fredrik

Martin, I'd be interested to *briefly* hear your part of things? (not asking you to write a philosophy paper here) I take it that you are in favour of the string approach? If so, one simple question: Do you consider the string starting point a exploit or something fundamental? or is this inspired by those experimental data that some has been interpreted as string nature of particles? From what I recall many string theorists really doesn't believe in the strings themselves as fundamental, as the theory has evolved from strings to membranes and that there may be a bigger theory where things make more sense? So what started out as a sort of silly "string theory" may in fact mature into something that makes more sense. Is that anything like your opinion? Like I wrote, I recently felt reinforced and inspired to resume many things after several years of other thinking. Also there are so many levels to dicuss this, and there are so many things in the typical postulates that I am not sure I accept, that it seems ridicilous to even try to make a general treatise at this point. I have some immediate open wires from the last time, which I intend to re-analyse, sharpen and eventually I may be able to get back on here with something more substantial, and not only talking. Otherwise I could ramble on forever. I know I don't like hear too much of other peoples unstructured ramblings either. Some of those parts are needed but belong in private contemplations. So to summarize what I don't like about string theory in short: It is not that I think it can not possible be something. It can, of course. My main objection is that it ignores problems that was also existent in the old theory, and withing the old theory that noone could answer properly, and it maybe really didn't matter that awfully much. But as we want to sharpen our theory to unite forces, I think these details will. Which means that even if string theory finds it way to apparent consistency, I am not sure it is answer to the right questions. I believe in stronger use of various symmetries from start. That is to start with the ultimate symmetry and then we may find that broken symmetries does generate what we are looking for. This would be a natural way of doing it. That's all I can say for now without doing some more elaborations. Many of the symmetries may have philosophical justifications and are plausible. And in those cases symmetries should be forced on the model at all cost. I believe in a strong theoretical approach. the other part of the evolutionary approach is that broken symmetries can be quantified as error terms, and these error terms gives birth to new phenomena in a kind of natural and plausible way. I don't think a good approach is to start out with a complex grand assumption and then reduce. I belive in starting out with a minimal assumption with basically complete symmetry, then find that symmetry transformation does generate all the dynamics of the systems. I do have specific ideas of how this can be done, but that is what I will resume now. It will take me some time I am sure. Perhaps string theory can be reinterpreted in these terms? That I can not answer. I am not deep into that approach myself. Anyone? In either case the starting point is not particularly minimal. So I suspect it can not be interpreted that way. Meanwhile I'll be happy to listen to other peoples ideas on this, and I'll stop here for now. /Fredrik

> With measurements we often consider an artificial, external observer that doesn't interact with the system, it's just a "passive" observer. Quantum mechanics suggest that is impossible. Ok, I should add that this is my personal abstraction of the essence if QM. It's often disrespected in many treatments, which I consider to be something that need to be fixed. Also, I can't comment on wether others may disagree. So this is my attempt to answer your question. Perhaps others have alternative answers. The wave concepty can be used of course, but then the question arises as to what the heck this wave *is*, in the context of a determinisitc classic reference. This is why, even the wave-particle duality is sort of semi-classical IMO, because the wave is really a half imaginary wave. /Fredrik

