CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Math Laws and Observer Wandering by Steve Agnew
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Essay AbstractAn observer of a source has two really different ways to predict that source's future. This is really too bad and there should be by all rights and measures just one way to predict the future of a source. Science is really not that far away from the truth, but science really has to stop arguing about the wrong things. This essay attempts to argue about the right thing; quantum phase noise.
Author BioDr Agnew is a professional but not academic scientist. He earned a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Washington State University in 1981 and has used both quantum and classical physics and chemistry his whole career. Yet he considers himself a quantum hobbyist and is simply really disappointed that mainstream science has not yet united gravity and charge forces...so he went ahead and did it himself. Aethertime is a meager ten year effort to finally unite a quantum gravity with quantum charge that seems to work, but only future more precise measurements will tell for certain...
Download Essay PDF File
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 05:16 GMT
Please, please, please, please...keep my score at 0. Zero is a good number for me and I appreciate zero more than any other thing so let's keep my essay at zero. Thanks. Steve Agnew.
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Sir,
Zero is something that does not exist at here-now, but exists elsewhere. So you imply that your thought is at a different level and not coinciding with the mainstream, which is evident from your post.
Best wishes and regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 13:48 GMT
Steve,
Good to see you in the forum.
Your definition for entropy as a sum of several logarithms is interesting to me ... matter and action. If you read my essay, you should think about that as I discuss 4-vectors.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
It is such a joy for me...to forever remain at the very bottom of the list...please do read my essay but do not bother to vote.
My essay attempts to connect to forces way beyond those of acclaim. My essay attempts to approach truth...
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Dr. Agnew,
The truth about the real observable Universe am not an approximation.
Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 04:29 GMT
Ahh...yes...I remain at zero. I really like zero and so encourage all to read my essay but discourage any voting. I like to write, I like to be read, and I like to read others...the voting seems to me to be beside the point.
Thanks to all for nothing at all...
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
The bottom is the very best place to be mon ami...
Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 09:21 GMT
Hi Steve ,
Happy to see your papper.Like said gary it is relevant.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 05:44 GMT
I do appreciate those who bother to read my essay. Thank-you very much. Please do not feel the need to vote since I like to remain at zero...zero has much meaning for me since zero means that people comment without expecting an reciprocation. That is discourse...
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Oh blast it...somebody voted for my essay...
It is not that I do not want people to read what I write...it is that my desire is to have people have pleasure in what I write and not read because it is assigned by the teacher.
I like reading and commenting on essays, but ranking them is simply without meaning for me. The Yellow Emperor essay last time still remains with me because of my knowledge of Chinese history and it had little meaning for others.
There is a way to unite physical reality...but noone seems to even care...
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 10:18 GMT
but Steve you merit good points.Accept the recognizings of people.Your works are relevant and general about aethertime and this and that.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 20:42 GMT
I do appreciate thoughtful comments, but rote comments seem capricious. Essay voting seems rather like a silent auction to me, especially since there are so many different ways to like one essay over another.
In the end, it is really only thoughtful comments that really count for anything from the essay effort, not some spurious vote...
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 04:30 GMT
It is nice to see the notions of aethertime infusing into the surreality of quantum entanglement...
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Agnew,
You have nicely differentiated about the roles of classical and quantum observers
In page3 in last line, you took ” a decreasing entropy for shrinking mass and increasing entropy for expanding action”. Probably you are considering red- shifted Galaxies only. You may be knowing that the red-shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent.
I request you to reconsider your thinking and modify your equations accordingly…
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 04:20 GMT
Of course, in aethertime, it is force that expands and not space and matter shrinks just as force expands. What this means is that in a shrinking universe, galaxy light actually blue shifts due to that shrinkage.
It is expanding force that makes distant galaxies show red shifts. I don't know what you mean by 40%...
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
You considered only red shifted Galaxies only. You may be knowing that the red-shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent. In the remaining 60 percent Galaxies in the Universe; there are "Blue shifted Galaxies + Quasars (also Blue shifted)" are 40 percent and final remaining 20 percent dont show any shift....
Please see the (4 th) Book on blue shifted Galaxies from Dynamic Universe Model blog, which is available for a free down load, for further details.....
Have a look at my paper also............
So Request you to reconsider with this fundamental data.
Best Regards
=snp. gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 19:05 GMT
Since I am not an astronomer, I leave interpretations of galaxy red shifts to those who do the observations. I am a spectroscopist, though, and so do know how to interpret spectra. You have taken the red shift spectral data of hundreds of thousands of galaxies and reinterpreted spectral red shifts as blue shifts.
I have looked at the same dataset and see the red shift spectra as very good spectral information. However, my expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe does posit a different reason for the spectral red shifts. Denying the large body of evidence for spectral redshifts of increasingly distant galaxies seems futile to me.
Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer-source quantum bond and the measurements of galaxy spectra are how science makes sense out of the universe. Since the SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, there is no reason to change that view.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 05:52 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
It is very nice to contact a spectroscopist, who knows how to interpret spectra.
I have taken the spectral data of hundreds of thousands of QUASARS and interpreted spectral lines as blue shifts, but not Galaxies as you said.
But NOW I will ask the FUNDAMENTAL question… which way is correct? Why something like that is possible?
I say probably your “expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe” explains well present scinerio. But we have to exclude the fundamental question first is that not?
You are correct in saying that Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer.
The SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, that is exactly correct, but the interpretation of data is done by the software we use. That depends on the requirement and guidance given to programmer.
Finally it will be your will to change that view or not…..
Best Regards
=snp.gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 19:10 GMT
Every time that I look at quasar spectra, I am amazed...but here is an
example of the plots of 46,420 quasar spectra that show redshifts, not blue shifts.
Does your data show blueshifts for these many spectral lines? Quasar spectra are due to the near c jets of matter ejected from SMBH's and so are different from the spectra of galaxies and stars, which move much more slowly. Are you somehow reinterpreting the hypervelocity quasar jet are a motion of the galaxy?
As you probably know, there are many more quasars looking back in time and quasars seem to peak at about z = 1.2 or so. Local galaxy density is ~3.5 Mpc^3 and so it is not yet clear why quasars peaked at z = 1.2. In aethertime, the Hubble constant is proportional to the local speed of light, which decreases going back in time just as mass increases going back in time.
The aethertime universe of expanding force does interpret quasar numbers very differently, but the quasar red shifts seem to be real.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
You have chosen frequencies in a different manner than I did...
Why and How Blue shift calculation are possible in the way it was shown in the 4 th Book, about Blue shifted Galaxies. Please see the (4 th) Book on blue shifted Galaxies from Dynamic Universe Model blog, which is available for a free down load, for further details.....
Have a look at my paper also............
So Request you to reconsider with this fundamental data.
Best Regards
=snp. gupta
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 08:01 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
Probably we may be missing a fundamentally new and different Picture of Universe......
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Sir,
You have made a brilliant analysis using modern views. But can we go a little out of box and analyze the facts?
What is the fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum physics? It is basically the motions of the collective versus the individual. In classical physics, the bonding of quantum particles makes the interaction non-linear. In case of quantum...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
You have made a brilliant analysis using modern views. But can we go a little out of box and analyze the facts?
What is the fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum physics? It is basically the motions of the collective versus the individual. In classical physics, the bonding of quantum particles makes the interaction non-linear. In case of quantum particles, it is linear. You also agree when you say: “A classical observer predicts a determinate albeit chaotic path for a goal”. But is noise of classical chaos for macroscopic action usually masks the decoherence of quantum phase noise? Should it not be the opposite? After all, penetrability and energy level of quantum particles are more than classical particles.
