Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

alena lis: on 8/2/16 at 9:11am UTC, wrote I agree that the nature will take always the road if we cannot solve or if...

Amrit Sorli: on 11/4/15 at 21:33pm UTC, wrote Hawking genious is solving problems about black holes that do not exist. ...

Don Limuti: on 10/30/15 at 4:42am UTC, wrote What a great thread! I'm just looking at it and am glad to see so many...

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/29/15 at 15:12pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, You "see no point in further discussion." Shouldn't we agree on...

Akinbo Ojo: on 10/29/15 at 9:05am UTC, wrote "If Sidney Redner's statement "RELATIVE TO YOU, THE WAVES TRAVEL AT A...

Pentcho Valev: on 10/29/15 at 0:27am UTC, wrote "In the case of the observer, unless what you mean is the resultant speed" ...

Akinbo Ojo: on 10/28/15 at 13:39pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, It is unfair to continuously repost what you cannot defend or...

Amrit Sorli: on 10/28/15 at 6:10am UTC, wrote without introducing quantum vacuum in physics there will be no progress.


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: New Podcast: Hawking Solves a Black Hole Paradox, Closing Quantum Loopholes, Saving the World & more [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 31, 2015 @ 16:21 GMT
Phew, we have a lot of ground to cover in this month's podcast.

Springer/FQXi
In the news round-up, Brendan and I discuss Hawking's new idea for solving the black hole information paradox, which he trailed in Sweden last week. It builds on holography, the idea from string theory that a lower dimensional copy of what falls into the black hole sits at the boundary of the black hole, that is at the event horizon. (You can read more about that idea in Sophie Hebden's article profiling FQXi member Andrew Strominger, "The Cosmic Hologram". Strominger has collaborated with Hawking on this new proposal, along with Cambridge University's Malcolm Perry.)

At the time of recording the podcast and posting this blog, we still do not know the details of this new theory. But there are promises that Hawking and his colleagues will be posting a paper on this soon. We'll update with more, as it appears. But the person to watch for the latest seems to be FQXi member Sabine Hossenfelder, who was at Hawking's talk, and is following developments over at her blog, Backreaction.

(Update 4 September 2015, Hawking's paper "The Information Paradox for Black Holes" has now been posted to the arXiv arXiv:1509.01147v1. This has slightly more detail than his talk, but apparently there is a still longer paper, written with Strominger and Perry, to come.)

Feel free to discuss the latest reactions to that, on this thread.

With help from Matt Leifer, an FQXi member and quantum physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Brendan and I also run through the loophole-free Bell test that I blogged about last week, which seems to close the door on local realism (though I can see healthy debate about that on that thread).

On to our in-depth interviews: Reporter Carinne Piekema follows up her article and podcast interview with Keith Schwab last month on combining quantum mechanics and gravity in the lab, by chatting with Harvard's Igor Pikovski about an FQXi-funded project to discover whether time dilation -- the stretching of time due to gravity, in particular, in this case -- causes the quantum world to collapse into the classical one. (Read some of the background to this in reporter Sophie Hebden's profile of group member Caslav Brukner, "Time Dilation Gets a Quantum Twist.")

Free Podcast

Hawking claims to solve black hole paradox & quantum spookiness passes toughest loophole-free test yet; relativity could cause quantum collapse; 5 steps for saving the world; quantum thermodynamics; & the physics filmmaker.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Next up, it's Sabine Hossenfelder, of the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, who, when she's not busy researching quantum gravity and blogging about Hawking, has been thinking about a way to make humans appreciate the best advice for saving the planet (and ourselves) and *crucially* to get them to act on it. That was the focus of her 2014 first-prize-winning entry in our "How to Steer Humanity" essay contest. Brendan caught up with Hossenfelder at the New Directions meeting in Washington, DC, recently, and asked her about how that plan is coming along.

And, if you enjoyed Hossenfelder's essay, and those of our other winners, then you'll be pleased to hear that the third compilation volume in our series with Springer, will be coming out in the next month, and is available for pre-order now.

We're back to the atomic realm with our next segment, in which UCL physicist Jonathan Oppenheim tells reporter Colin Stuart about how -- as engineers build nanorobots and tiny devices to be implanted in the body -- it is important to try to understand if quantum objects have their own thermodynamical laws. You can read more about that quest in Colin's article, "The Quantum Thermodynamical Revolution."

And finally, how do you make thrillers about physics? Who better to ask than physicist and filmmaker Dagomir Kaszlikowski, of the Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore? Kaszlikowski tells Brendan about how his childhood in communist Poland influenced him in his pursuit of both science and moviemaking, what he hopes his FQXi award-winning film "Seeing Without Looking" achieved, and if he was forced to choose between his two passions now, which he would pick.

You can read about Kaszlikowski's research, on "quantum contextually," in this article by Nicola Jones, who also talks about the practical applications of this branch of quantum theory, for computing. ("Quantum in Context.") And you can, of course, watch "Seeing Without Looking," which also stars FQXi member Vlatko Vedral as a criminal physicist, here.



(Updating on 1 September to add that Malcolm Perry's talk about Hawking's work is now available (below). Thanks to Sabine Hossenfelder for alerting me.)



Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 1, 2015 @ 00:49 GMT
Sabine,

If there is no "free will", then whatever will be will be. You were always going to say what you said in the podcast, and people are/were always going to do what they do.

According to what I think is your version of reality, nothing new, nothing creative, nothing outside the box ever happens. In fact according to what I think is your version of reality, what happens is determined by the straitjacket of the laws-of-nature: it's not people that act – it's merely the unfolding of the laws.

Unless you consider that "free will"/creativity exists – that people can actually have some effect on reality, then it is pointless taking what you say seriously.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 1, 2015 @ 15:21 GMT
Bumping this thread because I've updated the post to include a newly available video of Malcolm Perry's talk on the new Hawking black hole idea.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 16:02 GMT
Hello dear Ms Merali,

A black hole is not really a hole but a sphere.This sphere permits to recycle the informations, bosonic if I can say and furthermore this sphere permits to create black particules.It is essential for the gravitation and its stability at the universal scale. The universe , a sphere, and its central sphere, the most important black sphere, implies a logic for the rotation around it for galaxies , stars and planets.

The black particles are so complex in their analyzes,it exists so many kind of black particles.

The dark mass is essential for the rotation of galaxies and its gravitation.The quantum entanglement is in the same logic if and only if we have a pure finite number for the system of uniquity.

