Physics is broken!

reply to post by chr0naut


Explanation: Uhmmmm

No it isn't .. your point of view is invalid due to the following REASONS ok ...

Its all down to the scale you are looking from and you are forbidden to apply the wrong scales point of view to another scales system.

Example ...

Slightly off topic but I noticed that when the info for the CMB map was 1st displayed that it looked homogenous and isotropic which fully supports GR but then the technician turned up the CONTRAST IN SCALE i.e a change in POV, and suddenly the inhomogenities and anisotropics became fully apparent and QM was vindicated!

Which OL posted in a very old thread called ... Do Fermions decouple from Higgs field? (by OmegaLogos posted on 4-8-2009 @ 10:31 PM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: Gravity works fine all the way down to the plancks length in scale .. its beyond that point that the equations start making less sense and hence the NEED to quantasize gravity ok.

And since we cant test that scale yet .. its all just theoretical and holds no real world value currently.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by 0mage

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.

What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.

yes they can. what ur missing. is the bridge! but u call that bridge 'nothing'. LOL

edit on 30-11-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)

Please explain what this 'bridge' is.

For most of physics, there is overlap between what quantum physics and Newtonian/Relativistic physics say. The problem is there are some things that quantum physics cannot explain that N/R physics has answers for. There are things that N/R physics cannot explain the quantum physics can. Rather than resolve the issue, physicist apply one rule for quantum events and another for N/R events.

Many physicists have tried to resolve the discontinuity and the goal was a "Grand Unified Theory" but this has largely been abandoned these days.

At the core of these two different methods are fundamentally divergent core concepts which cannot be reconciled. Between these two conceptual islands, there can be no bridge. It is a logical impossibility. I am suggesting that we stop trying to reconcile the two, identify the one which is most likely to be incorrect and discard it.

edit on 1/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

i am reserving the answer to the bridge for now for the possibility that i will begin writing books addressing fundamental flaws in mathematics as well as a few new tricks about math and it's connection to spirituality. but i can tell u now that the bridge.. is a 'translator'.

the funny thing.. is that what u suggest in ur last statement is what has already been done. quantum physics is the discarded region we are once again searching for. the problem is approaching it with scientific minds to adapt logic only principles. there will be regions which defy logic and this is because they dont recognize the translator. like going to russia without ever learning russian.. and assuming that everyone over there will speak english as u do.

the problem with the Unified Field Theory is that it is homosexual in nature. that is to say.. in nature a male and a female must mate to create a child. a logic only precept for observing nature and deriving scientific formulae is akin to mating a man and a man and creating a boy child. as it is it has been abandoned because a decent chess player predicting the moves can see what is going on. utilizing the UFT as it is will require creating another bridge between that bridge and quantum physics. and when that bridge has been created, the need for yet another bridge, and another and another and on continuously. the theory is illusive in that when nailed it changes . it does not adhere to box and dimensions. this is why UFT must be abandoned. the quantum world too flagrantly defeats the purpose after great effort to persuade it. here u must play by it's rules. so if u want to have kids, u got to get with a lady u cant throw her away and do it by urself.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Explanation: Uhmmmm

No it isn't .. your point of view is invalid due to the following REASONS ok ...

Its all down to the scale you are looking from and you are forbidden to apply the wrong scales point of view to another scales system.

Example ...

Slightly off topic but I noticed that when the info for the CMB map was 1st displayed that it looked homogenous and isotropic which fully supports GR but then the technician turned up the CONTRAST IN SCALE i.e a change in POV, and suddenly the inhomogenities and anisotropics became fully apparent and QM was vindicated!

Which OL posted in a very old thread called ... Do Fermions decouple from Higgs field? (by OmegaLogos posted on 4-8-2009 @ 10:31 PM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: Gravity works fine all the way down to the plancks length in scale .. its beyond that point that the equations start making less sense and hence the NEED to quantasize gravity ok.

And since we cant test that scale yet .. its all just theoretical and holds no real world value currently.

edit on 1-12-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.

Actually, gravitation breaks down well before you reach the Planck length. Quantum theory itself breaks down (or rather, can give no answers) at lower than the Planck length. This is assumed to indicate that there is nothing smaller.

The idea that there is a break in theory due to scale is at the core of the OP. Surely a consistent physics would include descriptions that accommodate all scales. Perhaps with a scaling factor and a concept of how such scaling issues could arise?

I have however reviewed the content of the linked thread in your post and it is really quite an interesting idea! It obliquely ties into an idea I have been toying with, but would be way off topic to this thread.

Originally posted by 0mage

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by 0mage

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying "it's broken" instead of saying "we don't know enough about it" is rather ignorant.

