The Laws? of Physics by Kevin H Knuth

Kevin,

Your abstract comments about laws; 'these concepts are part of the dogma of science as a belief system' and that 'In this sense reductionism, as an act of seeking simple underlying explanations, is ultimately critical to our understanding'. Seemed to give way to a mostly historical resume and analysis of origin. Interesting, fundamental and nicely written indeed but was I wrong to feel a little disappointed not to find ways to escape dogma? Or do you accept we're doomed to live with it?

I also argue and exemplify a specific reductionist approach and though you only touched in it's value was more sated by your examples, a worthwhile reminder for those caught up in the more fashionable emergence.

I know you've considered QM but avoid it here. Maybe wisely, but is it not the prime case of illogical laws? I ask as I've tested parameters for 3yrs and seem to have broken through to a classical mechanism by changing a hidden assumption; using the Poincare sphere (4 vectors inc. orthogonal 'curl') instead of singlet states, and all as Bell predicted.

Very few so far have read carefully enough to follow the complex ontological mechanistic 'measurement' sequence (part due to embedded dogma!) but I hope you can. Declan Trails short code & plot confirms the CHSH>2 Cos^2 derivation. (also Gordon Watson's partial algorithm heads the right way). A few redefinitions emerge and non-locality disappears.

I hope you can help.

Well done for yours. Very Best of luck in the judging.

Peter

The assumption that laws of nature are permanent isn't a dogma. It has been confirmed by any experiment made. Obviously laws could be changing so slow that cannot be measured, but then the claim they are really changing is a metaphysical claim and we will continue assuming that they don't change.

There is no logical reason to invoke a Creator, even less when the Universe is defined as an isolated system.

I see no reason supporting the idea that the design of the universe couldn't be other. So questions as "why is the universe the way it is and not something completely different?" don't make any sense to me.

An algebra of kind 2x2 = 22 is relatively easy to imagine.

Masses aren't "initial conditions"; the state space is (p,q). Masses are parameters. Also in one sense initial conditions aren't accidental, because they are final conditions for previous trajectory.

I don't find anything surprising on Newtonian laws describing the motions of planets orbiting the Sun, but not the number of the resulting planets, and their respective orbits. Newtonian laws don't describe the number of particles neither their mass or energy.

I always find interesting to see some physicists considering the possibility of multiverses, which is a non-physical hypothesis. Discussions about multiverses would be better left to philosophers.

Information Physics is a buzzword. There is no central role of information in physics, and the work of people as Jaynes has simply added confusion and nonsense to physics. I recall here Balescu criticism of the thermononsense school: "Jaynes' and coworkers theory is based on a non-transitive evolution law that produces ambiguous results. Although some difficulties of the theory can be cured, the theory "lacks a solid foundation" and "has not led to any new concrete result"".

Knuth' work is another rehash of older and debunked ideas introduced in the early times of quantum theory about "observers playing a central role" in Nature, and taken to its extreme by Wheeler's nonsensical "it from bit".

Professor Knuth,

Thank you for an excellent overview of the curious role that patterns of numbers have played in the history of mathematics and science, with an emphasis on questioning the depth to which these patterns are fixed within what we observe.

I will readily confess to being both a bit of a tolerant pragmatist regarding most such patterns. I am both a pragmatist in the skeptic that the more broadly a pattern is found in diverse types of data, the more likely it is to be attached deeply within the infrastructure behind that data. Thus words in Europe lead back "only" back to Proto-Indo-European, while the spectral element signatures of elements on the other side of the visible universe lead all the way back to the shared particle and space physics of our universe. In many ways, what we really seem to be doing there is (as you note) not so much looking for "laws" as we are looking for points of shared origins in space and time of such patterns.

I am a skeptic in the sense that it's exceedingly unwise both in everyday life and in data analysis to assume that just because you see a pattern that it's necessarily meaningful or even real. We humans are particularly prone to seeing exactly what we want to see, a phenomenon that itself is a pattern that emerges from our need to make fast, efficient use of relatively slow and limited-capacity neural circuitry. Our brains take a lot of shortcuts.

