Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Nick Mackenzie wrote on Jun. 19, 2020 @ 09:39 GMT
This reminds me of the beginning of empiricism and David Hume. He wondered what is the relationship between effect and cause, whether the causal relationship is a necessary one, and how it relates to our belief in the facts. He was concerned about how a person knows the cause and effects. He posed the question, on what basis can we determine the necessity of a relationship? We can know in two...
view entire post
This reminds me of the beginning of empiricism and David Hume. He wondered what is the relationship between effect and cause, whether the causal relationship is a necessary one, and how it relates to our belief in the facts. He was concerned about how a person knows the cause and effects. He posed the question, on what basis can we determine the necessity of a relationship? We can know in two ways: a'priori and a'posteriori, that is, empirically. The first type of research is an analysis before experience, from the notion of the sun alone it is impossible to deduce that it will rise. We judge reality on the basis of experience, i.e. each time after it has taken place and not before. The necessity of a causal relationship cannot be known a'priori. We cannot know the necessity empirically, because all that experience informs us about is a constant consequence of facts after each other, not the result of one fact from another. So on what basis do we recognize the existence of causal relationships? The answer is: through associations. We claim that there are causal relationships in the world. According to the philosopher, knowledge of this kind is knowledge by habit. If something has constantly set in the past, e.g. a sunrise, then we tend to treat it as always setting. In Hume's opinion, it is faith, not knowledge.
Given his experience, Hume took an immanent position, i.e. we cannot know the causal link a'priori or through experience. The philosopher applied inductive reasoning, followed by A followed by B only if it was found many times. This way, it brings nothing new but a certain cycle is repeated. We say that A is cause B, cause equals habit plus expectation. We do not find a connection between the facts e.g. the day is followed by night. Hume wanted to tell us that the impulses coming into our mind, impressions give rise to some speculation not always right.
In conclusion, he believed that everything except formal knowledge and knowledge of facts is metaphysics and should be rejected. Empirical knowledge can only be factual and never necessary. More consistently than his empirical predecessors, Hume retreated to an immanent position and renounced all claims about what is not directly available to the mind. He did not ask whether things exist, but whether we are right to assume that they exist. He did not deny the existence of relationships necessary in the real world but denied the possibility of knowing them.
Nick from
web development Geelong
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Morgan wrote on Jun. 19, 2020 @ 15:15 GMT
I'm curious how much this kind of project can benefit from considering the relationship between classical and quantum statistical formalisms as I present it in "An algebraic approach to Koopman classical mechanics", in Annals of Physics 2020 (
preprint URL,
Annals of Physics URL). Specifically, we can take there to be no distinction between classical systems and quantum systems, only distinctions between commutative and noncommutative algebras of measurements and admissible transformations of measurements.
Furthermore, in any given experimental context we can take
joint measurements always to be mutually commutative (and in
that sense "classical"), whereas measurements in different experimental contexts that are
not joint measurements may well require that we use, in a classically natural way, a noncommutative algebra of measurements. There are at least three ways of doing this, using Wigner functions, generalized probability theory, or Koopman-type Hilbert space formalisms for classical physics, as well as others: an algebraic Koopman approach, however, makes the classical naturalness of such extensions more apparent (obviously, that's IMO).
To my shame, I do not understand Judea Pearl's work well enough to know how he copes with statistics when there are different experimental contexts, but it's such a classically natural concept, and often discussed as such in the literature on statistics, that I can only imagine that he does.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jun. 20, 2020 @ 18:10 GMT
"In 2019, Cavalcanti and student J. C. Pearl proved that such peculiar quantum effects defy explanation via classical causality"
All such "proofs" are based on idealist, false assumptions, that have no relevance, to the real world. There is
simple, causal, classical explanation: unrecognized inevitable Bit-Errors in the measurements.Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:23 GMT
...via classical causality? meaning as in classical mechanics?
The quantum world is held in balance with a negative-time-going duality, but it does require a causal formulation in order to be consistent with the REST of Physics
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 18:12 GMT
My point is, quantum theory
IS classical physics. It has just been
completely misinterpreted, as was suspected ever since it was created, a century ago, due to physicists utterly confusing Shannon's conception of information, with there own misconceptions. Classical, World War II era, RADAR signal detection processes, applied to entangled, polarized objects like coins,
perfectly reproduce the so-called "Bell Correlations", with detection efficiencies that are supposedly, theoretically, impossible to obtain, in the classical realm; but they are, in fact, perfectly and easily obtainable, by exploiting Shannon's insights into the nature and behavior of information. The problem is, physicists have never recognized, that in addition to the well-known detector inefficiency problem, another far more consequential problem exists, that has gone unrecognized for an entire century -
real detectors will
always produce frequent "false alarms" (AKA bit-errors), under the test conditions
required by every "Bell" test - just as Shannon predicted, long before Bell ever even derived his theorem. In other words, Bell's theorem (as well as other aspects of quantum misinterpretations) is based on idealistic (unreal) assumptions, that have no relevance whatsoever, to the real world; we do not live in an idealistic world, composed of "perfectly identical" particles and "perfect error-free" detectors.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 07:07 GMT
Does any of this lead to new physics? I mean, is it so unlikely that someone might ask if wave functions are actually foundational in such a way that they could be the building blocks of spacetime? It's like the physics community has hypnotized itself into thinking that quantum mechanics is impossible to understand and it's all about live cat/dead cat superposition. But that is all completely missing the point.
You've got this wave function thing that is calculated; maybe what is being calculated is actually foundational. You have
and
which are operators that help you calculate the possible eigenstates that can be measured. There is no live cat/dead cat operator. You have something that behaves like waves and has properties of momentum and energy, with time/position built into it.
It just seems like there is an opportunity to interpret physics in a more creative way. Does it always have to be about mathematics? Maybe if we made casual observations such as: wave functions are real things that should be added to the standard model, maybe then we might make a break through.
There is too much rigidity in the physics community to come up with any creative ideas. As a result, physicists are more concerned about calculating when the universe is going to undergo heat death, then they are of coming up with new technology or new insights into physics.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 15:18 GMT
Wavefunctions are no more real, physical entities than Ptolemy's epicycles. Nor does it "always have to be about mathematics." Quite the contrary. The problem is
exactly what Einstein et al suspected, long ago: all the mathematical theorems etc. are being founded upon and subsequently derived from,
inappropriate, idealistic, unrealistic,
physical assumptions, that are
false assumptions about the real world. In other words, the math is correct, but it is not describing what all the physicists have believed it to be describing. It is
not describing the behavior of any matter at all. It is
only describing the detection process itself - which is entirely based on energy detection, which is why only the wavefunction-squared and not the wavefunction itself corresponds to any observable. This is also the origin of the spurious belief in a "negative-time-going duality" or retro-causality, mentioned above by Lundberg. A
"matched filter" detector is constructed by convolving a conjugated,
time-reversed copy of a signal with the signal itself; in the Fourier transform (wavefunction) domain, that means "square the wavefunction".
Put simply, quantum theory is not describing any "drug" (matter) or even its behavior. It is merely describing a faulty "drug test", to determine if the drug (matter) is present at some particular points in space and time. That is why the presence of an observer matters so much - the theory is not describing what is
being observed at all, it is only describing the detection statistics of a faulty "drug test" being performed by the observer.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 16:37 GMT
Rob,
Wave functions are real! Lack of progress in physics is what happens when you have a wrong assumption. There are thousands of cosmologists who are literally wasting their talent and careers on topics like "the heat death of universe" because a wrong assumption like yours (physics community) makes it impossible to understand what spacetime itself is made of. If you can look at a wave function, even a simple wave function of the form,
,
and see that it is a real thing that has physics constants built into it and has been proven to exist because virtual photons have been proven to exist, THEN, we can start to talk about what spacetime geometry is made of.
We could be controlling gravity (spacetime curvature) to create propulsion WITHOUT USING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MASS! But we can't make any breakthroughs of this sort until we abandon false assumptions.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 15:07 GMT
Rob McEachern,
Well, you'd have a Nobel Prize to OVERTURN to prove that anti-matter doesn't exist. While we can merely _sample_, or see effects of, it via high-energy physics (where it is required of the formulation, to model many effects - not merely a 'data-match').
Black Holes actually _preserve_ matter (information, if you must) for release in a negative-time-going universe. This is how the universe achieves its initial state, and a FUNDAMENTAL issue for cosmology as well. It is important that a cosmology be causal, which NBWF achieves - but Steinberg's theory is NOT.
I actually presented+published work entitled Causal Particle Theory at DPF 09: https://indico.cern.ch/event/41044/contributions/1866467/ which was eventually included in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205176 .
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
Wayne,
There is no negative-time-going universe. The concept originates entirely from studying (and misinterpreting) the properties of mathematical equations, not the study of any observed nature phenomenon. And its appearance in the equations of quantum theory, that are supposed to be describing nature, results entirely from its unrecognized use in describing the
detection of matter, rather than in describing the matter itself.
It has nothing to do with the existence of anti-matter. Matter and anti-matter do not coexist, for the same reason that drivers obeying the traffic laws of the United Kingdom, do not coexist with drivers obeying the laws of the United States; they tend to obliterate each other in head-on collisions. But there is nothing to prevent them from existing separately, in their only little "universes." The "Laws of Nature" are no more universal, than the "Laws of Man", they both merely
describe, rather than
cause observed regularities; they are themselves merely effects, being caused by the pervasive tendency of "natural selection" to obliterate all things that fail to "go with the (prevailing) flow". In other words, it does not matter what the laws are - they may differ from place-to-place or time-to-time. It only matters that everything obeys them, in a particular place and time, whatever they are. That is the ultimate "cause" for the existence of any and all repeatable (deterministic) behaviors, and that is ultimately
What "Information" is all about.Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Charles Harrow wrote on Jul. 10, 2020 @ 11:31 GMT
The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test conditions. In the real world, on the other hand, it is very easy to trick it.
The core weakness of the AI itself are a few problems. The use of machine learning systems in sensitive areas such as medicine is still a risky undertaking in many cases. Example? The AI used in an experiment conducted by a network of New York hospitals, where the system learned to 'detect' cases of pneumonia not from medical data, but by identifying the institution from which the results came. The machine simply knew that during training, most cases of the disease were in a given institution, and based its "diagnosis" on this.
Another example of disappointing expectations of the AI today are autonomous vehicles. "The Economist" cites the case of the American company Starsky Robotics, which was working on autonomous trucks and was closed down in March this year. Among the reasons for the company's collapse, its founder mentions both the focus on the safety of the designed solutions (which annoyed impatient investors) and the shortcomings of the technology itself.
---------------------
Pulno
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 25, 2020 @ 09:51 GMT
I'm sure there is an easy to understand explanation to causality, quantum gravity, something so easy, even a first year undergraduate physics student could understand.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:45 GMT
There will be... 1st ask yourself: "What is the simplest geometric space-filling 'object' in 3+t dims?"
or, more obviously, in only 3D, with the question: "when or where is time stopped?"
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:54 GMT
the time stopped ? where and how and why, I d like to know more because inside this physicality, the time is real and cannot be stopped, and what is the simplest geometric space filling object ?
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 15:15 GMT
Steve,
I'm sure if you studied Black Hole astrophysics you'd be aware that time slows for objects approaching the horizon. Now, a fundamental problem lies in _preserving_ information in BH - which can only be done by considering that _preserved matter_ (in a BH) stops experiencing time.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0007100
Anyway, it should also be obvious (and taught in every elementary school geometry class) that a tetrahedron is the simplest geometric object space-filling in 3D (note- spheres have only 1D - radius)
This SHOULD be very intriguing ---
1st it explains the factor of 1/4 on the Beckenstein-Hawking area-entropy law,
2nd, a tetrahedron is bilaterally assymetric. Well, SO IS THE GALACTIC ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN. Think about that real hard... there is NO other valid explanation for the electron-positron annihilation radiation from our own galaxy (and all others).
