What Physics Can and Can\'t Do? by Narendra Nath

Dear Narendra,

Great to see your essay at this second FQXi contest. After reading it, I think that you beautifully present what physics was able to accomplish so far, and what you prospect it can do in the future. I cannot but agree with the need to be open minded in trying to understand the universe, which is much older and larger than we are.

Warm regards,

Cristi

Well, if I will observe something that I would criticize, I will not hesitate. You wrote "Hopefully, some contributions may emerge to broaden the methodology used to conduct in sciences." Maybe you can develop more this idea.

Very good query. i also need to think deeply. Today, science methodology is confined to observations, verifications and conclusions. As observations continue to be limited in accuracy, their intrepretation remains subjective too, as we limit ourselves conceptually to treat the data as reliable to the extnet of 100% while we do know from the Theory of probability that it all depends on the range of standard deviations that we allow ourselves to cover a certain large probability range. On the concepts/precepts side we limit ourselves by selecting some significant variables and control their boundary values. Thus we leave a gap that may well prove to be significant, but we often ignore it.

How to go about doing some modifications. i will say that let us give weightage to' hunches ' that may not directly be visible/sensed. That is a way of broadening the mind. Another way is to look at similar problems but from another discipline of science. How such situations were successfully tackled there, can only be done if we adopt a truly interdisciplinary approach. There is subjectivity here where an emotional component of the mind may prevail over the rational one that is often emphasised, may be more than what is necessary!

"Unless we know what Physics has done, it is difficult to visualize what it can not do."

A mind free of the shackles of professional management lays lie to that. The polymerase chain reaction was conceptualized by Kary Mullis driving a winding mountain road while high on marijuana; 1993 Nobel Prize. Garrett Lisi using E8 to sidestep the whole of string theory is a "surfer dude." Pauli said determining the proton's magnetic moment could never compete with its theoretical prediction, Otto Stern won the 1943 Nobel Prize for showing theory failed. Einstein was not contingent upon Newton, he was orthogonal. Yang and Lee were pariahs Christmas 1956, particle Physics was rewritten New Year's day 1957, 1957 Nobel Prize. Penzias and Wilson received the 1978 Nobel Prize for shoveling pigeon poop. Heike Kamerlingh Onnes won the 1913 Nobel Prize for cooling mercury. Purcell, Pound, and Torrey discovered nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry by torquing a rheostat dial wide open in frustration, 1952 Nobel Prize.

SuperGlue was born by destroying an Abbe refractometer. Zieglar-Natta catalysts for polyolefins was a lazy technician and a dirty autoclave. Penicillin was an old Petri plate. Sulfa drugs and Valium started as dyes. Cats prematurely died by the tens of thousands from cardiomyopayhy from commercial cat foods unknowingly containing insufficient taurine. Humans also need it.

"Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit," Albert Einstein, 1901 - then he disavowed quantum mechanics. Physics is limited by discovery. Discovery is limited by small minds fueling big mouths about spreadsheets, PERT charts, and insubordination to authority. Physics ends when creative people are forbidden from looking by Official Truth.

Hi Dear NARENDRA NATH ,

Congratulations ,short but concrete and pragmatic .

Sincerely

Steve

There is an amendment in the text where i happen to attribute the decay/instability of heavier atoms beyond lead, entirely to the nuclear weak field. The nuclear strong field also contributes to it.

Uncle Al, i respect your remarks and take them well. What is difficult for some can be easy for others, they are the chosen ones. Others need to think about their luck! As far as i am concerned i already attributed indebtness to the ' silent' component of the mind. The mind one normally uses belongs to the 'agitated/noisy' component. Long live Uncle Al!

Dear Narendra,

You say: "How to go about doing some modifications. i will say that let us give weightage to' hunches ' that may not directly be visible/sensed. That is a way of broadening the mind."

I agree with you. On the other hand, I think that physicists are very imaginative. I think that they do not discover theories by observation, observation is used for providing some dots to connect, and then for testing the theories. But they invent the theories, using a lot of imagination. They formulate their hunches as hypotheses, and then develop the hypotheses in a more formal, mathematized shape.

I think that they are very imaginative, and they give, as you say, "weightage to' hunches '". They invented symmetry-driven interactions, extra dimensions, several totally distinct types of multiverses, stringy particles, latticeal spacetime, wormholes, dark matter and energy, spooky action at distance, observers extracting actual states from potential ones, observers deciding the past, block world, and so on. The border of physics is nothing less than science-fiction, from the imagination viewpoint. And all these are their hunches. Only then, they try to put these intuitions in a logical form, and even later try to derive testable consequences. And for many, the impossibility of experimental testing of their theories is not a reason of discouragement. Of course, I wouldn't say that there is no room for improvements.

Best regards,

Cristi

Hello Mr Stoica ,

I agree with you indeed ,all imaginations are beautifuls and when the imaginaries are balanced with the physicality ,it's very relevant .

Never they must stop their works ,because it's important when the unification appears .Even If I don't agree about Strings ,extradimensions,multiverses,...

their mathematical extrapolations are so creatives and thus calls to the respect ,simply .

