Why did the universe converge itself so that there were four fundamental forces of nature and not 3- or 5+...

Why did the universe converge itself so that there were four fundamental forces of nature and not 3- or 5+? what was the deciding factor?

If there are only 4 fundamental forces. Anyway you ask this question though, I think it will be unanswerable. Why does blue appear as it does? Why was there x amount of energy at the beginning?

well we know blue appears the way it does because of our eyes and the way our brain maps out the perception of the light they collect on the cone thingamajig.

how do you know if something is unanswerable or just not having an answer because we haven't improved our model of the expansion of the universe?

There's only 3 forces.

EM and WNF are combined to Electroweak

Anyways, it is presumed that during the big bang, the fields were actually unified as 1 super force, and asymmetry during the big bang caused them to split.

If you postulate that there are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of variations in universal forces in each of these then it is purely coincidental.

Our universe has these fundamental forces because it is the only combination in which we are able to exist and observe this combination.

>implying this literally answers anything

>only 3
>no strong
>no gravity
>calls electroweak a force

it's a model that derives the weak and em forces. they're still separate forces unless you're from the past.

? Is there a theory which explains why the gauge groups of the standard model are as they are, why observed spacetime has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, and why all laws of physics are as they are? Do "fundamental physical constants" vary over time? Are any of the particles in the standard model of particle physics actually composite particles too tightly bound to observe as such at current experimental energies? Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed, and, if so, which ones are they and what are their properties? Are there unobserved fundamental forces implied by a theory that explains other unsolved problems in physics?

>they're still separate forces unless you're from the past.
Or if you're at a high enough energy.

The question was why 4.
My answer was that there may only be 4 in this universe and not others. If anything can happen in infinity then anything and everything will happen.

It's not a question of why if this is the case but how.

those aren't mutually exclusive since the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it that the universe is always increasing in entropy.

then riddle me this. what distinguishes this universe from others that have different forces?

The forces in this universe just happen to be the correct recipe to create life. If they weren't you wouldn't be here to ask that question. It just so happens that all these forces allow matter to interact in a way that's chaotic enough to allow it not to stall out but not so chaotic that matter cannot interact with other matter in a semi stable way.

can you prove that having an extra fundamental force would not lead to intelligent life?

Do you think science will ever come to a stopping point or will questions always lead to more questions?

There are no fundamental forces.
The fundamental forces are a model that describes reality in sufficiently accurate detail.

Other than the fact they have different forces? I don't understand.

We don't know if the fundamental forces of the universe would be constant across all universes or if the number, type and values of these forces are determined at the point of creation of each individual universe.

I'm purely talking about infinite universes. If there is only this one, then I don't know why things are like this. Seems awfully convenient for the sole universe to have the right forces at the right strengths to spawn sentient life though

How do we know that your blue is the same as mine? It's just a useless question to ask.

I think its more of a proportion problem. I feel a mix of strong and weak forces is necessary to hit that sweet spot of life.

The deciding factor was the nature of the quantum fluctuations that created our universe.

because blue is a specific wavelength it doesn't change. just because you think you see blue when something is red doesn't make it true. you just have a disorder in that case.

and what was that nature in a qualitative sense? what parameters had to be met?

The wavelength doesn't decide the form of the sensation "blue" evokes, does it?
If I feel the sensation associated with "red" when seeing blue and still refer to it as "blue", am I really the one with a disorder or is the rest of the world wrong?

the average temperature of the universe, and the nonzero vacuum energy, mostly

You don't want me to post a series of quantum field theories that describe various forms of quantum fluctuations.

I know you don't.

but wouldn't the average temperature and nonzero vacuum energy change over time as the metric expansion of space itself progresses in positive time?

you're wrong.

colors are defined by wavelength

what we call the colors is irrelevant, but the "color" property associated with each wavelength is always going to be the same, and is always fixed.

>but wouldn't the average temperature and nonzero vacuum energy change over time as the metric expansion of space itself progresses in positive time?

