all bullshit
Bullshit, and you need to write, because thoughts gnaw the brain. These are actually some words about physics, time and other delights of life. As usual, it will be messy and illiterate, so do not run over this. So
What is wrong with physics from a programmer's point of view?
With physics, of course, everything is so. They have a lot of money, accelerators are being built, satellites are being launched, theories are being written, brains are hiding ... But there is one most interesting question to the masters of physics: what exactly are they researching?
')
They may not explore anything. Intel physicists do not need to investigate anything; their task is to design the transistor as fast as possible, with as little leakage currents as possible, operating voltages, and so on. That is, do these physicists comprehend the truth? Hardly. These are purely such engineering physicists, tough guys and all that, but they are not a search for truth, therefore, for now let us leave these megakruty guys. Well, or not yet, but generally leave. To hell with them. Because the main thing for them is that the thing works, and how it works and why it is a question for the Lord God.
But there are other physicists who claim to have knowledge of how nature works. Well, you know, there are all sorts of superstrings, quantum fields and the theory of relativity. About them will be further.
So. Physics ... OK. The first thing that strains in all theories is that they quickly, with the move, with a blunder, hop, and begin to work with real and complex numbers. It would seem, and what of this? But what. And even two things.
(one). Real numbers are a very complex tool. Indeed, the real number was discovered by the ancient Greeks, a long time ago. And there was this number sqrt (2). But what is this number nobody knew until the 20th (twentieth, XX) century. One thing was known - the number is irrational. People actually found a lot of irrational numbers after, but what they represent was not known for a very long time.
And they are like this. Real numbers are determined using a set of axioms, which state that real numbers are (1) a field, (2) in which there is an order — more, less and so on, and (3) which is closed (since there are more, less and everything else, this concept can be defined). Not sickly, as you can see. And the most not sickly point is point three. Which means that any convergent sequence converges to an element of this set itself.
Thus, who is sqrt (2) is the limit of the sequence, which, for example, occurs when this root is calculated by the old-fashioned method, that is, by the Newton method. Or the method of dividing in half, or whatever method. But the problem here is that the sequence only converges at infinity. And what is infinity for a finite experiment?
Unclear. In addition, no one has seen this sqrt (2) in the eye, for example, you can see the fraction 324567234 / 4332452356. Although, any schoolchild can say, but let's build a diagonal of a square with a single side and we will see this devil's root. BUT, who said that we see no approximation.
All numbers to real, in fact, are constructed constructively. That is, the natural number 0 is empty {}, the natural number 1 is the set consisting of zero {0}. The natural number 2 is the set 1 combined with {0}, 2 is 2 U {0}, and so on. That is, it's just a bill on the sticks. It is also understandable with integers - these are things that arise after subtracting natural numbers, although NO numbers have also seen negative numbers, but you can even write them down on a piece of paper. Rational - this is also simple, for geometry and trivial relations. But the real ... They are not constructive, their existence is simply postulated by an axiom (in which some mathematicians in general do not even believe).
And what reason to believe that any sequence in any set (incomprehensible) should have a limit at all? But there is reason not to believe. For example. In order to find a real number lost in the wilds of arithmetic, you need to give it a definition: for example, e is the limit of such a series, sqrt (2) is the length of the diagonal of a square, pi is a relation ... And definitions are given in the language, which is the alphabet (it does not matter what language, even Chinese, even with an infinite alphabet (countable, again, so that it makes sense for a person)). At the same time, for a definition to have meaning (for a person), it must be finite. This means that all such definitions can be renumbered and will be no more than a countable number. Strange. Either there are so many of them in nature, or man cannot more than a countable number realize ...
Anyway. There is an even more entertaining oddity. Physicists are very fond of very expensive computers to conduct numerical experiments. And so, after all, what a dirty trick. They use double or float numbers in them, and the results are qualitatively correct. At the same time, the double or float numbers, of course, are a closed system (but only for the reason that it is discrete and limited, both from above and below), but they do not form any field at all. Try to find the inverse of the number 3, and immediately verify this. Hop ... How so? We model nature with absolutely disgusting rigor, even quality, and it is modeled correctly, with all that pi, e, sqrt (2), continuity, unboundedness and isolation are actively used in any theoretical calculation.
This is simply illogical. Or nature doesn't care about a piece of logic, which is interesting. But at the same time, physicists do not care. They live quietly in theory with real numbers, in calculations in general with some kind of porridge, and errors in hundreds of thousands of units of measure do not worry them at all.
In addition, they are generally surprised when they suddenly need accuracy in theory, for example, up to 15 decimal places.