Ok, maybe I didn't understand your question. I really didn't mean to give you a "stupid answer". Your questions are good ones, I asked myself the same ones in that past except we all think a bit differently. You seem to accept the probability concept, but you still ask "where is it" when it it not measured? I suspect, though I may misunderstand you, that you still have an deterministic reference. Like, ok we don't know exactly where it is until it's measured, but still where is it, while not beeing measured? People may choose to put this, or interpret this, a bit differently: The probability distribution in quantum mechanics represents our complete knowledge of the system. What is not in there, doesn't exist. It is essential to make the distinction of intrinsic uncertainty, and incompletness that is simply due to the ignorance of the observer which is of course a completely different story. Quantum mechanics describes the instrinic uncertainty as would be experience by a hypothetical "super observer". With super observer I don't mean anything like God, I mean a normal observer, but that is superperceptiv and superintelligent. In an extension, I think the concept of measurement and the fundamental concept of interaction are the side. With measurements we often consider an artificial, external observer that doesn't interact with the system, it's just a "passive" observer. Quantum mechanics suggest that is impossible. A passive observer, that makes no measurements, does not interact with the system and there is now way any information about the system can be transferred to this imaginary observer. I think imaginary observers that follow reality from distance without disturbing it is inherently inconsistent with the concepts of quantum mechanics. In essence, an electron "interacting" with a proton, can be said to perform mesurements on the field, or communicate. I'd say reality defines itself through interactions. About where it is, as in whereabout is it likely to be detected, that is given by the probability distribution. And the different energy states in an atom gives various wavelike orbitals or shells around the atom. The different orbital shapes are mathematically different solutions to a resonance problem. I had a big time digesting this picture when I started to study QM, I desperatly tried to "invent" an underlying classic picture. But it couldn't be done in a consistent way. In my view the quantum mechanical framwork moves the focus from actualy objects to communication/interactions. We get to konw objects through interaction/communication, and thus interactions/measurements are more fundamental that the object itself. When taking some time to digest this, I find that it is far better philosophical starting point than is the old deterministic ideals. This change of base really have some profound impact on things and I consider it a significant improvement over old days. It does seem screwed up and wrong at first, but if one thinks about it again again, I wonder how I did ever could think otherwise. I'm still not sure if it helps answer your question? /Fredrik

A short "precomment" on Kygrons post. I think Kygron has some very good points that I agree with. > take one major fundemental inconsistancy an build a new model out of it. Yes this is one of the keys of development. Rather than beeing a PITA inconsistencies are the key to improvement. We want them! Consistent data is kind of redundant - but it of course builds our confidence levels as the sample size increases, so it is valuable too of course. To improve, provocing inconsistencies is the way to go. I picture two ways. 1) Either direct experimental vs predictive inconsistencies 2) logical or philosophical inconsistencies that can be found by elaborating implications of taking principles to extremes. I think this is often a "weaker method" for various reasons, but one I consider it fundamental. Method 1 is stronger and preferred source of developement, but when experimental data is not available in excess, we like other organisms have learned to adapt of alternative sources. As has been done in the past, contemplation or theoretical elaborations can indeed lead to improvements. If the full set of implications are worked out and we can prove that the system contains no logical inconsistencies(??) then the more data from experiment is needed since further contemplation alone can not give rise to inconsistencies. But when trying to exploit logical or philosopical inconsistencies I think it can not be overstated the importance of trying to adhere to high philsophical standards. This does sort of get abit metaphysical, but I would rather call it human based inutition. Sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are right. I find contemplation to be well motivated if the philosophical argumentation has sufficient level of sense. If these aspects are rather ignored, I think one should better stick to method 1. Another point of improvement I see is that of perfecting simplicity and adhering to sound philosophical ideals. Ie. to rework, reinterpret or what we may call it, so that a complex systems is made less complex without loosing information and make the same thing more comprehensible. This does have a value in itself. Compare with other phenomena in nature, such as coregulation in generegulation. Organisms need to synchronize and regulate there genes, and there is several levels of coregulation. Obviously a clever coregulation makes things easier for the cell, probably decreasing energy expenditure and increasing general fitness. This is probably also in part what is going on as we sleep. Our brain reworks the "model" continously. But I think simplicity is relative too. By normal mathematical transformations there may for example be a duality between low dimensional systems with highly "complexly represented" dynamics, or higher dimensional systems with less complex dynamics. What is easier? I'll be back later... ( I'll add that as you may notive I registred recently. It was more than 10 years since I diverged from my physics track. I have tried to consume an be inspired by living organisms lately, and I've also considered various modelling approaches to making computer simulations of cells actually just to study my own behaviour during the process, and I learned alot, with regards to their behaviour. To part of the experiment is that I had ZERO background education in biology. I usedto be one of those physics students that thought that biology was baloney, but well I came to see the light Interestingly my modelling attempts went through different phases, and I learned alot. But some week ago, when I was(or still is) reading a book about the neurology of the human brain I got a distinct feeling that it's time to resume some of the thinking I left behind 10 years ago. This was about a week ago so my brain is still filled with the metabolism and gene regulation of S.Cerevisae and I now need to get rid of it, and get back to good stuff It will probably take me a while! But some of the core problems magically reappeared when I tried to make computer simulations of a yeast culture, so in a certain sense the fundamentals has been there all along. I was a physics student but instead of going along the research route, I was disgusted by the local research politics and the uniform thinking that I was presented. I didn't want to pay the price of beeing controlled, "doing somebody elses research", just to make a living. So I got a normal job and kept my passion and tough "free", and I am glad I took the decision.) /Fredrik

