Science Forums 2

[James Putnam]

I think that theoretical physics does not describe the nature of the universe. I was recently questioned about something I had written. I feel the response I gave was concise and representative of my point of view. It does not include mathematics except f=ma. I think that theoretical physics, as currently formulated, is fundamentally flawed. Even if it were corrected it would be useful only for solving mechanical problems. My intent is to show it should not be relied upon for understanding the nature of the universe. The true nature is something very different.

I WROTE:

Physics theory used to depend upon a commitment to direct physical evidence. However, the direct evidence occurs in what appears to be pieces. It has usually been interpreted in a manner that gives the appearance of disunity. Unity seems to us to be a neater form of knowledge. There has remained the insurmountable weakness of fundamental theory that nothing of the nature of the causes has ever been discoverable. Fundamental theory cannot be directly proven to be correct. The principles of conservation of energy and momentum give a more unified appearance. The principles of conservation and principles in general seem to be unassailable. They appear to remain true. It became attractive to base theoretical analysis on such principles.

Here is an example of what has resulted:

[Quoting a physicist: "Every single principle that we teach in intro-college-physics is based on only two principles: Conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy/mass. That's it! All the other `laws' are based on those two principles - be it Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc... We can write those newtonian laws because of conservation of momentum. We can write the energy equations of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian because of conservation of energy. Each conservation principle is based on some underlying symmetry of our physical world. Conservation of momentum is based on the isotropic symmetry of empty space, conservation of energy on the symmetry of time. So these are the FUNDAMENTAL assumptions that we build all our understanding on (ignoring the CPT conservation rules)."]

This line of argument is false. The accepted practice of turning theory development on its head is not an improvement in understanding the nature of the operation of the universe. We can base no knowledge on the isotropic symmetry of empty space. We can base no knowledge on the symmetry of time. These are not empirical facts. They are theoretical conclusions based upon speculative theory. The theory began all the way back at the beginning. It began with simple empirically based equations such as f=ma. The theoretical steps that moved us into higher-level theory added more guesses on top of guesses. The facts are the empirical evidence that is the basis for the fundamentals. We cannot perform experiments on empty space. We cannot perform experiments on time. We can only make
measurements of changes of velocity that occur within them. We measure distances within space and periods of time within time.

Energy is a quantitative measurement of a force being applied across a distance. Momentum is a quantitative measurement of a force being applied during a period of time. Neither one has been demonstrated to have a unique material existence. The idea to treat energy and momentum as if they were like liquids being poured from one container to another was simply adopted in higher-level theory. They represent the modern day fulfillment of the discarded Caloric Theory. Furthermore, whether or not force is presented as the effect of a field, that pushes or pulls, or is presented as the natural thing to do because of principles such as the gravitational effect of space-time, it makes no difference except in the mind of the interpreter. Matter is caused to change its velocity. The reason in all cases is unknowable. We only know about effects. We know nothing about causes.

THE QUESTION:

[Aside from the dependence relation between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms and conservation laws being reversed in the quote, what is false with the line of reasoning?]

MY RESPONSE:

If you investigate empirical evidence with the intention of developing a theory by which to describe your beliefs about why action occurs, I expect your first step would necessarily be to form equations that imitate the patterns observed in the empirical evidence. At this very beginning of your theory you face your first major hurdle. Your do not know what are the causes. This is why you must formulate your theory. You need theory in order to talk as if you did know the nature of cause.

Your theory will be successful in extrapolating future empirical results so long as your equations accurately imitate the pattern you are testing. Even if your theory includes wrong interpretations, your mathematical analysis will reveal connections between various patterns. However, your faulty interpretations, depending upon how often you strayed from simplicity, i.e. unity, can make these mathematical revelations more or less awkward to achieve.

So you may find rather easily that force times distance, i.e. energy, is conserved. However, you also might then find that it is awfully awkward trying to theoretically establish a unifying link between gravitational effects and electromagnetic effects. This problem would result from your having interpreted, when deriving your fundamentals, gravity and electromagnetism as being uniquely different phenomenon.

You couldn't have known absolutely that they are fundamentally unique. However, if their empirical patterns of action seemed to you to be unrelated, then your theory would include this in its interpretation. Later when you attempt to find a way to unify them, you must overcome a difficult hurdle you placed in your way. If you said they were unique and now wish to show they are not unique, you have a very difficult adjustment to try to make in your theory.

For example, you may find you need to invent extra, unverifiable dimensions hiding somewhere in the universe in order to achieve the appearance of theoretical unity. This kind of solution is a real stretch, however, your theory has worked very well in making predictions, so it is tempting to believe that perhaps the theory is able to reveal phantom like properties that we are incapable of discerning by our own means.

No doubt your theory was designed to be internally consistent. Therefore, if you want to reverse the order of the work you have done, you could begin with your phantom like properties and show how your theory can be viewed backwards ending with the fundamentals.

If you then put your new work forward as demonstrating that the fundamentals are based upon the phantom like properties, you are way out on a limb. You did not know what is `cause' from the beginning of your theory, and you do not now know that your phantom properties are that `cause'.

Looking back at the beginning fundamentals, here is an example of how quickly you will have gone astray. Lets assume you observe objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists only of measurements of distance and time. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. So you do not know what is 'f' or what is 'm'.

Two out of three properties in your equation have unknown natures. Your theory is already in crisis. In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force. Now you are able to define the second unknown property 'f' in terms of the empirically known 'a' and the theoretically invented 'm'.

If you are wrong about your guess for 'm', then your definition of force is also wrong. This early error spreads quickly into higher-level theory. The incorrect nature of force infects your definitions of both energy and momentum. Your problems do not end here. There are patterns of effects such as gravity and electromagnetism that have unknown causes. You must invent causes for them to continue with your theory.

In the case of electromagnetism, you might decide to theorize there is a cause you name as electric charge. Now you have included another major guess into your theory. Every time you imagine a separate unique cause for unexplained differences in patterns, you go further and further out on that limb.

If this is all just theory, does it really matter all that much? The answer is that it matters very much right from the start. The reason is that you aren't just inventing names; you are also inventing new units of measurement. You might have defined kilograms for mass and coulombs for electric charge.

These units are the means by which your theoretical guesses become a concrete part of your mathematical equations. Your equations were empirical and now you have transformed them into theoretical tools. The disunity and errors of your theory are now properties of your equations.

How does this all relate to modern theoretical physics? Today's orthodox theories have these human invented problems. They have the lack of fundamental knowledge in their fundamentals and the need to resort to phantom properties in higher-level theory. Whether the theories are viewed from the bottom up or the top down makes no difference in what they reveal to us. In either case they are reflections of our inadequacy. We are unable to know the nature of cause.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of relevance to life and intelligence. Mechanics offers only imagined possibilities of non-life, non-intelligent causes for the patterns found in empirical evidence of the motion of matter.

Mathematics is not the language of the universe. It is a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Whatever meaning becomes attached to our equations is in the thoughts of the theorist. If the theory is wrong then the equations will mirror our wrong ideas and their complications back to us. To overstate the importance of mathematics is to leave us vulnerable to blindly following equations whose interpretations have acquired unreasonable and even absurd meaning.

If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will represent only a rudimentary interpretation of the operation of the universe. It would be rudimentary by virtue of its being mechanical. Their theory-of-everything would not be a theory of everything. It would be an attempt to unite mechanical theory. It would not advance our understanding of the most important effects of the universe, life and intelligence.

James A. Putnam