The Universe as We Understand It May Be Impossible: A new conjecture in physics [tr]

The Atlantic ^ | August 13, 2018 | Natalie Wolchover

[C19fan]

On June 25, Timm Wrase awoke in Vienna and groggily scrolled through an online repository of newly posted physics papers. One title startled him into full consciousness.

The paper, by the prominent string theorist Cumrun Vafa of Harvard University and collaborators, conjectured a simple formula dictating which kinds of universes are allowed to exist and which are forbidden, according to string theory. The leading candidate for a “theory of everything” weaving the force of gravity together with quantum physics, string theory defines all matter and forces as vibrations of tiny strands of energy. The theory permits some 10,500 different solutions: a vast, varied “landscape” of possible universes. String theorists like Wrase and Vafa have strived for years to place our particular universe somewhere in this landscape of possibilities.

[A Navy Vet]

"Isnt it an oxymoron to say that ‘scientists’ “UNDERSTAND” anything? They can only say what they can see, and then make guesses about what they cannot.

Best recent examples: 1. The atomic bomb may cause atoms other than the uranium or plutonium to explode ending the Earth. They weren't 100% sure of the chain reaction. It's in the original documents. 2. The Hadron Collider was also considered to become a massive new devastating disaster, according to some scientists. Luckily, those scientists were wrong again.

Most every new physics theory paper says, "could, would, may, possibly, potentially, etc.", until it's proven wrong by more "ifs, coulds, may be's, and on". This is why I question mathematicians and their equations and theoretical physicists. Applied physics is another matter. There are certain absolutes in physics such as certain Newton laws, but all brilliant mathematicians currently and in the near future will never explain how the singularity came into existence.

Also, doubt they will ever have observable empirical data what gravity is. They can do their math on white boards all life long, but still not explain what gravity is, nor how it was created, nor reproduce it, nor counter its force. Yes, they can calculate the effects of gravity on the size of the mass and the locality of other mass, but what is it?

[A Navy Vet]

"I am not sure why you said “mathematics have been proven wrong time and again” Quite the opposite is true."

Really? Why is it that throughout history so many math equations were proven incorrect? Are you thinking of simple arithmetic? Do your research. Here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disproved_mathematical_ideas

Don't trust wikipedia?...try Googling "mathematics proven wrong". There are many examples with much of certain equations built on theorem, which is a synonym for theory:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-call-a-theorem-that-is-proved-wrong

It's like we argue on this forum that certain scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming. They start with the concept and bias their research to their thesis. They never adjust for lack of Sun Spots or Earthly natural changes in ocean temps or air streams or volcanoes, etc.

Mathematicians do the same thing because they want a conclusion to their hypothesis. Then they write papers that their colleagues accept as logical due to the perceived theorem until someone comes along and creates a new equation that counters the old. Think Einstein and Hawking for recent reference. Even their equations are now in question.

Sheese, there have been countless mathematicians through decades that proved earlier equations wrong. Do I need to research all those mathematicians for you?

Even the renowned astronomer Copernicus used math to build his theory of the Earth orbiting the Sun. However, his math also said the Sun was motionless in space and was the center of the Universe. WRONG.

As I've said earlier, show me a mathematician who can explain the origin of the singularity or even gravity on their white boards. Good luck. Disclaimer: I'm not a religious person and barely a Deist. Have a nice day on our Third Rock from a small Star.

[Phlyer]

Let me apologize in return for being dismissive. When I see someone say, "I still don't believe . . ." on a science question, and "no math" on a physics question, I get irritated - not at you personally, but at the society where beliefs and armwaving replace real science.

Yet that doesn't mean someone can't honestly try to understand, yet feel inadequate to follow the math.

Nonetheless, a true, compelling argument must involve math. It is in the math that quantifiable, verifiable predictions can be made - and that is what allows one to choose among varying potential explanations. So, I'll address some of your points with specific responses, recognizing that again and again the true answer will be based on a mathematical language. As I used in my previous note, an analogy would be someone blind trying to address light. Another way to look at it is that mathematics is the language of physics, and if you (or I) don't speak the language, then we can't really communicate. More importantly, we can't really prove anything. So, what follows is not proof - only vague generalizations.

