Parameters of Theory of everything.

[joigus]

9 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Physic and math seem intertwined to the best of my knowledge so far,it's critical source of information to other branches of science(chemistry & biology).

My question is what is fundamental between philosophy and physics?

 

Since we are in speculation section,let use assume this scenario,you are in a planet with the knowledge you have, this planet has homosapiens who have just become aware of themselves i.e they now seem to start drawing things like their fingers and what seem to be circles and triangles..you have a few minutes probably ten minutes to take off and leave them without coming back...is that long equation enough to leave it in a rock tablet to make them shorten drastically the time they develop scientifically to our level or is there anything else more fundamental that they can be told and given on a rock tablet that can exponentially increase there awareness and make them reach our level within a shorter period?

Just confirming what @MigL said: No. It is the same as the so-called Lagrangian formula that @Mordred wrote, but made just a tiny bit more explicit. In fact, I left out a term that Mordred included, which is gravitation. There's a huge amount more information to deploy even to describe the simplest of situations. So a primitive culture could do nothing with it. And that is without even thinking about questions of conventions, notation, etc.

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

Regex is simpler: [01]*

(meaning an infinite number of zeros and ones, forming any binary number you need).

 

This would lead us back to the fascinating topic of what is simple and what isn't. One has to have a considerable preliminary knowledge of what to do with that recipe before any calculation is tackled. In the case of a Lagrangian, I'm afraid nothing would be simple, at any level. It would certainly not be like reading the digits of an irrational number, for which you would gain an important insight if someone revealed where the sequence came from in the form of a simple geometric idea, or a limit. Going back to @MJ kihara's example of the "primitive civilisation", you would have to --among many other things-- telling them about free parameters: The coupling constants (including the Higgs) and the CKM matrix of mixing angles. Provided they understood what we would be telling them, they would naturally ask, "why these numbers, and not others?" To which we would have to look to the skies, searching for their storm god, and shrug in ignorance.

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If you meant 'fundamental difference between', then philosophy would tell you not to ask a dumb question like previous one, as it is useless.

Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue.

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

Theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.

 

We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If you meant 'fundamental difference between', then philosophy would tell you not to ask a dumb question like previous one, as it is useless.

Philosophers and physicist in our civilization..human civilization, who came first? I think we can use our own development to give us a clue.

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

Theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.

 

We can't put some aspects of reality out of the universe...issues like Evolution where evidence and it's arguments are as clear as daylight...and just associate them with accidents, in any case if anything happen by chance, it's within the universe.

[Mordred]

 One of my favorite articles regarding GUT (grand unification) which is oft described as a TOE if one can complete the GUT including gravity is by John Beaz.

It's an interesting and informative reading I highly recommend it.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf

[chron44]

34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

One of my favorite articles regarding GUT (grand unification) which is oft described as a TOE if one can complete the GUT including gravity is by John Beaz.

It's an interesting and informative reading I highly recommend it.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf

 

Much over my "normal" physics and math status. Did make a look on this paper and began to wonder:
Does the origin of (our) universe, BB or any other universal evolutionary theory, matter within this paper's frames of reference?

I.e. is the BB the only universal evolutionary candidate for this article?
(Is it possible to estimate?)

 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

6 hours ago, studiot said:

IOW is a TOE allowed to be probabilistic ?

Of course.
QM is probablistic; it makes amazingly accurate predictions.

Or are you asking whether a ToE might resolve the probabilistic aspects ?

 

Did you hear the one about the car salesman who said

 

This car has everything you need for the journey to your destination.

It's extra for a tank of gas.

 

Or the old saw

A present for the man with everything.

Penecillin.

 

If it can't answer a simple question to distinguish between a atom that will decay in 5 minutes time and one which will not so so for 5 million years, to me it is a travesty as a theory of everything.

[Mordred]

Thankfully decay rates are essential to determine when a particle drops out of thermal equilibrium.

Though it's oft described as "when the expansion rate exceeds the reaction rate" in Cosmology applications.

Edited August 31 by Mordred

[MigL]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

to me it is a travesty as a theory of everything

In my opinion, 'everything' is hyperbole.

