Jump to content

Inform physics


Recommended Posts

And some addition to the SSDS post above. In contrast to the “simulation hypothesis”, the informational conception/ model haven’t too much PR, moreover, quite the contrary something other things happen. A couple examples – the paper “Space and Time” a month ago was rejected by “Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics” journal (earlier was rejected by two other journal), though it is evidently new, actual and metaphysical.

And – it even seems make one laugh: I info about next iteration of the conception in so called “Cosmocoffee” WEB forum,

http://cosmocoffee.info/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=fde5d7a362949ac8f842304d92cd8f0a

 

as an anonymous, in the thread “Crackpots”. As well as I placed the info about the next version of the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2. At evening the info existed, at next morning it disappeared…

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note SSDS, You have had 5 years and 4 pages to make yourself clear in this thread and yet still, your point is incomprehensible. I am closing this pending full review, but regardless

Since there aren’t some questions/ comments on the thread’s topic, consider the two-clock experiment.

So, let there is some system that consists of a rod having the length L and
two clocks on the rod. The system moves along the rod’s axes with
constant speed V in some other RF, for example – on some Earth’ orbit.
It is well known from the special relativity that one can synchronize
clocks when they are in a point, and further, using a slow transport
with a clock speed v<<V, move clocks on the rod’s front and back
ends. In the RF the clocks showings will be at that different, on the
Voigt-Lorentz decrement (front clock is slower) –VL/c^2. If the clocks
are slowly moved to one point on the rod (let – front clock is moved to
back rod’s end), the showings must become equal again.

In the special relativity the clocks “show time” and so there is no difference –
moved clock constitutes, or not, a rigid system with the rod, in both
cases the result is one – the showings’ identity.

In informational model spacetime is absolute and the clocks’ difference is
“material” kinematic effect, when only the rod turns in a plain
“[coordinate] time, a spatial direction” (tau, X). So in the case when
moved clock constitutes all time a rigid system with the rod, then the
showings will be identical. But if there is a free motion (e.g., moved
clock has an engine), then the difference will conserve.

The orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the
Voigt-Lorentz decrement, VL/c^2 ~ 8.4.10^(-14) s*L. For a rod having
L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10^(-12)s – now such a precision isn’t a
problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10^(-11)s, clocks such a
precision have sizes as a matchbox.

But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be
repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put
ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when
using 250 m rod.

It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V – when that is
impossible in framework of special relativity.

However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating
to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible
to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks
far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be
possible.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP is talking about this.

 

Mathametical Universe hypothesis

 

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the Ultimate Ensemble, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by the theoretical physicist, Max Tegmark

 

 

Definition of the Ensemble

Jürgen Schmidhuber [6] argues that "Although Tegmark suggests that '... all mathematical structures are a priori given equal statistical weight', there is no way of assigning equal nonvanishing probability to all (infinitely many) mathematical structures". Schmidhuber puts forward a more restricted ensemble which admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations.[7] In response, Tegmark notes [2] (sec. V.E) that the measure over all universes has not yet been constructed for the String theory landscape either, so this should not be regarded as a "show-stopper"

 

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism#Platonism

 

 

Some mathemeticians and physicists are Platonists,[3] for instance Max Tegmark and Roger Penrose.[4] Yet today's Platonists usually view entities within the visible world as real, and simply regard universal abstractions like numbers, sets, propositions, and geometry as corresponding to real and timeless entities that also exist, though pure Platonists regard only the Forms or their realm as real.[5]

By way of string theory and the holographic principle, some physicists conjecture that Plato's allegory of the cave approximates the natural world's structure. Tegmark, who regards only the mathematical structure of the universe as real, has been called a radical Platonist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A couple of preliminary remarks. As that is pointed out in the paper “The Information as Absolute” all/ any existent philosophical doctrines have common flaw: they study “the problems that both – non-provable and non-testable”. Besides (or consequently) so any doctrine has the problem of existence of something more fundamental. For example in Platonism
also a question arises – what is something where “the World of Ideas” and “inert Matter” are? From what they “are made”?

