Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Inform physics


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
70 replies to this topic

#21 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 3 September 2010 - 09:22 AM

Because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted already a posting from some other forum. Now it seems a sense to continue such a practice. However, since the discussion was seems rather interesting but long, there is no room for quotation and so I point out here only URLs of two threads:
Main address:http://www.thescienceforum.com/Physics-forum-22f.php?sid=3a9a67800d59f2d4ca49afcece200b68;
2-th and 3-th pages.

The threads:
(1) What’s so special about light?

And

(2) 1/0

The first thread was cleaned by moderator from spamming and so is readable practically as a whole. The second – is spammed, so one should choose the posting "SSDZ - Guitarist" as a rule.

The discussions in these threads seem as practically complete, so maybe there is no necessity to post something else – only to read; besides – for answering on new posts it is tooo hot here now…

Cheers

Edited by SSDS, 3 September 2010 - 09:43 AM.

  • 0

#22 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 01:51 PM

Again because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted a posting from some other forum...
(the link above, thread "What’s so special about light?")
____________________

Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v2.

Three experiments are considered – two relating to the gravity randomness and one – relating to the SRT test.
Though in this thread the SRT problems were discussed and seems be made rather clear, a number of threads appeared where the same problems were touched again. All the problems arise from non-selfconsistence of standard ("axiomatized") SRT version. First of all – it leads to the twin paradox. The resolutions of the paradox as, e.g., "… Special relativity, by its very formulation, applies only in inertial reference frames…Therefore on cannon apply the equations that describe time dilation in the reference frame of the traveling twin by only in reference frame of the non-traveling twin.." Or "…Actually acceleration, and acceleration and gravity are equivalent (see the "equivalence principle" of general relativity) is the key to the resolution of the twin "paradox"… " – seem as quite non- satisfactory. Indeed – the main contraction of elapsed time for the traveller occurs just in the inertial path of the way, when the contribution of the acceleration/deceleration interval is comparatively small and is lesser with increase of the inertial path. On another hand – if the masses of the twins are let – 70 kg (even 700 kg) – such masses aren’t so large to recall about GR – here we have practically purely flat spacetime and purely SRT problem.

Another SSRT flow is the assertion that all "inertial frames" are equivalent, where any frame relates to whole spacetime in Universe. From this follows rather questionable implication that, e.g., every moving particle (which, of course, "have its reference frame") transforms whole spacetime; besides – because of relating to this particle all Matter in Universe "moves with [practically] the same (-)speed", the particle enlarges the energy of Matter - for some protons in the spacetime that is equivalent 10^17 of initial mass.

So the first SRT version that was developed by Vogt, FitzGerald and Lorentz basing on the experiment (M-M experiment) and the relativity principle (Maxwell equation must be invariant in inertial frames) seems as was more adequate.
The informational model haven’t the flows that are pointed above. The acceleration indeed have a role, but in SRT it only indicate that the traveller’s momentum rises/ decreases with corresponding rising / decreasing the traveller’s "own (individual, proper) time". When homebody’s momentum and the time are the same – to save some years is necessary to spend some energy.

On another hand – what is the mechanism that leads to changing of a FLE state at some impact (at acceleration)? – that is very important problem; and its solving possibly will allow to widen the informational model into "GR region".

Cheers
  • 0

#23 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 5 May 2011 - 11:40 AM

Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3.

Cheers
  • 0

#24 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 7 June 2011 - 09:57 AM

In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:


Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the arXiv links above (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ) – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.


But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [Shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.


At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosoph....127325#p127325

in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.


Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanfor.../qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].


There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds.

And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.


Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…


Cheers


Regrettably I'm forced to repeat this post now. But this May besides those non-virtual people,

in the Net a sensation appeared also, e.g.:
http://io9.com/57993...-math-proves-it

The novelty resembles in certain sense the informational conception.

Though it is a full rubbish, in one month (May) the "novelty" was widely spread; Google shows more then 100 000 links answering on

"You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" .

But here a good thing appears - in fact, the informational conception got a publicity...