Thanks for the feedback. Discussions are good! I'm not sure where to start one something that kind of have no given beginning and no end... I guess while I meant to imply several things, but didn't intend to present my "personal views" in detail, I mainly gave a personal opinion that I think, put briefly, that the "scientific method" or perhaps more properly the "philosophical method" of string theory development, started off off-track, ingnoring several fundamental aspects like Martin mentions. However it's not just just about spacetime. There is more to it. One of the more important point is the nature of fact, reality. Questions that was also discussed by the founders of quantum mechanics, but perhaps not developed and formalized. In my opinion what we are dealing with here is a kind of fuzzy problem, and I think great care has to taken before debunking parts of the problem as irrelevant with the motivation that it is metaphysics and thus baloney that is beneath us. Is the human brain baloney? I don't think so. Perhaps it induces comfort to dismiss something that is too complex. In may have a good purpose because I think our brains, while amazing has it's limits. I just think we may remember that future progress may require dismissed variables to be reincorporated. In a certain sense, this IS in part metaphysics. But does that make it less important? Since we are dealing with the concepts like reality here, one should try to be as open minded as possible, and respect the fact that this is inherently fuzzy. I think the problem can be decompose on several layers. The prediction of reality by numbers of course. But also the methaphysical aspects of creation of logic. Our brains are designed to find patterns and invent rules. I think the concept of space time and dimensions can probably be considered as a kind of interpretation as well. But that's not the only problem. A problem I see with string theory is that it starts off from something that is fairly ad hoc, attacks it with some complex math and then runs into a number of new problems. I simply have a hard time to accept that legitimacy of those problems, considering the way these problem were derived. I don't have the answers, but I think there are many clear concepts and questions that suggests natural paths. I also think that many phenomena in string theory, like consistency requirements singles out certain things as consequences is interesting. The problem I see is that the whole theory started off using "a prior knowledge" that I can not accept. Thus I have a hard time accepting the implicated problems as sensible. I believe in creating reality in systematic and sensible steps, not start out by an ad hoc jump into something and then try to manually sort out what makes sense and what doesn't and hope to be able to reduce. The whole reductive approach is IMO old faishoned - ie starting out by a grand image of reality, including unobservables, then try to reduce it back to what we observe. I think we need a creationist approach which I think would be far more natural to human intellect. In a certain way they may show duality. I might get back to this thread later with more comments. It's so easy to just enter some state of ramblings that makes sense to none else Eventually of course, success will prove itself in two ways 1) predictive power 2) increased understanding, which in effects should be "measureable" in the sense that the "fitness" of the organisms increases and allows for further improvement. It's really hard to "improve" a black box, in any other way that the brute force method. But that is the simplest form of development, and I think we can at least aim to do better. I'll be back with more ramblings... comments so far? If you think it's just rabmlings you are dead on. But I think even the universe started with just ramblings. Fortunate ramblings are not banned /Fredrik

> Careful, though. d = v*t and v = a*t are both correct but d = at^2 is wrong > > It's OK to question. Many a wrong, unphysical answer has been proposed > because the person blindly believed the math, but made a mistake. Having Good point. A somewhat misplaced comment from me I see now. I couldn't help beeing a bit amuzed by the title so I jumped I was trying to encourage the faith and understanding in deduction since I think sometimes it can answer questions to which it is hard to have an instinct on. Usually, knowing how to deduce something is more fundamental than just knowing the answer. My comment didn't fit that awfully very well in this particular case considering the sort of overly simplified level of formalism. /Fredrik