 

So inevitably any such a logical construction (including, e.g., the mathematical universe hypothesis) has this problem.


As to the MUH more specifically – it seems also that isn’t some neoplatonism, that is some next version of the Pythagorean “everything from a digit” doctrine. And so has natural flaw – it reduces everything to mathematics, when that isn’t true, since for math is critical the validity relations and so, for example, the math isn’t capable to descript all processes in Consciousness.

 

And – since (e.g., MUH) existent philosophical doctrines have the flaws above, their practical output is, as a rule, rather poor.
Besides that they always remain be hypotheses, which have no proof, for example – what inferences follows from them besides that they “explain Nature”?

 

Such problems become be resolved only in the informational conception. Including, e.g., in the conception become be more clear – what are space and time; from what follows, e.g., the explanation – why the special relativity theory isn’t correct and a reasonable model for basic physical principles; now philosophy obtains for study ultimately fundamental subject – the set “Information”, etc.
– see the arXiv links above.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...


Now a little upgrade of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

Though possibly it is worthwhile to correct the text (last sentence in the paper) a little.

 

It now is:

“…the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any straight line in the 3D space.”

 

It should be, e.g., as:

 

“……the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any spatial axis; and to any other line in the 3D space also, though.”


Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

That is re-posting from an other forum (the blog about the crisis in physics)

_______________

 

The crises in mainstream physics is evident – in last 30-40 years nothing essentially new ideas and results occurred. Including, for example, a “new result” – the explanation of the inertial mass nature in the Standard theory as it follows from a particle interactions with the Higgs field. It is evident, that until from a theory doesn’t follow the equivalence inertial and gravitational masses this theory cannot pretend on resolving of the mass problem.

One of the brakes – till now all physics is based on the special and general relativity theories, which postulate that real (!) 4D spacetime is the Minkowski spacetime, though nobody observed till now some imaginary space or imaginary time; moreover – in mainstream physics till now there aren’t any constructive understandings in Meta-Physics – what is the space? And what is the time?
When the situation in physics is such that without such a understanding nothing new can appear – all, what can be obtain in limits of existent paradigm, is obtained already (moreover – it is obtained erroneous and controversy things, at least the SR).

So next physics will start first of all as some re-writing of mainstream physics from Minkowski spacetime to that indeed exists, namely – to 4D Euclidian one with two-faced time. Next – analysis of the results, when it seems as rather possible some new ideas will appear, including new understandings in QM and cosmology; it is possible that some new additional dimensions will be suggested and explored to study the interactions of our Matter and Her environment in the Set “Information”, where Matter is placed; etc.

More – see “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003)
and “The Information as Absolute” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712)

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Some next re-posting from an other forum

________

 

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics

How?

Quote Originally Posted by SSDS View Post
Again – there is, in a certain sense though, no "mechanisms" in the slowing down of clocks ticks if a clock moves in the spacetime with a speed V. That is "purely kinematic effect".

 

 

How?

 

But on more deep level some "mechanism" exists – the ticks’ slowing appears because of the force that accelerated the clock in the space. Further the clock remains being slowed “inertialy”.

 

Again, how?

And that is true for any clock since all processes in the clock, down to its elementary particles (which are some clocks also) remain be slowed. Some differences appear when a gravity force appears, but this case is outside this topic.

 

 

Nimit

 

 

 

 

Let’s go from the end of your post. All “elementary” (don’t consider quarks here, that isn’t principal) are indeed clocks, i.e. some periodical processes. For photons that is well known; they are some clocks that run only in the space, with the speed of light and so are “massless”in the space, i.e. have zero “rest mass”. All “massive particles” at rest in the spacetime run only in the [“coordinate”] time, with the speed of light and so are “massless”, i.e. have zero “rest mass” when moving in the time direction. When, after obtaining of a spatial momentum, they move in the space also, they are the clocks also – that one can observe as the de Broglie waves (in other case Achilles never leave behind a turtle).