I will start by saying that mathematics has never been proven wrong. It has sometimes been limited (such as before people codified ways to discuss fractions or negative numbers), but it is inherently just a language. What one says with it can be wrong, but the language is itself correct. 2 + 2 really does equal 4, and always will (yes, I understand about other than base 10 math, but I'm going to take some shortcuts). However, one can add two horses and two rabbits and not get a tasty rabbit stew for four people. So once one applies that language to specific situations, there is room for error.

The best way to understand some of the evolution of our understanding of physics is to start with Newton. Before him, we didn't really approach the real world in a 'scientific' way - particularly not in a 'physics' way. Physics is the application of mathematics to the real world, and he was the first to show how it could be done.

At one level nothing he said is wrong (at least, nothing in Principia Mathematica and other publications, though some of his private writings were more speculative than scientific). However, as conditions vary further and further from "room temperature and pressure" refinements need to be incorporated. This is especially true at the very small and the very large. Yet those are refinements. So, Einstein's theory of gravity (which is the basis for "General Relativity") predict a few arc-seconds difference in the observed position of stars near the sun, visible during an eclipse (otherwise the brightness of the sun hides stars close enough for a measurable effect). That's a numerical prediction based on a mathematical formula, and one 'believes' it or not based on whether the numerical prediction is accurate. And it is. More accurate than Newton's equations. But it is only the difference of a few arc-seconds in the observed position of stars, and in the extreme conditions of light waves passing very close to the most massive object in the solar system. There is a similar small but measurable (math again) difference in the position of Mercury in its orbit between Einstein's formula and Newton's formula, and Einstein is right. Again, the difference is very small, so Newton is not 'wrong' when the measurements take place in normal conditions, but there is a refined and better answer as conditions become extreme. Note: Einstein's equations also work for benign conditions. They just work for more extreme conditions as well.

There is another level of understanding that goes beyond equations. "Why" do Einstein's equations work and Newton's show small errors? That is where PhDs come from. Anyone who says that "science is settled" is not a scientist. Every major breakthrough in science came from someone extending (or at least challenging) conventional scientific explanations. They have the burden of ensuring that their explanations are consistent with all observed data (math) and they need to show an ability to predict results of future observations. But sometimes that can happen.

The biggest challenge in physics since Einstein's theory of General Relativity has been the attempt to show a cohesive mathematical way to predict all results of observations from the very small to the very large. Quantum mechanics is very solidly demonstrated in any number of quantified results, yet how does it relate to gravity? Why are electromagnetic effects 31 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational effects? This quest for a 'unified field theory' to relate them was Einstein's goal in the latter years of his life, and the goal of all physicists since. String theory arose from that.

The problem with string theory - to us - is that it is leaps very far out into mathematical language; so much so that nothing in our sensory experience provides any anchor to link between what we observe and what the mathematics expresses. It requires the existence of dimensions we cannot observe, and describes things like quarks as the various motions that a string can demonstrate. It can be curved back on itself as a ring, and so a string that is unwound might describe gravity while one that is curled into a small space might describe the weak nuclear force. It can vibrate, and with various harmonics. These variables offer a mathematical way to describe results we observe, but we can't directly observe the strings because they are not limited to the three dimensions (plus time) that we can observe.

We can use the math to predict results, and sometimes observe the results to confirm the predictions, but the mechanism that generates the results is unobservable. Because of that, we have only the pragmatic 'proof' that the quantified results do or do not show that the predictions were accurate. That gap between a means of predicting observable results and an understanding of the underlying mechanism that causes those results shows up in all of physics. Even Newton didn't explain how the sun reaches out to tug on the planets. He just showed how to calculate the amount of the tug. Einstein's field theory offers an explanation to go with the prediction. That explanation is the existence of a space-time "continuum" which "curves" due to the presence of matter in such a way that an object moving through that continuum follows the most direct path - which is a curving path because space-time itself is curved. That can't be 'observed' by our senses except through the resulting motion of objects we can observe. It requires a higher dimension to contain the curve of space-time since - in our perceived dimensions and to our senses - space is empty vacuum. To solve the equations (to make the math "work"), time needs to be one of the dimensions. If that is true, then there will be conditions where different observers perceive time as passing at different rates. And that has been shown to be true as well, so Einstein's formulation for space-time has been demonstrated to be accurate for all observed phenomena other than the very small (quantum mechanics) and the mundane (lifting a rock with a lever - though in fact Einstein's equations still predict what will happen - they're just practically unsolvable at that scale and Newton's simpler equations work with sufficient accuracy).

