The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!

[@wayneyadams]

There is beautiful aspect to Physics that sends chills down my spine. Truly understanding Physics and these relationships at the fundamental level is exciting and gives one an appreciation for the way the universe works like nothing else can. Okay, I'll admit that I am a Physics nerd, but who cares, Physics is beautiful and exciting.

[@rickb1387]

AI is fascinating but can’t hold a candle to the power of the brain. Which is just another food source for insects if it is not alive. At least so far anyway.

[@douglasstrother6584]

In "The Principle of Least Action" ("The Feynman Lectures on Physics", Vol. II, Ch.19), Richard Feynman discusses how his high school physics teacher, Mr. Bader, introduced him to this Principle.

[@tomkerruish2982]

Feynman also mentions (obliquely) how he then extended it to quantum mechanics.

[@silversurfer493]

@@tomkerruish2982 ... closely following the BIG hint given by P.A.M. Dirac. But yes, Feynman's formulation is more intuitive than Dirac's who is a bit more formal and give more "implicit" information, ie. writes for people who know that stuff more or less.

[@SpinStar1956]

SUBSCRIBED!!! Always wanted to study higher level physics but was not able to afford college so high-level explanations like this help someone who was unable to formally study, the ability to at least understand the tie-points. Thanks!

[@ruud9767]

Being a lazy person I approve of the principle of least action.

[@schrodingerbracat2927]

... and the Law of Conservation of Energy too!

[@andersongalvao314]

Greetings from Brazil. I've been listening to your podcasts for quite a while and honestly it's the best podcast I've ever encountered. It's idealistic, well explained, enthusiastic, smart, and also made in a way that is easy to ordinary public to digest these hard topics related to space science. You were born to do this, to present science to a broad range of ordinary people that like me weren't formally initiated in science. Congratulations!

[@hungryformusik]

This principle comes closest to what is called a universal theory. The best part of it is that for any given problem, you can chose coordinates and apply respective coordinate transformations so that the formulation of the promlem gets easiest. And in order to find solutions, it‘s also easier because the resulting differential equations are of first order and not of second order like for example F=ma=m*(d2x/dt2).

[@SolidSiren]

F=ma: acceleration is change in velocity over change in time, and velocity is a change in position over change in time. F = (dp/dt)

[@wayneyadams]

Sometimes a problem can be solved using simple energy relationships like roller coaster problems, or trajectory problems a staple of introductory Physics courses. However, when the problem gets complicated, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Physics is the best and simplest method. We usually don't get into those methods until advanced Mechanics courses, like third year, fourth year, or graduate level classes. The principle of least action is a very powerful and useful concept that should be in every graduate Physics student's toolbox.

[@jefflyon2020]

Thank you Mr.P.M Sutter for explaining to all who tune in, and hopefully don't drop out-about such subjects with a intense yet fun and creative way, without losing me when most prof. might perhaps whip out the dreaded chalk and blackboard. Love your channel and the subjects discussed

[@misterbonzoid5623]

4:48 How is 'the kinetic minus the potential energy' an equation?

[@ValmathWF]

i have a question, is this real or just a represntation. for example, a river if the least action principle is truly a rule the river should just go 1 path but on reality take aloot of path even create lakes, waterfalls, and alot sort of things i know the most of water should run on th mainl path but are aloot other than just ignore that, it that is true for a riven can be for particles or another things ? like watch a weird path that just violate the least action ?

[@valerieharrison6292]

This episode put a great deal of information into a new perspective for me. Thank you!

[@asswhole4195]

I hope he does more like this!

[@EmmanuelBrandt]

in the "why that path?" section, there is a circular explanation, newtonian and lagrangian formulation are equivalent (can be derived one from the other) .

[@knudvaneeden]

one way only.

[@nohithair]

Very difficult topic to discuss to a general audience and yet so important, too. I'm very happy you tried. Enjoyed.

[@nilayvyas668]

Thank you for reading (and maybe answering) this. When black holes merge, don't you create a naked singularity for some time as their gravitational fields overlap, causing the net gravity and many places to be low enough for light and matter to escape?

[@patrickgisler4061]

Yes...and No.

[@michaelsane6136]

This was an excellent presentation. Thank you!

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

About 05:15 _...the core of LAGRANGEian physics is just kinetic minus potential energy. Now, where do we go from there?_ This is onlythe second question I have. My first is: How do we get there in the first place? Why is it the difference rather than e.g. the sum?