[MJ kihara]

Going by the order of fundamentality...I think this should be criteria of getting a theory of everything.

1- pose a simple/ probably controversial basic question in philosophy and try to answer it.

2-Use the answer in step one to develop a mathematical statement/equation.

3-Use whatever you got in step two to develop a physic model.

4- Use the model that you get in step 3 to answer physic problems,of course the model should be in agreement with standard model and general relativity...and of course,since you want TOE it should merge them seamless.

5-Having satisfied step 4 more than any theory of the day,try answering other non resolved problems from other branches of science chemistry and Biology...and since we exist it should be able to explain theory of evolution..this is a critical parameter that you can't run away from.

6-Finally the theory having satisfied step 1 to 5 should be able to explain new scientific observations and make further scientific predictions that are testable in the immediate future and further into the future,this point determines the extent to which such a theory will retain the crown 👑 of A theory of everything.

[joigus]

On 8/30/2024 at 10:23 PM, MigL said:

Interesting magazine Joigus; thanks.

A much more relevant article from that same magazine

Whatever happened to the theory of everything? | symmetry magazine

This made me laugh. Which goes to prove how weird I am. 

[MJ kihara]

On 8/30/2024 at 11:23 PM, MigL said:

Interesting magazine Joigus; thanks.

A much more relevant article from that same magazine

Whatever happened to the theory of everything? | symmetry magazine

The last paragraphs from the article...“The world is probably much more complicated than we ever could have imagined,” ....“If we set our sights high, we get deep insights.” 

[chron44]

 

 

On 8/31/2024 at 4:58 PM, Mordred said:

One of my favorite articles regarding GUT (grand unification) which is oft described as a TOE if one can complete the GUT including gravity is by John Beaz.

It's an interesting and informative reading I highly recommend it.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf

 

On 8/31/2024 at 5:49 PM, chron44 said:

I.e. is the BB the only universal evolutionary candidate for this article?
(Is it possible to estimate?)

 

Have read a bit more physics... The GUTs (Grand Unification Theories) are based on very high energy systems, which should need a BB type of very/ extremely hot universe or a similar universal original evolution. In some manner the confirmation of any GUT would be a parallel indication of the BB besides the CMB radiation detection.

 

[chron44]

 

There was also a post from me (which disappeared) about one central marker of why GUTs are involved in a TOE speculation. And that is the detection of proton decay which is postulated from any (some?) GUT. -Still during about of 40-50 years of search no proton decay whatsoever have been detected.

Where Mordred did replay (not exactly but informatively) of that the GUT calculus estimated the proton lifetime till over about 10^35 years, being the reason of no to date detection, as the age of universe being about one third of that age. So the GUTs still being on the track.

 

Edited September 2 by chron44

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, chron44 said:

There was also a post from me (which disappeared)

!

Moderator Note

Don't use ChatGPT to make your arguments for you and your posts won't be moved to Trash.

 

[chron44]

The parameters to a ToE obviously have to incorporate gravity, of course. Which for the moment doesn't easily (not all all?) merge with QM. So here we, that "all" are aware of, stand with separate QM and GR.

Though the detection by LIGO in 2015 did in some manner "reveal" possible internal structures and necessary conditions for gravity:
* Being massless
* Propagating at c
* Probably existing in the entire known universe

Which leads to the graviton existence proposed by the main physics community, maybe not the entire.

 

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, chron44 said:

The parameters to a ToE obviously have to incorporate gravity, of course. Which for the moment doesn't easily (not all all?) merge with QM. So here we, that "all" are aware of, stand with separate QM and GR.

Though the detection by LIGO in 2015 did in some manner "reveal" possible internal structures and necessary conditions for gravity:
* Being massless
* Propagating at c
* Probably existing in the entire known universe

Which leads to the graviton existence proposed by the main physics community, maybe not the entire.

 

These were known prior to LIGO; theory predicted it and the decay of the orbit of PSR B1913+16 (the Hulse-Taylor pulsar) was experimental confirmation of gravitational radiation, which requires the first two.

But none of this confirms the graviton.

[chron44]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

But none of this confirms the graviton.

