25 ms·

This is satire right? You might be getting downvotes because it’s not clear if you’re serious, and those claims seem quite ridiculous at face value.

not_kurt_godel 5y ago
It's essentially paraphrased from the OP. Why OP is getting upvoted, I do not know.
PrettyPebble 5y ago
What is ridiculous?
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  The 9-lines thing. May've just drawn a circle and claimed that it describes all of science.
  - PrettyPebble 5y ago
    If the 9 lines are wrong, just show it... Thousands of scientists are trying the same since 50 years.
    - _Nat_ 5y ago
      It's not that they're "wrong" so much as that they're incoherent and largely non-sense. Sorry if that seems harsh, just.. this looks like someone's having some sort of crisis. It's worrisome.
      - PrettyPebble 5y ago
        No, it is fun! The scientists who are looking for exceptions to the standard model and to general relativity since 50 years are having a crisis at present, as often told. The 9 lines imply all equations of physics. Every Lagrangian of physics is included. The lines are also coherent: none contradicts another. They are complementary: the cover all observations and all fields of physics. No field of physics is left out. The lines are also correct: every calculation fits with observations withing measurement accuracy, since the standard model (with neutrino masses and PMNS mixing) and general relativity exist.
        _Nat_ 5y ago
        Those 9-lines don't imply all of physics. They don't even mention most of physics. A lesser problem is that they're not correct, either. For example, Line-5 suggests that entropy is never below the Boltzmann-constant. Which simply isn't true; there're notions of zero-entropy, where zero is less than the Boltzmann-constant. For another example, Line-2 suggests that nature itself is local; this would contradict non-local effects, e.g. entanglement, and would seem to prohibit faster-than-light recession. Or, maybe those lines were meant in a way that doesn't have those problems? But maybe they have different problems? Who knows! -- which is the bigger problem. This is usually described as ["not even wrong"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ). Because, to be wrong, it'd have to make more sense first.
        PrettyPebble 5y ago
        Of course the 9 lines imply all of physics. Just mention a part of physics that is missing, and I'll buy you a beer. "Zero entropy" is indeed against the laws of physics - in this universe. It may be different in other universes. Line 2 does not speak about locality, but about the speed of light. Entanglement does not violate the speed of light - in this universe. It may be different in other universes. If you know what a Lagrangian is - in quantum theory, in quantum field theory, in the standard model and in general relativity - you also know that there is no random interpretation in the 9 lines.
        _Nat_ 5y ago
        There's no Lagrangian in those 9-lines. Nor is there Quantum-Theory, nor the Standard-Model, nor General-Relativity. Nor is science there, really. Which is kinda my point -- those 9-lines aren't all of science.. unless, I guess, if you assume that all of science is a given. But then, why even have 9-lines when 0-lines could do? Then it's hard to avoid critiques because there're obvious flaws. For example, yes, there're totally productive notions of zero-entropy -- even if not in the models you're used to. For another example, macroscale-constants haven't been demonstrated to emerge from the Standard-Model -- for example, it hasn't been demonstrated that astronomical-scale measurements aren't influenced by unknown factors, such as many-body forces, which might cause results that'd differ from those predicted by the Standard-Model. And since we can measure some of those things not known to emerge from the Standard-Model, the idea that the Standard-Model captures everything -- including those things not known to emerge from it -- doesn't follow. But then that seems to be getting off-topic, because while there'd seem to be many things off about this, the one I'd really stress is that those 9-lines don't contain what they claim to.
      - blablabla123 5y ago
        I mean you have the groups (6. and 7.) from there you get all the variables. E.g. from U(1) you get the generator and the group item. Then add all combinations of the polynomes to L (1.) but skip those that violate invariances like Lorentz (2.), U(1), SU(2), SU(3). You end up with something like L=-1/2 d phi^2 - m phi^2. (Oversimplified) Do the same for SU(2) and SU(3) and you end up with http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf For convenience usually some of the variables are then called e (Electron), W+ (W+ Boson) etc.
blablabla123 5y ago
I would take this with a huge grain of salt. But generally it's quite astonishing with how few assumptions such complex theories can be derived. Also the mathematical apparatus has really all batteries included speaking of Lagrange formalism and its Action (point 1)

not_kurt_godel 5y ago

It's essentially paraphrased from the OP. Why OP is getting upvoted, I do not know.