Cheers
  • 0

#25 DrRocket

DrRocket

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 8 June 2011 - 01:59 AM

Hello ALL

"Shut up and calculate" (P.Dirac).
But it can be stricly proved that Universe is a sub-set of fundamental Set “Information”, so we cam say now: "be calm and calculate" since "Nature laws" as well as mathematics at all are inherent to the information.
- see http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1).

Some analogs, i.e. the conjectures that Universe is some "ensemble" – see, e.g., "the Everything list"
http://groups.google...hing-list/about
including the papers:
"A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything", Juergen Schmidhuber;
"Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?", Max Tegmark;
- etc.

But the arXiv link above contains some answers on the questions – but what is this ensemble (set)? What are it’s properties? etc.

Cheers


In case no one noticed that "paper" in the archives has a long list of revisions and no history of submission to any peer-reviewed journal. That, combined with the incomprehensibility of the text itself, is a big hint.
  • 0

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman

#26 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 10 June 2011 - 10:08 AM

In case no one noticed that "paper" in the archives has a long list of revisions and no history of submission to any peer-reviewed journal. That, combined with the incomprehensibility of the text itself, is a big hint.




Indeed, this paper, as well as others arXiv ones - http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (The Information as Absolute), http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 (The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature) and http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 (The informational physics – possible tests) aren’t published in any “peer-reviewed” journal. Though were submitted – "The Information as Absolute" was rejected by 5 philosophical journals, "The informational physics – possible tests" by two; "The informational conception and basic physics" (a shortened version of http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819) – by two.

Last case – "The informational conception…" was submitted in the EJTP journal (chief editors Ignazio Licata and Ammar Sakkaj) 07 of September 2010. After two months on our question – where are the Reviewers’ remarks? – the editors answered – that two months is normal and all OK. But the remarks didn’t appear till now when the editors ceased to answer after 22 of November 2010. The last EJTP issue appeared this May without our paper.

At that some similar, in certain sense, papers of Tegmark, Floridi, Bostrom, etc. were published in the same journals, though are evidently speculative and in fact don’t add something new to that was in Pythagorean "all from numbers" and in a couple of first strings in the Bible’s Geneses.

And if somebody will count the "peer-reviewed" papers relating to "Many worlds", "Many minds" , "Anthropic principle" and other trash – the papers’ number will be pretty large.

So why the arXiv papers above weren’t published? – the answer directly follows from this DrRocet’s comment. The comment doesn’t contain any reasonable objections – that is impossible, the infoconception is rigorously proven. So the comment is in fact senseless – but negative. And since, as it is very seems, the editors in "peer- reviewed" journals are some DrRocets also, the odds for the papers to be published are , it seems, near zero. So the submittings for us now is a game – when the paper will be rejected?

Though – God bless – arXiv exists. But the arXiv is very large box, so I'm forced to walk through the scientific forums to info people about the conception. On another hand – here is some positive thing – when "those people" appear, I write the post "relating to the Many world conception" in a number of forums. After the post appears, the activity of "those people" becomes be lesser, in 2010 they disappeared in a week after posting. But now the process goes two months already, and doesn’t stop. It seems too much money were spent…

Cheers
  • 0

#27 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 5 October 2011 - 01:03 PM

Now a special paper relating to Space-Time problem appeared in arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

Cheers
  • 0

#28 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 12:27 PM

Now - relating to the OPERA experiment. Observed exceeding of the neutrinos’ speed comparing to the speed of light (SL) contradicts with the informational model (e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) by at least two reasons.

First – any known other material particle doesn’t have the speed more then the SL and there are no reasons to think that neutrinos are some exclusion.

And two – if some particle has the speed that exceeds the SL, then it can be detected only if it was born on some distance from the detector at a time moment that was in absolute time earlier then corresponding "material" (i.e., of the detector state) absolute time moment. It is practically impossible in this case – the neutrinos were born in material target. So if they had speed more then SL, then they should go out the present absolute time – and impossible be detected by "present time detectors – immediately after the birth.

It seems they have an artifact...

