View Full Version : Final Theory
Thomas Cuny
May3-04, 05:42 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Why has the final theory not been found?\nThe obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are\nincorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search space.\nWhich basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be incorrect?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Why has the final theory not been found?
The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are
incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search space.
Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be incorrect?
Cl.Massé
May6-04, 07:52 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Thomas Cuny" <tec@highstream.net> a écrit dans le message de\nnews:7b54473f.0405020840.18c5acd4@posting.goog le.com...\n\n> Why has the final theory not been found?\n> The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs\n> are incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the\n> search space.\n> Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be\n> incorrect?\n\nThe Higgs mechanism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics.\n\nThe wave and corpuscle picture shows that none of them captures reality,\nwhile each bring a bit of it. They appear because they have linearity\nin common, but Nature isn\'t linear since if so, nothing would happen.\nNon linearity is introduced by product terms between the linear fields.\nOur current model then is like linear patches pieced together by\ninteractions. The masses don\'t fit into it, so the Higgs mechanism is\nused to make the corners round.\nThe result is not yet satisfying, so huge amounts of extra variables are\nadded in order to have smaller patches, but that doesn\'t cure the\nillness. Actually, linear systems are much easier to tackle, and that\'s\nwhy we began with them, but the final theory must obviously be non\nlinear, or in a single piece. Our linear description thus corresponds\nto local linearizations, and waves are but auxiliary variables.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse at free dot fr\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Thomas Cuny" <tec@highstream.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:7b54473f.0405020840.18c5acd4@posting.google.c om...
> Why has the final theory not been found?
> The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs
> are incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the
> search space.
> Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be
> incorrect?
The Higgs mechanism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The wave and corpuscle picture shows that none of them captures reality,
while each bring a bit of it. They appear because they have linearity
in common, but Nature isn't linear since if so, nothing would happen.
Non linearity is introduced by product terms between the linear fields.
Our current model then is like linear patches pieced together by
interactions. The masses don't fit into it, so the Higgs mechanism is
used to make the corners round.
The result is not yet satisfying, so huge amounts of extra variables are
added in order to have smaller patches, but that doesn't cure the
illness. Actually, linear systems are much easier to tackle, and that's
why we began with them, but the final theory must obviously be non
linear, or in a single piece. Our linear description thus corresponds
to local linearizations, and waves are but auxiliary variables.
--
~~~~ clmasse at free dot fr
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Thomas Cuny" <tec@highstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:7b54473f.0405020840.18c5acd4@pos ting.google.com...\n> Why has the final theory not been found?\n> The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are\n> incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search\nspace.\n> Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be\nincorrect?\n>\n\nIn my opinion the most likely assumption that is incorrect, is\n\n1. that trapped surfaces are an element of a realistic physical space-time.\n\nIn order what this means for black holes, event horizon etc. look at the\nfour basic assumptions on which the singularity theorems are based.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Thomas Cuny" <tec@highstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7b54473f.0405020840.18c5acd4@posting.google.c om...
> Why has the final theory not been found?
> The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are
> incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search
space.
> Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be
incorrect?
>
In my opinion the most likely assumption that is incorrect, is
1. that trapped surfaces are an element of a realistic physical space-time.
In order what this means for black holes, event horizon etc. look at the
four basic assumptions on which the singularity theorems are based.
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
May6-04, 10:50 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:42:46 +0000 (UTC), tec@highstream.net (Thomas\nCuny) wrote:\n\n>Why has the final theory not been found?\n>The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are\n>incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search space.\n>Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be incorrect?\n\nOne evident basic assumption is that there IS a final theory.\n\nThere is no reason whatsoever to assume this (except of wishful\nthinking).\n\nIt may well happen that quantum theory and gravity will never be\nunified, because they are "complementary" to each other.\n\nOnce we abandon the idea that our goal is to fix what can well be\nunfixable, completely new pathways may open from both, quantum theory\nand from gravity, leading in opposite directions, and yet extending our\nhorizons.\n\nAt the end both pathways may meet at the place which today is dark or\nunthinkable.\n\nOf course there are other options as well. We may find a third theory\nthat is complementary to both QM and GR, and which reproduces\nsignificant parts of both, but is not able to reproduce them completely\n- in fact, it will contradict both QM and GR in certain areas.\n\nark\n--\n\nArkadiusz Jadczyk\nhttp://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm\n\n--\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:42:46 +0000 (UTC), tec@highstream.net (Thomas
Cuny) wrote:
>Why has the final theory not been found?
>The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are
>incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search space.
>Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be incorrect?
One evident basic assumption is that there IS a final theory.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume this (except of wishful
thinking).
It may well happen that quantum theory and gravity will never be
unified, because they are "complementary" to each other.
Once we abandon the idea that our goal is to fix what can well be
unfixable, completely new pathways may open from both, quantum theory
and from gravity, leading in opposite directions, and yet extending our
horizons.
At the end both pathways may meet at the place which today is dark or
unthinkable.
Of course there are other options as well. We may find a third theory
that is complementary to both QM and GR, and which reproduces
significant parts of both, but is not able to reproduce them completely
- in fact, it will contradict both QM and GR in certain areas.
ark
--
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm
--
FrediFizzx
May7-04, 06:40 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Thomas Cuny" <tec@highstream.net> wrote in message\nnews:7b54473f.0405020840.18c5acd4@posting .google.com...\n| Why has the final theory not been found?\n| The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are\n| incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search\nspace.\n| Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be\nincorrect?\n\nIt seems to me that the Universe necessarily should be defined by *all* the\nquantum objects in it. And spacetime should be defined by certain quantum\nobjects also. So it might be that we just don\'t know what all the quantum\nobjects are yet. Especially the ones defining spacetime.\n\nFrediFizzx\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Thomas Cuny" <tec@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:7b54473f.0405020840.18c5acd4@posting.google.c om...
| Why has the final theory not been found?
| The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are
| incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search
space.
| Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely to be
incorrect?
It seems to me that the Universe necessarily should be defined by *all* the
quantum objects in it. And spacetime should be defined by certain quantum
objects also. So it might be that we just don't know what all the quantum
objects are yet. Especially the ones defining spacetime.
FrediFizzx
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:\n...\n> Once we abandon the idea that our goal is to fix what can well be\n> unfixable, completely new pathways may open from both, quantum theory\n> and from gravity, leading in opposite directions, and yet extending our\n> horizons.\n\n> At the end both pathways may meet at the place which today is dark or\n> unthinkable.\n\nThat meet are the indeterminism from quantum theory and the geometric\napproach of gravitation and electromagnetism.\n\nUlrich\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
...
> Once we abandon the idea that our goal is to fix what can well be
> unfixable, completely new pathways may open from both, quantum theory
> and from gravity, leading in opposite directions, and yet extending our
> horizons.
> At the end both pathways may meet at the place which today is dark or
> unthinkable.
That meet are the indeterminism from quantum theory and the geometric
approach of gravitation and electromagnetism.
Ulrich
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nThomas Cuny wrote:\n> Why has the final theory not been found?\n> The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are\n> incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search\n> space. Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely\n> to be incorrect?\n\nAs supplement to the contributions from Arkadiusz Jadczyk and\nCl.Masse :\nI consider the common approach to marry gravitation and electromagnetism\nwith determinism as most incorrect. These do indeed not imply fundamental\ndeterminism.\nI\'d recommend to pursue recent discussions in sci.physics.discrete .\n\nUlrich\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Thomas Cuny wrote:
> Why has the final theory not been found?
> The obvious answer is that some of the basic assumptions and beliefs are
> incorrect. The result is that the final theory is outside of the search
> space. Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most likely
> to be incorrect?
