Unfortunately this website (and the cheat sheet here) seems to be motivated and evidenced at least in part by the speculative theories of the author so it is difficult for the layperson to determine what here is of value.<p>For example, the derivation of General Relativity (quite a significant part of physics!) apparently follows from the author's own "Maximum Force" theory in Item (3).<p>ps. previously discussed:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30733666">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30733666</a>
To anyone interested in learning physics, I suggest reading <a href="https://www.susanrigetti.com/physics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.susanrigetti.com/physics</a><p>Do not try to learn anything from the submitted article, it promotes a, shall we say, "non-traditional" view of physics that is unlikely to be helpful.
Relevant Feynman: <a href="https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_25.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_25.html</a><p>(At the bottom, cf. “unworldliness”)<p>Physicist here, I don’t want to be too dismissive because reducing physics down to its basic principles is part of the game. However, I’m not sure this covers everything. We need a description or at least characterization of 4D Minkowski space. Continuity and even differentiability of functions is assumed. I also am not sure that canonical quantization is covered by this list. Quantizing the EM field, for example, is a big pain and not simply implied by the EM Lagrangian or even any quantization rules. I do not think you can go from this list to non-commuting Hermitian operators acting on a Hilbert space.
Similar stuff by this guy already posted here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32367085">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32367085</a>
It is a crackpot pseudoscience.
Line 1:<p><pre><code> > Action W = ∫ L dt is minimized in local motion. The lines below fix the two fundamental Lagrangians L.
</code></pre>
Well, you lost me. As a non-physicist maybe I'm not ready for the distillation of the field into 9 lines.
This is kind of like "LLaMa implemented in 9 lines of Python" and 8 of those 9 lines are import statements followed by a huge one-liner composing library functions<p>If civilization were to collapse tomorrow and the survivors were left in the stone age with "All of Physics in 9 lines", it would arguably be useless. There's so much missing/buried context.
I'm not a physicist, so I'm not really qualified to comment on whether a "real physicist" would say the fundamental assertion is true or not, but from a simple linguistics point of view, this article is pure click bait.<p>At school, I studied physics for 7 years. Nothing I was taught is hinted at by any of these 9 points, or at least in any way I'm able to recognise after receiving all that teaching, except perhaps some of the constants (they're not listed, but I assume there will be an overlap). Did I, in fact, learn absolutely nothing about physics in all those 7 years? It's much more likely to be the case that from a simple linguistics point of view, these 9 lines do not contain "all of physics", but rather than just the parts of physics that the author considers to be the most fundamental. Maybe if you have decades of highly specialised study you have a chance of remembering most of the rest of what's needed to fill in all the (known) gaps and assumptions those 9 lines are based on and hint at. And the fact that each "line" links to an entire volume that tries to fill in those gaps (I have no idea if they succeed in doing that or not), shows that this isn't anywhere close to what it claims to be.<p>It's about as vacuous a statement as trying to summarise all of maths as "the set of all possible sets" or all of philosophy as "cogito ergo sum".
Funny. I feel like this is a highly compressed description of physics.<p>Only that the codec needed to actually decompress (understand) it is huge.<p>Edit: from an information theory perspective.
Whatever equation you have, bring everything to the left side, define a new variable Ω as whatever you have on the left side. Behold the ultimate theory of the universe.<p><pre><code> Ω = 0</code></pre>
> No known observation and no known measurement contradicts these 9 lines, not even in the last significant digit.<p>Surely this is technically incorrect; there are countless observations that disagree with these 9 lines. We just suspect they are caused by measurement or operator error. There is evidence of all sorts of impossible things if you stick to just what is recorded. There can't be that many machines capable of measuring the extreme least-significant digit of these constants.
Which of these talks about the speed of light being constant for all frames of reference? This to me is one of the most fundamental and bizarre aspects of the universe.
Non-physicist here. Was hoping this would do something for me, but unfortunately... Very first line, I look up "Lagrangian" to see what L means, and I get ten different definitions: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian</a>. I'm guessing it's the one that says kinetic minus potential energy, but that seems arbitrary (unlike the sum which would be total energy). Couldn't this be more specific?<p>Most of the other lines have terms/constants/variables that I've never heard of or don't remember from school, and usually it's "Lagrangian" again. I don't know what it means to fix, restrict, yield, or complete a Lagrangian. I could keep reading about that, but at this point I don't think I'm learning physics the right way. If there's one thing I remember from class, it's that there aren't many shortcuts here; usually you have to start at fundamentals and prove your way up.<p>Also, idk how entropy ≥ (some constant) implies thermodynamics, and seems the physicists here don't see it either.
I was trained as a physicist and I love physics, but I believe it is a genuinely open question whether all these laws, which probably do encompass physics per se as we know it, actually therefor encompass the whole world.<p>If you genuinely believe in <i>emergent</i> phenomena, then these laws genuinely <i>do not</i> describe all the things that happen in the universe. I do not believe in emergence in this form, but some philosophers of science do.
> The 9 lines contain all natural sciences. They contain physics, chemistry, material science, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy and all engineering disciplines.<p>so, can you go from these to predict the structure of DNA/RNA and predicting how they work?<p>also, I don't like the use of "nature" as some sort of concious entity that prefers some behaviors to others.
This is not “all of physics” because we are still pretty far from deriving all physics from the microscopic scale: there's still a good chunk of physics that relies on macro-scale empirically-derived formulas. For instance: fluid mechanics and granular material mechanics.
Too bad that quantum and relativity don't go together, and most probably all the listed equations are wrong at the conceptual level: the concepts that are denoted by the letters do not exist.
> <i>What determines the principles in lines 1 to 5? They imply that there is a smallest length and time interval.</i><p>I would love if someone could elaborate this point.
Unreadable on iOS 16.6 and browser Firefox 116.2 (33536). Text overflows right border and can’t be scrolled<p>Toggle “ask for desktop version” doesn’t make any difference