PrimalMinister

Thought Experiments

Recommended Posts

I am 42 now but when I was about 23 I had what I believed was a profound realisation about the universe, I still think about it today and it is no less profound to me. This realisation was related to what science calls the theory of everything. It wasn't and isn't a theory like todays, but it is an idea, an insight into how the universe is actually doing what it does. Although I am not classically trained in physics this does not mean I am bad at maths or can't read about the maths, its just not that important to this insight. In fact, the insight is about explaining why the universe is mathematical in the first place. Anyway, this realisation took about 6 years to unfold, until I had another profound realisation about this insight. The end result is that I had realised what must be the perfect universe, and it could be possible that our universe is also perfect, if this idea matures in to a full fledged theory subject to the scientific method, and it turns out be the actual truth, the final theory of everything.

 

This insight came about because I was thinking about a subtle problem in physics, which with the utmost respect to those with degrees, is likely not in the curriculum, even if you have done a Phd. I am not saying that Phd's don't think about this problem, its just that you could have gone through you whole science career and simply not thought about it. The thing is, if I am for example right with this idea, then I happened to solve a very abstract problem that is critical to understanding the theory of everything. Anyhow, I think it is worthy discussing this problem because otherwise you could say the whole universe is powered by 'magic' and be valid. I do not think the universe is powered by magic, I think there must be an explanation for what appears like magic.

 

So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented.

 

And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic.

 

I was not lucky enough to have gone through university and have people with the same interests to talk to about it, so I am here to now claiming that this idea or insight is worthy of discussion and may turn out to be true. There is evidence for it and it is supported by logic, its complementary to current science and is a sort of third way between our current paradigms.

 

This is how I envisage the conversation going:

 

1. That knowledgeable, skilled physicists can say that, after consideration, the problem I am trying to explain exists and needs a solution.

2. That, understanding the problem, people offer up solutions.

3. That I offer a solution and see if it solves it.

 

It should be noted that I am not religious, I don't believe in God or all the stories in holy books, but I am not convinced by the big bang either, or aspects of evolution. I am not convinced with explanations of how life came about, the emergence of sexual dynamics, the emergence of flight, I am not convinced adaptation by natural selection can take us from a single cell to human beings. I am squarely on sciences side, its just I don't think we have got it right yet, and for some reason, which I am sure some people will speculate on, believe I could be on to something.

 

So my first request is to knowledgeable, skilled physicists, is this a problem and does it need a solution. Thanks for any responses.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The questions of why the universe has rules, why they are what they are, where they come from, could they be different, are they different in different parts of the universe etc. are real questions that many people, from philosophers to physicists have given thought to.

There are various possible explanations. For example, there are multiverse models where different universes may have different laws - maybe we just happen to live in one with the rules we see - there is a version of this where the rules have "evolved" over multiple universes to some sort of "best" solution. Maybe the rules that exist are the only ones possible (anything else would not create a stable universe). Or maybe there is some underlying theory that the physics we see emerges from. I'm sure there are others - those are just the ones that occur to me immediately.

It will be interesting to hear if you have any suggestions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you posted this material elsewhere, I'm sure I've seen something very similar somewhere?

You also have a couple of related threads here that you seem to have abandoned following answers and comments by other folks?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented.

 

That's an issue that people working in "foundational" physics might think about, and also one of philosophy. For most physicists, it probably has no impact on their work.

17 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic.

 

There is certainly discussion about whether certain phenomena are "emergent" properties or whether they are fundamental. 

But I fear you have not actually provided a solution. Rather, you have just kicked the can down the road, so to speak: Where do the "higher" laws come from? Is it turtles all the way down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are theories that the universe may be in a metastable, "false vacuum" state. There could be multiple such states with different laws of physics. I mention this because a paper related to this has just been published and Katie Mack has just written an article about it: http://astrokatie.blogspot.com/2018/09/extra-dimensions-black-holes-and-vacuum.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 4:47 AM, PrimalMinister said:

I am 42 now but when I was about 23 I had what I believed was a profound realisation about the universe, I still think about it today and it is no less profound to me. This realisation was related to what science calls the theory of everything.

Hmmmm, sounds like a "mystical experience" :P These happen on occasion and is evidence of nothing more then the randomness of one's own subconcious and the brain...

Quote

This insight came about because I was thinking about a subtle problem in physics, which with the utmost respect to those with degrees, is likely not in the curriculum, even if you have done a Phd. I am not saying that Phd's don't think about this problem, its just that you could have gone through you whole science career and simply not thought about it. The thing is, if I am for example right with this idea, then I happened to solve a very abstract problem that is critical to understanding the theory of everything. Anyhow, I think it is worthy discussing this problem because otherwise you could say the whole universe is powered by 'magic' and be valid. I do not think the universe is powered by magic, I think there must be an explanation for what appears like magic.

 

We already have a working model of how the universe works from t+10-43 seconds and supported by four pillars of cosmological observations. It's not in the least magic, just gravity as the prime mover.

 

 

Quote

So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented.

 

Simply put, the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. If it wasn't, we would not have evolved. This is known as "the Anthropic Principle"

 

 

Quote

And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic.

 

It can only be seen as powered by magic, if we did not have models/theories that describe what we observe, although certainly there are still questions left to answer.eg: Why do we perceive warped/curved spacetime as gravity? Again, this would get back to the Anthropic Principle. 

 

 

Quote

I was not lucky enough to have gone through university and have people with the same interests to talk to about it, so I am here to now claiming that this idea or insight is worthy of discussion and may turn out to be true. There is evidence for it and it is supported by logic, its complementary to current science and is a sort of third way between our current paradigms.

 

I don't really see any problem or magic...I see some questions that are still to be answered that's all.

 

Quote

 

This is how I envisage the conversation going:

 

1. That knowledgeable, skilled physicists can say that, after consideration, the problem I am trying to explain exists and needs a solution.

2. That, understanding the problem, people offer up solutions.

3. That I offer a solution and see if it solves it.

 

 

OK, clearly, what in your opinion is the problem and what is the solution?

 

 

Quote

It should be noted that I am not religious, I don't believe in God or all the stories in holy books, but I am not convinced by the big bang either, or aspects of evolution. I am not convinced with explanations of how life came about, the emergence of sexual dynamics, the emergence of flight, I am not convinced adaptation by natural selection can take us from a single cell to human beings. I am squarely on sciences side, its just I don't think we have got it right yet, and for some reason, which I am sure some people will speculate on, believe I could be on to something.

 

Beliefs are a personal concept and what people believe is there business, as long as those beliefs don't infringe on my rights .  What problem do you find? Considering that the BB is overwhelmingly supported by many observational aspects. Do you know what the BB entails?  With evolution and your doubts, on that you are totally wrong. While any theory is always open for modification, addition etc, the theory of evolution is as certain as any theory could ever be. 

 

 

Quote

So my first request is to knowledgeable, skilled physicists, is this a problem and does it need a solution. Thanks for any responses.

Like you I am not a skilled physicist, but I have read plenty of reputable books by many reputable professionals, and know who the knowledgable people are on forums such as this.

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now