Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 5/13/11 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote James Can they handle motion? As vector space can't we're now working on a...

James Putnam: on 5/8/11 at 23:07pm UTC, wrote Just in case someone, or more someones, might wonder, with sincere...

James Putnam: on 5/8/11 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Peter, Well, our approaches are very different right from the beginning to...

Peter Jackson: on 5/8/11 at 19:11pm UTC, wrote James "I am trying to identify specific differences in our approaches." ...

James Putnam: on 5/8/11 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote Tom, Just so others may understand: What I said about thermodynamic...

T H Ray: on 5/8/11 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Okay, whatever.

James Putnam: on 5/8/11 at 13:15pm UTC, wrote Tom, "It's all true. The mathematical model of energy entropy (Boltzmann)...

T H Ray: on 5/8/11 at 11:25am UTC, wrote James, It's all true. The mathematical model of energy entropy...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Robert, While Carroll and Rovelli are looking for an explanation of..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

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


FQXi BLOGS
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Should SONY help foundational physics? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 15:43 GMT
Just a quick post to point you to the BBC’s coverage of FQXi large-grant-winner Gaurav Khanna’s work, using a Playstation supercomputer to test loop quantum cosmology, find out what happened before the big bang, and predict signs of black holes. (More details in Grace Stemp-Morlock’s article: “The Quantum PlayStation”.)

You can listen to the piece, broadcast on the BBC Worldservice’s Digital Planet, here (Khanna comes in at about the 9 minute mark).

I’m highlighting it here because the host, Gareth Mitchell, picked up on an interesting point: Khanna was able to string together 16 PS3 consoles to create a supercomputer because, until recently, the PS3 was an open platform, running LINUX, which could programmed for scientific tasks. Now, however, SONY have shut down this functionality––possibly because hackers managed to exploit it to run pirate games.

So, sadly, it won’t be so easy for others to follow Khanna’s example and create their own PS3 supercomputers in the future. The programme has a bit of a discussion about whether SONY should feel more obliged to help the progress of foundational physics research. The answer seemed to be, realistically, probably not. But I thought I would throw it out there for you.

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

report post as inappropriate


Gaurav Khanna wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 12:03 GMT
Thanks for bringing this point up, Zeeya. It is an interesting point to think about.

Yes, certainly Sony or any other such corporation have no obligation to help scientific projects and efforts. The issue of whether they can take back a system feature that they originally offered is a separate one of course, and I understand they have been sued multiple times on that matter.

On the other hand, I wish that some of these corporations would realize and appreciate the potential that they have of making a huge impact on various aspects of humanity. With the PlayStation 3, I believe in the beginning Sony actually did get this and that is perhaps why they put the Linux option there in the first place (other competing game consoles like XBox and Wii have never done this). In addition, right since the beginning they offered the option of enrolling one's PS3 with Folding@Home (a Stanford volunteer computing project that is focussed on finding the causes of various serious diseases) and Sony R&D actually helped develop a very high-performing PS3 version of that software, that ultimately played a critical role in advancing Folding@Home into the petaflop/s regime. And then there was talk about bringing more such projects to the PS3 as well. My understanding is that these efforts were not made for any real commercial reason, except perhaps just PR.

But something changed along the way (perhaps the losses Sony's gaming division faced until recently? A change of upper level management?) and now they simply don't appear to have the same attitude anymore. Its very unfortunate.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kai Staats wrote on Oct. 1, 2010 @ 02:02 GMT
As I was heavily, directly involved with Sony in the midst of this transition, I cannot comment to deeply. However, I can state that from day-one there was internal conflict over the sales of the PS3 as a multi-purpose system.

Remember that initial PS3s were sold at a loss (or at least, that is what we are told) such that if a unit is used for Linux, there will not be any games sold. Even at a break-even go-to-market strategy, the real money is in the game licenses.

As such, selling PS3s to Linux users is seen by the powers-that-be in Tokyo as a loss of revenue not only in lost game sales, but in the cost of maintaining the Linux support.

From this point of view, it does make sense.

However, it is my opinion that Sony has missed the boat for many years on these matters, failing to promote the incredible power of a truly multi-functional system with capacity for playing music from CD and USB drives; watching hi-def movies; and even connecting to an external RAID box for massive storage (something we played with internal to Terra Soft).

As IBM dominates the Top500.org, often at a loss for the large-scale installations, their supercomputing ventures provide the best possible marketing.

Sony too could have played-up the role PS3s were playing in universities, DOE and DOD labs in realworld research, taking the incredible success to the world as a demonstration of where a supercomputing game box can go--far beyond the Wii or MS games boxes.

In the end it is sad, for one division of Sony was moving in one direction, supporting the work of individuals such as Gaurav; while the other was moving in the other. The later had more clout ... and won.

kai

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zeeya wrote on Oct. 5, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Thanks for that information Kai.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Whitworth,

You did not start a new thread. I want you to know that I am not evading you or your responses with regard to either me or thermodynamic entropy. I believe that my question must not have been clear to you. I also believed that you would come back and come on strong. I look forward to you reasserting your strong interest in my questions and answers. Perhaps I should mention that you did not answer my question. That is probably a combination of my not making my point clear and our different languages. I appreciate very much that you are speaking to me in English. Please consider re-establishing contact. I will reform my question until we both understand it. Thank you for participating here at fqxi.org. I chose a blog that should load quickly.

JamesPutnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
Physics is Fun,

Regarding Temperature: This example uses two Carnot engines operating simultaneously. One contains a mole of O2 and the other a mole of H2. They both operate between T-high = 400 degrees kelvin and T-low = 200 degrees kelvin. The operation of the engines begins at the beginning of the isothermal compression process. At that beginning point, they have identical temperatures, volumes and pressures. The pressure is one atmosphere. They will be compressed to 20 atmospheres.

As the compressions occur both gases are held at the same constant temperature. They also undergo simultaneous identical increases in pressure. The volumes are free to attain their values necessary for the processes to proceed under those restrictions. As the pressures increase, their products of pressure and volume vary. The O2 must be compressed more than the H2. When the pressures reach 20 atmospheres, the volume of H2 is approximately 6 percent greater than the volume of O2. More work was performed on the O2.

The next process is to continue the compression adiabatically while allowing temperature to vary. The temperatures increase to T-high. The gases are compressed to 40 atmospheres. Their temperatures and pressures are identical. Their volumes are also now identical.

It is clear that temperature is related to average kinetic molecular energy. It is not clear that temperature is a direct measure of average kinetic molecular energy. My explanation is that temperature is the rate of exchange of kinetic energy between the molcules. The reason that the correlation is so close between average kinetic energy and temperature is due to the requirement that Carnot engines operate under conditions of equilibrium. Temperature is measured under conditions of equilibrium. The energy being exchanged between molecules is their average kinetic energy.

I gave the above example in order to show that the velocity of and distance between the molecules affects the rate of exchange of their kinetic energies. The O2 must be compressed more in order to maintain the exchange of average kinetic energy per unit of time.

If you disagree or have corrections to offer, they are welcome. Correctness is the goal.

JamesPutnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
I have repeatedly made the charge that mass should not have been arbitrarily made into an indefinable property. I can't recall anyone showing an interest in following up on it. Perhaps it is viewed as one more piece of 'non-sensical rot'. I sent off an abstract recently where I proposed to present a paper explaining the meaning of entropy. A difficulty I face in giving explanations is that fundamental theory must first be made correct. So, it was necessary for me to point out that I would begin by showing how mass is expressible in terms of distance and time.

There were three reviewers. The paper has been just barely accepted by two of them. So, I have been invited to participate in the poster presentations at a conference. I can't justify the cost to me for doing that. Still I am going to submit the paper anyway.

Here is the point: There were three reviews:

The first tossed it without saying anything more than it didn't belong at this conference.

The second said this: "The author proposes a new understanding of the meaning of the concept of entropy that seems at first glance to be based upon a dimensional calculation. ...one is always suspicious of theories that appear to be based on dimensional considerations alone. It is quite possible that a more detailed analysis underlies the author's arguments but are not spelled out in a short abstract, which is why I am not simply rejecting the paper. Still the Boltzman formulation of the entropy concept, while not perfect, nevertheless has deep ties to many branches of physics and mathematics and statistics and a breadth of applicability which far outstrips its original connection to the old theory of Clausius. Some of the philosophically inclined attendess may find something of interest here though."

The third (I am leaving the grammer as the reviewer wrote it) said: "...and then there is the other argument that one can build up physics quantities from distance/time only, without using mass. ...nobody, as far as I know, has figured out a good way of removing mass from the basic quantities for metrology. That's why having a slow drift in the Paris kilogram prototype is such a big trouble. So, if the author really is able to express the kg as function of distance and time, that were a breakthrough (I would have expect something like that come out of something like Verlind's work). ..."

It would be better for a professional to make the arguments that I am putting forth. However, it is clear that the case must first be brought forward by a non-professional.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT
James

Just to let you know you're not alone. What a nice blog! Sony need support right now.

I agree Mass is very poorly defined, and currently a morphing can of worms going round the Mad Hatters table making all sorts of mass to clear up! I certainly see motion as the heart of mass, but via inertia. One with just distance and time would be an interesting challenge to comprehend! - especially if it isn't moving. Mass is of course so central to nature that understanding it should make all else fall into place (even with some here screaming and kicking). I don't recall it from your essay.

I have to say I've never taken to entropy as a central condition, and it seems peripheral to the recycling thesis, so if you think it's important do let me know why.