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 15:57 GMT
Hi Mr Lundberg, wellI don t agree about the tetrahedron, it is just a play of geometrical algebras and they are not foundamental objects, the choice of this universe probably for the quantum particles are spheres and they can be deformed with many mathematical tools, we don t see in nature these tetrahedrons, the spheres 3D, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere you live on a sphere, your turn...
view entire post
Hi Mr Lundberg, wellI don t agree about the tetrahedron, it is just a play of geometrical algebras and they are not foundamental objects, the choice of this universe probably for the quantum particles are spheres and they can be deformed with many mathematical tools, we don t see in nature these tetrahedrons, the spheres 3D, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere you live on a sphere, your turn around an other , many examples foundamental are there, the eyes, a water drop, the fruits, the glands, the waves and many others, the tetrahedrons are not there them, they are just a play of maths like these geometrical objects and lie for example, fruthermore the philosophical origin considering the fields are not proved and is just a fashion for me for the strings theorists or others like the geonmetrodynamics, the coded 3D spheres are more logic and it is not a problem to deform them with an intinsic ricci flow, and you can utilise the oher tools like the lie groups, algebras and derivatives or the clifford algebras and correlate with the topological and euclidian space and link with the poincare conjecture, your tetrahedrons are like all the persons persuaded not foundamental and all persons having some basis in sciences, maths and physics can recognise easily that these 3D spheres have a lot of probabilities to be the foundamental mathematical and physical objects, I know that the vanity is enormous inside the sciences community and that all we are persuaded, but your terahedrons and its philosophy with fields are just for me limited and lacks of generality, furthermore the faqct to tell this iabout the elementary school is totally odd, where have you learnt this ?? because the spheres have no angle, are the perfect equilibrium of forces and permits to create all shpapes, your tetrahedronms are just like all the others a sphape that a sphere can do in inserting angles, are you fascinated by the egyptians and the pyramids lol ?? there is nothing of odd with this sphape and the pyramids , we must be deterministic and not confound. About the BHs I know well the works of Hawking and like the relativity I know how we can interpret this time in the relativity and how we can decrease the internal clocks , the event horizons and the informations are just at the surfaces but we don t know reall what we have after this bridge inside these BHs and so for me it is not sufficient to analyse just the surfaces and how act these informations there, we need to know really what are these BHs inside and nobody knows still, we cannot see due to this relativistic problem. So in conclusipon all rational thinkers can understand and see that the spheres seem the foundamental roads at all scales and we have probably coded 3D spheres quantum instead of fields like origin, we have not strings at this planck scales, nor points nor tetrahedrons and all elementary students or thinkers can see that this shape is the choice of this universe. To you dear thinker, don t be persuaded, doubt about these foundamental objects and about the universal philosophy, regards dear thinker,
ps the 1D radius comparated with the 3D of tetrahedrons is really odd , see what I told about the 0 angle and the perfect motion and the equilibrium of forces and the ricci flow please , if a kind of eternal infinite consciousness has created an universe, this thing has chosen the spheres 3D to create all shapes simply, not need to discourse about the maths and physics to see a so simple evident truth, feynamn said , one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say oh my god, how is it possible that we have not seen a thing so simple before ???my friend on FQXi Dr Ray Munroe, he is dead and I am sad told me steve I don t understand how is it possible that we have not thought about this when I have shared my theory here, and he told me in private many are going to be jealous and irritated you know but don t be troubled, it is a good sign he told me, I know the human nature and its vanity and that all we are persuaded but the fact to not recognise that these spheres and spherisation seem correct is odd, this vanity destroys this planet simply, a little bit of humility is better , and I suggest to thinkers to focus on these spheres instead of strings or tetrahedrons even if they are fascinated by the pyramids lol :)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:07 GMT
I don t want to destroy the strings theorists me or the geonetrodymanic theorists or the E8 fascinated thinkers or thebtetrahedrons now, but please let s be deterministic and rational and let s rewcognise that these 3D spheres seem foundamental at all scales, and that this philosophy of fields like origin like if god oscillated only photons has sufficiently been , me I want well, but what is this fashion of strings and fields like origin ??? is it a lobby now , I can recognise some interesting maths for the fields but lets be serious a little bit also, I repeat, these 3D coded spheres can create all geometries and topologies with the 3 main system of finite series that I have explained, 3 aethers, one spae and two fuels, and the codes are inside these particles, not need of a 1D external field like if we had photons and strings in 1D inside oscillating like if we had an infinite heat, is it a joke ??? this infinite eternal consciousness codes the spheres and the informations correlated and create the physicality it is so simple. For the tetrahedrons lol the egyptians have chosen this shpape because they were fascinated by the sun a sphere and that this shpae the tetrahedron permits to have the maximum rays of light, that is all , nothing of exceptional or foundamental, just a shpae chosen by a civilisation fallen down like the romans due to this vanity, lack of consciousness and odd tools utilised in the governances.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:12 GMT
3 simplex 3 simplex, me I want well, but nothing of odd and special you know and euclide could agree with me , and POINCARE also it seem to me, furthermore when you rotate all the diffrent shpaes like the squares, triangles, tetrahedrons or others in all sense, what is the sphape appearing???? that tells us a lot, the spheres and the rotations are foundamental and I repeat but an intrinsic ricci flow in these coded spheres can create all geometries, we just put the angles and the sides ,
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:25 GMT
Steve Dufourny,
You can feel however you like about different theories/geometries for fundamental objects. But you must agree that they all fall in one of three categories, in terms of how well they "fulfill the unique requirements of particle theory", i.e. having a match to known QC/ED combinatorial alegebra:
SUB-sufficient: such as yours, anything that treats electromagnetism as fundamental to QED, and may others.
Sufficient: a formulation that is 1-1 and ONTO with Std Model
SUPER-sufficient: String theory and any extension of StdModel that seeks to exploit any 'new symmetry'.
WRL
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:31 GMT
..continued re "when you rotate all the different shapes like .. triangles" again, spinning triangles, taken in threes as indicated to make a quark or lepton, have the correct combinatorial algebra AND are 1-1 with the causal algebraic group proposed in 1992.
sorry... but basing QCD on spheres simply puts your ideas (unformulated?!?!) in the camp with StdModel, who (in desperation?) simply assign quantum numbers to an object which has its own quantum state algebra - NOT the correct ONE.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 22, 2020 @ 08:36 GMT
Mr Lundberg, if you cannot see the relevances of these 3D spheres, probably you need to go deeper in general philosophy about the origin of this universe , and you must change your foundamental objects being persuaded about these geometrical algebras, sorry but it is not because you are educated that you can be general and innovative, and I know I repeat that I irritate having found this theory of...
view entire post
Mr Lundberg, if you cannot see the relevances of these 3D spheres, probably you need to go deeper in general philosophy about the origin of this universe , and you must change your foundamental objects being persuaded about these geometrical algebras, sorry but it is not because you are educated that you can be general and innovative, and I know I repeat that I irritate having found this theory of spherisation and spheres inside this theoretical sciences community, it is not my fault if the others have not found this universal links, I have worked hard to find this, I rank all since the age of 17 and it is ranking that I found this universal truth, you make what you want you know, you utilise your gepometrical algebras, you consider your tetrahedrons, me I continue with the spheres 3D and their deformations, if the thinkers try to find problems, I can understand , it is just the vanity simply and they cannot accept my theory due to human nature, but be sure my friend, you know it also, these spheres are the secret with or without the approvements of persons against or trying to critic in insisting about their works and correlated philosophy ,your geometrical algebras are just mathematical tools and your tetrahedrons are just a shape that the egyptians loved, that is all, and also I am not a professional so I have not published , it exists many good works and papers on arxiv but many also are just papers not relevant , so it is not a question of formulations like you tell but about real innovative relevamces, have you found an innovative relevance ? I don t know, at tghis moment it is very common you know what you tell , many professors and Phd are good in details but are not able to be general ands innovative, that is why the frustration arrives and the need of competition due to vanity to have the last words, frankly that will not change that my theory is general and innovative mine , sorry I am frank, instead to read papers formulated, try to create innovative correct convergent partitions :) take care dear friend, be the force with you jedi of the sphere , they turn so they are
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 27, 2020 @ 21:17 GMT
Objects fall spontaneously in a gravitational field. We are not touching anything here... There is here a most fundamental cause, in front of us.
Objects fall from where time runs faster toward where it runs slower. Why?
Things have a higher probability of existence (to be) where time runs slower ...
because they get to be there.. longer.... One may extend this to motion, momentum,
planetary orbits etc.
This whole universe is about where to be, where to go. Closer, farther or just stay put.
MM
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 12:33 GMT
The speed of light is invariant for all observers.
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 13:09 GMT
For the last 40 years, I have encountered often the same people over and over in different fora, .. Each has a thesis or group of ideas they want to promote, discuss and polish. I wish I had taken note of each thesis, made some sort of personal file, so that I would know what you are up to JASON.
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 13:57 GMT
Hi Marcel, maybe it is time to forget all our theisis and works and lifes and habits and this vanity and work in team to solve our major global problems, this is important, but like I said the vanity will be the biggest problem, the humans have difficulties to follow , they follow a system stupid but they cannot follow other things , they survive in a system not equal and they try to be strong and adapted, it is sad knowing our potential, the global familly is a reality and the responsability seems essential where we are universally conscious
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 13:23 GMT
Wayne R Lundberg PhD wrote on Jul. 30, 2020 @ 21:19 GMT
FQXi community, and authors,
This discussion seems to need to seriously consider the work of Seiberg, Susskind & Toumbas in “Space/Time Non-Commutativity and Causality” JHEP 0006:044,2000 hep-th/0005015v3 , where they observe-
"In particular if the time coordinate is involved in the non–commutativity the theory seems to be seriously acausal and inconsistent with conventional Hamiltonian evolution."
This criterion is only passed by the NBWF, or the well-known non-commutative matrix algebra used to describe Band Theory, which is very similar.
WRL
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 3, 2020 @ 09:32 GMT
Hello Professor Lundberg, All this seems very interesting, do you know the works of the specialist of this non Commutativity , Alain Connes, I love his works and methods, he is relevant, this non commutativity is an important piece to encircle our unknowns, regards
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 3, 2020 @ 13:54 GMT
Steve Dufourny,
While I am not familiar with the work of Alain Connes (feel free to cite an example), there are certainly many mathematical possibilities,re "non-commutativity. My fav is a cross product of two wreath products.. which I first read about in the 80s
R-
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2020 @ 09:04 GMT
Professor Lundberg, you could like his works , he is specialised in several topics about the non commutativity geometry, like the spectral standpoint or the links with scaling hamiltonian, the fixed map points , the spectral truncations, ....I like hos works and methods, I learn them for my theory, you could like his reasonings I beleive, regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2020 @ 09:50 GMT
what I find relevant is that he try to unify the electromagnetism and this gravitation with several spectral tools and links with the hilbert formalism and the works of riemann, I consider like foundamental objects the 3D coded spheres and I consider an intrinsic ricci flow for the geometries more other tools like the lie groups, alg, and derivatives , I try to converge with the topological and euclidian spaces also , I have considered also on the 2D surfaces of these series of spheres the hopf fibrations to rank the quasiparticles, I have reached this quantum gravitation also in considering the cold Dark matter encoded in nuclei for the balance , I have changed just the distances to respect this newtonian mechanics ,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2020 @ 09:53 GMT
ps the clifford algebras also are important in my theory, the aim being to harmonise the couplings and respect the lagrangian and hamiltonian, that permits to renormalise and quantify this quantum gravitation and explain the emergent topologies and geometries in a dance of electromagntism and gravitation
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2020 @ 15:18 GMT
I have utilised this general method for the quantum gravitation and oddly I have a number near the dirac large number for the number of cosmological spheres , and I consider this number for the finite quantum series of the space and the two fuels, the cold dark matter and the photons, it seems that we have a kind of link between the cosmological scale and the quantum scale and the numbers , a real partition exists and the most impressing is that it is necessary to link the electromagnetism and the gravitation at all scales......
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2020 @ 17:59 GMT
there is something of very relevant for the actions coupled in matters and the spectral analysis in considering this cold Dark matter encoded like a balance , negentropy entropy, heat cold, +-, electromgantism gravitation..... the aim being to make like an einstein hilbert action and yang mills action but in chaging the senses of rotations of my 3D psheres and in considering the densities, volumes, rotations, oscillations.... and the topologies , geometries also are considered with this main coded space, the primoridal finite series of spheres and the two fuels, finite series also, the operators become relevant like this ricci flow and the deformations of spheres respecting a kind of poincare conjecture. All this to tell that in fact the newtonian mechanics is respected and that quantify this quantum gravity because the main codes are farer and that we must change so the distances , this electrongantism is like encircled by this gravitation.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 12:40 GMT
Steve,
I like any work that helps connect standard theories - but have found that the fundamental geometry is systemically overlooked (I'll get into why later).
