Language in physics

Matt Strassler wrote: “… Clearly there is a language difference here… as is often the case with words in English and words in Physics-ese.  … to understand that this way of talking about the strengths of forces is the best one to use.”

 

Indeed, the “language” can make a big difference for the same story.  In my view, the four known forces can be described with a set completely different language. That is, we can view these forces in their functionalities instead of their strengths. Then, these four forces can be classified into two types.

 

a. Envelope constructing type:

     i. Strong force (SF) — constructing the envelopes for proton or neutron. Then, the residual of SF constructs the envelopes of nuclei.

 

     ii.  Electromagnetism force (EF) — constructing the envelopes of atoms and molecules. Then, it also constructs the envelopes of the “causal universe”.

 

     iii. Gravitational force (GF) — constructing the envelopes of large mass bodies. Then, it also constructs the envelope of a non-causal universe.

 

b. Envelope penetrating type: It goes into an envelope or breaks out from one, the Weak force (WF).

 

 

The above description can also be viewed in terms of an automobile, as the universe is evolving “forward”. The constructing type is the “forward” gears while the penetrating type is the “reverse” gear.

 

Then, we can go one more step; viewing these forces are building an amphitheater (without ceiling and walls) with chairs and stages, similar to the universe with quarks, nuclei, …, galaxies, etc.. The constructing force are “making” chairs, sections, …, stages. The penetrating force “brings” audiences and actors from one chair to another or from one section to a different one. That is, the WF is the usher of the theater.

 

In the case of unifying these forces, knowing their functionalities are much more important than knowing their strengths. Even if their coupling strengths are exactly the same, they can still be completely different forces. Yet, knowing their strengths converge at some certain situations is still a great knowledge about them.

 

With this amphitheater model, the forces classification (degeneration) is the results of that theater’s framework and functionalities. That is, there is a “fundamental/emergent” relationship, or the force-genealogy as follow:

 

Force (degenerated) = K (degenerated) F(unified), K is the coupling constant.

 

F (unified) = ħ / (delta T * delta S) ; T, time; S, space.

 

This unified force equation shows the “sources” of all degenerated forces. The degenerated K (couplings) is caused by different “charges” (job-types).

 

With different language, a story can be told differently. In this story, the alpha (α) is not only the coupling constant for electromagnetism but is the “manager” for all other charges, as it is a “lock” which locks the three most fundamental nature constants (ħ, C and e).

 

 

What is charge? This is again a language issue.

 

I was charged 10 dollars for the movie and 100 dollars for the dinner. “Money” is a universal charge. Yet, in general, different action demands different charge. As “no money, no fun”, it is the same that “no charge, no action”. If a force without a charge, it can produce no action.

 

Yet, what is charge? Charge is the “measurement” for the action it has done. That is, “charge” is in fact a “measuring ruler”.

 

What is e (electric charge)? Well, what is “e” measuring? “e”-charge measures the “size” of the “causal universe”. The part of this universe beyond this causal universe is called beyond the “event horizon”.

 

What is m (mass-charge) measuring? “m”-charge measures the “size” of the internal “envelope”, such as the quark-envelope or the proton-envelope. If there are envelopes beyond the event horizon, m-charge will measure them too. That is, the m-charge has the power going over the event horizon. If there is an invisible envelope, m-charge will measure it too. 

 

The Relativity theories “fail” to encompass the quantum principle which is definitely one attribute of Nature. A “failure” cannot be correct. That is, the relativity theories are simply wrong, partially correct at the best. This same logic works on the quantum principle too.

 

Einstein simply did not know a simple “super unified” force equation, as below;

 

Force (degenerated) = K (degenerated) F(unified), K is the coupling constant.

 

F (unified) = ħ / (delta T * delta S) ; T, time; S, space.

 

Now, here comes the quantum principle.

 

Delta P * Delta S = Force * Delta T * Delta S = K (degenerated) ħ

 

The “strength” of the quantum effect is determined by K (the coupling).

 

 

If anyone is able to derive this super unified force equation and all those K’s, his theory cannot be wrong. In fact, he needs only derive one of the K, the Alpha, and he will be on the path to the Super Unification. Otherwise, he is … .

 

 

@S. Dino: “… – until and unless an Experiment, I repeat – an EXPERIMENT – blows a hole in current theory.  … Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. It is experiment that makes all the difference…no Earth shaking experiment… .”

 

You are, indeed, describing the current situation, but your position is simply wrong. For the modern physics, almost all experiments are “planned”, that is, for verifying a “pre”-diction. Premises are always coming before experiment. No new concept, no new experiment. Concept is the King, experiment the squire.

 

 

@S. Dino: “… Relativity has passed every experimental (there is that word again) test thrown at it thus far, …”

 

This is the minimum requirement for any theory. But, it again shows that the essence of all experiments is bound by “limitations”, as we know all too well that Relativities are incomplete theory both factually and conceptually.

 

Today, every high school student knows that both Relativities and quantum principle are partial theories and to a great extent that they are mutually exclusive. Thus,

a. Trying to encompass Relativity “by” quantum principle (such as, the quantum gravity),

b. Trying to encompass Quantum world “by” Relativity (such as, Weinstein’s work),

 

are simply wrong even at the conceptual level, and no experiment is needed to reach this conclusion. The only way to success for unifying them is having a “base” underneath both Relativity and Quantum principle. That is, both Relativity and Quantum principle are the emergent of this base. This is the prerequisite for any TOE.

 

In essence, experiment is only a squire while its capability is very limited. Yet, the mystery of Nature might be hiding at a place way beyond the reach of any kind of human gadget forever. Now, even many diehard gadget testing supporters are contemplating this dire reality, such as,

 

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; …”.

 

Fortunately, there is “knowledge” which absolutely needs no experiment, as some of them have been experimentally verified zillion times, that is, they have grown out from the experiment-crib. These knowledge gain a new name, physics facts.

 

There is another very important kind of knowledge which is based on these physics facts, with two parts.

 

a. A system — with a “base”, a set of evolving rules and a set of definite “consequences (not prediction)”.  

b. A set of physics facts as the checking list (or the landmarks).

 

If the “map” of this system does not check out with one of the landmarks, something is wrong. On the other hand, if this map marches with all the known landmarks, its other “consequences (not predictions)” can be comfortably accepted as “knowledge-candidate” which is witnessed by all those known physics facts. 

 

Matt said on March 15, 2013 (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/15/from-higgs-like-particle-to-standard-model-like-higgs/ ),  “It is therefore natural to call this a Standard Model-like Higgs particle, shifting the “-like” over a step.  That wording emphasizes that although confidence is very high that this is a Higgs particle, we do not have confidence that it is a Standard Model Higgs, even though it resembles one.  … , many interesting speculative theories, despite being dramatically different from the Standard Model, nevertheless predict nature will exhibit a Standard Model-like Higgs particle — one that may be distinguishable from a true Standard Model Higgs only after the LHC has gathered much more data.”

 

Matt’s conviction above is obviously the result of knowledge, not of the result of any experimental data. Matt said on March 18, 2013, (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/18/review-of-the-higgs-to-2-photon-data/ )”,   “So as far as the Higgs particle’s decays to two photons, …; and we have no choice but to accept that the current situation is ambiguous …  (For those who got all excited last July;  you were warned that the uncertainties were very large and the excess might well be ephemeral.)”

 

We are now trapped in the old concepts, and a chance for any experiment (planned from those old concepts) to blow a big hole to that old concepts is not very good. Only experiment is planned to looking for the new concept can blow a hole to the old concepts.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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