My two humble équations help.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 1, 2015 @ 23:23 GMT
Sabine,

If human "actions" are merely the unfolding of laws-of-nature (or worse if human "actions" are sometimes random), then human beings are not actually acting: it’s 100% the laws-of-nature that are acting.

If laws-of-nature 100% rule, then there is no anthropogenic climate change: there is only law-of-nature-caused climate change.

It's clear that many people are schizophrenic about this: on the one hand they deny that human beings can actually act, and on the other hand they believe in anthropogenic climate change.

To act is to have some effect on reality that is not 100% attributable to laws-of-nature. To act is to create something new: something representable as a new one-off law-of-nature.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 15:28 GMT
Hello dear Ms Ford,

In all case , it is time to change our global solutions because we are going to add several chaotic exponentials in the future. Us, the humans have the^possibility to harmonyze and to improve in a real universality, so where is the problem, perhaps in the bad governances simply...

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 15:50 GMT
I agree that the nature will take always the road if we cannot solve or if we disappear, but we have the possibility to solve. We are catalyzers of spherisation and travellers from stars. The souls continue their roads but can we accept the sufferings ,no evidently. The evolution has created the intelligence and this intelligence is a tool. The energy is infinite with the adds, the space also in a cosmologicalvue.So why are we in this state at thismoment on Earth..... BAD GOVERNANCE SIMPLY. It is time to create a global commission with universalists from everywhere. They have the solution.The problem is simply because it exists a lot of unconsciousness in high sphères of governance.They exist these global solutions.These solutions can decrease the sufferings and the stupidities.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 12:52 GMT
Hello Steve,

Do you mean that human beings have free will and the ability create new solutions?

Cheers,

Lorraine

P.S. How is your garden?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 17:54 GMT
My solution to the black hole information paradox has been published in Annals of Physics, while my last result on my Bohr-like black hole model has been accepted for publication in Classical and Quantum Gravity. This happened despite FQXi Panel did not recognize my results on these issues.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 18:40 GMT
Hi Christian,

That's great news, congratulations on your publications.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 18:50 GMT
hello dear Mr Corda and Ms Merali,

Congratulations for your publication,you merit it.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 19:40 GMT
Hi Zeeya and Steve,

Thanks for your congrats.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 20:07 GMT
Twin Paradox: Einstein's 1918 Paper

Before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the traveling-twin-is-younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis taking into account only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The youthfulness of the traveling twin was totally unjustifiable - the stationary twin sees his brother's clock running slow, the traveling twin sees...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 02:46 GMT
Thank you for pointing to an easily understandable attempt of defense. "Nobody doubts the "reality" of kinetic energy, otherwise the very reality of energy would have to be denied." May I agree? No. Common sense tells me that kinetic energy relates to the chosen point under consideration. Once this point has been chosen, this precludes choosing a different one. Therefore my essays questioned the postulated by Einstein special relativity. This does not mean that I "dispense with the coordinate system". While the reference point in space can arbitrarily be chosen, elapsed time has in reality a natural reference, the border between past and future.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 07:30 GMT
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that stationary clocks tick both faster and slower than moving ones. Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

Ants spread out on a closed polygonal line

Scenario 1: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY.

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant is travelling along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Scenario 2: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line.

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the clock of a single stationary ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities (stationary clocks tick both faster and slower than moving ones) and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 14:11 GMT
Pentcho,

We certainly agree on that GR claims to be based on SR and the postulates of SR are questionable. Virtually all experts are ignoring your attack on the second postulate, the postulate of constant c, perhaps mainly because constant c seems to be experimentally well confirmed and GR might render it a special case.

Some proponents of SR claimed that the second postulate and the first one, the so called postulate of relativity, are not independent from each other.

Anyway, I feel forced to question the first one no matter whether the second is correct or wrong.

Isn't your ants paradox also based on the violated logical necessity to choose only one common point of reference? I see again split thinking as also in case of so called conventional Poincaré synchronization. By the way, I am ignorant about the outcome of the petition concerning the twin paradox that was signed by many experts. IIRC they were as many as 100 or more.

The majority declared them morons. Glorifications by a majority remind me of a horrible German misleader of the majority by declaring: Whether 300 000 or 400 000 this does not matter at all; 10 millions are required for that (making Germany a great nation again). The majority of Germans was excited and followed him until the bitter end. Forgive me if I feel already huge military parades and glorifications of veterans a crimes.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ST wrote on Sep. 2, 2015 @ 20:10 GMT
Re effects of gravitational fields on quantum coherence and superposition, are there any plans for experiments investigating quantum phenomena on the ISS and/or other satellites? Might entanglement be more robust by entangling particles/atoms on two orbiting satellites? Are there questions that might be better answered by studying superposition, entanglement, other quantum phenomena under conditions of more robust coherence? Superposition of bigger molecules? Coherence at higher temperatures? Planet-wide quantum teleportation? Or would the impact of gravity minimization be counteracted by effects of relative velocity?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 16:07 GMT
Eckard,

"Virtually all experts are ignoring your attack on the second postulate, the postulate of constant c"

Yes, but then they inadvertently refute it. The discussion of the Doppler effect in light (moving observer), even when taking into account relativistic effects, unavoidably leads to the conclusion that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. There are countless examples, just three of them:

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 04:17 GMT
Pentcho,

While a women can evidently give birth to her own grandchild, I consider Wheeler wrong when he tried to deny the causal direction.

You quoted Baumgarte:"the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

Although I don't agree with the last sentence because I am convinced that any abstracted model is by definition incomplete, I agree with the first statement and merely add that correct measurement includes due systematic correction. Movement of emitter or observer is therefore irrelevant. There is evidently no influence of a hypothetical medium on the speed of light in vacuum. My definition of c makes your "velocity relative to the observer" pointless.

Mixing your obvious to me logical flaw with perhaps correct evidence for weak influence of acceleration or gravity, you got into a deadlock. Why do you still refuse dealing quantitatively with claimed measured upper limits to the mass of a photon?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 06:20 GMT
"My definition of c makes your "velocity relative to the observer" pointless."

Congratulations, Eckard!

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 21:43 GMT
It's clear that 99% of physicists are in effect anthropogenic climate change deniers.

Physics says that human beings have no effect at all on physical reality: physical reality is 100% driven by laws-of-nature i.e. it is laws-of-nature that effect physical reality, NOT human beings.

Physics says that Sabine's podcast words are merely the unfolding of laws-of-nature, and any responses to her words, including my response, are also merely the unfolding of laws-of-nature.

