physics is out of work!!
Hello Knight, here is a dialogue that you might find useful if you really would like to go into deeps of physics in your search of the theory of everything..
My '8th friend' who is a real freak in moleculer science and his friends who are also freaky personnas dealing in quantum physics have really fun to watch debates. Let me quote this from another forum... i thought you might find this interesting... really...
--- Has anyone ever thought of describing the universe as just a large set of numbers. << all say YES WE DO
For example a universe with 1 particle and 2 positions and 2 time intervals would be described as a table:
Particle Time Position
0 1 0
0 2 1
This universe only lasts 2 time steps and has one particle. Extrapolating to a real universe with a about 1000 physical measurements and 200 decimal precision for each for 10 to the 500 particles etc.
we could get (10 to the power of 1000) numbers; Or in rearranging the numbers a universe that is a number with (10 to the power of 1000) decimal places.
By the way all possible universes would be :
10 to the power of (10 to the power of 1000) or 10^(10^1000).
Physical laws would be just extracted regularity from all these numbers by deliming areas and relating areas of numbers. The universe in this picture is just one large number chopped up in various ways to related various areas of regularity.
Strange idea but interesting ...... ?
----- This idea seems true as we use mathematics to describe
physics
but ... your theory would be very non-predictive and inelegant. By describing the universe in this way we gain nothing. What we want to do is have some mathematical laws which tell us how to 'work out' what your numbers should be. In your setup, if you have all the numbers except the last one, you cannot predict what it is - you have to measure it. If you have a law, then you would be able to predict that number, and test it with experiment.
---- If quantum mechanics is correct and the universe does contain a truly fundamental 'bit' of information then yes, the universe can be desribed as a number. A very large number could describe the universe as it stands at some snapshot in time. However, such is the case with any raw binary, its relevence is limited to the mathematics you choose to interpret it with. As severian rightly points our, the mathematics we use are chosen for us by the laws of
physics. So while it would be useful to know the universes overall state at any point in time without solid physical principles to meaningfully relate and interpret the data it becomes largely useless.
One of the finer points of this method is related to information/matter/energy conservation. If we know how much of each is floating around out there it would help alot with our theorising. The problem is of course, the universe is a really big place and counting all those digits may take longer than the age of the universe itself.
---- God is a number a'right?. And this number is 10^10^10^3.
A 2 hour dvd contains 10^10 numbers. There are therefore 10^10^10 possible films ever. I'm doing the same with the universe considering
every concievable measurement at 10 to the minus 100 seconds and meters for all the universe for all of time etc. (if you need more precision just put it to 10^4 etc)
Therefore a number with 10 to the 10th power to the 10th power to 3 comes out. If we line up the numbers its, still just about that big.
Try to abstract more. A person in one of these universes is a group of numbers. All laws are onlygroupings of numbers relative to others.
There is no magic anymore in mathematics like
physics thinks because a given universe has some numbers organized according to a regularity like 1/r^2. It's just one of the combinations. It's quite abstract ....
---- Abstract enough to be far from the realm of physical reality. While I understand your premise I don't think the arbitrary selection of the numbers you've choosen to justify your reasoning are helping convince me of anything other than the universe being really really big. I didn't need any numbers to tell you that.
---- Oh man, I'm trying to get at 2 points here:
1) it's strange that
physics thinks that math is magic; after all the 3 body problems are all really hard , high temp superconductivity is
hard, turbulence is hard etc. So maybe we perceive magic in some basic formulas because they casually end up corresponding to reality
sometimes.
2) If the "it from bit" thing is true , then this theory of mine is relevant, and a good simulation on computer is real just as matter and where is the limits at that point ? We can simulate new
physics particles whatever and it is reality ...
---- Your 'model' would imply that there should be no pattern to the universe because a single number in your sequence is not derivable from the others. We know this to be wrong - we can predict physical processes and thus (some of) your numbers. In other words, my friend, all of the manifest numbers in the sequence are not independent. The job of physics to determine what these dependences are and exploit them, right?
---- Right. We extract a pattern because it is useful. The concept of pattern is an invention of the mind. Groups of numbers are just groups of numbers. In fact there are probably a huge number of partial patterns and associations that can be seen as other kinds of particles, forces, interactions (you can invent as much as you want) and world views (universes).
(silencio...)
I think I can focus the ideas better. If you let a program run that draws on a small screen and cycles through all the combinations, then sometimes something like a face will come out. It is just one of the many combinations. (like the monkey who ends up writing a novel
after typing for trillion of years etc).
Same idea is for the universe as a number. It looks as if there is cause and effect, laws and so on , but it is just one of the combinations.
We are fooled into thinking there are explanations when it is only an illusion.
The theory can be concluded like this. A given group of numbers creates the effect of consciousness. We are only those patterns of numbers that generate consiousness.
So there you go, the Grand Unified theory of physics is achieved. You only have two objects: 1) a large number 2) consciousness and one cause and effect 3) a given set of numbers creates consciousness. It is
like a scalar field where a given set creates our sensation of consciousness. If a theory then has only one explanation, then it is
just an association, a table associating numbers with an effect.
Some consequences of this is that the universe confirms extreme determinisms; in fact it would seem that there is no free will and we
are kind of like zombies executing a fixed program. Another consequence is that anything can occur and it is automatically explained by being just a combination of numbers: a big blue sphere can appear out of nowhere and it needs no explanation because we are
in a sequence of numbers where that corresponding combination is. It is also true that there could be some combination of numbers that create effects we don't know.
This theory is non falsifiable, that is no experiment can demonstrate that it is false. In this respect it is like theories that say "The world is a simulation in a computer of a higher civilization having completely different physics" or that "Everything is in our mind and there is no outside world" etc.
So I should be getting the nobel prize and theoretical physics is out of work.
FMI??
ok.. try reading these..
Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality: Solving the Quantum Mysteries
-John Gribbin
The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry, from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings
-Martin Gardner
The Elegant Universe
-Brian Greene
o r
The Great Beyond: Higher Dimensions, Parallel Universes and the Extraordinary Search for a Theory of Everything by Paul Halpern (thats quite fun to read)
GOOD luck knight ) you'll need more then that actually ;
regards,
PNGrata