Cheers
  • 0

#29 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 1 December 2011 - 11:43 AM

Again because of absence of comments in this thread I quote a posting from some other forum...

....Besides - to SSDS post10 June 2011 - 02:08 AM an addition appeared in the last couple of weeks.
The paper "Space and Time" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) was rejected by two philosophical journals: "METAPHYSICA" (Germany) and "THEORIA" (Spain).
Both – without any concrete remarks (in Metaphysica - after 3 week peer review), though the paper is evidently new, actual, reasonable and philosophical.

It is interesting – is somewhere a "mainstream" philosophical and/or physical journal where editor board are clever and ethical people?


--------

To return to the thread’s topic let some brief comment to the OPERA experiment.

So, from the informational model follows that all/ anything/ everything in Matter move always uninterruptedly in absolute spacetime with the speed of light, c; at that – because of equal footing in any spacetime direction and in the absolute time direction - all/ anything/ everything in Matter is always in the same absolute time’s point.

If some particle that is born in Matter obtains a spatial speed that differs from the speed of light – including if exceeds c , then it is rather probable that it change footing in the absolute time also and hence immediately occurs outside Matter and cannot interact with any material particle. As well as any material particles that are produced by such a particle (e.g., electron-positron pairs) will be outside Matter (non-detectable) also.

So a theory, which considers such a particles, rather probably cannot be verified in an experiment.

OPERA neutrinos are born at material interactions and are detected in material detector, so it is rather probable that their speed doesn’t exceed c and it is necessary to verify (if the electronics’ delays are estimated correctly) the synchronization (e.g., by transport of a clock from CERN to Italy) and the geodesy…

Cheers

Edited by SSDS, 1 December 2011 - 11:43 AM.

  • 0

#30 derek w

derek w

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 429 posts

Posted 1 December 2011 - 04:54 PM

Is the gist of this thread,that you do not need the existence of a physical world,you only need an information stream to create an illusion of a physical world.Or am I not understanding?
  • 0

#31 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 2 December 2011 - 12:52 PM

Is the gist of this thread,that you do not need the existence of a physical world,you only need an information stream to create an illusion of a physical world.Or am I not understanding?


It isn’t so. There is no "illusion" – the "physical" (seems more correct – "material") world is indeed in reality an "information stream"; it is an evolution of some logical structures that are united in the main structure – Matter; by, e.g., the universal force – gravity. But Matter is some – infinitesimal relating to the main Set – subset of utmost fundamental Set "Informationn".

And that can be rigorously proven – i.e., it is possible to prove rigorously truth, self-consistence and compliteness of corresponding “informational conception” and the existence of the Set "Information". There is nothing besides informational structures anywhere at all, including – outside Matter; what else that a human see and feels – living beings, other consciousness – are elements of different subsets, i.e., - "Alive" and "Consciousness".

Roughly speaking Matter exists on 4 levels: (3) – logical gates that are elementary particles, first of all – nuclones and electrones. The particles, under some inherent program codes, which, in turn, are governed by some rules, first of all – Space and Time rules – and "forces" unite constituting macro (level 4) objects. I.e. a human that sees the level 4 objects in reality sees a cinema that practically is the same as a cinema on a PC screen: in both cases in reality some logical gates flip in an order.

The level 3 (particles) are, in turn, some closed loop logical algorithms that work on hardware – fundamental logical elemens (FLE) – that are level 2.

And, at last the FLEs, as it seems (there are no data about – can FLEs be divide "materially" onto some more elementary things), are formed from "purely informational logical chains" – level 1.

I.e. – all that exists is/are some "words" but these words are rigid ones, e.g. – we can walk on them.

More – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
(click on link and then on "pdf only")

Cheers
  • 0

#32 CaptainPanic

CaptainPanic

    Usually himself

  • Moderators
  • 4,722 posts
  • LocationThe little swamp at the end of the river Rhine

Posted 2 December 2011 - 01:22 PM

SSDS,
Did it occur to you that you do not get any response because we all still don't understand what you are talking about?

