Basic metascience questions in theoretical physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around philosophical and theoretical questions in physics, particularly concerning the constancy of physical laws throughout the universe, the implications of mathematical models in physics, and the nature of light and spacetime from the perspective of photons. Participants explore concepts related to gravitational theory, radioactive decay, and hypothetical scenarios involving wormholes and tachyons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the laws of nature are constant throughout the universe and seek evidence beyond laboratory conditions on Earth.
  • One participant suggests that astronomical observations, such as spectral emissions from stars, support the idea that physical laws are consistent across the universe.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of mathematical models, particularly regarding radioactive decay and the speed of light, with some participants speculating on the completeness of these models.
  • A participant discusses the statistical nature of radioactive decay models and contrasts it with the deterministic nature of Lorentz transformations, suggesting that the latter holds true up to the speed of light.
  • Questions are posed about the perspective of a photon regarding time and space, with one participant suggesting that from a photon's viewpoint, the universe would appear frozen in time and dimensionless along its path.
  • Another participant references the Einstein-Rosen Bridge, proposing that it represents how a photon perceives a gravitational field, leading to discussions about the existence of wormholes.
  • Speculation arises about whether every photon creates a wormhole and the implications of tachyons existing in a universe with a different speed limit.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the physical validity of theories involving wormholes and infinite mass increase, suggesting they are more mathematical than physical.
  • Questions about the semantics of exceeding the speed of light arise in hypothetical scenarios involving wormholes and the perspective of observers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views and remains unresolved on several key points, particularly regarding the nature of physical laws, the interpretation of mathematical models, and the implications of hypothetical constructs like wormholes and tachyons.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the completeness of mathematical models and the assumptions underlying various physical theories. The discussion also touches on the philosophical implications of these theories, which may not be fully addressed within the framework of current scientific understanding.

phoenixthoth
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
2
i have a few questions of the scientists out there. I'm looking for scientific answers to questions on the philosophy of science, though I'm not sure scientific answers can answer questions on the philosophy of science.

here goes nothing...

is it assumed that the laws of nature are constant throughout the universe? if so, what evidence is there that the laws of nature are not just constant within the confines of labs on planet earth? is there astronomical observational evidence that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe? if not, how can we investigate the laws of physics and what would be the point? a related question is, in Newtonian gravitational theory (which has been proven to be incomplete, i will add), what if the gravitational "constant" actually gets warped by matter?

now a question about the speed of light being the speed limit of the univese...

in radioactive half-life decay theory, the mathematical MODEL would suggest that the sample of element 92 would NEVER fully decay, that there would always be some mathemematically measurable quantity of the substance left, however infinitesimal. but experiments would seem to indicate that the sample of uranium would eventually all decay, in a detectable sense, contradicting the mathematical model that it would only asymptotically approach zero quantity. my analogy is this: the mathematical model dictates that the speed of light is the maximum speed of anything in this universe but what if it was only a mathematical model and not complete? in other words, is it concievable that once a high enough speed is reached that one actually goes at the speed of light?

a related question is this: what does the universe appear to be (time like and space like) from the point of view of a photon, if it were to possesses an awareness of time and the universe (i know that's a big assumption, but let's just suppose)?

thank you for considering my questions. that's all my questions for now.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i have a few questions of the scientists out there. I'm looking for scientific answers to questions on the philosophy of science, though I'm not sure scientific answers can answer questions on the philosophy of science.

here goes nothing...

is it assumed that the laws of nature are constant throughout the universe? if so, what evidence is there that the laws of nature are not just constant within the confines of labs on planet earth? is there astronomical observational evidence that the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe? if not, how can we investigate the laws of physics and what would be the point?

Well yes, there are a number of astronomical observations that support the notion that the Laws of Physics are the same everywhere:

We see the same spectral emission and absorption bands from the stars as we see on Earth. More massive stars burn hotter than less massive stars, as we would expect if this were true. Binary stars follow the orbits we expect, etc.