What we do know is a dichotomy that indicates that somewhere, a major theoretical construct has to be entirely un-learned to allow us to advance.

They cannot both be right.

yes they can. what ur missing. is the bridge! but u call that bridge 'nothing'. LOL

edit on 30-11-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)

Please explain what this 'bridge' is.

For most of physics, there is overlap between what quantum physics and Newtonian/Relativistic physics say. The problem is there are some things that quantum physics cannot explain that N/R physics has answers for. There are things that N/R physics cannot explain the quantum physics can. Rather than resolve the issue, physicist apply one rule for quantum events and another for N/R events.

Many physicists have tried to resolve the discontinuity and the goal was a "Grand Unified Theory" but this has largely been abandoned these days.

At the core of these two different methods are fundamentally divergent core concepts which cannot be reconciled. Between these two conceptual islands, there can be no bridge. It is a logical impossibility. I am suggesting that we stop trying to reconcile the two, identify the one which is most likely to be incorrect and discard it.

edit on 1/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

i am reserving the answer to the bridge for now for the possibility that i will begin writing books addressing fundamental flaws in mathematics as well as a few new tricks about math and it's connection to spirituality. but i can tell u now that the bridge.. is a 'translator'.

the funny thing.. is that what u suggest in ur last statement is what has already been done. quantum physics is the discarded region we are once again searching for. the problem is approaching it with scientific minds to adapt logic only principles. there will be regions which defy logic and this is because they dont recognize the translator. like going to russia without ever learning russian.. and assuming that everyone over there will speak english as u do.

the problem with the Unified Field Theory is that it is homosexual in nature. that is to say.. in nature a male and a female must mate to create a child. a logic only precept for observing nature and deriving scientific formulae is akin to mating a man and a man and creating a boy child. as it is it has been abandoned because a decent chess player predicting the moves can see what is going on. utilizing the UFT as it is will require creating another bridge between that bridge and quantum physics. and when that bridge has been created, the need for yet another bridge, and another and another and on continuously. the theory is illusive in that when nailed it changes

. it does not adhere to box and dimensions. this is why UFT must be abandoned. the quantum world too flagrantly defeats the purpose after great effort to persuade it. here u must play by it's rules. so if u want to have kids, u got to get with a lady

u cant throw her away and do it by urself.

I loved your extension of the divorce/relationship metaphor but I might suggest that "going it alone" better fits the definition of masturbation rather than homosexuality.

If I may, it would appear to me that your mindset is such that you are inferring that an eternal chasing after an infinite series of disconnected bridges is preferential to calling it quits and reformulating some basic precept that we have likely gotten wrong.

Would any number of epicycles have brought us accurate ephemeris?

I think you will see that, when presented with something that appears to conform to Turing's "Halting Problem" configuration, it is wisest to break the loop and seek a different solution.

reply to post by chr0naut


yup infinite loop .. bridge after birdge after bridge always extending

it is definitely homosexual in nature in that we are looking at natural bonding and balance.

if logic is the male
and you attempt to create a bridge that is also singly male
it's like trying to mate 2 males together

the bridge is where unity or sexual reproduction occurs. remember we are looking at a union. math is fundamentally flawed in the way it observes union. completely homosexual. 1+1 suggest the union of 2 males. 1-1 suggest the union of a male and an equal opposite(female). through the balance achieved, reproduction can occur. otherwise it will always be disjoint union where the participants are grouped as one and given a single label.. but never form a solution in equilibrium. adding salt to salt simply will not create something new. u just have more salt than before.
cant say more without saying too much

Physics isn't broken, it can't break. Just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it's broken.
I do understand what you're sayin though. But it's not broken, we are.

Originally posted by LeeLouie
Physics isn't broken, it can't break. Just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it's broken.
I do understand what you're sayin though. But it's not broken, we are.

To me it looks like a crack, right up the middle of its reality!

Ouch!

reply to post by chr0naut


I dont think there are contradictions or anything wrong.....

the thing is... the laws of physics are a result of the infinitesimal and quantum nature of matter/energy...

the potential of what the quantomness of reality could do while interacting with itself... is the physical universe as we know it... so i think it literally starts on that smallest scale,, and builds up....

also a problem with physics is not theoretically imagining what reality pre universe is..... instead of the lunacy of ignoring that (of course it is unknowable) by saying nothing existed... is a huge lie and will help make ridiculous theories.. but a mixture of philosophy and science, logic, ration and reason,, to imagine what type of processes could have create the infinitesimal properties of what makes up the universe... because that is the truest ingredient is it not? that most base form of "stuff"...which was able to link together and proportionally order itself into something of order, sense, variety, and awesome potential...... also all events can be traced back in time,, cause and effect must continue past the birth of the universe... there must be a realistic physical cause and reason for the birth of the universe,,, the past is infinitely long in duration....

