Hello Patrick,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I have read your essay. Yes I think I have found a like-mind! To improve things both encouragements and criticism must go hand-in-hand forming bits, 1 ans 0!

So for the likes (1):

- two states: one existence and one non-existence

- UBs are the most basic constituents of the Universe sphere…

- Basic...

view entire post

Hello Patrick,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I have read your essay. Yes I think I have found a like-mind! To improve things both encouragements and criticism must go hand-in-hand forming bits, 1 ans 0!

So for the likes (1):

- two states: one existence and one non-existence

- UBs are the most basic constituents of the Universe sphere…

- Basic constituents are the smallest of everything and cannot be subdivided. A UB is just a bit of potential information. A UB is not material and does not have a shape as such, but its apparent size, in any directions, is one Planck Length and it FLICKS between existence and non-existence every Planck Time. FANTASTIC.

Compare this with Leibniz statements in his Monadology and you see why this is so:- "1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple

substance. By calling it ‘simple’ I mean that it has no parts,

though it can be a part of something composite.

2. There must be simple substances, because there are composites.

A composite thing is just a collection of simple ones

that happen to have come together.

3. Something that has no parts can’t be extended, can’t have

a shape, and can’t be split up. So monads are the true atoms

of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made.

4. We don’t have to fear that a monad might fall to pieces;

there is no conceivable way it could •go out of existence

naturally." Then concerning your FLICKS above, Liebniz says, "there is no way for a simple substance to •come into existence naturally, for that would involve its being put together, assembled, composed, and a simple substance couldn’t be formed in that way because it has no parts...

So we can say that the only way for monads to begin or end—to come into existence or go out of existence—is •instantaneously, being created or annihilated all at once" [Only the initial 8 paragraphs or so are on physics, the rest are somewhat spiritual).

Then for the dislikes (0), unless I can be convinced otherwise:

1. I think you crammed too much into the essay, by describing how the universe expands and including energy. Although, I agree "No energy is actually created anywhere; it is just the result of an opposition of two worlds".

2. ...we assume that the number of “existence” and “non-existence” CBUs is equal and that they are equally spaced out

- If something can spatially separate existence CBUs then certainly that thing is not non-existent. My take is that nothing spatial or extended (res extensa according to Rene Descartes) can separate the most fundamental UBs which from comparison with Leibniz and the Pythagoreans are monads. This presents a continuous space picture. That brings the puzzle how then a discrete nature of space can be expressed.In my opinion, not by making non-existence CBUs to have dimension but by resorting to the FLICKS which you have identified!

3. Our Universe has only got 3 dimensions: two space dimensions and one dimension which is both space and time.

- I would rather stick with the 3-dimensions for space and maybe add one dimension for time, making 4. We can measure space in metres, in what you units do you measure space-time?

This reply is detailed because we seem to have similar thoughts. Others with similar essays are Roger (advocates a spherical shape) and Manuel (who advocates that existence is not caused by another IT).

All the best in the contest.

Akinbo

*I am yet to go the link you added on 3-D.

view post as summary

Hi Patrick

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Hi Patrick

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

view post as summary

Hello Patrick, this should be into my intention an help:

Lagrangian mechanics is a re-formulation of classical mechanics using Hamilton's principle of stationary action.[1] Lagrangian mechanics applies to systems whether or not they conserve energy or momentum, and it provides conditions under which energy and/or momentum are conserved.[2] It was introduced by the Italian-French...

view entire post

Hello Patrick, this should be into my intention an help:

Lagrangian mechanics is a re-formulation of classical mechanics using Hamilton's principle of stationary action.[1] Lagrangian mechanics applies to systems whether or not they conserve energy or momentum, and it provides conditions under which energy and/or momentum are conserved.[2] It was introduced by the Italian-French mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1788.

In Lagrangian mechanics, the trajectory of a system of particles is derived by solving the Lagrange equations in one of two forms, either the Lagrange equations of the first kind,[3] which treat constraints explicitly as extra equations, often using Lagrange multipliers;[4][5] or the Lagrange equations of the second kind, which incorporate the constraints directly by judicious choice of generalized coordinates.[3][6] The fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations shows that solving the Lagrange equations is equivalent to finding the path for which the action functional is stationary, a quantity that is the integral of the Lagrangian over time.

Into the Italian side this is the same wiki page...



La meccanica lagrangiana è la parte della meccanica razionale che studia i sistemi meccanici le cui equazioni del moto sono formulate tramite le equazioni di Eulero-Lagrange. Questo tipo di formalismo prende il nome da Joseph-Louis Lagrange ed è particolarmente efficace nel descrivere il moto di un insieme di punti materiali soggetti a vincoli.

A tal fine, in questo approccio si rappresenta il sistema meccanico studiato come un punto su di un'opportuna varietà differenziabile, che prende il nome di spazio delle configurazioni e rappresenta l'insieme delle posizioni che il sistema può assumere compatibilmente con i vincoli imposti, le informazioni dinamiche sono invece determinate da una funzione detta lagrangiana che classicamente è data dalla differenza tra l'energia cinetica e l'energia potenziale del sistema studiato, ma può anche avere una forma più generale.

La formulazione lagrangiana della dinamica si fonda essenzialmente sulla teoria delle superfici. In tal senso una superficie ammette diverse rappresentazioni: parametrica, cartesiana e implicita.

What is lost in translation ? : si fonda essenzialmente sulla teoria delle superfici = is essentially based on the theory of surfaces ....

This last element is not present into the English page.

The Lagrangian Mechanics is based on "surface" .

May be this is a starting point for Your theory ...

Another is in the Balmer formula for Hydrogen spectrum:

Lambda = B [m^2( m^2-n^2)] is the same formula for Thermal Efficiency but m and n here are squared and the formula reversed.

I mean, if m is a mass as also n , the Balmer formula squares this mass for the emission . But the Hydrogen atom under measure is a "real" system.

I think to be enough clear, energy is a squared entity

E = m c*c , when mass is unitary , E = 1 c*c.

Into Your formula a single EM wave is the base for a second one .

May be , E = L*c or E = L* L/t ; E = L^2/t .

For an extreme interpretation of relativity , I do not think so extreme.

What remain very strong is, the surface as fundamental element. L^2

After You read this I will tell other...

Cheers.

view post as summary

Dear Patrick Tonin:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”. No one that I know...

view entire post

Dear Patrick Tonin:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”. No one that I know ever said what I say over it and I am convince that I prove that with our clocks we measure “motion” and no “time.

:

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary