Physics and Me

Physics is, and always has been the discipline that interested me most. It seemed to ask the biggest questions about the world in which we live, and the route towards answering those questions seemed most challenging. Sadly it is somewhat of a light hobby to me, something to dabble in for a change of scenery. This is because physics is one of the less relevant disciplines for social engineering but also because I lack the fluency and cutting edge knowledge to really probe any of the questions deep enough to be satisfying. It is for the latter of these reasons that I have as yet not written any essays on physics as I struggle to substantiate or even phrase what I wish to say. As I cannot bear in mind all aspects of physics in my head simultaneously I often overlook simple and obvious things when theorising. Such failing on my part make me reluctant to put finger to key, but one should always try something before giving up on it so I shall proceed.

Science looks at what happens and then tries to frame those occurrences in models and equations so that they may be used to predict other similar occurrences. The progress of science is a process of observing discrepancies between the models and equations with reality so that they may be refined to provide a greater degree of accuracy. Presently we have two main models in physics, one to describe the very big (general relativity) and one to describe the very small (quantum mechanics). The problem faced by physicists today is that these two models do not work when combined, the equations produce senseless results. I am informed that relativity has been inelegantly shoe-horned together with quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics leaving gravity as the main problem. Relativity is a beautifully elegant theory and quantum mechanics, I am assured, is one of the most precise models. Both of these attributes suggest that much of these present models is correct and so the search is on to find the missing parts of the picture.

Logically the disagreement between our theories of the very big and the very small means one of a few things; one of the theories is wrong, both of the theories are wrong, an assumption we have made regarding either theory is wrong or we are missing an extension to the theories so that they apply correctly in various conditions. Few scientific theories that have gained any credibility or acceptance have turned out to be completely wrong, most, like Newtonian mechanics, turn out to be great approximations that work well for certain conditions. When applied to conditions that are significantly different to those on Earth we begin to find issue with Newtonian mechanics and are required to make new models and equations to explain the erroneous results. Newtonian mechanics is still widely used today despite the common knowledge regarding it's failings, this is because the factors it does not account for are not relevant for many day-to-day uses.

The precision and elegance of quantum mechanics and relativity respectively suggest that they are not wrong in much the same way Newtonian mechanics is not wrong. Certainly for my part I shall not attempt to critique either of our existing theories as it seems less productive and less likely to be the problem facing a unifying theory of the universe. This leaves us with either an incorrect assumption or an incomplete picture that would allow for our present theories to be extended upon. It is fair to assert that much of this problem arises from the inability to devise experiments and observe situations where very small things exert a huge gravitational force and this is a significant contributor to why we have no solution to this problem as yet.

When I use maths I have to be fully aware of what the numbers represent, I have to be able to visualise the process I am trying to describe mathematically. With a lot of quantum mechanics I am unable to see what the numbers are representing or how the manipulation of them reflects the changes in reality. Although I am much more at home with numbers and find things expressed numerically much easier to relate to, I also find any physical law that describes the universe impossible to understand unless it can be logically described with words and diagrams. If it cannot then I cannot appreciate what the numbers and their manipulations represent. Feynman and Dirac are the kinds of physicists that I can appreciate for their approach to understanding. It is ironic that for all things I try to find ways to express them numerically, except in physics where I prefer pictures and words.

The quest to find a unifying theory of everything is like a jigsaw puzzle, except we don't know what the picture we are trying to make is, nor how big the picture is, nor what pieces we are missing. The best strategy to completing a jigsaw is to locate the corners and edges and try to link them all together so that you have something to build the rest upon, and as you do so you are able to place them in the appropriate places. I have used a similar approach when I muse about the workings of the universe. I conceive of a model for the universe which describes the relationship between some of the most important physical factors and then I attempt to hang the pieces of the puzzle we do presently have onto this model to see if they fit suitably. Once the bits you do have are in place you are much more able to suggest the kinds of “pieces” that you require to fill in the gaps. This is quite a hit and miss approach and not a commonly used one in the scientific community as a result.