also the probability and chaos in the quantum world you speak of is negligible... its such small scales and energy levels..and tiny particles,, to statistically maybe more room for variation and... probability.....

if the quantum nature of the universe was truly random,chaotic, and highly probabilistic in the way you make it seem to be... i would expect to see so much of the same "stuff" through the universe...... same atoms,, stars, planets.. galaxies..... how can random and probabilistic and chaotic fundamental nature... produce such a stable and consistent macro creation..

put quite simply.. the little ppl who live in the Ic's, capacitors and resitors, using their little lightning cars to travel along the traintracks circuit board to work every day to keep your computer running have no possibility of detecting your presence. to them u cant exist.. but here u are!


There is no life outside the circuitboard

Originally posted by chr0naut

Many physicists have tried to resolve the discontinuity and the goal was a "Grand Unified Theory" but this has largely been abandoned these days.

What is wrong with there being two different mathematical rulers for different scales of reality... the scales of reality are vastly different ... you wouldnt use miles to measure inches... and all along it is many inches that make up miles.


another thing..... once macro structures are established...then macro structures and events ( all made of quantomn particles) can have effects on the quantom particles.... in other words.. the quantom nature of reality,, can use its smallness and quantomness,, to group up and interact,,, to do things,, and go places it normally wouldnt be able to... or am i wrong... is not everything we know that exists the interaction of standard model particles? which in turn create things which are controlled by new laws in terms of proportion and other physical variables..

reply to post by chr0naut


Why isnt the universe full of areas with vast amounts of sub atomic-particles?

is it because by the powers invested in nature... any time subatomic particles get near each other they automatically form an atom?

are quarks always automatically found in groups of 3 as a proton? or do quarks individually exist in nature?

can a proton exist individually in nature? can a neutron? can a neutron and proton that individually exist come together a be held together without an electron? is the coming together of all 3 (proton, electron, neutron) how an atom is formed? Where does the strong force come from? is its usage draining energy out of the proton and electron and neutron? can a stable atom last forever? is EM radiation, released electrons? ( photon = electron released?) ....

As somebody put it, in the 20th century physics ceased to be physics and instead became pure mathematics. That is the problem. When you step into the area of pure speculation, you distance yourself from the real physical world, and begin to build an inverse pyramid of knowledge, which is very unstable and needs crutches to be added here and there to maintain its balance. That's what is happening in today's physics. It became closer to science fiction, but unlike science fiction it is not human-oriented. People forgot that the main purpose of science is not to prove or disprove anything, but to study. Now physics has become a belief system, or even a church with priests, censorship, and even its own heretics. In the times of Aristotle and Plato everybody could establish a science school and explore the world from their own point of view. If not for this diversity we wouldn't even have the science as we know it today. It grew from this diversity, and every school made its contribution to better understanding of natural phenomena in later centuries. Even in the 19th century scientists had extensive arguments on various topics of physics. Now we claim we know everything and are just finding out details. So you build a giant device like LHC or send people into orbit just to 'find out details'? That's ridiculous. People even haven't been on Mars or Jupiter, Voyagers are still discovering new phenomena at the outskirts of the Solar system. Not a single probe has reached another star yet. And so on. What do you think modern physics will do when we receive data from a distant star? Re-check all the theories or add another crutch?

reply to post by chr0naut


It took decades for all of what we know about urrent physics to be fleshed out.

But some merry band of idiots only needed less that a few years to understand everything about quantum physics and make idiotic statements like "no causal relationships" "destroys physics".

Maybe the arm chair scientists should put down the bag of doritos.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by chr0naut

 

It took decades for all of what we know about urrent physics to be fleshed out.

But some merry band of idiots only needed less that a few years to understand everything about quantum physics and make idiotic statements like "no causal relationships" "destroys physics".

Maybe the arm chair scientists should put down the bag of doritos.

How can something have a non causal relationship?

the only types i can think of are with living things, such as involuntary movements or actions..and that is only in the sense that the consciousness of that person did not cause the action...that action can still be traced back to every minor physical detail which allowed that action to take place...

reply to post by chr0naut

In the Quantum world, everything is stochastic in nature. Everything arises from the forces of randomness and probability.

I don't believe this. It has to be a matter of us not having the technology to monitor things on this level. The following is a loose description because it's been a while since I watched Brian Greene explain it.

