Where do the Physical Laws come from?

[Pythagorean]

What is your point then? You think we shouldn't be taking the OP seriously when this is precisely a philosophy section?

Not at all. My post about the question not being scientific was in response to a post that quoted the same line. Did you read the portion of my last post that you didn't quote? My point wasn't that it was crap, it was that it wasn't science. I have plenty of respect for philosophy. I just thing we should call a spade a spade, (even if it can be used as a mirror. A mirror that ugly people can use since it doesn't show much detail.)

You are sounding, as I say, very fundamentalist and excluding - too concerned about group boundary maintenance. And that surprises me as it is different to the tone of your posts in the past.

Perhaps because you're misinterpreting my post and generating an argument where there's really none. You seem to have conceded to my point when you asked "what's your point then". My point has already been made... the only reason it's still being discussed is because of your discomfort with it.

I simply don't agree that we can have no evidence about what came before the big bang. Although that is, I admit, because I take a systems science view of causality where the "wholeness" of what we observe is a map of the potential from which it arose.

I strongly suspect that the solutions to such a problem are infinite. There are probably thousands of ways we could model before the big bang that would all produce the same result. That's not very helpful if that's the case.

Current physics cannot see that whole because it is too concerned about measuring the parts. It is stuck in a particular mode of modelling (which is very useful for applied science).

I don't believe that. Sure I'll concede that physics can't "see the whole". But that's why physics isn't the only subject anybody ever studies. You're reasoning for that conclusion is questionable though.

But the way I see it (and you will surely disagree) is that an emergence-based understanding of physical laws (or rather, global boundary constraints) will be revealing about what those laws emerged from.

Of course I'll disagree. I can't even comprehend how you would use the idea of cause and effect in a universe where the laws are changing. The only reason we can rely on causal relationships is because the laws are constant. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I freely admit that it's beyond my reasoning. You seem to be harboring information that I don't have access to (or you're just trying to make me think that).

 

[apeiron]

I strongly suspect that the solutions to such a problem are infinite. There are probably thousands of ways we could model before the big bang that would all produce the same result. That's not very helpful if that's the case.

There could be a landscape of solutions perhaps. And we could be just a random choice plucked from that ensemble of possibility. In which case you would be right.

The alternative is that the universe is the unique and inevitable outcome of self-organisation across all possibility. So there may be a landscape, but the selection would no longer be random.

No matter what Bayesian probability you assign this second idea, you have to admit it is coherent and would allow what I say - for our current state to be a map of our prior state.

A sketch of this kind of approach does seem to exist in gauge symmetries and lie algebras - the sort of ToE Baez seems interested in. As dimensionality is reduced in number theory, the emergent mathematical regularities keep get stronger.

There seems in the end only one inevitable outcome as we funnel down from sedonions, through octonions, quarternions, complex numbers and the reals. And we seem to be able to use the end result, the reals, as our map back into the vaguer hinterland of higher dimensionality that "comes before".

I hope this at least illustrates what I have in mind.

Of course I'll disagree. I can't even comprehend how you would use the idea of cause and effect in a universe where the laws are changing. The only reason we can rely on causal relationships is because the laws are constant. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I freely admit that it's beyond my reasoning. You seem to be harboring information that I don't have access to (or you're just trying to make me think that).

From the above, perhaps you can see how the dynamic can also be the "constant". So in the beginning, all was higgledy-piggledy (vague). N-dimensional, indeterminate, undefined. There was no law, just the pure unbroken symmetry of possibility.

But then - the constant part - there was only one way the symmetry could break. Only one way the laws as we know them could crystalise out.

Now I'm not arguing that the laws continue to develop or change in any big way. The major phase transition that set them in place occurred with the big bang. So generally the laws and the parameters were set in stone at that point.

Though there were then at least a few further phase transition steps with the cooling that allowed the electroweak force to break out and massiveness to appear. New laws would have accompanied those new properties. The laws could not have "existed" before the EW fracture, even if they were immanent.

And I would also argue that the laws are in fact not yet fully expressed in the sense that the laws are only fully met at the distant heat death of the universe. Being dynamic rather than static, they are only fully real at the end when what they demand has completely happened.

This is Hegelian of course. But then this just makes what I am saying part of a familiar philosophical view. Although perhaps too ugly to even look at itself in a spade - had to laugh at that.

 

[octelcogopod]

Personally, I've always thought that the laws of physics are a reflection of some deep, eternal, logically necessary, absolute truth.

I agree with this.
I think this truth started it all and then through this constraint other constraints were formed naturally.
What is unknown is:

1. Why did the universe start moving, why did it events start to occur?
2. What is the most primordial object and event?

I think if we can answer this we can answer why natural laws of physics arose and how the system naturally evolved to what it is today.

