Where are the Rules of the Universe Stored?

[grahamc]

A particle traveling through space will (at least according to Newton's first law) continue at the same velocity etc. etc.

My question is this: how does this particle "know" that this is how it must behave and that it is behaving correctly? Either the rules of the universe are contained within the particle (unlikely) or they are imposed upon it by the fabric of the universe (more likely).

If the latter, then how can a "straight path" or constant "speed" be discerned/defined/imposed at the quantum field level?

 

[chroot]

Welcome to PF.

I'm moving this thread from Quantum Physics to Philosophy of Science, because it fits better there.

The short (and unsatisfying) answer is that physics doesn't actually seek to answer questions about "why" particles do what they do -- we're content to develop mathematical models that can predict what particles will do in experiments, and that's about it. We may well never be able to answer questions about "why" particles do what they do (how would you distinguish the correct answer, after all, from all of the incorrect ones?).

- Warren

 

[HallsofIvy]

I keep them in a safe in my office.

 

[russ_watters]

Ya know, most of the questions in here get on my nerves, but I really like this one. Sorry, I don't have an opinion/answer for you, but I'll be interested in hearing what others say...

 

[grahamc]

Hi Warren.

I'm not sure this is necessarily a deeply philosophical question. I think it goes to the heart of the QF dilemma. Whilst it is an interesting mathematical exercise to calculate QF effects it seems odd to me to do so without wondering why or how ordered behaviour can occur at the particle level. Does it suggest that underlying the randomness of the QF there must be a finer, ordered structure to spacetime?

Graham

 

[whatta]

couldn't we just say, the universe is itself these rules.

 

[grahamc]

Hi Whatta. Well that wouldn't solve the issue. If we accept that the ultimate condition of the universe is random energy fluctuations in a quantum field then it would be very difficult to understand how this could result in ordered particle behaviour/properties. Random energy fluctuations cannot, by definition, describe the rules by which, for example, a photon behaves.

Graham

 

[setAI]

from the multiverse perspective- the implications of an ensemble of all possible structures leads to the idea of Block Time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time

and so something along the lines of "Block Rules" would also obtain- if the ensemble contains all possible states it also contains all possible histories corresponding to any possible rule system-

so all possible rules are 'stored' in the ensemble and emerge to an observer probabilistically: the 'flow' of Time- the rules are a determination of the causal structure of that history

 

[MeJennifer]

A particle traveling through space will (at least according to Newton's first law) continue at the same velocity etc. etc.

My question is this: how does this particle "know" that this is how it must behave and that it is behaving correctly? Either the rules of the universe are contained within the particle (unlikely) or they are imposed upon it by the fabric of the universe (more likely).

If the latter, then how can a "straight path" or constant "speed" be discerned/defined/imposed at the quantum field level?

There is no contradiction, if you average out "quantum zigzagging" you get something very close to classical mechanics.

 

[whatta]

Random energy fluctuations cannot, by definition, describe the rules by which, for example, a photon behaves.

well that's why I am suggesting to consider these two items you called "energy fluctuations" and "the rules" as one single entity. After all, it is only our (human) analysis what splits it into separate items that are no longer self-sufficient.

 

[PIT2]

The question reminded me of bohms idea of 'implicate order'. This is from wikipedia:

Bohm argued: "... in sufficiently broad contexts such analytic descriptions cease to be adequate ... 'the law of the whole' will generally include the possibility of describing the 'loosening' of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts ... however, any form of relative autonomy (and heteronomy) is ultimately limited by holonomy, so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction".

...a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_Order

 

[grahamc]

OK let's get back to a very simple idea. If the fundamental state of the universe is nothing more than random energy fluctuations in a quantum field then how probable would it be that these random fluctuations would produce, for example, countless billions of photons all of which have absolutely identical properties and behaviours?

Less probable still would be that it could produce the handful of elementary particles we know about - all of which have their own distinctive characteristics and behaviours. And every single one of these particles (produced in numbers so great that we can't even imagine it) all behave exactly the same.