Also, on the subject of mass, let me know your thoughts on the proposition that at all centres of mass (yes, that massy thing again!) are Lagrangian points.(points of gravitational equilibrium). At present we seem to have them where we want them but then have infinities instead where we fancy those! (black holes of all sizes). Now ..I have a good recycling analogy for infinities (did you read my viXra paper?) via toroid black holes, which only leaves Lagrangian Points at the centre of planets. It's all possible logical extension of the DFM. Georgina's potato earth link provides strong evidence it's correct! The varying gravity results are far more reasonable if the local pull is centred shallower than the earth's centre! That's also in a viXra paper. As usual I've only ever heard silence in response! Thoughts? http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/index.html

Best wishes

Peter

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 15:29 GMT
Peter,

I can't address all of that at this time. Some answers, such as what mass is, would even be counterproductive at this time. Corrections need to be made in an orderly manner beginning at the beginning. Our approaches are very different. We both say something similar such as the speed of light is a local constant. however, taking your train example, if we disregard visual effects and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
Peter,

A few more points: This is not meant to tell the world that they should hoist me up on shoulders; it is only meant to point out some conclusions I have come too that I feel confident about. One is that the nature of mass made it seem clear to me that there are no singularities. I also find no reason to believe in black holes. My approach does not lead to event horizons. There is no time dilation. There is slowing of activity with increasing speed under the correct conditions. There is length contraction. Mass does increase with velocity under the correct conditions.

For the cannon ball example, the mass of the cannon ball does increase. It matters not what the observer is doing. The increase in mass is a fact. What does change for observers who may be moving around is their ability to measure. Measurements do change for different observers. So they do see things happening differently. I do not mean this is due to visual effects, although they will also take part. The reasons that I bring up for changes in measurements are due to real physical changes in the observer and their apparatus. At this time, those are some of the conclusions I have reached. I have not gotten very far into accounting for quantum effects although, insofar as they pertain to the hydrogen atom, I find they fall into line very helpfully.

I say these things without wishing to debate them. I encourage you to promote your own ideas. You do need to get professionals to support your conclusions. My appraoch involves changes that begin at the beginning of theory and those changes change almost everything. It is not possible to make my case in 10 page essay form or in the blogs. To explain things such as how to derive the universal gravitational constant require telling the whole story. The whole story, so far as it has advanced, is told at my website. I enjoy very much participating here at fqxi.org, so I putter around putting out small seemingly unrelated pieces.

Best wishes to you in your efforts to convince the professionals. I do understand the impatience of the professionals with the bunch of us considering that we don't even agree with one another, yet everyone feels so sure about their ideas being correct. The professionals used to have their own ongoing conversations here that I found very interesting and appreciated. Now we are confronted by phrases such as 'non-sensical rot' and not much real professional involvment. I don't see a reason for interacting with those who would resort to such phraseology. I don't consider myself to be superior to them, but, I don't intend to submit to demeaning tactics. So, unproductive confrontation seems to be pretty much the role. So much for now, I have some lengthy writing to do.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 09:23 GMT
James

A very logical conclusion. Of course illogicality makes classic physics consistent with QM, so logic can easily be dismissed! But from the DFM's logic I've definitely noticed more convergence in your theory, which is also consistent with zeroing in on reality. I wish you luck defining mass. It needs doing, but I shall stick with considering the existence and characteristics of the condensate it 'pops up' from, and what existed before the 'big whatever' beginning of the universe, and unifying SR & QM.

Just a point on logic. You say; "however, taking your train example, if we disregard visual effects and speak only about physical effects, both clocks, front and back, will be physically slowed compared to the earth stationary observer."

To me that looses it's logic at the end, just like SR, because it has a 'self centric' viewpoint. You're making Earth special in the universe. Why should they not slow down wrt a moon or Mars stationary observer? Or an observer 'at rest' by moving at the same speed as Earth's rotation? If they're 'physically slowed' it can only be wrt A reference point/clock, or absolute time. That nominally takes up straight back to GT, with CSL back to being a paradox.

Only if the Earth's frame is one of 'infinitely many' in the universe can it work as a background frame, but a LOCAL background frame. That means ALL changes in oscillation rate are relative - which means from an observers viewpoint, which you term 'optical effect'. There is only one apparent reality for anybody, and nobody is special, so all 'effects' are of the same class, call them what you may. That then follows clear logic and matches the empirical evidence, giving CSL with background fields and without the LT.

Think really hard, as it IS a hard sequence to hold in a human brain, but it's the only solution with the essential logical monotonicity.

You should find the only valid observer frame for measurement is the same frame as the object being measured. That should fully clarify mass equivalence. What it's 'made' of I'll leave up to you!

In the final analysis there is an ultimate frame for a Universe, but that is irrelevant for local physics, which is the same in each.

Are you going to be one of the 1 in 5?

Best wishes

Peter

PS I'm glad you seem to agree on no singularities at the core of black holes. I assume you've now seen my viXra paper on helixes and toroid smbh's?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 16:55 GMT
Peter,

My opinion is: There are no singularities anywhere. There are no black holes or centers of black holes. I have not read your paper. What I have read of yours has caused me to ask some questions. My impression is that I have on different occasions not gotten straight answers. I have thought very hard for years. I have done the explaining and the mathematics necessary to support what I say. Most of it is several years old and has been on the Internet. My website went online in 1995.

Both clock's really do slow down just because the train has a velocity relative to the earth. The train really does shorten and its mass really does increase. I do not agree with your perspective. The Lorentz transforms are not superfluous. I don't think that what I think should matter to you. It is the professionals whom you must gain support from.