As for the masses, I think they can be excited to take interest in anything. Other than that, I personally think string theory is constructed using akward and non intuitive methods. And this by itself probably means that even if it proves to work out into a consistent mathematical exploit (which is what I consider it to be), a fundamental question still remains regarding the interpretation and the nature of the model itself. Observations and the laws of nature doesn't lack our formulas. It's our curious brains that lack a satisfactory understanding of observations, and it would be a significant evolutionary advantage if we can understand and predict things in more detail. And theories that ignore plausibility and how the human brain works, and just considers mathematical exploits are not preferred. And the main argument isn't in the static model. In a certain way you can consider modelling like a mathematical exploit. Put it in a computer, get out a number. Who cares to ask why and how, if the numbers we get out give us power. I see modelling as a evolving process. I think modelling is dynamic, as proven by history, and I doubt we will ever see a true theory of everything that will answer it all. Old questions are answered and new ones will come. So when preparing the next generation of theory, I think we should already have it prepared for another change. And unless we have some ideas, and philosohy it's nothing but spaghetti, and what is the natural extension to a bowl of spaghetti? Why not already now formulate the new physics in terms of evolution of knowledge? what can be more natural? another advantage is tht such a formulate would be readily translated to reasearch in human brain function as well as learning models which are also fundaments of reality. I think it's time for these fields to cooperate and join efforts and feed he theorists with some input from reality. It's all about observing, and modelling reality. And new observations feed remodelling. I do not quite see to what fundamental question, the concept that the world is made out of strings is the answer to. The concept of a "string" is IMO not one bit more modern than the concept of a "particle". The obvious exploit is that since a string has more degrees of freedom, it will be a more flexible model. I think we have reached the domain of physics, mixing both QM and fundamentals like space and time where the concept of fact of truth is no longer obvious. I still await a real revolution in modern physics. Or maybe it's true what some think, that physics is soon dead as a fundamental science research area and what remains are applications, and the continuation of the theory will move to other fields? I think we should model the modelling and see what findings we see. That has been my philsophy and ideas since by first QM course. I recall how tricked I felt when I during a class realized that they had been teaching me baloney this elementary school. But to their defense, it seems not even the teachers seem to understand it in depth. At least not well enough to explain to a student. Eventually I came to actually digest and realize that the old days philsophy of the absolute world was an illusion. Sorry for the diversion. I think string theory will be remembered as the last attempt to unify forces in the semi-classical domain /Fredrik

> momentum = force * time. This can't be right. The power of logical reasoning in a nutshell. You deduce something still refuse to believe it. Lesson learnt: Have faith in deductive power, it really works /Fredrik

About the remaining part of the question : So what does happen? A classical reasoning suggest that the accelerating charge will radiate and thus loose energy, and thus finally slow down. This is the same problem as electrons in the atoms. They also accelerate, and thus "should" continously radiate. And atoms would not be stable. This is not observed - why? This problem was solved by the introduction of quantum mechancs. The key is that since the electron is (*by assumption*, if it is not it will escape the system) captured / bond by some kind of interaction / force. May it be gravity or eletromagnetism, quantum mechanics asserts that the system is only defined for discrete energy values can be measured - thus continous radiation at arbitrary energies is not possible. Only discrete transitions occurs (the spectral lines), and there is a definite probability for a given transition. At the same instant you define that your electron is bound, you also impose restriction on what energy states can be detected. In this context "energy" can be though of as something that is related to the our systems time coding. The concept of time and energy are related. Without time the concept of energy (in this context) would not make sense in as much that momentum without space makes no sense. /Fredrik

Maybe I misinterpret you here, but you seem to suggest that any (accelerating) reference frame is equivalent to each other? no? The founding equivalence principle of GR, basically says that the local effect of an accelerating frame is indistinguishable from the local effect a gravitational field - ie since a local observer can not tell wether it's accelerating, or is in a gravitational field, what is the difference? Since they seem indistinguishable, Einstein suggested that they should to be treated as a single phenomenon. One possible mathematical exploit to accomplish this unification Einsteins field equations which incorporate the concept of a non-euclidian geometry. ( But as you mix GR with other things like QM. Things get weird. Which remains to be properly explained. Part of the problem IMO is that GR and QM are built with different philosophies. Also concepts like energy doesn't by definition mean quite the same things in GR and QM. ) /Fredrik