Brad, imho. Even more strange is the art of neglect. Open any physical article, and you will see that the most favorite icon there is the >> icon - this is not C ++ input, but much more. If X >> Y, then X + Y ~ X. Interesting arithmetic actually. How can one describe reality with such arithmetic? Does nature know how to neglect? But if he can, how? Where is the explanation.
In general, physicists with explanations are sometimes very tight. BUT no need to interpret my words as attacks on physicists. Physicists are cool guys. In many other areas of science, mathematics is even worse. And there are even fewer explanations. I, in fact, in a little torn form, write about what I lack in physics. Why can not I calmly read more than one textbook.
OK. The physical nature of the neglect is also not described. However, most likely, this is directly related to the fact that for some reason, rather accurate models are obtained on clumsy computer arithmetic with a floating point. Either nature does not know how to count, or it is inherently discrete in its essence, and it cannot, in a limited volume, hold infinitely much information, as required by continuous models of reality. God knows her.
OK. Now is the time. Oh yeah. Time is a favorite topic. Because in physics there is no time. Why, because everything is described by a linear manifold in four-dimensional space-time. That is, just a set, each point of which can be assigned four coordinates. Cool ... Although not very. Do you want to live in a world where not everything is simply predetermined, but in general there is no movement? Me not. And there can be no such, for one simple reason. But what about the exchange of information, which requires a channel that can have several states? We can assume that the channel has two fixed states, but they are separated in time, and it seems to us that the channel may have two states. But it was not there. Because a four-dimensional set with two points has only one state. How to construct two different states from this, without involving a human scientist who jerks his finger and says: this is one state, and this is another, and here there is a change between them, a lot will be one state.
Consciousness is supermaterial? Cool ... But then came quantum physics and said - but nefig. There is nothing but probabilities and wave functions, and everything around is a dream of consciousness and perception. But the problem is that quantum physics also draws a picture without time. Well, probabilities, well, wave functions, well, infinite-dimensional space. But it is all the same described by diffur, which has the only solution, we just do not have enough brains to solve it. But the solution is definitely a mathematical fact.
However, nature gives the physicians a headstrike in the form of a quantum measurement problem. The collapse of the wave function, when, when measuring the state of a quantum system, it suddenly, irreversibly, unpredictably and indefinitely turns into one of the possible states. Here it is the joy of physics and pure demonstration of the presence of time. However, what do physicists do? They try to explain this phenomenon through all the same diffura, which has a unique solution, and in which there is no time.
Something is wrong here.
OK. Physicists use strange numbers, live in a strange space, do not want to admit the fact of time, but this is still half the trouble. After all, on the basis of their strange theories, they force everyone to give them crazy grandmas to crazy accelerators.
And now - the theory of superstrings. Ems ... And who needs it? Oh, yes, physicists. Well ... So, nature clearly demonstrates the cant with the way of using mathematics (because the collapse of the wave function does not fit the framework of the classical differential model of all things). But nature gives a kick in another way. Quantum physics is absolutely not friendly with the theory of relativity. Well, not friends and that's all. They try to make friends with her again through continuous formalisms and real numbers, and at the same time, they begin to use abrupt mathematics, such as path integrals, the theory of algebras and Lie groups, and everything else of continuous disgrace. And hop, even without the collapse of the wave function, the theory does not converge, because negative values for probabilities and infinity for the space-time curvature come out.
Very sad. But here comes the theory of superstrings and says ... Alleluy, brothers. Enough already to force your brain material points, let's force ourselves extended objects with zero volume. I wonder what these objects are better than the material point? Well, yes, precisely, they can fluctuate, they can change their state, therefore, they can save information ... Cool, less than three hundred years, as they say.
But problems arise with superstrings, so that the theory converges, so that negative probabilities and other delights do not arise, it is necessary that the number of measurements in the universe be 11. And physicists are happy to introduce these 11 measurements, and continue to describe the evolution in continuous, differentiable sets in 12 dimensional space 11 measurements + time.
Well, I don’t understand why they don’t understand that they are trying to describe the static system, which is our Universe, with a static formalism. Perhaps, of course, this is the essence of mathematics, well, it cannot allow anything else (although, the devil knows it. After all, you can quite strictly and formally describe a turing machine, which is a dynamic system, and you can do it without any derivatives and two-dimensional (in the sense of cars, time)) spaces. Although, in the course of the work of this machine, there will be such a story.
Hop, from here the conclusion: is it possible that physicists actually describe history and not make predictions? But then, from this immediately the conclusion that in fact no process of knowledge in physics occurs. All models are just a convenient way to present the following fallacy. Physicists test the truth of a theory with the predictions it gives. That is, they believe that their description allows us to predict the work of such an ingenious device. And if it really allows, they assume that they have discovered a new particle.