You need to order your texts better. It's possible that you have a good message, but we cannot follow it. I urge you to focus more on the text. It is very important that you spend a lot of time thinking about the science, but there comes a point where you have to think: "what message do I want to tell the other people".

You cannot tell us everything. We simply don't have the time.
You should think about the core of the message, and tell us that first. Then explain the rest, piece by piece.

Right now you remind me of one of my teachers at uni, who would teach us for 1 semester, who never get any questions, and who was then surprised we all failed the exam. We never had any questions because we understood so little about what he was talking about that we were not able to ask a good question. I hope you are not offended by this. I try to help.
  • 0
Veni, vidi, modeli - I came, I saw, and I modeled it

#33 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 6 December 2011 - 11:26 AM

SSDS,
Did it occur to you that you do not get any response because we all still don't understand what you are talking about?

You need to order your texts better. It's possible that you have a good message, but we cannot follow it. I urge you to focus more on the text. It is very important that you spend a lot of time thinking about the science, but there comes a point where you have to think: "what message do I want to tell the other people".

You cannot tell us everything. We simply don't have the time.
You should think about the core of the message, and tell us that first. Then explain the rest, piece by piece.

Right now you remind me of one of my teachers at uni, who would teach us for 1 semester, who never get any questions, and who was then surprised we all failed the exam. We never had any questions because we understood so little about what he was talking about that we were not able to ask a good question. I hope you are not offended by this. I try to help.


-? As to me, at least last (2 December 2011 - 04:52 AM) post is rather clear. The derek w' question was – what of "informational flow" and "physical world" is an illusion? The answer was – both aren’t illusion; both are "physical". As, e.g., like both – the gates flipping in a PC and pictures on the PC’s screen are physical; simply for given software shell we see the flipping in given specific manner - as well as we cognize Nature by using some "software shell" also.

But that is an example of an application of the informational conception only, in the conception a lot of other philosophical and physical problems become be much more understandable. But to make the problems more understandable is necessary to understand the conception, for that – to read at least the links http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
carefully and to think a little. Besides – since the conception is rather non-standard, though rigorously logically grounded , sometimes is necessary to bent some brain’s convolution and to have seen at last that it is true.

As to the physical model that follows from the conception – here it is necessary to have some high school physical education. And this thread was earlier in the physics section of this forum but under unknown reason was moved to this section.

And to above – sorry for my russian English somewhere…

Cheers
  • 0

#34 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:19 AM

Since there aren’t posts relating to the thread’s topic (except a couple of evident spam above) I again post here a post from an other physical forum:

_____

(A thread about "twin apradox")


It seems that 100 years discussion again renewed here – when all, rather probably, is evident – the paradox is in reality a manifestation of inherent self –contradiction of Einstein’s "special relativity theory", which appears since in the theory the globality of Lorentz transformations (LT) and equality of the IRFs are postulated. These postulates mean nothing else that Einstein and Minkowsky equated erroneously two fundamentally different things – fundamental essences "Space" and "Time" (rules that govern processes in Matter) and concrete material – and rigid! - objects, i.e., clocks and scales.

Again, any material object always moves in absolute spacetime with speed of light in some direction. And just after an acceleration in given IRF, a clock/ scale obtain some momentum and as a result – changes its direction (rotates) in spacetime what an observer in given IRF sees as a slowing down of clock’s reading and FotzGerald- Lorentz contration; when in the standard SRT that is interpreted as “[global, in whole Universe] spacetime rotation”. Though to say, e.g., when a car turns (say to the right) on a crossroad, that in reality at that Earth turns to the left is in fact the same and is equally absurd. However the mathematics is in both cases the same – till the case when two cars occur in the crossroad and turn in different directions – and poor Earth cannot decide – where must She rotate?

In fact all what Einstein made new to the VFL-theory – that is famous energy/mass equation, though it follows from the LT and was known for EM processes. But when all rest physical society thought that all is possible to reduce to electromagnetism and, seems, start a competition "Who first develops corresponding "Theory of Everything" , Einstein was the first who declared that nature of material objects can be non-EM, but E=mc^2 is true.