I already know what mass is and it is included at my website. I have derived the lorentz transform replacement equations without beginning with the principle of the constant speed of light. I have derived replacement equations for many aspects of theoretical physics. They are on public display.

I do not wish to debate with another amateur. I see little value if any in doing that. The professionals do not agree with me, but they are not stupid. They are highly qualified and experienced and you need their agreement. My work is going nowhere unless they become voluntarily convinced that I have something right. I expect that the same holds true for your work. I encourage you to argue your case with them on its own merits. Stick to the point and maintain respect for their achievement.

JamesPutnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Albert Einstein wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
" Of course illogicality makes classic physics consistent with QM, so logic can easily be dismissed! "

I heard that too !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bubba wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 14:58 GMT
Fellas, just some advice.

There was a difference between Aristotle and Newton. What would you say that difference was?

The realization by Galileo and his contemporaries that all of the observed behavior of natural objects follow precise mathematical laws represents the line of demarcation between natural philosophy and physics. This realization that nature follows precise...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Friends,

Bubba said "The result is going to be pretty straightforward and is exactly what we see here--everyone's going to have an opinion but the opinion will be totally devoid of information content that will provide something of value to a physicist."

I agree.

Opinions are like belly buttons - everyone has one, but some are "fuzzier" than others.

Our descriptions of reality need to use mathematics and language together to reduce the "fuzziness".

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 17:15 GMT
I use mathematics. What I do not do is discard unity because of lack of knowledge. I stick with the problem until I find the solution that fits with fundamental unity. I say that physicists were not and are not justified in arbitrarily making mass an indefinable property and assigning it indefinable units of measurement. You either get the fundamentals correct right from the start or you must later engage in patching things up by speculating about new theoretical and unempirical properties.

JamesPutnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Bubba replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT
The goal is not to obtain fundamental unity. The goal is to create a mathematical description for the phenomenon under study.

The strictly deductive methods employed by many posters here represent those of old-school Aristotle, not post-1600 physics.

For the past four centuries, it has been common knowledge that nature displays phenomenon that follow precise mathematical laws. Why nature works this way is irrelevant. She does. The physcist is concerned with forumlating these mathematical laws, not engaging in semantics or attempting to uncover abstract fundamental features which define reality. Ever since Gallileo, natural philosophers stopped writing philosophical treatises and starting formulating their ideas in terms of the mathematical relationships among the things being observed. They dropped the ambiguity and semantics in favor of the exactness of mathematics. They became physicists. You will not find one physicist after Galileo who had any success in the field without using mathematics as the language to express the ideas contained in a theory.

People here are neutering physics and dumbing it down and creating a throwback to the pre-Galilean days of Aristotle, when people got into fistfights over whether space went on forever or just stopped. The explanatory power and success that physics has enjoyed comes exclusively from the precise mathematical formalisms that created precise answers, with no room for ambiguity. If the answer to a question cannot be formulated in this way, it is not physics. It is something else.

An increase in our understanding of the physical world no longer comes from Plato and Arristotle sitting in a cave eating a turkey drumstick while arguing about the fundamental nature of space and time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear JamesPutnam,

I agree that the origin of mass is important. It seems ironic that we have had F=ma for over three hundred years, and still don't understand the origin of mass. But Classical Physics still works anyway...

I think that Higgs Theory is a first-order approximation that may solve the Z and W masses and longitudinal degrees-of-freedom, but I really don't expect Higgs theory to explain the masses of all of the fundamental fermions. That's why I'm developing my Pentality symmetries! These five-fold symmetries tie in with the origin of mass similarly to Coldea et al's magnetic quasiparticles.

I think that you and I agree more than you realize. You are worried about CAUSE and the first cause. Many of these other realists are worried about EFFECT - after all effect is what we measure (experiment and bottom-up logic), cause is what we deduce from effect (theory and top-down logic), and the first cause is the Theory of Everything (the ultimate unification)!

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Ray,

In my opinion: At the beginning of theory, we could not expect to know what mass is. That is understandable. We can't and do not need to wait until we know the nature of mass in order to develop theory so that we may use its equations for practical purposes.

The immediate problem with f=ma is not that mass is not understood, it is that it was given indefinable units without justification. The units matter greatly for all theory that uses mass. I see no justification for concluding that either force or mass must be made an indefinable property. I do see justification for expecting that both of those properties should be represented by combinations of units of distance and time.

Mass is not the only property that received this unjustified treatment. Any property that is given its own indefinable units instead of combinations of units of distance and time represents an artificially created obstacle to understanding the nature of the universe.

So far as cause is concerned, my position is that there is a single cause for all effects that have and will ever occur in this universe. The concept of separate causes is directly related to arbitrarily introducing indefinable units into the equations of theoretical physics.

That is what I think and it is the basis of my own theoretical work. For anyone new reading this, I am not a physicist.

JamesPutnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear JamesPutnam,

If you want a more correct treatment of units, you might read Peter van Gaalen's essay. His general metric at the bottom of page 4 implies 16 dimensions.

The "Primum movens" is an important philosophical/ theoretical (because theory relates implied causes to visible effects) question. Some people use the question of a first cause as an argument for God. I use it as an argument for a Theory of Everything.

