The instinct of reality is distorted by current physics

[Mordred]

  I'm well aware of the interpretations applied to either QM and String theory. I have spent enough time to have an informed opinion of them. The interpretations don't particularly interest me though I have studied them. I don't particularly buy into the alternate realities argument Especially the oft used many worlds interpretation. However that's just me. I require the mathematics for any modelling I do. My particular focus has always been studying all the dynamics from the BB to the CMB. For that I have extensive knowledge and mathematical skills in all the major theories and models. Primarily though QFT along with GR (naturally) and obviously well versed in the FLRW metric of the LCDM model.  All the power to those that enjoy metaphysics and its many interpretations its simply not my cup of tea. 

For myself I focus on this universe, I have no issue with multiverse theories but as a Cosmologist I tend to favor those multiverse models that aren't based on interpretations but rather as other regions outside our causal influence one example being the well known chaotic eternal inflation theory. They have nothing to do with higher dimensions, as one well versed in the mathematics.

A dimension has very precise meaning in the Physics mathematics. That's true in every physics theory. QM and string theory included. Granted as I have degrees in Cosmology and Particle physics my opinion is largely based on the requirements of the mathematics as a necessary tool

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, wei guo said:

it is currently accepted by at least a group of scientists and also this 'throwing rubbish into reality' trend is more and more popular in the future development of science. If this behavior is not corrected, the whole reality would be interpreted as a rubbish can and the rubbish inside is full of various magic physical properties.

Nah, I don't agree with your opinion.  The fact that some avenues of inquiry are going to lead to a dead end is not a problem.  The current state of physics and astrophysics is nothing short of amazing.  Your gloom and doom scenario is completely unfounded IMO. 

[StringJunky]

'A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one.'

If I have seen further, it because I have stood on the shoulders of giants - Newton

There is no creativity without prior knowledge. Learn it well.

Edited June 17, 2023 by StringJunky

[wei guo]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

'A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one.'

If I have seen further, it because I have stood on the shoulders of giants - Newton

There is no creativity without prior knowledge. Learn it well.

no matter how far we learn, we all need to trace back to the original point.

22 hours ago, Mordred said:

  I'm well aware of the interpretations applied to either QM and String theory. I have spent enough time to have an informed opinion of them. The interpretations don't particularly interest me though I have studied them. I don't particularly buy into the alternate realities argument Especially the oft used many worlds interpretation. However that's just me. I require the mathematics for any modelling I do. My particular focus has always been studying all the dynamics from the BB to the CMB. For that I have extensive knowledge and mathematical skills in all the major theories and models. Primarily though QFT along with GR (naturally) and obviously well versed in the FLRW metric of the LCDM model.  All the power to those that enjoy metaphysics and its many interpretations its simply not my cup of tea. 

For myself I focus on this universe, I have no issue with multiverse theories but as a Cosmologist I tend to favor those multiverse models that aren't based on interpretations but rather as other regions outside our causal influence one example being the well known chaotic eternal inflation theory. They have nothing to do with higher dimensions, as one well versed in the mathematics.

A dimension has very precise meaning in the Physics mathematics. That's true in every physics theory. QM and string theory included. Granted as I have degrees in Cosmology and Particle physics my opinion is largely based on the requirements of the mathematics as a necessary tool

Indeed, math is a good tool but we cannot completely rely on it to lead us to explore the law of nature. Without the guide of philosophy, mathematics will precisely lead physics to a wrong path.

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, wei guo said:

no matter how far we learn, we all need to trace back to the original point.

Right. We can't create ideas in a vacuum. You have to tread the trodden path in order to extend what is already there and accepted by like-skilled people, who between them are the corpus of knowledge of that subject. Think of the big characters in science history. They are the pillars that people refer to , even though their work may have been superseded by newer research.

Whatever ideas you come up with must concur with what still works elsewhere, otherwise you will have to form hypotheses to explain those as well, so that it conforms with yours.

Edited June 18, 2023 by StringJunky

[Eise]

On 6/18/2023 at 2:40 AM, wei guo said:

Indeed, math is a good tool but we cannot completely rely on it to lead us to explore the law of nature.

That may be the reason that experiments are done in physics, no? We take the best theories we have, i.e. that explain the most empirical facts that we know until now, and try to extend them with math to see what other, not-tested results follow. And then we put them to the test. So your 'complete' is a none-existing caricature of what physicists do.

On 6/18/2023 at 2:40 AM, wei guo said:

Without the guide of philosophy, mathematics will precisely lead physics to a wrong path.

That is exaggerated. Sure, there are areas in physics where philosophy might help, when reflection on used concepts and methods becomes necessary. But besides that, experiment is the filter that any mathematical theory applied to physics must pass. 

[wei guo]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

That may be the reason that experiments are done in physics, no? We take the best theories we have, i.e. that explain the most empirical facts that we know until now, and try to extend them with math to see what other, not-tested results follow. And then we put them to the test. So your 'complete' is a none-existing caricature of what physicists do.

That is exaggerated. Sure, there are areas in physics where philosophy might help, when reflection on used concepts and methods becomes necessary. But besides that, experiment is the filter that any mathematical theory applied to physics must pass. 