But if they actually give a story in theory, then building a device is only an attempt to reproduce the story. And ... There are electrons there, or they are not there - the devil knows. One can only judge that the trace left by the Universe has the form of electrons ... Although, in fact, it has the form of voltage sequences on sensors, which are converted into values by clever ADCs, and then are drawn by clumsy programs in the form of 2D images. Hmm ... Cool.
But does this coincidence of stories with an error of hundreds of thousands of units mean that electrons really exist? What superstrings really exist?
But physicists would have a model of what they are actually trying to achieve with their mathematics. Their calculations, their predictions. And in general, at least some slightly sane explanation of why calculations work at all, why mathematics works, the picture would have cleared up a little.
With the same mathematics used by physicists, things are not that simple either. There are no flaws in this math. It is a point, correct, and meaningless. Actually, this is its coolness and success. Four-dimensional linear space can form even knuckles on four rods, even four snails, crawling along orthogonal faces of a hypercube in infinite-dimensional space. No matter. Mathematics can do everything as long as it does not contradict logic. But the logic in modern mathematics is tricky. And the innocent law is to blame for everything: not A is exactly A. The great and terrible law of the excluded middle. From it, in particular, follows the super-hyperpowerful tool of evidence that is commonly used in mathematics.
And in the mathematics that physicists use, it is used almost at every turn. The essence of it is simple. But its meaning is unclear. The bottom line: how to prove that sqrt (2) is an irrational number? we must assume that sqrt (2) = p / q and show that this contradicts some properties of the numbers p and q. And then from the fact that there is no rational number, which in the square gives 2, to conclude that sqrt (2) is not a rational number. But in the phrase 'not a rational number' there is a catch, for it claims that sqrt (2) exists. But in fact, it appears only in real numbers. He is not yet at the time of the formulation of this phrase ... And it will appear only in 24 centuries. And to appear as an axiom, and not as a constructive object. That is, from the void. From great nothing. From the law of the excluded middle ... From non-proof. From Tao?
Who knows. But reflecting on this, I was 100 times convinced of the justice of the Taoist teachings. But this is not the most entertaining.
The most entertaining is the Gödel theorem. I saw only one physicist who mentioned her, but he mentioned it in the context of his struggle with artificial intelligence. But the Gödel theorem is a much more powerful tool. Its meaning is that any system of axioms, which allows to form natural numbers and operations on them, allows us to either formulate a statement whose truth cannot be established, or is contradictory ... Cool. And physicists use not only natural numbers, but real ones as well.
And even more entertaining is the fact that with natural numbers, nature most obviously waves to physicists before their eyes, and they do not see them point-blank. Remember the periodic table and the natural quantum numbers of elements? And superstrings - each also has a countable natural number of vibration modes. Actually, like any other, self-respecting strings. It is interesting. Reasoning with the strings, we generally can encode any theory in them (with natural numbers), though contradictory, though not complete, even with 20 spatial dimensions, even with thirty, and nothing will prevent us, well, except for conducting an experiment and checking the constructions. And with that, the superstrings strained. But let's wait for the LHC.
OK. At the same time, all dissatisfaction caused by the state of physics today causes some particularly talented people to be completely mad at cellular automata. Like, the Universe is a gigantic network (the Internet is not lying around here, the network is a purely graphical concept), which is transformed according to a predetermined program, and we are all huge pieces of this network, and our sensations are changes in pieces of this network caused by the execution of the program.
It can be considered nonsense, it can be considered not nonsense. But this, at least, is at least some explanation of what interaction is and what time is. Time is a causal relationship, and interaction is when a chain of transformations of a gigantic network that connect two areas ... Cool. But at least something for want of something better. Because (once again) there is no time in the generally accepted physics, and the interaction is even less formalized.
How do two hadrons collide? It is very simple (all the problems were solved about trains from point A to point B), they suddenly reach one point of space, balls and are ready. And this is despite the fact that, in principle, they cannot appear at one point in space, for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and indeed, what kind of nonsense is this? How can a particle even be a point? Have a coordinate, but at the same time also move? Not, well, abstractly and mathematically, but from normal real positions. How? How can a particular position be attributed to what is moving? Strange these models. Very strange.
Yes, take at least Einstein. With its space-time.This is a very interesting mental experiment with a sundial - when a photon jumps between two plates, and a point (think! Point observer, without any states other than a position in space-time) can measure time using this photon miracle box. Well, nonsense because. Obviously, such a theory can converge with either wild inaccuracies, or with wild PR and self-promotion. What quite, as they say, was the place to be. And the one and the other, by the way.