BTW, I think you can go back to "James". For a short while, there was a James #2, but we knew that he wasn't you. That would be like getting me mixed up with Tom Ray or Raymond Aschheim.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Ray,

I am not prepared to challenge Peter van Gaalen's essay. I read it. There are just two points that I have to make. One is that all efforts to arrive at natural units are obstructed by any artificial units that still exist. My argument has been that there are only two units that we need naturally. They are the units of distance and time. All others are arbitrary and artificial. So, about the only thing that I can add is that I think that Planck's units are not correct. One problem with them is that they use G in their derivations. My position is that G is not a true universal constant.

In fact, I say there is only one true universal constant and that constant is electric charge. You may have followed my discussions with Bubba where I said very recently that there is no such thing as electric charge. So, what I am saying to you does look contradictory. However, I said first that there are only two units that we need to represent all properties. Therefore, I will make it clear that my point about there being just one natural constant has to do with the magnitude of electric charge and not its theoretical interpretations.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
Ray

"..but Classical Physics still works anyway..."

Something I missed?

OK, ..if we agree Aristotle's physics worked ok in his day too...

And were we supposed to; "..provide something of value to a physicist." here? ..Ooops!

As I've said before, I've done maths (and even mistakenly broke out into some in my essay string against my vow!) but have learnt that our problem has been not getting the conceptual basis correct first and keeping the maths in line with it. It's not a mistake I'll be temped to make, there are plenty in the main flock going that way. The maths will come soon enough. If you're Hungary for some earlier Bubba? sorry, - you'll have to do your own!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Hi Peter,

All of our theories "work" in their respective realms of applicability. We have to know which problems require Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, and so on.

I was a grad student at the University of Texas while the late, great John Archibald Wheeler was a Professor there. I remember attending a seminar where Wheeler said (realize that this was 30 years ago, so I may be using some artistic license in the specific wording) that he expected a Grand Unified Theory to include Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, and so on.

I was thrilled that Wheeler recognized the importance of Statistical Mechanics because I was working on my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) at the time, and most people focus on the glaring inconsistancies of Quantum vs. Relativity, and overlook everything else.

If we have learned anything from over three Centuries of Physics, we should know that our equations represent good approximations to reality. Is this all that there is to reality? As a top-down thinker myself, I hope not. Because I hope to someday understand the beauty of the GUT/ TOE.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
p.s. - BTW, did you say "If you're Hungary for some earlier Bubba?" for a reason? I assumed that Bubba was Czech, not Hungarian (close, but not the same).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 20:15 GMT
Ray

Is Transylvania in Hungary or Bulgaria? I assumed he was American! Did you see Eckard's note to Tom? It's excellently considered, as you may expect. (see his essay string if not)

James

I do rather like your concept of inverse acceleration as a mind opener. Just you let you know not everything here (or even Hungary) is stoney ground.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 13:03 GMT
Romania

v-v

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Peter and all,

"I do rather like your concept of inverse acceleration as a mind opener. Just you let you know not everything here (or even Hungary) is stoney ground."

Thank you. This is a very difficult point to get across to experts. Yet it is quite simple. If we give units of kilograms to mass, it tells us nothing about what mass is. Those units are fine for convenience, but, they are devoid of information and even obstruct scientific learning.

Learning comes from empirical evidence. Every property that becomes included in theoretical physics must have its meaning clearly established by empirical evidence. Nothing should be allowed that cannot be expressed in the units of the very evidence that demonstrates the existence of the property.

There are only two units of empirical evidence, they are the units of distance and time. That empirical evidence about distance and time always comes in patterns of changes of velocity. In other words, the evidence is always about acceleration.

The natural fundamental units of force divided by mass must be such that they reduce to the units of acceleration. There are more than one choice, but the choice that makes sense and provides fundamental unity through physics theory is that mass has units of inverse acceleration. That means that the denominator of mass is representative of a property that is undergoing acceleration. That property is light.

Learning what mass is does away with relativity theory. As long as relativity theory stays, physicists will not learn what mass is. As important as it is to get mass correct in order to correct all theory that uses mass; it is also very important to get electric charge right.

I stand by what I said: There is no such thing as electric charge. The correct units for electric charge are seconds. It is a property of light. Correcting electric charge by tying it directly to empirical evidence is the key to theoretical unity. That single change unifies theory in a way that leads to explanations of other properties.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 18:13 GMT
James

No matter how much it goes round the think tank and from which angle I look, to me it needs one more quality. It may be the unknowable I referred in my abstract, or the quality that causes the intrinsic rotation in space, and the drag of the vacuum; (DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.063827) I can't make anything physical work conceptually without an eternal triangle, particularly only with time as 50% of the universe. But let me know how you get on with just two.

I've just slotted a last piece into an important section of mine, but we are looking in different areas. I rather thought mine fundamental but yours gets both the prize for fun AND de mental one! But I can't yet see how it may be falsifiable, which is the essential quality I insist on for my own research.

