pantheory

Unlike many of your "predictions" this one has a hint of quantitative prediction and it can be tested. Of course, you would need to tell us what the antiproton is expected to decay into. Apex measured the antiproton half-life to be not less than 700,000 years for a decay into an electron and a photon. Other decay modes have excluded shorter times thus far.

http://www-apex.fnal...ts/results.html

 

Cosmic ray measurements push this limit up into the million(s) range

http://en.wikipedia....rence_in_nature

There are two ways that we presently can store anti-protons. One way is by putting it into an accelerator. In this model this velocity artificially extends the anti-protons life by re-enforcing its spin whereby it would otherwise "spin-out." "Spinning out" in this model is when a field string becomes self-engaged into a looped "entity" which causes it to spin in the field, which we call in a fermion. When it spins out it returns to the background field becoming a string-like entity once again without spin. Another storage method is via a particle trap involving radio waves and cryogenics. This process may also re-enforce the anti-protons spin and keep them from interacting with each other. The longest storage time for a single anti-proton today is no longer than a couple of weeks according to my readings. Only by theoretical assumptions can one say that the half-life has been "measured" to be not less than 700,000 years. If the theory being used is wrong, then the methods used may be wrong, and the half-life could instead be quite different. I believe if anti-protons are short-lived as this model proposes, this would seemingly be the simplest explanation why we see little anti-matter in the universe. Positrons on the other hand, according to this model, are long-lived particles.

This month, and for the first time, they may have hints that the anti-proton is asymmetrical to a proton. Here's a link concerning the present studies and preliminary conclusions/ evaluations.

http://www.symmetrym...estions-theory/

Theories involving cosmic rays I also believe are incorrect since I believe nearly all anti-protons that we observe on Earth are created in our own atmosphere by incoming gamma rays interacting with atmospheric particulates.

This prediction of antiprotons being relatively short-lived particles has been a long-time prediction of this model since 1983 if not before.

.

Hi Pan. Congratulations. I agree to me scaling is the answer. To me the electron is not spinning, the electron is trapped into a vortex.

I also theoretically assert a spinning vortex of field material (the ZPF) surrounding the nucleus but believe that electrons being fermions also create there own mini-vortex within the atomic vortex which determines their spacing within the atom. I am even convinced scaling is not happening slowly, scaling is happening at a wonderful speed.

If matter is becoming smaller, as I propose, and if this explains the observed redshifts, which I propose that it does, then this rate of diminution must happen at a very slow rate something like the cosmological constant in the BB model. I have calculated this rate of diminution to be about a 1/000 part every 500 million years. This rate of diminusion is equivalent to a cosmological constant (recession velocity) of about 72 km/sec./Mpc.

I am always astonished when scientists discard some of their results because "otherwise we would be collapsing and that is obviously not the case". IMHO we can be in a state of eternal collapse, why not? There are very simple elements of logic that makes me think this way, symptomatically in agreement with the basis of your theory:

 

1.Time: look around you, what do you see: only the past. Only put in bold because the future you cannot observe, nor the present. If you look farther, you look more in the past. So you are surrounded by the past, your past, "your" in bold character because it is not anyone else's past. Past is relative to you and only you, and extends all around you, getting away from you at the Speed Of Light. So you have around you a kind of "aura", that we call time, made of anything else but you. This "aura" is also the field of activity of your own gravity. Which cannot be a simple coincidence.

 

2. Each mass, each particle of the entire Universe has such an "aura" around it, we call "gravitational field". I have come to the (naive) conclusion that this field is the past of the particle. Which is point 1 rephrased. IOW a particle is not only what we observe, a particle is (was) also its field. Time has that bizarre effect that allows us to observe only a part of any particle's existence.

 

3. since we know that symetry can be mathematically applied almost everywhere, the model of the expanding universe must be translatable in a reverse model where we are shrinking, without any change in existing physics.The standard model is a situation where we humans, composed of atoms and quarks, are stable, and the surroundings are expanding. Why not the contrary? When we talk about speed, we all know that everything is relative. The same must go for expansion versus diminution.

 

4.Thought experiment: making the Universe.

You take stuff blahblah and blihblih, and suddenly puff, here is the first particle of the Universe.

In this model time is finite. In a model of finite time there was a beginning but no such thing as before the beginning, therefore it would accordingly be impossible for the first entity to appear from nothing. This entity accordingly would have had existence from the very beginning and the first changes in it had to be relative to itself, which accordingly could be described as time.

Being unique, this particle IS the Universe: there is nothing else, only a single particle. Happy, you consider your creation, then you want to make it a little bit more complicated, and create a second particle. Here the logical problem arises, since the first particle IS the Universe, the only place you can work and make your second particle is INSIDE the Universe. And the only building block you have at disposal must be taken from the Universe. In biology we call that cellular division. The only problem in this thought experiment is where the hell came this first particle from?