Okay.Someone might argue that attribution works. In any toy there is a lot of movement, and at the same time it is simply attributing to certain points certain coordinates ... But this somebody must not forget that at the same time the computer, the processor, the electrons that run in it, are moving processes. And the fact that we can create something controlled from this, opening, closing transistors, is generally speaking an engineering miracle. But by nature, what happens in a computer is not a math.
By the way, another very interesting thing happens in the computer. From a one-dimensional line of independently addressable bits (memory), suddenly, a space is born with an arbitrary number of dimensions. What is the relationship between addressing and measurements? And what does this have to do with Nature? Perhaps only Wolfram and Penrose were thinking. Only two are not the most popular (most likely due to the fact that thought) theorist.
OK. , ? , … , , ? ? .
— .
, , 1 0.
10010
100101
1001011
10010110
, , . , '' . . . Fine.But as soon as you turn on the story, for example, look at the new and previous bits, then you have limitations. For example, 11 will never go to 01 or 00, but only to 10 or 11. Restrictions? Yavol! So this is the law. Law for the random process. Now imagine that we are looking at a rather long piece of this story ...
Looking? What are we looking at? I have no idea.I am not Einstein. Ok ... So. Oh yes.Now, to what insanity mathematics in the quantum theory has been brought. We build mathematics, starting with the simplest concepts: truth, lies. Then we build, we build, we build, we reach all kinds of integrals, operators, diffuros, probability theory and quantum field theory, which is built on probabilities. We got it. What's next?And then the electron has no definite place in space-time, and even the back has no definite. Hop ... And when this is all uncertain, how can we say clearly yes / no, true / false. How can we apply logic to such a structure if it is not there?
Well, yes, over time, an electron somewhere in there evolves to itself, collapses into one of the wave functions, but before it collapses, what happens to it? Why can we apply cool mathematics to it, in which there are limits and laws of the excluded third, all the turing machines in the world and all the games played in chess (well, because all these discrete processes can be encoded as strings of numbers, and any string of numbers can be represented as a real number , and even rational, and all these numbers creep out when analyzing an electron, because we need completeness (which I used to mistakenly called closed) of space).
Here, after all, how. There is no logic, but we describe the system with advanced mathematics. Strange.Whether nature proves to us with the example of Gödel's theorem, or whether physics does not realize how they apply mathematics.
And about the observers, I have already written? It seems about the point Einstein wrote. But do physicists have other observers? But no, that's all. Everything is everywhere in mathematical models the point. But the points, fixed and without states, do not know how to add even in F2. How then does the nature consisting of these points work? It means that physicists live everywhere, next to the electrons that add up for them, calculate the field gradients and the curvature of space-time and help them thereby to move ...
Unsatisfactory, with what is extremely unsatisfactory. Of course, I can say that you should not take it to heart and mathematics in physics is used to describe ideal objects. But why should I then believe in electrons, fields, quarks, strings, and other filth, from which, as I say, our world is created, if these structures themselves are no more than idealization? At the same time, idealization is generally not clear what. Yes, if the current consists of relativistic electrons, then the electric field can be considered magnetic. So what does that prove? What can build a radio? So the radio can be built without electrons, using the brilliant guess of Maxwell, who simply added one more message to the already known ones.
Brrr.And if our idealization allows us to realize everything on a computer, calculate, analyze and make a prediction, then should we argue that nature consists of algorithms that operate with doubles, floats and, at best, long numbers?
Does this bring us closer to understanding how nature works? Or gives you only tools for constructing experiments and predicting their results, simply through a link to the history of research?
Ems ... And what does this all mean? And do not we come through a similar wordy fornication to the only conclusion reached by the ancient Chinese? It is impossible to give a formal description of Tao. Forms are only the way it manifests itself. Does this not give us a serious reason to go to a monastery and to renounce mathematics and physics, as if they were sciences that only clouded the mind, when trying to understand the structure of the Universe?
God knows.While I believe that at least the process of perception can be formalized. At least, we can see how one area in Game of Life perceives another, which emits a glider (gee, gee, gee, that's what Wolfram says: thinking about such a primitive model, we certainly come to the same terms that operate in quantum field theory). And at least Game of Life is a dynamic by definition. It is impossible (a huge question) to distinguish the concept of time, but the interaction is obviously visible.
Although, it is quite possible, and time arises there, and not as an external ticking of the clock. How to cancel the global time, but leave the cause-effect relationships said Wolfram. But, for sure, there are not so desperate (yeah, you can read the mechanisms in his book A New Kind of Science).
But anyway, it will remain just a model, which ... Will you get closer to understanding how the Universe itself is arranged?
But certainly, without trying to understand what time and interaction are, it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars on boosters, satellites, telescopes and other toys for egg heads (I am also an egg head, so there is no insult).