As supplement to the contributions from Arkadiusz Jadczyk and
Cl.Masse :
I consider the common approach to marry gravitation and electromagnetism
with determinism as most incorrect. These do indeed not imply fundamental
determinism.
I'd recommend to pursue recent discussions in sci.physics.discrete .
Ulrich
Doug Sweetser
May12-04, 01:31 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Thomas:\n\n> Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most\n> likely to be incorrect?\n\nGoldielocks and Houdini are needed to question our current most\nexcellent description of gravity. Goldielocks finds Newton\'s scalar\ntheory is too small, unable to accommodate the speed limit set for\nlight. The field equations of general relativity are very comfortable.\nAs is well known, Goldie is a picky violator of property rights. The\nlinear approximation to general relativity can play nicely with quantum\nmechanics. The problem is with the nonlinear terms. She rejects the\nsecond rank tensor field equations on these grounds alone as being too\nlarge.\n\nThat leaves only one choice in the middle: gravity being described by\nrank one field equations. That is just right for Goldielocks. This\npresents MAJOR problems that only a mathematical Houdini can solve (not\nme, I\'m a hacker with a dull hatchet). One needs to derive a metric\nconsistent with current tests of weak field gravity. It must be a\nbackground free method, whatever that means in operational detail. The\nmetric must respect the weak and strong equivalence principle. That\nmetric needs to be different so the proposal can be tested using the\nstars. The field equations must work with quantum mechanics to the\nlevel that a second-order scattering calculation that can be\nregularized and renormalized.\n\nI never understood why the bears did not maul Goldielocks (would make a\ngood children\'s horror story ;-) To this day, I find Houdini\'s work\nAMAZING. Yet he only used simple tools well in surprising ways. The\nsame may be true for gravity. It is where every chip I own (not many)\nis riding. The house plays a different game.\n\nI consider the phrase "final theory" to be a marketing of science term\nof little lasting value. Unifying gravity and light with panache will\nbe a wonderful addition to the intellectual gemstone collection of\nscience, but there are still big seams to work if you enjoy the hard\nlabor mining entails.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Thomas:
> Which basic assumptions and beliefs do you consider most
> likely to be incorrect?
Goldielocks and Houdini are needed to question our current most
excellent description of gravity. Goldielocks finds Newton's scalar
theory is too small, unable to accommodate the speed limit set for
light. The field equations of general relativity are very comfortable.
As is well known, Goldie is a picky violator of property rights. The
linear approximation to general relativity can play nicely with quantum
mechanics. The problem is with the nonlinear terms. She rejects the
second rank tensor field equations on these grounds alone as being too
large.
That leaves only one choice in the middle: gravity being described by
rank one field equations. That is just right for Goldielocks. This
presents MAJOR problems that only a mathematical Houdini can solve (not
me, I'm a hacker with a dull hatchet). One needs to derive a metric
consistent with current tests of weak field gravity. It must be a
background free method, whatever that means in operational detail. The
metric must respect the weak and strong equivalence principle. That
metric needs to be different so the proposal can be tested using the
stars. The field equations must work with quantum mechanics to the
level that a second-order scattering calculation that can be
regularized and renormalized.
I never understood why the bears did not maul Goldielocks (would make a
good children's horror story ;-) To this day, I find Houdini's work
AMAZING. Yet he only used simple tools well in surprising ways. The
same may be true for gravity. It is where every chip I own (not many)
is riding. The house plays a different game.
I consider the phrase "final theory" to be a marketing of science term
of little lasting value. Unifying gravity and light with panache will
be a wonderful addition to the intellectual gemstone collection of
science, but there are still big seams to work if you enjoy the hard
labor mining entails.
doug
quaternions.com
Thomas Cuny
May29-04, 11:51 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Someone should create a final theory prize and a final theory review\nteam. Who should be on the final theory review team?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Someone should create a final theory prize and a final theory review
team. Who should be on the final theory review team?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.