I follow the same logic and agree with your above paragraph. Your last question/ sentence is discussed in my above explanation. In an finite or infinite universe the beginning entity could not possibly (logically) have originated from anything or anywhere else. To do so would contradict the meanings of the words "finite" and/ or "infinite."

But if you forget this existential question, the mechanism of division is extremely simple. It is even compatible with the principle of conservation of energy.

I use a similar mitosis process for the increase in numbers of the first entity. I believe this is a process whereby both the diminution of matter as well as the increase in quantity/ count of field particles occurs. Stemming from this matter also accordingly increases in numbers which was first proposed by Paul Dirac and later by Fred Hoyle.

But there must be something else we all miss. The answer to the existential question of point 4 must be that at some point, the infinitely small must connect to the infinitely large. At the image of the ouroboros, the snake who eats its tail, so must be the Universe. Brian Green touches this point when discussing the characteristics of a Black Hole by comparaison to the characteristics of an elementary particle (quoting from Memory B. Greene's Elegant Universe).

In this model both the foundation particles of all matter get smaller as time passes with no limit, but the entire universe expands up to a limit it cannot exceed. The observable universe, however, would not generally be expanding.

If anyone wold like the "invariant" part of this thread split for further discussion I'll be glad to get it split for you. Just let me know.

Thanks mississippichem, I think "invariance" will fly in this thread . It might be too small of a subject to put it in its own category, but that's just my opinion. Also in what forum would the thread go and who would be the author of such a thread; Does there have to be an author for such a thread? I'm new and do not know all the possibilities yet As to my opinion, spit it off if you deem such a move appropriate

It can be stated as a principle of logic: that for all past times, substance (whether in the form of matter, field entities, energy of some kind) has always existed and changes have always occurred, and there never was a time before the first entity(s).

This would be true whether the universe was finite or infinite concerning past times.

michel123456,

I like your ideas of logical tools of organization such as the two you mentioned, classification and unification

Reality sits there begging intelligence to explain and define it. Classifications and unifications are two of the major organizational tools of science and accordingly should be of logic too.

Another related principle of both logic and philosophy might be called "Perspectivism". Both logic, philosophy, and science require at least one perspective (a particular point of view or way of looking at something) to be able to organize divergent entities into relationships according to that perspective -- change the perspective and the relationships might change.

Since "invariant" has a somewhat different meaning as an adjective than as a noun, I thought I'd see if this could add clarification.

Noun: A function, quantity, or property that remains unchanged when a specified transformation is applied.

Adjective: Never changing.

As a noun "invariant," is a characteristic of something whereby a mathematical description of it, by quantity, set, or function, does not change during mathematical transformation, such as a set inverse or Lorenz transformation for instance. Some simple examples would be the speed of light according to Special Relativity; an electron as a point particle, according to the standard model; the original Big Bang entity, according to the BB model; quarks, according to some quark models, etc.

http://en.wikipedia....t_%28physics%29

As an adjective, invariant means in common language "not changing."

About expanding of universe someone give balloon model. some one says expanding of universe is not correct. Actually what happening? If it expanding then how it possible?

The standard cosmological model, called the Big Bang Theory, proposes the universe is expanding based upon the observed redshift of galaxies. Most other cosmological models also believe the universe is expanding based upon the same cosmological redshifts we observe. Only those cosmological models/ theories that propose another explanations for these galactic redshifts believe the universe is not expanding.

Standard model theorists believe the universe is expanding based upon several possibilities, the original bang, the Inflation hypothesis, the dark energy hypothesis, a cosmological constant of some kind (anti-gravity), and several other ideas related to the expansion of space.

Bold text added by me for clarity without quote mining

 

But the example I gave you is straight quantum mechanics, no interpretations involved at all. Scanning Tunneling Electron microscopy is completely dependent on the existence of tunneling currents to work, and it does work. Google it.

 

How can you say I should not believe in tunneling? It is observed! You should really do some reading about quantum mechanics and theory before you attempt to replace it or deny it. You aren't in a position to criticize it if you don't understand it, which it is becoming apparent that you don't. I don't mean this in an insulting or condescending way either. I'm just being honest. You don't know what you are talking about. What is your level of math skill? I can recommend books for you to read as I do want you to come to an understanding. I think your intent is good but you are just plain wrong.

Of course you should believe in what has been observed and what technology uses such as quantum tunneling. I just suggested that you should not necessarily believe in any explanations of it that does not seem logical to you.

I do not think I can explain my point as well as giving examples: Quantum tunneling: As EM radiation of certain frequencies are focused at what would seem to be a solid barrier some photons from time to time can get through. This is a know fact called quantum tunneling. We know that ordinary solids block light and most other EM radiation below X-ray frequencies. In lower frequencies it is still know that for "thin" material, some photons can get through. How? In quantum theory they just say they tunnel through, end of story This is not so bad as giving some kind of bogus explanation for tunneling like explanations concerning the double slit experiment.