Phase noise is the frequency domain representation of rapid, short-term, random fluctuations in the phase of a waveform, caused by time domain instabilities or "jitter". The idea of phase noise is based on some sort of a circuit model derived from practical measured data and/or intuitive observation regarding noise phenomena.
Phase defines a trajectory versus time (t), whose variance around the noiseless straight line trajectory grows proportionally with elapsed time. This is because φ(t) = ∫ω(t)dt. Nevertheless φ is stationary, and has a well-defined power spectral density Sφ(f). Phase fluctuations in a sinewave correspond to voltage fluctuations; AM sidebands and PM sidebands at offset frequency fm from average oscillation frequency. In an oscillator circuit, there are multiple sources of voltage and current noise circuit. Noise sources collectively pull the free-running oscillator’s frequency, through injection locking to generate phase noise.
Jitter could be bound or unbound. Deterministic jitter arises from coupling on to signal lines from: 1. Electromagnetic interference 2. Crosstalk 3. Reflections. Though random and deterministic effects are independent, they may be de-convolved from histogram, by first fitting tails of distribution to best-fit Gaussian. Then histogram of deterministic jitter is extracted by deconvolution. Histogram does not specify frequency of jitter-inducing signal. Spectral density of jitter is useful to isolate frequencies, which appear as discrete lines.
How are these relevant in the double slit experiment? The double shit experiment is usually conducted with electrons or photons. We do not know WHAT is an electron, though we know all about what it does. Photon is massless. Does the experiment conducted using protons behave similarly? If not why not? If you watch the water waves behind a steamer, they reconnect just like the interference pattern of the double slit experiment. Can there be no macro examples for the micro phenomena? We will comment on the other aspects of your paper separately.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Your comments are quite detailed and well appreciated. Your questions seem to have more classical than quantum bias and it is certainly true that the chaos of classical noise usually overwhelms any of the effects of quantum phase noise, even for science.
You mention in particular the without the hidden knowledge of an initial condition, prediction of action is of course impossible. However, this is a distinctly classical view that presumes that all causes are in principle knowable. There are quantum causes that are not knowable and that means there are things about the universe in which we must simply believe.
The double slit experiment represents one of many examples of how quantum phase noise determines the path of either a photon, electron, or indeed any particle. Recent experiments have actually shown that even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself. In other words, a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable.
The one big hole in mainstream science is the lack of an acceptable quantum gravity. By supposing an inherent role for quantum decoherence, aethertime posits just such a quantum gravity and that is the basis of the entropy flow noted in this essay.
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 23:54 GMT
Dear Sir,
We find similar echoes in your reply with our views. We have also made distinctions between classical and quantum aspects. Majority people accept that these are different. But are they really different? Every micro phenomena has a macro equivalent. In 2003, we told Leggett about this. Our inability to know does not change the rule of Nature. Just like hydrogen and oxygen have properties different from water, micro world shows different behavior from macro world. But it is not random - there is order behind such coupling. Hence, theoretically, it is knowable. Can you please list a few quantum causes that are not knowable?
Regarding the double slit experiment, when you say “even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself”, are you not proving my statement – the macro world is a composite of the micro world?
When you say: “a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable”, are you not expressing our inability to know? The same initial conditions will lead to the same final outcome – the same future. If we accept that it has a possibility to lead to different futures, can we have science at all? All equations will have different solutions, which cannot be known? We agree that we are talking against mainstream science. But are we wrong? Should we accept majority view without proper analysis? Is majority always right?
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 18:43 GMT
...of course, what I meant is that any particle path is not precisely knowable, but that does not mean that we do not know anything about the path. It simply means that there are limits to what we can know.
It also means that given precisely the same initial conditions, a similar but not exactly the same future occurs. Thus, science works just fine, but the quantum uncertainty principle does limit the knowledge of science and so that means that
quantum phase noise is different from the chaos of classical noise.
The Schrodinger equation only admits probabilistic solutions, not the determinate solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi action equation of gravity and relativity. However, there is a
quantum Hamilton-Jacobi action equation that describes the determinism of gravity's relativity as well and the probability of quantum charge.
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 01:34 GMT
Dear Sir,
There is much misunderstanding regarding uncertainty of the quantum world. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
There is much misunderstanding regarding uncertainty of the quantum world. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard’s formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg’s. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard’s formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. “Spontaneous” creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard’s formulation and not in Heisenberg’s formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.
The uncertainty relation of Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error–disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.
Ozawa’s inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.
While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement, these are not always externally apparent. Various circulatory systems work within our body that affects its internal dynamics polarizing it differently at different times which become apparent only during our interaction with other bodies. Similarly, the interactions of subatomic particles are not always apparent. The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally. The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps. Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us. We may quote an example.
Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed. In a simple diagram, the situation can be schematically represented as shown below:
O !->
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 05:25 GMT
Very good. I like it when people really think hard about physical reality. There is an observer and a source and they are connected or bonded by a photon exchange. The photon excitation is not instantaneous and the photon absorption is not instantaneous. In fact, there is both amplitude and phase information in this bonding interaction between an observer and a source.
You mention a boundary, but a photon is more like a bridge than a boundary between observer and source. The uncertainty principle is simply a statement that observing a source also changes the source in ways that the observer cannot know. The uncertainty principle also means that while an observer can be pretty sure about the future, the observer cannot be absolutely certain about the future.
While many believe that it is the classical noise of chaos the limits prediction, which is certainly true, it is not the only truth and it is also that true quantum phase noise limits prediction in very different ways.
hide replies
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Sir,
As we understand, entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, whereas information is a measure of order in the system. Thus, entropy is not unidirectional. Negantropy or negative entropy is already known, though we do not fully agree with that interpretation – we believe in reversible cycles of time. You also talk of two entropies, though reversible in a different way. It is...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
As we understand, entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, whereas information is a measure of order in the system. Thus, entropy is not unidirectional. Negantropy or negative entropy is already known, though we do not fully agree with that interpretation – we believe in reversible cycles of time. You also talk of two entropies, though reversible in a different way. It is true that there can be many future states, but it is because we do not always know the initial conditions. For any initial condition, there can only be one future state, unless it is modified by other influences. Of course uncertainty is inherent in nature. But that is because of our limitations to know all factors affecting an outcome and our lack of control over the environment that affects the outcome after we complete the operation and before we take the measurement. On the contrary, present can be fully explained based on past and future can be fully explained based on present.
There are questions on the concept of expanding universe. It is not evident in local scales. Galactic blue-shift has been observed. There are galactic mergers. The parameters of the galaxy rotation curve are questionable. The CMB is not homogeneous and has a direction after all – the Axis of Evil. The theory and observation relating to dark energy is dubbed the biggest mismatch in science. Thus, the observation can be better explained by accepting the universal rule: everything including the universe spins in its axis. Then the redshift and blue-shift can be explained with analogy from the solar system. Planets sometimes appear to move away from us at a fast pace while they appear to come close at other times. This will not need any dark energy.