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this.

[@markkennedy9767]

But aren't the Lagrangian formulation and the Newtonian formulation as fundamental as each other, where you can go both ways between them: Derive the E-L EOM to get F = ma. Then go the other way from F = ma where the potential energy and kinetic energy are expressions ultimately related to F = ma which we put into the Lagrangian in that nice form. Unless you're saying the minimisation of the action is inherently more fundamental. But is it.

[@loopbackish]

Yes exactly, this video is saying nothing really. It is missing the point that the action is more fundamental because the kinetic energy represents the wavelength of the quantum wavefunction and the path of any macroscopic object follows the constructive interference of the wavefunctions of the component molecules. The wave diffracts due to the potential field. Fundamentally that's why it is true. The way it is explained here, it is just going on about a change in notation which is a mathematical trick but with no physical insight.

[@knudvaneeden]

The principal of least action is 'more' fundamental thus.

[@OneCut1Slash]

Wow, first notification I've got from this channel in months. Funny thing is I was wondering about you yesterday. If you were still uploading.

[@rer9287]

sorry to pic at nits, but didn't you literally call the second law of motion (f=ma) the third law of motion at 1:24?

[@johndoolan9732]

So from that design battery for anything with a reaction produce an energy with how we can capture right now that only 1st edition time will bring

[@claragabbert-fh1uu]

On a constant force-field "wind", 4 particles are "started" from the exact same point: 1 has position, but no velocity; 1 has velocity; 1 has acceleration; 1 has hyperacceleration. As you can see, your "principle of least action" expression is already incomplete by neglecting hyperacceleration. Each is released; each trajectory is plotted. How should any know that their definition of Natural action differs from your definition of least action. Now let any of them have charge, such that they radiate field. Now there is an entropy loss to the force-field "wind". Now add universal background field with constant variances. Niw add energy exchanges between temperate modes, kinetic to vibration to rotation to spin; except for translation, these are not accounted for in your wave-based least-action model.

[@vinayakinusa]

Paul explains it all. Loved this episode. Thanks

[@ChristiaanCorthals]

a mind blowing explanation

[@SpartacusPlanktonpants]

Awesome stuff! If you're into Eastern philosophy you will also recognise this as Wu Wei, the core principal of Daoism.

[@KipIngram]

Where this business of "all the funky paths" gets a LOT more interesting is in Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum theory. It turns out that in that approach you MUST consider ALL of those funky paths in order to predict the right probabilities that you will measure in a program of experiments. So even those funky paths, impossible as they seem, MATTER in the quantum context. It's as though nature DOES consider those paths, along with all the more reasonable ones, when it's deciding exactly how to behave.

[@bubbag3176]

Great topic! Why haven’t I heard famous physicists talk about the least action principle before?

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this.

[@DanyTancou]

BRILLIANT, and brilliantly explained! What an eye opener! Wow, just.. WOW!!! Thank you.

[@polarisproject1568]

You have all these physicists creating all new theories trying to find the answers to life, universe and everything, and along comes Paul saying. "Come on people! 42 = the least action taken."

[@a.neanderthal3222]

This comment makes me so happy.

[@wafikiri_]

It's not Paul's discovery. It's Lagrange's, and that's why Lagrange is so admired. Others are equally admired for their mind-blowing discoveries, e.g., Emmy Nöter, for her discovery that every physical symmetry results in a conservation law. With Lagrangians, you use not masses and accelerations but momenta and positions as variables, and from just one Lagrangian you obtain all the Newtonian-style equations of movement in a stereotyped way.

[@infinitemonkey917]

@@wafikiri_ Apparently you haven't read or seen the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[@realkarfixer8208]

@@wafikiri_ R/woosh

[@wafikiri_]

@@infinitemonkey917 I watched it decades ago and didn't like it a bit. I like real science fiction, not just fantasy and easy gags.

[@sergio3713]

Hello! Not using Newton's F = ma, allow me ask: 1 - Where does the { Action = Integral (K - U)dt} come from? 2 - Where does the {Lagrangian (K - U)} come from? 3 - Can I deduce that I must minimize the Action integral equation from minimizing the potential energy U? 4 - Can you elaborate? Thanks!👋

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this.

[@1themaster1]

If this is the way to construct physical theories, this is also the way how physics should be taught at school instead of blind memorization of equations. Train the kids to think like a scientist, not like a slave.