A logical explanation would be that the background field is made up of elementary particles such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum sand, quantum foam, quantum strings/ springs, etc. etc. to name a few of the possibilities. So when EM radiation is produced it consists of both particles and waves. The particles "surf" the waves. An atom is almost entirely space. Some of these waves of EM radiation pass through the atom in wave form even though the photons are stopped by the vortex the atom creates by its spin. As these waves pass through they pick up a few pieces/ strands of field material on the other side of the matter "barrier" which show up as photons using a scintillation counter. This leads scientists to think that the photons have somehow tunneled when in fact they have not.

The simplest example is the double slit experiment. The classical Quantum Theory interpretation is that a single photon passes through both slits at the same time and then interferes with itself. The same explanation is given for electrons. Does this make logical sense? A very simple, logical explanation is that photons "surfing" a physical wave are produced. The wave goes through both slits while a single photon goes through just one slit. The waves travel through both slits and interfere with the path of the photon creating the interference wave patterns we observe. This is a very simple explanation, the one preferred by De Broglie and Shroedinger to name just a few.

The bottom line is this hypothesis: there is always a relatively simple, valid explanation consistent with common logic, for everything observed even if such explanations have not been recognized or discovered by mainstream theorists. If valid, this principle would be considered another simplicity principle like Ocamm's. A logical implication of this principle would be that everything in reality is relatively simple and totally logical.

/

uncool,

......It's a statement that mass itself intrinsically has energy. That's one of the things that separates special relativity from classical mechanics, and it was one of the earliest tests of special relativity.

Or better, that matter (instead of mass) intrinsically has energy. This has been known for maybe 70 years that atoms and atomic particles have spin. It is now called angular momentum because they mistakenly, in my opinion, choose not to recognize it as real spin since real spin might violate present assertions of Quantum Theory. This spin, I believe, is the expression of the internal energy that matter must overtly express and is one of the primary causes of changes in the universe that we describe as time.

There could have been all kinds of "changes" or quantum fluctuations before the BB. The BB obliterated any evidence for that. Probably before the BB there was eternity of insignificant quantum fluctuations, until a very special one resulted in our universe.

This is one possibility being considered but eternity is a very long time which if it became the mainstream version, then the BB model would become an infinite model like cosmological models of yore.

mississippichem,

I have nothing against simplicity. Simplicity is a beautiful thing, and when scientists get a simple answer for a complex question we almost piss ourselves in happiness. I do have a big problem when simplicity becomes more valued than having a theory that actually models reality. Fact of the matter is the universe is not simple. There are facets of it that operate under some limit like Newtonian mechanics and these things are simpler.

 

Here is the heart of my argument:

 

Science has advanced to the point where the things that are being analyzed are usually far removed from our daily experience. Even basic first year undergrad quantum mechanics can be highly counterintuitive in my opinion. For example it is very hard to understand, with logic and intuition, how a fermion can be delocalized on both sides of a solid barrier. It simply doesn't make "logical" sense to people like you and me. When I throw a ball against a wall, it bounces back. It never tunnels through the wall a begins to oscillate on the other side. So by that experience/logic/memory, objects are not allowed to tunnel through barriers. However, one quick inspection of the Shroedinger equation and the position operator shows that said particle can in fact tunnel through that wall. Once the classical physics and mathematics are in place (some calculus, diff. equations, and linear algebra), this tunneling becomes blatantly obvious!

I think you are making sense in your above statements which means you are logical My opinion is that you should not believe any of the above non-logical aspects of Quantum Theory. One might start by understanding that there are reasons why these assertions have been made. Eventually I think everything related to Quantum Theory will be replaced because they are simply wrong. The only thing that will be left will be the QM which is strictly mathematical and statistical. I think the explanations of it all will be totally replaced once it is realized that there is a physical background field which can explain everything observed with great simplicity.

...What do you have against complexity if said complexity is a necessary evil to get to the truth of the matter?

As for me, I have nothing against complexity other than that in many cases, I believe, it is created unnecessarily

In my opinion reality is not well understood today at any level. If it were properly revealed, I think, it would have a simplicity that could easily be explained. In my opinion most standard theoretical models today do not look for underlying simplicities but instead prefer to keep rephrasing the wrong explanations in ever increasing epicycles. As an example, I believe there is nothing in Quantum Theory that cannot be simply and correctly explained by alternative possibilities concerning a background field. Quantum Theory I think is a prime example of a complicated theory whereby I said and believe that "the more complicated a theory, the more likely that it is wrong"-- which is the subject of this thread.