Note besides that there weren’t any experimental tests of the SRT – all experiments that were made ere in reality testing of the VFL-theory. The experiments that really can reveal difference SRT/VFLT are real – e.g. - that is,e.g., the experiment with two clocks in an orbit (see, e.g. paper [0706.3979] The informational model - possible tests and a version somewhere in Net)

More – see again http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 (Space and Time) and section 2 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 (The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?)

___________
Besides - next time it seems necessary to repost the post "relating to the Many world conception" (see SSDS post 10 June 2011 - 02:08 AM)

Cheers

Cheers
  • 0

#35 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:02 PM

A continuation of reposting from another forum…
_________________________________

Poor twin…

Again – so called "twin paradox" isn’t a paradox, that is a manifestation of the self- contradiction of standard "mainstream" special relativity theory; and so the paradox cannot be resolved in framework of this theory – by any means. Here nothing can help, neither any increase of twin number, nor [evidently non-correct] use of the equivalence principle (e.g. - Tolman R.C. “Relativity, thermodynamics, and cosmology” ) - at first – the acceleration and gravity aren’t the same, these are quite different things, and – secondly – indeed, there is the gravity time dilation, but it acts on a clock all time when exists (and clock tiks faster when the gravity disappears), when acceleration can act in some small part of the “traveler” way, but his time dilation conserves in inertial traveler’s path also.

Acceleration doesn’t “give rise” to the time dilation, Lorentz transformations don’t contain letter “a”, but to change a clock’s time dilation is necessary to change clock’s speed, at that seems nobody observed till now any speed’s change without an acceleration. But to accelerate something is necessary to impact on this something by some force and transmit to it some momentum/ energy.

Again – in reality the paradox contains [at least] two paradoxes – “clock paradox” (this thread) and “energy paradox”.
An example of the second one: an electron in an electronic, say 10 MeV, accelerator must - if it is true believer of the standard SRT – think that it is at rest, when Earth was accelerated to corresponding speed by using some engine and fuel of nearly 20 Earths + 20 anty-Earths; if it looks at heavens and see, say, our MetaGalaxy moving by with the same speed then necessary fuel is 20 MetaGalaxy + 20 anti MetaGalaxy; etc.

But it is very possible that other electrons in the beam, who aren’t true believers, will think “that seems as tooo counterintuitive”; especially since they see that when they are in motion there are no “Earth + antiEarth” blasts.

Again – the SRT postulate about equivalence of any inertial frames is non- correct, the paradox traveler’s frame is distinguished – as any other frames in Matter that moves relating to absolute spacetime, though. Moreover, there aren’t global frames besides those that are at rest relating to the spacetime, any others are local and “relativistic effects” occur inside rigid objects (including, e.g., system Earth + a satellite) only.

So – there aren’t any paradoxes – the traveler’s clock is “time dilated” (as well as traveler after return will be younger then homebody since everything in Matter, including human’s body is, eventually, a clock); correspondingly the homebody must not spend any fuel, etc.


Cheers
  • 0

#36 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:07 PM

A continuation of reposting from another forum…
_______________________________________


Originally Posted by Secret

The distinction of Past and Future From here Feynman said the irreversibility of time is due to the irregular motion of a huge amount of particles becoming more disordered over time (e.g.a system of many particles in a ink-water mixture, it is less likely for the ink particles to separate from the water particles (or become more ordered) than remain mixed (disordered))In the end he also mentioned that for a closed system, things tend to go to states where the availability of energy decreases/become more distributed (i.e. entropy increases). But what about the formation of memory, as entropy seemed to be decreasing? Does "no memory" has more energy than "memory"? Or is formation of memory considered a open system?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_timeIn reference to my 2nd block of text, the perceptual/psychological arrow of time is what bugs me most, as it seemed to go in a direction opposite to entropyP.S. Any more insights to this topic?N.B. Original title (blocked by error 500): The difference of past, present and future ”

-------------------------

There is a next (in a huge number of others) attempt to understand – what is the time? And again the result is without something understandable. Such a situation is quite natural – the notion "time" is fundamental in the World’s picture and as any other fundamental can be – at least in certain extent – understand only in framework of the informational conception.
Any other way – what all philosophical history shows - leads only to appearance of next non-tested and non-provable suggestions that "explain" some separate sides of this notion.

