6 ms·
Fun fact: all physics experiments ever made can be described by 9 lines, without any deviation between theory and observations. The 9 lines are sufficient to
by PrettyPebble 5y ago
Fun fact: all physics experiments ever made can be described by 9 lines,
without any deviation between theory and observations.
The 9 lines are sufficient to describe quantum physics and gravity.
It seems that the 9 lines even contain all (update: natural) sciences, not only physics.
Finding an exception to the 9 lines will make you famous.
So will the discovery of a 10th line.
Thousands of researchers work towards these dreams, but none succeeded yet.
A few additional fun facts on https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html
- criticaltinker 5y agoThis is satire right? You might be getting downvotes because it’s not clear if you’re serious, and those claims seem quite ridiculous at face value.
- not_kurt_godel 5y agoIt's essentially paraphrased from the OP. Why OP is getting upvoted, I do not know.
- PrettyPebble 5y agoWhat is ridiculous?
- _Nat_ 5y agoThe 9-lines thing. May've just drawn a circle and claimed that it describes all of science.
- PrettyPebble 5y agoIf the 9 lines are wrong, just show it... Thousands of scientists are trying the same since 50 years.
- _Nat_ 5y agoIt's not that they're "wrong" so much as that they're incoherent and largely non-sense. Sorry if that seems harsh, just.. this looks like someone's having some sort of crisis. It's worrisome.
- PrettyPebble 5y agoNo, it is fun! The scientists who are looking for exceptions to the standard model and to general relativity since 50 years are having a crisis at present, as often told. The 9 lines imply all equations of physics. Every Lagrangian of physics is included. The lines are also coherent: none contradicts another. They are complementary: the cover all observations and all fields of physics. No field of physics is left out. The lines are also correct: every calculation fits with observations withing measurement accuracy, since the standard model (with neutrino masses and PMNS mixing) and general relativity exist.
- _Nat_ 5y agoThose 9-lines don't imply all of physics. They don't even mention most of physics. A lesser problem is that they're not correct, either. For example, Line-5 suggests that entropy is never below the Boltzmann-constant. Which simply isn't true; there're notions of zero-entropy, where zero is less than the Boltzmann-constant. For another example, Line-2 suggests that nature itself is local; this would contradict non-local effects, e.g. entanglement, and would seem to prohibit faster-than-light recession. Or, maybe those lines were meant in a way that doesn't have those problems? But maybe they have different problems? Who knows! -- which is the bigger problem. This is usually described as ["not even wrong"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ). Because, to be wrong, it'd have to make more sense first.
- PrettyPebble 5y agoOf course the 9 lines imply all of physics. Just mention a part of physics that is missing, and I'll buy you a beer. "Zero entropy" is indeed against the laws of physics - in this universe. It may be different in other universes. Line 2 does not speak about locality, but about the speed of light. Entanglement does not violate the speed of light - in this universe. It may be different in other universes. If you know what a Lagrangian is - in quantum theory, in quantum field theory, in the standard model and in general relativity - you also know that there is no random interpretation in the 9 lines.
- blablabla123 5y agoI would take this with a huge grain of salt. But generally it's quite astonishing with how few assumptions such complex theories can be derived. Also the mathematical apparatus has really all batteries included speaking of Lagrange formalism and its Action (point 1)
- erikpukinskis 5y agoThis is just straight wrong. There is no computer in the world that can predict the outcome of, say, a drug trial from these equations. If your “science” requires an impossible computer to work then it’s not science it’s faith.
- PrettyPebble 5y agoThe 9 lines do not say this. The lines do say that drugs are made of atoms and that the molecules follow quantum theory.
- Jyaif 5y agoYou are saying that we don't have a computer fast enough to simulate a drug trial, but you are not actually disagreeing with the parent.
- erikpukinskis 5y agoNo, I’m saying no computer will ever simulate it with only those equations. Higher level equations are needed which cannot be derived from the given ones, they can only be discovered through additional science.
- smoyer 5y agoAn impossible computer is different from a computer that humankind can not yet build. If our universe is a simulation, then some entity has already proven you wrong. If our universe isn't a simulation, our limited resources prevent us from running (detailed) universe-scale simulations. I'd say that we will eventually be able to simulate a drug interaction from these rules (it's the interaction between these rules that's the key) but I won't predict WHEN that might occur.
- erikpukinskis 5y agoThose are all reasonable beliefs, but still fall in the category of “faith”.