Quite apart from anything else this would seem to contradict the law of entropy. But that is the least of it. What puzzles me more is how something that is infinitely improbable occurs with almost infinite frequency.

 

[whatta]

OK let's get back to a very simple idea. If the fundamental state of the universe is nothing more than random energy fluctuations in a quantum field then ...

Well, what if not?

 

[grahamc]

Hi Watta - well that is what I'm getting at, and why I started this thread. I can think of at least one possible explanation.

But what I really wanted to know from physicists at the cutting edge is what is the latest thinking (apart from brane theory) about the fundamental nature of the universe. Is it still believed that nothing underlies the quantum field and that this is the ultimate and irreducible state of the universe? Any help on this one would be much appreciated.

 

[whatta]

hey grahamc are you familiar with writings of gwf hegel? they might just be another possible explanation. though I myself don't buy it :)

 

[grahamc]

OK - read that but I'm no further forward!

 

[whatta]

in few words, he suggested that the true idea of universe is so complex that no finite human concept cannot explain it fully. which means that no physical theory will ever be sufficient to answer your question. that are bad news.

good news are that, per hegel, the whole world IS the idea mentioned above, so your question "where rules are stored" gets a nice answer (rules are, obviously, wired into this idea).

hegel's world is quite similar to virtual world in a matrix movie, but without any external "real" world - only matrix itself.

 

[sd01g]

The short (and unsatisfying) answer is that physics doesn't actually seek to answer questions about "why" particles do what they do -- we're content to develop mathematical models that can predict what particles will do in experiments, and that's about it. We may well never be able to answer questions about "why" particles do what they do (how would you distinguish the correct answer, after all, from all of the incorrect ones?).

- Warren

I would suggest that we will NEVER KNOW why particles do what they do because there is no empirical test to ulitmately determine 'why'. What, when, where, how, sure. Why? Never. If the particles do not know why they do things, how can they tell us why? We can speculate, we can postulate, we can guess, we can believe, but we will never know.

(one caveat, please) Should we find that the particles do know 'why', perhaps, someday they may tell us-- remember, this is the philosophy department.

 

[grahamc]

I would suggest that we will NEVER KNOW why particles do what they do because there is no empirical test to ulitmately determine 'why'. What, when, where, how, sure. Why? Never. If the particles do not know why they do things, how can they tell us why? We can speculate, we can postulate, we can guess, we can believe, but we will never know.

(one caveat, please) Should we find that the particles do know 'why', perhaps, someday they may tell us-- remember, this is the philosophy department.

OK, you may be right but I'd like to offer four propositions. If they seem sound then I'd like to suggest an experimentally testable hypothesis. I realize I may be setting myself up for a big fall - but here goes...


Proposition 1. An elementary particle is incapable of possessing knowledge or information about the universe. An elementary particle by definition comprises no constituent parts. Therefore it cannot take on any character or characteristic other than its elementary form. Therefore it cannot contain or possesses information because it has no means for encoding, storing or operating on that information. It cannot modify its behaviour or even detect its presence within the universe.

Proposition 2: The universe is incapable of transmitting rules or information to elementary particles. The universe cannot transfer information to an elementary particle for the reasons given in Proposition 1. Information about the universe (e.g force, proximity, quantum field conditions) would require the transfer of information from the universe to the particle. Since we have already reached the most elementary state there is no mechanism by which information could be encoded to convey the notion of external forces to the elementary particle.

Proposition 3. The universe cannot comprise objects which are independent of its medium. The concept of multi-dimensional space with objects contained within it is logically impossible. The universe is evidently governed by rules. The rules cannot be contained within particles or conveyed to particles therefore the “particles” although apparently distinct from the quantum field must in fact be nothing more than a local characteristic of it.