Hawking provided some predictions of effects in the near vicinity of black holes (another extreme condition), and to the best of our ability to measure they have shown to be accurate. Yet he didn't find a cohesive unified field theory either.

What we (all of us) need to do is recognize the difference between observed phenomena (like the motions of stars in galaxies) and explanations for it that provide mathematically verifiable predictions (like dark matter). And we also need to recognize that there are levels to the explanations. Thus, if something is causing stars to move as though there were more matter than we can observe, we can label this effect dark matter - which is one level of explanation - while still trying to understand what that dark matter itself is (WIMPs). That doesn't mean that 'dark matter' doesn't exist at the level of predictably explaining the motions of starts in galaxies. It might mean that WIMPs are not the right explanation at the next level.

And so on through all of physics, and ultimately, all of the universe around us.

[Mr. K]

not every math theorem is proven correct... sheesh you would think that math was not a good thing

but the incredible amount of math that provides provable results in the real work totally out-weighs some incorrect things.

You would with the math you know until you get a better equation. Sometimes that takes more than one try, the mistakes made do not disprove the real results.

One may look at hundreds of ideas until you hit the correct one. Look at relativity. Do you argue that the stunningly accurate math for that is no good because Newtonian math that came before it is now not 100% correct?

[A Navy Vet]

"not every math theorem is proven correct... sheesh you would think that math was not a good thing"

Wrong, I believe mathematics has brought civilization to its current point. Without it, we'd still be living in trees or caves.

"You would with the math you know until you get a better equation. Sometimes that takes more than one try, the mistakes made do not disprove the real results."

Of course. But those mistakes DO disprove earlier hypothesis. Websters: A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review.

Chemistry theorem that hypothesizes certain combinations of molecules will produce a specific effect have been proven wrong time and again, and they currently still find errors in their experiments, especially in regard to medications.

"One may look at hundreds of ideas until you hit the correct one. Look at relativity. Do you argue that the stunningly accurate math for that is no good because Newtonian math that came before it is now not 100% correct?"

Yes, I get that it takes time to hit the correct answer. However, you make my point earlier in this thread about Newton and his laws not being 100% anymore. Which brings me back to my original point. I had questions how certain math theorems can be considered so absolute when new equations come along and DO disprove earlier theorems.

My secondary point was why can't the best minds figure out what gravity is? Or what caused the super-heated basketball sized singularity to come into existence out of nothingness? As I've said, I'm not suggesting anything spiritual, but just asking why there are no equations on white boards to explain gravity (the universal glue) or how the singularity appeared.

I don't think we will ever understand those 2 questions, unless some parallel universe entity informs us, which there is no empirical proof that such universes exist besides some theorem math on a board.

BTW, I read where string theory reached a dead end. Am I wrong? Also, do you believe Dark Matter is real or are the math geniuses just working their calculations to explain their hypothesis there should be more matter in the Universe? And what the heck is dark energy? That one I don't get at all. I know the term "dark" means undetected, so don't bother. Thank you for this discussion.

[Mr. K]

you’re talking about APPLIED math - that is experimentally incorrect always, until it’s not.

[Mr. K]

Gravity is explained in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

It is not really a ‘force’ at all- it is a warping of the fabric space/time.

A bowling ball dropped onto a rubber sheet is a great 2-dimensional analogy. It makes an indentation in the sheet, and if you roll a smaller ball near it, then it will curve along the indented fabric.

No ‘force’ makes it change direction, it follows the curved fabric.

Space is the same.

It always concerns me when I hear them trying to create a formula that combines all the ‘forces’ and they include gravity.

Gravity is an apparent force, not a real force. The same way that physicists use the ‘normal force’ to explain the table holding an object up off the floor when gravity is pulling it down.

