How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?

I ask this question because between Real Laws
( Newton's , Maxwell's, Einstein's, Lorentz's,
Schrödinger's, Dirac's . . . .etc.) there are many 'black holes'
and ' white spots' ( time, dark energy, dark mass, graviton,
quark, Higgs boson, . . . and 1000 another elementary particles.)

Comments.
1.
Unity? That's news. But physics keeps striving to reduce the number
of equations necessary to describe everything -- so called unification.

It began when Newton unified gravity on earth with gravity in space.
1 equation.

Unification continued when Maxwell reduced all the experiments
on electricity and magnetism to just 4 equations.

It continued with Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations. You might say
it unifies space and time. General relativity unifies gravitational
mass with inertial mass.

Then equations of motion for atoms were described by quantum
mechanics -- such as Schroedinger Equation & later Dirac Equation.
These form the common unification of chemistry.

Then quantum electrodynamics was discovered, which unified
electromagnetism with the quantum theory. Some of theory's
predictions (such as the fine structure constant) have been
experimentally verified to something like 10 or 12 decimal places,
a huge measure of success for any physical theory.

Meanwhile the strong & weak nuclear forces were partly
de-mystified: The weak force was found to be unified with
electromagnetism (electro-weak force), while the strong nuclear
force involves quarks of various kinds, with specific rules of
interaction best described by group theory.

And so it goes. The 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation,
sometimes called "God's Equation" -- the ultimate unification.

" Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
/ --Albert Einstein /
/ by xprofessor /
2.
i think there is unity in most laws but not all, after quantum physics
basically there is no real law, we think of time, gravity and matter
in certain ways but in reality they are random forces with mostly
predictable outcomes but not 100 %, then there is parallel
universes and things as such where physical laws go the
wayside , just like black holes. , so in reality , not much unity.
/ by newyorkguy /

3.
Their is the laws of the microverse and laws for the macroverse
(verse = universe) I wonder if they apply 100% at their own
extents and reduce (perhaps exponentially) as they come closer
toward the other one meshing in the in the middle. thus the
macrocosm still deals with quantum physics at
say .000000000000000000 00000000000 1% near the size
of say our solar system where "normal" laws of say gravity
exist at 99.9999999999999999 999999999% and vice versa
at say the size of an atom it is the other way...?????
?? hhmmmmmmmm?? ?? just perhaps.
/ by guardian /
4.
I want it to be simple and not too magical.
/ by SuperA /
5.
Yours is a very profound question. I can tell from your question that
you are ready to be let in on the "Dirty Little Secret" of Theoretical Physics:
We have NOT yet figured everything out. The universe is governed by whole
sets of "Laws" that do NOT agree and are mutually exclusive.
This is a great embarrassment. We assume we live in an orderly, rational
universe that makes sense. Perhaps when Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity are unified we will have a better answer to your question.

A paraphrase from NOVA - Elegant Universe with Graham Greene
http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/ nova/elegant/ pro…
/ by OldPilot /
6.
The LAWS must unify, or we are describing things that don't actually exist.
/ Allen Francom /.
============ ==== . .
P.S.
I think that now our Physics looks like the Augean stables.

And if we want to clean them we must start from
understanding not new but the old abstract models:
ideal gas, ideal black body, entropy, electrical harmonic
oscillators, point -particle . . . etc.
====== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Comment.
Aether is unity. The design of the universe is one.
/ Mitch Raemsch /
#
Question.
Is it possible to write/ describe Aether
by the formula: T=0K or No ?
======== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Comments.
#
Something to do with the process of potential, I'd say.
/ ZerkonXXXX /
==== .
Hi, ZerkonXXXX.
Would you agree if I say :
1.
What in Vacuum is hidden 99% of unseen
potential antimatter/ antienergy ( dark matter/energy).
2.
We can see result of these potential antimatter/ antienergy
as 1% of visible matter and energy in the World.
Socratus.

# #
The unity of physical laws is the "Capernaum" conservation
of energy in stasis.
Capernaum:
Rendered in Greek as "Kαφαρναουμ (Kapharnaum)".
In Arabic, it is called Talhum, and it is assumed that this refers
to the ruin (Tell) of Hum.
/ Musatov. /
=============== .
Hi, Musatov.

I think your answer isn’t complete.
The complete name of the physical law is:
" The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass".
So, you need to finish your comment.
Socratus.
========= .

