that laws of physics ARE, consistent descriptions of how we observe things to behave, they can be naught else!

I think the point about Noether's Theorum wasn't really quite made either. It isn't something that may or may not be true. Noether's Theorum isn't a scientific result, it is a logical construct, it doesn't stand or fall, any more than the Pythagorean Theorum stands or falls. It is simply a truth. Furthermore we have a great deal of evidence that universal conservation laws and their equivalent symmetries exist because we observed conservation laws in action and then we derived symmetries from them. These symmetries were then used to derive further theories in physics which then matched observation, and this has happened MANY times. So either the observed conservation laws actually are really logically consistent and observed everywhere in our universe, or else most all of modern physics was discovered by random chance using a totally flawed process and we just got INCREDIBLY lucky.

This for instance is why we can with essentially 100% certainty rule out things like reactionless drives which violate Conservation of Momentum. If they exist, and Conservation of Momentum IS violated, ever, anywhere in the Universe, then all of our modern theories of physics are just blind luck, which we can state could only by true by chance at a level so unlikely that it is equivalent to zero. Now, maybe its possible to argue about what "anywhere in the Universe" exactly means, could it be that these things can be violated in some area of space which is causally disconnected from us (IE beyond our light cone and thus will never interact with us again for all time, and may have been causally disconnected since the start of inflation). I don't think we really know the answer to THAT, but is it even a meaningful question since we can never answer it, even in principle?

Stop and take a look at the probably of life existing even once on a planet, indeterminate of the fact it actually exists. Then take a look at how many events in human history pretty much amount to humanity surviving or succeeding simply due to blind luck.

Whether or not we like to admit it, it is unscientific to simply toss out blind luck as being part of the equation. Without it, it's quite possible science wouldn't exist in the first place.

Also, something to consider: The laws of physics do not care what human logic dictates. If there are to be multiple sets, or if it is all random chance, then that is reality regardless of what "truths" we know have to say. It is pure ego, not pure knowledge, to think that human logic has any dictates on the universe... and pure ego produces bad science. Which is why I referenced the electron in my previous post, as it does violate human logic in its simple existence.

That we have been right so far is just one thing: Pure luck. The universe could have easily been far different, or had massively different laws of physics.

Also, we can scientifically measure randomness, and even come up with ways to get consistent results our of pure randomness. Last I remember, there was at least one field of physics devoted to it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I am talking about is not a singular set of rules, but multiple sets of rules and the universe existing as an interaction between those sets of rules.

As an example, take quantum mechanics and general relativity. Now, let's say those cannot be combined into a singular set of laws of physics.

How does that change our understanding and study of physics?



Stop and take a look at the probably of life existing even once on a planet, indeterminate of the fact it actually exists. Then take a look at how many events in human history pretty much amount to humanity surviving or succeeding simply due to blind luck.

Whether or not we like to admit it, it is unscientific to simply toss out blind luck as being part of the equation. Without it, it's quite possible science wouldn't exist in the first place.

Also, something to consider: The laws of physics do not care what human logic dictates. If there are to be multiple sets, or if it is all random chance, then that is reality regardless of what "truths" we know have to say. It is pure ego, not pure knowledge, to think that human logic has any dictates on the universe... and pure ego produces bad science. Which is why I referenced the electron in my previous post, as it does violate human logic in its simple existence.

That we have been right so far is just one thing: Pure luck. The universe could have easily been far different, or had massively different laws of physics.

Also, we can scientifically measure randomness, and even come up with ways to get consistent results our of pure randomness. Last I remember, there was at least one field of physics devoted to it.

OK, so probability is meaningless and if something can happen (and pretty much anything COULD in principle) then we can just assume it did! You've literally removed all meaning from the scientific process. You've left the reservation and are now just another garden variety mystic who's universe simply 'just happened to be as it is'.

There's 2 different things being conflated here actually. First is basically an invocation of a very extreme version of the Strong Anthropic Principle, when you say that "we just happen to be right by pure luck" you're just saying "well, we're here, so no matter how improbable I calculate the odds to be it says nothing about the way the universe works because we just happened to luck out and get this one". The other one is the question of the details of how things played out given a fixed set of physical laws. Nothing in our understanding of physics says that we will be able to utterly deterministically calculate the current state of the universe from its initial conditions, even if we DO perfectly understand the rules it evolves by. This is trivially true today as we know that these laws are statistical in nature, and that small quantum mechanical statistical outcomes can generate different macroscopic results. Thus knowing the exact state of the big bang at time 0 won't ever tell you if the coin I flip today will come up heads or tails. It probably won't even tell you if the Earth we live on would inevitably exist as it does. HOWEVER, it would tell you that the universe would contain many Earth-like planets and what kinds of chemistry would happen on their surfaces.

