Incredibly huge inconsistency of modern physics

[TheAdversary]

+Reality Check I think that's where it comes down to. I consider QM a special case. I've argued that interpreting it at all is problematic because of an issue I have with pure chance.
And in that special case, all of them except the PDFs and measurements interpretation, should be seen as redundant and thus overly-complicated. That's where my Occam's Razor comes
from in that case.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Question:
The principle of least (stationary) action is fundamental to modern physics. Would it be reasonable to regard this as a mathematical expression or manifestation of Occam's razor?

The principle of least action – or, more accurately, the principle of stationary action – is a variational principle that, when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the equations of motion for that system. In relativity, a different action must be minimized or maximized. The principle can be used to derive Newtonian, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian equations of motion, and even General Relativity. It was historically called "least" because its solution requires finding the path that has the least change from nearby paths.[1] Its classical mechanics and electromagnetic expressions are a consequence of quantum mechanics, but the stationary action method helped in the development of quantum mechanics.[2]

The principle remains central in modern physics and mathematics, being applied in the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, and a focus of modern mathematical investigation in Morse theory. Maupertuis' principle and Hamilton's principle exemplify the principle of stationary action.[citation needed]

LINK

 

[Reality Check]

I've argued that interpreting it at all is problematic because of an issue I have with pure chance.

Personal issues with "pure chance" is not science, TheAdversary, and nothing to do with the real Occam's Razor.
Imagining that some interpretations are "overly-complicated" does not mean that Occam's Razor can be applied. Look at my example of the MWI interpretation which seems just as complicated as the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[Reality Check]

Question:
The principle of least (stationary) action is fundamental to modern physics. Would it be reasonable to regard this as a mathematical expression or manifestation of Occam's razor?LINK

I would say that the development of the principle of least (stationary) action is an example of the usage of Occam's razor. Ditto for the development of quantum mechanics. The authors concentrated on the simpler of several theories.

 

[TheAdversary]

I come from a physics simulation background. I've looked into using Lagrangian formulations of physics but when you're dealing with a game engine, non-ideal physics laws
like friction become essential. Possible simplifications because of coordinate systems also don't apply in something as chaotic as a game-engine, was my experience.
Philosophically, the concept derives from Noether's Theorem. It keeps the conserved quantities conserved. That should always be the point of physics law. Invariance.
No coordinate systems; No assumptions. I don't know if Occam's can go any further ...

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Question:
The principle of least (stationary) action is fundamental to modern physics. Would it be reasonable to regard this as a mathematical expression or manifestation of Occam's razor?

I would say that the development of the principle of least (stationary) action is an example of the usage of Occam's razor. Ditto for the development of quantum mechanics. The authors concentrated on the simpler of several theories.

I'm curious what you both mean by the principle of stationary action being an example of Occam's razor? Isn't Occam's razor a heuristic for preferring the simpler of two proposed explanations?

 

[TheAdversary]

'Would it be reasonable to regard this as a mathematical expression or manifestation of Occam's razor?'

I was trying to answer this question which I didn't completely understand.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm curious what you both mean by the principle of stationary action being an example of Occam's razor? Isn't Occam's razor a heuristic for preferring the simpler of two proposed explanations?

We would have to ask an expert in the history of science as to the exact development of the principle of stationary action. But my expectation was that there were more complex alternatives to the principle of stationary action. Occam's razor was used to prefer and concentrate on the principle of stationary action which was established as the best alternative.

So it is the development of the principle of stationary action by preferring the simpler theory that is an example of the use of Occam's razor.

 

[Reality Check]

...Philosophically, the concept derives from Noether's Theorem.

More irrelevant stuff, TheAdversary.
Lagrangian formulations of physics are irrelevant.
Noether's theorem is irrelevant.
Philosophically and historically Occam's razor originates from several philosophers and is attributed to William of Ockham.

 

[TheAdversary]

I like the principle of conserved quantity for degree of freedom in the system. It so neatly removes the concept of a coordinate system. I think that's a neater philosophical
concept to go by.

 

[Reality Check]

I dislike what looks like gibberish, TheAdversary: Citations please.

 

[TheAdversary]

'Citations please' You can quote me if you want, fair use.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I like the principle of conserved quantity for degree of freedom in the system. It so neatly removes the concept of a coordinate system. I think that's a neater philosophical
concept to go by.

I have an MS in mathematics and have been activly studying theoretical physics for 5 years now (as a hobby), but I have no idea what the above means!

 

[Reality Check]

TheAdversary: Is "removes the concept of a coordinate system" gibberish or science

I do not want to embarrass you by quoting what looks like gibberish, TheAdversary. There some possibilities

• You are writing gibberish on purpose (maybe trolling).
• You are writing gibberish by accident.
• You have the delusion that you have a way that "removes the concept of a coordinate system".
• It is an assertion based on ignorance.
• You have actual science to back up your assertion.

25 November 2015 TheAdversary: Is "removes the concept of a coordinate system" gibberish, a delusion, ignorance or science?
If it is science then please provide citations.

 

[TheAdversary]

I have a question. In Newtonian Mechanics, it's possible to get a version that is generally invariant, by introducing all the necessary fictitious forces. The philosophical
question then remains however, how does nature know when to introduce the fictitious forces. This always seems to point towards some sort of absolute frame of reference.
Is this still a problem in general relativity or do you just get the same question in a different guise?

 

[TheAdversary]

Reality Check : With 'removes the coordinate system' I mean that from the theories' perspective, the choice of reference frame is arbitrary, which is what we always want.
That we can arbitrarily choose the coordinate system.

 

[Reality Check]

TheAdversary: Please give an example of this version of Newtonian Mechanics

In Newtonian Mechanics, it's possible to get a version that is generally invariant, by introducing all the necessary fictitious forces....

You have what looks like more gibberish and an irrelevant philosophy question about an intelligent nature that "knows" stuff!
25 November 2015 TheAdversary: Please give an example of this "generally invariant" version of Newtonian Mechanics

 

[Reality Check]

That we can arbitrarily choose the coordinate system.

Oh - a problem with English, not science, TheAdversary !
But there is still the "the principle of conserved quantity for degree of freedom in the system" non-science.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm curious what you both mean by the principle of stationary action being an example of Occam's razor? Isn't Occam's razor a heuristic for preferring the simpler of two proposed explanations?

The fundamental idea of Occam's razor is choosing the simplest explanation among others as a basis for some phenomenon:

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Similarly, of all possible avenues for a system to take from state A to state B, the simplest one (least action) is chosen in developing the lagrangian.
I find that to be a provocative similarity -- but each to his own.

 

[TheAdversary]

This is where the principle of least action comes from. Maybe it's a choice between the manly least action or the feminine conservation perspective