Everything.My hands are tired. I hope you did not read the text, and the brain itself is not littered. Sincerely, I
What is wrong with physics from a programmer's point of view?
With physics, of course, everything is so. They have a lot of money, accelerators are being built, satellites are being launched, theories are being written, brains are hiding ... But there is one most interesting question to the masters of physics: what exactly are they researching?
')
They may not explore anything. Intel physicists do not need to investigate anything; their task is to design the transistor as fast as possible, with as little leakage currents as possible, operating voltages, and so on. That is, do these physicists comprehend the truth? Hardly. These are purely such engineering physicists, tough guys and all that, but they are not a search for truth, therefore, for now let us leave these megakruty guys. Well, or not yet, but generally leave. To hell with them. Because the main thing for them is that the thing works, and how it works and why it is a question for the Lord God.
But there are other physicists who claim to have knowledge of how nature works. Well, you know, there are all sorts of superstrings, quantum fields and the theory of relativity. About them will be further.
So. Physics ... OK. The first thing that strains in all theories is that they quickly, with the move, with a blunder, hop, and begin to work with real and complex numbers. It would seem, and what of this? But what. And even two things.
(one). Real numbers are a very complex tool. Indeed, the real number was discovered by the ancient Greeks, a long time ago. And there was this number sqrt (2). But what is this number nobody knew until the 20th (twentieth, XX) century. One thing was known - the number is irrational. People actually found a lot of irrational numbers after, but what they represent was not known for a very long time.
And they are like this. Real numbers are determined using a set of axioms, which state that real numbers are (1) a field, (2) in which there is an order — more, less and so on, and (3) which is closed (since there are more, less and everything else, this concept can be defined). Not sickly, as you can see. And the most not sickly point is point three. Which means that any convergent sequence converges to an element of this set itself.
Thus, who is sqrt (2) is the limit of the sequence, which, for example, occurs when this root is calculated by the old-fashioned method, that is, by the Newton method. Or the method of dividing in half, or whatever method. But the problem here is that the sequence only converges at infinity. And what is infinity for a finite experiment?
Unclear. In addition, no one has seen this sqrt (2) in the eye, for example, you can see the fraction 324567234 / 4332452356. Although, any schoolchild can say, but let's build a diagonal of a square with a single side and we will see this devil's root. BUT, who said that we see no approximation.
All numbers to real, in fact, are constructed constructively. That is, the natural number 0 is empty {}, the natural number 1 is the set consisting of zero {0}. The natural number 2 is the set 1 combined with {0}, 2 is 2 U {0}, and so on. That is, it's just a bill on the sticks. It is also understandable with integers - these are things that arise after subtracting natural numbers, although NO numbers have also seen negative numbers, but you can even write them down on a piece of paper. Rational - this is also simple, for geometry and trivial relations. But the real ... They are not constructive, their existence is simply postulated by an axiom (in which some mathematicians in general do not even believe).
And what reason to believe that any sequence in any set (incomprehensible) should have a limit at all? But there is reason not to believe. For example. In order to find a real number lost in the wilds of arithmetic, you need to give it a definition: for example, e is the limit of such a series, sqrt (2) is the length of the diagonal of a square, pi is a relation ... And definitions are given in the language, which is the alphabet (it does not matter what language, even Chinese, even with an infinite alphabet (countable, again, so that it makes sense for a person)). At the same time, for a definition to have meaning (for a person), it must be finite. This means that all such definitions can be renumbered and will be no more than a countable number. Strange. Either there are so many of them in nature, or man cannot more than a countable number realize ...
Anyway. There is an even more entertaining oddity. Physicists are very fond of very expensive computers to conduct numerical experiments. And so, after all, what a dirty trick. They use double or float numbers in them, and the results are qualitatively correct. At the same time, the double or float numbers, of course, are a closed system (but only for the reason that it is discrete and limited, both from above and below), but they do not form any field at all. Try to find the inverse of the number 3, and immediately verify this. Hop ... How so? We model nature with absolutely disgusting rigor, even quality, and it is modeled correctly, with all that pi, e, sqrt (2), continuity, unboundedness and isolation are actively used in any theoretical calculation.
This is simply illogical. Or nature doesn't care about a piece of logic, which is interesting. But at the same time, physicists do not care. They live quietly in theory with real numbers, in calculations in general with some kind of porridge, and errors in hundreds of thousands of units of measure do not worry them at all.
In addition, they are generally surprised when they suddenly need accuracy in theory, for example, up to 15 decimal places.
Brad, imho. Even more strange is the art of neglect. Open any physical article, and you will see that the most favorite icon there is the >> icon - this is not C ++ input, but much more. If X >> Y, then X + Y ~ X. Interesting arithmetic actually. How can one describe reality with such arithmetic? Does nature know how to neglect? But if he can, how? Where is the explanation.
