- #1

- 9

- 0

Hello all!

I am new to Physics Forums but since i started a couple of days ago i've been reading obsessively in the "beyond SM" category.

Here are some of my observation on the methods used to push the boundaries further.

To any admins that might read this, please don't move the post just because there isn't any maths in it, that sorta would prove my point.

Now to the matters at hand:

My observations are that in trying to move the boundaries forward physicists and mathematicians are searching for a basic symmetry group to describe gauge symmetry and ST-symmetry under one roof.

This constant suggesting of new groups, first SU(5), then SU(10), E6, E8, E8xE8, et.c. et.c.

seems to me to be in analogy with the case of the monkeys and typewriters that eventually will produce Shakespeare. (Now im not trying to insult anybody, its just a classical philosophical thought experiment).

I am not a "mathofob" i know my way around Diff. Geom. and Lie Alg. and so on, but my view of math (in contrast to alot of mathematicians) is that math is just a language.

Now you might come at me with Dirac, and his strictly mathematical way of deriving his eq.

but what he did was just to express, in the language of math, SR + QM.

And here is my point, we need a new physical/philosophical idea/principle.

QM was due to positivism. SR and GR was due to relativism. We need a new -ism!!!!

What we are doing now is QFT + GR + X = Y. Math-models of Y could be anything, this is one equation for two unknowns.

If we try long enough we might find a model that fits, but considering that "the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we can imagine" this might take a very long time. We might even hit it without realising.

So here is a little pushforward in the philosophical aspect of TOE. (pun intended)

Questions:

1. Is the universe logically derivable. That is, can we generate all numbers in our TOE without measurment?

1.b. If not, how many variables do we want there to be? Is 1 more beautiful than 2?

1.c. If so, what does Gödels theorem suggest about our reality? Is incompleteness more ugly than paradox?

2. Is the classical interpretation of positivism valid? Considering Boltzmans eq. and the now proposed extra dims.

2.b. What would a new positivism look like that would accommodate both QM and Stat. Mech?

3. What is the relation between mathematics and the universe in which it arises? Is Math the same in all universa?

3.b. If not, can we say anything about our universe based on the mathematics possible in it?

3. and one 1. are interconnected but not the same question.

4. What is matter? (in all models people suggest fermionic and bosonic fields, but nobody asks why there is a distinction between matter particles or what the word "particle" means)

5. What is the proper object with which to describe a universe? Manifold, set, category, class or something more general? In other words what is the fundamental property of a universe? An object to which laws apply? (here we get a bit into mathematical linguistics)

Well i have alot of other questions but i think you get the point. In parallel to varying our mathematical models we should also vary our philosophical models.

Love to hear your reaction.

I am new to Physics Forums but since i started a couple of days ago i've been reading obsessively in the "beyond SM" category.

Here are some of my observation on the methods used to push the boundaries further.

To any admins that might read this, please don't move the post just because there isn't any maths in it, that sorta would prove my point.

Now to the matters at hand:

My observations are that in trying to move the boundaries forward physicists and mathematicians are searching for a basic symmetry group to describe gauge symmetry and ST-symmetry under one roof.

This constant suggesting of new groups, first SU(5), then SU(10), E6, E8, E8xE8, et.c. et.c.

seems to me to be in analogy with the case of the monkeys and typewriters that eventually will produce Shakespeare. (Now im not trying to insult anybody, its just a classical philosophical thought experiment).

I am not a "mathofob" i know my way around Diff. Geom. and Lie Alg. and so on, but my view of math (in contrast to alot of mathematicians) is that math is just a language.

Now you might come at me with Dirac, and his strictly mathematical way of deriving his eq.

but what he did was just to express, in the language of math, SR + QM.

And here is my point, we need a new physical/philosophical idea/principle.

QM was due to positivism. SR and GR was due to relativism. We need a new -ism!!!!

What we are doing now is QFT + GR + X = Y. Math-models of Y could be anything, this is one equation for two unknowns.

If we try long enough we might find a model that fits, but considering that "the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we can imagine" this might take a very long time. We might even hit it without realising.

So here is a little pushforward in the philosophical aspect of TOE. (pun intended)

Questions:

1. Is the universe logically derivable. That is, can we generate all numbers in our TOE without measurment?

1.b. If not, how many variables do we want there to be? Is 1 more beautiful than 2?

1.c. If so, what does Gödels theorem suggest about our reality? Is incompleteness more ugly than paradox?

2. Is the classical interpretation of positivism valid? Considering Boltzmans eq. and the now proposed extra dims.

2.b. What would a new positivism look like that would accommodate both QM and Stat. Mech?

3. What is the relation between mathematics and the universe in which it arises? Is Math the same in all universa?

3.b. If not, can we say anything about our universe based on the mathematics possible in it?

3. and one 1. are interconnected but not the same question.

4. What is matter? (in all models people suggest fermionic and bosonic fields, but nobody asks why there is a distinction between matter particles or what the word "particle" means)

5. What is the proper object with which to describe a universe? Manifold, set, category, class or something more general? In other words what is the fundamental property of a universe? An object to which laws apply? (here we get a bit into mathematical linguistics)

Well i have alot of other questions but i think you get the point. In parallel to varying our mathematical models we should also vary our philosophical models.

Love to hear your reaction.

Last edited: