Is all physics logically expressible and observable?

In summary, according to the author, mathematics and physics cannot explain all physical reality. However, they have greatly expanded our observable world.
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
Say I observe a physical phenomenon; does that mean I can necessarily mathematicize it? Does possible observation reach only a fraction of physical reality?

Will mathematics ever be able to explain a unification between general relativity and quantum mechanics? If such a TOE is ever realizable, will we be able to experimentally confirm it (re: superstrings)?

Say I am unable, in any frame of reference, to observe a physical phenomenon; does that mean it does not physically exist (re: wavefunction)? Can we state as to what math will, or will not, eventually correlate to physics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Think about trying to do standard grad-school physics with math that Archemides had. New physics inspires new math. Calculus, tensors, Feynman diagrams, group theory - all were driven by physics. I think as we get close to understanding a phenomenon for which we have no math, we push the old math to ridiculous limits, then invent new math.

The infinitesmals of the French and Italian mathematicians inspired the invention of calculus. Schwinger's conventional but incomprehensible (to anyone but him) formulation of QED inspired the acceptance of Feynman diagrams.

Will we hit a wall? Maybe, but we will probably invent many new schemes of math before then.

Njorl
 
  • #3
Is all physics logically expressible and observable?

Not necessarily. An interesting (and relatively unknown) example of this is the alternative extension of the Poincaré algebra. As known, the results of Coleman-Mandula and Sohnus-Haag-Lopuszanski state that the only admissible model for supersymmetry is the Golfan'd-Liktman superalgebra (made famous by Wess and Zumino as supersymmetry algebra, but already discovered by the two preceding guys three years earlier). In 1975 B. Konopelchenko found another admissible extension, which however violated the CMSHL restrictions by a little technicism concerning the supercharges. However, inspite of this anomaly (which is responsible for the superalgebra to have been discarded), the Konopelchenko model allows to recover the GL superalgebra, thus the supersymmetry considerations. The interesting fact is that these effects could not be observed in the alternative model, but on its degeneration to the GL superalgebra.
 
  • #4
These sound like pretty fundamental questions, on the (smeared) boundary between science and phylosophy.

It is clear that our concept of observable is strongly limited by what we perceive directly with our senses: it took us a while to realize that there are forms of 'light' that we cannot see (electromagnetic waves outside the visible region) or that do not even propagate (electrostatic fields if relax a little our definition of light to encompass all em phenomena). For sure having different senses like dolphins, bats, some fishes, or some reptiles would create a completely different perception of the physical world (and probably also a different system of values and hence a different society).

Nevertheless the development of instruments to enlarge the spectrum of phenomena we can 'see' (take into our field of perception) and the use of math have supplied an astonishing enlargment of our observable/describable world. So nowadays it seems that the real limits are technical and mathematical tools. Is it true? I do not think so, but let me carry on one more second.

These questions are also strongly related to the work of Turing, Godel and others on computability and on the limits of formal languages. We know they have limits, even though we can continuously extend those limits (just think of the new frontiers that will open up once quantum computers will become available).

I think anyway that the real constrain in this process of inquiring reality is that we have to convert phenomena we cannot perceive into phenomena we can perceive and things we perceive into analytical descriptions. There are intrinsic limitation in this process we call science today because of its definition itself.

There are situation where the use of pure logic simply does not help (Turing machine does not produce an answer), sequential reasoning is intrinsically limited, there are phenomena logic alone cannot describe.

In my opinion the real escape here is to point toward a wider concept of knowledge that integrates functions mostly performed by the lefthand side of the brain (logic, analysis) with those performed by the right hand side of the brain (analogy, synthesis). I do not expect this extension of knowledge can ever be put down into formulas but still is observable everyday in important parts of our lives.

Every time we read a formula AND we understand its meaning there is a non-logic step we have performed: meaning attribution is to me beyond the realm of pure logic and yet a phenomenon!

To summarize, I believe we can know everything but math and physics cannot do the whole job!

Good thoughts to you all, Dario
 

1. Is physics really based on logical expressions?

Yes, physics is based on logical expressions. Physics is a scientific field that aims to understand the natural world through logical reasoning and mathematical equations. It is a highly logical and systematic approach to studying the physical universe.

2. Can all aspects of physics be observed and measured?

No, not all aspects of physics can be directly observed or measured. Some concepts in physics, such as black holes or dark matter, cannot be directly observed but are inferred through mathematical models and indirect observations.

3. How does the scientific method play a role in expressing and observing physics?

The scientific method is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning. In physics, the scientific method is used to formulate hypotheses, test them through experiments, and analyze the results using logical and mathematical expressions. This helps to ensure that the principles and laws of physics are based on logical reasoning and observable evidence.

4. Are there any limitations to expressing and observing physics?

Yes, there are limitations to expressing and observing physics. Some phenomena, such as quantum mechanics, cannot be fully explained using current scientific theories and require further research and advancements in technology to fully understand and observe.

5. How does the concept of uncertainty affect the logical expressibility and observability of physics?

The concept of uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, states that there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties can be known. This means that there will always be a level of uncertainty in our measurements and observations in physics, which can affect the logical expressibility and observability of certain phenomena.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
6
Replies
175
Views
6K
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
826
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
Back
Top