The ‘normal force’ supplied upwards from the table equals the ‘gravitational force’ pushing it downwards, which is why it stands still in equlibrium.

Now... what is this ‘fabric’... that is the big question.

[A Navy Vet]

"you’re talking about APPLIED math - that is experimentally incorrect always, until it’s not."

LOL..."until it's not". Please explain what APPLIED math is as opposed to theoretical math. I'm learning so much from you folks on this thread.

I suggested in this thread that time is a human construct and not a reality of another dimension. Someone then stated the fact that the International Space Station (ISS) has to adjust their clocks in relation to terrestrial clocks because of their velocity around the planet. However, he did say if could be another phenomenon.

So, still not convinced it is not a simple human mind observation to delineate between life experiences. What do you think about time being another dimension? Do the white boards prove such? I'm willing to accept empirical math as in 1+1=2.

[Mr. K]

Time is another dimension.

The space stations clocks have to be adjusted due to relativistic effects.

The GPS satellites too.

Granted we are talking milliseconds here- but it is enough to put you into a river or over a cliff if not mathematically corrected. (by MATH!)

[A Navy Vet]

"Gravity is explained in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity."

Again, a theorem. Not proven.

It is not really a ‘force’ at all- it is a warping of the fabric space/time."

Again math calculation theorem. How does the void of space, minus asteroids/meteors and random atoms running about from gases and particles forming cosmic bodies have a fabric? A void is a void. Shall I give you that definition?

"A bowling ball dropped onto a rubber sheet is a great 2-dimensional analogy. It makes an indentation in the sheet, and if you roll a smaller ball near it, then it will curve along the indented fabric."

Heard it a thousand times in other analogies like drawing a straight line on a paper and then bending it into itself when the line connects. Theory.

"It always concerns me when I hear them trying to create a formula that combines all the ‘forces’ and they include gravity. Gravity is an apparent force, not a real force. The same way that physicists use the ‘normal force’ to explain the table holding an object up off the floor when gravity is pulling it down. The ‘normal force’ supplied upwards from the table equals the ‘gravitational force’ pushing it downwards, which is why it stands still in equlibrium.

That's contradictory to what I read years back that sub-atomic particles are actually energy not mass as we used to understand. So, unless that theorem has been proven false, what is the energy that the table is using to keep the energy of the object falling towards the "fabric" of gravity?

Now... what is this ‘fabric’... that is the big question."

And you just repeated my initial question about gravity, or what you call an "apparent force". You say above Einstein explained gravity, so why is that a question to you?

Since you don't consider gravity a "normal force", what do you consider the "normal forces" of our known Universe? Serious question. Of course it comes down to your definition of what "force" is, as in what is is? Haha.

Are you a mathematician and/or physicist or a hobbyist?

BTW, you never address my question about the singularity (the basketball) appearance out of nowhere. You can't because it is beyond our math, logic, reasoning, and comprehension of what we call the Universe.

[Daffynition]

I collect old theorems, when I find them. That makes me a hobbyist, I guess. :)

[A Navy Vet]

I thank you for your apology. However, you go on to convolute simple arithmetic with advanced Algebra, Calculus, Trigonometry, Geometry and other advanced mathematics.

Newton has been proven partially wrong. Copernicus was absolutely wrong in his math about the Sun being stationary and the center of the Universe. Einstein's and Hawking's math are now in question, as has others through the centuries. Mathematics is not an exact science. It's guys on a chalk or white board replacing certain numerical values with certain symbols and doing the basic arithmetic from there.

I will ask you the same 2 questions I've asked everyone on this thread:
1. Is there such a dimension called time or is it a human mind construct?
2. How did the singularity (super-heated basketball) poof into existence out of nowhere?

Don't give me math equations, tell me why you believe time is real. Then give me an explanation that the basketball magically appeared out of nowhere. You can't.

I thank you for any courteous reply, but I will tell you and other mathematicians and/or physicists, you will never know the answer to those two (2) most basic questions. I doubt our species will ever evolve enough to answer those questions. Theories will come and go, but doubt those 2 will ever be resolved.