The delicacy of the fine-structure constant is just the tip of the anthropic tuning mystery. Lee Smolin estimates that when you take the product of all of the tunings needed create a life-as-we-know-it tolerant universe, the odds fall to 1 in 10229. For some perspective, that is almost as low as the odds of our President saying just the right words in a multicultural sensitivity training session.

I was not aware of the Koide pattern. Since I am currently working on a paper with strong geometric implications for fermions when represented in the right space, such a vaguely geometric pattern might well prove relevant (or not!) So, my thanks for alerting me to it.

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

Kevin,

Thanks, and for your positive comments on my essay. My response there is here; (I haven't yet seen you 'bias' with QM except around it's edges. Do send a link).

Kevin,

I greatly value your unencumbered (with beliefs) thoughts. To recognise we're all 'heavily biased' goes far to overcome the cognitive dissonance plaguing advancement. Is dogma wrong? Yes! Is doctrine? most likely! All building needs foundations but the moment we forget they're provisional we're in a fatal rut.

So to the model; 3yrs since showing Dr B's Red/Green Sock Trick 'Classic QM' works! It's overly compressed in this 100 second video but at least it's some pictures to help frame a new mental model. You should also go through the 8 point quick mechanism checklist a dozen posts up {on mine}(though missing detail like elliptical polarity at the Pm channels etc).

Did you see Declan Traill's supporting code & plot yet? You also need to refresh on the discrete field dynamics you've liked previously for which classic QM was just a falsification exercise. (It has vague links with your own 'causal sets' approach).

But it needs all the help it can get to penetrate the dogma/doctrine! We have some, and once you've worked it through and overcome the trauma I hope you may collaborate. Are you familiar with Froher by the way? Gordon Watson is also on the right lines and includes a link.

My respect for you was high has just increased, as has my score of your essay I dare say. Is that right? Well just a bit!

Very best. Look forward to your questions and chatting more.

Peter

Hmmm, it seemed to have been hit with 1's (as mine was) & dropped to 6.4! now 6.6 after my 10. I'll put in a good word with Traill & Watson who don't seem to have visited yet.

Hope you get in the finals, and best of luck with the judges. As an academic at least you'd be in the frame! (lol)

Peter

Kevin,

Nice essay, and definitely vote dogma! It seems the further Academics get their feet under the table and carpet slippers on the more they're happy with the dogma. I've just seen the quote from John Bell posted somewhere; "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better." Darn right.

I think you do. Keep it up. It seems to be a sign of an eminent physicist not to be complacent!

Top marks.

Richard

Kevin,

Thanks for you reply (27th) & links, which I'll look up. I discussed 'Beables' with Ian Durham. He seemed locked into his own ideas but I've given it a last shot - see post below. Actually I really hope YOU may be able to help!?

P

.....

Ian,

My Feb 24 post outlines the classical mechanism in the essay.

I'm saying that if we start with the Maxwell/(Poincare Sphere) 4 momenta state for electrons and the pairs (rather than 'no' assumption or superposed 'singlet' states) then with a simple momentum transfer ('measurement') mechanism, the entire tranche of QM predictions and findings can be reproduced with classical mechanics & modern photonics.

As a good scientist I'm sure you won't let shock or cognitive dissonance make you dismiss the concept or run and hide. The computer plot confirms the result, so the question is, as an expert, can you identify where the mechanism may be 'wrong' or what it 'misses'?

The key to EPR resolution is that A,B polariser field directions are reversible, and the 'measurement' on interaction is either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' vector (then an amplitude pair subject to y,z axis ellipticity on orthogonal axes).

So if we have A,B +,-, either can reverse setting angle to get A,B +,+ or -,-. Cos distributions are implicit in the Poincare sphere (as I show), applied a 2nd time at the photomultiplier. In between +1,-1 are then Bayesian distributions, so 'undecidable' at 90o.

So beyond a local interference range NO 'action at a distance' is required to explain the outcomes!!

This is such a leap of understanding it needs an acknowledged expert to either falsify or confirm it. Not that difficult a task!

Very best

Peter

PS. Do contact me direct, on; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org