And, again – since there is for every particle (atom, body, etc.) some fundamental cycle that determines the particles characteristics, and since at movement in the space the particles must spend some (roughly) cycles on the steps in the space - when the speed (i.e. steps’ rate) in the spacetime is always constant – the cycles’ rate in the time becomes be slowed. Or if a human makes from particles a clock with the points and clock-face, the points become go slower through the clock-face. Again, there is no so called “time dilation”, the time is absolute and any clock cannot to do with the time anything. Besides – if for a particle there is some probability of a “bug” at every time step, then, since the time steps’ rate is slower, the particle lives longer. No mysticism besides.

Again – the slowing down of the speed in the time is the result of obtaining a speed in the space when some force impacted on the clock (particle, body, etc.), that is some “mechanism”. After the impacting is stopped, and the particle moves in the spacetime inertially, the (dilated) clock’s ticks rate remains be constant, i.e. that becomes be as “kinematical effect”.

Again – more see the arXiv links above since the processes here are a little more complex, first of all – since in the reality there are (at least) two times.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

That is re-posting from an other forum (the blog about unifying of quantum mechanics and gravity)

 

Some notions relating to the problem.

(1) Space and time are some logical rules/possibilities, which determine – how the concrete informational system, Matter is constructed and how material objects must interact; space and time are absolute, including don’t depend on – what in Matter happens in any "time moment" and/ or in any "pace point". So neither space, nor time can be "quantized".

(2) In contrast to the spacetime, motions or any interaction of material objects are "realizations" of a set of rules that control Matter when She changes, but there is fundamental obstacle for any changings, which was formulated by Zeno 2500 years ago in his aporias. "To solve" the aporias Matter was forced to do any changing as some quantized process, when the state of some object between in/out states becomes be uncertainty; what in physics was realized as QM.

(3) Any force in Matter has a mediator, including that must be true for gravity force also. Since gravity and electricity are very like, it isn’t impossible that corresponding theory will have some traits analogous to the QE ones.

Some (and seems as non-accidental) example of a similarity of gravity and electricity – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

To: All

- last information relating to the thread’s topic – see the last SSDS post (3-th page).

 

Has any of this been published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

There aren’t any publications either about the informational (“the Information as Absolute”) conception or about the informational model; all submissions were rejected by editors, without peer reviews. Including, for example, in a number of philosophical journals, though the papers “the Information as Absolute” http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and “Space and Time” http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 are evidently new, actual and philosophical.

So the authors are forced to walk through the Net scientific forums to info people about the conception and the model.

On another hand – in the forums corresponding posts are often commented by some rather active forums’ members in a quite aggressive and senseless manner. It seems that the members of some journals editor boards are humans that are rather similar to those forums’ members.

Besides – when I looked through my last post I see that the attached paper Absolute_speed_measur.pdfis downloaded only 1 time – when I checked the attachment. Somebody has a difficulties when attempts to download the paper or that the downloading counters is rather strange?

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

ArXiv(Archive) is supposed to be for drafts of scientific papers. Papers there are looked at by editors but not peer reviewed.

 

I become concerned when I see papers from there that have not been published elsewhere.

 

 

 

Can you explain your hypothesis in simple terms and give evidence(not another self citation) that supports it?

 

Otherwise this thread is just going to continue as it has for literally years now.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To: All

- last information relating to the thread’s topic – see the last SSDS post (3-th page), including, certainly, the attached PDF.

 

 

ArXiv(Archive) is supposed to be for drafts of scientific papers. Papers there are looked at by editors but not peer reviewed.

 

I become concerned when I see papers from there that have not been published elsewhere.

 

 

 

Can you explain your hypothesis in simple terms and give evidence(not another self citation) that supports it?

 

Otherwise this thread is just going to continue as it has for literally years now.

 

 

 

It seems that you don’t know well – what is the arXiv. So see http://arxiv.org/ .

 

As well for you seems be useful to re-read the SSDS post Yesterday, 04:10 AM once more.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines.

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

 

Moderated yes, peer reviewed no.

 

 

I want to see a discussion take place here. Present the basics in one short paragraph. Then present what evidence you have in the next.