I see it a bit like this; A team of physicists in the 1920's are given a 2010 computer to solve a series of key problems with. They're studying all the bits in confusion. My model shows them how to turn it on, use a mouse and keyboard and navigate the software to get answers from it. Yours may explain what silicon chips and program languages do. Both are needed, yours is ultimately essential, but mine solves the problems at hand to allow progression. But we should stay in touch as the two do have to connect.

The problem I now have is that the instructions are all in place, but because they're contrary to what they've been taught and known as fact all their lives they won't try following them, and they dismiss it as a box of nonsense. I genuinely didn't forsee that one! You know it works, what do you think, should I now deconstruct and completely rebuild it to look like a model T Ford?

Perhaps when we get to Mars and understand there really is a Mars centred reference frame just like the Earths, so em waves change speed by different amounts entering Mars and Earth's frames, the penny will drop, as will the LT.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT
A mp3 digital audio player have the same power of an old computer.

It is possible to obtain a parallel calculus with new low cost computers – 40 dollars- with an all-in-one device (single chip with integrated video board, sound board and solid state drive), so that it work like a internet server, with a single digital port (like usb3.0) and some standard peripherals (in the web it is possible to use each old computer, because the digital standardization permit the communication of each peripherals: the communication standard work ever without hardware ageing).

It is possible the peripherals (digital keyboard, digital display,etc) use with each operative system, and it is possible to read some extern solid state disc after centuries.

If someone want work with a parallel calculus, it is not necessary buy motherboards, or computer network hardwares (digital packet transmission over usb).

It is only necessary a industrial process for low cost peripherals, and standardization.

Saluti

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 11:35 GMT
James, Cristi, et al.

I propose; 'Light is only visible when scattered by matter'. - (DFM). I've derived that to try to engender a new way of thinking.

We cannot 'see' a light wave or photon moving through a vacumm. If the em energy interacts with a particle, - it becomes 'visible'. This always includes the particles of our lenses. 'n' as we know, always applies to particles (media). We can only measure light speed in 2 ways. 1) dt. 2) via instruments with particles. We thought this was paradoxical if instruments move. Not if we understand the mechanism. If we understand the implications of this, it makes the DFM the biggest thing to hit science since the big bang!

Edwin; I believe this is largely compatible with the C-field. In your view, what is the mechanism for Polarisation mode dispersal (PMD), Birefringence, and up and downshifted scattering itself, from particles at rest, if they don't include inherent oscillatory motion? Is there any reason why the C- field, while stressing the central importance of the 'external wave' has to also rely on gluons being perhaps lumps of something stuck fast and 'frozen' stiff, instead of also allowing a certain duality?

For your interest; http://www.wbabin.net/files/4364_anderton109.pdf Roger Anderton is a committed Einstein critic and Newton fan, hasn't got a solution, and I believe is bogged down off track, but still has much pertinent to say, and this gives some interesting angles on Einsteins UFT.

Does anybody think they can see or detect light without it being scattered by particles of matter?

In that case, can anybody see where it was we all went off track and got bogged down ourselves?

Peter

(Re-posted here as I lost it somewhere in space and time, it explains the above, - and this string loads in no time!).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 18:02 GMT
Peter,

I have been busy. I know that I have missed messages. If anything that I say exposes ignorance on my part, please point it out. My own emphasis is on true causes and its effects. The overall unified theory is something that I look forward to recognizing after the fundamentals have been made correct. I have not yet fitted your ideas into a full theory.

With regard to n, the index of refraction, it is a number on a scale measuring the effect of a cause. It must be explained why there is refraction without refering to n. In other words, what is the cause of a changing speed of light. I know that the speed of light varies. For one thing, we measure changes in the speed of light. But, what is the 'cause' of a changing speed of light? The word 'mass' is not an answer unless it is explained what is mass and why it causes the speed of light to vary?

With regard to the incorrectness of the theory of relativity, there is one obvious proof. It is that the idea of time, real time not just the mechanical action of clocks, dilation is illogical. Clock's are no different from other mechanical effects. The differences in mechanical effects have nothing to do with a real property of time.

So, from you, what is the cause of the variation of the speed of light? With regard to visible and invisible light, I will hold my opinion while I wait for your response.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
James

The paper explaining 'n' is still in review. PMD (see above) is shown to be about wave harmonics, slowing some superposed frequencies more than others (when 'scattered'). Ions seem to diffract more consistently, and even a quite diffuse interstellar halo or 'shock' medium will curve light paths. It's simple wave particle interaction, very well known in optical fibre...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 3, 2011 @ 00:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

"The paper explaining 'n' is still in review. PMD (see above) is shown to be about wave harmonics, slowing some superposed frequencies more than others (when 'scattered'). Ions seem to diffract more consistently, and even a quite diffuse interstellar halo or 'shock' medium will curve light paths. It's simple wave particle interaction, very well known in optical fibre...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT
James

'Attenuation', or Harmonics. Atomic physics well knows that particles affect waves and vice versa, and precisely how those effects can be changed. You only need to look at Birefringence to see the effects of relative polarity. Vladimir Tamari has a sexy looking flow analogy but it can't work at these quantum phenomena, and it seems optical fibre science would be rather...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 22:00 GMT
Peter,

I do not recognize myself as you portray me. Can we concentrate on a single point: You say in your message that a clock will change is rate if it moves into a new medium. How about addressing the special relativity type effect. If the clock stays in the same constant unchanging medium, does its change of velocity in that medium cause its rate of operation to also change accordingly?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 18:59 GMT
James,

No. I doesn't change. I wrote a full and comprehensive answer and it disappeared off into cyberspace. Restaurant booked for 8 so must go!