Physics says that there is no way to creatively circumvent the physical outcomes that will be determined by laws-of-nature.

99% OF PHYSICISTS ARE IN EFFECT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS. FACT.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 3, 2015 @ 22:47 GMT
Zeeya,

"I don't think we are systematically avoiding discussion of Einstein's relativity, Pentcho. On the contrary, it comes up again and again"

Let me demonstrate the kind of discussion I would like to see. Here is a quote from FQXi member Steve Giddings:

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

The topic of the discussion with Steve Giddings would be: "Can we retire spacetime without questioning the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate?"

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 08:54 GMT
Motion seconded.

On Prof. Baumgarte...

"But special relativity describes physics in the absence of gravity,..."

Incredible! So the earth's gravity on which Special relativity postulate was crafted has suddenly disappeared during the theoretical and experimental crafting of the theory?

“The GPS system in your cellphone would not work without general relativity,” Prof. Baumgarte said.

But expert with numerous patents on the GPS technology, Ron Hatch, who knows better says otherwise. Google: Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, Ron Hatch or Ruyong Wang. There are so many publications on the internet. Some are free to read.

So who are our upcoming young children planning a career in physics to believe?

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 7, 2015 @ 18:30 GMT
Rejecting spacetime while worshiping the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate... Do we all live in a schizophrenic world?

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 10:13 GMT
Today Hawking posted his solution in arxiv.org/abs/1509.01147. He claims that "the information is stored in a supertranslation associated with the shift of the horizon that the ingoing particles caused". Thus, his solution is similar to my proper one, because I can similarly claim that "the information is stored in the quasi-normal modes associated with the shifts of the horizon that the ingoing particles caused". But my result is more precise. In fact, Hawking also claims that "The varying shifts along each generator of the horizon leave an imprint on the outgoing particles in a chaotic but deterministic manner" while I show that the time evolution of the quasi-normal modes is governed by a precise Schrodinger equation in a way that the information is encoded in the correspondent wave function, see my review arxiv.org/abs/1503.00565 for details .

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 10:37 GMT
Hello Mr Corda,

I am persuaded that informations are recycled and sent with black particules for a real evolution spherisation of improvement about quatum encoding.

The equation of Schrödinger is relevant in all case, the objectivity is always relevant.Congratulations for your relevant works in all case.

The spherical black waves are so relevant for encoding of evolution,my humble équations can help.But the problem is to see them, these black particles are above c and so we cannot see them.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 10:59 GMT
Perhaps that our gravitational waves are purely linked with my equations and these black particles.

When I see the complexity and the numbers of black particles produced by cosmologicalblack sphères,and when I analyze our milky way for example, we see the stability of particles and also that it exists a proof considering the most far stars of our central black sphere which turn bizzarely speedly,the black mass is evident and our gravitationl waves are the reason.It is fascinating our evolution spherisation and the encoding of these particles.In this line of reasoning the gravitation is explained.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 11:05 GMT
These important mass of black cosmological sphères imply the same logic that for the accelerations of electromagnetic oscillations.

The general relativity is completed in this line of reasoning.

PS EUREKA :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 10:25 GMT
As Christian notes, Hawking's paper "The Information Paradox for Black Holeshas now been posted to the arXiv arXiv:1509.01147v1.)

This is not the full paper, however, co-authored by Strominger and Perry, which is in preparation.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 12:04 GMT
I am going to write a new paper by showing that the two approaches, i.e. my one and Hawking's one, are consistent.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 12:13 GMT
Relevant about the 2 sphere and the holographic analyze and also that informations do not disappear, relevant.

Mr Corda, I am persuaded that your new appraoch will be relevant also.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 14:42 GMT
Thanks Steve.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 4, 2015 @ 22:55 GMT
Steve D,

I criticize Hossenfelder, Tegmark, Hawking etc. because of their hypocrisy, their complete and utter insincerity.

These fundamentalist physicists do not believe that human beings can act: they believe that only law-of-nature algorithms can act.

They advise us about climate change and/or the supposed impending robot takeover, BUT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no way that human beings can avert what the laws-of-nature have in store for us.

These fundamentalist physicists believe that human action/free will/choice/creativity does not exist.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2015 @ 05:53 GMT
Lorraine,

I second you. Even if theorist may reduce my free will to a plurality of causes, this is irrelevant. Narrow minded fundamentalism is not justified, not even in physics.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2015 @ 09:30 GMT
Hello Ms Ford and Mr Blumschein,

I beleive still thzt they have the free will to think what they want.

But a sure thing is that soliutions exist in a pure physical road.

The climate can be harmonized with a simple logic VEGETAL MULTIPLICATION AND COMPOSTING AT BIG SCALE more a decreasing of stupidities due to our era of industrialisations without consciousness.On the other side, they are right also because indeed earth will continue its evolution with or without us, the humans.We arrive so at a philosophical and spiritual analyze where the altruism become an essential.Intelligence indeed has the potential to act and so to solve the problems like in maths, it exists solutions.I am surprised by your words,I have seen the future life institute and Mr Tegmark is on board of this intitute.Mr Hawking is a big spirit, so I doubt about your words Ms Ford.They see the whole, the generality ,so it is not rational what you say about them.

Uou know , we are a result of algorythmic laws of nature creating the intelligence,so they are right in fact, and you also,the point of equilibrium in a pure theory of game becomes relevant so isn't it? :)

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 5, 2015 @ 09:57 GMT
We have even the possibility to create a spaceship,perfectly autonomous,self governing respecting energy and technology ,so ....

Itis even our future, even there the vegetalmultiplication and the composting are essential more the good governance, universal respecting all créations, algorythmic.

Mr Blumschein, you see that it does not a lack of space ...

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 5, 2015 @ 22:54 GMT
Thanks Eckard for seconding me.

Physics failure to properly account for "free will"/creativity and consciousness has led to insoluble contradictions. So I contend that physics is due for a shakeup of foundational ideas. But not ideas like the block universe or the multiverse, which are really just more of the same old stuff, based on the same old ideas.

Physics has in essence found that reality consists of an information structure, representable by mathematical equations. But physics has wrongly assumed that such an information structure can exist without anything constructing it, and without anything being informed by it. This is the basic contradiction: that physics has in effect assumed that proto-creativity and proto-consciousness must exist, while at the same time denying that they exist. Physics has assumed that the mysterious foundational elements of reality (e.g. particles) are entirely numb, dumb and passive, but this assumption conflicts with the existence of an information structure.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Hello to Steve D.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2015 @ 13:11 GMT
Hello Ms Ford,

You say "But physics has wrongly assumed that such an information structure can exist without anything constructing it, and without anything being informed by it"

There, we touch really at the real meaning of what is the universality and its codes of informations.