Please elaborate. I am interested in alternative modes of evolution. Natural selection cannot be documented. Descent with modification can be documented. The modalities of modification are what's in dispute. There are many conceptual problems with the theory of natural selection. Jerry Fodor's recent book, What Darwin Got Wrong, is a good place to start.

I discussed two well-known alternatives to natural selection. There are a number of other hypothesis that you can find by Googling "alternatives to natural selection." Most of these hypothesis that you can find are not considered mainstream, and many seem speculative at best, in my opinion.

Thanks for that incoherent word salad. "Surprises" are a valid criticism of a scientific theory, because surprises reflect predictive failures, and theories are supposed to be good at making predictions.

I agree with your statement starting with the word "Surprises." But otherwise if you cannot understand what I am saying then ask questions. Using sarcasm is simply rude and convinces nobody.

Ha. we found a point of divergence! (it is so boring to say how wonderful ideas we both have, isn't it?)

 

I have a very different approach about Time. But that would make the thread derail.

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

That makes me think about another logical tool: classification and unification

What is more important is the logical approach that we both take. From this, true discussion can really take place. It seems another individual here in the sci forum and logic club is newts, whereby all of us seem to consider verbal logic as essential, if not quintessential

Woaw difficult to discuss many points in a single thread.

Point 4 is ultimately about Time. We all have to admit we don't know what time is. So we cannot discuss about what "finite in time" really means. Some say that's about the "beginning of time" which I consider word salad. Logic tells me first to understand what we are talking about and discuss the details afterwards.

Point 6 is maybe difficult to represent. Any time I encounter the word "intrinsic" I know that the author don't know.

Since I am a theorist, I believe, assert, and have proposed that time is one of the simplest concepts of all to understand, the definition being: Time is an interval that can be measured and understood by the changes that occur within the field and matter between any two instances. Of course this definition is not a standard of any kind. The key word concerning a synonym for time is "change." From this definition alone we might then discuss time as it relates to logic.

That was the logic of Democritus but IMHO there is a lack of consistency in this logic, similar to point 2: there is no origin of the Universe outside of the Universe either the "outside" is infinitely big, or infinitely small. IMHO the only logical and consistent position should be that, as there is no outside limit of the Universe, there is no "inside" limit of the Universe. It may be incomprehensible but at least it has some logic of symmetry.

Again I think that causality of the universe may not be as simple a concept as time is, but it also is not complicated. The universe is either finite or infinite concerning times past. Looking up the definition of both words "finite" or "infinite," it seems easy to realize that it is not logically possible that the universe could have had an external cause, that its cause must have been innate such as potential energy. We also have to deal with the same definition of "universe." The definition that I am using is that the universe is everything that exists.

.

I believe the universe has both outside and inside limits, at any point in time, concerning the macro and micro scales respectively. This assertion is theory as apposed to logic, however. I do like your ideas since I believe these macro and micro limits change over time, both increasing in their extension.

A developmental model of evolution, which I advocate, predicts that genes necessary for descendant phenotypes will be present already in ancestors, hence the relevance of the article. According to a developmental model, innovation among phenotypes need not depend solely, or even very much, on new or mutated genes. Epigenetic innovation is sufficient to produce phenotypic diversity, as we see in cell differentiation during the development of complex organisms. Evolutionary theorists increasingly are borrowing developmental mechanisms to explain how evolution proceeds in the light of new genomic, epigenetic, and related discoveries. I say, let's stop pussyfooting around and just recognize evolution as a developmental -- ontogenetic -- process.

It would seem that the active genes which determine species were originally acquired by mutation. Much of the inactive genes were also acquired by mutation. Of course there are other factors involved, some of which have been discussed. The largest secondary player briefly discussed was epigenetics.

There are at least two other known players than mutation that assist in genetic flow and species determination. The first one involves "epi-genetic speciation," also having other names, and the second agent is called "cross genetic flow," also having other names to it. These two are not exactly in competition with natural selection but certainly play some part in genetic flow and speciation in general but ultimately involve natural selection to continue the existence and/or "improvements" of new species. I will briefly explain the details of each:

Both of these processes are a type of instant speciation. There are several other known and possible agents for speciation (more speculative) that I won't discuss.

First concerning epi-genetic speciation: It involves external agents like radiation, many types of chemicals, whether natural or organic via food, ingested, inhaled, puncture wounds, etc., or internal errant excretion processes. All organisms have two systems concerning there genetic character. One is called its gene structure each of which contains long stands of DNA. And secondly their epi-genetic system, which determines which DNA strands of particular genes are active and which are not (turned on or off). For all organisms most DNA strands concerning potentially active strands, are inactive (turned off). Through epigenetic changes through the mentioned processes, conceivably a new species could be created by a single individual, usually a female (in plants or animals) when sex is involved. Some of the same processes can also create DNA mutations leading to evolutionary changes by random processes which are then tested by natural selection. Some of the known epigenetic changes can be cause by radiation, by eating a foreign food/ material for instance, or random processes. The ovum DNA might be changed by foreign or aberrant internal agents in rare cases. In such cases, if a change in the genes themselves (long stands of DNA where there is a change in turning DNA on or off) occur by chance, some offspring may not be able to breed with the main stock and may only be able to bread with their brothers and sisters which have the same epi-genetic characteristics. This epi-genetic change(s) may also cause an individual to look different so that in one generation speciation has occurred. It is theory in that it has never been observed in nature but it is fact in that such epigenetic changes have occurred in the lab, primarily through radiation. Some epigenetic speciation is also thought to involve Lemarckism which relates to lifetime changes within an individual which can possibly effect its offspring in rare instances.