Here you mention "I consider fundamental objects {to be} the {ref?, need image} 3D coded spheres"
My early concern was with understanding quantum state algebra (s). I found a very straightforward way to map to the state algebra representation of the 8-fold way. But it has one "problem" - it has no mass or temporal (time coordinate) term. That precluded publication -for decades, really. Then comes Seiberg's causality criterion (2000, but I found it later) saying, in feeble terms, that isn't a "problem" that is a REQUIREMENT
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 12:56 GMT
It is complex to really be sure about all this, I have remarked that many consider the geometries and topologies from fields like with this E8 and the geonetrical algebras, so they consider that the geonetries and topologies come from these cosmic fields and quantum fields, my model is not like this, I consider this 3D spheres like coded and I deform them with several tool, in fact it becomes very...
view entire post
It is complex to really be sure about all this, I have remarked that many consider the geometries and topologies from fields like with this E8 and the geonetrical algebras, so they consider that the geonetries and topologies come from these cosmic fields and quantum fields, my model is not like this, I consider this 3D spheres like coded and I deform them with several tool, in fact it becomes very philosophical this main foundamental objects, have we points, strings or 3d Spheres, we cannot affirm, but I have remarked in ranking a little bit of all that the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere, you live on a sphere, your turn around an other, you see them with spheroids, your eyes, the fruits, the glands, the brains also are in this logic of spherisation seeing the evolution of hominids, and the favorite sports of humans, this and that , in fact why this shape ? I don t know but it seems that they are simply the choice of this universe and that they permit to create all shpaes, they have no angle, they are the perfect equilibrium of forces, they permit the perfect motions also, in fact for me they seem foundamental at all scales and the universe is logic also is in this reasoning, probably that all at all scales follow this sphape and its deformations and complexifications of interactions and couplings. The thinkers can tell all what they want, we seem to live in a spherical universal logic, feynman told us that one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god how is it possible that we have nots een a thing so simple before, maybe the persons have too much focused on details and complexity instead to see this simple generality. You know I want to convice nobody, all are free to think like they want but it seems so evident these spheres and their codes and informations, the details become very complex when we consider the 3 main series that I cited, don t forget that I don t consider these fields to create the geometries or the spheres, I consider that all is made of particles and that these fields them are emergent with the 3 main series, the coded space and the two fuels. I don t consider this E8 , my theory is totally different, I like these geonetrical algebras but for me they are not the foundamental truths, now all they are focused on this E8 and fields, I don t understand why like the strings and yang mills , it seems odd , becxause the coded particles seem more logic, the causalities are not a problem with these 3D spheres and the 3 series of spheres , see all the combinations possible if they have the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres,regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:07 GMT
If I can Professor Lundberg, I am curious :) we speak about the causalities, what is your philosophy about this physicality, me I am frank I consider an infinite eternal consciousness, a kind of God of spinoza like Einstein in respecting the pure determinism of our physicality, so I consider that this infinite energy that we cannot define beyond this physicality codes and creates this puniverse from this central cosmological sphere that we cannot see in my model, it is there that we have for me a kind of super matter sending the codes, informations and 3D finite series of spheres to become what they must become, about the consciousness that becomes relevant because we are fractals of this consciousness, this center intrigues me a lot, maybe that this thing eternal have taken an eternity to create it ....it is very philosophical but without a general philosophical causality we cannot encircle this universe at my humble opinion but a sure thing nobody can affirm the real universal causality
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:20 GMT
Well, there is also a 1-1 correspondence to geometric objects (as you seem to seek), which I identify with. Here I don't just code quanta in, but recognize that each fundamental geometric representation has its own state algebra (that of a sphere being too simple - sub-sufficient). But each object also has two (exactly two) properties: area and curvature. These of course require quanta and metrics.
Imagine my surprise, when I went to APS 2009 (I rarely bother with APS mtgs...) to hear Prof Hartle give the Einstein Prize talk - and he used an equation of the EXACT SAME FORM for {fuzzy} instantons.
I my theory, they are simply NOT fuzzy... just very very FAST.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:31 GMT
interesting, well like you told, you have not answered about your philosophy , and I beleive that you have not taken into account the deformations of spheres and an intrinsic ricci flow and the poincare conjecture, these spheres are not too simple, I d like to have your idea about the foundamental objects, do you consider points and algebras and why and what is the cause so philosophically, what create these geometrical algebras , a mathematical accident due to what ? the curvature is natural for me with these spheres , the instantons are for the motions if my memory is correct and consider still these fields like the main essence, but it is a hypothesis not sure, it is pure mathematicas of fields, nothing of exceptional, don t confound the emergences and the comportments, behaviours of fields with what is the main causality if I can say, so you like the yang mills, so you consider these geometrical algebras, so you consider cosmic strings or fields like main origin , and if yes, why and how can you be sure ? in other words, what is the cause of these fields and why , the effects of fields are one thing, the real main cause and foundamental objects an other for me,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:34 GMT
the problem is that all are too much focus on these fields, so they conclude with the E8 , or yang mills, or others to create the geonetries and topologies, but they cannot affirm nor the main causality, nor the origin nor the foundamental objects, the fields can be explained with the two fuels and the space and these series that I explained and so the couplings and so the fields, but the real interesting thing is what is the main origin, causlaity and what are the foundamental objects at this planck scale maybe even, points, strings, 3D spheres and why
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:38 GMT
of course these fields seem inmportant because they exist and we can try to explain their effects and try to fractalise them and try to encricle their causes, but philosophically speaking we cannot affirm their origins, nor from what simply, a foundamental problem for me are the dimensions, I don t agree with these extradiemnsions and it is due to fields, yang mills and strings still, they begin with a 1D and extrapolate towrads 11D or 12 D now, it is due for me to fact to consider only a photonic space time and photons and fields and so nonpertubatives analysis in gauge theories, so they create the various dimensions, but it is odd
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:43 GMT
the foundamental problem is philosophical so in resume, and due to strings theorists and their maths now, and all they are focused on this , hop hocus pocus, they consider only photons like primordial essence and hop they put strings inside and hop the instantons and yang mills and the E8 and hop the extradimsensions and hop they have all understood about this universe and its causalities, you beleive really that it is this the truth lol, for me it is simply a fashion due to Witten and Einstein and even if they are relevant, they have created a prison for the thinkers and now they turn in round inside this logic forgetting to think beyond the box and insert deper logics and parameters, it is the reason why they cannot even explain our deep unknowns, you know
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 14:35 GMT
see also that these 3D spheres and their volumes can be ranked in homotopy groups due to deformations and this intrinsic ricci flow, not need of an external field to create this, but just instrinsic codes and informations inside the spheres,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 16:58 GMT
Professor Lundberg, all this to tell that I can recognise several interesting mathematical tools for an understanding of these fields but I speak about the foundamental objects and tha main origin of our universe, these strings and all the philosophical extrapolations linked with them are pure assumptions, it is only simple than this, we are not obliged to agree with this fashion of strings simply, and yang mills or the geometrical correlated algebras or the extradimensions, sometimes it is well to think differently and try to be simple and general, these strings furthermore have a problem philosophical considering the evolution and the main cause but it is an other story, of course I know that we are all persuaded and that this vanity inside our theoretical sciences community is enormous but we can also recognise when we have an assumption or a proved law, axiom or equation and these strings are an assumption simply, they are nor proved nor sure , the same for the 1D towards the 11D Aand the yang mills theory ,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 18:27 GMT
Our actual standard model considers these yang mills theory and the gauge theory and we can link with the good works of Feynman and his diagrams, all this is relevant for the fields I agree , but what I tell is that the thinkers have considered the strings and superimposed them to try to go farer and so they utilise different mathematical tools to better understand the fields and the couplings...
view entire post
Our actual standard model considers these yang mills theory and the gauge theory and we can link with the good works of Feynman and his diagrams, all this is relevant for the fields I agree , but what I tell is that the thinkers have considered the strings and superimposed them to try to go farer and so they utilise different mathematical tools to better understand the fields and the couplings with the lie algebras and groups like this E8, but these extyrapolations mathematical are not always true , we know that we have the standard model and the 3 main forces known and one that we search , the quantum gravitationand I have reached it in considering a different logic and different encodings in our nuclei than just these photons in a simplistic analysis, they had a problem of quantization and renormalisation because there is a problem simply , they can utilise all what they want and even the non commutativity they cannot reach it with the yang mills theory, the lie alg , groups and a 4D dimensionalities and even with the instantons, it is only simple than this, it lacks something to superimpose and if you consider a cold dark matter encoded and my spheres , in all humility it is possible because we can respect this newtonian mechanics because the main codes are farer and this gravitation is the main cheif orchestra, it is not necessary to modify this newtonian mechanics or insrt an entropical gravity like told Verlinde, we just consider a new road and a new chief orchestra, see the 3 series of 3D spheres coded ,one space for the main codes and the two fuels that I explained and when the merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields and properties, the fields are not only electronagnetic siimply , now consider in all this these lie alg, groups and derivatives, more the clifford alg and this ricci flow intrinsic more an assymetric ricci flow to explain the uniques things also inside these series, finite , odfdly they have like the cosmological spheres and their finite serie the same number than the dirac larghe number when I have calculated approximatelly this number , the gravitation encircles this standard model and the photons so are not the only one piece of puzzle in considering the primordial origin. This reasoning implies furthermore a fith force due to a serie of quantum BHs farer than these nuclear forces , and the quantum gravitation converges, and now we can consider all the properties of these series and the senses of rotations, the volumes, the densities, the couplings, the exchanges,the mass, this and that... I have also considered the hopf fibrations of their surfaces to rank the quasiparticles. A more developped Lagrangian appears and the gauges fields can be improved with this matter non baryonic encoded in these nuclei also , in fact that changes all even if our standard model is correct, it is not complete, the U(1) SU(2) SU(3) more this gravitation in the cold of spin 2 in fact and more SU(4) for the fith force but these two new forces are different and even the 3 known them need to be improved in considering this space and this cold dark matter for me. The most difficult now is to encircle all this puxxle and the couplings, even the strong force we need to know more,m even the gluons problem , it is due to fact that all has a deeper meaning than just these photons and this spacetime relativistic if I can say, that implies that we have more than a luminiferous aether, we have a gravitational aether more an aether of space with the main codes and also probably an aether of consciousness without physicality if this infinite eternal consciousness is everywhere but it needs a central cosmological sphere to organise all this, that is why we have probably there a super matter , after it is just fractalised and distributed. The mass gap problem also can be solve in this reasoning and the feynman diagrams can be improved and completed also. The non abelian group and non commutativity more this general reasoning solves all this with the good mathematical tools , I work about this but it is not easy alone I must say, but I evolve. See well this gluballs problems with what I told , see well why we have a deeper logic governing this standard model.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Steve Dufourny,
My 'philosophy' here is soundly based on the duality between geometry and algebra... I refer to this as an algebraic representation (a noncommutative Lie algebra) and a geometric representation (I now call it Band Theory but long called it tri-partite string theory... I can be forgiven for ignoring energy [someone referred to it as 'action'?]). The latter looks like a mono-curved 'dorito' chip with QCD coloration and ortho-normal orientation (!), with, of course, relativistic spin. They are ONE-to-ONE with StdModel QC/ED
http://vixra.org/pdf/1510.0382v2.pdf
Wayne
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
Thanks for sharing, I know well these geonetrical algebras and like I told they consider the feilds like main origin and it is not proved , I discussed a lot with theteam of klee irwin of the quantum gravity research with lisi , ray aschein, david chester, fang fang and others, and I have discussed also with Matti pitkanen having made the TGD topological geonetrodynamics in considering E8XE8 and...