The phenomena observed in experiment can only be served as the starting point to cognize reality but not our ultimate standard to judge whether our cognition is right or not because between what we observe and what we want to describe may have some underlying artificial-defined things inside. 

[Bufofrog]

20 minutes ago, wei guo said:

The phenomena observed in experiment can only be served as the starting point to cognize reality but not our ultimate standard to judge whether our cognition is right or not because between what we observe and what we want to describe may have some underlying artificial-defined things inside.

So we can't trust math or the results of experiments?  What should we trust then, your imagination?

[wei guo]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

So we can't trust math or the results of experiments?  What should we trust then, your imagination?

Trust those that fits both logic and result of experiment. Either cannot be missing. For quantum mechanics, it only fit part of the latter (lack gravity and cannot make sense logically).

[Eise]

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

what we observe and what we want to describe may have some underlying artificial-defined things inside. 

That is possible indeed. But it is not the aim of science to describe nature as it is in itself ('an sich'). Its aim is to describe nature as it reveals itself to us, to our senses and cognitive abilities. Then surely we can introduce 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. Examples might be (being careful here) wave functions, or virtual particles. What is important is that the math using them gives correct predictions. If it turns out that we can't use them, i.e. experiments cannot be explained by using a theory with 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', then the theorists must go back to the drawing board. But in a new theory we might have new 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. 

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

The phenomena observed in experiment can only be served as the starting point to cognize reality but not our ultimate standard to judge whether our cognition is right or not

No way. You would be like a stamp collector, collecting 'physics facts'. Science is more than that. Physics wants to describe an empirical world: what else than the empirical world could be the arbiter if a theory is correct or not? Of course, a theory must be logically and mathematically sound, but that is not enough. That is old fashioned metaphysics, especially in it rationalist form: that we can explain the world based on thinking alone.

22 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Trust those that fits both logic and result of experiment.

First, math is logical through and through. A little mean, one could say math is applied logic on 'mathematical objects' (numbers, geometry, topology, etc etc).

Second, between the lines I read that what you mean with 'logic' in fact is "wei guo's capability of understanding".

Edited June 19, 2023 by Eise

[Bufofrog]

8 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Trust those that fits both logic and result of experiment. Either cannot be missing. For quantum mechanics, it only fit part of the latter (lack gravity and cannot make sense logically).

Are you saying that if the science doesn't meet your everyday experience it can't be correct?  That would mean no SR, GR or quantum physics, even though much of our technology uses these concepts?  How could these ideas yield these technologies if they are not viable explanations.  Is it just luck... ?

[Mordred]

The mathematics of physics does an excellent job describing what we can measure and experimentally confirm. 

3 hours ago, wei guo said:

Trust those that fits both logic and result of experiment. Either cannot be missing. For quantum mechanics, it only fit part of the latter (lack gravity and cannot make sense logically).

We can accurately describe gravity under QM or QFT  it is an effective field theory. The issue is we do not have an effective cutoff for renormalization.  Other than that the mathematics works extremely well. One could viable ask is renormalization absolutely necessary in this case as the viable range covers our universe quite well. The only two exceptions being the BB and BH singularities.

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

One could viable ask is renormalization absolutely necessary in this case as the viable range covers our universe quite well. The only two exceptions being the BB and BH singularities.

We can't brush off gravitational renormalization especially the fact that BH are real objects not just hypothetical...it's critical to address it,if not,have reasons to state otherwise.

[Mordred]

Is it ? PPL tend to reject GR because of that single issue. They forget it works extremely accurate for any real measurements we can actually take in our universe. We cannot measure the singularity at R=0 of a BH due to the event horizon 

We can never measure directly the \(10^{-43} \) condition of the BB. Not even if we can measure the cosmic neutrino background.

The only remote possibility is indirect measure using gravity waves and even that would be an engineering challenge due to the needed size of detector. 

Yet everyone assumes GR is invalid simply because of the those 2 singularity conditions. Yet we can never measure nor create in a lab those conditions.

Most ppl believe the issue is quantizing gravity. It isn't its the divergences of the second order equations as opposed to the first order equations. In layman's terms the first order equations is strictly gravity by itself. The second order equations kick in when you start adding other particle fields.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Are you saying that if the science doesn't meet your everyday experience it can't be correct?  That would mean no SR, GR or quantum physics, even though much of our technology uses these concepts?  How could these ideas yield these technologies if they are not viable explanations.  Is it just luck... ?

These ideas yield technologies only because these ideas are valid in mathematically but in the logical view, it is in chaos. 

[Mordred]

Here is some logic for you. If it works mathematically and is supported by observational evidence to an extreme high degree. Then it must be valid despite claims that it doesn't work by other forms of logic

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, wei guo said:

These ideas yield technologies only because these ideas are valid in mathematically but in the logical view, it is in chaos. 

I’m with Eise - you appear to be using “logic” to mean your ability to understand. IOW, argument from incredulity. The fact that you don’t understand something doesn’t make it wrong or chaotic.