 

[kote]

I agree with this.
I think this truth started it all and then through this constraint other constraints were formed naturally.
What is unknown is:

1. Why did the universe start moving, why did it events start to occur?
2. What is the most primordial object and event?

I think if we can answer this we can answer why natural laws of physics arose and how the system naturally evolved to what it is today.

In physics, "why" is answered by reference to causal law and antecedent events (or by developing a new theory of how events are causally connected). Physics is incapable of describing why things started, since the question presumes a lack of antecedent events, which are necessary for an answer. You can't go causally from nothing to something. Any discrete start would be acausal - a "miracle" in the philosophical sense.

Regarding laws being static or dynamic, if you consider the laws to be dynamic, then what are the laws governing that change? At some level things must be either nomological or illogical and unintelligible. If things aren't essentially nomological, then we are wasting our time trying to understand them and the universe is entirely arbitrary. If they are nomological at some level, then that level qualifies as being the laws of nature, and not whatever current expression we have.

I think the only hope of knowing anything about a beginning or why the laws of nature are what they are is rationalism. These questions are simply beyond the reach of empirical science. If, however, the laws of nature follow from pure logic, as Spinoza suggests in The Ethics, then we might have some hope of answering answer these questions.

I'm actually with Spinoza on this. Follow the principle of sufficient reason far enough and everything that is is necessary (not that we can necessarily comprehend how).

 

[apeiron]

I agree with this.
1. Why did the universe start moving, why did it events start to occur?
2. What is the most primordial object and event?
.

I think you make two assumptions here that could be taken otherwise.

1) Why not assume that all was "in motion" - chaotic - and then found a way to become still, the more ordered state of equilibrium?

2) In the same spirit, why not presume there was a primordial context rather than local event or local object? What would be the most primordial state (that was also wildly chaotic)?

 

[petm1]

Repetitive motion as viewed in the present.

 

[baywax]

I agree with this.
I think this truth started it all and then through this constraint other constraints were formed naturally.
What is unknown is:

1. Why did the universe start moving, why did it events start to occur?
2. What is the most primordial object and event?

I think if we can answer this we can answer why natural laws of physics arose and how the system naturally evolved to what it is today.

Hello octelcogopod,

1. Apparently there is evidence of an expansion after an explosion of energy or "big bang". That' would explain why there is motion. Why the event occurred, I think, can be described as a fundamental or primordial law like that of conservation of mass or "balance".

I don't really know but I always imagine that a universe expands to a point where the particles and even the waves composing the universe are separated by so much "void" that they end up out of balance due to the vast amount of space in ratio to the particle/wave. For some reason I see the unequal balance between a little something and a lot of nothing as a catalysis for a big bang.

This would suggest that there are many universes separated by larger areas of void, whatever that is. They would have all began as one wave or particle of a previous universe. Stephen Hawking has some diagrams that almost fit this idea. But his p-branes are more like balloons intersecting.

http://www.oakedu.com/Science/astrophysics/images/IntroductoryAstronomyCosmologyPhysics_img_228.jpg

Not from Hawking but sort of the idea.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_gott.jpg

Not exactly like I see it.

This one shows that one universe collapses and the next starts out of its remains.

 

[Pythagorean]

apeiron, I have a little better idea of what you're getting at now. I still think it's a long shot; that you would be able to find multiple different solutions that all lead to the same result, but don't predict anything new.

I can't deny that my interest would be perked if any kind of breath-though is made, but I'm not interested enough in it to be the one working on the fringe (the boundary, as you call it). I'll probably be doing enough of that in my field of interest.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

apeiron, I have a little better idea of what you're getting at now. I still think it's a long shot; that you would be able to find multiple different solutions that all lead to the same result, but don't predict anything new.

I can't deny that my interest would be perked if any kind of breath-though is made, but I'm not interested enough in it to be the one working on the fringe (the boundary, as you call it). I'll probably be doing enough of that in my field of interest.

What is your field of interest, if you don't mind me asking. (I am not a scientist)

 

[Pythagorean]

What is your field of interest, if you don't mind me asking. (I am not a scientist)

Well my bachelors degree is in physics but I am transitioning through electrical engineeeing to neurophysics.

 

[baywax]

Well my bachelors degree is in physics but I am transitioning through electrical engineeeing to neurophysics.

So... you're the next FMRI guy?!

 

[Pythagorean]

So... you're the next FMRI guy?!

well fmri is definitely interesting to me but we don't have one in my state.

For now I am just learning the physical model of neurons.

 

[baywax]

well fmri is definitely interesting to me but we don't have one in my state.