view entire post
Thanks for sharing, I know well these geonetrical algebras and like I told they consider the feilds like main origin and it is not proved , I discussed a lot with theteam of klee irwin of the quantum gravity research with lisi , ray aschein, david chester, fang fang and others, and I have discussed also with Matti pitkanen having made the TGD topological geonetrodynamics in considering E8XE8 and cosmic strings, many other works about this like if it was a fashion of math plays , but like I told , all this is a pure general philosophical assumption and never for me it is foundamental, I like this E8 for its beauty but it is just a mathematical tool of Lie, I like the non commutativity and specially the works of Connes, and I consider this non commutativity in the formalisation of my theory ands its spheres and this spherisation of the universe like general evolutive point of vue. I beleive strongly that these strings and the photons have created a prison for the thinkers and now they cannot go deeper , and they turn in round in trying to add and develop mathematical tools to explain our unknowns but it is a lost of time for me, even if I respect the thinkers. never these photons , strings only and these geometrical algebras shall explain this quantum gravitation and the philosophical origin of our physicality for me, they are in a prison these thinkers simply.The problem is that the thinkers working on this think that they have understood the universe lol but no, they just add details for the QFT , nothing of more , I can recognise some good tools for the rankings of fields, but that is all, we need to go farer and add a deeper logic, for example for the quantum computing,if we want to create a quantum computer, here is an idea, let s take these finite primoridal series like I explained and let s consider the 0 and 1 and this time, differently than the spin up and down for an electron and let s consider these 3D spheres and the senses of rotations, and let s consider the Bloch Sphere in taking into account these senses of rotations for the photons and for the cold dark matter. The resonances can appear if and only if we know the number finite primoridal and the correct volumes , the hopf fibrations maybe can be utilised and the geometrical algebras. I try to find the road but it is not easy seen that we need to know this finite number for these series and also the other main code , the space, wowww it is complicated I must say, regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 22, 2020 @ 08:54 GMT
your problem like I told is that like all you consider strings at this planck scale and so that the origin of our reality comes from fields oscillating in 1D inside the photons like if God played music, but all this is just an assumption, it is just a fashion inside the sciences community these strings due to witten having created this prison now, in fact many confound his medal field for a work relevant about the fields and his theory , in fact the sciences comminity had not an other general theory , so all have focused on these strings and hop hocus pocus they have considered that all is made of fields from God and hop hocus pocus they have inserted the geometrical algebras like the E8 to explain the geometries, topologies and matters and fields, but all this is a pure assumption not proved, you can tell all what you want, nobody knows the real origin and the foundamental objects, but between us, whaht are the probabilities seeing the universe for these foundamental objects, what is the most suimple logic ? it is not complicated to recognise this with humility. The 3D spheres seem foundamental, the universe is mainly composed of this at this cosmological scale, it is simply a logic observation, I don t think that universe is or will be a tetrahedron you know lol , it is non sense , the spheres and their motions, rotations oscillations seem the secret of all generally and the details and combinations are complex and infinite. Forget your strings and try to make a conjecture with the spheres , it is better I beleive if you want to be innovative in your publications instead to make like all, forget your prison of strings, fields and only photons like main essence, you shall go deeper in your formulations I beleive humbly.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 04:21 GMT
It is pretty safe to say that we do indeed live in a causal universe and so the title has no meaning. The real issue is whether a causal set of precursors and outcomes makes up the causal universe. Sorkin and Dawker have shown that quantum gravity is consistent with a classical causal set, but no one has yet shown a quantum causal set that is consistent with reality.
Now these two projects are implementing quantum phase correlation and superposition for graph nodes along with hidden nodes to show that quantum charge is consistent with a quantum causal set. It is not quite clear that this is possible without some further assumptions about the nature of physical reality.
It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. This is because space and time both emerge from the matter action of the causal set and so the speed of light has a different meaning in the causal set precursor to space and time. In effect, it is the acceleration of light that then allows unification of gravity and charge in the matter-action causal set that is the universe...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 06:58 GMT
Hi Steve,
I don't know what a causal set is. Does it have anything to do with things we know about from empirical experimental physics?
You said, "It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. " There actually is a model that can explain lots of things in physics. All you have to do is to entertain the idea that virtual photons, wave functions and gravitons are actually different aspects of the same thing. When I say gravitons, I mean a kind of graviton that begins at a point and expands at the speed of light such that it obeys the equation,
The idea is that these expanding gravitons are constantly filling every point in space. When these expanding gravitons get large, they overlap and become spacetime itself.
Two gravitons with zero relative velocity to one another can explain the spacetime interval given by,
Likewise, if two gravitons that are both expanding and moving with a relative velocity to one another, than they simply behave in a way that gives us the derivation of special relativity.
There is a lot more to say, but I think it makes to sense to retire string theory/quantum loop gravity, and replace them with an expanding graviton theory.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 09:11 GMT
Hi to both of you, what you tell is very important and relevant Steve Sgnew, it is what I have made to reach this quantum gravitation generallt, I work about the mathemtical details for the publication, I was happy to reach it in considering a deeper logic about the encodings in our nuclei and I have respected this classical mechanics, newtonian if I can say in changing simply the distances because the main codes are farer and that this electronagntism is just emergent but the gravitation seems the main chief orchestyra, I have also a fith force , the gravitons of Jason of spin 2 are a little bit in the same reasoning, but I consider that they are simply spherical volumes with specific different properties , motions, rotations, oscillations, regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 03:02 GMT
Yes, very nice...you actually do have the right idea, but space and time are simply too limiting to have as fundamental dimensions. The actual primitive dimensions of the universe are matter and action, not space and time. With the matter-action postulate, discrete aether particles make up the universe along with action.
If you want the civilian interpretation,
Civilian Discrete AetherIf you want the technical details,
Discrete AetherSo if you want to stay in space and time, you will never be able to explain physical reality. If you move to matter and action, the universe opens up to new understanding...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 03:33 GMT
The basis idea of a causal set is quite simple in that there is a fundamental particle, aether, that makes up the matter of the universe. Then, the action of aether as Planck's constant, makes up the fundamental changes of both quantum gravity and quantum charge...just with 1e-39th difference...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 07:32 GMT
Steve,
I have to comment that the design of the universe is simple from one point of view, but so very abundant in other ways. Yes, I agree there is something like an aether. But it my opinion, it's more like a constant flow of gravitons that emit from a point, from every point in space, and expand at the speed of light. I think these gravitons have quantum states built into them. They fill all space with fields for all the standard model particles. Physics constants are built into these gravitons. When gravitons get big enough, they overlap and contribute to spacetime geometry.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 09:31 GMT
My idea of an expanding graviton is that either it will become part of a quantum system and actually be what the wave function is describing, or it will expand beyond the quantum system, overlap with other gravitons, to become spacetime geometry. A graviton is made of quantum states that are subject to momentum, energy, operators. They idea is that spacetime geometry is made of quantum states.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 15:28 GMT
Steve Agnew,
I am rather concerned about your comment that "no one has yet shown a quantum causal set that is consistent with reality", as I am _not_ no-one! It is actually so simple that it can -and has- been taught in High School math. I first published and presented the work at BSM-3, and at DPF92. The latest and hopefully most clear version is readily available from CERN:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/41044/contributions/186646
7/
where I'd be glad to hear what my alleged-peers have by way of review.
It seems that the "causal set" that is required also has the temporal term (and mass term) as a factor, so that the theory is causal. This means that a string-like (actually "Band Theory") theory is required to calculate measurable quantities. So the old-school academes don't 'like' it.
BUT IT STILL FILLS THE CAUSALITY REQUIREMENT of Seiberg et al.
N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”, hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 21:30 GMT
String theory is all razzle dazzle, no hyperdrive. Physicists walk around in some math based imagination state, magical unicorns with kaluza Klein equations written on their bellies. But physicists don't actually know that they're supposed to be figuring out how to harness gravity as a form of propulsion.
Well, at least the physics community has plenty of time to move past the magical mathematics of string theory and quantum loop gravity, at least until the next species ending meteor strikes the Earth.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 21:41 GMT
Hi Jason, I agree that these strings of Witten ghave created a prison and even if some good maths can be relevant for the fields, now they are all focus on these strings and the fields like main origin philosophical of our physicality with 1D string at this planck scale more cosmic fields, and after they create the extradiemsnions and insert the geonetrical algebras like lie and this E8 and they explain the geonetries, topologies, and matters, but all this is a pure assumption, I beleive in fact that they had not others general theories, my 3D spheres in all humility , coded particles seem more logic, and I agree with you that this gravitation seems the main cheif orchestra and that our standard model is just emergent due to main gravitational codes, it d be very relevant to focus on this to find and check this gravitation really indeed, and it will be revolutionary even for the propulsion like you told, but this prison of strings and fields have taken all the heads of thinkers and now they cannot think differently, I find this very odd that they beleive all that this reality come from fieldsand oscillations instead to consider coded particles, I don t understand how is it possible even, the fields are due to bosons , particles encoded. Maybe it is philosphical, they considered an infinite heat before the physicality, after they have created the photons and the relativistic space time and now they have inserted strings inside simply and play with partitions of fields and oscillations simply but all this seems not foundamental at all scales. It seems that the crisis inside the theoretical sciencex community is serious lol but there is hope that they can change and consider a more simple and foundamental logic general, regards
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 07:13 GMT
Hi Steve,
It is my belief that I solved the puzzle of physics. On that premise, I will tell you what I did. Strings and loops don't act like an expanding universe following a big bang event. So we should be looking for a new kind of "something to build a universe out of" stuff. I got the idea for an expanding graviton by looking at the spacetime interval AND the derivation of special relativity. Also, the invariance of the speed of light, something that most physicists ignore, let seems to be tied to the mechanism of time keeping and length, one had to figure out how an expanding graviton could keep time and measure distance. It made sense to tie it to the speed of light, such that the sphere itself is expanding at the speed of light. Since there are an infinite number of inertial reference frames, then there should be a near infinite number of expanding gravitons. Sorry if my argument is completely non linear. Oh! Physicists ignore the wave function as something that exists. I thought it made sense to assume the wave function does exist, and to tie it to virtual photons which do exist. I think the surface area of an expanding graviton IS a virtual photon.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 13:39 GMT
Of course, the only really useful thing about a new model is if it can solve a problem with the old model. Right now, there are lots of problems in spacetime with relativity and quantum charge. Your model should solve all of these problems if it is to be useful. Can your model solve the problems of quantum gravity and quantum charge?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 17:32 GMT
During the big bang, leptogenesis occurred at some time t_L; baryogenesis occurred at a time t_B. In my model, the fields for electron, gluons/quarks, etc., are created by the overlap of expanding gravitons. Since gravirtons have a radius r = ct, I would expect gravitons at time t_L to create a lepton field, and at t_B to create a baryon field.
At some time t_STC (which may be 1 second and longer) gravitons will overlap to contribute to the spacetime continuum. The Einstein equations, IMO, represent gravitons in equilibrium. When gravitons are not in equilibrium, they can be used to create artificial gravity fields (which was the whole reason for creating this graviton model).
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 9, 2020 @ 00:28 GMT
One expanding graviton, of radius r = ct, has a surface area of 4pi r^2, which is a virtual photon, unless excited with energy; THEN, it's a real photon. During the big bang, when particles and charges were created, energy was stored in standard model fields that are made of n different gravitons. One could calculate the n (number of gravitons) for each type of particle field. Charges would also be caused by energy that is stored inside of the n-gravitons (of each kind).
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 9, 2020 @ 12:39 GMT
Hello , dear Jason, your general analysis is interesting, that implies a kind of gravitational aether , I consider this also in my model. We need indeed a main gravitational cause and that permits to balance even our standard model and this cosmological scale also.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 9, 2020 @ 23:38 GMT
A new model will be useful if and only if it can explain something that the old model cannot explain...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 23:41 GMT
Like why the universe expands? Why the speed of light is invariant?
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
"Can your model solve the problems of quantum gravity and quantum charge?"
YES, it did that decades ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9712042
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:46 GMT
not possible to have explained this quantum gravitation with geonetrical algebras in fractalising these electromagnetic forces because we need to superimpose a depper logic and personally I have reacxhed in respectingt he newtonian mechanics and in encoding the cold dark matter in our nuclei, the gravitation is the main chief orchestra and we have even a fith force farer than our nuclear force, I must publish but in having published and if it is not recognised there are reasons, a problem of renormalisation and quantisation simply , the rpoblems come form probably your foundamental objects these tetrahedrons and also the philosophical origin and these fields and so the geometrical algebras, think beyond the box ....