PrettyPebble 5y ago

What is ridiculous?

_Nat_ 5y ago
The 9-lines thing. May've just drawn a circle and claimed that it describes all of science.
- PrettyPebble 5y ago
  If the 9 lines are wrong, just show it... Thousands of scientists are trying the same since 50 years.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    It's not that they're "wrong" so much as that they're incoherent and largely non-sense. Sorry if that seems harsh, just.. this looks like someone's having some sort of crisis. It's worrisome.
    - PrettyPebble 5y ago
      No, it is fun! The scientists who are looking for exceptions to the standard model and to general relativity since 50 years are having a crisis at present, as often told. The 9 lines imply all equations of physics. Every Lagrangian of physics is included. The lines are also coherent: none contradicts another. They are complementary: the cover all observations and all fields of physics. No field of physics is left out. The lines are also correct: every calculation fits with observations withing measurement accuracy, since the standard model (with neutrino masses and PMNS mixing) and general relativity exist.
      - _Nat_ 5y ago
        Those 9-lines don't imply all of physics. They don't even mention most of physics. A lesser problem is that they're not correct, either. For example, Line-5 suggests that entropy is never below the Boltzmann-constant. Which simply isn't true; there're notions of zero-entropy, where zero is less than the Boltzmann-constant. For another example, Line-2 suggests that nature itself is local; this would contradict non-local effects, e.g. entanglement, and would seem to prohibit faster-than-light recession. Or, maybe those lines were meant in a way that doesn't have those problems? But maybe they have different problems? Who knows! -- which is the bigger problem. This is usually described as ["not even wrong"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ). Because, to be wrong, it'd have to make more sense first.
        PrettyPebble 5y ago
        Of course the 9 lines imply all of physics. Just mention a part of physics that is missing, and I'll buy you a beer. "Zero entropy" is indeed against the laws of physics - in this universe. It may be different in other universes. Line 2 does not speak about locality, but about the speed of light. Entanglement does not violate the speed of light - in this universe. It may be different in other universes. If you know what a Lagrangian is - in quantum theory, in quantum field theory, in the standard model and in general relativity - you also know that there is no random interpretation in the 9 lines.
        _Nat_ 5y ago
        There's no Lagrangian in those 9-lines. Nor is there Quantum-Theory, nor the Standard-Model, nor General-Relativity. Nor is science there, really. Which is kinda my point -- those 9-lines aren't all of science.. unless, I guess, if you assume that all of science is a given. But then, why even have 9-lines when 0-lines could do? Then it's hard to avoid critiques because there're obvious flaws. For example, yes, there're totally productive notions of zero-entropy -- even if not in the models you're used to. For another example, macroscale-constants haven't been demonstrated to emerge from the Standard-Model -- for example, it hasn't been demonstrated that astronomical-scale measurements aren't influenced by unknown factors, such as many-body forces, which might cause results that'd differ from those predicted by the Standard-Model. And since we can measure some of those things not known to emerge from the Standard-Model, the idea that the Standard-Model captures everything -- including those things not known to emerge from it -- doesn't follow. But then that seems to be getting off-topic, because while there'd seem to be many things off about this, the one I'd really stress is that those 9-lines don't contain what they claim to.
    - blablabla123 5y ago
      I mean you have the groups (6. and 7.) from there you get all the variables. E.g. from U(1) you get the generator and the group item. Then add all combinations of the polynomes to L (1.) but skip those that violate invariances like Lorentz (2.), U(1), SU(2), SU(3). You end up with something like L=-1/2 d phi^2 - m phi^2. (Oversimplified) Do the same for SU(2) and SU(3) and you end up with http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf For convenience usually some of the variables are then called e (Electron), W+ (W+ Boson) etc.

blablabla123 5y ago

I would take this with a huge grain of salt. But generally it's quite astonishing with how few assumptions such complex theories can be derived. Also the mathematical apparatus has really all batteries included speaking of Lagrange formalism and its Action (point 1)