Yes, of course, the graviton still is hypothetical. I didn't express myself clear enough.

Still my intention with the latest post was to point out the theory of it; and some observations, LIGO and the one you mentioned, "showed" on the main characteristics for this proposed particle being probable.

-And, here a most delicate situation emerges. Todays and the most ahead years of physics laboratory tech cannot provide any existing or non-existing status for this particle. This insecure status of the graviton idea will stall any further ToE research for many years ahead.

With this reasoning any serious ToE arguing will fail. (Until the graviton's existence is confirmed. Or proven to be of a different construction.)

So, ToE is halted.

 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, chron44 said:

This insecure status of the graviton idea will stall any further ToE research for many years ahead.

How much ToE research is currently happening? I get the impression it’s largely the effort of amateurs. Physicists tend to be more compartmentalized in their efforts.

[chron44]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

How much ToE research is currently happening? I get the impression it’s largely the effort of amateurs. Physicists tend to be more compartmentalized in their efforts.

The reason is probably given why professional physicists tend to await any graviton confirmation, before even lifting the thought on any ToE.

Hypothetical, in combination with extreme small energy and massless property.

Like chasing ghosts...

: )

[Mordred]

You don't require a graviton for renormalization of gravity. The issue with gravity is the UV divergences. No effective cutoff ie singularity conditions 

That issue would exist even if a graviton is found. Sure discovery of a graviton would be a great assist it isn't required when it comes to  GuT/TOE.

 In point of detail using gravitons is the method employed by Hoof'T. This is in essence the one loop integrals. It is the second order and higher order Feymann loop integrals  terms that are divergent. 

Edited September 21 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

You don't require a graviton for renormalization of gravity. The issue with gravity is the UV divergences. No effective cutoff ie singularity conditions 

Given my interests and going by my posts in this forum,I might not be a good arbiter on this topic.

However,the issue with gravity not being renormalised to me seem controversial since it's being looked at from the angle of UV divergence ( an issue am trying hard to internalize) and Feynman higher order loop integral.

If the perspective changes it might help...since QM involves probability and it's more fundamental, unlike GR,I think probability renormalization should be used in arguments of renormalised gravity in a manner consistent with arguments of GR.

[Mordred]

10 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Given my interests and going by my posts in this forum,I might not be a good arbiter on this topic.

However,the issue with gravity not being renormalised to me seem controversial since it's being looked at from the angle of UV divergence ( an issue am trying hard to internalize) and Feynman higher order loop integral.

If the perspective changes it might help...since QM involves probability and it's more fundamental, unlike GR,I think probability renormalization should be used in arguments of renormalised gravity in a manner consistent with arguments of GR.

Here is the thing about renormalization.

The method used whether it is dimensional regularization, renormalization or simply an effective cutoff actually makes no difference .

One can alternately employ any method or even mix methods with the same Feymann integrals. Though mixing isn't recommended it doesn't change anything.

I will think about how to explain the higher order integrals in an easy to understand manner if I can think of a way to describe them in an easy to understand manner. I will post it.

Edit the simplest way with regards to gravity.

 All loop integrals has k loop momentum. The one loop momentum is the massless propogator action. In essence with regards to gravity the first order velocity terms. (Maximally symmetric Minkoskii, anti Desitter or DeSitter space would fall under one loop integrals ) These spaces the number of nonzero terms with regards to the related tensors are nimimal 

The higher order terms with regards to gravity kick in when spacetime is no longer maximally symmetric due to curvature. Under GR the acceleration terms reside.

Now that's a poor description when it comes to loop amplitudes and power counting to determine the UV divergence. For example if all  loop amplitudes  are on shell in an integrated the UV divergence is zero. This can be accomplished for Maximally symmetric spacetimes .

Now for higher order integrals one can typically use integrad reduction  by cancelations in the numerator and denominator terms in the integrals to minimize the number of loop amplitudes. This method works with other fields in keeping the number of loop amplitudes finite. ( This is one of the steps to calculate higher loop integrands)

However with spacetimes not Maximally symmetric we haven't been able to keep the number of loop amplitudes finite.

In math terms when you perform loop amplitude power counting the power counting becomes infinite hence UV divergent.