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:52 GMT
Here is why , the problem foundamental is that your consider that these fields are the main origin and so you consider that we have only photons encoded in our nuclei ging the standard model with the fermions and bosonic fields, and so you try to consider this qiantum gravitation like an emergent electronmagntic force but it is not the case, we need a balance for this heat, andf electrongfantism like a balance entropoy negentropy, heat cold, charges +-, electrons positons, electromgantism gravitations.... and so it lacks something to superimpose, this cold dark matter solves this porobelm in being encoded and also permits to consider the evolution and the evolutions of encodings of adaptation and complexification, so you can utilise all the mathemtical tools that you want with the geometrical algebras liek this E8 or others, and the strings and photons, never you shall renormalise this quantum weakest force, there is a deeper logic to add,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:58 GMT
the only one relevance of these strings and geonmetrical algebras like the E8 is that they permit to rank and better understand these bosonic photonic fields, that is all and better encircle our actual computing , but never they shall explain this quantum gravitation , the quantum computing,the Dark energy, the dark matter , the gap mass or others or the hard problem of consciousness, because we need to encircle these foundamental objects and the main philosophical origin, so you can understand now why I tell that all the thinkers turn in round in this prison of fields , photons and strings and E8, think beyond the box and this vanity of course also and the lobbies are not a problem , they can be adapted :) I know that I irritate many thinkers sometimes but it is like this, I know the human vanity , but really think beyond the box.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:18 GMT
"your general analysis is interesting, that implies a kind of gravitational aether , I consider this also in my model." In my expanding graviton model, r = ct. At about t = 10^-6 seconds, gravitons overlap to create the quantum fields for quarks and gluons. That is about the time that quarks and gluons started to form during the big bang. The idea is that gravitons of time t = 10^-6 seconds overlap to create quark and gluon fields.
The lepton epoch occurred at about 1 to 10 seconds, so one can infer that gravitons of times between 1 to 10 seconds overlap to create lepton fields.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:30 GMT
it could be relevant to formalise mathematically all this reasoning, I consider also that this gravitation is the main chief orchestra , I just have encoded a cold dark matter to have a balance, and I see that this standard model is encircled by this gravitation, that is why I consider a fith force farer than our nuclear forces, it is like this that I have reached this quantum gravitation because in fact we must simply take into account different distances because the main codes gravitational are farer and I was surprised to quantify it in respecting this newtonian mechanics , the standard model is just emergent so inside this gravitational main chief orchestra due to simply the bosonic fields due to simply these photons like fuels encoded , that is why I consider 3 main finite series, the main codes for the space and these two fuels, the photons and the cold dark matter and when they merge they create our physicality. I liked your idea about this epoch time . This fith gravitational force intrigues me a lot also .... an other point very important about this dark matter is that it permits to explain also the evolutive point of vue of this universe and we can even calculate this evolution on a precise line time knowing this dark matter still disponible to be encoded ....
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:36 GMT
that becomes very intriguing considering the evolution of the universal sphere, so we have probably an expansion towards the maximum spherical volume during billions years due to this dark matter encoded and after we shall have a contraction during billions years towards the equilibrium, and that becomes relevant also for the evolution of the consciousness, so we can calculate actually the time necessary towards this maximum volume and also the opposite for the contraction, so we are still very youngs and in consciousness also, this infinite eternal consciousness has well made the things ....
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:21 GMT
This seems like an odd question to ask, since particle theorists have been ignoring the subject for decades. In fact, a causal formulation cannot be published simply because of their obsession over noncommutative algenras that do NOT meet Seiberg's causality criteria:
N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”, hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000
In fact, I was one of a very few participants in FQXi essay asking "What is Foundational?" a couple years ago who replied with CAUSALITY as one of five fundamental requirements of a self-consistent theory applicable across all physical scales.
Wayne
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:56 GMT
I am the only person anywhere who has a model that can explain how to create a gravity propulsion drive with actual hardware and things that exist in established physics and engineering. I can explain what spacetime is made out of. My views are based on established physics, not made of things like superstrings and quantum loops.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 18:49 GMT
meaning the traditional method using F=ma??
otherwise, you seem to be lost. any and every attempt to modify gravity (either to explain observed effects, such as MOND, or as you seem to suggest, to use for propulsion) has failed thorough testing against observed data.
(Lately MOND has had some success with the CMB.. but it still has severe troubles)
WRL
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 18:57 GMT
I don t beleive that he wants to modify this newtonian mechanics, I agree that the MONDs seem no sense, the newtonian mechanics must be respected, it is what I have made to explain this quantum gravitattion in changing the distances simply because the main codes are farer and that this electromagnetism is just emergent,
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 19:38 GMT
The Einstein equations are describing gravity in an equilibrium condition of gravitons. Gravitational propulsion would be a non equilibrium condition of quantum entanglements.
Gravitons express themselves as: (1) wave functions, (2) virtual photons, (3) quantum entanglements.
The overlap of gravitons express themselves as: (1) standard model particle fields and (2) the spacetime continuum.
Gravitons have quantum states for position, momentum, spin, etc., built into them. They expand at the speed of light from a Planck scale point, everywhere in space.
I got the idea of an expanding graviton from (1) the derivation of special relativity and (2) the spacetime interval.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 03:26 GMT
Measurables are not be-ables. Measurables are attributed to the beable particles but need not actually be properties solely of the particle alone, but reflection of a relation between the particle and measurement apparatus and method. At least sometimes, the apparatus is causing change not just passively measuring. Counterfactual results cease to be possibilities once the particle apparatus relationship plays out. Prior to decision of what measurement to carry out the particle can be considered pluripotent; able to provide outcomes to different kinds of measurement. After choosing one type of measurement the particle is multipotent; able to provide outcomes to each different configuration of chosen apparatus. The outcome of a singular experiment is a singular state, negating all other states that might have been.
For analogy; Imagine if as part of an interview process candidates are given test questions to prepare answers for. Each for a different job, given out randomly. One of the sets of questions is used for the interview. One candidate is successful due to innate suitability and preparation. The measurement of suitability has used a process affecting perceived suitability.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 03:29 GMT
. At the macroscopic scale we assume things are as they are and are not changed by measurement. However imagine trying to measure the velocity or area of a large shoal of fish by interacting with it with a clock and measuring rod. Whenever it is approached it changes direction and shape. Whatever you have measured is not the velocity or area of the shoal.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 00:55 GMT
From the article: "
" Entanglement is a quantum property that allows events to have mysterious connections—correlations that can’t fully be explained in terms of common causes with the classical rules of causality." I think it probably can if the common causes are not just the preparation and maintenance of the relation established at preparation but how that relationship affects the outcomes of same tests on each partner.
"But they do know that whatever direction it snaps to, its partner electron will immediately snap into moving in the opposite direction." It is not the electron velocity snapping to, but the measurement coming into being and from that the knowledge. Those are products, 'effects' of the experimental procedure.
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 08:13 GMT
Many of the paradox's in physics are as a result of Einstein's biggest blunder:
the "photon".
Planck argued with Einstein that discrete energy levels only exist within the matter, there after radiation evolves as per Maxwell. Einstein disagreed based on sound energy conservation grounds. Some years later Planck solved Einsteins dilemma, by proposing a universal sea of energy, some of us refer to as zero point energy. This sea, biases the Planck threshold of all atoms in the ground state to transition to another state with a very small amount of additional energy, well below a Planck unit of energy for any particular frequency. This sea is stochastic, and self regulating, because any random fluctuation that exceeds a Planck energy threshold of an atom absorbs the energy from the sea thus maintaining an average energy of half Planck's constant per frequency. This sea accounts for QM's quantum fluctuations and the uncertainty principle, along with quantum noise. A small group of scientists have embraced zero point radiation and have derived an alternative quantum theory named, stochastic Electrodynamics (SED). To be continued if comments are favorable.
I eagerly await Comments.
Barry
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 19:10 GMT
Barry,
I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein. I would appreciate some references of select reading. Does this go to Planck's 'pre-loaded' hypothesis? And did Planck argue an inherent causality. There are good arguments that the Planck Constant (however tiny) is an averaged least observable, empirically derived value. Constantinos Ragazaz (I'll have to refresh on spelling) offered an Essay Contest entry on the subject with a mathematical argument, several years ago. I'll look it up later and post a link, or watch here for an edit. Cordially, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 19:21 GMT
Hi John, it is this planck constant and the fact to consider only these photons wich has created this philosophical prison with the strings added,that implies that all they consider now that the frequences, vibrations oscillations of photons are the only one piece to understand the matter energy tranformations and the energies, that is why they have inserted the geometrical algebras , if my equation is correct, we must add several things and not only this , so the aim is not to unify G c and h only
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 19:51 GMT
Of course this constant and the frequences are essential for our electromagnetism and for the photoemectric effect, we measure these effects due to fact that we can only measure these photons and their properties, but if we measure beyond our actual logic, we have probably the two other energies to consider , probably in considering observations different and also in going farer in our scales for the main codes of this DE , for the DM the cold probably balancing is the answer. The actions in fact must be considered with a superimposed different reasoning added. That implies so a constant correlated also for this DM, and an other for this DE and all is balanced together under a gravitational logic. The electromagnetism so is emergent and the gravitation is the main chief orchestra simply, it is an opposite general reasoning in fact.The problem is that it is not easy to observe, measure and check them, because it is not relativistic.
report post as inappropriate
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 21:22 GMT
Hi.
It was Dirac that told about his Sea,not Planck, what I know about.
There are models describing electrons surfing the edge of this Sea, together with light and other massless particles, like the presumed graviton, neutrinos etc.
Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda etchas done great work with this. But it is indeed odd that gravitons does not give an action principle,other than the weight impact on mass and the supposed curvature of geodesics. We still are a bit unsure what really is the inertia principle at its heart, etc. Together with Jerry Decker, publ. at vixra, I have discussed these things a bit.
Now a stochastic Seais coded in bytes too, like a computer. It is information,but how is it explained in physical terms? It cannot possibly be entropy, because it is a classical outcome from just Plancks constant. Von Neumann had something about a quantum thermodynamics, but there should be other models? Does anybody know about it?
I think it should be something holographic. Also the Dirac Sea must be chaos then and the quantum model we use must start from chaos. It is hard to unify with detrerministic thinking? We need non-deterministic models?
Regards. Ulla Mattfolk
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 22:53 GMT
Barry, and others,
along this line of reasoning, Constantinos Ragazas essay 'A World Without Quanta' was his entry in the Essay Contest - 'Is Reality Digital or Analog?' (2010-2011).
Good mathematically supported argument. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2021 @ 12:47 GMT
Hello Ulla, happy to see you again on FQXi,
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Mr Gilbert,
All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were famous and have well...
view entire post
Hi Mr Gilbert,
All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were famous and have well detailed this electromagnetism, but now these persons have created also a kind of prison , where the thinkers don t go deeper , they consider only these photons like the primoridal essence, the general relativity and this electromagnetism, and now with the strings inside these photons in 1D connected with a kind of 1D main field at this cosmological scale with the GR, so they turn in round for me even with the geometrical alg like this E8 or other mathematical tools like the non commutativity. The matter energy is more I believe than this , we have evolved a little bit and we have these new unknowns, like this dark matter, this dark energy , the consciousness, for me we must not unfy the QM and the GR, G c and h only we must unfy the others also , that is why I have considered 3 aethers superimposed in considering series finite of 3D spheres instead of points of strings, one space vacuum of this DE for the main codes and the two other series are fuels , the photons and the cold dark matter and when they merge they create the topologies, matters, geometries, fields electromagnetic and gravitational, we have so a deeper logic for the energy and matters , it is the meaning of my equation inserting the dark matter and the DE , E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y with X a parameter correlated with th cold and l their linear velocity and Y a parameter correlated with this DE , we have more energy that we thought in resume, the energy matter is a reality but why they are transformed and why they give this reality and diversity, the real question is there . The sea of E is more than we can imagine and we need a kind of transformator of this energy infinite of pure consciousness beyond the physicality, that is why this central consological sphere is essential in my model of spherisation sending the primordial informations with this finite series of 3D spheres coded, this center can be seen like a super matter energy able to create all matters simply. The electromagnetism and the photons are not the only one piece of our universal puzzle simply. Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert replied on Feb. 17, 2021 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear John, Steve, Ulla.
Planck preceded Dirac by about 20 years, with his second quantization paper or, presentation. I will start with a Scientific American article (SA) before they went to pop science. Please pay attention to the highlights in the SA article
https://jumpshare.com/v/Fj0809OpYJdnq8CgYBtY
The discussion on Planck's work To be continued.
Regards All
Barry
report post as inappropriate
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 18, 2021 @ 21:34 GMT
Thanks.
I have noted the classical Plancks constant earlier. Then nobody was interested in it.... Note that at Plancks time we had no quantum physics.