To brashly describe any physical factor as one of the most important is quite presumptuous so I shall define what I mean by physical factors and briefly justify why the ones listed seem of most importance. The factors I use to construct frameworks are; time (t), mass (m), energy (E), the speed of light (c), gravity (g), space-time (inclusive of relative position) and the electromagnetic force (and to a lesser extent the strong and weak forces giving a total of four fundamental forces inclusive of gravity. I will focus less on the strong and weak because their function and proof of their existence is less know to me, not because they are any less relevant. There is much to suggest they are all the same force but observed at different points on a spectrum in which case the number of forces observed seems almost as significant as their function). To return to my jigsaw analogy I would say that each of the above factors are akin to the clumps of pieces that form a small image that is a complete and recognisable object in the picture. There are many other bits of the puzzle we should not ignore such as the various subatomic particles (quarks, leptons) and their associated properties (spin, charge etc). Our justifications for these are largely based in pure maths and while the equations may provide very accurate predictions it is harder to explain the processes by use of words. It is for this inelegance and illogicality I shy away from constructing models to specifically make sense of this end of physics. I hope to be able to gain greater understanding of this area by inference from a model of the listed factors. Other things I should be wise to not overlook, as bits of the puzzle or clues, are a selection of constants like Pi (or as many would argue 2Pi or Tau), Hiesenberg's uncertainty principle and Plank's constant and it's derivatives. This list could go on and on as everything could be a clue or relevant. The selected aspects of physics are the most intriguing, confusing, unknown, fundamental and underlying and so seem to be the best places to start probing for hints as to the nature of the bigger picture.

Time is the trickiest customer of the lot and I put a great deal of this down to our perception of time. It is generally assumed that we all travel in time at a very similar speed in the same direction and have no control over this movement. We can only observe the “now” in our reference frame but we can recall the past in our memories, yet recollection is an activity we appear to do in the present. It seems the case that the future is something we can only statistically predict or wait for. We cannot escape time, all the things of our world occur within it and so all of our physics must account for time. Trying to describe the properties of a particle at a frozen interval of time yields the awkward result that we are clueless as to the particle's energy. There should be two words for time, that of it as a dimension for use in physics and one for out notion of the passage of time as our perception informs us it is. Time is such a big player in physics that I believe if we had a full understanding of it we would be able to infer explanations for everything else with great ease. The answers regarding time could easily be different for our physical understanding of it and our perception of it.

My aim with this essay is not to describe all my theories and thoughts nor discuss each aspect of our incomplete understanding of physics. I merely wish to introduce the subject and give an example of a model I have recently been using to frame other ideas upon. Later essays will probe the individual aspects to greater depths but I suspect that they will also be rather disjointed, hence my desire to begin with an essay describing my approach to physics and my weaknesses in the subject.

I have always observed that a group will make far greater progress on an intellectual task than an individual will. The ability to have multiple perspectives and reviews of ideas is huge. The individual can easily get distracted down a tangent that is of no use because they overlooked the small piece of information that ensured the tangent was not useful. A concern I have regarding the sciences is that the majority of the minds involved in making progress are of very similar dispositions and training. On top of that the science community has mechanisms, like any other social group, which require the individuals to adhere to else they are likely to suffer rejection from the community. Rejection from the scientific community means that any theories that person made will be far less well received and often disregarded on principle. The scientific method is both rigid and prescribed which suits well for most situations but not all. When faced with a roadblock such as a unifying theory an eccentric is required. The kinds of individuals who think outside the box, that are not blinkered by the community or their training. Rather than just astute academics the discipline requires a few individuals who are creative and that have a fresh way to look at problems. Einstein was one of these people, half artist and half scientist. He dared to ask questions about assumptions that others had not. Not being an active member of the scientific community myself I am able to begin with a pretty clean slate. My ignorance and lack of bias within the discipline are things I can turn into an advantage in some respects by allowing me the chance to be creative with my theories. Even if many are nonsense you only need hit the target once for it to be useful.