Essentially the question's presupposition is wrong. All the answers are in the previous posts, but you must use a different viewpoint to see them. I'm not trying to portray you in any way, but you must recognise there IS another way of looking at it.

Keys;

Observer frame is essential, our concept of 'lab frame' is wrong.

Matter is not IN space but is 'spatially extended'. Thus the 2nd postulate.

Look back and reconsider as you read to see if you can understand why. It's really simple when you find it, but it's well hidden - under our noses!

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Peter,

I am trying to identify specific differences in our approaches. If an unstable particle of matter has a high horizontal velocity near the surface of the earth, in an unchanging medium or environment, then I think, based upon your last message, your position is that its decay time will not be affected. If this is incorrect, please correct it.

With regard to "Essentially the question's presupposition is wrong." I described a straighforward physical circumstance. The answer is either yes or no. I have read your messages. I thought that your previous explanations were sometimes unclear. Your train example seemed to me to be saying that the clocks do not change their rates. And, that an observer who sees that the arriving wavelengths are alterred after leaving the clocks due to relative velocities and passing through changing mediums would see the clock rates differently from what they really are. How is this not an optical effect? From my point of view, a physical effect pertaining specifically to the example would be the conclusion that the clock rates do physically change wether they are observed or not.

"Matter is not IN space but is 'spatially extended'. Thus the 2nd postulate."

I have known this. I thought it was well known. I still choose to use the word space in order to account for differences in position.

I understand that you know a lot. I understand that you have thought things through very deeply. I still find some lack of clarity in your answers. Perhaps, you feel that some things I ask about are so simple as to be implied. My approach is to look for specifics in as fundamental a way as is possible. I do not find physics theory to be specific about some of its fundamentals.

Actually, you do need to spend your time communicating your ideas to real physicists.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 6, 2011 @ 21:03 GMT
Tom,

I just viewed this at:

http://lcni.uoregon.edu/~mark/Stat_mech/thermodynamic_ent
ropy_and_information.html

Excerpt: "The bottom line is that thermodynamic entropy is best understood not as a property or macroscopic state of matter (like mass, temperature, or pressure), but as a lack of knowledge of the detailed configuration of matter. In particular, thermodynamic entropy is a measure of our lack of information about the microstate of a closed system of matter near equilibrium. To make this concrete, I'll compare two similar simple systems, one of particles and one of bits. Although the concept of entropy in classical thermodynamics was elucidated long before information theory was developed, thermodynamic entropy can be viewed as a straight-forward application of information theory to a physical problem."

Can you believe this? Something that was clearly and precisely defined in terms of temperature, energy transiting into or out of a system in thermal equilibrium, and something that required the passage of time, is dismissed as really being a counting problem unrelated to the definition of thermodynamic entropy. Plainly this is one more example of avoiding answering fundamental questions before racing off into an unrelated area. Thermodynamic entropy was defined long before space-cells were defined for reasons of pretending to calculate thermodynamic entropy, or long before microstates were discovered. scientifically irresponsible wouldn't you say? :@)

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
"Can you believe this?"

Every word.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT
Tom,

Looking at this again today, it is correct to say:

"The bottom line is that thermodynamic entropy is best understood not as a property or macroscopic state of matter (like mass, temperature, or pressure), but as a lack of knowledge of the detailed configuration of matter."

The reason it is correct to say this is because thermodynamic entropy is not understood. Therefore, it cannot be 'best' understood. However, I have corrected that situation and will just have to wait for others to eventually agree. In the meantime, this sidestepping is one more example of theory losing its empirical base and moving beyond scientific knowledge.

By the way: "Although the concept of entropy in classical thermodynamics was elucidated long before information theory was developed, thermodynamic entropy can be viewed as a straight-forward application of information theory to a physical problem." cannot be true because the one thing that cannot yet be counted, because it is unknown, is the time required for theormodynamic entropy to occur.

James :o)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 8, 2011 @ 11:25 GMT
James,

It's all true. The mathematical model of energy entropy (Boltzmann) is identical to that of information entropy (Shannon).

Time plays a role only in the measure of a continuous physical process, not in a discrete measure. While it is a fact that entropy can only increase, because statistical mechanics describes the behavior of discrete ensembles made of discrete elements, the increase is a not a linear process, which as you suggest applies to a continuous counting problem.

Even though entropy increases IN time, therefore, it does not necessarily increase WITH time. That is, a closed system of interacting particles will tend overall toward entropy (energy equilibrium state) while specific domains of nonequilibrium thermodynamics are tending toward order, with energy throughput fueling that engine.