How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
#
By wearing special Unity glasses !
/ Don Stockbauer /
===================== .
Do we see the Universe using only Math glasses ?
Socratus.

Reflections on a Self-Representing Universe
By CambridgeBlog ⋅
/ By Shahn Majid. /

#
Space and Time debate needs to involve not only scientists
but the wider public.

. . . in fact, theoretical physics is in need of fresh profound ideas

The reason is that scientists’ ideas have to come from somewhere,
from sitting around in cafes, from contemplation of art.

We don’t know where the key revolutionary idea
is going to come from.

Put another way, to progress, scientists need now to see
what Science is, which means they have to step outside it
and see it in part as a non-scientist.

#
I want you to ask yourself what does someone have
to say about quantum gravity?
What does that person have in common with a theoretical physicist?
My approach as a theoretical physicist is to use
mathematics and the scientific method to explore the issue,
while a carol singer is surely using other means to ‘connect’.

As a scientist I am 1000% committed to the Scientific Method
but I see it as a particular way of exploring reality.

One that we might now need to understand better by seeing
it from the outside.

What I am going to argue now is that what we know about
quantum gravity — what we have seen in earlier posts — is telling
us that the Scientific Method itself is perhaps the fundamental
‘metaequation’ of physics.

In other words, just maybe, as we search for the ultimate theory
of physics we are in fact rediscovering our own assumptions
in being Scientists, the Scientific Method?
#
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/reflections-on-a-self-representing-universe/

================ .

Quote 1.
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always
Provided a stable, natural (?) language in which to describe
phenomena but it may not be the ultimate 'natural' language
of the universe!

Einstein sought to understand ‘his [God's] equations’ but perhaps
the 'universe' has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble
efforts to describe it using mathematics!

Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand
the universes’ own hidden language?

/ Conclusion from a long math comment.
Author is unknown. /

Quote 2. JerryGG:

I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why
positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa
at a distance.
Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves.

Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem
that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not
easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or
meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive
solutions.

All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.

3.
All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
/ JerryGG: / jerrygg38 /
======== .

Quote 3.
So.
1.
The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron)
existing is connected with the measuring.
2.
The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.
3.
The region of using measuring instruments is limited.
4.
Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?
5.
Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld
somehow in another way?
====== .
Do we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?
Of course. Maybe 1000.
====== . .
Socratus.

Currently the Aether Wave Theory is the only framework of general understanding of reality.

Comment.
#
It seems there are very real limitations to seeing the universe with our
extended senses. Sense data is perhaps nearing the boundary imposed
by time and distance, our observable universe but a tiny part of a much
greater whole.
Finite mind trying to understand infinite reality using abstract tools
of doubtful logic is perhaps a non-starter.
At least our minds are capable of reasoning how the universe might be,
and perhaps even our wildest imagination will never do justice to how
it really is.
If we could see it for real, it would lose the magic of its eternal mystery.
/ A P /
============ .

================================================================
By my peasant’s opinion the Einstein’s quote:
"You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother."

doesn’t coordinate with the content of the Aether Wave Theory.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/

Opinion is irrelevant, evidence is...

======================
Of course writing ‘ Opinion is irrelevant, evidence is...’
you are correct. But you promised to explain the
Aether Wave Theory as simple as even ‘your grandmother’
would understand it . http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/
And you didn’t keep your word.
==========
S.

OK, what we can see on the picture bellow?

=========================================
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Aether based explanation of dark matter
Before month I listed four explanations of dark matter, which are plural from AWT perspective:

consequence of limited light speed spreading through expanding space-time

surface tension effect of bell curve shaped gravity field
application of mass-energy equivalence to Einstein field equation
result of variable surface/volume ratio to energy spreading by principle of least action
But we can use even more illustrative explanation, linked to dispersion of energy by background field of CMB photons formed by gravitational waves (GWs), which manifests like weak deceleration equivalent to product of Hubble constant and speed of light. This dispersion is direct manifestation of hidden dimensions on both large scales, both small scales, because it manifests as a shielding effect of these photons at Casimir force distance scale. We can say, Casimir force is a shielding effect of GWs, whereas the Pioneer anomaly is subtle deceleration effect caused by dispersion by GWs. Both these forces are result in violation of Newton law at small scales, which manifests itself by anomalous deceleration at large scales and as such it violates the equivalence principle of general relativity - it's as easy, as it is.