Proposition 4. The quantum field cannot be the fundamental level of the universe. Random energy fluctuations of the quantum field cannot consistently, frequently and reliably produce organised and persistent behaviour. I.E. random behaviour cannot consistently produce numerous instances of stable, highly characteristic, particle behaviour. Apparently random fluctuations at the quantum level must therefore be a product of an underlying order.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the logic

 

[whatta]

An elementary particle by definition comprises no constituent parts.

It's not like I like to repeat myself, but. "The part" is only our vision of things. Without us, there are no "parts" out there.

The concept of multi-dimensional space with objects contained within it is logically impossible.

? Doesn't mere fact of existence of (any) concept suggests it is logicaly possible?

 

[grahamc]

It's not like I like to repeat myself, but. "The part" is only our vision of things. Without us, there are no "parts" out there.

Well, possibly. But surely if you accept that the universe is not homogenous then you must accept that some "parts" of it are different from others - whether we are here to perceive it or not. Long before humans existed particles were interacting with particles. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

? Doesn't mere fact of existence of (any) concept suggests it is logicaly possible.

No necessarily. Firstly let me reassure you: I'm not trying to propose some bizarre existensialist argument here. Ultimately I want to propose an experimentally testable hypothesis.

Borrowing heavily from string theory one could imagine a universe which is effectively a perfect solid, but in which vibrations (for want of a better concept) are free to travel through it virtually unimpeded. If the vibrations represent what we see as "matter" and the unvibrating areas represent what we see as "space" then it is possible to accept the four Propositions above and still enjoy the universe in which we exist.

 

[whatta]

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Probably; I am saying that you can't cut an electron out of the whole universe without making it less than it really is. My point is also that a set of symbols in QT formulas do not exhaust the nature of particles.

 

[vanesch]

A particle traveling through space will (at least according to Newton's first law) continue at the same velocity etc. etc.

My question is this: how does this particle "know" that this is how it must behave and that it is behaving correctly?

Let us ask the question in a different light: how do the sides of a triangle "know" they have to go to the vertices ?

 

[grahamc]

Whatta - OK thanks I assume the same applies for all the elementary particles.

Vanesch: not the same problem at all. The triangle is an abstact concept which doesn't physically interact with other triangles or the universe with a set of predictable and reproducible behaviours.

This thread really isn't as flippant as you might be implying. If elementary particles are an indivisible part, and product, of an apparently random quantum field then the least plausible explanation is to suggest that order can be produced from disorder.

I'm not trying to deny/revisit the old argument about causality. I'm simply saying that its is almost infinitely improbable that that a disordered state approaching perfect entropy can produce order with almost infinite frequency. In fact it is an almost prefect contradiction of terms.

Applying Occam's razor to this one, the simplest explanation would be that the apparently random fluctuations of the QF are obscuring an underlying order.

 

[whatta]

The triangle is an abstact concept

yeah, just like "elementary particle" is. Now you're getting it.

 

[mosassam]

It seems reasonable to describe the universe as an "ocean" of energy fluctuations existing in a quantum field. It also seems reasonable (to me at least) that the behaviour of these fluctuations is 'guided' by the various scientific laws or rules. How else is it possible to arrive at the complex order that is undeniably a part of the physical universe? However, to ask where the laws are stored is obviously misleading in that the have no physical aspect. There existence transcends space-time and as such they are non-local (ie: they are everywhere and nowhere)
Perhaps(?)

 

[grahamc]

...to ask where the laws are stored is obviously misleading in that the have no physical aspect. There existence transcends space-time and as such they are non-local (ie: they are everywhere and nowhere) Perhaps(?)

Hi Mosassam - thanks for the input. Asking where the rules are stored is, I think, important. I'm not sure their existence does transcend space-time. If there's no means of communicating between space-time and objects in the universe then both the objects and the rules must be encoded/defined in space time. Here's an analogy, the prime behaviour of a railway locomotive - "I must travel in this direction" - is governed (in a sense) by a rule encoded in the rail track.

My concern with quantum physics is that for too long people have accepted that the fundamental state of the universe is, as you nicely put it, an "ocean" of energy fluctuations existing in a quantum field. But I think this is a cop-out rather than an explanation and encourages physicists to concentrate on working out specific QM problems rather than asking the big question. Spacetime must have a much more tightly defined structure - otherwise there would be no rules. Here's another analogy:

Imagine a very large vertical board with an extensive matrix of nails tacked on to it and a glass cover placed over the nails. Imagine a whole load of marbles poured in at the top of this sandwich. The marbles will bounce off individual nails diverting right and left as they travel down the board. But travel down the board they surely will. Looking from afar you would see a swarm of marbles slowly moving from the top of the board to the bottom. However, if the glass cover was opaque except for a narrow slit (or perhaps a row of holes) on its surface all you would see is individual marbles appearing and dissappearing apparently randomly. You would have no knowledge of the precisely defined lattice underneath, no appreciation of the overall flow and no understanding at all of the rules governing the behaviour of the marbles.

I have enormous respect for those physicists who devote their careers to delving into the depths of quantum mechanics but I also think they might be susceptible to a little criticism on this point.

 

[mosassam]

If there's no means of communicating between space-time and objects in the universe then both the objects and the rules must be encoded/defined in space time.

In the 'ocean' analogy (not explanation) I wrote of, it seems to me that the separation between space-time and the objects therein, hinted at in your post, does not exist. Surely the Laws (ie: the set of all scientific laws known and unknown) apply to both equally. The Laws permeate every part of the universe, even though the visible universe occupies space-time, by which I mean - every part of the visible universe has a location. However, no part of the Laws occupy specific space-time and as such they transcend space-time.
At this moment in time I do not believe that the Laws are encoded in space-time, quite the reverse, it seems to me that the 4-dimensional continuum we refer to as the visible universe is encoded in the Laws.
One big problem - we can never measure or observe the Laws directly, we can only observe their results in the visible universe. So it may well be possible that everything I've just said is balls.
PS. Great thread by the way.

 

[mosassam]

Applying Occam's razor to this one, the simplest explanation would be that the apparently random fluctuations of the QF are obscuring an underlying order.

Surely the 'underlying order' refers to the Laws, and the randomness mentioned only appears that way in the visible (and quantum) universe. The Laws, as hinted at in my last post, must be non-local (ie: they act everywhere in the universe simultaneously) and so they can produce effects in our visible universe that defy the traditional concept of causality (which appear to us as Randomness, Uncertainty, Indeterminancy) whilst still being the same Laws that produce causality.
The Laws guide the universe and not vice versa.
Perhaps (?)

 

[grahamc]

Surely the 'underlying order' refers to the Laws, and the randomness mentioned only appears that way in the visible (and quantum) universe. The Laws, as hinted at in my last post, must be non-local (ie: they act everywhere in the universe simultaneously) and so they can produce effects in our visible universe that defy the traditional concept of causality (which appear to us as Randomness, Uncertainty, Indeterminancy) whilst still being the same Laws that produce causality.
The Laws guide the universe and not vice versa.
Perhaps (?)

Exactly! My only reason for talking about laws in the first place was to try to establish an a priori argument that the ultimate condition of the universe has to be ordered and not random. It's unlikely that the universe is operating according to a set of abstract laws stored in God's library. It is much more likely that the laws we divine are the observable product of unobservable structure.

I may have misunderstood the current state of QM but my understanding was that some argue that the ultimate state of the Universe is randomness and that this therefore denies causality.

I would argue that what we see as randomness at the quantum level is in fact only apparent randomness.

It may be possible to support this contention by experiment. For example, it is theoretically possible to explain the apparently random behaviour of surface water in a river rapid by understanding the nature or the river bed beneath it. Similarly it might also be possible to infer the ultimate structure of the Universe by examining apparent Quantum randomness under different conditions.