At the extreme end of the universe -- black hole thermodynamics -- Jacob Bekenstein and Avraham Mayo recovered the linear counting order you're talking about, showing black holes to be a 1-dimension information channel, a sink. (cited in my 2008 FQXi essay.) That is one example of " ... straight-forward application of information theory to a physical problem" on the classical scale. Results on the quantum scale include Gerard 't Hooft's program of Planck scale determinism with information loss.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 8, 2011 @ 13:15 GMT
Tom,

"It's all true. The mathematical model of energy entropy (Boltzmann) is identical to that of information entropy (Shannon)."

Boltzmann's entropy is not thermodynamic entropy. It is a statistical calculation that borrows Boltzmann's constant for no real purpose other than perhaps keeping units the same for a calculation that is not at all the same thing.

"Time plays a role only in the measure of a continuous physical process, not in a discrete measure."

Thermodynamic entropy is a continuous physical process. That is why the heat must enter and leave under very tightly controlled circumstances.

"Even though entropy increases IN time, therefore, it does not necessarily increase WITH time."

Thermodynamic entropy always involves the passage of time. The artificial unrelated concepts of entropy are not entropy.

"That is, a closed system of interacting particles will tend overall toward entropy (energy equilibrium state) while specific domains of nonequilibrium thermodynamics are tending toward order, with energy throughput fueling that engine."

Yes a closed system (My words: not in equilibrium) of interacting particles will tend overall toward the most probably state. That state is not related to the calculation of thermodynamic entropy. That state is not thermodynamic entropy. Thermodynamic entropy is a measure of a precisely controlled process. There is no variation allowed in conditions of equilibrium. There is no settling down. There is no movement from a lower probability state to a higher probability state. There is only a continuously stable state.

"At the extreme end of the universe -- black hole thermodynamics -- Jacob Bekenstein and Avraham Mayo recovered the linear counting order you're talking about, showing black holes to be a 1-dimension information channel, a sink. (cited in my 2008 FQXi essay.) That is one example of " ... straight-forward application of information theory to a physical problem" on the classical scale. Results on the quantum scale include Gerard 't Hooft's program of Planck scale determinism with information loss."

This all sounds very impressive, but it has nothing to do with thermodynamic entropy. The only correct form for expressing thermodynami entropy is Clausius' definition. The other forms, beginning with Boltzmann's entropy are not at all the same thing. They are simply logs of numbers of whatever the theorist wishes to be counting.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 8, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
Okay, whatever.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
Tom,

Just so others may understand: What I said about thermodynamic entropy as Clausius' S = dQ/T and the other statistical forms, which are completely unrelated to his definition, is correct. Physicists are still stumbling over explanations for what thermodynamic entropy is because they do not know what it is. They understand the other forms. However, the other forms are not the same thing at all.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2011 @ 23:07 GMT
Just in case someone, or more someones, might wonder, with sincere interest, where it is that I come up with my conclusions, presently the one about the nature of thermodynamic entropy, the answer is: Rid ourselves of artificially indefinable properties. The first property to be transformed from indefinable to definable is mass. The second is electric charge. The third is temperature. All three of these needed to be converted in order to explain the thermodynamic entropy.

Regardless of Tom's "Whatever." remark, the fact is that physicists do not know what thermodynamic entropy is. That is why answers, such as Tom's, begin with Boltzmann's entropy instead of thermodynamic entropy. They are not even close in their meanings. I push this point because I have found that it is important for physicists to know what thermodynamic entropy is. I have presented the resulting work here and elsewhere.

The point is that all theoretical concepts must find their roots in the same empirical evidence from which they were inferred. This appears to be a very difficult concept to communicate. It is not because the concept is difficult; it is because it must be implemented right from the start of theory. The changes necessary are monumental.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 8, 2011 @ 19:11 GMT
James

"I am trying to identify specific differences in our approaches."

Commendable. If it helps, it was obvious because if you were looking from the same viewpoint you would have seen the question as illogical, however straightforward it looked to you. You asked; "If the clock stays in the same constant unchanging medium, does its change of velocity in that medium...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2011 @ 20:54 GMT
Peter,

Well, our approaches are very different right from the beginning to the results. However, we both agree that the speed of light varies. I don't think that my work can be adjusted since it is based upon a single original cause and continuous fundamental unity with no other causes ever needed. Interestingly enough, it may be that some of my math might be transferrable. I do produce equations analogous to those of relativity theory. They cover relativity type effects so far as I know now. Yet they have that changing speed of light embedded in them. They might fit other variable speed of light theories that are not like mine.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
James

Can they handle motion? As vector space can't we're now working on a new maths formalism that overcomes the issue and re-normalisation to reality.

The Chromatic Dispersion paper finally got rejected, as expected. Normal stuff:, There ARE no problems in physics to solve, ..It didn't contain new science as most of it is known at the cutting edge, ..The stuff in it varied from the old science we're taught,..and is 'speculative', ..I didn't write it in troglodyte.

Most of which I new except the first one, and apart from the odd point they seem to have missed. But hey, that's peers for you. A Feynman said, when the answer is found it'll look wrong at first, then, when we get used to it, it'll become obvious.

Not much chance of many getting used to either of ours yet it seems!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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