[@turnupthehubblevolume2878]

Given that the Lagrangian approach can help determine the necessary physics equations, I assume scientists have tried to apply this approach to quantum gravity. Can you explain that approach and the difficulties involved in getting out the final physics equation from that? Is it just that they don't know how to properly define the kinetic and potential energies in that case?

[@white4571]

Here is something fun for me. Engineering vs pure physics. What is practical for a specific purpose and what is the real underlying physics. Do we have a specific problem to solve? Then use what which will solve that specific problem. Do you want to look beyond a specific application and find what will solve any and all specific problems. Forget what will solve specific problems and look for that which solve all problems. We have not yet found that. Let us keep on looking.

[@kenlogsdon7095]

I wondered why the ball was getting bigger. Then it hit me!

[@spinnymathingy3149]

So is this Occams Razor in practice ?

[@nyk9805]

Paul, I watch and I am always learning, but where did you buy that chair, fantastic hugging factor!!

[@KipIngram]

10:30 - But see, I could also say that "The reason that path has the least amount of action is because it is the one that results from F = m*a." See, you can write "F - m*a = 0," and then you can take the expression F - m*a and work backwards from it, and eventually conclude that given the definition of action, that path MUST be a minimum action. And that way of saying is more directly related to physical causation than the way you said it. Historically in physics we have found the equation of motion (the F = m*a) thing first, and then we DEFINE action in that situation to make the principle of least action correct. In mechanical problems it's always kinetic minus potential energy, but in other cases, like when you have magnetic fields, it's different, and we just choose the right definition to MAKE the principle true. So we shouldn't overplay how "magical" this is.

[@knudvaneeden]

One way only.

[@johnmanderson2060]

Eye opening video! Thank you so much 🙏🏻

[@johnburbank9125]

Awesome explanation…you’re a great teacher .. thank you for your interesting, insightful, helpful talk (:

[@The-Singularity-M87]

I study physics lightly as a hobby. I came to some understandings of possibilities in regards to physics both Newtonian, atomic, and quantum, but what this man just said I swear for me is or was a Epiphany like no other. A grand epiphany, but now I have to watch this video like maybe 10 times to have it sink in and then dwell into I believe Newton's calculus, clearly Maxwell's equations, Einstein of course and there's others too many. Either way outstanding outstanding! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 somebody buy this man a drink okay,put it on my tab.

[@goals9535]

Very interesting how you chose to explain this

[@johnbennett1465]

So if we have a single lagrangean equation that covers both General Relativity and Quantum Physics, don't we already have a Grand Unified Theory? So what's the holdup?

[@PaulMSutter]

Different Lagrangians:/

[@davidsoyeren683]

Good explanation!

[@wayneyadams]

I remember a couple of problems we had in graduate Mechanics, one on the midterm exam and the other on the final exam. The midterm was a spring pendulum, not too bad. The final was a different story, it was a wheel connected to a spring which rolled without slipping as it moved with SHM, a rod of length L and mass m, was connected to the rim so that it could swing like a pendulum as the wheel rolled. The problem was to write an equation of motion for the end of the rod. In one problem we had SHM, rotation, and pendulum motion. I think he was a sadist. LOL One other problem was the trajectory of a relativistic projectile. To be honest, it has been so long since I solved problems like these two that I could not do it without many hundreds of hours of study and review.

[@knudvaneeden]

If there is friction then using vectors and forces should thus probably be easier.

[@wayneyadams]

@@knudvaneeden Trust me, nothing about that first problem (wheel) was easy. It had SHM, rotational dynamics, and physical (not simple) pendulum components in the answer.

[@knudvaneeden]

@ Yes, they introduce sometimes some really made up problems in order to make it as complicated as possible.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

It always struck me that the alternative to a universe in which things follow the path of least resistance is one in which things did not, but in trying to picture such a universe the only result I could see is one where the universe self destructs from asymptotic run away energies.

[@ProfFeinman]

This is an advertisement for physics.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

@@ProfFeinman I suspect that you are being sarcastic, but that would suggest that you didn't really read the post. What different alternative could you suggest or are you just implying that my conclusion is naive?

[@netscrooge]

Or a universe that's "enchanted."

[@knudvaneeden]

It is least 'action' instead of least 'resistance'.

[@asswhole4195]

Great video sir, thanks

[@ArtII2Long]

What does it mean to apply the least action principle?

[@knudvaneeden]

To find out why nature chooses certain 'paths' and those path only from a lot of possible paths.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

07:42 _...it follows a parabola._ As long as you can neglect air resistance and wind. However, in this case, NEWTON's law F=ma is not more complicated.

[@knudvaneeden]

Indeed, but in many other situations not.

[@Thrillr]

Ayyy great breakdown mate

[@AG-pm3tc]

My dude, you are so underrated.

[@Filip-ci3ng]

Can mass of a proton be derived from the principle of least action ?

[@knudvaneeden]

No

[@antoniomaraziti4606]

Great video, thank you!

[@Lyra0966]

If you throw a ball straight up and it comes down to the place from which it was thrown, is that also a parabola?

[@knudvaneeden]

yes, squeezed

[@KINGFAROOQ1216]

I said this in a crude way to teach my 5 year old to ride on two wheels, maybe im wrong but i thoight and told her once you go a little fast keep peddling and its easier for the bike to go forward then fall over........ It didnt help, we still had to practice just as much

[@manudehanoi]

I dont quite see how lagrangian can generate physics, because it needs the potential energy and you need F=ma or Maxwell or relativity to calculate the potential energy......so this seems like circular reasoning

[@loopbackish]

Yes it is all circular reasoning, the video doesn't really get to the point of why it is true.

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this.

[@KipIngram]

Well, you do need to remember that F = m*a because that's how we DEFINED F, m, and a. We chose how to define all of these quantities - and then later discovered a lot of cool relationships among them. It's a huge and extremely circular net of definitions, and we worked long and hard to find the set of definitions that worked well across all the myriad different physical phenomena we have watched happen in the world. So it's not like the universe finds the least action path and then creates forces as needed to execute that path. That's how it looks, but really it's just what you said earlier: these formulations are all mathematically equivalent, and it just turns out that the forces of nature, which are more "primarily causal," produce kinetic and potential energy changes that are compatible with this, because the Lagrangian formulation is just a mathematical manipulation of the differential equations. It's important to keep the causal structure in mind when you think about things like least action, or else you'll get yourself confused. When you turn on a laser, for example, and aim it obliquely at a water surface, somewhere down in the water you will detect that laser beam. And lo and behold, you discover that the path the beam followed to get there is the path of least time. Great. But the laser didn't "choose that path" in order to get to that spot in the least amount of time. First, you chose where the beam would hit the surface by the way you aimed the laser. And then the transition into the water is what it is because of physics happening RIGHT THERE - completely local physics, that has to do with the fact that surfaces perpendicular to the direction of beam motion have to have constant phase. Then the beam reached the detection point because that's how it was aimed now that it's in the water. Looking back on the whole situation afterward, with the starting and ending points GIVEN risks distracting you from the local physics that is in control, causally, throughout the beam's progress. What you could do, that might make more sense, is to start out with "here is where my laser is, and here is where my detector is. Now, how do I need to aim the laser to make the light come to the detector." Then the least action principle will tell you where, on the surface, to aim your laser to that it winds up at the detector. That's an actual APPLICATION of the principle, because it's telling you how to adjust something you control in order to get something you want.

[@knudvaneeden]

F = m . a is a 'law'. See the definition of a law thus.

[@europhile2658]

In a documentary like this you could have defined what "action" is or the Lagrangian for that matter

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this.

[@grantofat6438]

But why are the formulas for kinetic and potential energy correct?

[@knudvaneeden]

Empirical determined correct to choose over hundreds of years.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

But, then, why not have the action, A, be sqrt( (KE)^2 + (PE)^2) / ( (KE/PE)^4 + 1) and then minimize THAT? I wrote A specifically so that is dimensionally consistent and has dimensions of energy. I'm just making the point that: you asked "Why F=m*a?" "Why the Einstein field equations?" "Why Maxwell's equations?" AND NOT SOME OTHER rules/differential equations, and proceeded to explain how they get derived from minimizing the action given by A = KE - PE. But that just moves the question back to: why A = KE-PE and NOT SOME OTHER expression? Why even energies? Why not momentums? Why not velocities? Why not the absolute temperature divided by the lumens emitted?

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this.

[@user-vl4vo2vz4f]

B R A V O ! Hands down, your best video ever.

[@xgalarion8659]

Got me interested because it' kind of overlaps with taoism.

[@paulsutton5896]

I am very happy with kinetic energy. I am very happy with potential energy. They are in a sense, the first integral of Newton's equations. I am happy with the principle of least action. What I have never understood is why, in combining these two energies, Lagrange SUBTRACTS one from the other. That is not at all obvious. Lagrange might as well have started from specifying his inside leg measurement.

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this. Sum( m v s ) can be written as Sum( m v v dt ) or Sum( m v^2 dt ) or thus Sum( 2 . 1/2mv^2 . dt) or Sum( 2 T dt ) or Sum( ( T + T ) dt ) or using E = T + V, thus T = E - V as Sum( ( T + ( E - V ) ) dt ) or thus Sum( ( T - V ) dt ) + Sum( E dt ), the latter can be shown to be zero for certain conditions regarding energy and time, which leaves Sum( ( T - V ) . dt ) or thus using Lagrangian L = T - V you get Sum( L . dt ) or more general Integral( L . dt ). You call that integral the 'action'. Where you look for is thus that path which makes this 'action' minimal (if 0) or stationary (if 0 but on a saddle). So T - V follows directly from Maupertuis principle.

[@garysymons3930]

great video ,

[@nancyhope2205]

Awesome!

[@SolidSiren]

F=ma shows up EVERYWHERE! Just like the Pythagorean theorem can be derived in many ways and shows up equivalently in places you wouldn't immediately consider.

[@SPV66]

At 1:15 Newton's F = ma is not the "... classic third law of motion ..." F = ma is Newton's Second Law *Newton's Third Law is the action/reaction law

[@knudvaneeden]

Correct, 2nd law

[@UserName-f7x]

Como podria una persona perde su voluntad de alguna manera o como disen labarles el serebro para que agan lo que tu les digas como un casco

[@nicu_danciu]

Excellent teacher!!!!

[@Raylative]

That was awesome

[@rickb1387]

If you have to use math to calculate where to step each time you take a step, you could never move. So this means that the least action to see the ball and calculate each motion required to catch it, is exactly why we can prove life. The attempt to prove how to SIMULATE and execute each movement we make being totally ignorant of any math at all. Yet it is assumed that we are Quantitive. Amazing that we try to quantify everything. Even life. Fascinating. It also appears to me ,that the least action calculation is valid with controlling of objects through quantitive calculation, but that AI will never be able to function as our brains do in that we need no math to catch a ball. We can determine it’s path instantly. That would be the least action required, yes???

[@infinitemonkey917]

My takeaway is that nature likes efficiency.

[@LyubomirIko]

Physics and math is full with tautology. Because apple trees produse apples - My takeaway is that they like to produse apples. Does I really deduce answer why apples are like that, why they exist in the first place or anything at all? At least with more better questions - you can deduce more about apples. But with the axioms of the Universe we seems to hit on hard tautology.

[@luminousfractal420]

What i really want to know..is how fast is the universe travelling, and how is that affecting our time dilation. Does it flow like water (in which case there may be time slipstreams we can travel with, ..think that weird acceleration some space craft suffer..that would be the angle of ascent/descent in relation to the universal speed no?) Also given all the evidence of nature, the universe has to be rotating around something as well as possibly traveling in a linear direction. Which would suggest the microwave background is just a veil/limit and the universe continue far beyond it, possibly circling back on us. I would laugh if we got a quadruple gravity lens and saw earth in the distance 🤣 There is no correct until the final quark. Its all relative

[@YvesJonckheere]

Wow, how mind blowing!! "Why F=ma"? Love it.

[@asterixx6878]

With Newton's laws, formulas for the kinetic and potential energy are easily derived. Is it possible to derive the formulas using the 'principle of least action'? If not, then in the 'principle of least action' you use Newton's 2nd law to derive Newton's 2nd law?!

[@knudvaneeden]

Newton laws are about forces. So energy is not explicitly included in those Newton laws.

[@asterixx6878]

@@knudvaneeden Let's say we have a simple mass/spring system. L = T - V T = 0,5*m*(dx/dt)^2 and V=0,5*k*x. Where does the expressions for T and V come from?

[@knudvaneeden]

@@asterixx6878 Explaining the origin of both terms: 1) For the kinetic energy T = 1/2m(dx/dt)²: - This comes from the fundamental definition of kinetic energy for any mass m moving with velocity v: T = 1/2mv² Note: Historically the origin of this kinetic energy formula goes back to Leibniz, Huygens, Descartes, ... - In this case, v = dx/dt (the rate of change of position) - So substituting v = dx/dt gives T = 1/2m(dx/dt)² 2) For the potential energy V = 1/2kx²: - This comes from Hooke's Law: F = -kx (the force is proportional to displacement) - To get potential energy, we integrate the force: V = -Integral( F dx ) = -Integral(-kx) dx - Integrating -(-kx) gives us 1/2kx² + constant - We typically choose the constant to be zero since only changes in potential energy matter The key physical principles here are: - Kinetic energy depends on mass and velocity squared (a fundamental principle from Newtonian mechanics) - Spring force is proportional to displacement (Hooke's empirical law) - Potential energy is related to force through integration (a fundamental principle of conservative forces)

[@knudvaneeden]

@@asterixx6878 Explaining the origin of both terms: 1) For the kinetic energy T = 1/2m(dx/dt)²: - This comes from the fundamental definition of kinetic energy for any mass m moving with velocity v: T = 1/2mv² Note: Historically the kinetic energy formula for T goes back to Leibniz, Huygens, Descartes, ... - In this case, v = dx/dt (the rate of change of position) - So substituting v = dx/dt gives T = 1/2m(dx/dt)² 2) For the potential energy V = 1/2kx²: - This comes from Hooke's Law: F = -kx (the force is proportional to displacement) - To get potential energy, we integrate the force: V = -Integral( F dx ) = -Integral(-kx) dx - Integrating -(-kx) gives us 1/2kx² + constant - We typically choose the constant to be zero since only changes in potential energy matter The key physical principles here are: - Kinetic energy depends on mass and velocity squared (a fundamental principle from Newtonian mechanics) - Spring force is proportional to displacement (Hooke's empirical law) - Potential energy is related to force through integration (a fundamental principle of conservative forces)

[@johndunn5272]

What about the principal of the probability of self revealing reality...

[@SaturnWisdom]

Taoism core principle is "The Principle of Least Action" It is named Wu Wei.

[@knudvaneeden]

That is something complete different, even if they use the same words (=least action).

[@knudvaneeden]

@ Action is the outcome of the calculation of a specific integral while Wu Wei is some human condition.

[@knudvaneeden]

@@SaturnWisdom Looking purely at definitions of least action in Taoism and least action in physics they should not really match fully thus. I will now close the question from my end.

[@sookendestroy1]

Isnt this the same as the path of least resistance

[@knudvaneeden]

No, path of least 'action' or thus least value of this Integral( ( T - V ) .dt ), where T - V is the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy.

[@YNVNEone]

This video could have been half its length!

[@lostpianist]

The universe is efficient, saves time and energy, almost like its a simulation…

[@O0kalā]

My path, so Lagrangian.

[@stevemonkey6666]

You should sell that t-shirt 🤔. You could then wear all of physics

[@markusmencke8059]

Want one too!

[@Am33304]

The tortures of maths and physics give you an approximation of reality. Conceptual understanding does without that maths structure and produces another description. People who know physics, such as Richard Feynman, have cognizance of concepts that are representative of maths, and vice-versa. Gravity on earth changes the numbers and the concepts. I have a feeling that the reason for cosmology’s obsession with long distances in space and infinitesimally small particles in colliders has to do with avoiding this terribly confusing aspect of the universe. Without gravity calculations are as nearly precise as can be found, and the maths simplified greatly for presentation purposes (papers, written formulae and scripted equations, speaking events, teaching). Then there are of course the conditions on earth Somewhat unfortunately, a model of any terrestrial event loses its appeal for physicists almost completely. I think that not only do maths and physics help greatly with reckoning on earth, the languages of chemistry, biology and meteorology can subtly modify theoretical constructs because there isn’t a vacuum and without one a further study of axioms, principles and ongoing perhaps modified stresses. In any event, the commonly-accepted presuppositions of the irrelevance of gravity and the negligibility of expansion as a contributor to tiny objects and motions will have to be reviewed. “Sensitive dependence on initial conditions”, as referred to frequently (SDIC) in chaos theory, remains largely overlooked in absolute theory. We ought to prepare ourselves to recognize the implications of Planck Length’s precision at unheard-of negative factors. It may be too hot to improve on, but the tiniest of the tinies may represent more (particularly in its extended influence on) of a demonstrable difference in the calculation of much larger actions and objects. Just how “sensitive” is our dependence on initial conditions when we don’t have a precise measurement or understanding of those initial conditions? Conceptual “reckoning” of reality might improve or possibly replace maths reckoning when data or numbers aren’t available. Or we could relentlessly keep extending the design and production of telescopes and colliders. I don’t think maths or traditional physics are going to get us to a theory of everything when expansion and microscopy can’t be precise. With an additional conceptual framing of reality it might work. What deduction can’t prove, induction can render manageably understood. All of this is an hypothetical extension of Feynman’s intuition that “everything” might be expressible as a few words in a readily understood prose sentence or so. He was responding to his own astonishment at the amounts of calculation there are within the smallest area of space, which left him briefly skeptical of putting “everything” in math and physics terms. Conceptual induction may reveal more, unshackled by the constraints of numbers, which, we remember, paint only an approximation of reality. The Standard Model is also “only a model”. If it should turn out that a conceptually-based and linguistically-expressed “model” does describe everything acceptably, we should also consider its applications in earth science and day-to-day existence. If telescopes and colliders are the treble and bass voices of harmony, the world as we know it might provide the tenor and alto voices. And all of their harmonies overtones and undertones…analogously speaking, of course. ❤️. Sincerely, Jeff.