The codes are from nothing or are from a real consciousness above our understanding at this moment.

You know,all our past generalists like Newton or Copernic or Galileo or Einstein and so more still or even Hawking at this present(I have read his book"a short story of times" thought about a kind of Creator implying our informations of evolution.

I beleive humbly that a lot of scientists and mathematicians forget this essential like if it was not reasonable to think about this universal consciousness creating the physicality.

Personaly,I beleive strongly that it is not possible to encircle the universe and its foundamental laws without this essential.

We are indeed a pure result of encodings on this time line of evolution, spherisation for me.

The structure of informations are so wonderfull that it is not possible to have a kind of mathematical evolution without a consciouness above our perception.

The fact that evolution shows us a real improvement,shows us that future will be more relevant than our present,

the universal sphere is on the road of a kind of eternity for all créations in improvement with or without the approvement of mathematical extrapolations.

Maths are a tool explaining the physicality but with limits and laws.

I liked your post,

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 7, 2015 @ 00:37 GMT
Thanks Steve D.

Physics claims that a fully- or partly-formed information structure (a set of laws-of-nature) somehow comes into existence at the beginning of the universe. I.e. physics is claiming that something has been created [1]. Schizophrenically, physics simultaneously denies that creativity (i.e. "free will") can ever exist again.

Physics claims that the subjects of this information structure (particles) can blindly follow these laws without even being proto-aware of these laws. Schizophrenically, physics hypothesizes an awareness of information that is simultaneously not-aware [2].

The sombre and serious men of physics are stuck in an untenable ideology.

I contend that the fundamental elements that (proto-) create and (proto-) experience the information structure are the particles, atoms and molecules. These are the only fundamental elements that we know about.

I contend that these elements progressively create an information structure (representable by mathematical equations) out of information categories (like energy, charge, spin) and information relationships (representable by symbols like = + - ÷ ×).

Cheers,

Lorraine

1. Create: Bring (something) into existence. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/create

2. Awareness: Knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/awarene
ss

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 7, 2015 @ 08:31 GMT
Lorraine,

I didn't understand your viewpoint initially but now I do. The reason why I didn't understand was the use of words like free will and consciousness, suggesting that a fundamental particle thinks and knows what it is doing and words like proto-aware, proto-create, proto-experience.

But when you now make creativity (coming into being or going out of being) synonymous with free will, I think I somehow now agree. The reason, I agree is that if fundamental objects do not change, there can be no free will. If things cannot come into existence and go out of existence, there can be no physics in the first place fundamentally speaking. The "proto-author" of the view point that things do not change, and that what exists does so eternally (both past and future) was Parmenides, and his curse continues to afflict physics in particular. See a quote from him below:

"How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown" - Parmenides, c.515 BCE

I wrote about this in my essay this year. I hope I got your meaning correctly.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 7, 2015 @ 09:42 GMT
Hello Ms Ford and Mr Ojo,

You are welcome Ms Ford,

You know , indeed perhaps that the quantum world is the secret of our consciousness. Encoded informations need perhaps a number of entanglement to become conscient,it is intriguing considering the informations from the main central cosmological sphere.Personnaly I beleive that a number of evolutive particles is necessary,and so the informative particles from this central black sphere are to complete the quantum entanglement.

The free will can be hamonized so in a pure road of universality in imrpovement of all centers of interest.

The creation and awareness becomes relevant in this line of reasoning when we insert this point of equilibrium.

The categorification can be purely universal with its sortings and superimposings.

Perhaps that many physicists and mathematicians forget to unite the two sides of our spherisation.

In this line of reasonig , the AI is intriguing considering the number of entangled sphères correlated with these informations from the main central blacK sphere of our universal sphere in spherisation.In this line of reasoning, an AI can become autonomous,intriguing is a weak word.Now spiritually speaking, can we make it ?It is an other story

Best Regards to both of you

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 8, 2015 @ 01:56 GMT
Hello Steve D,

I agree that ". . . many physicists and mathematicians forget to unite the two sides. . .".

But I think that the AI project, while producing many things that are useful to humanity, is doomed i.e. it can't possibly succeed.

Regards,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 8, 2015 @ 01:05 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

I'm glad you mentioned Parmenides - I see that there are indeed connections with my viewpoint. I'm thinking that both his "way of truth" and his "way of opinion" are necessary aspects of reality.

Re Parmenides "way of truth": I think that what is eternal, necessary, what exists, and can in no way not exist, are the characteristics/nature of reality i.e. creativity, experience/consciousness and subjectivity.

I.e. the universe creates things, it is aware of what it creates, but it is only aware in a particular/subjective way. I.e. The universe's creative ability and awareness comes in (simple or compound) particles.

Re Parmenides "way of opinion": I think that what is not eternal is what is created and experienced i.e. what might be called an "information structure" (i.e. laws-of-nature, representable by mathematical equations). I think that reality's eternal subjective point-of-view is probably the original source of the distinctions/differences/"opinions"/information-categories that are used to create the information structure.

So I certainly agree that "If things cannot come into existence and go out of existence, there can be no physics in the first place fundamentally speaking."

There were so many essays to read that I missed out reading your essay. So I intend to read your essay, when I get a bit more time.

Thanks for that,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 8, 2015 @ 19:47 GMT
Lorraine,

I did a bit more reading about Parmenides and his 'opponent' Heraclitus today from internet sources. Simply, what I make of their views is:

Parmenides - fundamentally, what exists cannot change to another thing that exists.

Heraclitus - change is the only constant behaviour in the universe, and this change is not in one direction but in a circle, shifting back and forth between opposites.

Both provide sound logic for their positions. If both are correct in some sense and we intend to still marry both together despite the views being seemingly irreconcilable, then to sidetrack Parmenides, one can proffer that what exists can change to nothing and what exists can arise out of nothing. I read that this gives room for free will. Although determinism is also a feature of our world, this proviso implies that there are 'uncaused' events.

Akinbo

(Actually, Parmenides says what exists cannot change at all. But his interpretation is that non-existence does not exist, which is also literally correct. But as the combination of opposites satisfies Heraclitus position, I take this my interpretation of Parmenides as the middle option).