Mass – classical or quantum, is never constant. The distinction between mass and weight is erroneous. If we take a stone to the Moon, its weight will not go up four-fold, as is written in text books. We have to take the same balance to Moon to measure the weight where the balance and the unit will also be the same effect, cancelling it. It will still weigh the same. If we use a different balance and unit, we cannot compare both. We cannot measure the stone on Moon while sitting on Earth. Thus, mass and weight are not different since acceleration due to gravity affects both sides of the balance equally at all places in the universe. Do we apply g in calculating atomic weight? Are the quantum particles immune from gravity? On the contrary, if we hold the same stone under water, it feels light. Thus, mass is an emergent property of the medium – forces acting on it. Action is possible only with energy, and is related to energy density in the medium. You say: “the universe actually shrinks in mass even while universe action grows”. What this implies is that the barrier between mass and energy gets altered. After all, mass is energy confined and energy is mass released from confinement. You seem to agree when you say: “chemical replication is a natural process driven by free energy that occurs with the actions of nucleation or seeding along with replication or growth followed by re-dissolution in recursive cycles of dissolution, seeding, growth, and re-dissolution”.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 18:17 GMT
You offer once again the classical notion that the future is solely determined by knowable causes. However, quantum phase noise represents a cause that is not knowable and that is the point of my essay.
You also note that there are some questions about universe expansion and my essay is based on a shrinking matter and expanding action universe. Therefore, the fact that the Andromeda galaxy...
view entire post
You offer once again the classical notion that the future is solely determined by knowable causes. However, quantum phase noise represents a cause that is not knowable and that is the point of my essay.
You also note that there are some questions about universe expansion and my essay is based on a shrinking matter and expanding action universe. Therefore, the fact that the Andromeda galaxy blue shift is heading towards us at about 0.28 ppb/yr is a part of our shrinking mass. Other more distant galaxies have red shifts due to our expanding force, not really our expanding space.
The classical mass of an electron is indeed a constant of mainstream science. Two hydrogen atoms show the dominance of the gravity attraction of mutual mass once they are more than about 70 microns apart, which is the dispersion limit. Aethertime supposes that each hydrogen mass decays at a very slow rate even as their gravity increases at the same slow rate. This decay is what drives aethertime force.
It is possible to build a universe with many different axioms as beliefs. Aethertime supposes a universe from the duality of just matter and action and so space and time are both emergent properties and not actually axioms. But the time decay and space that both emerge from the action of the universe matter pulse are still what mainstream science believes are axioms.
Energy is just another form of matter as you mention, but phase also plays a very important role. What aethertime supposes is that motion and time are simply how we interpret the mass changes that are apart of all action. It is from the differential of action with mass that space and time emerge. Aethertime does not alter the barrier between mass and energy since both are just different forms of aether action.
Aethertime simply embraces the Schrodinger equation as the basic action equation for both charge and gravity forces. Gravity is due to the same universal matter decay as charge, just scaled by the size of the matter size of the universe.
view post as summary
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT
Dear Sir,
You have brought in a very important aspect involving ATP etc. which we wish you could have elaborated. The same mechanism that energizes the sodium-potassium pump also energizes the senses to receive and send external impulses to the brain.
The nervous system uses electrical and chemical means to help all parts of the body to communicate with each other. The brain and...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
You have brought in a very important aspect involving ATP etc. which we wish you could have elaborated. The same mechanism that energizes the sodium-potassium pump also energizes the senses to receive and send external impulses to the brain.
The nervous system uses electrical and chemical means to help all parts of the body to communicate with each other. The brain and spinal cord make up the central nervous system. Nerves everywhere else in the body are part of the peripheral nervous system. The peripheral nerves run from the spinal cord to all parts of the body. They surround all the organs, muscles and tissues--the heart, liver, intestines, lungs, skin and blood vessels. The peripheral nerves pick up information about the body and send messages through the spinal cord to the brain. The brain sends messages via the spinal cord to peripheral nerves throughout the body that serve to control the muscles and internal organs. The somatic nervous system is made up of neurons connecting the CNS with the parts of the body that interact with the outside world. But the brain lacks pain receptors (nociceptors) – hence it cannot sense anything. What we feel when we have a headache is not our brain hurting -- there are plenty of other areas in our head and neck that do have nociceptors which can perceive pain, and they literally cause the headaches. Since brain lacks sensory receptors, it does not hurt to have brain surgery.
An object receives all wavelengths of light, but reflects only few after absorbing the rest. That gives the object its color. We see only through eyes because eyes only can measure electromagnetic radiation (measurement is a system of comparison between similars). We feel only with our skin when something comes in close contact. Thus, what we see is the radiation emitted by the object, whereas what we touch is not the radiation, but the body emitting radiation. In both cases, our information is incomplete. When these are carried to the brain, these are mixed and a composite picture is prepared. Emotions are cognitive responses to sensory stimuli after they have been processed.
This picture is measured (compared with similar responses earlier) with memory. Then the perception is matched with the earlier perception of similar impulses. If it matches, we “know” that “it (the concept arising from the perceived impulses) is similar to that (an earlier perceived concept). Hence it (the object of perception) is that (equivalence of the concept).
Modern research on consciousness is confined to the actions of neurons, which is the process and not the perception itself. We must differentiate between the observer, the observed and the process of observation. Thus, modern research is wandering aimlessly.
Finally, thank you very much, because your paper gives much food for thought.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 18:42 GMT
Neural action potentials are the chemical ion pulses that excite and inhibit action for many organisms including, of course, human consciousness. What truly surprised me was that quantum gravity would play any role at all in neural action. However, it is not really quantum gravity
per se, it is rather the underlying aether exchange that defines all quantum action.
The action of ATP provides the basic energy for all of life and that includes neural life. The core concept of neural action is that a pulse-echo neural pair forms a particle of aware matter just like two atoms as observer and source form a transient bond by exchanging a photon. But there is both phase and amplitude information in a photon exchange and that is true for a neural exchange as well.
Mainstream science presumes that neural action of ion charge phase decay is much too fast for any quantum neural effects like interference or entanglement. However, with quantum aether, this statement is no longer true. While it is true that the phase decay of quantum charge is very fast for neurons, the phase decay of a neural pulse-echo pair is what defines each moment of thought.
In other words, the current loop of a neural pair results in a magnetic field that couples aware matter particles as a quantum aether into moments of thought. Science measures these neural couplings as the EEG spectra of consciousness, but there is not a theory of the mind that yet understands what EEG spectra really mean.
Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 00:57 GMT
Dear Sir,
Modern scientists bring in many imaginary concepts without properly understanding it. One is extra-dimensions, which is used for over a century, even though it has never been observed. In our paper we have proved all modern notions in this regard as wrong and given physical explanations of 10 dimensions. Similarly, complex numbers, or quaternions, etc. are wrong mathematics, because square of i is treated as -1, whereas, mathematically, square of any positive or negative number is always positive. It can never be -1. After writing a beautiful essay, you are leading towards the trap. While other fundamental forces are intra-body forces, gravity is an inter-body polygamous force that acts throughout the universe. This implies that it cannot be quantized. Hence graviton will never be found. So why bring in absurd concepts like quantum gravity, when you can explain life mechanism without it? What you have missed is equating the process of observation with the observer. Life mechanism is different from consciousness. The same mechanism continues during life time, but ceases to operate at death. This implies the mechanism is not consciousness, but only a process. We can observe the same process in all objects, except that there is freewill in conscious beings. So your search should be directed towards freewill and consciousness – not quantum gravity.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 05:09 GMT
Obviously you have thought a lot about quantum physics and that I like. You mention complex numbers and then disparage them, but complex numbers are just a convenient way to keep track of quantum phase coherence.
So using the Euler method, sqrt(-1) is just a phase shift of pi and so what is the big deal? My quantavangelism is to make both gravity and charge quantum aether and so far, that...
view entire post
Obviously you have thought a lot about quantum physics and that I like. You mention complex numbers and then disparage them, but complex numbers are just a convenient way to keep track of quantum phase coherence.
So using the Euler method, sqrt(-1) is just a phase shift of pi and so what is the big deal? My quantavangelism is to make both gravity and charge quantum aether and so far, that has been successful.
I just cannot convince anyone else in the universe...but may
C. Wetterich has the key. His theory uses expanding mass and shrinking force, but what the hey...it could also be shrinking mass and expanding force...
view post as summary
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 22:30 GMT
Interesting essay Steve...
I like the way you contrast the effects of classical and quantum noise. In any confined sample of a gas, at room temperature, we note the increase of thermodynamic entropy and a co-existence of quantum and classical chaos. I have wondered if whether the formulation of entropy involving microstates is inherently quantum mechanical - given its dependency on
n, the number of gas molecules - or is it just statistical mechanics? I think we see both a superposition of states, and the presence of alternate paths, so it gets complicated. You might want to check out J. Miguel Rubi, as his work offers some interesting insights.
I examined a question related to the decoherence issues you bring up, for my presentation at FFP10. I thought that perhaps QM non-locality and Thermodynamic Entropy might have a common basis. Erich Joos was pretty emphatic in correspondence that decoherence is not dissipation, and it would appear that you take the view it contributes to self-organizing dynamics instead of disorder; is this correct? Finally; I see some connection of your work with the Continuous Spontaneous Localization folks. I had some correspondence years ago with Philip Pearle, regarding Statevector Reduction. But it would appear that you are saying the wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos. Care to comment?
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 22:21 GMT
What a really nice comment...indeed, it would appear that wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos, but it is important to stipulate: When quantum phase noise drives wavefunction collapse, that is distinct from the wavefunction collapes driven by the noise of classical chaos.
Of course, an isolated compressed gas does not change classical entropy unless heat or mass exchanges with...
view entire post
What a really nice comment...indeed, it would appear that wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos, but it is important to stipulate: When quantum phase noise drives wavefunction collapse, that is distinct from the wavefunction collapes driven by the noise of classical chaos.
Of course, an isolated compressed gas does not change classical entropy unless heat or mass exchanges with the reservoir. However, in the quantum entropy of aether, even a classically isolated system is still subject to the decay of matter and expansion of force. All of the universe decays in matter and expands in action and the quantum phase decay of an isolated system entangles all other isolated systems as well.
Therefore even a classically isolated system shows the same arrow of time of phase decoherence or as you say, dissipation. Does your isolated system account for tunneling? Or coherence? How about interference?
Certainly classical decoherence is not classical dissipation, but then again, the classical universe has no role for quantum gravity in any event. Without quantum gravity, there is no meaning for gravitational decoherence and what I call gravity matterism. The motion of stars along with their radiation provides the dimension of a vector force that has no classical meaning, but happens to be exactly what keeps galaxy rotation constant in aethertime. Galaxy rotation is a consequence of quantum gravity and yet cold dark matter halos are still the classical belief of mainstream science.
Statistical mechanics integrates quantum mechanics by quantizing the modes of an empty box. This works really well for many thermo applications, but does not include the dissipation effects of quantum phase noise just like QED does not either. Really Stat Mech and QED both need to quantize the universe with a finite discrete aether instead of an infinity of vacuum oscillators and then let the space and time of empty boxes emerge from that quantized and finite discrete aether.
Any math that begins with the assumptions of continuous space and time is necessarily stuck with the limitations of continuous space and time. The issue with quantum nonlocality is stuck with the conundrums of continuous space and time because of what the word local means. Beginning a universe instead with discrete matter and quantum action in place of space and time makes life so much easier...and thanks for the Rubi and Pearle links...
view post as summary
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 23:50 GMT
Hi Steve,
I just wanted you to know I read your thoughtful and detailed reply. I do agree that it is likely dark matter and dark energy will go away (or be seen as far less pervasive), because indeed quantum gravity will explain those effects. Verlinde's recent work appears to have cleared the first hurdle. We'll see.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 05:31 GMT
The notions of continuous spontaneous localization are very intriguing. First of all, it is remarkable that Singh's essay used CSL constants that evidently have been kicking around awhile, but are very similar to the constants of aethertime...which of course are just restatements of current constants. Singh notes a CSL collapse rate of 1.0e-11 s-1 and aether decays at 0.81e-7 s-1. Singh notes a CSL radius of 1.0e-5 cm and the dispersion to gravity radius is 0.7 e-5 cm.
Of course, the aether constants are not new constants...they just restate currently accepted constants in the context of quantum phase noise decay. The jostling of CSL seems to be simply arbitrarily chosen to work while the jostling of aether is the gravity jostling linked to charge motion. The motion of quantum charge results in a pervasive quantum gravity phase noise that only becomes important out beyond where dispersive dipole-induced-dipole noise drops below quantum gravity noise.
The nice thing about the CSL theory is that it already has a nice Hamiltonian and so represents a really nice starting point for quantum gravity. However, it is important to use conjugates like matter and action and avoid space and time. Space and time are simply too limited to ever represent quantum gravity. Only discrete matter and action can handle the limitations of the very small as well as the very large.
What this means is that every wavefunction is a composite of both the slow changes of gravity phase decay as well as the fast changes of charge motion.
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 19:40 GMT
Glad I came back to check for a reply..
I'll get to Tejinder's essay before long. Thanks again.
JJD
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 17:26 GMT
Hi Steve, Good essay.
As we tend to come at things from different angles I was pleasantly surprised about how much I was fundamentally in agreement with. In particular I agree your P4 recycling description as very consistent with my published paper on the subject, identifying a pattern reproduced at CMB scale so extending to the universe.
But of course scores anyway shouldn't be based on 'agreement with' content, and we do need all disparate viewpoints. Yours was well written, organized and argued so should be far higher than it presently is.
I hope you may also enjoy reading mine and look forward to your response. In particular I wonder if your 'quantum phase noise' is as similar as I suspect to the squared sine curve distribution I show can be derived classically.
Very best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 12:57 GMT
Thanks. I have really been encouraging a null vote even though I appreciate thoughtful comments. I do not know how to rate the very different notions in all of the essays so I do no bother to.
I do differentiate between classical and quantum with the notion of quantum phase noise. Although there are many ways to generate the chaos of classical noise, quantum phase noise shows superposition, entanglement, and interference. Classical noise does not show these effects.
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 22:35 GMT
Steve,
If you check the scoring criteria they exclude rating 'notions' or whether or not you like or agree with actual content. It seems most people have (again) entirely missed the point on that! That should make valid scoring a lot easier.
Thanks for confirming my understanding of your QFN. I asked because my essay describes a logical Classical explanation for each of the effects you describe, all from the very simplest mechanism we know; a spinning sphere. It's too important and 'simple' (elephant in the room) for most here to even 'see' but I did have you marked down as one who may.
I hope you get a chance to read it as I'd value you thoughts.
Very Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 04:33 GMT
I must admit that I do like many aspects of the DFM approach...but quantum stuff does trump classical stuff and so quantum owns the issue today. Maybe that will change, but right not, quantum owns the day...
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 09:03 GMT
Steve,
I agree, the quanta is key. My last 3 years and essay have been about identifying whether any 'non-weird' logical mechanism can reproduce it's results in
agreement with John Bell.
I found one can. Simply fill in the gap Bohr left (in not describing any particle morphology) with one complying with Maxwell's equations. Shockingly I found the additional (Dirac stacked pair spinor) momentum this produces hidden right before our eyes - in OAM, i.e. a spinning sphere, which means OAM is truly QAM, and QAM is truly classical. ALL QM's bizarre effects are rationalised.
That's why I particularly wanted your critical eye to examine it.
Start with the spinning sphere. Is is decidable if points on the equator rotate clockwise or anti clockwise? i.e. have plus or minus charge?
Yet in the stationary Earth centred frame the equator (orthogonal to the poles) is where the UP/DOWN (or Left/Right) momentum pair peak!
Few are able to see this giant 'elephant in the room'. once it dawns all else follows and slots logically into place.
Do let me know if you see it. Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 16:24 GMT
You and many others on this blog have very good intuition and feeling about the nature of physical reality, but often have difficulty conveying those notions to others.
First of all there are classical notions and quantum notions and there is nothing illogical about either classical or quantum notions, they are simply different. Right now, neither classical nor quantum notions adequately...
view entire post
You and many others on this blog have very good intuition and feeling about the nature of physical reality, but often have difficulty conveying those notions to others.
First of all there are classical notions and quantum notions and there is nothing illogical about either classical or quantum notions, they are simply different. Right now, neither classical nor quantum notions adequately explains all of reality even though both classical and quantum predictions are very good in their limited realms.
A classical spinning sphere is a great analog, but you must be careful and differentiate between a gravity sphere and a charge sphere. And then you must be careful about the observer since a classical observer only perturbs rotation in ways that are knowable and causal. A quantum observer also has knowable perturbations, but a quantum observer perturbs rotation in ways that are not knowable and so are not causal.
A gravity sphere can rotate one way or the other, that is true, and those rotation senses only have meaning relative to the observer. So there are as you say two equal and opposite momentum states and a continuum of states in between. Furthermore, gravity rotation couples with the spin of orbital motion and a rotating sphere that orbits another body will have two very different states in that rotation with and against the orbit phase.
However there is no self energy for a rotating gravity sphere. The spin of a gravity sphere does not affect the gravity of the sphere. But there are all kinds of tidal forces that heat the gravity sphere and the radiation of that heat slows both spin and orbit.
Why this is an elephant in the room completely escapes me.
A charge sphere like an electron can rotate one way or the other as well and that spin magnetism will couple with the magnetism of an electron in orbit around a nucleus. This means that there will be a difference for up spin versus down spin just like a spinning gravity sphere.
A charge sphere in orbit around another charge behaves similar to the gravity sphere and classically, there are a continuum of states. However, the classical charge sphere radiates continuously as it orbits and so loses energy. A quantum electron also radiates, but the nucleus captures that radiation in a resonance that is what quantum is and returns it back to the electron in a perpetual game of catch.
Instead of a continuum of classical states, there are now just discrete quantum states. The electron can be either up or down and the orbit can be a ground state or any number of excited states, each with a factor of two less velocity. In order for the electron to leave, it must lose a succession of discrete photons each a factor of four less in energy in an infinity of Zeno's paradox.
The quantum spin state exists as a superposition of up and down both prior to and in orbit. Unlike the classical spin in a classical orbit, the quantum spin exists in a spherical or S state and there is no up or down yet and no elephant in the room. However, there is a photon of energy lost when a nucleus captures an electron and that photon phase is entangled with the electron spin phase.
So now there is a quantum elephant in the room. The electron also does not exist only in the ground state and spends some short time in all of the states and in fact, the electron spends some time in all of the universe as well. This makes quantum sense but does not make classical sense. Moreover, the electron spin does affect its charge and the electron motion in its orbit also affects its charge. The electron self energy is called the anomalous gyromagnetic ratio and it is possible to derive it from the fine structure constant.
Thus far there is no gravity analog to this effect of spinning quantum charge and its entanglement with the lost photon that literally does exist in the whole universe and that is the elephant that is in the room. With a quantum gravity, of course, there is an analogous self energy and meaning for photon entanglement but that is a different story.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 17:41 GMT
Steve,
Thank you, but you did the same thing; started from half way down some other road. Yes I know all you wrote, all current theory, from lectures, papers and books for many decades!
You're proving my 'embedded patterns' hypothesis and need at least another 4 great steps backwards to disengage with ALL of that (look at it as temporary) and to start to see the REAL elephant appearing, which is many scales larger than you're looking! and massively simple in concept.
Perhaps you're not an expert on QM. I don't know, but reading Tejender Singhs excellent essay first may help (I only disagree with his rather desperate solution).
Also perhaps this video if you can find a few minutes.
https://vimeo.com/195020202 Classic QMApart from clearing away all the wierdness you'll find that QM and SR are fully unified (in QM's absolute but 'local' time). You can't then 'start' from
any assumption (most all!) where they're not!
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 19:58 GMT
Thanks for the Singhs link...I have not yet run across this one. Determinate QM usually assumes some Bohmian pilot wave, but these complexifications are completely unnecessary since QM works fine without them.
It is classical physics that does not explain all of physical reality because classical physics and intuition do not sense quantum phase. Therefore, there is no role for superposition or entanglement or interference which is too bad.
Instead of predicting the actions of sources from observation, classical discourse wraps quantum reality in a security blanket of classical causality. Your spinning sphere is a simple analog that you choose to complexify into something that does not make sense to me and to many others as well.
Look...science needs a quantum gravity and simply cannot seem to figure out how to join gravity with charge as quantum. I have done it, but no one else has that I have seen. It could be that aethertime will fail to predict action very well, but so far it works really well for Higg's boson, for dark matter, the spin down of the earth, the spin down of pulsars, and for the mass loss of the IPK.
The nice thing about aethertime is that since no one else seems to like it, I get plenty of time to work out its details. My latest is that there is a time lense in cosmology that magnifies galaxies and quasars looking way back to the CMB creation. While it seems like quasars are more prevalent at z = 1 to 1.5, that is simply due to the time lense caused by the expansion of force and the speed of light.
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 21:48 GMT
Thanks again for the Singh link. Had not yet read it, but Singh is really almost there...very cool...
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 13:48 GMT
Steve,
OK, yes I better understand the problem. Nobody who'se convinced they've found 'the solution' down some road of there own can ever disengage, back right up and be led down any entirely different road, even if it may lead to the same place.
That's human nature. And that's really what we need to advance to truly start to understand how the universe works.
Goof luck with your own model. If it involves some continuum field (ether) with density distributions then I agree it!
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 23:15 GMT
Aethertime is a discrete quantum aether and discrete quantum action. Any continuum model of the universe will fail at both very small and very large scales. It is very interesting to me when very smart people seem to argue endlessly about identity recursions like what is matter or what is action.
These are axioms and therefore are simply things about the universe in which we must simply believe. Once we have axioms, then we can predict the actions of sources like spinning spheres. However, there is not a unique set of axioms and instead there are many different kinds of consciousness that successfully predict action. There do seem to be some notions that predict action better than others and for that, the proof is in the pudding...
