An approach to the fundamental theory of physics

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 9:02 PM UTC

thewanderer1983 wrote: post #79

Certhas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What reason do you have to believe that your own conclusion will be better? The causal set folks are already outsiders that go against the broad consensus of HEP-Th. I grew up scientifically in an environment that was actively challenging mainstream consensus. Sometimes correctly (e.g. low energy susy), sometimes not. If those folk can't find something redeeming in what you do you should stop and listen. Also, yes sc…

Scientific consensus rarely has a large body of people who truly dived into the research. Most are very busy with their own research and lives. At worst they just repeat views they hear from colleagues they respect, and at best they will do a minor survey. Therefore it's questionable if more than a handful of people truly have any valuable input to that consensus. What you end up with is truth by authority which is a…

Post by VirusNewbie » Thu, Aug 01, 2024, 2:03 AM UTC

mathinaly wrote: post #62

throwaway81523 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think something like this. Imagine a computer with two memory cells x and y, and a program that maintains the invariant x+y=5. That is information about the program and about the state of the machine: if x=2 then y=3, if x=20 then y=-15, etc. Now replace that program with an arbitrary Turing machine that can do pretty much anything with those memory cells, like set both of them to zero. You no longer have the infor…

That's a good example and demonstration. The unitary invariance basically requires that the norm of the vector is preserved so that if we start with a unit vector then unitary evolution of that vector will always keep it that way. This is not the case for arbitrary programs because they don't have to preserve any invariants which makes them ill-suited for physical theory building. This is why Wolfram's approach is to…