For now I am just learning the physical model of neurons.

Its funny but this is on topic. Neurons are definitely where the physical laws come from!

So... sodium/potassium pump anyone? (Not a shooter!)

 

[Pythagorean]

Its funny but this is on topic. Neurons are definitely where the physical laws come from!

So... sodium/potassium pump anyone? (Not a shooter!)

Yeah I said something to that effect in the second P of my first post in this thread but I still think its kind of a copout :p

 

[baywax]

Yeah I said something to that effect in the second P of my first post in this thread but I still think its kind of a copout :p

I agree, its a cop out like the nihilists and the anarchists and the illusionists. They just don't want to sit down to a list of phylum and function etc... just basic hand waving 101

 

[wofsy]

We keep searching for the Physical Laws but is anyone looking for the Laws that brought them about?

Is it not inconsistent to expect Physical Laws to have no cause?

Foundations of The Quantum Logic

Do you think there is any difference betgween what Physicists call phenomenological theories and fundamental theories?

I think many Physicist believe that phenomenological theories are purely models and do not give us a picture of undelying truth but that fundamental theories do or at least attempt to do this.

A fundamental theory then might be an expression of this fundamental truth.

 

[funkygranny]

Infinite regress does seem a problem. Which is where a more radical step would be required - the abandonment of the idea that beginnings are crisp rather than vague.

In normal usage, the property of being vague belongs to a term, not its reference. For example, the colour of a beam of light is a question of its wavelength. There may be wavelengths which competent speakers of English are not sure whether to call "red" or "orange". This is because "red" admits of borderline cases, and is therefore vague. However the wavelength of the light itself, its colour, does not admit of borderline cases and is therefore not vague.

But I strongly suspect it is some other kind of vagueness which you hint at here, since if there is a problem in the fact of an infinite regress of laws, this is clearly not removed by the fact that our concepts are unable to distinguish the items involved in that regress.

And as you hint, a need to take a teleological view where attractors are indeed causes found in the future of systems rather than their pasts.

There are obvious cases of physical laws being explained. For example, Kepler's three laws of planetary motion are: (i) all planets revolve in ellipses with the sun at one focus; (ii) the planets sweep out equal areas (referred to the sun) in equal times; and (iii) the square of the total time of revolution of a planet is propertional to the cube of its distance from the sun. Kepler's laws are (nearly) true, and they can be derived from the law of gravity, thus explaining why they are true, assuming the law of gravity.

Obviously to explain one physical law in this way requires you to cite another, so it is impossible that this process of derivation could explain all physical laws. It would not be an answer to say that there is an infinite regress of laws, since this would be to say that there is simply no explanation. In the same way, there is a thought-experiment (I think due to either Wittgentsein or Dummett) in which we meet an immortal being counting down, saying "...three, two, one, zero, phew!". We learn that he has been counting down the natural numbers from "infinity" (i.e. with no upper limit) and has just finished. What is the explanation for his saying "zero" at that particular time? A partial explanation is that he said "one" the moment before. But this doesn't completely explain why, because it invites the question why he said "one" the moment before, and so-on. Now the incompleteness of the explanation is clearly not removed by the fact that there are infinitely many numbers that he has counted down through, since even though there are infinitely many partial explanations for his particular finishing time, the fact remains that the entire series of counting events could have been earlier, or later, and we are missing an explanation of that.

In the same way, the existence of an infinite chain of antecedent physical laws explaining the reason for a law of our universe (such as the Lorentz transformation in special relativity) would not be a complete explanation for the physical laws of our universe, because they are clearly contingent (we could have lived in a world in which the Michelson-Morley experiment did detect an "ether drift", and special relativity was false).

Locating the cause of the state of a system by reference to its future clearly wouldn't deal with the problem of regress. It would remain the case that the system could have been different, and that fact was lacking an explanation.

 

[wofsy]

Whether or not there is an infinite ordering of universal laws why can't there be a substrate - a source of laws that is by it nature indestructible (explaining why the universe exists). We would then want to discover how laws arise if they in fact are changing at all.

 

[apeiron]

In normal usage, the property of being vague belongs to a term, not its reference.

Yes, see my reference thread on vagueness. You are talking about semantic vagueness which is trivial. I am talking about ontic vagueness.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301514

In the same way, the existence of an infinite chain of antecedent physical laws explaining the reason for a law of our universe (such as the Lorentz transformation in special relativity) would not be a complete explanation for the physical laws of our universe, because they are clearly contingent (we could have lived in a world in which the Michelson-Morley experiment did detect an "ether drift", and special relativity was false).

