Conversations on physics epistemology, beauty-contest

@L. Edgar Otto: ” Generations as I understand them in my Quasic theory are certainly not ad hoc say as mass and gravity seems to be in the measurement by string theory or other physics.  … But can you see or apply these ideas like game theories in simple informational arithmetic, in information.”


Thanks for your comments. I did a bit more explanation on this generation issue at  ).


The key issue here is about the “methodology” and the “epistemology” of physics. The people on the two side of the spectrum (Gibbs and Motl) have converged to a similar opinion, away from blindly worshipping the gadget (testing and data) epistemology. This is truly a great progress on physics, more important than the newly discovered boson at LHC.


Philip Gibbs wrote: “What happens if a theory is eventually found to be uniquely consistent with all known observations but its characteristic predictions are all beyond technical means?”


Luboš Motl wrote: “While the divorce may be frustrating, it’s a part of progress and a sign of progress that we may successfully answer questions that are extremely far from our abilities to directly experimentally test them; and on the contrary, we may perform experiments whose results may be hard to calculate (which is why most of these experiments may be considered to be “irrelevant mess” by the theorists). The increasing separation is inevitably linked to the ability of theorists to think about the natural phenomena ever more cleverly and indirectly; and to the experimenters’ ability to test things well beyond those that seem simple to the theorists.”



Today, physics must face a new reality, our ability to “design” a universe in competition with the Nature. If many consequences of our design are identical to Nature’s, then our design criteria (not premises of a theory) are just as good as the Nature’s. And, there are many, many sign-posts of Nature can be compared to, such as,


1. Cabibbo and Weinberg angles

2. Is Alpha = 1/Beta?

3. Is Neff = 3?

4. Is there dark energy? How is it manifested?

5. Is there dark mass? What is it?

6. Is there a SM-Higgs-like boson?


This will be a new methodology and epistemology of physics, and it will and must replace the gadget testing (data) only mentality.



@L. Edgar Otto: “ … we certainly seem to influence our own directions of evolution. …”


This is a very important yet different issue, and I will not discuss it here. For the methodology and epistemology issue, allow me to make it a bit clearer.


a. Old school — “premises, theory, predictions, gadget verification”.


b. New school — “design criteria, constructing, designed product (consequences and outcomes), beauty-contest”.


Now, we know quite a few “physics” facts (realities) of Nature.

i.  Planck date — dark energy (accelerating expansion of this universe), dark matter, Neff = 3 (minimum), etc. .


ii.  Nature constants (Alpha, c, e, ħ, etc.) and some  quantum parameters (Cabibbo and Weinberg angles), etc. .


iii. Neutrino oscillations, etc..


For those simple physics facts above, the Standard Model cannot make any contact with them, let alone to derive them. Thus, the highest grade that the Standard Model can get is a big “F” (failed). The fact is that the Standard Model is only a hodgepodge of gadget data (cannot be wrong by having more of those similar data) but has zero theoretical foundation (to give rise to time, space, etc.).  


On the other hand, for the “designed (not discovered)” physics, it must do at least as good as Nature’s design if not better in the beauty-contest. That is, it must not only derive all physics facts above but must give rise to all other Nature facts (the rise of life, the intelligence, the morality, Mathematics, etc.). The design-criteria are that all known Nature facts must be reproduced in this designed universe.  Yet, any link between the physics (of any kind) and morality will immediately “make the day” for those “crackpot Bishops” who ordain (or confer) it with an honorary title “the Greatest Crackpot”.  Thus, I will reduce the design-criteria to a simpler one: “All (structures) things in Mathematics must be “derived” with this designed-physics, and vice-verse. That is, mathematics is no longer a “tool” for physics but must derive all physics principles with its “structures”; for example, the uncertainty principle must be a “manifestation” of mathematics structure. And, indeed, it is.


What the “heck” is the prime numbers? Prime number simply indicates that it cannot be “reached” by “multiplication operation (MO)”. So every prime can be written with the equation,

         Prime (X) = MO (y, z) + delta (x)

In fact, there are numbers (infinitely many) which cannot be reached by any type of “Algebra Operation (AO)” and it can be written as,

       N(y) = AO (a, b, c, …) + delta (y)

As both space and time dimensions (coordinates) are simply number-lines, the uncertainty principle must be the direct outcome of those delta(s). Now, a physics principle is not simply written with mathematic symbols but is the consequence of the number-theory. From here, we can easily unify the quantum and the determinism, but not this time. We should talk about the hottest issue of the day (the Higgs) in this beauty-contest.


In this designed-physics, there are two types of “decay”.


a. A player (V or A) moves from one chair to another while drops one or two shoes.

b. A “system” decay.


Every system consists of two parts.

i. The “internal” — having “n” chairs.

ii. The “external” — surrounded by a sea of (virtue) chairs.