Space-time began after the hot Big Bang phase transition, which resulted from quantum energy density fluctuations in infinite dimensional inflationary space.

The 4D space time of our universe is confined to our region of non-inflationary space, user.

Why do our brain interpret that particular wavelength of light(blue) as "blue"?

Science don't ask "whys" they ask "hows", go ask you favorite theology professor for the "whys"

if science can't answer why then how can it model anything?

what do you mean? isn't 4D spacetime an open field that extends infinitely?

the vacuum energy is not affected by the expansion of the universe.

The average temperature will decrease, causing forces to effectively vanish in the far future

I had to explain this to another user earlier.

>pic related

Because the why question isn't necessary to understand how something works.

wait what? how would it not be affected? if you increase the volume in space then wouldn't you decrease the vacuum energy density? isn't that Boyle’s Law?

Because it answers how and not why.

>you're wrong.
Am I?

>colors are defined by wavelength
No, they aren't.
Color is a pure sensation, a concept as far abstracted from physical reality as you are ever going to get.
Can you describe what the color blue looks like without being self-referential in any way while conveying roughly the same information showing "blue" to me would.


>what we call the colors is irrelevant, but the "color" property associated with each wavelength is always going to be the same, and is always fixed.
No, it isn't.
The color property associated with each wavelength has a fixed descriptor, but not a fixed sensation associated with it.

Can you prove to me that you are even capable of experiencing the color blue at all?

i thought that's what we did. by using science which explains why.

it can model anything because one of the most important property of good science is the ability to make prediction.

Science don't ask WHY does it hurt when you fall off a bridge, science ask HOW did falling off a bridge hurt you?

Science guarantees that a person will die when put in a gas chamber then they ask how? They don't ask WHY must a person die when put in a gas chamber.

You're obviously a troll, I want to believe people actually have an ounce of logic hidden in their brain.

The whole 'is your blue the same as my blue?' thing cannot be answered until we understand how the organic structure of the brain translates into conscious experience.

We don't know that yet, therefore the answer is: we don't know.

That doesn't open the door to religious or philosophical speculation, however.

We just don't know yet.

user, please ignore the others as the actual answer is we don't know yet:

It's a good question.

>yet
I can't wait for the day materialist shits are beaten by their own weapons

vacuum energy comes from the vacuum. As the universe expands it gains volume, which means the amount of vacuum increases. Since the amount of vacuum increases, the vacuum energy should also increase. Thus the vacuum energy density stays the same. It seems impossible, but that's how dark energy behaves. The universe as a whole doesn't follow the conservation of energy.

I can't wait for the day we can put the final nails in coffins of theology and philosophy.

In the mean time, I'd love to watch you all dance a jig at the end of a rope, you subhuman scum.

the vacuum energy seems to remain constant per unite volume

i know you've brought this up before.
I know you want to think there's something sublime or transcendant about human experiences, but there's not.

Colors are literally names for light that we can see with our eyes.

Just because your eyes aren't calibrated the same as everyone else, doesn't mean that yellow isn't yellow

It does, as gravity can have negative energy.

Otherwise, great explanation.

>I can't wait for the day we can put the final nails in coffin of science
Truly a great day.
>In the mean time, I'd love to watch you all dance a jig at the end of a rope, you subhuman scum.
Yes, we should hang every follower of science.

>Yes, we should hang every follower of science.

Go on then, what the fuck are you talking about?

>It does, as gravity can have negative energy
in theory!
Negative energy has never been observed, unless you count dark energy and that's only been observed indirectly.

please stop this meme.

gravity only has negative energy in coordinate dependent systems. The whole discussion is a giant farce to justify nonsense like string theory and 0 energy universe theory

tl;dr negative energy requires negative mass, which doesn't exist.

>i know you've brought this up before.
>I know you want to think there's something sublime or transcendant about human experiences, but there's not.
Can you show that there isn't?
Just describe what color looks likei to someone who has bever experienced color, then.

>Colors are literally names for light that we can see with our eyes.
No, that's not what they are.
Colors are the most commonly used example, but I keep forgetting how obsessed you people are with muh empiricism.

How about pain?
Can you describe what a burn feels like?

>Just because your eyes aren't calibrated the same as everyone else, doesn't mean that yellow isn't yellow
You still don't understand qualia or even the basic idea of language as necessary barrier between concepts and reality.

It's called a hypothesis, anons.

>Learn2science

what do you mean requires? light has energy but no mass.

All science is philosophy, retard.
Mathematics is applied philosophy.

Why do you not know this?

Yes, it's based on informally logical - falsifiable - hypotheses and often relies on formally logical mathematical models.

I consider Socrates the father of science.

The whole falsifiable thing is what separates science from unscientific philosophy.

Unscientific philosophy is fucking dead, user.

We've moved on and you should too.

Science is shackled by empiricism.
What good does limiting yourself to things you can see do?
It's a waste.

Mathematics is not falsifiable either.

The weak force is apart of electromagnetism, its not its own stand alone force anymore.

Light has energy because it has mass while in motion.

Negative energy literally means you would need negative mass/negatively curved spacetime.

This doesn't exist

When kaku refers to negative energy, he is talking about gravity, because there's more of it the further away you are, which is a different context

1=2

falsifiable.

Why isn't math falsifiable?

>science is shackled by empiricism.

As opposed to being free to indulge in all manner of unverifiable bullshit.

>What good does limiting yourself to things you can see do?

I'm assuming by see, you mean be aware of.

What's the point of limiting ourselves to things that we can be aware of?

Oh I don't know...

>Mathematics is not falsifiable either.

No, but mathematical models are.

Pleb.

It's because it relies on axioms.

>just describe what color looks like to someone that has never experienced color then
at one end of the spectrum we see, there's red
the other end of the spectrum, there's violet
in between, there's less red or less violet, depending which way you go

>no, that's not what they are
yes it is, by definition. you can call it whatever you want, but it's still a division of the visible light spectrum

>how about pain?
it is a chemical reaction that we associate with bodily damage

>qualia
now that he's finally said it, without me having to put words in his mouth, can we finally ignore this faggot and shame him back to >>>x?

When new methods, conjectures, postulates, etc, are submitted all the time and those axioms are used to prove them or disprove them. Isn't that falsifying math?

Prove x = x please.
Hint: it's LITERALLY impossible.

Sorry for my English

whatever is, is. an axiom requires no proof for it is self evident.

Prove the axioms.

That's the point.

Reflexive Axiom.

axiom: n = n * 1 for any n belonging to C
Theorem n = n
proof: n = n * 1 by axiom
therefore, n = n
//

You only need to "prove" an axiom when using it to model a real-world problem.

When using math to model real-world problems, it's up to you to show that the axioms actually hold. The idea is that, if the axioms are true for the real-world problem, and all the logical steps taken are sound, then the conclusions (theorems etc.) should also be true in your real-world problem.

In your case, I think your example is actually a convincing "proof" that your axiom (commutativity of addition over natural numbers) holds for your real-world problem of counting stones: if I pick up any number of stones in my left- and right-hands, it doesn't matter whether I count the left or right first, I'll get the same result either way. You can verify this experimentally, or use your intuition. As long as you agree that the axioms of the model fit your problem, you should agree with the conclusions as well (assuming you agree with the proofs, of course).

So its not falsifiable because its based on well documented and well established assumptions.

I feel like this is similar to "evolution isn't real, its just a theory"

>>just describe what color looks like to someone that has never experienced color then
>at one end of the spectrum we see, there's red
>the other end of the spectrum, there's violet
>in between, there's less red or less violet, depending which way you go
Ok so what does red look like then?
What does violet look like?

>how about pain?
>it is a chemical reaction that we associate with bodily damage
Ok so that's how it happens, but what does it feel like?

Also, it's adorable how you latch onto a single word. This idea is just a small facet of the problem with language as a whole.