In general, physicists with explanations are sometimes very tight. BUT no need to interpret my words as attacks on physicists. Physicists are cool guys. In many other areas of science, mathematics is even worse. And there are even fewer explanations. I, in fact, in a little torn form, write about what I lack in physics. Why can not I calmly read more than one textbook.
OK. The physical nature of the neglect is also not described. However, most likely, this is directly related to the fact that for some reason, rather accurate models are obtained on clumsy computer arithmetic with a floating point. Either nature does not know how to count, or it is inherently discrete in its essence, and it cannot, in a limited volume, hold infinitely much information, as required by continuous models of reality. God knows her.
OK. Now is the time. Oh yeah. Time is a favorite topic. Because in physics there is no time. Why, because everything is described by a linear manifold in four-dimensional space-time. That is, just a set, each point of which can be assigned four coordinates. Cool ... Although not very. Do you want to live in a world where not everything is simply predetermined, but in general there is no movement? Me not. And there can be no such, for one simple reason. But what about the exchange of information, which requires a channel that can have several states? We can assume that the channel has two fixed states, but they are separated in time, and it seems to us that the channel may have two states. But it was not there. Because a four-dimensional set with two points has only one state. How to construct two different states from this, without involving a human scientist who jerks his finger and says: this is one state, and this is another, and here there is a change between them, a lot will be one state.
Consciousness is supermaterial? Cool ... But then came quantum physics and said - but nefig. There is nothing but probabilities and wave functions, and everything around is a dream of consciousness and perception. But the problem is that quantum physics also draws a picture without time. Well, probabilities, well, wave functions, well, infinite-dimensional space. But it is all the same described by diffur, which has the only solution, we just do not have enough brains to solve it. But the solution is definitely a mathematical fact.
However, nature gives the physicians a headstrike in the form of a quantum measurement problem. The collapse of the wave function, when, when measuring the state of a quantum system, it suddenly, irreversibly, unpredictably and indefinitely turns into one of the possible states. Here it is the joy of physics and pure demonstration of the presence of time. However, what do physicists do? They try to explain this phenomenon through all the same diffura, which has a unique solution, and in which there is no time.
Something is wrong here.
OK. Physicists use strange numbers, live in a strange space, do not want to admit the fact of time, but this is still half the trouble. After all, on the basis of their strange theories, they force everyone to give them crazy grandmas to crazy accelerators.
And now - the theory of superstrings. Ems ... And who needs it? Oh, yes, physicists. Well ... So, nature clearly demonstrates the cant with the way of using mathematics (because the collapse of the wave function does not fit the framework of the classical differential model of all things). But nature gives a kick in another way. Quantum physics is absolutely not friendly with the theory of relativity. Well, not friends and that's all. They try to make friends with her again through continuous formalisms and real numbers, and at the same time, they begin to use abrupt mathematics, such as path integrals, the theory of algebras and Lie groups, and everything else of continuous disgrace. And hop, even without the collapse of the wave function, the theory does not converge, because negative values for probabilities and infinity for the space-time curvature come out.
Very sad. But here comes the theory of superstrings and says ... Alleluy, brothers. Enough already to force your brain material points, let's force ourselves extended objects with zero volume. I wonder what these objects are better than the material point? Well, yes, precisely, they can fluctuate, they can change their state, therefore, they can save information ... Cool, less than three hundred years, as they say.
But problems arise with superstrings, so that the theory converges, so that negative probabilities and other delights do not arise, it is necessary that the number of measurements in the universe be 11. And physicists are happy to introduce these 11 measurements, and continue to describe the evolution in continuous, differentiable sets in 12 dimensional space 11 measurements + time.
Well, I don’t understand why they don’t understand that they are trying to describe the static system, which is our Universe, with a static formalism. Perhaps, of course, this is the essence of mathematics, well, it cannot allow anything else (although, the devil knows it. After all, you can quite strictly and formally describe a turing machine, which is a dynamic system, and you can do it without any derivatives and two-dimensional (in the sense of cars, time)) spaces. Although, in the course of the work of this machine, there will be such a story.
Hop, from here the conclusion: is it possible that physicists actually describe history and not make predictions? But then, from this immediately the conclusion that in fact no process of knowledge in physics occurs. All models are just a convenient way to present the following fallacy. Physicists test the truth of a theory with the predictions it gives. That is, they believe that their description allows us to predict the work of such an ingenious device. And if it really allows, they assume that they have discovered a new particle.