> To put it briefly, the way I interpret it is that quantum mechanics deals with measurements, and in a certain sense, only what is measured is real. Quantum mechanics deals more with our knowledge of reality, rather than reality itself, whatever that is by the way Not that is has much relevance to the topic, but my personal philosophy is that reality originally is simply "uknown". This is in my mind the "least implausible" starting point. The image or illusion of a definite reality is I think created by associative processing of our experience interacting with it. So on one hand, I would say that reality is an illusion or creation (choose the appropriate word), OTOH I'd say that interactions are the only "real" basis for reality. In that context, it is obvious that the concept of measurement is absolutely central. Central is also the concept of an observer / subject. "Reality" to me is an image, creative by the subject in question (to talk about reality without considering an specific observer or subject is also akward to me, they are central to me at least). The mind boggling parts to me is the problem that that the observer is part of the system. The observer is not an abstraction, the observer also has a physical nature, possessing mass etc. So there is a certain level of self-observation that really gives something to chew on. I've been chewing on that for at least 10 years, and still chewing Many dismiss these things as metaphysics. I can't. It is too painful. My mind begs for a solution. While I am sure that I will never find the ultimate solution, I am sure I will make progress. This philosophy has served me well, and makes me fell good. That is my experimental support for my philosophy. I would reject any philosophy that is detrimenal to my brain as wrong /Fredrik

Hmm I don't think it's that awfully unique. But others may choose to think otherwise, without contradictions. The interpretation is a choice, and is nothing you prove or disprove. My view is that whatever interpretation that makes your subjective understanding better is right for You. That said, I don't think it's a conincidence that many share the same interpretation. While QM contains is a mathematically well defined framework to calculate alot of things, that is proven to be consistent with experimental input, it's full philosophical interpretation is not defined in the theory. Interpretations doesn't change how you do calculations, neither do they change probability distribution of measured values. But it may change how a subject would attempt to expand the theory by comtemplation or extrapolation. So in a certain sense, from an application point of view or engineering point of view, you can ignore these philosophical aspects of interpretation. For me personally, I just can not allow myself to do so because it happens to be the interesting parts. Taking to abstraction, the rest of it is just "computing" according to set rules. I am interesting in seeing how rules form, not make automated computations based on already acquired rules. But there are problems in QM, as I'm sure has been discussed over and over on this forum before (I'm new here so I'm just guessing). In the domain where you mix QM and General realativity things get hairy. Some people tend to look for technical answers using new mathematical exploits, like string theory and leave the interpretation for later. Others try to rework the basic interpretation in order to find a more natural way out. I've studied QM, and I was annoyed by the official ignorance of important philosophical aspects. But yes, usually one says that some parts of the interpretation isn't "physics", it's "philosophy" or metaphysics or something like that. That maybe true but, well I never allowed myself to get hung up of choice of words. Whatever it is called, it is not less important for my reality and I can not ignore it. I'm sorry if this comes out offensive, but when scientists sometimes reject philosophical questions as baloney on the basis that it's not science, is to me similar to when your doctor diagnosing a sick patient and takes all the tests, and finds them good, completely ignoring the phsycological aspects of things. phsycology vs medicine, philosophy vs physics? Is one inferior of the other? IMO, they are both needed in the real world. That said I don't have all the answers, but I have some questions which I feel is a decent first step I recall from old discussions of mine that these things are hard to dicuss for obvious reasons. So some of these things are I think best solved my individual contemplation, but can be stimulated by intermittent dicussions between different individuals. Btw, I am impressed by this forum. Unlike other forums I visited where mosts posts are about people posting their homework, this seems to harbor alot of good things. Glad I found this. /Fredrik

Hello Membrain, I'm new here as well. Quantum mechanics is on one hand a defined formal mathematical framework, and there has been and I guess is still some debate over it's interpretation from the philosophic point. To put it briefly, the way I interpret it is that quantum mechanics deals with measurements, and in a certain sense, only what is measured is real. Quantum mechanics deals more with our knowledge of reality, rather than reality itself, whatever that is by the way. First of all, what is an electron? We picture it in our mind as a little charged bullet. However this view is not consistent as it will lead to odd things. In particular the electrons odd spin magnetic makes is peculiar. No classical body can have such a spin. Suggesting already there something is wrong with this picture. An object can only be defined in terms of interactions. If one make a distinction between some abstract reality, and the observed reality I'd say the abstracted reality has more to do with our brains and minds and our amazing desire to understand, simplify and reduce. We would go nuts to see only scattered datapoints and sporadic input. Inventing patterns and logical causal relation in data is as it seems spontaneous and also intuitive. The fact we succed in finding beautiful patterns that repeat, of course suggests that there is something absolute... but in my opinion such an assumption does not make a difference. I think first of all one has to let go of the concept that the electron is a little ball. Sometimes it behaves like one, but sometimes it does not. And when dealing with sensitive details. Small things for example. The differece between reality and the observed reality is blurred. To me the world is fundamentally fuzzy. It's chaos. Our minds and biology all suggests that there is sponatenous formation of associations. I haven't figured it out yet... but as far as quantium mechanics goes... and your electron case I'd say that... your presupposition that the electron is some kind of ball is probably what causes you to wonder "where it is" - assuming that a ball by definition has a definite position. Wich is a meaningless question until something interacts with it. And the type of interaction affects it's position too. If it's not a "ball" after all... maybe the question of "where is it" is simply wrong. /Fredrik