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 9, 2015 @ 14:36 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

There seems to be many different interpretations of the fragment of Parmenides poem. I prefer the current Wikipedia view to the over-intellectualized Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy view. The Wikipedia view is that Parmenides poem has a "way of truth" section and a "way of opinion" section, and this makes more sense to me, though I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

Re determinism: Clearly reality is mainly deterministic. We cannot choose to turn into a bird and fly away: it would be a mad psychedelic world if reality were not mainly stable and predictable. We seem to only make a series of tiny “choices”, but this amount of creativity seems to be enough, I think.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 10, 2015 @ 02:18 GMT
Stanford: "From an early time Heraclitus was seen as the representative of universal flux in contrast to Parmenides, the representative of universal stasis."

Akinbo,

Doesn't flux have a direction? I didn't find your source for "this change is not in one direction but in a circle". Doesn't a closed loop mean stasis in contrast to an ideal spiral?

Lorraine,

I fear we got each other wrong.

All,

Does nobody feel challenged to comment on George Church's "sin"? Haram means: This is a sin. In this sense, I vote for sinning.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 10, 2015 @ 16:25 GMT
Einstein disproved by Doppler

"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is

(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c

The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is

(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 11, 2015 @ 15:34 GMT
A simple disproof of Einstein's relativity:

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 10, 2015 @ 22:42 GMT
Eckard,

I never, even for one second, thought that you agreed with 99.9% of my views.

You merely seemed to agree that physicists are hypocrites e.g. about climate change and the ability of human beings to act to avert a law-of-nature-determined future. I.e. I think you might have agreed that physicists think that human beings have no capacity to creatively act, either to CAUSE or to AVERT climate change. This is because physicists think that everything is 100% caused by laws-of-nature – therefore human beings don't actually act at all.

Perhaps you should start to seriously think about what it is that you are saying when you claim that "Peace via Discoveries and Inventions" is possible. How are "Discoveries and Inventions" in any way different to the natural unfolding of laws-of-nature?

I am certain that you have failed to consider how the nature of reality could allow "Inventions" that are in any way different to the natural unfolding of laws-of-nature. What is it about the nature of reality that allows "Inventions" to occur???

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 04:37 GMT
Lorraine,

I see the option of birth control as a most decisive tool to enforce peace against stupidity, greed, and hatred. It required inventions that were based on discoveries, and it has already been a reality. You spoke of "the natural unfolding of laws-of-nature". I seem unfortunately to be a lonely one who questions SR for just one trifle: I simply see the future not yet real. Georgina called it not yet written. Popper spoke of open. Shannon reminded of the property to be changeable but not known for sure in principle. Maybe, you, Smolin, and I disagree with Parmenides who denied motion.

Being a bit familiar with physiology of auditory perception, while I don't expect reality (as I understand it) contradicting to true laws-of-nature, I would never be so stupid as to try and reduce reality to them. Reality seems to offer a virtually unlimited variety of "unfoldings". I consider the conjectured reality a permanently growing sum of influences.

BTW, Pentcho should stop relating the speed of light to something like emitter, observer, or medium. I wonder why Unruh tries to deny that light and em waves behave differently. Isn't the two-way definition of velocity unwarranted?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 14:57 GMT
Eckard,

I agree that overpopulation is one of the most serious challenges that humanity faces.

But you say that you would “never . . . try and reduce reality to [laws-of-nature]”. Are you saying that part of reality IS due to laws-of-nature, and that the remainder of reality IS NOT due to laws-of-nature?

And you say “I consider the conjectured reality a permanently growing sum of influences“. But what exactly are these “influences”?

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 16:31 GMT
"it is difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean" from a crazzy spherical universalist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 10, 2015 @ 23:56 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

I find what Heraclitus and Parmenides say to be interesting in the sense that, despite there being no real scientific knowledge in those days, these people still had an appreciation of the nature of reality that was not necessarily that much different to what people think today about the nature of reality.

We (particles, atoms, molecules, living things including human beings) ARE reality, we are the apprehenders of reality, so it is perhaps not surprising that Heraclitus and Parmenides might apprehend reality in a similar way to the way WE might apprehend reality. Today we also have to factor in scientific knowledge, but the view about the underlying nature of reality might not be all that different.

Those ancient philosophers were down-to-earth, but basically, I find much of today's philosophy related to the nature of reality completely insufferable and "ivory tower".

Re "can something arise from nothing?": This is not a question of logic. Seemingly, the information structure that is the universe HAS arisen from nothing.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 11, 2015 @ 15:45 GMT
Akinbo,

Re my assertion that "the information structure that is the universe HAS arisen from nothing":

I contend that the information structure (laws-of-nature) that we call "the universe" must have been progressively constructed, starting from a situation where there was no information structure at all. I am contending that this construction is possible only because the nature of reality is creative, experiential and subjective.

If something like a law-of-nature (which we represent with a mathematical equation) appears to come out of nothing, the reason is that there is another factor operating: the nature of reality. Physicists are both too cowardly, and too stuck in their untenable ideology, to face up to the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 10:02 GMT
Lorraine,

I think it is important to be clear on the use of words so as to apprehend the fundamentals.

From your assertion, may I ask if it is possible to have "information" without "structure"?

I am leading you on here and assuming your answer is negative. If so, what is the smallest or most rudimentary structure and what kind of information can it have? Of course such information would be the most fundamental type of information. Color red is an information, size is an information, shape is an information but these appear progressively constructed as you call it.

Both Heraclitus and Parmenides concluded that the universe could be broken down into one fundamental thing. And I agree with them. What is that thing?

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 10:14 GMT
Hello to both of you,

I agree totally with you Mr Akinbo Ojo.

I am surprised that a lot of scientists are agnostic or atheist and in the same time they use all the general équations pondered by people,past or present,who were universalists thinking in a kind of energy above our planck walls, cosmological and quantic.That has no sense!!!

Einstein,Newton,Bohm even,Copernic,Gallileo Gallilei,Borh,Mendeleev,Maxwell,Schrodinger,Planck,and so more ..they thought all in an universal entropy creating things in the spacetime spherisation..There is a simple error in their line of reasoning, they use their équations but they say that the informations is from nothing.It is very contracdictory their words simply.I beleive simply it is due to a lack of general analyse in all centers of interest,in all sciences. The nothing does not exist!!!