 

This thread has been going for over 5 years, time to either end it or move it forward.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

 

Moderated yes, peer reviewed no.

 

 

I want to see a discussion take place here. Present the basics in one short paragraph. Then present what evidence you have in the next.

 

This thread has been going for over 5 years, time to either end it or move it forward.

 

 

It seems that you don’t know well also – what is the scientific forum. On the forums members discuss not only “peer reviewed” papers – you can look through, for example, other threads on this forum’s page. Besides - here aren’t prohibitions on – what time a thread should exist.

 

And, besides, you 3-th post already write something that by any means cannot be believed as something scientific.

 

Would you be kind, for example, to write in this thread – what do you think about the paper “ To measure the absolute speed is possible?” that is attached PDF in the SSDS post # 60 22 November 2013 - 08:54 PM? That will be – I hope till now, though there are some doubts already, something scientific and what relates to the thread’s topic.

 

If you cannot, then your posting seems as a trolling.

 

Cheers

Edited by SSDS
Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of members including at least one moderator, have mentioned an inability to understand what your posts reference.

 

I am trying to see that corrected.

 

 

Personally I find myself unable to form an opinion as to whether your argument is of a scientific nature. I cannot evaluate your argument based on what has been presented thus far, therefor I have not offered an opinion on the matter.

 

I am asking that you use other sources besides yourself so that your argument can be properly evaluated.

 

 

Self-citing is often frowned upon, being considered (and sometimes is) vanity, egotism or an attempt in self-advertising.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2012/07/24/on-self-citation/

 

If I claim that quibits are green and my evidence is myself stating that quibits are green; you would have reasonable cause to question the validity of my argument without ever seeing a quibit.

Edited by Endy0816
Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of members including at least one moderator, have mentioned an inability to understand what your posts reference.

 

I am trying to see that corrected.

 

 

Personally I find myself unable to form an opinion as to whether your argument is of a scientific nature. I cannot evaluate your argument based on what has been presented thus far, therefor I have not offered an opinion on the matter.

 

I am asking that you use other sources besides yourself so that your argument can be properly evaluated.

 

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2012/07/24/on-self-citation/

 

If I claim that quibits are green and my evidence is myself stating that quibits are green; you would have reasonable cause to question the validity of my argument without ever seeing a quibit.

 

Again you write something that doesn’t relate to the tread’s topic.

 

So – and that is possible my last post relating to your posts - I don’t discuss anything with trolls:

 

- You a number of times wrote here about “peer review”, from what probably follows, that you know what that means.

 

So, once again, I ask you to write here something like to a peer review of the paper “ To measure the absolute speed is possible?” that is attached PDF in the SSDS post # 60 22 November 2013 - 08:54 PM.

 

If you aren’t capable to do so, I shall not continue this conversation.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't appreciate being attacked while asking for more information...

 

I(and others smarter than myself) have attempted to read your papers and gotten nowhere. I am asking for further explanation.

 

If you can not or will not provide it, then what are we here to discuss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't appreciate being attacked while asking for more information...

 

I(and others smarter than myself) have attempted to read your papers and gotten nowhere. I am asking for further explanation.

 

If you can not or will not provide it, then what are we here to discuss?

-? That is possible, the informational (“The Information as Absolute conception”) conception (Meta-Physical) and the informational model (physical), which follows from the conception, indeed aren’t trivial. But in such a situation one – if (s)he wants to understand - should think enough; if there is a possibility – and here it is – should put corresponding questions.

 

Though if the questions arise that means that something becomes be understandable.

 

Besides for you it would be useful to read other arXiv papers that are pointed out in this thread, first of all (“Space and Time”) http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 and (The Informational Conception and Basic Physics) http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

 

But you write your posts too quickly…

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

SSDS,

You have had 5 years and 4 pages to make yourself clear in this thread and yet still, your point is incomprehensible. I am closing this pending full review, but regardless of the outcome I would urge you to please address your poor communication skills. Effective science demands that you be able to do this well and unfortunately, it is an area that you are seriously lacking in.

You are not permitted to reopen this topic while this thread is closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.