[@jasonstewart2153]

It sounds very simple in this situation, sitting on the Earth

[@JRichardson711]

Sounds like a theory of everything to me, or at least a parameter in it.

[@rer9287]

this is correct

[@mykrahmaan3408]

If what you say is true, then why is this principle accepted as THE theory of everything, the holy grail of physics?

[@lr937]

The universe created out of nothing sounds like me trying to start a business with no money😂😂😂

[@theharmonichaoticartist]

And if we accept morphic resonance, we influence the possibility space through ritual and magic is real-

[@davidsoyeren683]

Wow

[@tedfulsaas6266]

Could have gone to, Occam's razor..., states that the simplest explanation is preferable to one that is more complex. Simple theories are easier to verify. Simple solutions are easier to execute. Sir William of Ockham as a Catholic priest. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made flesh. and dwelt among us." ...It's the simplest explaination.

[@BrennanYoung]

What happens when you kick a ball? That's answered by classical physics. What happens when you kick a dog? That's answered by cybernetics. (Unless you kick very hard, in which case, go ahead with the physics).

[@BANKO007]

Right, but almost no one explains the insight as to WHY we invented kinetic minus potential energy.

[@knudvaneeden]

See Maupertuis principle 'm v s' minimize that is the origin of all this. Sum( m v s ) can be written as Sum( m v v dt ) or Sum( m v^2 dt ) or thus Sum( 2 . 1/2mv^2 . dt) or Sum( 2 T dt ) or Sum( ( T + T ) dt ) or using E = T + V, thus T = E - V as Sum( ( T + ( E - V ) ) dt ) or thus Sum( ( T - V ) dt ) + Sum( E dt ), the latter can be shown to be zero for certain conditions regarding energy and time, which leaves Sum( ( T - V ) . dt ) or thus using Lagrangian L = T - V you get Sum( L . dt ) or more general Integral( L . dt ). You call that integral the 'action'. Where you look for is thus that path which makes this 'action' minimal (if 0) or stationary (if 0 but on a saddle). So T - V follows directly from Maupertuis principle.

[@johnclawed]

The ball follows an ellipse with the center of mass of earth at one focus. It would be a parabola if earth was flat.

[@knudvaneeden]

No, it is a parabola and a parabola is not an ellipse (different equations).

[@shesagoodgirl]

wow

[@haltomj]

The shortest path is the path of least resistance. It is the path that nature chooses all around us. It's the only way.

[@knudvaneeden]

Resistance and action are different things by definition.

[@TheDanEdwards]

Never much liked the phrase "laws of physics". The entire use of "law" in physical science goes way back and is influence by religious beliefs. A better, IMO, way to think of these things is that we humans have discovered some traits of the universe that we, using our language abilities, have put into coherent descriptions.

[@knudvaneeden]

That might be another description of what a law in fact is.

[@stevenzheng5459]

Principle of least principle is like "wu wei" in the Dao of physics.

[@knudvaneeden]

No different things, same words (=least action)

[@DanielBrice7f58a6]

I mean... when I look at a "physical situation," I call the police

[@lowersaxon]

Thats Sir Isaac‘s s e c o n d law.

[@knudvaneeden]

Correct

[@jeffreagan2001]

Your lampshade is crooked. Please fix it by first finding the shortest path.

[@AngelAuras]

…you’re obviously Kevin Spacey lol