How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?

I ask this question because between Real Laws
( Newtons , Maxwells, Einstein's, Lorentzs,
Schrödingers, Diracs . . . .etc.) there are many black holes
and white spots ( time, dark energy, dark mass, graviton,
quark, Higgs boson, . . . and 1000 another elementary particles.)

Comments.
1.
Unity? That's news But physics keeps striving to reduce the number
of equations necessary to describe everything -- so called unification.

It began when Newton unified gravity on earth with gravity in space.
1 equation.

Unification continued when Maxwell reduced all the experiments
on electricity and magnetism to just 4 equations.

It continued with Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations. You might say
it unifies space and time. General relativity unifies gravitational
mass with inertial mass.

Then equations of motion for atoms were described by quantum
mechanics -- such as Schroedinger Equation & later Dirac Equation.
These form the common unification of chemistry.

Then quantum electrodynamics was discovered, which unified
electromagnetism with the quantum theory. Some of theory's
predictions (such as the fine structure constant) have been
experimentally verified to something like 10 or 12 decimal places,
a huge measure of success for any physical theory.

Meanwhile the strong & weak nuclear forces were partly
de-mystified: The weak force was found to be unified with
electromagnetism (electro-weak force), while the strong nuclear
force involves quarks of various kinds, with specific rules of
interaction best described by group theory.

And so it goes. The 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation,
sometimes called "God's Equation" -- the ultimate unification.

" Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
/ --Albert Einstein /
/ by xprofessor /
2.
i think there is unity in most laws but not all, after quantum physics
basically there is no real law, we think of time, gravity and matter
in certain ways but in reality they are random forces with mostly
predictable outcomes but not 100 %, then there is parallel
universes and things as such where physical laws go the
wayside , just like black holes. , so in reality , not much unity.
/ by newyorkguy /

3.
Their is the laws of the microverse and laws for the macroverse
(verse = universe) I wonder if they apply 100% at their own
extents and reduce (perhaps exponentially) as they come closer
toward the other one meshing in the in the middle. thus the
macrocosm still deals with quantum physics at
say .00000000000000000000000000000 1% near the size
of say our solar system where "normal" laws of say gravity
exist at 99.9999999999999999999999999% and vice versa
at say the size of an atom it is the other way...?????
?? hhmmmmmmmm???? just perhaps.
/ by guardian /
4.
I want it to be simple and not too magical.
/ by SuperA /
5.
Yours is a very profound question. I can tell from your question that
you are ready to be let in on the "Dirty Little Secret" of Theoretical Physics:
We have NOT yet figured everything out. The universe is governed by whole
sets of "Laws" that do NOT agree and are mutually exclusive.
This is a great embarrassment. We assume we live in an orderly, rational
universe that makes sense. Perhaps when Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity are unified we will have a better answer to your question.

A paraphrase from NOVA - Elegant Universe with Graham Greene
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/pro
/ by OldPilot /
================ . .
P.S.
I think that now our Physics looks like the Augean stables.

And if we want to clean them we must start from
understanding not new but the old abstract models:
ideal gas, ideal black body, entropy, electrical harmonic
oscillators, point -particle . . . etc.
====== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Comments.
1.
The LAWS must unify, or we are describing things that don't actually exist.
/ Allen Francom /.
2.
Aether is unity. The design of the universe is one.
/ Mitch Raemsch /
======== .

Comments.
#
Something to do with the process of potential, I'd say.
/ ZerkonXXXX /
==== .
Hi, ZerkonXXXX.
Would you agree if I say :
1.
What in Vacuum is hidden 99% of unseen
potential antimatter/ antienergy ( dark matter/energy).
2.
We can see result of these potential antimatter/ antienergy
as 1% of visible matter and energy in the World.
Socratus.

# #
The unity of physical laws is the "Capernaum" conservation
of energy in stasis.
Capernaum:
Rendered in Greek as "Káöáñíáïõì (Kapharnaum)".
In Arabic, it is called Talhum, and it is assumed that this refers
to the ruin (Tell) of Hum.
/ Musatov. /
=============== .
Hi, Musatov.

I think your answer isnt complete.
The complete name of the physical law is:
" The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass".
So, you need to finish your comment.
Socratus.
========= .

Unification is what I have accomplished with



It is the unification of Baryon(Density), W+/-Boson(Magnetism),Z Boson(Electricity), and Photons(Temp,spectra).

Add dark matter and dark energy and I have a full system.

Amazingly I have had an intelligent conversation with Bob on decision making by these systems. He may not agree with me but it is a great conversation.

a

How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
#
By wearing special Unity glasses !
/ Don Stockbauer /
===================== .
Do we see the Universe using only Math glasses ?
Socratus.

Reflections on a Self-Representing Universe
By CambridgeBlog
/ By Shahn Majid. /

#
Space and Time debate needs to involve not only scientists
but the wider public.

. . . in fact, theoretical physics is in need of fresh profound ideas

The reason is that scientists ideas have to come from somewhere,
from sitting around in cafes, from contemplation of art.

We dont know where the key revolutionary idea
is going to come from.

Put another way, to progress, scientists need now to see
what Science is, which means they have to step outside it
and see it in part as a non-scientist.

#
I want you to ask yourself what does someone have
to say about quantum gravity?
What does that person have in common with a theoretical physicist?
My approach as a theoretical physicist is to use
mathematics and the scientific method to explore the issue,
while a carol singer is surely using other means to connect.

As a scientist I am 1000% committed to the Scientific Method
but I see it as a particular way of exploring reality.

One that we might now need to understand better by seeing
it from the outside.

What I am going to argue now is that what we know about
quantum gravity what we have seen in earlier posts is telling
us that the Scientific Method itself is perhaps the fundamental
metaequation of physics.

In other words, just maybe, as we search for the ultimate theory
of physics we are in fact rediscovering our own assumptions
in being Scientists, the Scientific Method?
#
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/reflections-on-a-self-representing-universe/

================ .

Quote 1.
Hence, to summarise - it seems that mathematics has always
Provided a stable, natural (?) language in which to describe
phenomena but it may not be the ultimate 'natural' language
of the universe!

Einstein sought to understand his [God's] equations but perhaps
the 'universe' has been having a 'bit of a laugh' at our feeble
efforts to describe it using mathematics!

Perhaps the universal 'picture' will be clearer when we understand
the universes own hidden language?

/ Conclusion from a long math comment.
Author is unknown. /

Quote 2. JerryGG:

I run into similar problems when I attempt to understand why
positive dot-waves attract negative dot-waves and visa versa
at a distance.
Yet close up positive dot-waves merge into positive dot-waves.

Whether my theory is true of not, we are faced with a problem
that the universe operates on certain basic rules which are not
easily understood. Then science degenerates into philosophy or
meta-physics at the basic level. All we are left with is intuitive
solutions.

All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.

3.
All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments.
/ JerryGG: / jerrygg38 /
======== .

Quote 3.
So.
1.
The problem of understanding the microworld ( electron)
existing is connected with the measuring.
2.
The measurement is connected with the measuring instruments.
3.
The region of using measuring instruments is limited.
4.
Does this limiting mean the end of our knowledge ?
5.
Or, maybe, is it possible to understand the microworld
somehow in another way?
====== .
Do we have 'Theory of Knowledge' ?
Of course. Maybe 1000.
====== . .
Socratus.