3 ms·

Can the emergent properties be derived from just the nine lines?

coldtea 3y ago
I'd say that if a capable scientist like Einstein was given them (assuming they didn't know the rest of the theories), they could build upon them to derive or get to close guesses of large parts of physics. The lines are quite loaded with broad equations that covers very fundamental stuff - including constants and elementary particles. A few equations being fundamental for big theories built upon them wouldn't be unheard of. Maxwell's equations for example cover several important fields of Physics. Newton's 3 laws cover classical mechanics.
- ralferoo 3y ago
  Except the article has a categorical statement: "The 9 lines contain all present knowledge about nature, including all textbook physics and all observations ever made." Take something simple like "F=ma" which is in lots of textbooks. Nothing in those 9 lines seem to suggest anything that could be used to derive that. I'm sure a domain expert, who already knows all this stuff, I'm sure they'd be useful as a memory aid to help them trot this stuff out, but do they "contain all present knowledge about nature, ..."? Not so much, if you need a ton of other knowledge to make use of them.
consilient 3y ago
No. Some of them are simply wrong. For instance: - action is extremized or at a saddle point, not necessarily minimized - Action is not quantized in QM (and quantum-mechanical action is not quite the same as classical action). There's another very indirectly related notion of "action" which shows up in historical semiclassical approximations and which is quantized. The author has likely confused the two. - SU(2) is not the gauge group of the weak interaction, because there is no such thing. A purely weak gauge theory with no EM is not possible, on account of having massive force carriers. The SU(2) and SU(1) in SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) corresponds to weak isospin and weak hypercharge respectively, not weak charge and (EM) charge. But even if all the errors were corrected there's a huge amount of missing context. (For instance, the actual content of the standard model Lagrangian - the fact that there are 19 free parameters is in no way sufficient to determine it) And even if you had all of that, a full reduction of macrophysics to microphysics is likely computationally intractable, even in principle.

I'd say that if a capable scientist like Einstein was given them (assuming they didn't know the rest of the theories), they could build upon them to derive or get to close guesses of large parts of physics. The lines are quite loaded with broad equations that covers very fundamental stuff - including constants and elementary particles. A few equations being fundamental for big theories built upon them wouldn't be unheard of. Maxwell's equations for example cover several important fields of Physics. Newton's 3 laws cover classical mechanics.

ralferoo 3y ago
Except the article has a categorical statement: "The 9 lines contain all present knowledge about nature, including all textbook physics and all observations ever made." Take something simple like "F=ma" which is in lots of textbooks. Nothing in those 9 lines seem to suggest anything that could be used to derive that. I'm sure a domain expert, who already knows all this stuff, I'm sure they'd be useful as a memory aid to help them trot this stuff out, but do they "contain all present knowledge about nature, ..."? Not so much, if you need a ton of other knowledge to make use of them.

consilient 3y ago

No. Some of them are simply wrong. For instance: - action is extremized or at a saddle point, not necessarily minimized - Action is not quantized in QM (and quantum-mechanical action is not quite the same as classical action). There's another very indirectly related notion of "action" which shows up in historical semiclassical approximations and which is quantized. The author has likely confused the two. - SU(2) is not the gauge group of the weak interaction, because there is no such thing. A purely weak gauge theory with no EM is not possible, on account of having massive force carriers. The SU(2) and SU(1) in SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) corresponds to weak isospin and weak hypercharge respectively, not weak charge and (EM) charge. But even if all the errors were corrected there's a huge amount of missing context. (For instance, the actual content of the standard model Lagrangian - the fact that there are 19 free parameters is in no way sufficient to determine it) And even if you had all of that, a full reduction of macrophysics to microphysics is likely computationally intractable, even in principle.