I am an uneducated physics buff with a very high IQ (actually, I don’t put much stock in IQ tests, though) who understands physics and theories. Here is the article that I am referring to. It is not edited, spell-checked, or fact-checked. It claims to have been “Written at an undergraduate physics level to make it as accessible as possible.”
“The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations. Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer. This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance when applied to space-time. As Noether showed, space-time symmetries lead to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation–essentially all of classical mechanics. It also leads to Lorentz invariance and special relativity. When generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance. Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles. The conservation and quantization of electric charge follow from global gauge invariance. The electromagnetic force is introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Although not discussed here, the other forces in the standard model of elementary particles are also fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.”
During my many years of research, I found this to be a trend among scientists.
I did not do well in school as of grade 3. This was way back when we were not allowed to think for ourselves but just memorize what the teachers taught. I would get sent to the principal’s office for discipline and correction when I questioned anything they said (which often turned into arguments and debates).
One of my famous arguments was that I refused to agree that there were nine planets. This was only a short time after we confirmed the existence of Pluto. My argument, as well as my answers on tests, were “at least 9” or “unknown.” Yep, that got me more visits to the principal. Another famous argument was that 1+1 could equal 1 or 3. This was especially disturbing to my parents, considering my brother was a math genius. No one could understand my argument because, while I agreed that on paper, 1+1=2, but not in what turned out to be known as quantum mechanics (QM). It could be equal to 1 or 3, or even more (see the footnote for more details of my logic). I had many theories of space, time, and QM that no one listened to (they thought I was crazy). That’s when I underwent a series of tests, including IQ. However, I wouldn’t be diagnosed until later in life that I had Asperger’s syndrome. Anyway, enough about me.
Another thing I often hear when physicists talk about the big bang is this quip: “We cannot say anything before a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Bang.” Considering they calculate the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years old, and we only learned that there were other Galaxies early in the 20th century, I think it is arrogant to think we can know what happened even before the first second of the big bang, assuming there was one at all.
Much like my 1+1=3 math problem, physicists can’t prove any of this except mathematically using our current knowledge of physics. Given how little we knew centuries ago compared with what we now know, I can only imagine what we will learn in a few more centuries. Also, as we learn more things, I think of how ignorant we were a few centuries ago, yet believed what we did religiously.
Knowledge is fleeting, but the truth is forever. Let’s not be so arrogant that we are absolutely certain what we know now are facts and the truth. Future, scientists might look back at us and laugh at us for being so ignorant, given the new facts they think they know.
Footnote:
I used space-time and argued that if you start with one apple and add another apple, you could not do it in the same moment since that moment would be like a snapshot of one and only one apple. If you place another apple on the table and take another snapshot, you will have two apples in that snapshot. However, since the first-moment snapshot has passed in time, you are starting with two apples in the new-moment snapshot; therefore, by including the first-moment snapshot of one apple and the new-moment snapshot with two apples, you will have three apples.
If you don’t consider the first-moment snapshot, you will only observe the apple you just added in this new-moment snapshot; thus, 1+1 would only equal 1. Sounds confusing. I agree, but this was how my grade three mind worked.