 

[CaptainGemini]

OK, so probability is meaningless and if something can happen (and pretty much anything COULD in principle) then we can just assume it did! You've literally removed all meaning from the scientific process. You've left the reservation and are now just another garden variety mystic who's universe simply 'just happened to be as it is'.

And what you are stating is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what I have said. You would be a fine heir to the drink making machine on the Heart of Gold.

There's 2 different things being conflated here actually. First is basically an invocation of a very extreme version of the Strong Anthropic Principle, when you say that "we just happen to be right by pure luck" you're just saying "well, we're here, so no matter how improbable I calculate the odds to be it says nothing about the way the universe works because we just happened to luck out and get this one". The other one is the question of the details of how things played out given a fixed set of physical laws. Nothing in our understanding of physics says that we will be able to utterly deterministically calculate the current state of the universe from its initial conditions, even if we DO perfectly understand the rules it evolves by. This is trivially true today as we know that these laws are statistical in nature, and that small quantum mechanical statistical outcomes can generate different macroscopic results. Thus knowing the exact state of the big bang at time 0 won't ever tell you if the coin I flip today will come up heads or tails. It probably won't even tell you if the Earth we live on would inevitably exist as it does. HOWEVER, it would tell you that the universe would contain many Earth-like planets and what kinds of chemistry would happen on their surfaces.

If you don't like them being conflated, then stop conflating them.

You were the one who first thought to conflate my question about a fixed set of physics being slightly different from how we think the laws of physics work with the idea that everything results from random chance. I humored you and responded to your absurdity to point out that what you say is possible, but that it would be different than what we have observed, and then pointed out the issue of my question was not related to that. I misworded my comment at the end, so I take responsibility for the confusion that resulted. It was also you who had to go on the offensive because your conflating of two entirely unlike things and my miswording confused freyar. That was when I clarified my question to freyar, so that he could see exactly what I was actually talking about, before responding further to your absurdity by pointing out that you were speaking from ego and not an understanding of science.

But, I see my not-so-gentle prodding flew over your head, so now I am speaking plainly: If you don't like the problem of conflating you complain about in your last post, then stop causing it. I made it a point to make my question clear after I saw the confusion caused earlier. Why you felt the need to ignore the obvious and continue on your holy crusade, I have no idea.

Also, you completely misunderstand the way probability works. It doesn't tell you something will exist; it tells you the chances that something might exist. There is no such thing as 100% probability unless you are talking about events that have already occurred. That was why I told you to ignore the fact life does exist when trying to figure out the chances life could exist. Probability operates under the scientific knowledge that absolutely nothing is guaranteed. Which was why I made that comment about ego leading to bad science... because science itself accepts the fact that nothing is guaranteed unless it has already happened. And as we increasingly discover planets so close to having become another Earth, but which had something go wrong to prevent it, we get even more reinforcement of exactly how lucky we are to exist in the first place.

Yes, we got lucky. No, our existence was not guaranteed, and the existence of another race in the universe or even another planet like Earth is not guaranteed. That's science.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And what you are stating is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what I have said. You would be a fine heir to the drink making machine on the Heart of Gold.



If you don't like them being conflated, then stop conflating them.

You were the one who first thought to conflate my question about a fixed set of physics being slightly different from how we think the laws of physics work with the idea that everything results from random chance. I humored you and responded to your absurdity to point out that what you say is possible, but that it would be different than what we have observed, and then pointed out the issue of my question was not related to that. I misworded my comment at the end, so I take responsibility for the confusion that resulted. It was also you who had to go on the offensive because your conflating of two entirely unlike things and my miswording confused freyar. That was when I clarified my question to freyar, so that he could see exactly what I was actually talking about, before responding further to your absurdity by pointing out that you were speaking from ego and not an understanding of science.

But, I see my not-so-gentle prodding flew over your head, so now I am speaking plainly: If you don't like the problem of conflating you complain about in your last post, then stop causing it. I made it a point to make my question clear after I saw the confusion caused earlier. Why you felt the need to ignore the obvious and continue on your holy crusade, I have no idea.

Also, you completely misunderstand the way probability works. It doesn't tell you something will exist; it tells you the chances that something might exist. There is no such thing as 100% probability unless you are talking about events that have already occurred. That was why I told you to ignore the fact life does exist when trying to figure out the chances life could exist. Probability operates under the scientific knowledge that absolutely nothing is guaranteed. Which was why I made that comment about ego leading to bad science... because science itself accepts the fact that nothing is guaranteed unless it has already happened. And as we increasingly discover planets so close to having become another Earth, but which had something go wrong to prevent it, we get even more reinforcement of exactly how lucky we are to exist in the first place.

Yes, we got lucky. No, our existence was not guaranteed, and the existence of another race in the universe or even another planet like Earth is not guaranteed. That's science.