Here the link to discussions.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Decke
r
I will read the article later./Ulla.
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Feb. 22, 2021 @ 12:54 GMT
John said
I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein. I would appreciate some references of select reading. Does this go to Planck's 'pre-loaded' hypothesis? And did Planck argue an inherent causality.
Reply
If you go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Second_quant
um_theory
You will find Planck comes up with the notion that we now know as "zero point radiation", I have not heard of the "pre-loaded" hypothesis in the old literature, but Eric Rieter refers to it. I suspect that that the "pre loaded" hypothesis, and zero point radiation have morphed over time to be the same.
Note, Einstein states, Planck's zero point radiation is as dead as a door nail early in the article. "Zero point", whether real or virtual, is considered crucial in modern physics.
Regards
Barry
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Feb. 27, 2021 @ 07:53 GMT
Dear all.
My observations have lead me to the notion that people can be roughly divided into three camps:
#1. Practical, hands on realists, seeing is believing and tend to be boring although handy in a crisis (your car breaks down).
#2. Don’t know, don’t care, wont commit, follow the crowd.
#3. Love Disney land, conspiracy theories, supernatural stuff, astrology, Theism, and the wonderful, mystical world of Quantum mechanics, abstract mathematics and beauty of paradox’s It physics. Oh! did I forget Aliens and ghosts!
There are overlaps in these camps as the boundaries are soft. These camps extend or apply to physics and physicists. If you combine this with “Paradigm inertia”, then you have the present “crisis in physics”!
What crisis you say? There is confusion between the wonderful advances in ENGINEERING technology, say: optical fibres, the internet, lasers, cellphones, space travel, jumbo jets etc.
Much of this advancement is commonly attributed to modern physics and QM. I beg to differ, the field effect transistor (FET), the most important advance in technology since the wheel, was patented in 1926, and not by a QM. The inventor of the laser, H R Townes, was told by Niels Bohr that it could not possibly work because of the uncertainty principle.
Why did Feynman say this: “From a long view of the history of mankind, seen from, say, ten thousand years from now, there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.” how could he get it so wrong, Maxwell is all but forgotten, he is certainly ignored by the current generation.
My thought’s for comment.
Barry
report post as inappropriate
Petio Hristov wrote on Mar. 30, 2021 @ 15:07 GMT
What is the reason for the existence of the universe?
The only exact answer, in my opinion, is the life of the universe.
According to the New Unity Physics, the universe is defined as a living being that on Earth resembles an angiosperm plant. This plant is from the seventh level of circulation in the universe.
Each galaxy or constellation is also the same angiosperm...
view entire post
What is the reason for the existence of the universe?
The only exact answer, in my opinion, is the life of the universe.
According to the New Unity Physics, the universe is defined as a living being that on Earth resembles an angiosperm plant. This plant is from the seventh level of circulation in the universe.
Each galaxy or constellation is also the same angiosperm Galactic or Constellation Plant. The Galactic Plant is of the sixth level, and the Constellation Plant is of the fifth level of circularity in the universe.
Different areas of space are different Galactic or Constellation Plant.
Each plant is a biological living matter.
There is no physical definition of biological living matter yet. But one of the necessary conditions for a matter to be alive is to have gravity.
Is the existence of the universe a cause, or is it a consequence?
The existence of the universe is defined as a single cyclical process. In this cycle, one passes into another continuously.
This is the cycle of life of the universe. This cycle can generally be expressed this way:
The four bison convert dark matter and dark energy of the first kind into familiar matter and energy.
During the existence of the universe, matter is converted into energy, and energy is converted into matter.
At the end of the universe, matter and energy are converted into first-kind dark matter and dark energy.
What is causation in the universe?
Causation is organized in nine different levels of circulation.
At the beginning of each level begins from the created matter at the front level. At the end of the level created so far, matter forms biological living matter, which in turn creates the necessary matter to build the next level of circularity. This is a model of the most economical, self-regulating, stable, and securely functioning way of creating matter in the universe.
This model cannot be "copied" when creating Al.
What is Al? Al is made of non-living matter. For this non-living matter, a program has been created under which Al performs certain actions. This program cannot foresee the modification of the environment, which is living matter. These changes depend on the dark energy of the first species, which creates the conditions for the corresponding change.
How is the question of mathematical models of causation necessary for the developer to decide on complex medical treatments and dosages of drugs?
The approach of thinking about such Al is inaccurate. This can be done without a mathematical model. It is only necessary to make an analog "device" that measures the space-time continuum of the person for which the drugs are. This device uses the nature model with which the universe was created, and the answer is simple, instant and 100% sure.
This isn't about Minkowski's space-time. It's a space-time continuum of Hawkings. This continuum is a factor.
The analog device measures the patient's space-time continuum, which is one number. Then the patient takes in his hand, for example, a pill. The space-time continuum is changing. Depending on the modification of the continuum, a quick and correct decision is made. For each patient, there is a different pill and a different amount that is easily analyzed and established.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 30, 2021 @ 15:45 GMT
We don t know in fact simply, we have our own philosophies but we have too much limitations and we cannot affirm to possess the truth. Personally I work my theory in physics , the theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres to be very simple.
The philosophies and the religions have created confusions and they are mainly assumptions, and it d be odd to pretend to affirm the truth. The sciences community is divided about the origin of the universe , a part consider a kind of conscious infinite energy that we name god, others consider that we come from a mathematical accident , but nobody knows, we have the same problem about the foudamental mathematical and physical objects creating this physicality, we don t know what they are really, we are divided also inside the theoretical sciences community, a part consider points and geometrodynamics, others consider strings in 1D at this planck scales oscillating, vibrating connected withna 1D cosmic field of the gneral relativity , so they try to explain the geometries, topologies with different geometrical algebras like hopf, clifford, lie or the hilbert spaces or others in extending the euclidian space. But we don t affirm to know in fact the truth.
Personally Like I said I consider an infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality and this thing that we cannot define in my model has created a central sphere , a kind of super matter energy physical sending informations coded in the quantum spheres to create the universe and its more than 10000 billions of galaxies. But I have many limitations of scales about these foundamental objects and the philosophical origin of this universe.
We search answers and a sure thing is that we are obliged to prove our assumptions, we cannot affrim them , the same for a general philosophy about the origin of this physicality and from what .
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 06:57 GMT
G’day Steve
"Hi Mr Gilbert,
All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were...
view entire post
G’day Steve
"Hi Mr Gilbert,
All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were famous and have well detailed this electromagnetism, but now these persons have created also a kind of prison , where the thinkers don t go deeper , they consider only these photons like the primoridal essence, the general relativity and this electromagnetism,"
I in my opinion the "prison" is not classical physics or Maxwell, but Quantum theory(QT) and theoretical mathematicians. Since Maxwell has been abandoned by physicists, physics has not progressed, but returned to bizarre nonsensical mysticism. QT tends to ignore the myriad of paradox's, e.g. EPR, Young's two slit etc. Many folk are titillated by the magic of QT but I'm not one of them. Fortunately, engineers have developed modern electromagnetic(EM) theory, derived from Maxwell to a remarkable degree. Laser, optical communications, 3 4 and 5G cellphones, stealth and anti stealth technology,internet and great advances in astronomy. We are still communicating with the 2 Voyager spacecraft at over 40 light hours round trip. The received signals at the receiver input are equivalent to several RF "photons" per bit. Remarkably, they don't use photon counting equipment(photo multiplier tubes, avalanche diodes etc.), as theoretical physicists might expect, but amplifiers, mixers and filters. This is problematical to those who believe in "photons".
My conclusion is that the
foundations of physics should be revised, using modern EM theory right down to the atomic level.
Below is a link that includes using an EM simulator to analyse the behaviour of Silver atoms passing through the Stern Gerlach apparatus. Highlight the link and paste it into your search engine.
https://jumpshare.com/v/WNETrGGUb7UYcoR4YacS
Barry
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 11:24 GMT
Hi Mr Gilbert, like I told we have more difficulties to reach the unknowns . The actual works consider like I explained the GR , the photons, strings at this planck scale in 1D connected with a 1D main cosmic field of this GR and so with the geometrical algebras and the extradimensions they create the topologies, geometries,... Their philosophy considers a kind of god , and it is not really mysticism, they just try to understand how this infinite eternal energy probably conscious tranforms this energy.
I consider myself also a kind of god , but in respecting the pure determinsim and I never affrim my assumptions. You know the best past and actual thinkers consider philosophically this kind of god of spinoza , that permits to consider a coder, transformer.
A sure thing is that we are limited in knowledges and nobody knows the answer, personally I don t consider only this GR and the strings, I consider 3 main ethers and spheres like you know.
I agree that the foundations of physics must be revised , we must superimposed deeper logic for me , I doubt really that this universe is just an infinite heat and after has just created these photons and after strings inside, the truth is deeper than this.They are just a tool for this universe these photons, permitting the electromagnetic forces, the fact to observe and the heat, that is all, these forces are just emergent and the main chief orchestra like force seems the gravitation.
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 11:54 GMT
You know Mr Gilbert, if we find these bridges beyond this GR and the electromagnetism, we shall understand deep unknowns very relevant. All seems a question of philosophy about the general origin of this universe and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects. The evolution also must be considered, it is a little bit the meaning of my theory of spherisation , an evolution of the universe. There are several major problems in considering only our actual logic with this GR , the main problems cannot be explained and all the best thinkers have tried with many mathematical tools but the hierarchy problem, the cosmological constant problem, the gap mass problem, the quantum gravitation, the gluons problem, the consciousness even also, and others are not explained, it proves that it lacks pieces in this puzzle and for me this DE , this DM, the foundamental objects like spheres coded and 3 main primoridal finite series seem the answer to solve these deep unknowns. We turn in round actually in this GR prison. The fields also like main origin are a problem, they are just emergent and under a deeper logic also. So the EM theory and these photons have well been detailed and they don t solve , we need to superimpose other foundamentals for me. The problem is the scales and also the obsetvations non relativistic . Other mathematical tools also must be invented , that is why I work about these spherical geometrical topological algebras and spheres 3D like foundamental objects. The non associativity and non commutativity are important to go beyond this relativistic bridge at my humble opinion. The EM forces and photons cannot answer.
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 26, 2021 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Steve
The whole edifice of modern theoretical physics is predicated on the flawed concept of QM and nonsensical abstract mathematics. A case in point is the pioneer anomaly. Space scientists were flummoxed by the observation that pioneer space craft was decelerating,
new physics was proposed. The space craft’s electrical power was was provided by, heat generated by several kilogram’s of Plutonium, heating one side of an array of Peltier cell’s, radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG). Peltier cell’s are 20% efficient at best. For every 100 watt’s of electric power, 500 Watt's is rejected to space. This radiation provides thrust, a well known and observed prediction of Maxwell. This thrust could have been used to accelerate the spacecraft if it had been oriented correctly, instead of decelerating it. This fiasco was caused by insufficient knowledge of Maxwell’s equation’s. Maxwell or your average RF engineer would have solved this problem. There is a simple resolution of the EPR paradox using Maxwell.
Regards
Barry
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 15:31 GMT
Hi Barry, the modern theoretical physics has not easy to reach these deep unknowns, like this quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the DE and DM, the gap mass problem,the cosmological constant problem.... It is more difficult than 100 years ago where it was easier due to fact that the observations, measurements, experiments were less complicated to create. It is mainly due to...
view entire post
Hi Barry, the modern theoretical physics has not easy to reach these deep unknowns, like this quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the DE and DM, the gap mass problem,the cosmological constant problem.... It is more difficult than 100 years ago where it was easier due to fact that the observations, measurements, experiments were less complicated to create. It is mainly due to problem of scales and interpretations of observations, That is why the maths are utilised with partitions and symmetries, integrations,derivations, combinatory analysis, geometrical algebras....But indeed these abstracts maths can imply confusions and an ocean of assumptions that we cannot prove. Sometimes these maths permit to prove, sometimes they imply all these assumptions, and so the philosophy, the ontology, the origin of our universe, the dimensions, the foundamental objects are for me not really well interpreted.
