COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS AS A TREND

Here a photograph of the inside of a computer, It seems computing machines are indispensable for constructing building stones for theoretical physics.

Computational physics seems to become more and more a trend. 

Should every physical theory only be valid if experimentally testable? This issue was put forward in an article by George Ellis and Joe Silk in Nature we all know as a most prominent  international journal of science. The philosophical tradition demands experimental verification. But what about string theory and multiverse theories? They cannot be verified by experiments, but they can make us feel to give a reasonable elegant explanation and may work inconsistencies out of sight. Field theory may use strings as a sort of units of space and make unification of quantum theory and general relativity perhaps possible.                                                We know there are the  questions involving the Standard Model. Why is the fine structure constant which is decisive for the strength of the  electromagnetic force, fine-tuned in such a way it has just the right value to make biological systems possible? Or are there infinite other universes having other values for electromagnetic forces and other biological systems as a result?                                                                                It looks like physics nowadays has become merely computational physics constructing theories by making data to fit in purely theoretical concepts? Is experimental verification or falsification still necessary?                                                                                                                                                                                     In history the scientific method proved it to be surely legitimate to bring about hypotheses, which cannot be verified right away but after some time demonstrate experimentally what they are worth. But what about strings?  Immediate verification seems not possible for 10^─ 35m strings and probably will never be. Be that as it may every valid new theory should be able to predict unambiguously new properties of an object other theories cannot. It is not enough for string theory to prove it does not contradict quantum mechanics or is in agreement with a positive bending of space. It should be able to give us more new experimentally measurable information.      As for the many worlds theory it should show us more than only being able to move inconsistencies in our own universe out of sight. Such a theory should be able to provide us with experimental testable knowledge about this universe that no other theory we already have can give us                       The trend shows that physics is mathematized more and more. String theory and multiverse theories till now are mainly mathematical concepts to be distinguished from physics. Nothing wrong with that. By the way, does the conception of infinity in mathematics really exist? It is not experimentally measurable. But for calculating limits, differential and integral calculus, asymptotic behaviour of graphs we make use of it in physics all the time.   

  For reactions: ahjohann84@gmail.com

 Only if possible an answer may follow.

The author takes no responsibilities for using the text above or any actions based on the text above.                                                                                                            

DIGITALIZED PHYSICS AND REALITY.

Digitalized  Physics and Reality.                                                                                             More and more  our knowledge seemed mainly based on mathematized and digitalized processes of information. Is there a fundamental gap between computerized mathematics at one side and physics and reality at the other side?  Here a photograph of the inside of a computer as the looking glass information machine we nowadays hardly can do without.                                           

                     

More and more  our knowledge seemed mainly based on mathematized and digitalized processes of information. Is there a fundamental gap between computerized mathematics at one side and physics and reality at the other side?  Here a photograph of the inside of a computer as the looking glass information machine we nowadays hardly can do without.                                  In the past mathematics was used as an instrumental aid in a variety of parts of the scientific lines of work. Not only for physics, but also chemistry, biology cosmology and for such areas as meteorology, insurance calculations and financial analyses. Modelling theoretical insights and experimental possibilities were digitalized. Therefore last decades in depth knowledge of many branches of science rapidly increased. Now computers are used everywhere and convert theoretical concepts into algorithms of 1 and 0 sequences. Pictures are pixelated so to speak. Time after time to our own surprise mathematics and physics seemed to be far more deeply involved in each other than we thought being possible. Math appeared to be not only an instrumental aid, not only intertwined with physics, but pervading physics almost completely. Space and time once were mathematical constructions helping us calculating place and velocity of an object. According to the theory of relativity space, time, velocity, mass all has to do with reference frames of an object and the observer. And more so space- time has become a reality and assessed to be an object by itself. Unlike space, time is described as an imaginary property. And then there is quantum mechanics. For a quantum system a phase- space or momentum-space or whatever space can be constructed with as many axis’s as seems to be convenient. As many degrees of freedom, dimensions and imaginary axis’s as we like to use, make handling properties far more possible. The degree of abstraction we are able to construct increased. Contradictories appeared. The theory of relativity being a local theory somehow did not merge with quantum mechanics being non- local in essence. But probably string theory could combine both fundamental theories. Strings about the Planck Length 10 ^ -35 m could dependable on their frequencies be interpret as particles. Ten or eleven dimensions could deliver the wished for results. Also a parallel universe can come in handy. That way a unification theory for quantum gravity may be constructed. Someday much stronger acceleration machines can perhaps support the string theory with experimental results.                                               Recently Itzhak Bars and his Ph.D student Dmitry Rychkov from the University of Southern California could construct a link between string field theory and quantum mechanics.  They used the geometry of the joining and splitting of strings to explain commutation rules of quantum mechanics. ( Physics Letters B, 2014 ) It is interesting that Bars and Rychkov have showed here that string theory is not contradictory to some rules of quantum theory. Question remains about how powerful string theory could be to predict new phenomena. Maybe following this method  next steps could lead the way for string theory to describe quantum gravity and some beginning of constructing a unification theory becomes more possible.                                                                                                                                               In general the question remains what the  more and more digitalized processed descriptions of  phenomena of the last decades has to do with reality, with truth about the universe around us? Or could It be half true and half a digitally reduced fantasy.   

For reactions: ahjohann84@gmail.com     

 Only if possible an answer may follow.