Best Regards to both of you

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 16:01 GMT
Einsteinians Against Special Relativity

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 13, 2015 @ 05:44 GMT
Pentcho,

I consider the first link you gave as unintentionally revealing weaknesses in the defense of SR. Both Ellis and Smolin stand for the attempt to tweak SR reasonable. The journalist's claim that SR is "one of the most successful theories in physics" is obviously an unnecessary prejudice if one intends to look for an unbiased judgment.

Did SR reveal "that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity"? No.

Given a correct order ABC in reality, Newton's notion of absolute time does not exclude that a different order can be perceived or measured.

Is rescuing an objective "now" really a daunting task? No. A paper by Phipps points to a mistake.

Do we need "sacrifice some of our objective notions of space" ? I am voting for defining one-way velocity instead. Is two-way velocity plausible?

Instead of signing Eckard, I will sign ++++.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 13, 2015 @ 16:25 GMT
Eckard,

"Did SR reveal "that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity"? No."

Actually the relativity of simultaneity is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates. So people like Julian Barbour and Lee Smolin who restore absolute simultaneity should declare at least one of the postulates false. Rejecting the consequence entails admitting that an underlying premise is false. But this concerns a sane world with a normal logic. Einstein's world is not sane.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 14, 2015 @ 01:21 GMT
Pentcho,

In https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theo
ry I found many but by far not all decisive arguments by critics. For instance, Smolin and Phipps are not even mentioned and a link to Maurice Allais does not tell any detail of his criticism. Via FQXiI got aware of the petition on twin paradox, of what was collected by E. Riebe alias Mueller, and other ignored huge bundles.

Should we "declare at least one of the postulates false"? I explained in my essays how the seemingly convincing first one tacitly suggests taking two mutually excluding points of view at a time and the second one is pointless and misleading without a sound definition of the one-way speed of light. I object to: "Note that measurements regarding the speed of light are actually measurements of the two-way speed of light, since the one-way speed of light depends on which convention is chosen to synchronize the clocks."

See my essays. I agree even with Einstein on that there is no privileged point of reference in space.

Yes, neither Barbour nor Smolin are providing plausible answers to my primary concern, the distinction between past and future. I offer treating measurable elapsed time in R+ and only abstract time in R. Integration of measured data over time from minus to plus infinity is a stupid habit due to Heaviside.



Regards, ++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 13, 2015 @ 02:01 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

I wouldn’t say that there is ONE thing, I would say that are innumerably MANY things, i.e. particles of reality. But I might say that there is one TYPE of thing: creative, experiential, and subjective.

(Physicists might also claim that there is one type of thing: numb, dumb and passive).

These things are seemingly not themselves interrelated: it is seemingly only subjectively experienced informational ASPECTS of things (i.e. information categories) that are interrelated, forming an information structure.

This information structure is representable by law-of-nature equations and numbers [1]. I.e. there are no absolute, platonic, objective categories of information: at the fundamental level there are only agreed subjectively-experienced categories of information; an agreed subjectively-experienced information structure; and a subjective view of the current state of the whole thing (representable by numbers).

So the “building blocks” of the information structure are seemingly categories of information (like mass and energy), and information relationships (representable by symbols like = + - ÷ and ×). I couldn’t hazard a guess as to what the MOST fundamental category of information might be, but I think that it is clear that the most fundamental relationship is representable by the symbol ”=”.

Hi Steve D,

I agree that “The nothing does not exist!!!”

Cheers,

Lorraine

1. Numbers are complex, but I contend that they derive from a type of information structure where the category cancels out resulting in “a ghost of a sort”, as Gary Simpson put it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 13, 2015 @ 08:45 GMT
Hello Ms Ford,

It is important to differanciate the computing,the categorification and our physics and its laws.

The o and 1 are relevant for our codes of computing,but our universe is more complex about its codes.The computer is a human invention, very relevant I agree, but it is just a human invention.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 14, 2015 @ 15:59 GMT
Discussion in Scientific American goes on (the end of Einstein era is close):

Brian Greene, How Einstein Changed the World

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 17, 2015 @ 15:22 GMT
Einstein's general relativity should be immediately discarded - it is nothing but an empirical model based on a wrong concept of time (see my comments on the paper):

100 Years of General Relativity: Scientific American Special Issue

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 17, 2015 @ 17:22 GMT
"Relativity and quantum mechanics are just as incompatible as they ever were."

The reason is simple - they use different times:"

Yes, having dealt with gamma, I understand: both t and t' must be unphysical as to justify the principle of relativity and all putative evidence that confirms it. Spacetime is a monster (Michelson).

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 18, 2015 @ 19:32 GMT
New Scientist 2013: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century. According to his special theory of relativity, there is no way to specify events that everyone can agree happen simultaneously. Two events that are both "now" to you will happen at different times for anyone moving at another speed. Other people will see a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 21, 2015 @ 15:57 GMT
Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that an unlimitedly long object can be trapped inside an unlimitedly short container, which also means that the object can be compressed to an unlimitedly small volume:

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 24, 2015 @ 12:39 GMT
COMPOSTING AT BIG GLOBAL SCALE AND VEGETAL MULTIPLICATION.

If we analyse our evolution on this earth.We are a result of encoding of informations ,from electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves.The mass increases correlated with this universal entropy.We were ...particles....H ....CNO.......H2O CO2 HCN H2C2..NH4.......PROTEINS......AMINOACIDS..........cells, and the evolution and its adaptation with these encodings have created in a simple resume the other complex lifes vegetal and animal, ....selacians.......inferior mammalians.....Superior mammalians.......hominides........I have resumed a lot of course, but we can see the universal link with these bacterias and unicells, it is purely not possible to live and to adapt us without a global equilibrium between our natural environment.We loose our ecosystems and our soils, it is so important to respect these essentials.In a very weak volume of compost, it exists so many lifes and they permits to harmonize the other ecosystems.The vegetal multiplication permits to harmonize the interactions between all these animals and vegetals, small or big.How can we live , and we shall soon 10 billions,without this compost and this vegetal multiplication, it is not possible and the word is weak .Since millions years, these bacterias and animals and vegetals permit to harmonize the ecosystems in evolution.It is time to act globally speaking before an add of chaotical exponentials.It is so important this composting at big scale and the vegetal multiplication, we could make of this earth a big garden in harmony.Without these small animals and vegetals, it is not possible, it is the same logic for our ocean .We cannot live without them and the hour is serious.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 26, 2015 @ 16:18 GMT
Idiocy Called General Relativity

Lawrence Krauss, What Einstein Got Wrong: "Deflection of light by a massive object was a key observational prediction of general relativity. In 1919 an expedition led by physicist Arthur Eddington observed a solar eclipse and determined that starlight passing by the sun bent just as Einstein expected. News of the confirmation appeared on the front pages of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 27, 2015 @ 15:58 GMT
Honest Paul Lasky and Ryan Shannon:

Paul Lasky, Ryan Shannon: "As part of the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, we have been observing pulsar J1909-3744 with the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope for 11 years. (...) Gravitational waves from all of the black holes in the universe were supposed to ruin the timing precision of this pulsar. But they have not. (...) Why no gravitational waves? But we want to be very clear that our lack of a detection does not imply that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, nor does it imply that gravitational waves don't exist. While we don't know the real solution, we have a number of ideas."