We can even find a direct analogy of this deceleration in our "pocket model" of observable Universe at water surface. From local perspective of every observer, whose size is evolutionary adjusted to wavelength of capillary waves (human distance scale) such surface is covered mostly by transversal waves, where the energy spreads in maximal speed from his insintric perspective, so he can interact with largest space-time possible (the speed of transversal waves is minimal from exsintric perspective, instead).

But the particle character of water environment manifests by dispersion of surface waves by tiny density fluctuations of underwater, which results into gradual change of transversal character of capillary waves into longitudinal one (i.e. into gravity waves). This dispersion decreases the speed of waves from exsintric perspective, which manifests like omni directional Universe expansion from insintric perspective or like subtle deceleration, which effectively freezes the spreading of surface waves, which can be interpreted like spreading of these waves in environment of gradually increasing density. We can observe this effect easily by splash ripples, formed by capillary waves. On the example bellow such waves are formed by bursting of bubbles at water surface, which can be interpreted like radiative decay of unstable particle in vacuum into gamma photons.



From this perspective every object is surrounded by virtual massive field which originates from massive field of virtual photons, i.e. the field of density fluctuations, which are manifesting in GWs formed by gravitons expanded by inflation and which is forming vacuum foam - and in this context it's quite natural and easily predictable effect following from AWT directly. Just the immense density of vacuum and common disbelief in Aether concept has caused, the effect of background field dispersion wasn't linked to dark matter observations and Pioneer anomaly before many years. Here's still plenty of room "at the bottom" of basic human understanding. Note that in this context the further search for GWs has no meaning, because we have observed them already like background noise of GWs detectors and their scope is limited by Casimir force scope in the same way, like scope of extradimensions and Lorentz symmetry violation at low scale.

Albert Einstein "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
Posted by Zephir at 7:38 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: AWT, dark matter
================================

OK, and which sentence did you not understand?

===
Aether based explanation of dark matter
/ Zehpir /
=========== .
What is Aether ? ( formula ).
What is dark matter ? ( formula ).
========= .
But, please, remember I am a simple peasant.
I know only some simple formulas as:
T=0K,
E=Mc^2,
R/N=k,
c/d= pi = 3,14 . . .,
h= Et,
h= kb,
h(bar)=h/2pi,
E= h(bar)f,
e^2= ach(bar),
atom= p+ e . . .

If you use more complex formulas, my peasant brain
will no understand your explanation and I will think
that you clever than me.
========
S.

My grandma does know any formula. Just try to play granny for a while and forget some formulas.. The knowledge of some formula doesn't help you in understanding, why these formulas are valid, after all..

Now I explain you dark matter, OK? Do you know, what this stuff is about?

Sorry.
Without Physical Formulas I cannot think about Universe creation.
Best wishes.
S.

Abstract nonformal thinking is always at the very beginning of every important formula derivation.

========================
If you are right, then I prefer to read more simple
explanation about Existing without formulas.
For example: the Bible.
You cannot compete with this scientific explanation.
I only have a little doubt .
I am sure that a man was created from
woman’s rib and no vice versa as There had written.
==========

Bible explanations have no logics, neither predictability, testable one the less.

The same is possible to say about one ‘Physic’s theory ' without formulas .

=============

Unity? That's news. But physics keeps striving to reduce the number
of equations necessary to describe everything -- so called unification.

It began when Newton unified gravity on earth with gravity in space.
1 equation.

Unification continued when Maxwell reduced all the experiments
on electricity and magnetism to just 4 equations.

It continued with Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations. You might say
it unifies space and time. General relativity unifies gravitational
mass with inertial mass.

Then equations of motion for atoms were described by quantum
mechanics -- such as Schroedinger Equation & later Dirac Equation.
These form the common unification of chemistry.

Then quantum electrodynamics was discovered, which unified
electromagnetism with the quantum theory. Some of theory's
predictions (such as the fine structure constant) have been
experimentally verified to something like 10 or 12 decimal places,
a huge measure of success for any physical theory.

Meanwhile the strong & weak nuclear forces were partly
de-mystified: The weak force was found to be unified with
electromagnetism (electro-weak force), while the strong nuclear
force involves quarks of various kinds, with specific rules of
interaction best described by group theory.

And so it goes. The 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation,
sometimes called "God's Equation" -- the ultimate unification.

" Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
/ --Albert Einstein /
/ by xprofessor /

Logics of theory isn't dependent of formulas - on the contrary. To derive formulas, you should have working logic of theory first. Without it you haven't theory, but a regression of reality. This is a problem of string theory for example. It has a lotta formulas, but it contains logical flaws behind it - so it leads to vague landscapes of 10E+500 possible solutions and it has no predictability and therefore falsifiability.

Anyway, every violation of logics ruins the theory, no matter how many brilliant equation it contains. Remember the nice Ptolemy epicycles theory, which enabled to compute solar eclipses or planetary conjunctions - but it failed in trivial logics of Venus phases.

Logics is superior to math, because math itself is built upon logics. This is why I'm thinking about logics of theory first, just after then about its math. If math is based on predicate logics, why not physics?

Such grail is nonsense, until you cannot reduce the interactions of five or six particles into single equation, it has no meaning to pay physicists for unification of all interactions in universe.

In AWT such system can be modeled in computer only via particle collision simulations with precision, which is limited by computational power only.

Comments.
1.
The LAWS must unify, or we are describing things that don't actually exist.
/ Allen Francom /.
2.
Aether is unity. The design of the universe is one.

All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments

A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.

Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. Nor should 'physical law' be confused with 'law of physics' - the term 'physical law' usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well.

Yes, because manifestations of nature are effects of saomething else including the basics in physical theory. We detect, measure , and quantfy, all we observe and find they are not only effects but aggregates. Aggregates of what is not yet known but it will be determined all gross energy is an aggregate of the aether. Though this has been advanced before it has pretty much been dismissed. Now that dark energy has surfaced in a serious way it will be found to be the source of all aggregate energy. This has huge implications and its up to you to determine what those implications might be.

There is no unity anywhere in physical theory. The reason for this is that our description of nature rendered into infinite parts does not have an underlying foundation as an absolute frame of reference. Please don't think the standard model of the atom or quantum mechanics has any answers for final unity. As such they are just aspects of energy with no foundation of support. We don't know what energy is and until we know its absolute source all theory will either be incomplete or wrong. For instance, Einstein's general theory is incomplete because it doesn't contain a cause, and the big bang is wrong because it is based on an incomplete gravitational theory. When completed it will show there could never be a big bang, at least in the manner it is now contemplated. Beyond that it gets extremely interesting.

Physical theories doesn't require absolute frame of reference to remain predictable. For example Aether Wave Theory extrapolates observable reality by dense gas of nested fluctuations of dense gas of nested fluctuations of dense gas... recursively. We aren't require to know about our exact location in this hierarchy - we can just expect, there's infinite number of members both at higher, both lower level of density fluctuations of Aether gas.

I understand your arguments. My thesis has nothing to do with predictability. Further, Aether Wave Theory is an attempt to place our idea of reality onto something that has no resembalance to anything we have attached thus far to energy. Gas is a form of energy whose potential has to satisfy a solution for something that has been termed as exotic, dark energy, which has the potential, but it is telling the inquiry its substance is nothing like anything we have labeled as energy.
It is also suggesting if the same track which has led to a dead-end continues the certainty many think is impossible will never surface as fact. And it can if our solution of dark energy is done right. Does this help you understand why I offered an opinion on unity? Dark energy has the potential to finally establish that absolute frame of reference for energy, and everything else.

What?!? AWT isn't based on some mysticism at all - on the contrary. AWT is based on Boltzmann gas model - it's a basic system for definition of thermodynamical energy, instead. Furthermore, this model isn't ad-hoce at all. It's based on the understanding, from sufficiently distant perspective every object appears like pin-point particle. And every complex interactions in such system can be modeled by system of colliding particles. For example, people are complex objects, but if we would observe them from sufficient altitude, they would appear and behave like chaotic 2D gas composed of colliding particles. It's natural reduction of virtually every physical system.