[wei guo]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Here is some logic for you. If it works mathematically and is supported by observational evidence to an extreme high degree. Then it must be valid despite claims that it doesn't work by other forms of logic

I want to pick a name to describe what you say as a short one of 'phenomenon determinism'. It is not enough to just be compatible with observational evidence because 'observational evidence' is just phenomenon , which may not reflect the truth of reality. For instance, If half human beings are colour blindness and the other half are not, then different half human beings would alert they perceive the correct phenomenon.  This is the problem of 'phenomenon determinism'. It cannot become the basis to serve as the standard of judgement.

[Mordred]

You can pick whatever term you want, as a physicist. What is important to me is does the mathematics of a model accurately describe the system or state I wish to model. Can I make testable predictions that are accurate when I go to measure that system ?

 Do I care at this point on interpretations ? absolutely not couldn't care less. Do I care about fundamental reality ? No I've been studying physics for over 35 years. To this day the only things I can state are fundamental is 

1) Everything is in motion

2) you have systems or states that attract, repulse or neutral.

That's pretty much it... Everything else is questionable and subjective to interpretation.

The problem I have with interpretations and metaphysics is that they tend to ignore how successful a model or theory is in making testable predictions. They always assume they can improve upon a given model with nothing but words and conjecture. They literally ignore the very purpose of a physics model. (testability of predictions). 

I have state A what happens if It collides with system B. That sort of thing.

Entanglement is a good example. Look at all the interpretations misguided information , pop media articles that are never accurate. Yet at the end of the day one could entangle and apple and orange through a correlation function and make a prediction that if I pull out the orange in my bag the apple must  be in the other bag.

with particles I simply have to examine the preparation of the entangled pair. ( apply the conservation laws) then look at the detectors. Develop a correlation function then test it for accuracy. Not once did I have to resort to an interpretation to conduct the experiment. Yet without any interpretations one can  make accurate predictions of what the results will be.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

11 hours ago, Eise said:

First, math is logical through and through. A little mean, one could say math is applied logic on 'mathematical objects' (numbers, geometry, topology, etc etc).

Second, between the lines I read that what you mean with 'logic' in fact is "wei guo's capability of understanding".

Mathematics is merely a sort of language, which is, in nature, no different from other ways used to describe our world. The advantage of math only lies in fact that the symbolic system behind it is more logic than other forms of expression, i.e, everyday language(English, Chinese) or drawing a picture. In short, mathematics is just a product that fit the frame of logic rather than the opposite. Viewing the identity of mathematics as a unique abstract product which needs to be cut a line from other ways of expressing or describing our world is no different to treat mathematics as a kind of religion. 

[MJ kihara]

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

In layman's terms the first order equations is strictly gravity by itself. The second order equations kick in when you start adding other particle fields.

Some clarification on this pliz...what's the issue with adding other particles fields?

[Mordred]

28 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Mathematics is merely a sort of language, which is, in nature, no different from other ways used to describe our world. The advantage of math only lies in fact that the symbolic system behind it is more logic than other forms of expression, i.e, everyday language(English, Chinese) or drawing a picture. In short, mathematics is just a product that fit the frame of logic rather than the opposite. Viewing the identity of mathematics as a unique abstract product which needs to be cut a line from other ways of expressing or describing our world is no different to treat mathematics as a kind of religion. 

So you claim, yet the mathematics is the same regardless of nationality. Still doesn't change the fact that any physics theory MUST have accurate mathematics. Otherwise it's useless as a theory.

 

14 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Some clarification on this pliz...what's the issue with adding other particles fields?

It results in divergences that we haven't figured out how to keep renormalized. A renormalized theory is divergent free. Unfortunately without using the mathematics itself that's about as accurate a description I can give.

 Even if I give the mathematics there are only a handful of forum members that would have a chance of understanding it. As one must be familiar with one loop integrals. Aka Feymann diagrams,

 Or at the very least be familiar with the term divergence and convergence in a vector field.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So you claim, yet the mathematics is the same regardless of nationality. Still doesn't change the fact that any physics theory MUST have accurate mathematics. Otherwise it's useless as a theory.

 

Strictly speaking, any correct physics theory needs have the accurate logic rather than mathematics because mathematics is just a by-product of logic.  

[Mordred]

No I will always disagree with you on that.  We have plenty of physics that one would have difficulty applying logic to.  In point of detail logic prevented the physics understanding in many cases. I'm positive you can think of several cases where that is true. Especially when it comes to quantum physics.

Apply classical logic to quantum tunneling treating particles as corpuscular (materialistic bullets). 

 Apply logic to an Bose Einstein condensate where all particles lose any identity (they cannot be distinguished by one another ).

There is two examples. Time dilation without the mathematics is near impossible for ppl to understand .

Here is the problem with logic. In order to apply logic you must apply that which a person understands. Take a student for example that has been taught the Bohr model of the atom in school that has been taught particles as little bullet like objects.

Would that student understand particle wave duality ? To answer that look at all the misconceptions of the two slit experiment. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[Bufofrog]

22 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Strictly speaking, any correct physics theory needs have the accurate logic rather than mathematics because mathematics is just a by-product of logic.

Define 'accurate logic'.