Michael Burton, Professor in Physics and Astronomy, UNSW Australia: "So how many rotations of the pulsar will you need to count before you can conclude that the theory of gravitational waves is in serious trouble? Twice as many, tens times as many?"

Paul Lasky, in reply to Michael Burton: "The devil is all in the detail here. As we discuss in the article, there are many ways the amplitude of the background could be smaller for much more mundane reasons than Einstein being wrong. We could certainly observe for another 5 years and not see anything. Even then we would not say that Einstein was wrong..."

Divine Einstein

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 28, 2015 @ 10:51 GMT
Hello Mr Valev,

Perhaps that our technical Tools are not sufficient to detect them ?

These gravitational waves and the gravitons are logic it seems to me for a real general understanding of our Universe and its laws.

If they are produced by cosmologicalblack sphères these gravitons, so they have a linear velocity before their encodings in protonic systems.

If the universe has a center, we see this dark energy implying an expansion,an inflation.So the waves are correlated at my humble opinion.Without these gravitationalwaves, the disorder will be a reality for all stable matter.

Einstein in its general relativity was probably right so no?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 28, 2015 @ 12:10 GMT
Let's take the BH that the gEneral relativity has extrapolated.Black sphères in my theory.

Let's consider that they have a mass, a density,a cinetic moment let's name it the spin like for all sphères,let's consider an electric charge q also, and let's insert also the orbital moment around an other Bigger BH and let's insert also its volume.So we have a sphere with its properties.So we can see that this sphere implies the effects on the spacetime.Let's take now the SR and its properties.Imagine that these BH absorb all the light and also that they produce gravitons correlated with their properties said above.We have so a kind of proof that these sphères exist and have an universal rule.They imply so the gravitational waves proportional with their properties and the sphericalvolumes.

The general relativity is correct it seems to me.If not it is in a pure disorder about the stability of mass and the natural curvation, spherisation for me of our universe and its space time.The quantum gravitation is in the same relativistic logic after all and with its relativistic proportions due to its intrinsic properties.The gravitational waves , quant and cosmol seems so linked withthe primordial gravitationalwave from this central cosmological sphere of our Universe.The gravitational spherical pilot wave so is linked with the spherical volumes with the central quantum sphere of our uniquness entanglement.It is probaly in these central sphères that we have the increase of entropy and mass correlated with fields.The general relativit is correct in this line of reasoning.The SR also.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 28, 2015 @ 16:22 GMT
Idiocy Called Special Relativity

It follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates that time dilation is symmetrical, which means that in no scenario an observer can see another observer's clock running ahead of his own clock. Only running behind can be observed, and not in an absolute sense at that: I see your clock running behind mine, you see mine running behind yours, and our disagreement is essential - it cannot be settled.

In his 1905 paper Einstein found it profitable to suggest that the moving observer sees the stationary clock running AHEAD of the moving clock - a breathtaking idiocy that the gullible world has been worshiping ever since:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 29, 2015 @ 02:47 GMT
Pentcho,

You should add that you quoted from §4 which ends with the prediction: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock (Not a pendulum-clock, which is physically a system to which the Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded) at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 30, 2015 @ 14:01 GMT
I naively guess, nobody tried to experimentally confirm this prediction. Objections?

My hint to Ekkehard-Friebe.de leads to an essay in which I was still on search for what went wrong.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 1, 2015 @ 16:28 GMT
Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:

Stationary source

Moving source

The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 1, 2015 @ 18:01 GMT
It is a Platform to become totally crazzy???

You make me really lost in an ocean of violaions of postulates?

Mr Valev, c is c and is is admit by the international scieces community?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2015 @ 05:08 GMT
Pentcho,

Doesn't the frame-independent definition of velocity of light make all your arguing for emission theory as well as Alan Guth's MIT lesson on Doppler and SR pointless?

While I easily understood Guth's lesson except for some questions to him from the auditory, I felt reminded of notorious shortcomings of university education. At least, such lessons don't use inappropriate suggestive music as does the video you were referring to immediately.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 2, 2015 @ 17:24 GMT
Einstein's special relativity is so obviously absurd that it is disproved, more or less explicitly, by any interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer):

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!

Professor Roger Barlow: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is

(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c

The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is

(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 5, 2015 @ 16:47 GMT
How Einsteinians Killed Science

In 1887 the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory. Then, in an oversimplified and somewhat caricatural scenario, FitzGerald,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Oct. 5, 2015 @ 23:13 GMT
Pentcho,

In 1887, AE was 8 years old. I realize that he was quite a genius, but I don't think he gave much thought to M-M or Maxwell at that time. Now Lorentz, he was in his 30's by then.

Keep Up the Fight,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 6, 2015 @ 02:35 GMT
Michelson's 1881 and later experiments should simply have led to the insight that there is no aether wind. In other words, the speed of light doesn't depend on motion of the source relative to a medium. Instead, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" were fabricated in order to save Maxwell's analogy between sound and light.

Are we forced to decide between this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Oct. 6, 2015 @ 03:29 GMT
Eckard,

Agreed, there is no such thing as *aether*. There is no region of space devoid of field(s), but the propagation of light is not made possible by them, but if anything they create interference with non-entropic propagation of light. Hence we can rationally theorize thermalization over long periods of time.

The problem that nags me about your proposed postulate is that the only...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 6, 2015 @ 15:50 GMT
FitzGerald, Lorentz and Poincaré adhered to a false but still rational physical picture: a UNILATERAL length contraction caused by the interaction of the moving object with the ether. By introducing mutual length contraction and mutual time dilation Einstein actually killed (rationality in) science:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 106: "The effect is mutual. Each of us finds...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 7, 2015 @ 06:27 GMT
"It is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals" does also apply to Georg Cantor's Set Theory and now to Angela Merkel's promise: "We will manage providing refuge to all those who feel attracted by Germany".

