Pictured above: T.O.E. Venn Diagtam"The conviction that a TOE can be constructed might seem wishful thinking, but there are reasons to believe that a divergence-free TOE exists but requires a profound rethinking of the fundamental concepts of physics. A potential solution could be realized by finding a way to transform the Einstein-Hilbert action into a holographic description, and to apply the Feynman sum approach not to the Einstein-Hilbert action, but to the corresponding holographic action. The hope is that the vastly reduced number of paths in the holographic Feynman sum would tame the divergences."
... Johannes Koelman, Hammock Physicist, "Physical Reality: Less Is More"
* * * * *
"Be assured that we have no clue of what lies within a quark. Quarks might very well be point-like, and as such they are described in the standard model. But if they had an internal structure of dimensions testable with the energetic probes we are using (other quarks or gluons), we would be experiencing yet again the marvel of Lord Rutherford, as he saw the alpha particles with which he was bombarding a gold foil rebounding back as if they had hit something really hard inside the atom."
... Tomasso Dorigo, A quantum Diaries Survivor, "Quark Compositeness Is Nowhere Near"
7 comments:
Hi Steven,
I love this post you pointed to regarding the link to Johannes Koelman’s piece, respective of the search for a TOE. It brings things down to the most fundamental of considerations and thus I found it both enlightening and enjoyable. Now I wouldn’t say I would go so far as to agree that things will eventually be explained as to having things reduced to be resultant of one action, as I being fairly convinced that nature having a dual ontological base, as opposed to a singular one, that is despite the latter being the predominant view. Never the less I find his considerations otherwise consistent with the way my own thinking has developed over the years. Thanks once again.
Regards,
Phil
No problemo, mi amigo. I am curious however as to what leads you to thinking that "nature" has a "dual ontological base" as you put it.
Bear in mind that's the way I lean too most days, and on some days I wish triality would be explored more. So I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you, I just seek the origins of that thinking.
Well, SuperSymmetry, or SUSY, has been around a while, and is indeed key in both SuperString Theory and Randall-Sundrum models. That every particle has a "partner" particle associated with it that has a spin difference of 1/2 has been floated for some time. Whether it's true or not, the LHC should tell us, at least at the energies that the LHC can produce. While the future discovery of the Higgs particle at the LHC is sold to the public, it is SUSY, as in proving it, that the LHC is mainly about. Would you like some gluinos with your photinos, gents? Pfft. Not me. We'll see.
Then there's AdS/CFT correspondence, which is also very dual, and I don't have to tell you Phil about Quantum Entanglement, Anti-Matter, or even Human Entanglement, which apparently has something to do with the tango, since I've heard it takes two to do that. :-)
But the greatest duality of all, if it exists, would be a reasonable explanation of why two very different and seemingly incompatable yet experimentally verified theories, exist in tango, those being the theories of Quantum Mechanics (discrete) and General Relativity (continuous). If there is in fact a unified theory of those two, we have a single theory. If not, and for some reason "God is an imp" as Tim Maudlin puts in, then we live in a Universe where two different sets of rules apply.
Hi Steven,
Why I’m convinced nature as having a dual ontological base is a long story and in actual fact a journey upon which I’m still travelling as to be on. To tell you in specifics would take a long time and yet the gist of it coming down to the examination of each of physics most basic theories, with those being GR and QM.
First with GR as having things reduced to the recognition of its two entities in regards to physical reality, with that being the action of space/time respective of that of matter/energy, where the matter/energy’s presence calling the tune as to what being the topography for space/time. Then in the case of QM if one is to take the Bohmian approach, as not to consider it simply being a question of perspective, as having all being “particle or wave” or simply particle/wave (singular ontology), yet rather a case of things being explained by having each considered to be separately and distinctly real to be “particle and wave” (dual ontology).
So in short I find there to be a correlation between the two, which most seem to either have not recognized or simply choose to ignore, that I feel if taken more seriously would aid in having both theories to be extended as to be better understood as well as to have each to relate. There are a few who are actively working in this direction, yet their current place is more representative of being butone voice among many searching in the wilderness. In the end however I have little interest as to who is proven correct and more interested as whatever that turns out being.
Best,
Phil
Oh yes, wave-particle duality, the grandfather of dualities. Or is it?
I find the duality between group theory and symmetry to be the greatest of them all. Fearless symmetry.
(Don't mind me, I'm experimenting with talking cryptically today)
Hi Steven,
Shouldn’t you say that the duality is between symmetry and conservation, with group theory as the lynch pin between the two. One could say that Plato noticed this millennia ago only stating it as being between beauty and truth with the good as the lynch pin, which Pirsig rather found to be quality. The question then for me would be how group theory stands as to represent the good or quality.
Best,
Phil
it stands as the lynch pin, as you said, and thanks for saying what you said about group theory which is better than how I put it. Well done, Phil.
I found a gret site that may be of interest also to you
http://radobozovhealth.com/
chemistry linked to the quantal elements. How Life works on a very basic level.
I think he brings forth all those essential questions most of us avoid.
Ulla.
Post a Comment