Plus what the heck is gravity? Some other apparently learned poster on this thread told me Einstein explained it in his THEORY of Relativity. Plus he said it was not a true force, but an apparent force.

But then some entity from a parallel universe may appear and give us the answers to the Universe, which is more hokum from physicists who need to write papers for their graduate degrees and sell books.

[A Navy Vet]

Yes, that has me pondering. It could be another phenomenon which shows our math is not end all.

[Magnum44]

Mathematics is not an exact science.

My initial reaction, without any heavy thinking, is to disagree.

Math IS an exact science, perhaps the only one. 1 + 1 = 2 is always true. What is not necessarily always true are the assumptions we make as to the underlying physics of our universe. Newtonian mechanics works adequately for the scales in which we live our lives, but perhaps not on galactic scales. I have lived most of my career in the world where Newtonian physics is adequate to get by, but it does have limitations as proven by experiments that have shown space warping, time dilation, and gravity wells, things that are very difficult to comprehend, much less measure.

[Mr. K]

A Theorem is NEVER able be ‘proven correct’, and that is by definition of a what a theorem is.

Because no matter how many times it works, all it takes is one case to prove it incorrect.

So, Einstein’s theory of relativity is withstanding all testing so far. And so far there has been not one instance where it is proven to be incorrect.

[Gideon7]

The bigger issue to me is the fact that everyone recognizes that string theory is currently untestable and un-falsifiable and then they get upset when this untestable, un-falsifiable theory claims that we are living in a universe that can’t exist.

---

So string theory is even more useless than before, because not only does it have no predictive/testable value, it doesn’t even model our own universe right? Wonderful.

[Gideon7]

A provable mathematical theorem (in the sense of Euclid) and a scientific theory (in the sense of explaining a hypothesis) are two very different things.

Einstein has a theory of relativity, not a theorem. Granted, he used mathematical theorems as tools to help construct it. However, the overall result is a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical obervations. It is not a mathematical theorem (a proof deduced step by step logically from basic mathematical axioms without reference to the outside world).

Einstein:s theory is simply a more useful physical approximation of reality than what Newton came up with. It is better because it covers a wider range of physical situations, for example objects moving near the speed of light. Newton’s theory is still useful (and much easier to work with) when dealing with our everyday experiences with baseballs and such but it breaks down under extrene conditions.

It is possible that one day Einstein’s theory will be replaced by an even better approximation of physical reality, one that unifies gravity with quantim mechanics to give us even more predictive value, such as what happens around a black hole where Einstein’s theory breaks down near the singularity as the factors take on infinite values and no longer work.

It is easy to mix up ‘theory’ with ‘theorem’. You see it sometimes in the lay press. After all they sound similar, and math theorems are useful tools used in constructing an experimentally testable scientific theory to explain a hypothesis, but they are not the same thing.

[Phlyer]

You have self-defined that there is no answer to your questions. If that makes you happy, then fine.

I happen to be an engineer. For me, something is 'real' if it is subject to objective observation, which includes some means of measurement/differentiation from other observed phenomena. There is a dimension called "time" in Einstein's equations, and it forms the basis for accurate predictions of observable phenonmena. If that is not sufficient to establish that there is a dimension called time then nothing ever will be (to you).

I happen to be a Christian so my answer for where the original singularity came from is, "God said, 'Let there be light.' And there was light." The question for me is whether God created a universe which is 'honest' in that there are governing 'rules' which we (created in His image) can work to understand. I believe that He did. That's a faith statement, and I don't need to prove it - since it is unprovable. That's that makes it a 'faith' statement.

Most of all, I reject your premise that mathematics as part of an explanation can be rejected. That is, to use my earlier analogy, like someone blind refusing to accept the existence of light, then declaring that anyone who says they can 'see' something is (to use your word) "hokum."

To me, you are like the man who plugs his fingers in his ears and shouts so that he cannot hear an explanation. It makes the explanation impossible to communication, but it does not make the explanation wrong.

But, in a free society, you have the right to be wrong (as those in power would define right and wrong). Be grateful you don't live in Iran.

[Mr. K]

huh?

[Mr. K]

But a hypothesis is nothing more than a glorified conjecture, which everyone knows can be the equivalent of an educated guess.