The thermodynamics seem more than we actually analyse considering the main codes of this space vacuum and the two fuels encoded in this space if my reasoning is correct, all seems coded and distribute a specific matter and a correlated energy, fields, ...and so a specific thermo. My reasoning intuitive is a little bit like this EPR and of course all rational thinkers can recognise that the QM and our actual standard model is not complete, I d say even that it is far to be complete lol, we know so few in fact. We need really to think beyond the box, and these actual abstratcs maths and strings for example in considering only this general relativity and these fields like main philosophical origin has created a prison where an ocean of assumptions emerge. The universe is very simple generally and the old school could rebecome the best way I believe instead to complexify a pure general simplicity. It is the meaning of my theory and these 3D spheres, why we create extradiemnsions and we consider only the fields ??? the opposite seems the key , particles like main essence and this space vacuum of the DE like main codes and this DM cold balancing could permit to superimpose two other spacetimes and that d permit to complete this QM, standard model and explain our uknowns. But the problem is that now the thinkers have difficulties to think differently because these strings are an institution and even a business and it is teached at university , and the general relativity alone also . And if we consider the vanity or the fact that these thinkers have worked hard about these abstracts maths of strings, so you imagine why I am a problem with my coded Spheres 3D and the 3 ethers. But it is the life, I must like all prove my assumptions, but it is not easy due to these problems of scales and observations, measurements.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 27, 2021 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear all is, Robert H McEachern around, I believe we may have something in common?
There was no response to my last post, so I will keep on with my heresy.
The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is not quantum fluctuations left over from the big bang, but rather the signature of the black body radiation from the missing Baryonic matter in the universe. Cold H1, protons, electrons, Helium, Lithium, also iron and carbon dust etc. The so called dark matter is in fact optically dark, but reasonably bright at microwave frequencies. This matter slightly attenuates optical light (scattering and absorption), therefore negating the dark energy hypothesis (dimming of the standard candles), causes frequency and pulse dispersion and just for good measure, solves Olber’s paradox. Olber’s was a bit right, the sky should be bright, but only in radio frequency and infrared region. That’s not all, zero point radiation (ZPR) is that part the total radiated energy in the IGM that falls below the threshold of Planck’s constant per mode, it is therefore normally undetectable. Feeble signal’s below the Planck threshold are detectable, because Detecting atom’s can be biased by the zero point radiation in such a way that the vector sum of ZPR and signal exceeds the threshold. Such detection is subquantal and addresses Einstein’s original objection (energy conservation) to Planck’s plea that discreteness only occurs in matter and not in the radiated field.
Dust and zero point radiation are real all round paradox solver's really!
Regards
All
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 27, 2021 @ 19:10 GMT
Still
here. And
here. And many more comments
on Disqus.
As you may infer from my comments in the first two links above, I believe that the real problem with fundamental physics, is not "nonsensical abstract mathematics" per se, but that much of that math is being built upon foundational premises that have little or no relevance to the real world. All the actual
Physics, is contained entirely in the premises. All the rest (like Bell's theorem and all other such theorems), is
just math, not physics. The math is not "wrong" or "nonsensical"; It just is not relevant to real-world physics, in spite of the fact that it may perfectly describe the "toy" world of some thought experiment, based upon
idealized conceptions, such as absolutely
identical particles etc. A good computational model, is not the same as a good physical model, even if the former happens to perfectly agree with observational results; physically, identifying the correct
mechanism for producing the results, is more important than the mere ability to produce the correct results.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 07:54 GMT
G'day Robert
I appreciate your reply, but I don't want to get bogged down arguing about math.
The model is all important, as is crucial assumptions! Bell's crucial assumption, was Einstein's "absurd photon", Bell insisted that the photon must "maintain its integrity". Maxwellian wave theory is in total agreement with Quantum predictions, 60 or more elaborate experiment's. What has been refuted is the notion of the particle nature photon's as well as classical particle particles. The elaborate experiment's are predominately performed with light using polarizers to determine outcomes. Most experimental configurations simply produce the law of Malus. I can produce that at home with with a pair polarizing sunglass lens's and a light meter. Although the "talk" is always about spin and Stern Gerlach it's all Gedanken. To my knowledge such experiments are not realized. It is the QM community that have the problem of explaining Their "absurd math" that predicts the the law of Malus from paticles without faster than light influences? I discussed the early part of this post in last years FQXi essay. There is no EPR paradox or "entanglement", you simply abandon the photon, causality and local realism will be restored. What about the photoelectric effect, or Compton scattering, I hear some wag's say, I say Maxwell can!
[https://jumpshare.com/v/WNETrGGUb7UYcoR4YacS]Stern Gerlach
Regards
Barry
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 08:20 GMT
G'day Robert
I appreciate your reply, but I don't want to get bogged down arguing about math.
The model is all important, as is crucial assumptions! Bell's crucial assumption, was Einstein's "absurd photon", Bell insisted that the photon must "maintain its integrity". Maxwellian wave theory is in total agreement with Quantum predictions, 60 or more elaborate experiment's. What has been refuted is the notion of the particle nature photon's as well as classical particle particles. The elaborate experiment's are predominately performed with light using polarizer's to determine outcomes. Most experimental configurations simply produce the law of Malus. I can produce that at home with with a pair polarizing sun glass lens's and a light meter. Although the "talk" is always about spin and Stern Gerlach it's all Gedanken. To my knowledge such experiments are not realized. It is the QM community that have the problem of explaining Their "absurd math" (you may be able to convince me otherwise Robert?) that predicts the the law of Malus from particles with faster than light influences between them? I discussed the early part of this post in last years FQXi essay. There is no EPR paradox or "entanglement", you simply abandon the photon, causality and local realism will be restored. What about the photoelectric effect, or Compton scattering, I hear some wag's say, I say Maxwell can!
I'm experimenting with using links, If it's successfull I'll post some more links to peer reviewed material.
Stern GerlachRegards
Barry
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 14:58 GMT
Barry,
The problem is
much more fundamental than "waves" versus "particles", or even "classical" versus "quantum"; what Shannon demonstrated over seventy years ago, is that regardless of whether or not an input to a decision-making process is "continuous" or "discrete", if the decision-making process always "elects" to "behave" as if there are "discrete symbols" embedded within that...
view entire post
Barry,
The problem is
much more fundamental than "waves" versus "particles", or even "classical" versus "quantum"; what Shannon demonstrated over seventy years ago, is that regardless of whether or not an input to a decision-making process is "continuous" or "discrete", if the decision-making process always "elects" to "behave" as if there are "discrete symbols" embedded within that input, then
perfectly deterministic behavior can be possible and, more importantly, such
perfectly deterministic behaviors
will not be possible, otherwise. In other words, deterministic behaviors per se (AKA the laws of physics, whatever they may happen to be)
emerge from the peculiar nature of such
perfect (AKA error-free), decision-making processes and not from any properties (such as waves versus particles) of the inputs to that process. Consequently, "Determinism" itself, as a physical phenomenon, can only exist for processes that happen to succeed at exploiting Shannon's mechanism (not all processes do, which is why "free-will" etc. exist, in an otherwise, seemingly, deterministic world).
The fundamental question, that Shannon addressed, is: How does any entity ever come to "know" what it is actually interacting with? For example, how do the interacting-entities, in either Newton's theory of gravity or Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, "know" where all the other entities are? The point is, as was recognized to be a problem, as soon as Newton's theory was introduced, is that these theories require knowledge of the exact locations of all the distant, interacting-entities, in order to "determine" what will happen. But by what
miraculous mechanism does this required knowledge ever become known to all the interacting-entities? Einstein attempted (but totally failed) to resolve this problem, by naively
assuming that the required knowledge could be extracted from the local conditions (such as a supposed curvature of spacetime) existing at each interacting entity. But that
idealistic assumption merely sweeps the real-world problem under the carpet; by what miraculous process, can each such entity ever
perfectly "know" such infinitesimal, local curvatures, or a local "field"?
Shannon definitely proved that
there are no such miracles, in the real-world; hence, there is a strict limit to the amount of "information" that can be recovered from any set of real-world "measurements" being performed, right "here", right "now" (AKA "localized" in both space and time), and it is this limit that ultimately
dictates how
everything can ever possibly behave; Shannon's limit, is directly responsible for the existence of the Uncertainty Principle and even the very existence of such a thing as "cause and effect" itself (AKA "Determinism"), as an observable phenomenon.
The world simply does not "work" the way physicists (either classical or quantum) have thought that it
must work: instead, it works the way Shannon discovered, is the only way possible, that perfectly deterministic (error-free) effects can ever be caused to exist, in the real-world, rather than merely in the idealized, "toy" worlds, as imagined by physicists.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 15:33 GMT
Hi Robert, It is very interesting what you tell, I like a thinker, one of my favorites it is von neumann, he is incredible and you could like his interpretations about all this.
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 08:30 GMT
Sorry all
I failed to attach the link correctly in the 07:54 GMT post, the 08:20 GMT post contains the correct link.
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 17:26 GMT
Robert
I spent almost 50 years in the communication industry. So Claude Shannon is one of my hero's, is this your Shannon?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 19:02 GMT
Barry, yes probably , he was famous indeed, the father of the information theory, you could like Von neumann, this thinker was also a general thinker very very incredible, see if you are interested what he has imagined , see the links with the von neumann entropy, the gibbs works and the shannon ones, regards
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 29, 2021 @ 13:27 GMT
Barry,
Yes. I am referring to Claude Shannon's Information Theory. Although I was educated as a physicist, I spent most of my career in the Signal Intelligence world, where my forte was developing algorithms for doing things like extracting the maximum amount of "Information" from highly-garbled communications signals. Consequently, I became
very familiar with the limitations to...
view entire post
Barry,
Yes. I am referring to Claude Shannon's Information Theory. Although I was educated as a physicist, I spent most of my career in the Signal Intelligence world, where my forte was developing algorithms for doing things like extracting the maximum amount of "Information" from highly-garbled communications signals. Consequently, I became
very familiar with the limitations to information recovery, that had been identified by Shannon. It is the insights gained in that realm, that I have brought to bear, on the "measurement problem" and "Uncertainty" in physics.
Here is what the physics world has never understood about "Information": In
this short article about Shannon, the first 75% of the article talks about all the probability and entropy issues - the "math". The physicists dealing with "Quantum Correlations" etc., are quite familiar with all this. But all that is "just math". But what those physicists have never even tried to understand, is the last 25% of the article, that deals with actual physical reality and not "just math"; beginning with the statement that "But it was the next step that seemed, depending on one’s perspective, miraculous or inconceivable... the one Fano called “unknown, unthinkable,” until Shannon thought it."
The article continues: "Until Shannon, it was simply conventional wisdom that noise had to be endured. Shannon’s promise of perfect accuracy was something radically new... it was this promise above all that made Shannon’s theory “Copernican”: Copernican in the sense that it... revolutionized our understanding of the world."
This is what "quantization" is all about. It has nothing directly to do with the physical properties of space, time, matter or energy. It has to do with quantizing "Information" in order to enable perfect (error free) information recovery.
As an analogy, think of the French
Maginot Line during World War II. Instead of trying to push their way straight through that "problem", the Germans simply went around it. Shannon's "Copernican" discovery, was that there is no need whatsoever for attempting to push through the "measurement problem" and the limitations imposed by the Uncertainty Principle, because it is possible to simply go
around it (by making discrete "decisions" about "Information" rather than continuous "measurements" of physical variables). "Mother Nature" also discovered this fact, eons before Shannon; and that is what put the "Quantum" in Physics, at the most fundamental level possible. This is what ultimately enables
all "deterministic" behaviors to emerge from the chaos of all the unknown and non-perfectly measureable conditions, surrounding each and every entity in the cosmos. It is what enables entities to behave in the
exact same manner, each and every time they happen to encounter the exact same (and perfect recoverable) "Information"; that is what "Determininism", such as Laplace conceived it, is all about. It does not happen by magic or some miraculous ability of entities to "just know", with absolute perfection, all the conditions that just happen to exist at their present location, in space and time.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 29, 2021 @ 18:40 GMT
Robert,
Very succinctly stated. I especially applaud the last half of the last paragraph. We can model what we might imagine the physical reality to be but it will be due to like behavior to like conditions, and our observations limited to our criteria of what we choose to measure. best jrc
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 30, 2021 @ 07:50 GMT
Having spent most of my career in a telecommunications laboratory, I spent about half exploiting Shannon's work developing digital digital telephone exchanges. The second half exploiting Maxwell's and Shannon's work developing "smart antennas"leading to 5G, near field probing and low noise amplifier techniques, Adsl, Vdsl and fibre to the home. As a hobby I have authored or co authored several papers in international peer reviewed physics journals. All of these papers have exploited Maxwell as the arbiter of crucial experiments that underpin QM. Namely, the AB effect, uncertainty principle, the absurd photon, Stern Gerlach, Compton, EPR and entanglement etc. In my dotage I'm here peddling my wares. I'm trying to sell "local realism" and "causality" as precious commodities and I'm prepared to de-radicalize QM's, flat Earther's, water-diviner's, never landed on the mooner's, theist's and creationist's. Let's get back to the scientific method. A new renascence I guess you would call it. We are currently in a dark age, dark energy, dark matter black holes etc. Dark is code for total ignorance. I think It is probably a male thing to always proffer an answer rather than admit I don't know, no matter how absurd or illogical the answer. BTW I have solved that hoary old problem of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. New physics, new force and faster than light are very popular these days, there's a rumor that a very intelligent ant collapsed a wave function the other day, yes he peered into a box and killed a cat?