When an internal chair is captured (arrested) by external chairs, the system breaks up (must decay). If the external chairs lack the energy to arrest an internal chair of a system, that system will not decay. These can be summarized as the “Show-will-never-end” principle:  If the music-chair-game can be played forever “internally” (self-playing), the system will never decay. Otherwise, the system must open its door and let the external chairs coming, which leads the decay. With these, it is quite easy to show that Proton will not decay at the current vacuum energy level, and there is no Higgs issue here. Thus, I will only talk about the neutron decay.


In Standard Model, d-quark is forced to get a sex-change into a u-quark by the suddenly appeared Angel (the W-). Then, this angel flies away as an electron and an anti-e-neutrino. In order to make some sense of this angel story, a Higgs egg was invented, as the angel was hiding in the egg all this time.


In this music-chair physics, the story is a bit different. The three lonely chairs (u, d, d) cannot do the self-playing. It opens up its door and let in two external chairs {(u, u-) or (d, d-)}. Now, a three chair system is having “5” chairs, that is, the decay-product must have five chairs total. In the case of (d, d-) entered, two music-chair games are played (the laws of energy, quark colors, electric charge, etc. must be obeyed).


a. Game 1: The players movement change (-d, d) into (-u, u) chairs. No hiding angel is needed at this time.


b. Game 2: The players exchange in (-u, -d), and it results of e and anti-e-neutrino.


The detailed schematic of this neutron-decay is available at ( ). In this new story, the game 2 is the manifestation of the old friend (the W-). The blob of game 1 is now mistakenly identified as the SM Higgs. With today’s technology, it will be quite difficult for LHC to distinguish the chair-blob from the imagined Higgs egg. Yet, the consequences of two can be easily seen.


i. The Higgs — leads the physics into a dead-end, no way out.


ii. The music-chair-physics — be able to have a beauty-contest with the Nature in all areas, physics, mathematics, lives, intelligence, etc..



@L. Edgar Otto: “Robert- what sort of predictions would you accept? So many seem to write papers after the fact so it fits in their system. But what do you do if all your life there where things that came to pass and now would seem like a retroactive prediction?”


For any given number, it can be always approached by, at least, one numerological equation. For any given physics result, it is not hard to come up a theory to encompass it.


On the other hand, a “system” (not theory) has a set of definitely outcomes regardless of the predictions or the postdictions (retroactive predictions).  That is, the validity of a “system” must be judged with its internal framework and its “necessary” outcomes, not about the predictions or the postdictions.


Furthermore, if a “system” can encompass more than one un-related postdictions, it then goes way beyond of retroactive predictions.



 @Robert L. Oldershaw: “let them prove that by showing that their ideas generate and pass definitive predictions. …  Definitive predictions are feasibly tested, made prior to testing, are quantitative or very uniquely qualitative, are NON-ADJUSTABLE, and are unique to the theory being tested. … These definitive predictions are what guides science to real discoveries and what identifies pseudo-science as the untestable rubbish that it is.”


Your position is not new but a reiterate of the very old one. Indeed, many very prominent physicists are going “off” from this old school, such as the M-theory or F-theory which predicts something way beyond the reach of any human gadget in the foreseeable future. Your demand is in fact giving them a hiding place. We should simply ask them to show what they can do to produce what are known, to reproduce all known physics from their theories.


This is where the “design-epistemology” comes in. That is, the argument of predictions or postdictions is no more but is replaced by a “beauty-contest” which encompasses not one or a few predictions but “all” aspects of Nature. Yet, this new epistemology has some very strict rules.


a. No known physics (principles, laws, data, etc.) can be a part of the design “base”. That is, no known physics can be “put-in” at the base.


b. No known physics can be a part of the design “procedure”.


c. The design “outcomes” can then enter the beauty-contest with the Nature, in all aspects (physics, mathematics, biology, philosophy and all the whatnot).



 @Robert L. Oldershaw: “In science the authority of 1,000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”


What you said is a “moral” law which is a bit higher than the physics law. In the music-chair game, a system will not decay if it can keep a “self-playing” going, especially when there is no external force powerful enough to disturb its internal dynamics. Both the M-theory wonderland and the Higgs game have enough internal energy, and they will not decay for a long while yet. But, they will eventually disintegrate when the true truth is known by about 14% [(1/e) ^2] of the population.



@Robert L. Oldershaw: “A far more important “core issue” today is the nature of the enigmatic dark matter…  Discrete Scale Relativity predicts exactly what the dark matter is and these predictions have been published in the Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987.”


Bad, bad, bad. Is your “prediction” any different from those of M-theory? If you can reduce “your theory” to a base without any “known physics (principles, laws, data, etc.)” while you can reconstruct the entire “known physics” from that base, your theory cannot be wrong.


Some of these conversation was posted at ( )







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s