The angles of every triangle on a flat plane that has ever been measured, add up to 180 degrees.

The prediction:

The angles of every triangle on a flat plane add up to 180 degrees.

Falsifiable, as if one triangle on a flat plane is found to have a sum of angles not equal to 180 degrees, then the statement is false.

Math is falsifiable.

are you stupid? that isn't a triangle nor is it even possible to map such a geometry, which means the prediction succeeded.

But the measurement of an angle is arbitrary.

Why can't a circle be 400 degrees instead of 360 degrees?

No it's more like a dogma.
You must accept it to even consider anything else.

All you did was write the same thing three times while assuming that you're right.
That's not very rigorous.

Lads I was just explaining that deluded user's view.

I already said mathematical models are falsifiable and here's my actual view:

don't compare my actual explanation to that autistic triangle observation i'm literally triggered by this.

Unintelligible post.

The baggage terms we give them are arbitrary, however the relations between abstract entities are set.

A circle could be 400 degrees, however it would require us to model a degree as 1.111111111111111.

Why are those abstract elements and the relations between them the way they are?

That's what physics is working on figuring out.

I'm having a lot of fun tonight.

i clearly didn't write the same thing 3 times.

If I did, it would have looked like this
axiom n = n*1
theorem n = n*1
n = n*1 QED

which clearly isn't what I wrote

No you thought very wrong .

There's no problem with language, you're attributing perception as equivalent to physical properties.

They're independent of each other and the fact that wrongly conflate the two is what leads to your perceived discrepencies.

Again, if you're not a materialist or realist, you can fuck off to /x. This is a science board

the exact shape of their Calabi-Yau manifold

Mathematics is neither materialistic nor realistic.

That actually tells you quite a lot, as it implies the configuration of our universe is likely to be one of those for which life is more likely to arise.

>can't into grand unification
heh

Math doesnt exist user, its just a way for humans to explain reality, the fact it works is the most unsettling part though.

[eqn]\text{Theory of Everything} = \begin{cases}\text{Grand Unification Theory} = \begin{cases}\text{Electroweak force} = \begin{cases}\text{Electromagnetism} \\ \text{Weak nuclear force}\end{cases} \\ \text{Strong nuclear force} \end{cases} \\ \text{Gravity}\end{cases}[/eqn]

I was just saying if you're going to be retarded enough to say there are only three forces why not go the whole hog

How does this imply anything of the sort? I do not know if we could even begin to comprehend the workings of a universe nothing like our own, let alone claim that ours is more conducive to life than others.

Technically they are all the same force at some point. At room temperature electromagnetism and the weak force are not the same. So if we lump those two together because they merge at high temperatures then we might aswell say there is only the strongravitelectroweak force, and thats just stupid.

Eventually, if non-invasive machinery of the proper precision comes to exist, and we properly understand the brain, we will be able to know.

The question is not useless. It's tied to the most fundamental layers of our understanding of complex particle systems and information manipulation. The universe behaves like a finite state machine.

>Technically they are all the same force at some point.
This is a theory with little evidence beyond the fact that electroweak works and it would be nice if the rest did. It's still entirely possible that gravity is "unique". I don't particularly believe this, but don't take the most accepted theories as factual, it's naive.

>seems awfully convenient
What, that after 14 billion years with a potentially infinite amount of space and nearly unfathomable amounts of energy, you STILL find life a surprise? The fuck????

Why did the universe form in way where gravity doesn't work with the other three?

strong, weak, and EM all work together.

Then there is gravity. Which doesn't play well with others.

red looks like light from one end of the spectrum, violet looks like light from the other.

pain feels like nerves receiving stimuli and sending an electrical impulse to your brain.

the human mind pretty much invented "magic" in a few hundred years and you're saying that the universe with all its potentially infinite resources shouldn't have been able to create oobservation?

how do you know? just because a scientist says so? what makes them so correct? they could fit perfectly together and we are just too stupid to see that the square cant fit into the triangle hole when the triangle is in your other hand