OK, I'm not looking for an argument. I think the last time I looked I was holding a degree in math and I don't think that what you're describing as my position is what I'm saying, so basically there's just some fundamental disconnect here. I don't know what your question is asking, whatever it is clearly its not what a plain reading would seem to indicate. Maybe there's someone else that's on your wavelength because I am seeing that clearly I'm not up to it.

And to be clear, I don't really think your question is about probability at all, or statistics in any sense. Its really a metaphysical question that touches on the 'Anthropic Principle'. You could also talk about Beysian Analysis and priors etc as all such discussions tend to go at some point, and/or the rabbit hole of 'what can really exist in a literally infinite Multiverse/Universe', etc etc etc. Interesting topics in some degree but beyond a certain point it tends to leave the realm of what I would call 'physics'.

 

[CaptainGemini]

OK, I'm not looking for an argument. I think the last time I looked I was holding a degree in math and I don't think that what you're describing as my position is what I'm saying, so basically there's just some fundamental disconnect here. I don't know what your question is asking, whatever it is clearly its not what a plain reading would seem to indicate. Maybe there's someone else that's on your wavelength because I am seeing that clearly I'm not up to it.

And to be clear, I don't really think your question is about probability at all, or statistics in any sense. Its really a metaphysical question that touches on the 'Anthropic Principle'. You could also talk about Beysian Analysis and priors etc as all such discussions tend to go at some point, and/or the rabbit hole of 'what can really exist in a literally infinite Multiverse/Universe', etc etc etc. Interesting topics in some degree but beyond a certain point it tends to leave the realm of what I would call 'physics'.

I should not have reacted as I have. You have my apologies for that. I was just coming here to apologize no matter if you replied. You do not deserve to be an unwitting target of my stress, and someone very dear pointed out how snappish I've been lately.

 

[freyar]

Well, I'm glad that's been settled peacefully!

What I am talking about is not a singular set of rules, but multiple sets of rules and the universe existing as an interaction between those sets of rules.

As an example, take quantum mechanics and general relativity. Now, let's say those cannot be combined into a singular set of laws of physics.

How does that change our understanding and study of physics?

Well, in your example, you'd have a classical version of GR plus quantum mechanics of other stuff. That leaves a lot of problems, so we'd have trouble sorting those things out, and that would take up a lot of the effort in theoretical physics for a while, I'd think. On the other hand, we have an existence proof that it is possible to quantize gravity. Namely, we have very very strong evidence that gravity in special spacetimes (anti-de Sitter spacetimes) is exactly described by a non-gravitational quantum theory of particle physics.

Anyway, I hope that answers your question more or less. I think the point is just that physics is about trying to quantify and codify how the universe works. We've seen the overall picture of that change a lot more than once (particularly at the start of the 20th century), but the goal and process remains the same.

 

[Umbran]

What I am talking about is not a singular set of rules, but multiple sets of rules and the universe existing as an interaction between those sets of rules.

As an example, take quantum mechanics and general relativity. Now, let's say those cannot be combined into a singular set of laws of physics.

How does that change our understanding and study of physics?

Well, in one way it changes our understanding only a little - what you describe is the way things are now - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not united into a single set of laws at this moment.

But, you speak of interactions *between* these sets. If those interactions are not akin to the whims of gods, then those interactions may be charted. And then we get a set of rules for the interactions, and we then have, in a sense, a unified theory. It may be unified in the sense that a patchwork quilt is unified, instead of the way a knitted lace is all one thread, but it is unified, a complete working fabric still.

As an aside, sometimes I think we may generate issues with flowery language - "the universe existing as an interaction between those sets of rules" would be incomplete, as there are also interactions found *within* the sets.

Stop and take a look at the probably of life existing even once on a planet, indeterminate of the fact it actually exists.

Stop and take a look at how little we know of what that probability is! Each of us has an *intuition* about that probability, but we *know*, very, very little.

It has been shown (by Freeman Dyson, among others) that with a supply of a relatively small set of units with slightly varying interactions (like, say, a soup containing supplies of just a few different kinds of peptides) and a bit of free energy around, that a transition from a disordered state to an ordered but dynamic state is nigh inevitable. Self-organizing systems *happen*.

How much of a bigger step is it to life from there? *NOBODY KNOWS*. You keep asserting how much blind luck it may be... but it could just as easily be nigh inevitable, and not lucky at all.

 

[Landifarne]

Can you summarize of our present level of understanding of what's occuring in the nucleus of moderate-sized atom?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I should not have reacted as I have. You have my apologies for that. I was just coming here to apologize no matter if you replied. You do not deserve to be an unwitting target of my stress, and someone very dear pointed out how snappish I've been lately.

Its cool, maybe I'm annoying too! I'm SURE there are a few other Enworlder's who will agree with that, lol. I could also be thick, who knows?

 

[Umbran]

Because it is funny and relevant...

(Okay, that was funny. Mostly transparent image, with a black line drawing, means... a big nothing on the black forum skins.

let us try that again...)