Indeed it's siences fictions but it's the human creation .....

The complemenatrity in the fundamentals are the main piece of our harmony ,actual and future .

Regards

Steve

Steve & Cristi,

i have nothing to add to yur supportive comments. May i suggest that how the humans can develop a higher capacity for 'good imagination' is something that should interest us all. Though brain as an organ has been widely acclaimed as a depositary of all the imaginations a human can do, i personally will like to point to something we all call by the name 'mind' as distinct from 'brain'. Mind to me represents the totality of an individual human consciousness. The latter uses the brain but it is not solely confined to it. Its interaction with the cosmic consciousness is a parameter that has not been well investigated and /or understood. To a limited extent i have personally 'experienced' it through the practice of meditation cum yoga and thus believe in it through those personal experiences.

Dear Mr. Dufourny, dear Narendra,

To me, consciousness is a mistery. I cannot imagine an explanation for it, limited to the brain or not. But it has to be one :o)

Cristi

Mysteries are great incentives to persue any study at hand vigorously and with enthusiasm. Consciousness being a non-phyiscal entity is not directly open for scientific persuit.We need to give importance to self experiences of individuals that can be relied professionally.However, there is scope for investigating the human mind through intensive interaction between Physical and life sciences. That way one can indirectly get reasonable glimpses into the nature of consciousness. In fact awareness is tied to consciousness and without it the existence of the universe and the humans of the world can not be grasped. Thus there is no escape from consciousness. If one can expand methodology of science to include the experiences one actually feel following the practice of mind controlling techniques like yoga/meditation/zen, etc., lot of scope will open up to investigate ' consciousness ' in scientific terms. Without such broadening of mind, both science and humanity will not be able to make breakthrough progress. We badly need it in the presently troubled times the world over, as science and technology has not been able to provide peace of mind that every human desires the most.

Hello Mr Stoica ,Mr Narendra Nath,Uncle Al ,

You can say Steve ,I am young ,sometimes I don't know How can I do with the name hihiihii.

Yes it's difficult to encircle the entropy ,this ultim energy behind our walls.

It's not palpable indeed this conscious .Personnally I feel it in the creations and the evolution when we studied the whole .I like gardening ,it's a big passion for me .It's so beautiful our nature ,our diversities around us .

I say me "Don't crush any insects because all has a rule of complementarity when the hand and eyes of man catalyze "

It's an universal feeling in fact in the whole point of vue,it's so evident but indeed we can't define it correcthy ,perhaps only with our heart and our mind like a part ,a fractal of the ultim .

The harmony thus is like the sister of the consciousness .

It's fascinating all that .We aren't hazard fortunally .

A mystery but evident in fact .

Thanks both of you ,I am happy to see this kind of thoughts and spirituality .

Best Regards .

Steve

A new post is being added by way a manuscript ' Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences' composed by the author in the recent past. Hopefully, it ges attached as a document with the essay.Attachment #1: 1331391_Relevance_of_Consciousness_in_Sciences.pdf

Steve, thanks for your comments that provide encouragement to me at my stage of life too! May be you may have a look at the mss attached to this post now, as Attachment 1331391 on ' Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences '. Your attention will be welcome to it.

Dear Narendra,

I find your essay thought provoking, as you dwell on what has been achieved on the theoretical and technological front, and what remains to be understood. I do not have expertise on experimental developments, but I believe a new theoretical framework is needed to understand quantum mechanics and its connection with gravity better. Would you have suggestions as to what such a framework, and its mathematical counterpart, could be? Thanks.

Tejinder

Tejinder,

i suggest some frame work about the mystery of gravity. To me, this first force/field to emerge with the birth of the universe must be unique in nature. It is my hunch that it was extremely repulsive close to Big bang, in order to inflate the point to the initial size of the universe. Then, it got converted into two components, one for the visible matter, as we know and experience it now and the other maintaines the repulsive nature that we now experience by way of dark energy, attributing the repulsion of visible matter by the dark matter. We know some parameters involved through the data available for early universe, through anistropy of microwave energy background radiation. This may help us get the field strengths of these gravity components. i for further believe that the strengths are not remaining constant, specially close to the birth of the universe when it had extreme temperatures and matter density. The present state of the universe , for this purpose, may be taken as a steady state in comparison. The numbers and mathematics is the game you need to play on such conceptual hunch i happen to ptovide. Further , i also believe the physical constants like e, m, c and even h has changed their magnitudes, specially in the early universe, say upto 1 billion years not more. The former three had higher values while the planck's constant h had a lower value than accepted today.

i will much like your response to the suggestions made openly by me here on this forum, as well as of other theoreticians in this game, myself being a 100% experimentalist of ordinary stature.

Hi Dear Narendra Nath ,dear Tejinder Singh,

Thanks for the attachements ,it's so spiritual ,I liked a lot .I see a big research of the truth ,a big meditation of compassion and of universality .

The symphony of the light and its creations in your researchs .

It's a pleasure to see these universal conscious .

Could you tell me more about the Upanishads please ?

Best Regards

Steve