5 ms·

Assume the physical universe takes the form of a set of axiomatic systems whose statements are elementary particles and whose interactions are logical operation

Assume the physical universe takes the form of a set of axiomatic systems whose statements are elementary particles and whose interactions are logical operations; i.e., metals in the presence of ions will form salts. Matter creates the gravitational interaction as a function of mass. Why do we assume the theories are unifiable?

just2n 10y ago
I think in an effort to understand exactly how the mechanics of the big bang worked and how you can go from an infinitesimal point of incredible energy to an enormous and expansive universe with the diverse laws we observe today. From the article: > If the forces were indeed one during the “grand unification epoch” of the universe’s first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, then particles that now have distinct responses to the three forces would then have been symmetric and interchangeable, like facets of a crystal. As the universe cooled, these symmetries would have broken, like a crystal shattering, introducing distinct particles and the complexity seen in the universe today.
- Manglano 10y ago
  We assume the precondition that the Universe we experience and observe originated in a vacuum of...existences, for lack of a better term. This seems myopic, why should it be so? What if the universe we experience is the product of interactions between distinct universes, which circumscribed by different physical laws, and the only universe we can sufficiently experience and observe is that which is governed by the Strong Nuclear Force?
  - bmh100 10y ago
    It could very well be that way, but what is the evidence for that origin? Why not any number of other plausible explanations? It is not myopic to accept the explanation best supported by available evidence, until sufficient new evidence supports a different explanation. Right now, the Universe coming into existence as a solitary singularity is the best available theory.
kurthr 10y ago
Because, even in the simplest case both would involve changes energy/enthalpy and therefore would interact with each other. In particular reactions in one might drive the equilibrium populations in the other and vice versa. One problem with simply combing the current General Relativity and Standard Model theories is local vs non-local determination. That is moderately complex to explain... perhaps someone has a better source than Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
euyyn 10y ago
Because, on one side, we've been able to deduce, in principle, all such interactions (and there are maaaaany) from just two. So it'd be surprising. On the other hand, these two interactions, General Relativity and the Standard Model, talk about the exact same things (the same "statements" in your example). While in many energy ranges the effects of one or the other are too small to be noticed, there definitely is an energy range in which both should have strong effects. Yet they aren't compatible. If we performed experiments in those ranges, the theory that describes what we measure would need to be compatible with both, an extension; the unified theory.
mathgenius 10y ago
> Why do we assume the theories are unifiable? I think it's a great question. Maybe the universe itself is the attempt to unify these theories. Greg Egan style.

just2n 10y ago

I think in an effort to understand exactly how the mechanics of the big bang worked and how you can go from an infinitesimal point of incredible energy to an enormous and expansive universe with the diverse laws we observe today. From the article: > If the forces were indeed one during the “grand unification epoch” of the universe’s first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, then particles that now have distinct responses to the three forces would then have been symmetric and interchangeable, like facets of a crystal. As the universe cooled, these symmetries would have broken, like a crystal shattering, introducing distinct particles and the complexity seen in the universe today.

Manglano 10y ago
We assume the precondition that the Universe we experience and observe originated in a vacuum of...existences, for lack of a better term. This seems myopic, why should it be so? What if the universe we experience is the product of interactions between distinct universes, which circumscribed by different physical laws, and the only universe we can sufficiently experience and observe is that which is governed by the Strong Nuclear Force?
- bmh100 10y ago
  It could very well be that way, but what is the evidence for that origin? Why not any number of other plausible explanations? It is not myopic to accept the explanation best supported by available evidence, until sufficient new evidence supports a different explanation. Right now, the Universe coming into existence as a solitary singularity is the best available theory.

kurthr 10y ago

Because, even in the simplest case both would involve changes energy/enthalpy and therefore would interact with each other. In particular reactions in one might drive the equilibrium populations in the other and vice versa. One problem with simply combing the current General Relativity and Standard Model theories is local vs non-local determination. That is moderately complex to explain... perhaps someone has a better source than Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

euyyn 10y ago

Because, on one side, we've been able to deduce, in principle, all such interactions (and there are maaaaany) from just two. So it'd be surprising. On the other hand, these two interactions, General Relativity and the Standard Model, talk about the exact same things (the same "statements" in your example). While in many energy ranges the effects of one or the other are too small to be noticed, there definitely is an energy range in which both should have strong effects. Yet they aren't compatible. If we performed experiments in those ranges, the theory that describes what we measure would need to be compatible with both, an extension; the unified theory.

mathgenius 10y ago

> Why do we assume the theories are unifiable? I think it's a great question. Maybe the universe itself is the attempt to unify these theories. Greg Egan style.