But if they actually give a story in theory, then building a device is only an attempt to reproduce the story. And ... There are electrons there, or they are not there - the devil knows. One can only judge that the trace left by the Universe has the form of electrons ... Although, in fact, it has the form of voltage sequences on sensors, which are converted into values by clever ADCs, and then are drawn by clumsy programs in the form of 2D images. Hmm ... Cool.
But does this coincidence of stories with an error of hundreds of thousands of units mean that electrons really exist? What superstrings really exist?
But physicists would have a model of what they are actually trying to achieve with their mathematics. Their calculations, their predictions. And in general, at least some slightly sane explanation of why calculations work at all, why mathematics works, the picture would have cleared up a little.
With the same mathematics used by physicists, things are not that simple either. There are no flaws in this math. It is a point, correct, and meaningless. Actually, this is its coolness and success. Four-dimensional linear space can form even knuckles on four rods, even four snails, crawling along orthogonal faces of a hypercube in infinite-dimensional space. No matter. Mathematics can do everything as long as it does not contradict logic. But the logic in modern mathematics is tricky. And the innocent law is to blame for everything: not A is exactly A. The great and terrible law of the excluded middle. From it, in particular, follows the super-hyperpowerful tool of evidence that is commonly used in mathematics.
And in the mathematics that physicists use, it is used almost at every turn. The essence of it is simple. But its meaning is unclear. The bottom line: how to prove that sqrt (2) is an irrational number? we must assume that sqrt (2) = p / q and show that this contradicts some properties of the numbers p and q. And then from the fact that there is no rational number, which in the square gives 2, to conclude that sqrt (2) is not a rational number. But in the phrase 'not a rational number' there is a catch, for it claims that sqrt (2) exists. But in fact, it appears only in real numbers. He is not yet at the time of the formulation of this phrase ... And it will appear only in 24 centuries. And to appear as an axiom, and not as a constructive object. That is, from the void. From great nothing. From the law of the excluded middle ... From non-proof. From Tao?
Who knows. But reflecting on this, I was 100 times convinced of the justice of the Taoist teachings. But this is not the most entertaining.
The most entertaining is the Gödel theorem. I saw only one physicist who mentioned her, but he mentioned it in the context of his struggle with artificial intelligence. But the Gödel theorem is a much more powerful tool. Its meaning is that any system of axioms, which allows to form natural numbers and operations on them, allows us to either formulate a statement whose truth cannot be established, or is contradictory ... Cool. And physicists use not only natural numbers, but real ones as well.
And even more entertaining is the fact that with natural numbers, nature most obviously waves to physicists before their eyes, and they do not see them point-blank. Remember the periodic table and the natural quantum numbers of elements? And superstrings - each also has a countable natural number of vibration modes. Actually, like any other, self-respecting strings. It is interesting. Reasoning with the strings, we generally can encode any theory in them (with natural numbers), though contradictory, though not complete, even with 20 spatial dimensions, even with thirty, and nothing will prevent us, well, except for conducting an experiment and checking the constructions. And with that, the superstrings strained. But let's wait for the LHC.
OK. At the same time, all dissatisfaction caused by the state of physics today causes some particularly talented people to be completely mad at cellular automata. Like, the Universe is a gigantic network (the Internet is not lying around here, the network is a purely graphical concept), which is transformed according to a predetermined program, and we are all huge pieces of this network, and our sensations are changes in pieces of this network caused by the execution of the program.
It can be considered nonsense, it can be considered not nonsense. But this, at least, is at least some explanation of what interaction is and what time is. Time is a causal relationship, and interaction is when a chain of transformations of a gigantic network that connect two areas ... Cool. But at least something for want of something better. Because (once again) there is no time in the generally accepted physics, and the interaction is even less formalized.
How do two hadrons collide? It is very simple (all the problems were solved about trains from point A to point B), they suddenly reach one point of space, balls and are ready. And this is despite the fact that, in principle, they cannot appear at one point in space, for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and indeed, what kind of nonsense is this? How can a particle even be a point? Have a coordinate, but at the same time also move? Not, well, abstractly and mathematically, but from normal real positions. How? How can a particular position be attributed to what is moving? Strange these models. Very strange.
Yes, take at least Einstein. With its space-time.This is a very interesting mental experiment with a sundial - when a photon jumps between two plates, and a point (think! Point observer, without any states other than a position in space-time) can measure time using this photon miracle box. Well, nonsense because. Obviously, such a theory can converge with either wild inaccuracies, or with wild PR and self-promotion. What quite, as they say, was the place to be. And the one and the other, by the way.
Okay.Someone might argue that attribution works. In any toy there is a lot of movement, and at the same time it is simply attributing to certain points certain coordinates ... But this somebody must not forget that at the same time the computer, the processor, the electrons that run in it, are moving processes. And the fact that we can create something controlled from this, opening, closing transistors, is generally speaking an engineering miracle. But by nature, what happens in a computer is not a math.