The other agent of speciation is called cross genetic flow, which also concerns a one-step process of speciation. In its most common form it involves viruses or bacteria getting into the DNA of animals (or plants) from their blood stream into their ovaries of testes. Accordingly before an animal is born and during the time of their development. If an genetic invasion happens during this formative time then the ovaries or testes will have genetic variations that can be greatly replicated in the animals reproductive organs. The animals themselves most often will be normal physically to others of their species but offspring may only be fertile concerning mating with some of its brothers or sisters respectively and may not be able to reproduce with the parent stock of animals. Again in one generation a new species might be created in this way with greatly different characteristics. The new species does not have to be better adapted, it only needs to be able to eat and reproduce with its own kind and then it will survive as a new species. All of these occurrences are rare in nature but we are aware of both viral and bacterial stands of DNA in our own genetics concerning all humans. These DNA strands do not have to be active but they change the folding of our DNA which determines which DNA sequences in our genome are turned on and off -- so without at least some of them, we would not be the same.

The same processes described above for animals also apply to plants. There are a great many things about evolution that we still do not know or understand but you can believe that natural selection will probably never be replaced as the dominant player concerning gene development, speciation, and evolution in general.

Very wide and profound.

 

Point 1. Occam's razor: nothing to add.

 

Point 2. Nothingness: I remember as a child our teacher explaining ancient beliefs over parthenogenesis and we pupils laughing at the incredible imbecility of ancient people. Nothing have changed though and many people today believe that something can appear from nothing. I prefer the position which says that "nothing" is impossible.

 

Point 3. Relativity: IMHO Mach is the one, not Einstein. Einstein's Relativity is the result of an absolute: the Speed Of Light. There are a lot to say here, but that won't lead nowhere, the Web is full of such discussions. I prefer wonder about these other instances that are still not considered relative. Dimension for instance: IIRC Planck length has a specific absolute value in meters, IMHO it should be relative too.

 

Point 4. I don't understand the condition "If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past", because IMHO even if this condition is not fulfilled, even then the statement "there could be no exterior cause for it." stands.

 

Point 5. Least Action. One of my favorites, nothing to add.

 

Adding point 6 of mine: the concept "intrinsic" is wrong.

For example: how is it logically possible to imagine an elementary particle that have some intrinsic properties if this particle is not made of something else?

I'm buying your comments 1-5 as being totally valid

My comment concerning Point 4. The universe could be finite in times past but a timeless entity of some ilk could be the cause of it according to logic alone, hence my dance with words .

As to point #6 I believe describing the characteristics of matter as being intrinsic is valid theory. Ultimately, I believe, there is a structural level of substance/ matter beyond which there are no constituent parts. This however is theory alone and presently might not be considered a principle of logic.

starlarvae,

Something funny is afoot in the biological sciences. Labs peering into DNA are seeing things that nobody expected. And because the received view of evolution failed to predict these findings, and because it has little room to incorporate them, a crisis is brewing for the theory. Something more than selecting random variants is going on in evolution.

There are lots of well know variations to evolution other than natural selection. But the model of natural selection is so well documented by evidence that you could bet your life, my life, and your family's life against a six pack that the theory is valid and still be certain that you have taken advantage of some misguided young-Earth creationist. In the next 50 years plus or minus, this theory will move into the "proven" category like the Earth is round theory. Most other present mainstream theories will not last that long and will certainly be replaced in total, in my opinion, so I believe you are totally concerned with the wrong theoretical target.

The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming and is the primary facet of evolution as a whole which has a number of known variations unrelated to natural selection but still totally consistent with the over-all evolution model. "Seeing things that nobody expected" is not a valid criticism since alternative explanations are almost never available to the public, press, or mainstream theorists at any level since it can only be found in alternative journals which nobody reads. Almost everything that can be imagined can be found there.

• Addressing your concerns one by one.

1. Junk DNA. It has been very well known for at least 30 years that most DNA of all organisms are inactive and seem to serve no purpose.