Brian was at a bowling alley while describing the probability wave. He said that no one can pinpoint where a photon will hit a sensor, but physicists can say with some certainty that 33% of photons will land in a certain area, and a percentage will hit here and there. So, Brian throws an imaginary photon ball and it lands in that 33% region of the sensor at the end of the alley.

Now, wait a minute. If we take that one photon hit on the sensor and reverse it, we would HAVE TO find a reason for that photon to hit exactly where it did. I mean, there has to be a reason - a cause - for the photon to fly the way it did. I have no idea what those causes were (gravity, bumping into another photon, a weak spot in the vacuum of space... I really have NO IDEA) but there had to be a reason for the photon to land where it did. Wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by jiggerj

He said that no one can pinpoint where a photon will hit a sensor, but physicists can say with some certainty that 33% of photons will land in a certain area, and a percentage will hit here and there. So, Brian throws an imaginary photon ball and it lands in that 33% region of the sensor at the end of the alley.

Now, wait a minute. If we take that one photon hit on the sensor and reverse it, we would HAVE TO find a reason for that photon to hit exactly where it did. I mean, there has to be a reason - a cause - for the photon to fly the way it did. I have no idea what those causes were (gravity, bumping into another photon, a weak spot in the vacuum of space... I really have NO IDEA) but there had to be a reason for the photon to land where it did. Wouldn't you think?

He said no one can pinpoint - BUT physicists can say with SOME certainty!!! Not certainty!

You want a reason. Humans want reasons. Why? - is the cry of a human!

Humans can't see or hear what is happening because they want a reason for everything, they are distracted by the mind shouting 'Why?' and 'there must be a reason''. The mind now has you in it's grips, you become it's servant, you now seek an answer for the mind that cannot be found. It keeps you busy, it keeps you confused and it keeps you feeling inferior and lost.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by chr0naut

 

It took decades for all of what we know about urrent physics to be fleshed out.

But some merry band of idiots only needed less that a few years to understand everything about quantum physics and make idiotic statements like "no causal relationships" "destroys physics".

Maybe the arm chair scientists should put down the bag of doritos.

Albert Einstein was one of these "arm chair scientists" who saw the discontinuity between the quantum and macro realms and wanted to resolve it.

The attempt to unify physics is not idiotic, but the unquestioning acceptance of the disunity, arguably, is.

Originally posted by mrkeen
As somebody put it, in the 20th century physics ceased to be physics and instead became pure mathematics. That is the problem. When you step into the area of pure speculation, you distance yourself from the real physical world, and begin to build an inverse pyramid of knowledge, which is very unstable and needs crutches to be added here and there to maintain its balance. That's what is happening in today's physics. It became closer to science fiction, but unlike science fiction it is not human-oriented. People forgot that the main purpose of science is not to prove or disprove anything, but to study. Now physics has become a belief system, or even a church with priests, censorship, and even its own heretics. In the times of Aristotle and Plato everybody could establish a science school and explore the world from their own point of view. If not for this diversity we wouldn't even have the science as we know it today. It grew from this diversity, and every school made its contribution to better understanding of natural phenomena in later centuries. Even in the 19th century scientists had extensive arguments on various topics of physics. Now we claim we know everything and are just finding out details. So you build a giant device like LHC or send people into orbit just to 'find out details'? That's ridiculous. People even haven't been on Mars or Jupiter, Voyagers are still discovering new phenomena at the outskirts of the Solar system. Not a single probe has reached another star yet. And so on. What do you think modern physics will do when we receive data from a distant star? Re-check all the theories or add another crutch?

edit on 7-12-2012 by mrkeen because: spelling

In one regard, I agree that we are often"wildly theorizing" beyond what we can actually measure, but is this not where Theoretical Physicists move and have their being?

Also, despite the denigration of a mathematical basis underlying physics, it is the best 'language' for expression of reality due to its abstract purity.

We have no reason to believe that physical reality and an understanding (or theory) based upon mathematics are divergent. It may be that it may be possible to describe reality in terms other than mathematics but how would we speak about the unspeakable when words fail us (even as it has done just in the limited confines of this topic thread)?

reply to post by chr0naut


Physics has to break the whole into pieces to try to see the whole.
They have a jigsaw puzzle and are trying to build a picture of reality.
Reality comes in one bit but words cut it up and hide the true image.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Physics has to break the whole into pieces to try to see the whole.
They have a jigsaw puzzle and are trying to build a picture of reality.
Reality comes in one bit but words cut it up and hide the true image.

At some stage, having a 'reductionist only' method of generating paradigms MUST fall apart. While the methods may be mathematically beautiful in their simplicity, this does not neccesarily simplify the workings. A case in point is E=mc^2, beautifully elegant, yet solving the field equations that arise from it, for the real world, is impressively complex.