In the informational conception (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 , more specific http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) Time has two main features:

(1) - Time is a innate component of logic it is a rule and states (or governs) that the cause is always earlier then effect. An example – in the fundamental Set "Information" any information about changes in any Set’s elements appears in every other elements immediately, "the time interval" is infinitesimal. But it isn’t equal to zero exactly, the cause-effect events "change – reception of information in other element" cannot be simultaneous; and

(2) – time (in e.g., physics) is a parameter that defines/ characterizes/ allows to compare for given subset of the Set – including for Matter of our Universe - what time interval is necessary for some process to pass. That is a next problem – why in Matter the time intervals aren’t infinitesimal, but that is non-principal. On a first stage is enough to know that as the experimental fact.

From the conception and experiment directly follows that Matter is some well organized simple dynamical logical system, something as large computer consisting of huge number rather independent automata, united, though, by universal informational bond, i.e. by gravity.
This computer works having highly stable "operating rate" (seems having tact be equal to Planck time) and was started in some time (possibly "absolutely long time ago") after it got enough energy to create and move some number of particles (automata).

Just the stability of the tact's period and "fundamental gate’s" length lead to uniformity of the time’s and the space’s scales.
The execution of the computer’s program code is in reality "the time flow". Why the direction of the flow is the same as the entropy evolution – that is again some next, important, but non-principal problem.

The realization of the rule "Time" in a specific Set's subset "Matter" is specific also. It is simultaneously "coordinate time" and "absolute time" – tough both times are, of course, absolute and don’t depend on material objects.

The coordinate time is the coordinate in 4-D Euclidian spacetime that is rather similar to the space coordinates – a particle moves in this time as in space.

The absolute time is a manifestation of the Time as the rule also – to step, e.g., in space is necessary to spend (to step) in the time, at that the steps in coordinate and absolute times are the same.

So all Matter objects, though always uninterruptedly moving in coordinate spacetime with the speed of light in different specific directions, are always in one absolute time moment; the film "Matter’s evolution" runs shot by shot; when every next shot is "Matter now", correspondingly former shots are "Matter in past" and next shots are "Matter in future".

At that, when a material object is in the absolute spacetime at rest, it moves in the coordinate time with the speed of light. If after some space impact it becomes to move in the space also, it must move in coordinate time slower then C – and, if the object is a clock, then clock’s pointer becomes to move slower also – showing so "the time dilation". Again – nothing at that happens with either the space or the time; none of them "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows" as that is stated in the Einstein-Minkowsky special relativity theory.
More – see the arXiv links above.

Cheers
  • 0

#37 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:02 AM

Now a next paper relating to the informational physics was made, bu seems again known problems with its acception in some publishing institution happened. So I attach it to this thread...

Cheers

Attached Files


  • 0

#38 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 4,510 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:36 AM

SDSS - I am not qualified to judge the content - in fact I didn't even reach any substantive content - but to be published in English the standard of the written text would have to improve. At present it is completely unclear what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs.
  • 0

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 


#39 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:26 PM

SDSS - I am not qualified to judge the content - in fact I didn't even reach any substantive content - but to be published in English the standard of the written text would have to improve. At present it is completely unclear what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs.


To understand - what is written - is necessary to read the paper as a whole, to read the referencies pointed out in the "first two paragraphs", and to think - at least a little. That can occupy some time.

Cheers
  • 0

#40 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 4,510 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:27 PM

To understand - what is written - is necessary to read the paper as a whole, to read the referencies pointed out in the "first two paragraphs", and to think - at least a little. That can occupy some time.

Cheers


Sorry - but no. To comprehend the full import of the paper that might be correct - but in this case the sentences are so badly constructed that there is no/little meaning to be taken from them
  • 0

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users