2. Conservation of DNA. It has also long been know, for at least 30 years, that epigenetics is a major player in evolution and that genes alone are only a part of the game. Epigenetics not only determines which genes are turned on or off but that junk DNA determines how the genome is folded which determines which genes are turned on or off. With epigenetics much less gene variation is required between organisms.

3. Genetic switches. Although regulatory genes are not junk, whether they are turned on or off for a particular gene sequence. is related to DNA folding and consequently junk DNA.

4. Anticipatory genes: Are nothing special. They are genes that control DNA sequences that are more readily influenced by internal environmental factors such as hormonal and other protein produced internal chemistry. This is an active part of research today concerning which genes might be influenced by organic chemistry and drugs.

None of this knowledge challenges the present day theory of evolution in any way nor challenges the original natural selection model. Most of these factors have long been known to be different avenues of evolution other than only natural selection.

newts,

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes.

I agree totally, and believe 1 is an excellent number concerning the least possible individual types of entities in reality which seemingly should also should have the least number of characteristics possible to explain observed reality.

Michel123456,

THAT is very interesting. I agree. You should open a new thread about that.

I never thought of it but I followed your suggestion, it is now a new thread

.

This thread is a spin-off from the thread "simple explanations have legs"

This was my quote:

(...) My belief is that logic itself as a formal verbal science could be greatly improved. In my opinion only a very small percentage of humans know how to properly use it to their full advantage. (...)

As has been suggested by myself and others, I believe that common logic is a big failing of today's primary scientific theories/ models which is one of the causes why many do not make sense and one of the reasons why I think most will be replaced by more logical models.

It was suggested that this might be an interesting topic to discuss. I hope you think so

Besides all the formal logical principles involved with argument, there are also a number of other logical principles that might be adopted for a new book on formal logic. Below are a few principles that I have in my book on cosmology which could be adapted for formal verbal logic. I could probably think of and/or discover many more concerning research for a book. Maybe you have some ideas?

-- All else being equal, "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." This 14th century concept was proposed at the beginning of the age of "enlightenment" or free-thinking in Europe. It is called the Principle of Occam's Razor.

-- Something does not come from nothing. This is a very old concept and adage which can be derived from many sources including an old Latin saying. It also can infer the basis for the first Law of Thermodynamics: Mass/ energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Nothingness by itself was ever a possible state of reality.

-- Everything can be considered relative. This principle requires a relative comparison for any statement concerning realities of the natural world. This concept was originally conceived by Heinrich Mach. A similar version reached greater fame through Albert Einstein.

-- If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past, logically there could be no exterior cause for it. This is because any exterior cause must also have an explanation as to its beginning which would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe means everything in existence)

-- As a principle of logic "the principle of least action" would relate to the concept that the most direct course, shortest path, or simplest explanation, concerning what changes may have occurred between one condition to another, is the more likely explanation. The question then becomes "what is the simplest and most likely way to get from here to there." In this way this principle is similar to Occam's Razor. In physics, "the principle of least action" is a principle of possible variations, that when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the most parsimonious equations of motion for that system.

.

I thought since you lent me support on my thread, I would return the favour. I just hope my cynical sense of humour did not kill the conversation.

Thanks newts for the help. Some might think your comments are cynical at times, but I consider the same comments to be realistic And when I make similar comments there may not be a sense of humor involved

Ophiolite,

Despite this attempt to select material that seems to support your prediction, it fails to do so.

Thanks for trying to find confirming papers I also found similar papers as the one you posted. As all might realize, it is very difficult to determine the strength of magnetic fields in past epochs. The reason why it is a prediction of this model is because it is different from what would be expected by the present dynamo model of planetary magnetism. If at some time this model were found to be valid, it would point a finger in the direction of both a different cause of planetary magnetism, but also it could seemingly support the parent cosmological model which predicted it.

So one of your predictions has fallen at the first hurdle. This surely reduces the likelihood that your hypothesis is valid?

Of course I agree that the implications of the paper are contrary to the prediction, but I do not think the evidence presented disproves anything since data interpretations as stated, were based upon the dynamo model of gravity.

Of course if our planet had little orbital spin to start with for whatever reason like Venus, and if the collision of the Mars-sized body that theoretically created the moon also was the source of the Earth's present orbital spin, then up until this collision the Earth would not accordingly have had much if any magnetic field like Venus.

newts,

............Can you tell me anything that could ever lead you to reject quarks or gluons?

I agree with your opinion. I think most all standard-model theories are close to impossible to disprove in the foreseeable future because, in my opinion, none meet the required theoretical criteria of being disprovable. I consider almost all of these theoretical models to be wrong in almost every way. I can only think of two theoretical models that I think are exceptions to this assertion: one is Natural Selection and the other is Plate Tectonics.

rigney,

Why the hell would anyone want to sleep even a dozen hours in one day? Don't get me wrong. I may even come to such a conclusion in a few years, but right now that isn't the issue. Eternity effects everyone, young, old, and in between. That is the discussion I would like to maintain. To believe there is more to this existence than many of us want to admit is nothing new. Everyone wants to put a new twist on the idea, regardless if it's theological or not.