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 17:27 GMT
Steve,
It seems we do do have much in common. I refer to a 'sub matter' particulate field rather than 'quanta' (which infers 'matter'), but that's semantic. It can then be a 'continuum' but not of a non-particulate variety which fails. Let me give you a quick written spec for comparison;
1. It is 'dark' or zero point energy, fulfilling all that role but not 'expanding'.
2. It is also 'ether', but has to condense fermion pairs to modulate EM propagation.
3. It is then the 'condensate'. or Higgs field, giving Coulomb, Casimir etc.
4. The extra spin state of the process is from shear perturbation.
5. The vortices formed are pairs of handed fermions, both with two poles.
6. Local energy loss on forming 'matter' isn't 'filled in' but creates a density gradient.
7. All matter tends to move towards the lowest density side (as in a gas).
8. Dim witted macro beings are confused by this, calling it 'gravitation'.
9. When matter returns to condensate form its energy level flattens.
There's plenty more but that's most of the essentials. What else would be needed?
However it seems science really needs to catch up with what's really happening at the 'kiddies bricks' condensed matter scale before getting ahead of itself. If most humans can't yet 'see' the TWO pairs of orthogonal momenta being exchanged on interactions with the simplest spinning spheres then it may be some time before they can see the next fractal down! Have you spotted them yet?
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 06:04 GMT
You do have good intuition, but your maths could use some work. It has taken me almost ten years to work out the details of aethertime. Even to finally realize that aether and action are the fundamental reality, not space or time, has been quite a journey.
When I see other fringe theories, it seems to help congeal aethertime even more nicely. There are many measurements of aether decay and force growth but right now, they are simply labeled as artifacts by mainstream science.
This continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theory is very intriguing Somehow the CSL community uses a coherence decay that is very close to aether coherence decay, 0.32 compared to 0.26 ppb/yr. And CSL uses a coherence length of 100 microns, which is very close to the gravity/dispersion = 1 at 70 microns.
It is really nice to see that more people are converging onto aether decoherence as a fundamental driver of all force...
hide replies
Author Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 18:21 GMT
I do enjoy the essays and am sorry that I do not vote nor do I expect votes. The banter about the unfairness is part of the reason and it is not clear how such a simple-minded vote can ever have any meaning.
My essay
continues to evolve into even lower entropy... for those who are interested...
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 13:16 GMT
Hi Steve,
You argue your point of view quite well, even though opposed to mine concerning expansion/contraction of the universe. Let experiment be the final arbiter.
I find your description of how early life could have begun quite revealing and interesting. While describing this you touched on the role of the sun. Do you share the views of the late Carl Sagan concerning the ‘faint yellow sun’ paradox? How much life can such a young sun drive on earth’s surface if this paradox is true? Or what is your own proposed resolution?
Lastly, you use the term, ‘action’ a lot in your writings. Matter we know is measured in kilograms, time in seconds… what is the unit of measure of action (i.e. the fundamental units)?
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:17 GMT
You always ask very insightful questions. I am aware of the faint sun paradox, but the snowball earth periods are equally perplexing to me.
Since mass decays and force grows over time, there are different interpretations of the past. Gravity and charge scale differently with time since gravity goes as Gm^2 and charge goes as q^2c^2 over time. This means that the effects of gravity and charge vary in different ways over time and that will occur for any theory where mass and force vary over time.
What this means for the sun is that convection, which heat and gravity drive, varies differently from fusion, which quantum charge drives. The current models of the sun over time simply do not allow for changes in mass or c and so the faint sun paradox is simply a result of fixed constants of nature. The sunspot cycle seems to be a result of this effect and the variability of many types of stars is likely related to quantum gravity linked to charge.
Action is a very well known term in physics and is a result of the integration of energy (or equivalent mass) over time or space or spacetime. Thus the units of action are kg s or kg m depending on whether the integration is over time or space. Note that Planck constant/c^2 has the action units of kg s and represents the quantum of action.
Thus, space, time, or even spacetime all emerge from the differential of action with respect to mass. This means that the whole universe of space and time emerges from the simple duality of the conjugates matter and action. This means that all quantum wavefunctions are a product of both very slow gravity as well as very fast charge oscillations that have a pure matter and action basis.
Once an observer of a source tries to make sense out of matter and action, that is when space and time emerge as a way to keep track of source mass and source action.
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:43 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.
3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.
4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?
5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..
6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.
7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.
8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.
9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.
11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.
12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.
I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.
Héctor
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:32 GMT
Thank-you very much for your views on time. Time is a very useful notion and helps science predict the futures of sources, but ultimately, time is limited and does not represent all action in the universe.
Time needs very careful interpretation and then the notions of time have much value for prediction of of source action.
james r. akerlund wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi Steve,
I read your submission and I am not happy. Your profile suggests a better researched and referenced submission. I didn't get that. I see no references, (I seem to live on those). And in your first paragraph you are making statements that other material contradicts. Here is the statement. "The quantum observer has many more possible futures and may not be able to remember the mysteries of exactly which door they actually took or why they chose the door they chose." And here are the references that contradict that statement. [Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.04781]Lev Vaidman1[/Link] and [Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04109]Lev Vaidman2 and others[/Link]. I choose to believe Lev Vaidman in this case.
Jim Akerlund
report post as inappropriate
james r. akerlund replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 02:10 GMT
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:46 GMT
There is nothing really wrong with your two-state vector formalism, it is just limited and does not apply to dynamical QM and does not include the decoherence of quantum phase noise.
You are correct in that I do not give a lot of references since those are present in other papers. Any true quantum description of reality must include decay of quantum phase coherence or it makes no sense. Technical references
exist and if you want to see them, you are welcome.
Without the decoherence of quantum phase noise, the universe simply does not make sense...
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew
I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.
Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.
Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 23:22 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
You view of physics is one of those I find far too loose in its handling of properties and especially their equation representatives, their units, to agree with. However, I do also think that it is representative of cutting edge physics theory as theory is handled today. I think we have spoken more than enough about our views. I will not bring anything more about our differences here unless you bring them up. I want you to know that I think you wrote a very good essay promoting your views. I don't rate essays according whether or not I agree with their content if that content is consistent with today's professional presentations of theoretical physics. I think that yours is consistent in that manner. I won't be posting my votes until the last minutes of the contest. Thus far I have posted no votes. Whatever my vote for your essay is, it should have a good chance of counting at that late time. Good luck to you.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 04:14 GMT
...but you have to know that I always reply to comments that are worth replying to. I realize that I have been hard on you, but such is life in the fast lane.
The fact is that you have really good intuition about reality and I always appreciate good intuition. What you could do better on is in not redefining physics so much as clarifying physics instead.
Granted. There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants. However, redefinition is a perpetual recursion that can tie you up in philosophical knots that lose sight of the primal goal: predicting the future of sources.
What we are all about is predicting the future better than the current models, and that is quite a challenge. For this essay, it means showing how mindless equations result in aims and intentions. In other words, how does the objective reality of the universe couple with the subjective reality of sources.
Since observers can only know sources and not themselves, that means that observers always affect sources in ways that those observers can never know. In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness.
Spectral consciousness is an awareness of the universe sources as spectra of matter. In a way, you could do force spectra in terms of acceleration, which you are want to do. But really, matter and action are much better conjugates for the duality that defines our universe.
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 02:54 GMT
"There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants."
That can only occur so long as physics properties have not each received empirically revealed definitions. Once all inferred physics properties have received their empirically reveal definition, there is no further means by which to offer other definitions.
"In many ways, that is exactly what your...
view entire post
"There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants."