Despite of its conceptual simplicity, this system becomes irreducibly complex with increasing of particle density, because it forms fractaly nested density fluctuations composed of density fluctuations. Such behavior can be both simulated by computers, both modeled by dense gas condensation (supercritical fluid at the right picture) and the resulting complexity is limited just by computational power. Which means, AWT principle enables to model systems of arbitrary complexity just by recursive application of trivial mechanism. If nothing else, we should consider this model because of its simplicity and the fact, nobody did propose it for modeling of observable reality, yet.

and has no"resembalanceZephir, I considered dense gas as macro phenonmena and by inference an aggregate of energy and all the rules of uncertainty apply. This would make it an "effect" of something else. I also believe this something else is the key to unity, and the inquiry remains at the quantum level (surface) which wave theory is also. A level beneath particle, wave, and/or quantum phenomena, is suggested by dark energy which pervades space. To this day theorist's are trying to attach a "particle" composition to it and that keeps them bogged down down in a cul-de-sac. The clues for dark energy is being considered as something exotic, and it is. This should be telling them something but I'm afraid they are going to miss the boat. The path to this dead-end really began in the ninetenth century with a series of misunderstandings and it is difficult to overcome.

I liked most of your final comments and perhaps it is applicable to many states at the macro level, but it seems to me that is the best it can do for unity. Unity requires a melding of the four forces of nature; gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, and relativity. By the way, relativity is an absolute regardless of what the public thinks it is.

I should add that what I said about "attaching" reality and has no "resembalance" to anything was merely the attempt to apply AWT to unity. What I was saying is that AWT is an attempt to attach a "cause" on something (dark energy) when in fact no concept of energy has ever been forthcoming; and particles don't qualify as acomposition of space. Which is what I'm talking about and gas is a collection of particles, and the radiation is an effect. How would AWT fit into dark energy? I hope this helps to understand me.

OK but why? The observability phenomena is always dependent to gradient of density of underlying states. Aether Wave Theory just considers, every thing is composed of density fluctuations of many smaller things, recursively. The dimensional scale plays no role in this gradient model.
Splash ripples are changing frequency with distance from observer, which can be considered as an omnidirectional expansion of Universe from perspective of that observer. But it's evident, the change in ripple frequency is not proportional to distance from observer - it's nonlinear, which makes an illusion of accelerated expansion of Universe.

The density fluctuation is correct, but I offered my observation because I believe there is a provable level of energy beneath AW's and that would make them aggregates of a different state of energy. The same energy but in a different state, which signals the linear plane is "flat". For this reason and many others anything above a flat plane is an aggregate of whatever space is. The energy of space can't be detected in any normal way because it isn't opaque enough and density is needed to move a clicker. Your splash ripple observation is the result of an exchange of energy with the cause of the splash and the water, adding energy to an existing state of energy. That energy spreads in the manner described leaving the ripple effect. The nature of the motion at the atomic level, sinusoidally, is transposed onto a pool of water as an example, reflected as peaks and troughs in the water. Same with a particle in space. An exchange of energy occurs with space (dark energy) and it perpetuates the sinusoidal linear motion of a particle leaving a ripple effect on the surrounding space intiated by the exchange. I suggest the ripples are one-half cycle out of phase due to the energy exchange. This only scratches the surface. Basically, that is why I sonsider everthing we look at now is an aggregate, not a source. You can play with the implications.

This should give you a little different perspective about the aether and your comment of 7/01. Inherent in the above lies the reason why Michelson/Morley failed to show what was looked for.

I made a huge typo_relatively was typed instead of electromagnetism. Sorry for that. In relation to that Steven Weinberg forged the electroweak theory to bring the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism into unity, but he used a mathematical trick to make the numbers come out right. He received quite a bit of criticism for that but still received the Nobel for the work. Just another thing to evoke skepticism among many.

Indeed, it doesn't require an absolute to predict a "probability", but it seems that to predict anything like final unity an absolute underpinning is required. Probability is a cul-de-sac right now, which can lead to false assumptions. Could there be just too many of those?

The longer we persist in religiously putting our faith in our man made "laws" of physics, and ignoring the "laws" of nature or the Universe, we will continue to flounder in a sea of uncertainty.

If we dismiss the notion that there is a high energy source
in the center or core of the Sun and then, look again at the corona, it will then become clear where the Sun's energy is being sourced.

The potential energy of the Universe is to be found in the Vacuum of space, perfectly stable and ready to be extracted
on demand.

Waro

#
Dark energy may be vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
==========================================

#
Without Aether/ Vacuum Physics makes no sense.
====================================================

The mind calls out for a third theory to unify all of physics,
and for a simple reason. Nature is in an obvious sense" unified " .
The universe we find ourselves in is interconnected, in that everything
interacts with everything else. ..... . . . . . .
Any claim for a final theory must be complete theory of nature.
It must encompass all we know.
/ The trouble with physics.
page 4.
by Lee Smolin. /