Sleeping for a long time may be unrelated to understandings of eternity. If one's mentality is based upon the future, then sleeping longer each day might enable one to live longer into the future. If this is one's belief then to live longer may seem like a good idea. For me the future will most likely be more exciting than the present, true or false, since I am a futurist in general. Much also has to do with motivation. If one has such a belief then one might try to live longer by sleeping longer, which is my opinion is a valid strategy to living longer. As far as living the "most valuable life" I would suggest that most people should spend at least 7-8 hours in bed. As for me it's more like 9. Twelve hours per day sleep may be a wee bit too much unless your health is really failing.

In my opinion eternity is simply a mental concept that does not exist in reality, so my entire life-strategy concerns the best that I can do here and now, with an attempt to live a little less now, and a little bit longer in the future In my belief humanity could never ultimately be more important than ants, for instance, or rocks for that matter -- although personally I have a fondness for Earth-life in general, probably even extra-terrestrial life if there is such a thing . What do you think?

but Occam's razor cannot be a major determining factor in which theory is preferred. As I posted above, it is useful when you have two roughly equal models -- then the one with less variables is slightly preferred. In all likelihood, neither will be dropped until one or the other is shown more accurate. Other than that, arguments for Occam's razor are hollow: again, nature does not have a requirement to be understandable to us.

I agree that Occam's Razor or other related simplicity principles cannot be the last word but I think they suggest the serious problems with many of today's major theoretical models with few exceptions. The version of Ocamm's Razor that I prefer is this one: "All else being equal, the simpler explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be correct than a more complicated explanation. Explanations of anything should make as few assumptions as possible."

From this version the key factors seem to me to be "all else being equal" and "as few assumptions as possible." There will always be argument concerning "all else being equal" but the second factor is more difficult to argue against, "as few assumptions as possible." Based upon this factor, in my opinion, standard models have a much more difficult time justifying the competitive logic of the model.

In fact, pursuing Occam's razor has sometimes led in wrong directions. Trying to unify things in a wrong manner or things that aren't unified leads to wrong conclusions. I think that the current pursuit of super symmetry and string theory are good questions about the current state. Both try to simplify things, but to date, have made only very limited predictions. I think it is fair to question if there truly is super symmetry in nature, and if there is, why can't we find strong evidence for it? If it turns out to not exist, it was a pursuit of simplification (and ease of understanding and all the other subjective criteria in this thread) that went wrong.

Simplification, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion Supersymmetry and standard string theory, are complications to the understanding of reality, even though they may be simplification to the related standard models, which in themselves I believe need major overhauls if not complete replacement.

In short: NATURE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIMPLE. Demanding that it is will be intentionally putting blinders on -- why would anyone trying to discover facts about nature do that?

I agree. If QM required verbal logic, little would have been accomplished in this wonderful field. But I think ultimately logical reconciliation will have to be made in this and every science field since, in my opinion, everything is ultimately and solely based upon simple logic, whether or not we presently have any grasp or understandings of the related facts or logic involved.

Hence I think that someday we will be able to properly and logically explain whether quarks or some other configuration like the OP proposal etc. is the correct foundation materials/ configuration of matter It might be interesting to realize that Murry Gell-Mann originally stated:

... that quarks were merely convenient mathematical constructs, not real particles. ... (http://en.wikipedia...._chromodynamics)

Later, accordingly he was talked into conceding that quarks might be real particles.

.

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes. It is alright to use simple equations, like Newton's laws of gravity and motion, provided , like Newton, we clearly state that the equations do not completely represent nature but are merely a way of calculating things.

This is also my exact take on things too

The advantage of Occam is that it teaches people to think logically and consider factors that they would naturally ignore. Humans are not rational creatures, rather they are religious creatures; because evolution has tended to favour those creatures who behaved like the rest of the group, and discriminate against those individuals who made the mistake of thinking for themselves.

 

Normally when deciding on a theory, humans will firstly choose the one their colleagues favour, secondly the one they were originally taught to believe in, thirdly the one which makes the universe appear the most mysterious, and fourthly the one which requires the greatest amount of knowledge.

I generally agree with your statements but believe that humans are capable of a very high degree of logic, at least compared to other animals My belief is that logic itself as a formal verbal science could be greatly improved. In my opinion only a very small percentage of humans know how to properly use it to their full advantage.

Of course humans deny all this, and merely say that they choose a theory that fits the evidence, but all theories do this at some level, because that is what they are designed to do, whether it is phlogiston, electric fluid, dark matter, quarks, gluons, Higgs, werewolves, the Loch Ness monster, or the resurrection.

I totally think we are in agreement and parroting each other only using different perspectives and words

Nice comments!