These observations taken together with many more, paint a convincing picture of a universe that follows the same rules as those in the lab.


now a question about the speed of light being the speed limit of the univese...

in radioactive half-life decay theory, the mathematical MODEL would suggest that the sample of element 92 would NEVER fully decay, that there would always be some mathemematically measurable quantity of the substance left, however infinitesimal. but experiments would seem to indicate that the sample of uranium would eventually all decay, in a detectable sense, contradicting the mathematical model that it would only asymptotically approach zero quantity. my analogy is this: the mathematical model dictates that the speed of light is the maximum speed of anything in this universe but what if it was only a mathematical model and not complete? in other words, is it concievable that once a high enough speed is reached that one actually goes at the speed of light?
The difference is that radioactive decay is a statistical model based on random events. As such, it only works when you have a large enough sample to work with. It can't tell you, for example, how long it would take for a single U238 atom to decay, it can only tell you what probability there is that it will have decayed after a given time.
So it is well understood why the model's accuracy drifts as the number of atoms decrease.

As far as The Lorentz transformations go, they aren't based on statistical models, so the same problem doesn't apply. They are expected to, and in every test so far have, hold all the way up to c


a related question is this: what does the universe appear to be (time like and space like) from the point of view of a photon, if it were to possesses an awareness of time and the universe (i know that's a big assumption, but let's just suppose)?

thank you for considering my questions. that's all my questions for now.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

This is one of those questions that is hard to answer properly. Because the very conditions it relies on are ones that violate the laws it is meant to investigate.

The best answer I can give that the universe would be frozen in time and squished to zero dimension along the axis of motion. The photon would exist at it's origin point and destination at the simultaneously.
 
thanks. those answers are satisfying enough for now.

cheers,
phoenix
 
a related question is this: what does the universe appear to be (time like and space like) from the point of view of a photon, if it were to possesses an awareness of time and the universe (i know that's a big assumption, but let's just suppose)?

Einstein and his coworker Rosen wondered how the Schwartzschild spacetime of a gravitating masspoint would look to a photon. So they made a change of variables from the spherical-like coordinate system in which that spacetime is usually expressed to one in which two of the axes are lightlike. And you know what they found?

A wormhole. No kidding, it's called the "Einstein-Rosen Bridge". It was the first example of a wormhole solution in the theory of GR.
 
very cool.

so does that mean there's a wormhole around every photon? does every photon offer a gateway into the whole universe of space and time, existing beyond time and space somehow?

what about tachyons? is there a whole universe operating with a LOWER speed limit of c?

cheers,
phoenix
 
These wormholes, black holes and pardoxes of relativity make of it more mathematical theory than a physical one. One should not trust a theory that allows infinite mass increase and thus sets limits to God with respect to velocity or anything else.
 
Phoenixthoth, the wormhole is he way a photon sees a gravity field. The wormhole is not a part of the photon but an aspect of the field.

Clicky, God hasn't yet complained about the speed of light.
 
here's a probably dumb question.

suppose there are wormholes.

the starship enterprise enters a wormhole and ends up ten trillion trillion light years away in a nanosecond.

from the observer using a telescope on Earth (or at least to God), aware of the entrance and exit of the starship into and out of the wormhole, the starship has exceeded the speed of light. however, from the perspective of the starship, the speed of light was never exceeded. so has it been exceeded or not?

cheers,
phoenix
 
In getting from point A to point B in less time than it would have taken light to get there, the spaceship did encroach on spacelike separation. From this all the consequences (time travel, causality violation) can be made to happen.

Whether it "violated the speed of light" in doing this is a semantic question.
 
  • #10
"From this all the consequences (time travel, causality violation) can be made to happen."

could this be evidence that there are, in fact, no wormholes except in theory? we wouldn't want to live in a universe with causality violation, would we?

cheers,
phoenix
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Changing or breaking the most fundamental laws and symmetries?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate The Crisis in Theoretical Physics - Gian Francesco Giudice
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
Graduate Discussion of "Two-Time Physics" (I. Bars) and its potential cosmological implications
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Undergrad Could the Lorentz symmetry be theoretically broken in vacuum?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Some questions about Coleman's Baby Universe model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
High School What is the physical significance of mass-time-length equivalences in physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Three questions regarding QG theories
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Relationship between nuclear magnetic physics and Maxwell's demon
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Can Gödel's Theorem Inform Our Understanding of Physical Reality?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Schools Seeking advice on choosing between Manchester, Durham, and Nottingham
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
976