So on to my current model, which is easy enough to imagine and very simple in terms of how it combines a few factors. Originally I called it “balloon theory” but each extension of the model begs a more appropriate name. It was developed to make our experiences of time more comprehensible and palatable. The easiest way to imagine the model is as a three dimensional projection of a four dimensional shape. The space we appear to live in is three dimensional, we can go back or forward, up or down, left or right. In my model I use only two dimensions to represent the three space dimensions we perceive so as to make it easier to imagine because I use one of out space dimensions to represent the time dimension in the model. If mathematically describing I would return to a four dimensional model to appropriately calculate things. I postulate that our universe is like a four dimensional balloon in which we exist on the three dimensional surface. The surface of a balloon is only two dimensions, if you were to go up or down (radially in or out) you would no longer be on the surface but left, right, back and forward are all fine. The capacity to move in three dimensions upon the surface of the balloon must be imagined as it cannot be represented in our world of three dimensional perception. The up and down (radically in and out) dimension in the balloon model represents the time dimension. The inflating balloon represents the expansion of the universe, our movement in the time dimension is facilitated by this expansion, as the balloon expands all things at the surface will move upwards or radially out from the centre.

A balloon implies that the surface is smooth which it cannot be due to mass and gravity which will have the effect of distorting the surface. The balloon would like more like a conker where there are spikes on the surface, representing mass, that I believe point inward but am open to persuasion to other options. Another failing of the analogy is that I believe a projection of the four dimensional roughly spherical universe would look much more like the shape of the p-orbitals in chemistry, a shape you could make by joining six balloons together at right angles at the nozzle.

There are several reasons this model appeals but the strongest of those for me is the least justifiable in that I find it to be an elegant idea which is as justifiable as taste in art or music. The simplicity of the model appeals as it is easy to comprehend and work with. It also allows more complex bits of the puzzle to be affixed onto it so that you can postulate theoretical explanations for them in the bigger picture within the theoretical universe model. The cyclic nature of the model also appeals as I have a real problem with the concept of infinite in reality. Maths makes assumptions regarding the concept but I am not ready to accept any of them as a reflection of reality with our current understanding of the universe. My model suggest that by travelling in one direction along the surface of the balloon/universe that they will return to the same point in space once they have made a complete orbit. There is no beginning or end of space in my model yet there is still the capacity to create more space.

The model suggests a kind of radial relativity where by movement along any space axis will change the nature of those axis. If I were to travel a quarter of the way around the surface of a sphere I would appear to be moving in the down direction or radially inward to an observer at my starting location however to me I would still seem to be travelling forward. As my model suggests that the down direction is “backwards in time” it offers a vague solution to dark matter and dark energy in that they are just relativistic effects. We observe far off galaxies and assess they should contain an amount of mass based on visual evidence yet the gravitational effects and expansions speeds we observe suggest otherwise. It is possible that these erroneous observations are not the result of any extra stuff but yet another trick of the universe based on where we see them from? Were we able to observe those galaxies from within we might well find they behave as we would expect and that our own galaxy was behaving peculiarly from the new position.

The malleable nature of the model is useful in that it may be tweaked to accommodate for problems that are encountered. Large parts may remain the same even when other aspects are flipped or reversed. This is useful as so many little things that all need accounting for throw a spanner in the works. The nature of time being so unknown also makes a rigid model unforgiving and I have several variations of the model for possible different properties of time. The model described assumes an inflating force or a pendulum like undulation of time. Another possibility is a cyclic time dimension, where rather than existing on a surface we exist on a wave, much like surfing ocean waves. This begs the question as to what is surfing the waves in front and behind us as well as many more technical ones.

To probe specific aspects of my model more deeply would require a lot of content and so I shall leave it at that for now as an introduction to the subject from my perspective, something I will return and relate to a lot in future essays and hopefully some things to ponder on in the time being.

Little elements of physics are like rubix cubes and other puzzle games, fun to pick up and try and solve, a bit of a challenge etc. To end I shall offer the reader a further choice of puzzle to muse over so allow me to suggest a very simple theory regarding anti-matter. We often wonder why we exist in a world of matter given that matter and anti-matter annihilate upon contact and the big bang created both. Presumably more matter was produced however that is unlike the universe, perhaps it is more mathematical in the way that negative numbers work. Matter combined with matter produce matter, anti-matter combined with matter annihilates to produce energy. Nothing is said about what happens when anti-matter combines with anti-matter, one might assume that anti-matter is the product but why not just matter? Because both 1 x 1 = 1 and -1 x -1 = 1 after all.