Bignose,

Correct theories make sense, are usually fairly easy to understand, and tend reduce the number of things necessary to explain the universe, but they do take time to develop.

This quote by the OP would also be my assertion whether his alternatives have validity or not. In my opinion there are very few correct theories today. These characteristics mentioned in his quote, I think, are the missing ingredients in nearly all theories today. Only two prominent theories that I can presently think of will become fact in this century are: Natural Selection and Plate Tectonics.

A theory must be solely based upon observations but a model absent of logic, like in the quantum theory of today in my opinion, can run wild and become a farce concerning verbal explanations of it. Your example of "farts are the cause for all the forces" are not based upon observations that I am aware of , so maybe you did not get the point that the OP was trying to make, at least my understanding of it, which I think was that Occam' Razor is missing from many of today's theoretical models.

Like your screen name Mr skeptic I consider myself a skeptic too. But for me my biggest problem and skeptical concern, other than with religion, concerns a number of mainstream theories today which I consider almost totally wrong, hence this thread

.

First of all, Occam's Razor is so often simplified as being in favor of the "simplest" theory, but in actual fact it refers to the number of superfluous entities proposed by the theory -- the maths of the theory could be very complex indeed, yet still deemed "simple" by Occam's Razor if it has fewer assumptions.

"Simple explanations" in this context refer to understandings and verbiage only. In my opinion Occam's Razor better applies to the logic of a model than the math, since the math of theoretical physics accordingly can never be better than a close approximation of reality and could never be an analog. Granted the inverse square laws of light, magnetism, and gravity, are pretty close approximations.

This can be seen much more clearly in the case where the assumptions of two theories are the same but another theory has additional assumptions, in which case the extra assumption can at best decrease the likelihood of the theory holding (since [A and B] is necessarily at most as likely as A). In this case, any theory that relies on A being true will be true whenever any theory that relies on [A and B] being true is true, but not the other way around, so there is a clear reason to go with the one with the least assumptions.

Like any other simple principle, Occam's Razor can be incorrectly applied. In the primary case that I can think of, Special Relativity was preferred over Laurenze's principles which required an Aether. In the case where there really was an Aether, as in a background particle field of some kind, then if there is a particle field like dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, field strings, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. or some field entity that carries EM radiation, then the decision accordingly based upon Ocumm's Razor would have been completely wrong -- thus disposing of a the aether concept which accordingly would instead have been correct/ or is correct. The result was Special Relativity instead of Lorenz Transforms and Quantum Theory instead of a logical theory, that in my opinion ushered in maybe a century of false theory

Simplicity in the sense that simpletons can better understand the theory, isn't really part of Occam's Razor. However simplicity, symmetry, beauty, elegance, etc. all have their value for a theory too, if only for aesthetic reasons.

I respect Dirac's theories at the highest level but concerning his opinion that beauty should trump simplicity, of course he was only talking about the mathematics/ physics of it.

I'd say if two theories are equal in all other respects, choose the more elegant one, even though I can't justify that it is likelier to be true I can say that it would be more useful to us.

Of course most would agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, simplicity appeals to logic and intellect. Dirac was a mathematician. I believe mathematics in the form of theoretical physics, could never be more than a close approximation of reality and never a mirror of it. I think that this applies both in the quantum world as well as the macro-world of Newton.

As for quantum mechanics it seems to me that it consists of two parts: 1) the theory itself, the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and 2) the multiple different interpretations of the theory, none of which seems to have any evidence over the others. Currently my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics is the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, where you use the math and don't worry about how to make it make sense to you. The other interpretations are fun though, but I don't really see any reason to give one preference over the others.

I agree that QM is the best thing going concerning predictions in the micro-world, but the verbal interpretations of it I think have nothing at all to do with reality -- unfortunately.

.

Logical explanations not only grow legs but they also expand as questions get answered, puzzles become clear. As questions get answered more arise and in time things get complicated again.

I think when wierd concepts, like relativity, become accepted and understood they become more and more elementry. It's a cycle of knowledge and understanding thresholds. Knowledge is a plane of expansion that is older than physics. It is inevitable that philosophy and physics will merge as our understanding becomes more and more complete. When we know everything we will be able to do anything. Does the knowledge exist to create a universe?

 

Here we are

Nice comment. Knowledge is related to intelligence for sure.

Does the knowledge exist to create a universe?

Not according to any standard model, but I suggest that a universe can be created in accord with the cosmological model being presented in the associated link to this one. "Alternative to the Big Bang, model/ thread" here in the speculation forum, which truly is a theory of Everything, according to almost every possible definition of a TOE.

When we know everything we will be able to do anything

Of course to know everything is impossible but to know a lot more than we presently do would also be great. Presently I think most standard models presently are barking up the wrong trees concerning how the universe "really" works.