Jump to content

Could someone give me an appropriate criticism for this?


Abhirao456
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

Does this make sense? I'd recommend you read it completely so it is understandable.  PS Same author

Not a lot, to me at least. For example, as a definition of 'energy':

4 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

efficient cause connected to the movement and its quantitative and qualitative effects, the "inherent potency" or intrinsic possibility of a body to be translated in an action (energheia) that may be realized or not, a value of reality only possible with respect to the real action realized.

Energy doesn't always result in translation. OTOH, not an operational definition. As to 'action':

4 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

Note that despite the tendency to refer to energy as quantized – a habit which even good physicists are given to – it is not energy but action that comes in wholes.

Yes, good physicists are in that habit, because they have good reasons to think space is finite, and action in a confined space leads to quantised energy, for the simple reason that space-time confinement leads to a periodicity. Continuous energy is probably just a theoretical extrapolation. Same reason why angular momentum cannot be even conceived of but as quantised, because it's the conjugate momentum to an angle, which always restricted to a confined space \( \left[0,2\pi\right] \).

Action again:

4 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

The answer is that, though action has the dimension ML^2/T, we are taking the position that this particular combination of dimensions (known as action) is the whole from which time, mass, and length are derived.

Time, mass, and length are not derived from action. It's the other way around.

As to the conclusion:

4 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

Conclusion. The energy is the ability to generate interference, ability generated by perturbative relativistic phenomena, perturbation which triggers the transition from "inherent potency" to "quanta of action / gravitational action". "

 

This doesn't even make a smidgen of sense to me. I'm sorry.

But I do have a sense of what the problem is with this kind of definitions/'derivations': They lack the operational point of view, on which all of physics rests, they engage in a loose runaway of concepts and statements, and consequently they lead to whatever preconfigured picture was already in the author's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/14/2022 at 3:11 PM, joigus said:

Not a lot, to me at least. For example, as a definition of 'energy':

Energy doesn't always result in translation. OTOH, not an operational definition. As to 'action':

Yes, good physicists are in that habit, because they have good reasons to think space is finite, and action in a confined space leads to quantised energy, for the simple reason that space-time confinement leads to a periodicity. Continuous energy is probably just a theoretical extrapolation. Same reason why angular momentum cannot be even conceived of but as quantised, because it's the conjugate momentum to an angle, which always restricted to a confined space [0,2π] .

Action again:

Time, mass, and length are not derived from action. It's the other way around.

As to the conclusion:

This doesn't even make a smidgen of sense to me. I'm sorry.

But I do have a sense of what the problem is with this kind of definitions/'derivations': They lack the operational point of view, on which all of physics rests, they engage in a loose runaway of concepts and statements, and consequently they lead to whatever preconfigured picture was already in the author's mind.

I actually had another doubt, I saw that in one of his papers he describes interference correctly, yet he goes on to write nonsense like what you just read... does this in any way lend credibility to his claims as such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I actually had another doubt, I saw that in one of his papers he describes interference correctly, yet he goes on to write nonsense like what you just read... does this in any way lend credibility to his claims as such?

Interference has been described correctly several times, including by David Bohm and Louis DeBroglie (with a "realistic" theory). So it's not the bone of contention, IMO. Anything that has waves will give you interference. Copenhagen's QM too. I also think you should always try to be conservative in your scientific claims, because Nature has a way of doing what we don't expect. And that's all I can say at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

Interference has been described correctly several times, including by David Bohm and Louis DeBroglie (with a "realistic" theory). So it's not the bone of contention, IMO. Anything that has waves will give you interference. Copenhagen's QM too. I also think you should always try to be conservative in your scientific claims, because Nature has a way of doing what we don't expect. And that's all I can say at this point.

Well said 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.