That can only occur so long as physics properties have not each received empirically revealed definitions. Once all inferred physics properties have received their empirically reveal definition, there is no further means by which to offer other definitions.
"In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness."
My arguments are not intuitive if by that word you are charging that I do not know physics. They are explaining that all inferred physics properties can be and must defined in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. This is a restatement of the requirement that physics properties must be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. The physicists of the past who established this criterion knew what they were doing and why. Physics has nothing to do with stages of consciousness. It should have, but so long as it remains restricted to the dumbness of its mechanical interpretation, it will continue to fail to either predict or explain consciousness.
Your theory lacks an empirically revealed physics foundation. You need to go all the way back to the introduction of the property of mass and learn what it is. Stay with the empirical evidence until you see it. The procedure for you to follow is to figure out how the units of mass can be formed from a combination of the units of its empirical evidence. There is empirical guidance provided in the equation f/m=a. The units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. It is in this manner that both force and mass become empirically revealed defined physics properties. It is by in this manner that the units of both force and mass become empirically revealed physics units. That is the only kind that meets the criterion for defining physics properties. The immediate result is that fundamental unity is an established part of f=ma. The leeway in the interpretations of physics equations that is currently the fodder by which theory prospers is removed and theoretical guesses go away with it.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 03:26 GMT
You have been kind enough to share your empirically revealed foundations with us along with your empirically revealed definitions of physical properties. Fortunately, you also then explain what foundations and definitions mean. Unfortunately, foundations are empirical revelations and physical properties are what definitions reveal and so we recursively go a giant circle until we hit the showstopper...
When we hit f/m=a, this reveals the hidden truth that defines physical properties...that way, force and mass have physically revealed units. I do admire your ability to continuously recursively redefine reality and actually seem to believe that it helps to predict the action of sources better than current physics.
Since you use all of the same equations as current physics, save a few, where is the beef? Please...tell us what the entropy of a black hole is...
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
Steve Agnew:
You cannot, nor can anyone else, provide the mathematical basis for claiming that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that they know better, to provide the mathematical basis for claiming that Planck's Constant contains the units of kilograms. It cannot be done by anyone.
Anyone please provide it!!! Verbal diversionary tactics count for nothing and accomplish nothing. I invite
professionals: Please do this: Handle mass your way, then proceed from the introduction of the property of mass through the mathematics that finally reveal that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. Lets make this personal between myself and theoretical physicists as a group. I say you cannot provide the mathematics to show that kilograms is a unit of 'action' anytime, anywhere!!!
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 02:17 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
You are not interested in discussing this with me, and, I don't really want to fruitlessly take up your essay forum space. I will give you a good rating in the last few minutes of the contest because I think your essay deserves it. I will return to my own space for anything further that I feel needs said about the theoretical side of physics. That is where others know to find what I think. Good luck to you.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 15:29 GMT
Normally discourse helps to illuminate an argument and your discourse has helped me to better understand the axioms you use for your world. You base your world on space, time, force, and acceleration as revealed by empirical evidence from which definitions of mass, charge, and temperature all emerge.
There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me. Why you get upset with a matter-scaled Planck constant, h/c^2, having units of kg s, or matter*time, misses the point. In aethertime, quantum phase noise drives both gravity and charge with that quantum of action. Both h and c now vary in time and it is h/c^2 and c/alpha that are constant over the decay time of quantum phase noise. Your approach has c varying over time as well, but seems to keep h and alpha constant.
You never mention quantum phase in your work, but I like the way you use photon deflection by matter to define gravity. That is empirical evidence, but of course, photon gravity is twice the gravity of matter deflection. And of course, matter deflection is also empirical evidence in my dictionary, but not in yours. It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse.
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 23:35 GMT
Steve,
"It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."
Every time you write about what I say it is as if you don't know what I say. I have no discrepancy with regard to photon deflection and matter deflection. Photon deflection is twice the deflection of matter. Here is my main point and it does not...
view entire post
Steve,
"It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."
Every time you write about what I say it is as if you don't know what I say. I have no discrepancy with regard to photon deflection and matter deflection. Photon deflection is twice the deflection of matter. Here is my main point and it does not rely upon all of the rest of my work. The first error of theoretical physics was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics.
Repeating these sentences: "A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics."
There is no need for me to supply a dictionary so that physicists can understand what I am saying in these sentences. The first page of an introductory physics textbook is what is needed:
" College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:
1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."
A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.
In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...
Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:
To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "
My work is completely separate from establishing how to define a physics property. It was established without my input. My work begins by revealing to physicists these two points: The first is that both mass and force could have been and should have been made defined properties. The second point is that I have defined mass in accordance with the directive quoted from Sears Zemansky. If you do not like these two points. If you consider them to be unimportant for physics, then our works will definitely differ. Your work will necessarily not include a physics definition for mass. Mine includes a physics definition for mass. Your work will necessarily not include a definition for kilograms. Mine includes a definition for kilograms. You work with properties and units that are loose in meaning to the point that you can write and use E=M as if it was an equation, which it definitely is not. You made use of it when you suggested that the equivalence of mass and energy justified your exchanging the units of kilograms to replace those of Joules as a unit of action. There is no way that E=MC
2 can be reduced to E=M except by making units disappear with non-mathematical 'slight-of-hand' handling.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 03:16 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,
"There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me."
Its usefulness is the restoration of fundamental unity right from the beginning of physics. It is the opportunity to remove theory, which consists of guesses and conclusions that lack both empirical support and a finished fundamental foundation. This circumstance prevents us...
view entire post
Dear Steve Agnew,
"There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me."
Its usefulness is the restoration of fundamental unity right from the beginning of physics. It is the opportunity to remove theory, which consists of guesses and conclusions that lack both empirical support and a finished fundamental foundation. This circumstance prevents us from learning the nature of the Universe. Instead, we learn what theorists' think when they are imagining what mathematically plausible solutions might suffice to appear to make up for the unfinished business of properly deriving the properties of fundamental physics from their empirical evidence.
The restoration of fundamental unity at the beginning of physics makes the theorists' work unnecessary. It is not the imagination of the theorists that we should trust in. We need to put our trust trust back into the ability of empirical evidence to reveal to us everything we will ever know about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Empirical evidence is our source of knowledge about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Its solutions are not located in extra dimensions or extra Universes or in the convoluted visions that result from theorists guesses. All empirical evidence consists of effects. Cause is a physics unknown.
Theory is the practice of imagining what cause might be and, inserting those imaginings into physics equations. Cutting to the bone: Theory is a facade, placed in front of empirical physics knowledge, that prevents us from seeing the true nature of the Universe. We learn instead the dilemmas that result from theorizing. It is clear why amateurs disagree with one another. It should be just as clear why theorists disagree with one another. The cause in both cases is lack of understanding.
In the case of professionals, that lack of understand is self-imposed. It is not that professionals seek lack of understanding. Their problem is that the unfinished fundamentals of physics allow for gaps in knowledge that theorists' impatiently fill with mathematically plausible substitutions that they insert into physics equations in place of that which remains unknown. It is theorists' substitutions that need to be removed from physics equations and be replaced with empirically revealed knowledge. Fixing physics begins with finally defining mass, temperature, and removing the circular definition of electric charge. After those changes are made, physics equations no longer leave room for theorists intrusions.