Granted that I didn't read the entire thread except for the last posts - about universe, and reality I tend to agree with the ideas of TriggerGrinn. Sure, the universe has as a "physical basis". But still, without an observer it has no meaning. IMO, the observer and the subject is central. I think to ask yourself if the universe would have existed and been as real even if there were no observers to observe it is something that can never be falsified, and thus has a status similar to "choice". In as much as time would have no meaning without change, I think reality would have no (objective) meaning without someone observing it. And more important, the actual observation does influence the system. In quantum mechanics, the concept of observation is essential. Observation is the basis of our *knowledge of reality*. And what we do not know, we can only guess. And something that by status can not even be falsified, is simply a matter of choice. So I think the observer and the reality are entangled up in each other. One without the othre makes no sense, more than time without change makes sense. /Fredrik

This is my very first post here, and this is kind of experimental, I really don't know what to expect at all. I am interested in a few different things, often from a the philosophical angle. I've got some personal big long term projects, and many minor transient projects which expect for providing fun, serves as excellent model projects for some of my long term projects. Find the theory of everything, isn't that what we all strive for? Meanwhile there is alot of fun things. I'm simply curious too see what kind of knowledge is on here. Are the people on here typically students that go here to discusse course contents or what? Some of my interestes are fermentation science (yeast), learning science, philosophy of science, theoretical physics. Of course, to me they are nothing but different angles of the very same core, and I belive in analysis from all reachable angles. I am not a student (though I used to be one: physics, math, comp sci), nor do I work with science. To me science and it's philosophy is a fundamental thing, transcending work and transient stuff. As long as there is a way, I'd like to not have anything interfere with it. I am one of those guys that used to think when I was in school that physics, math and chemistry are the good stuff and biology is merely an application of the former and alot of boring empricial findings. I used the reductionist approach to it's extreme. I abandoned my planned chemistry studies in favour of physics, and I ended up feeding only on the theoretical and philosophical parts of that as well. Eventually the fundamentals and other working on string theory triggered my baloney indicator again. It's not that it could be proven wrong, it just wasn't the answer to the question I would ask. The wrong question was asked, and I found no point in spending my life trying to answer the wrong question. Then I come to realized I really missed something essential. The essence of life. Biology went from rotten leaves, to something amazing. Then I realized that at this other extreme, I kind of hit the same core as in the opposite direction. Fundamentals of particle physics, the nature of the elements, dimensions and time. Fundamentals of the so called "laws" of nature. Fundamentals of life, and the nature of creation, conscioussness. Intuitively the connection is obvious, yet there are plenty of things to work out. Evolution of life, and growth of science are sort of special cases of the same thing to me. It's this thing I want. I want the abstraction of the abstraction, and hope to find the commong inductive step. Because life to me isn't static. We, they, everything is kind of in motion. Objective absoluteness is unreal to me. Or, an idealized concept at best, useful in applications. So if everything is so damn fuzzy, and nothing is real, how can things still be so apparently real? I think I will never find the answer. But I think I may find the rule that will tell me what is the most clever "next step" in my quest. That's really the best I can accopmlish. I don't know where I'm going, but I always know where I will place my next footstep. I want to understand the logic, philosophy and science of that very process. I admit it is still a kind of reductionist approach, only that I think this time the focus is not on the absolute, but on the exploration of the unknown as beeing fundamental concept. /Fredrik