By the way, another very interesting thing happens in the computer. From a one-dimensional line of independently addressable bits (memory), suddenly, a space is born with an arbitrary number of dimensions. What is the relationship between addressing and measurements? And what does this have to do with Nature? Perhaps only Wolfram and Penrose were thinking. Only two are not the most popular (most likely due to the fact that thought) theorist.
OK. , ? , … , , ? ? .
— .
, , 1 0.
10010
100101
1001011
10010110
, , . , '' . . . Fine.But as soon as you turn on the story, for example, look at the new and previous bits, then you have limitations. For example, 11 will never go to 01 or 00, but only to 10 or 11. Restrictions? Yavol! So this is the law. Law for the random process. Now imagine that we are looking at a rather long piece of this story ...
Looking? What are we looking at? I have no idea.I am not Einstein. Ok ... So. Oh yes.Now, to what insanity mathematics in the quantum theory has been brought. We build mathematics, starting with the simplest concepts: truth, lies. Then we build, we build, we build, we reach all kinds of integrals, operators, diffuros, probability theory and quantum field theory, which is built on probabilities. We got it. What's next?And then the electron has no definite place in space-time, and even the back has no definite. Hop ... And when this is all uncertain, how can we say clearly yes / no, true / false. How can we apply logic to such a structure if it is not there?
Well, yes, over time, an electron somewhere in there evolves to itself, collapses into one of the wave functions, but before it collapses, what happens to it? Why can we apply cool mathematics to it, in which there are limits and laws of the excluded third, all the turing machines in the world and all the games played in chess (well, because all these discrete processes can be encoded as strings of numbers, and any string of numbers can be represented as a real number , and even rational, and all these numbers creep out when analyzing an electron, because we need completeness (which I used to mistakenly called closed) of space).
Here, after all, how. There is no logic, but we describe the system with advanced mathematics. Strange.Whether nature proves to us with the example of Gödel's theorem, or whether physics does not realize how they apply mathematics.
And about the observers, I have already written? It seems about the point Einstein wrote. But do physicists have other observers? But no, that's all. Everything is everywhere in mathematical models the point. But the points, fixed and without states, do not know how to add even in F2. How then does the nature consisting of these points work? It means that physicists live everywhere, next to the electrons that add up for them, calculate the field gradients and the curvature of space-time and help them thereby to move ...
Unsatisfactory, with what is extremely unsatisfactory. Of course, I can say that you should not take it to heart and mathematics in physics is used to describe ideal objects. But why should I then believe in electrons, fields, quarks, strings, and other filth, from which, as I say, our world is created, if these structures themselves are no more than idealization? At the same time, idealization is generally not clear what. Yes, if the current consists of relativistic electrons, then the electric field can be considered magnetic. So what does that prove? What can build a radio? So the radio can be built without electrons, using the brilliant guess of Maxwell, who simply added one more message to the already known ones.
Brrr.And if our idealization allows us to realize everything on a computer, calculate, analyze and make a prediction, then should we argue that nature consists of algorithms that operate with doubles, floats and, at best, long numbers?
Does this bring us closer to understanding how nature works? Or gives you only tools for constructing experiments and predicting their results, simply through a link to the history of research?
Ems ... And what does this all mean? And do not we come through a similar wordy fornication to the only conclusion reached by the ancient Chinese? It is impossible to give a formal description of Tao. Forms are only the way it manifests itself. Does this not give us a serious reason to go to a monastery and to renounce mathematics and physics, as if they were sciences that only clouded the mind, when trying to understand the structure of the Universe?
God knows.While I believe that at least the process of perception can be formalized. At least, we can see how one area in Game of Life perceives another, which emits a glider (gee, gee, gee, that's what Wolfram says: thinking about such a primitive model, we certainly come to the same terms that operate in quantum field theory). And at least Game of Life is a dynamic by definition. It is impossible (a huge question) to distinguish the concept of time, but the interaction is obviously visible.
Although, it is quite possible, and time arises there, and not as an external ticking of the clock. How to cancel the global time, but leave the cause-effect relationships said Wolfram. But, for sure, there are not so desperate (yeah, you can read the mechanisms in his book A New Kind of Science).
But anyway, it will remain just a model, which ... Will you get closer to understanding how the Universe itself is arranged?
But certainly, without trying to understand what time and interaction are, it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars on boosters, satellites, telescopes and other toys for egg heads (I am also an egg head, so there is no insult).
Everything.My hands are tired. I hope you did not read the text, and the brain itself is not littered. Sincerely, I
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/14736/
All Articles