Example infinite density of a BH meaning infinite number of loop amplitudes which corresponds to an infinite number density of related particles (gravitons for this case, though as mentioned not necessarily required ) the propogator action would still be infinite as well.

 

Edited September 22 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Here is the thing about renormalization.

The method used whether it is dimensional regularization, renormalization or simply an effective cutoff actually makes no difference .

One can alternately employ any method or even mix methods with the same Feymann integrals. Though mixing isn't recommended it doesn't change anything.

I will think about how to explain the higher order integrals in an easy to understand manner if I can think of a way to describe them in an easy to understand manner. I will post it.

Edit the simplest way with regards to gravity.

 All loop integrals has k loop momentum. The one loop momentum is the massless propogator action. In essence with regards to gravity the first order velocity terms. (Maximally symmetric Minkoskii, anti Desitter or DeSitter space would fall under one loop integrals ) These spaces the number of nonzero terms with regards to the related tensors are nimimal 

The higher order terms with regards to gravity kick in when spacetime is no longer maximally symmetric due to curvature. Under GR the acceleration terms reside.

Now that's a poor description when it comes to loop amplitudes and power counting to determine the UV divergence. For example if all  loop amplitudes  are on shell in an integrated the UV divergence is zero. This can be accomplished for Maximally symmetric spacetimes .

Now for higher order integrals one can typically use integrad reduction  by cancelations in the numerator and denominator terms in the integrals to minimize the number of loop amplitudes. This method works with other fields in keeping the number of loop amplitudes finite. ( This is one of the steps to calculate higher loop integrands)

However with spacetimes not Maximally symmetric we haven't been able to keep the number of loop amplitudes finite.

In math terms when you perform loop amplitude power counting the power counting becomes infinite hence UV divergent.

Example infinite density of a BH meaning infinite number of loop amplitudes which corresponds to an infinite number density of related particles (gravitons for this case, though as mentioned not necessarily required ) the propogator action would still be infinite as well.

 

Thanks.

 

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

One can alternately employ any method

Hope probability renormalization condition can also be employed.

Wikipedia(wave function).....This leads to the normalization condition:because if the particle is measured, there is 100% probability that it will be somewhere.

[Mordred]

41 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Thanks.

 

Hope probability renormalization condition can also be employed.

Wikipedia(wave function).....This leads to the normalization condition:because if the particle is measured, there is 100% probability that it will be somewhere.

Probability functions are already factored in via the related momentum term under the renormalized Hamilton including related uncertainties,Schrodinger, Klein-Gordon  and Dirac relations Probability currents due to different amplitudes are also included in the Feymann integrals themselves as well as the position/momentum uncertainties from Fourier transformations.

Those Feymann integrals is what the renormalization counter terms is being applied to. QM and QFT use different operators for the above but they are in essence equivalent provided Lorentz invariance is being applied by QM via Dirac equations as the Schrodinger is not Lorentz invariant. 

Keep in mind it also isn't unusual to have multiple Langrangians involved in the same particle to particle scattering event. In point of detail you more often than not will be working with multiple integrals.

Particularly with mass terms each requires it's own renormalization counter term or multiple counter terms for integrals with multiples orders (first, second, third....).

A simple example being the momentum vs wave vector being inclusive in the same integral such as positive/negative frequency  modes using the creation/annihilation operators.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Thanks.

 

Hope probability renormalization condition can also be employed.

Wikipedia(wave function).....This leads to the normalization condition:because if the particle is measured, there is 100% probability that it will be somewhere.

Really ?

 

The difficulty QM has that with that statement is that you can't when it is at that somewhere.

[MJ kihara]

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

Schrodinger is not Lorentz invariant.

Its interesting.

 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Really ?

 

The difficulty QM has that with that statement is that you can't when it is at that somewhere.

Mass induces gravity to infinity that extent to quantum harmonics/quantum pseudo harmonics (speculative).

It's a transition from quantum realm to classical realm...we can predict with certainity the position of earth on its orbit, however where is earth if you narrow down to it's center of gravity(it's singularity)? Anyway,lots of temptation to go off topic(TOE).