That is not what I am thinking. You are talking about a series of equally crisp steps. And as with your infinite counting, there would be no justification for stopping, because really you are not getting anywhere. Just the same as wondering where the hierarchy of fundamental particles would stop. Why not divide quarks and electrons?

Vagueness is a way to avoid infinite regress because it specifies now a new axis of development. You do have actual change as you move backwards or forwards.

 

[qsa]

Whether or not there is an infinite ordering of universal laws why can't there be a substrate - a source of laws that is by it nature indestructible (explaining why the universe exists). We would then want to discover how laws arise if they in fact are changing at all.

You seem to be good in the math of random processes. Please, check out this website, it might give you an idea as to how laws come about. Of course, I blieve in that all laws exist, we only find ourselves in a particular one. Laws come about in this fasion, random numbers appearI the numbers themselves can be deduced from logic) and then all combinations of sets of constraints determine the diffrent laws.

http://www.qsa.netne.net

 

[baywax]

Whether or not there is an infinite ordering of universal laws why can't there be a substrate - a source of laws that is by it nature indestructible (explaining why the universe exists). We would then want to discover how laws arise if they in fact are changing at all.

I do agree that this is a great topic for a thesis or study of some kind. The origins of the laws of nature and physical laws will be hard to excavate and prove the seeds for these mammoth "guidelines" exist or existed.

 

[baywax]

From: http://mwolff.tripod.com/instant.html

The Origin of Instantaneous Action in Natural Laws

Milo Wolff
Technotran Press

ABSTRACT. In the last millennium we learned that objects obey fixed laws of nature. Until the last decade, these laws have been entirely empirical; that is, the laws were measured properties of nature, no theoretical or physical origin was known. These measurements indicated that the movement of energy and information, which are needed to carry out the laws, travel consistently at the speed of light. This motion satisfied our rule of causality; that is: Events always occur after their causes.

However, some events have annoyingly seemed to violate the rule of causality. Certain forces and events seem to be transmitted instantaneously. These events are the transmission of energy and information which are related to the gravitational force, the magnetic force, inertial force, and relatively new phenomena termed “The EPR Effect " (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) and the Mossbauer Effect.

It is the purpose of this article to explain the origin and cause of the strange instantaneous events associated with these laws. We will show that causality is not actually being violated. Instead, the strange events are merely appearances, “shaumkamm” in the words of Irwin Schroedinger. They were created by our former incomplete knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter and of the energy exchange mechanism of quantum wave structures. All communication is actually at velocity c.

In order to understand this it is first necessary to review the origin of the natural laws and the newly developed Wave Structure of Matter, because the cause of these events lies in this wave structure and the medium of the waves. Without this preliminary review, instantaneous action cannot be explained. The Wave Structure of Matter is an exciting frontier of science which reveals the connectedness of all matter in the universe. It provides new understanding of quantum events and unravels many puzzles, including that of instantaneous action.

Somewhat on topic. Its pointing to a congruence of law throughout the universe before we've even been there.

Here's his introduction, focusing on the origins of natural law and physical law.

INTRODUCTION. The origins of the natural laws from the Wave Structure of Matter are new topics in science. To study them you must first reject the ancient Democritus particle made of ‘substances' and replace it with the correct quantum wave structure of matter. The rules of quantum waves are simple and easy to visualize. The hard part is getting rid of old thinking habits, particularly 'matter substance,’ and replacing it with ‘wave structure.’ One major fault of the particle ‘matter substance' concept was that it did not provide answers to fundamental questions like: How are the basic units of time, length, and mass formed? What is the mechanism of energy exchange? What is the origin of the natural laws? What is a photon? What is a particle? The review below describes how the Wave Structure of Matter provides these answers.

Here's Wolff's opinion on how Force Laws Operate

How do Force Laws Operate?

Two particles move towards each other obeying a law. How is the direction found? How is the separation measured? What establishes length scales? Similar questions apply to time. Every particle, everywhere, has to have access to the same clock in order to carry out orderly laws in the cosmos. Where is the universal clock? How is time communicated among all particles? They cannot behave independently so there must exist a common clock related to all the matter of the universe.
The Cosmic Clock. The quantum wave medium pervading all space is common to all particles and establishes the cosmic clock. Such clocks are alike because the homogeneity of the medium of the waves produces a fixed wave frequency. As suggested by deBroglie, the cosmic clock is the well-known frequency of the electron f = mc2/h [5]. This frequency is a property of the quantum wave medium and, thus, it is the same for all particles. Similarly the uniform quantum wave medium also provides a measure of length - the electron wavelength.

So, accordingly, we have to assume that Wolff believes the origin of the natural laws lies in the actions of the quantum world. However, that is not an origin, its a stop on the way to the true source... in my opinion. And I'm not getting religious on you!