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 7, 2015 @ 19:51 GMT
Neil Turok: Physics Needs a Revolution

"To Explain the Universe, Physics Needs a Revolution: Live Webcast Wednesday [Video] Physicist Neil Turok will describe his vision for simpler theories in a public lecture"

As I suggest in my comment on the article, physics should get rid of a false fundamental axiom - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 8, 2015 @ 16:12 GMT
Physics needs a resurrection rather than a revolution (Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate killed it):

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C –...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 12, 2015 @ 17:59 GMT
The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything - Neil Turok Public Lecture

At 1:27:22 Neil Turok suggests that Einstein's general relativity is wrong. Actually it is not even wrong. Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 22, 2015 @ 00:33 GMT
I'd like to address the points that were raised.

Quote"
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task.[George ellis]"

Quote"- Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 10, 2015 @ 15:36 GMT
Absurdity of Einstein's Relativity

Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity

Einsteinians, do you see something absurd in the scenario in which the doors of the tunnel close and never reopen (7:12)? Is the implication that the volume of the trapped object (train) can be reduced unlimitedly disturbing?

How about the scenario in which the long train somehow disintegrates and falls through the short hole on the bridge (9:53)? Nothing absurd in this?

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 10, 2015 @ 20:35 GMT
Sounds like a dream by Franz Liszt.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 19, 2015 @ 15:53 GMT
Speed of Light: Einstein Wrong, Newton Right

In gravitation-free space, the speed of light depends on the speed of both the source and the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 28, 2015 @ 13:39 GMT
Pentcho,

It is unfair to continuously repost what you cannot defend or what you refuse to defend.

You say, "Speed of Light: Einstein Wrong, Newton Right...In gravitation-free space, the speed of light depends on the speed of both the source and the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light"

Can you defend this? Has anyone performed any light experiment in any "gravitation-free" space to justify your claim?

In an earth-based laboratory, which is not gravitation free in any sense, the speed of light ONLY depends on the permittivity and permeability of what lies along its path and nothing else. Not the speed of the source, nor the speed of the observer. In the case of the observer, unless what you mean is the resultant speed, which in physics refer to something else not propagation speed.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 29, 2015 @ 00:27 GMT
"In the case of the observer, unless what you mean is the resultant speed"

I only mean that Sidney Redner's statement "RELATIVE TO YOU, THE WAVES TRAVEL AT A HIGHER SPEED" is correct:

Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. RELATIVE TO YOU, THE WAVES TRAVEL AT A HIGHER SPEED: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

If Sidney Redner's statement "RELATIVE TO YOU, THE WAVES TRAVEL AT A HIGHER SPEED" is correct, then that's the end of Einstein's relativity and I see no point in further discussion.

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 29, 2015 @ 09:05 GMT
"If Sidney Redner's statement "RELATIVE TO YOU, THE WAVES TRAVEL AT A HIGHER SPEED" is correct, then that's the end of Einstein's relativity and I see no point in further discussion".

Yes, the statement is correct. Yes, it is fatal to Einstein's relativity.

But No, it does not answer all the questions arising from the statement. Water, light and sound waves emitted from a source generally travel spherically away from the source. The question is at what speed? Different observers located at equidistant position from source at the time of emission but subsequently travelling differently, will not give the same answer to at what speed does the wave travel relative to you? This is because v' (= v+vO) is different for each observer, and this can only be so because while v is common to all, vO is different. The problem that now needs explanation is why in some earth-based experiments, vO seems not to matter and to all observers performing a Michelson-Morley experiment, vO = 0? Only Galilean relativity has the answer to the question, which is that vO will be zero, if source, observer and the wave are travelling "in the same Galilean ship", in physics language, same frame of reference. Let me stop here for now.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:35 GMT
in black holes matter turns back in energy of quantum vacuum.

attachments: Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 23:46 GMT
how energy being a vacuum of any kind of name you give it, does argue for fqxi's just announced RFP

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 27, 2015 @ 21:39 GMT
there is no paradox in black holes.....paradox is only build in the human mind....

attachments: 1_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Oct. 28, 2015 @ 06:10 GMT
without introducing quantum vacuum in physics there will be no progress.

attachments: Cosmology_of_Einsteins_NOW.pdf, Importance_of_the_Observer_in_Global_Education.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 29, 2015 @ 15:12 GMT
Pentcho,

You "see no point in further discussion." Shouldn't we agree on that the issue of observer in Special Relativity deserves clarification?

I recommend critically reading a 2004 paper "Poincar´e synchronization:

From the local time to the Lorentz group" by Jean Reignier. It shows how Lorentz with his 1895 "Versuch..." and Poincaré fabricated a lot of mistakes that relate to the perspective of observer. Poincaré used the word observer frequently.

As I already was aware of, Poincaré introduced in 1905 the quadratic form

x2 + y2 + z2 − t2 (29).

While Reignier correctly referred to Michelson's experiment, if I recall correctly, Lorentz' Versuch already mentioned Michelson/Morley.

++++

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 30, 2015 @ 04:42 GMT
What a great thread! I'm just looking at it and am glad to see so many friends (in spite of differing views) from previous contests. In particular Christian Corda congratulations and a big hurrah! And Lorraine Ford I like your physics and political courage in support of senseable science (IMHO). And Akinbo thanks for your previous support and level headedness. And hello to everyone else.

And Pentcho if I were coach of a football team I would want you on my line, I have not seen anyone who can hold a position as you can. Let me see if I can give you some support.

It is strange that we are taught that velocity is relative in our classes in mechanics, and then told to forget about relative velocity when it comes to light. This is an awkward inconsistency and the explanation that the speed of light is constant with respect to all observers without further explanation.... well just does not feel complete. This may seem a little off topic, but the speed of light is so fundamental that it probably enters the realm of black holes.

I have just redone my website and some new ideas occurred to me, that you may find interesting.

These ideas have not been tested, but I believe they can be tested. So take a look at:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/25_Light_and_the_Twi
ns_Paradox.html

My apologies in advance I wish I could have made my explanations cleaner. Check out the table of contents for background info on my (non traditional) ideas. I hope you like.

Best to all,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Nov. 4, 2015 @ 21:33 GMT
Hawking genious is solving problems about black holes that do not exist.

see fle attachrd

attachments: 3_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


alena lis wrote on Aug. 2, 2016 @ 09:11 GMT
I agree that the nature will take always the road if we cannot solve or if we disappear, but we have the possibility to solve.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.