End of rant, gee! I needed that, I'll be OK now.
Barry
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 1, 2021 @ 03:16 GMT
Barry
Yep. New force, same old problem.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2021 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Barry, we try all to respect this empirism and deterministic realism , and we are at a age where the unknowns are difficult to explain, it is mainly due to problems of scales and limitations. The philosophy and the ontology are essentials to consider , that permits to give ideas and roads for the experiments and mathematical extrapolations.
I am curious Barry, what is for you the philosophical origin of the universe, why we exist and from What ? and what is for you the foundamental objects, are they points in the relativistic spacetime, or strings in 1D , or others ?
What is also for you the Dark Matter, the Dark Energy, and this quantum gravitation for example? have you ideas respecting the local realism like tou tell ?
Regards
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on May. 1, 2021 @ 16:48 GMT
G’day Steve. When I was 10 or 12 years old, I pondered the origin of the universe and why anything exists at all. This troubled me to the point of mental anguish, so I consciously chose to drop it in favour of all the other wonderful things around me. I have been tempted many times to ponder these thing, but I have concluded that that these questions are unknowable. I find sufficient...
view entire post
G’day Steve. When I was 10 or 12 years old, I pondered the origin of the universe and why anything exists at all. This troubled me to the point of mental anguish, so I consciously chose to drop it in favour of all the other wonderful things around me. I have been tempted many times to ponder these thing, but I have concluded that that these questions are unknowable. I find sufficient pleasure in exploring mysticism and paradox. I also believe that all knowledge is provisional, so the challenge is to try and defeat the provisional nature of knowledge or at least increase the quality. Never leave facts unchallenged in resolving paradox’s. I think all paradox’s should be resolved before moving on or advancing new law. Quantum gravity is a red herring, gravity is mysterious enough without adding ultra mysterious quantum mechanics to it. The coulomb and magnetic force’s are just as mysterious as gravity. The strong and weak forces are even more mysterious. There are too many particles in my opinion.
Dark and black are code for total ignorance and probably don’t exist. Dark matter may be: protons, electrons, H1, H2, carbon dust, and iron dust. These materials are virtually invisible when cold. These particles probably emit in the low infrared and RF region, and are indistinguishable from the cosmic microwave background (CMBR). It’s unlikely that the observed microwave background originated from the big bang, but is down converted starlight as Grote Reber suggested.
Dark energy could be the result of incorrect assumptions in the measurement of light emitted from “standard candles”. Dust is likely obscuring and attenuating the light and destroying the calibration. Even if you assume the big bang is valid the optical radiation at source, is unlikely to make the 13 billion year journey unscathed or unattenuated, after passing thru all that dust and particles. Maxwell says the attenuation is significant if the particle density approaches one particle per cubic metre. Particle size obviously is a factor but coulomb charge and ionisation level increase effective capture area.
Low frequency radio waves are totally reflected by sections of the very low density ionosphere. QM’s would have great difficulty accounting for this phenomenon.
To be continued?
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 2, 2021 @ 20:30 GMT
Hi Barry, I asked me the same questions in being young, and at the age of 17 I have searched deeper answers in the religions, I have read all the sacred books, the bible, the talmud, the coran, the hinduism and vedas, the buddhism, ...after I have continued in reading many philosophes, descartes and the discourse about the method, nietsche, freud, and greek philosophes also,ptolemee, and this and...
view entire post
Hi Barry, I asked me the same questions in being young, and at the age of 17 I have searched deeper answers in the religions, I have read all the sacred books, the bible, the talmud, the coran, the hinduism and vedas, the buddhism, ...after I have continued in reading many philosophes, descartes and the discourse about the method, nietsche, freud, and greek philosophes also,ptolemee, and this and thatmany french writers also, hugo, balsac...and my favorites are kant and spinoza, but the answers were not really convicing even if I consider like spinoza and einstein a god of nature, a god of spinoza,so like I was in secondary in maths , sciences strong, 9hours of maths and 9hours of physics, chemistry, biology more 4h of labs by week and after at university in geology in belgium, I have stopped due to an epileptic coma in 3 , so I have made agronomy after 1 year in resting. So I have searched these answers in the sciences and I have found my theory in ranking in fact the animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, the evolution, the physics, the chemistry , I have seen the evolution of brains since the selacians , and we see a relative spherisation of hominids brains, it is just a page of a book of biology wich has given me this eureka if I can say, I told me oh my god all is in this relativie logic of spherisation and spheres, it is this evolution the most important in my model, not only the quantum and cosmological 3D spheres but the evolution optimisation of this universal sphere or future sphere.
I cannot stop to continue to improve it in fact this theory and I agree that we must live and contemplate the nature but it is stronger than me this theory, It is in me I believe. I want to go farer, I cannot stop to study the physics and maths in fact lol. The paradox indeed can be solved in a pure empirical deterministic way I believe. The mysticism like you tell is fascinating, this infinite eternal consciousness, the main energy in 0D in my model coding and transforming this E to create this physicality intrigues me, but we are linited in knowledges unfortunally but I know that this thing exists .
You know Barry , about the quantum gravitation, I have quantified it , I was surprised to reach it in thinking beyond the box, it is not an emergent electromagnetic force, I will publish correctly, in fact the GR and G c and h are not sufficient to reach it even with the non commutativity , the tensors, the geometrical algebras and subgroups, this weakest quantum force has a simple universal logic , the standard model also is emergent, it is the error of many thinkers to consider only the fields and the EFE and the GR , in fact the solution is an opposite reasoning. We know so few and the other ontological and philosophical error of thinkers if to consider the photons like the only one piece of puzzle, they forget the two other spacetimes, so yes this DM in the cold and this DE permit to solve our deep unknowns and answer also to this priniciple of evolution.We can even predict the future of our universe.
About the BB , even with the CMB you know it is an assumption, and we have a deeper logic than this , it is still the error philosophical to consider like if we had an infinite heat for god and after photons and after strings at this planck scale inside,and lol god plays at guitar with the oscillations but if the main energy of god is not an infinite heat, so we must think differently and it is what I have made. The electromagnetism and the heat are just emergent, they are not the main primoridal essence, the space vacuumm of this DE is probably the main codes and the cold dark matter permits to balance in being encoded and explains also the anti matter and this QG. All is a question of general ontological philosophical origin and foundamental objects . To be continued , Spherically yours Barry , they turn so they are, so we are :) friendly
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert wrote on Jul. 5, 2021 @ 13:05 GMT
The concept of causality led us out of the dark ages, to question it seems to be leading us back to mysticism and the belief in the supernatural. Quantum mechanics (QM) proudly embraces these pre-renaissance ideas. QM’s boast about the beauty of paradox’s such as Schrodinger’s cat. Whenever a problem in the standard model occurs, new physics, new dimensions are proposed and general relativity is questioned. Remember the “Pioneer anomaly”. Well, they are at it again with the “muon anomaly”. QED and measurement are in disagreement at the umpteenth decimal place! Remember that QED boasts that it is the most accurate theory in the whole of physics. The truth is that QED never predicted anything, it was always catching up with ever more precise measurements. QED was hand tuned to match only two precise measurements: The Lamb shift and the anomalous g-factor of the electron. Ironically this could all be blamed on Einstein’s absurd “photon” that reintroduced mysticism and magic back into physics. Einstein eventually became disenchanted with the revolution he initiated and was reported to say:
"All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself".
report post as inappropriate
Volodymyr Druzhshchienshkyj wrote on Nov. 24, 2021 @ 03:56 GMT
Hello Everyone:
The more fundamental question is being part of any system, which we are, what are the limits of understanding of the system being observed, i.e. what is knowable, and at what depth?
Causality is framed in repeatable environments being explained by a series of accepted axioms for the phenomena being observed. Since the observer is part of the system the question...
view entire post
Hello Everyone:
The more fundamental question is being part of any system, which we are, what are the limits of understanding of the system being observed, i.e. what is knowable, and at what depth?
Causality is framed in repeatable environments being explained by a series of accepted axioms for the phenomena being observed. Since the observer is part of the system the question becomes to what extent if at all, does the experimenter's presence affect the outcomes?
The set of axioms has expanded over time beginning with classical, then quantum mechanics. For each there are a series of axioms that govern the constrained environment of observations. For macroscopic objects that can be observed with the eye, causation is synonymous with correlation. Into both enter the frameworks of heuristics.
Heuristic Overview A series of axioms based on heuristics forms the foundation for further explorations. The assumptions are the experimental environment is stable, and repeatable is required for the correlation of causation.
The set of applicable axioms for the experiment is finite. In review of anomalies George Pólya's work is of utility.
George Pólya How to Solve It Since the set of finite axioms with which one is applying in an artificially constructed closed system a case can be made for the work of Kurt Gödel.
Kurt Gödel Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems From his Incompleteness Theorem:
1. Any consistent formal [axiomatic] system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e. there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.
2. For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself.
With a correlation of causation, and a set of finite axioms, a causation that is true may, or may not be provable. If it is false it has to be provable as false to be false.
As more phenomena has been explored fundamental axioms have been added to general cause and effect environments. The perimeter at which the environment is defined, and the extent of considered variable is relevant to expedient results. Our existence belies a complexity of which we are not normally aware. A baseball player is at bat in the series. When the player hits the pitch the observers, based on their past experiences, will instantly understand the ball is out of the park without any understanding of the underlying physiology, and biochemistry of the batter.
For each environment the granularity, boundaries of observation, and applicable axioms need to be defined.
Since we are part of the system, what is knowable, accessible, true, and provable about the area of experimental observations? From Gödel there are statements that are true, but not provable, and others which are true, and provable. If the statement is true, and provable is it provable in P time, or can it be shown to be an NP time problem? From Alan Turing, and the Halting Problem, can the experimenter devise a scenario to process the data such that the computer will halt in a reasonable amount of time?
Causation with axioms fits the Gödel requirements so that a causation may be true, but not provable, true and provable, or false.
When an inconsistent experimental result is obtained what other axioms are needed to rationalize the data? I do not have any answers to these questions. The preceding has application in other areas. When in a quandary I always fall back to writing the pertinent aspects with a real pencil, and real paper. At that juncture it is often more obvious what is missing, and what is unknown.
All the Best,
Volodymyr-----------------
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 4, 2022 @ 03:49 GMT
Quanta: amplitude h of the range of variation of the rate of time evolution for all waves »(EMW as photon and particles) in this universe.
This makes them all logically operational on each other. Outside this range it does not interact logically with anything and is therefore non-exitent for us
CAUSE: a difference in the rate of time affecting the probability of existence in one direction (the only type of cause allowed in the universe as alogical system.)
EXISTENCE: local replacement of time (the vacuum) by logical substitution; in one place, simple time (vacuum-time process) cannot be both simple and complex (matter) as per Law of non-contradiction (LNC)
LNC Law that defines what exists; 1 not equal 0 is read as "Ì am not nothin" is the declaration of existence.
«MOTION: non logically satified state of affair in the process of resolution, e.g. gravity»: object falls because existence more probable toward lower rate of time ( the assymetric existence IS here the illogical state of affair)
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 4, 2022 @ 04:20 GMT
*** Of course, this is NEW Metaphysics! ***
Goal No 1: complete the duty of Metaphysics: finding substance, cause, forms: ---------= DONE!
Goal No 2: gently hand it over to Physics so they UNDERSTAND what they KNOW.
Goal No 3: Take This Metaphysics OUT-OUT of Philosophy as a bona fide Qualitative science based on logic, as the Universe is.
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.