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

Very interesting article. At least we know what we don't know. It may not be possible to "see" events before the Big Bang or all the components of the universe. It will give future generations something to strive for.

Interesting, very thought provoking article.

it s nice to hear some appreciation from readers.They need not take me seriously as i am well past the age for active Physics. Mine are a few suggestions based on my past experience. If these can be of any help for the active scientists of the day, i will be most happy

Dear Narendra Nath,

I knew I had read your paper once before. On Oct. 2nd, I posted the following review on my blog site:

"I read your short essay. Some points could have been explained better (such as baryonic vs. non-baryonic and the strong nuclear force/ color confinement). I don't think that quantum mechanics "evolved" out of classical physics - QM really represents a paradigm shift so tremendous that it disturbed one of its founding fathers, Einstein. Oddly enough, the first three pages seem to indicate that we know nearly everything. Prominent physicists thought the same way at the end of the Nineteenth Century - they sure were wrong!

At the end of your 3 pages of Significant Developments, you said "Physics of the early universe may require some radically different approach conceptually!" This is what Lawrence Crowell and I are working on. Can we extrapolate back to that early time and deduce what physics must have been like then, and explain why (via broken symmetries and dimensional collapse) we observe the present laws of Physics? I don't think that someone flipped a switch on to create the Big Bang, and then flipped that switch off to create the present Universe. The theories must blend into each other in a predictable manner.

In Overall Comments, you said "What physics cannot hope to do? Some expectations outlined above may never get fulfilled." I understand that we may be near the observation limit, but I hope that mankind will continue to ask these questions and push towards answers."

Those were last month's comments. I didn't score your paper last month. The following are this month's comments (after a second read).

You said "It may well be advisable to attempt instead conducting more accurate and precise space experiments in order to understand more and more of what transpired cosmologically in the early universe - a challenge too!" I agree. The LHC center-of-mass energy is sufficient to probe Weak-scale phenomena, but not Gravity-scale phenomena. We need to use every experimental trick available to us. Although we have studied cosmic rays for decades, I think this could be the source of our next major experimental breakthroughs. It is a shame that experimental techniques lag theoretical speculation which lags science fiction... It was relevant to mention "Star Trek".

You also said "We hardly expect to arrive at any finality of understanding." My essay is "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE". I think it lays down framework for a possible unification of the four fundamental forces, all fermions, and all bosons. In this respect, I think it is fair to call it a TOE of Particle Physics. Would that make it a TOP (Theory Of Particle Physics)? But I agree that we should be suspicious of any claims that we have arrived at a finality of understanding. In another paper, Frank Martin DiMeglio claims that the Dream unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism. The irony is that humankind might understand more about Gravity and Electromagnetism than we understand about the Dream/ Mind/ Soul. We can't understand everything as long as we don't understand the Dream/ Mind/ Soul.

You also said "For Physics to grow, let us leave the psychology of absoluteness/perfectness and instead adopt ways and means that are free from bias and consider 'freedom of thought' supreme." I agree that biases are a problem. I received many scores of 1's in this contest with few critiques against my work. Did they object to my paradigm or my math or my presentation?

I think it was a good introduction to a paper - it was just way too short. It introduced many good topics for possible essays, but never delved into any of the ideas very deeply. Many of the contestants (me included) chose overly ambitious ideas and wrestled with the length limitations. I could have made my paper exactly 10 pages plus a reference page long, but decided that it had enough detail in it.

Good Luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray,

i am sorry that i seem to have left your postings unattended. My oversight and my limitations. I have had close family guests, trip away from home plus my age to contend with. It has been about 10 years since i opted out on my own of an active research career in experimental nuclear physics and use of nuclear techniques in material science. i am therefore out of present reckoning of active physicist. My essay is rightly short of many details,as you rightly indicate. I have had no education in Cosmology, except through Internet sites occasionally.

Regarding paradigm shifts in Physics, i will like to indicate that Tejinder proposal for mesomorphic region in between classical and Quantum mechanics that qualifies correctly. Some failures of cklassical concepts did result in Quantum ideas and then the development of the formal theory took place. Einstein contributed just to the conceptual ideas while others developed the formal quantum Theory. In my understanding Einstein always believed that one day QM will get replaced by an alternate better theory, as he was not much for entire physics to be just probablistic in nature.

Regarding the growth of Physics, most of the important developments took place by the end of World War II. Olny few remarkable developments may be considered to have happened latter like Parity Non-conservation in weak processes and better picture of quark/gluon base for nucleon structure. The rest of the developments are still involved in controversies. However, cosmological experiments improved in accuracy and precision but further improvements are required still, as in other branches.It is difficult to predict human behavior as our mind work in a complex manner, more as a result of technology and material uplift in human lives, if i may say so. Old time physicists never worried about status, rank in society and money while doing good physics. Today, the picture has become more award winning, status consciousness and money ofcourse. nevertheless, i appreciate your frank comments and i enjoy the same. I am in this competition, primarily to encourage brightb youngsters and putin my little effort that FQXI organization is doing an omen service to encourage persons with any ideas away from the conventional, to find an encouraging forum to air their opinions. If i may say so , peer review has put a brake to innovation, as innovators need to fight harder in order to get recognition against vested interests. The political game the world over has started to affect science,as the control appears to lie in biggger establishments financed by Governments in different countries.

Dear Narendra,

I have posted an extended comment on my page in response to your last remarks there. I very much appreciate your opinions and hope that I manage to clarify a few things.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

i will look it up. i wish your innovations could have received much more appreciation. But your self satisfaction of having done a sicere ,honest job should carry you forward in times to come,my all good wishes,

N. Nath

Takers or no takers, Physics is permanent and so is knowledge. Life goes on and one sees individuals change their opinions. Thus the contents of Physics will change from time to time, but we may not be there to see it all. That is the way life continues, knowledge continues and the end is never in sight. The search for truth is a legacy humans will continue to seek. Let us all wish one another well in such persuits!