James Putnam,
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 16:47 GMT
Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities. Instead, S&Z state that there are three fundamental quantities from which all other quantities derive. Science...
view entire post
Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities. Instead, S&Z state that there are three fundamental quantities from which all other quantities derive. Science defines the three fundamental quantities of mass, length, and time with measurement rules. In other words, you must simply believe in these three fundamental quantities as axioms or operational definitions that then define all other physical quantities.
What you propose is that there are actually only two fundamental quantities, length and time, and those two axioms then define mass. The use of indefinable or undefinable is not very helpful in the context of explaining definitions.
It is true that for any set of axioms that define all physical quantities, the axioms must also define each other as well. This means that it is true that length and time define mass just as mass and length define time. This means that you are actually correct that length and time define mass, but this truth is already embedded in S&Z.
In other words, S&Z define both space and time from the action of light and so light along with mass really define both space and time. Unfortunately, the classical formulation of space and time as continuous and infinitely divisible results in the pothole singularities that tie spacetime in knots. So the classical axioms of length and time do not work for the whole universe and that is why your approach, while not wrong, is simply not that useful.
My view is that matter and action represent much more useful axioms. Action is the path integral of the Lagrangian (i.e. KE - PE) over some path in space, time, or spacetime. Thus, action can have different dimensions depending on the nature of the path integral. Minimization of the action integral over a classical path is then what defines GR's geodesics while QED's discrete action Lagrangian integral probabilities result in quantum paths as entangled superpositions.
Observers cause decoherence and then realize an uncertain path from the entangled superpositions of quantum paths. Although mainstream science argues endlessly about this measurement problem, aethertime's universal decoherence of quantum phase noise makes reality objective even without an observer derives. Quantum phase noise comes from the gravity fluctuations of charge motion and is what makes reality objective even without an observer decoherence.
view post as summary
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 19:54 GMT
"Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities."
I find that at no time did the 3rd edition end up " ... defining indefinable quantities." However, I have read the introduction from the 3rd edition several times since last communicating. I do see that the 3rd edition is not clear about saying that which I say is meant. While it seems clear to me that 'indefinable' means, for Sears and Zemansky, that a property cannot be defined, they do not actually say what I say. One way of saying what I say is: A property that is definable is a property that has units that can be and must be expressed in terms of pre-existing units. In practice, I find that they do this, but, you are correct that their wording is awkward, and, my quote from them is not sufficient support for my position. Since they did not clearly say so, I say that: A definable property is one that is expressible in terms of pre-existing properties; and, a definable unit is one that is expressible in terms of pre-existing units. I acknowledge that, from your intelligent perspective, when you disagree you are disagreeing with me. Good luck in the contest.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 20, 2017 @ 03:58 GMT
Well I have no access to S&Z 3rd edition, but I believe you. Declaring something as indefinable and then defining it is oxymoronic. Science is already loaded with plenty of oxymorons and science does not really need any more.
This discourse has helped me by showing that aethertime needs measurement of both matter and action to define the universe just like S&Z use length and time. What is most interesting is that measuring matter is obvious with the IPK, but what about action?
Length and time are both differentials of light in time as frequency and wavelength times c, so of course the ratio of length and frequency. This eliminates time and provides pure action as the differential of time phase with spatial phase...interesting...
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 07:47 GMT
Hi Steve
I have read your essay, and as an artist enjoyed that it starts with an illustration!
Reality must be fundamentally the same, whatever physics we choose to gauge it with. Your paper explores Quantum parity and Classical Chaos ... did you equate the two? I should re-read your essay again to find out.
Other terms you use that need clarification is observer..bonding..source. You illustrate this by a person (or atom) going through a door, taking a a path in the classical case, she is bonding with ...what? But something deeper seems to be implied. It is not too clear.
Like most physicists these days you subscribe to the concept of quantum noise - that probability reigns at the bottom rung of Nature. In my Universal model, on the contrary, I believe that an exquisite crystal-like order is at work in the lattice of ether nodes that ultimately form space, energy, matter and everything else. In
my fqxi essay I have presented a program of drastic spring cleaning that physics has to undergo before the truth of how it operates at the fundamental level can be known! Hope you will have a look.
I wish you the best,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
Your comments are very welcome. My essay is about uniting the two types of noise; quantum phase noise and the classical noise of chaos. The ancient Greeks viewed chaos as the beginning from which the order of the cosmos emerged. My essay argues that while we live in a universe ostensibly dominated by the chaos of classical noise, the entanglement of quantum phase noise is what brings the order of the cosmos from chaos.
Bonding is a term that represents how we move since in order to take one step, one foot bonds with the floor and the other foot debonds from the floor. Thus any destination breaks down into a finite number of bonding and debonding event pairs that distill down to breaking that first bond with the floor and making that final bond at the source.
My essay is also about the order that emerges from the expanding force of our aether decay. While it is true that quantum uncertainty is a necessary part of our expanding force universe, so are entanglement and coherence and superposition. The difference between a classical and a quantum approach is that classical knowledge is all knowable. This means that once an observer measures a state, the classical observer knows that state existed before its measurement. There is no classical meaning for superposition and phase and the classical universe follows a determinate path set by the CMB creation.
However, a quantum approach simply accepts that some quantum knowledge is unknowable and therefore that a quantum state may exist as a superposition before the measurement. The state of the superposition before the measurement is therefore not knowable and this also means that the future is only what is likely and simply not completely predictable.
There is no quantum sense to a determinate future although the quantum future is certainly among a set of more likely futures. A quantum future gives free will and free choice a role in bringing the order of the cosmos from the disorder of chaos.
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 01:36 GMT
Thanks Steve
Forgive me for not engaging with the themes you present -my faxi essay is all about divesting physics from emergent concepts such as wave-function collapse etc. that confuse the fundamentals of physics. if you read my pet model Beautiful Universe, it is an absolute Cellular Automata where there is no distinction between classical and Quantum states - they both emerge from the CA, so most of the concepts of QM that you reiterate above are moot in such a world. Of course I may well be wrong. Your interesting observations about CA on my page need to be re-read thanks.
All the best,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:37 GMT
...ah yes, but your model is ultimately all knowable and therefore is not quantum. There is nothing wrong about chaos and the CA is very informative...it just does not include quantum phase and therefore is incomplete.
James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 23:05 GMT
Steve,
Your essay reads simplistic but weight heavy in meaning. Your plural backgrounds and interests have quantum, classical, physics and chemical bonds held together in prose.
Good point that you can't separate the universe into mindless math laws and mindful observers but must recognize mindless laws are a product of humans who are interacting.
Quantum coherence and decoherence are still conditions that quantum biology researcher are seemingly finding overlaps between the quantum and the classical world, seeing qualities of coherence holding for more efficient photosynthesis for plants, like in "Life on Edge." They mention it for European robins migration as well.
A new theory my essay mentions by Jeremy England also sees entropy-based behavior for the inanimate and well as the animate.
Hope you get a chance to read and comment on my essay as well.
Regards,
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear Sirs!
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Steve Agnew wrote on May. 2, 2017 @ 03:00 GMT
Somehow it is very pleasant to be at the very bottom and therefore not worrying about how fair the contest is or how everyone is one bombing everyone else.
It is nice just to experience the awe of human discourse and to know that someone, out there, somewhere has connected. Even if that quantum phase decay was very short, discourse that connects to the quantum phase noise of the universe will have its way.
Either the discourse will decay and fade away or it will be enhanced by constructive interference and the belief of others. The brief actions of discourse are the only hope that people have for sharing their ideas...
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.