Gravitation and Electromagnetism

[Strange]

 

This is a possible opinion, not a motiviated evaluation.

 

It is a perfectly realistic assessment. As your informatons are not detectable (and therefore have no reality) you could just as well replace them with non-interacting-hyper-neutrinos, or invisible nano-unicorns. Or magic.

 

Postulating things for which there is no evidence, and which cannot be detected and are therefore not falsifiable, is by definition not science.

[swansont]

This is a possible opinion, not a motiviated evaluation.

It is not testable, by your own tacit admission.

 

It's also classical, which means you aren't even skating to where the puck is, much less where it's going to be. You're skating to where the puck was a little while ago. You have a model that's less useful than the one we already have for E&M, which makes testable predictions, and explains phenomena that classical physics doesn't.

[ernst39]

It is not testable, by your own tacit admission.

 

When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116)

 

 

You have a model that's less useful than the one we already have for E&M, which makes testable predictions, and explains phenomena that classical physics doesn't.

 

The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't.

[imatfaal]

 

When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116)

 

How is it differentiable from current theories?

[swansont]

When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116)

Then how does one test your idea?

 

The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't.

But we have theories that do explain these things. GR explains gravity, for example. Why do we need an explanation for Newtonian gravity, which is known to be wrong?

[Strange]

The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't.

 

And GEM does not need magic informatons.

[ernst39]

 

How is it differentiable from current theories?

 

My approach doesn't start from GRT to explain GEM, but from the hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of the gravitational field.

[swansont]

 

My approach doesn't start from GRT to explain GEM, but from the hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of the gravitational field.

 

 

How is it testable?

[Mordred]

GEM itself is testable, your informatons isn't.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

 

there is a section on various tests

 

Here is one paper

http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism

 

The problem with your informaton is it has zero measurable properties. No energy, momentum etc.

[ernst39]

Then how does one test your idea?

 

 

 

My theory leads to the formalism of GEM and this is at the moment the object of numerous tests.

GEM itself is testable, your informatons isn't.

 

 

I agree, but I repeat what I said in post # 128: there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, but that applies to all physical theories.

[swansont]

 

My theory leads to the formalism of GEM and this is at the moment the object of numerous tests.

 

I agree, but I repeat what I said in post # 128: there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, but that applies to all physical theories.

 

Does GEM work without informatons?

[ernst39]

 

Does GEM work without informatons?

 

If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection.

[swansont]

 

If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection.

 

But you don't have a theory, since your idea is not testable.

[Strange]

 

If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection.

 

And Occam's razor says not to introduce unnecessary entities. So your magic particles can be rejected because they are unnecessary: GEM works without them.

[ernst39]

 

But you don't have a theory, since your idea is not testable.

 

Does the insight that there is no evidence of the foundations of any (phsical) theory only apply for not-mainstream theories?

 

 

 

And Occam's razor says not to introduce unnecessary entities. So your magic particles can be rejected because they are unnecessary: GEM works without them.

 

Another formulation of Occam's principle: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better".

[Strange]

Another formulation of Occam's principle: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better".

 

You could put it that way. So which of the two indistinguishable theories is simpler:

 

1. GEM with added magic particles that don't make any difference and are undetectable

2. GEM

 

Clue: the one without unnecessary additions.

[swansont]

 

Does the insight that there is no evidence of the foundations of any (phsical) theory only apply for not-mainstream theories?

 

False insight doesn't matter. You've made a claim without providing evidence.

[ernst39]

 

You could put it that way. So which of the two indistinguishable theories is simpler:

 

1. GEM with added magic particles that don't make any difference and are undetectable

2. GEM

 

Clue: the one without unnecessary additions.

 

1 = explanation of GEM with informatons should be compared to other explanations or deductions of GEM

2 = description of GEM

[swansont]

 

1 = explanation of GEM with informatons should be compared to other explanations or deductions of GEM

2 = description of GEM

 

But if GEM doesn't rely on informatons to work (or fail), how can you make a comparison?

[ernst39]

 

But if GEM doesn't rely on informatons to work (or fail), how can you make a comparison?

 

In my article (post #41), I show that the GEM-description of gravitation (including the mathematical formulation of GEM) can be deduced from the (only) hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of gravitational fields. In the case of Occam's razor one must compare my method to other deductions who lead to the same result (explanation of GEM).

[Mordred]

Your not understanding, the problem with your inflatons. In order to have any influence you must have some form of energy. The influence must be measurable. Current QEM already describes its influences without introducing your inflatons.

 

QEM also uses the Poynting vector and has a full equivelence to the Einstein field equations, as well as account for the spin characteristics in particle interactions.

 

So it covers both the quantum and macroscopic measurements.

 

In other words it's far more accurate with less interactions to keep track of

[Strange]

 

In my article (post #41), I show that the GEM-description of gravitation (including the mathematical formulation of GEM) can be deduced from the (only) hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of gravitational fields.

 

That is not your only hypothesis.

 

You invent five arbitrary rules A1-A3 and B1-B2 that your "informatons" follow. These rules appear, at first glance, to be entirely ad-hoc but are clearly generated from the theory (GEM) that you are attempting to show can be derived from first principles.

 

So your argument is entirely circular: derive properties of magic particles from GEM. Use magic particles to derive GEM.

 

I assume you are here because this "paper" has been rejected by all reputable journals.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Strange

[ernst39]

 

That is not your only hypothesis.

 

You invent five arbitrary rules A1-A3 and B1-B2 that your "informatons" follow. These rules appear, at first glance, to be entirely ad-hoc but are clearly generated from the theory (GEM) that you are attempting to show can be derived from first principles.

 

So your argument is entirely circular: derive properties of magic particles from GEM. Use magic particles to derive GEM.

 

The hypothesis is (attachment 2):

 

A point mass m₀ at rest at the origin of an inertial reference frame is emitting informatons at a rate K.m₀ (with K = c²/h); an informaton carries an elementary

quantity of g-information characterized by its g-index s_g = (1/(K.eta₀).e_{r ,} where eta₀ = 1/(4.pi.G) [with G the gravitational constant].

 

In the article (post #41) I formulate (for clarity) that hypothesis in what you call "five arbitraty rules". To understand where the idea is coming from: see §4.1 and §4.2

 

 

 

I assume you are here because this "paper" has been rejected by all reputable journals.

 

This is an unfounded and biased "assumption". It shows little respect for those who post here on "Speculations".

attachment 2.pdfI forgot the attachment to the previous post. You find it here.

[Strange]

This is an unfounded and biased "assumption". It shows little respect for those who post here on "Speculations".

 

Congratulations. Where was it published?

[Mordred]

You still don't understand, in order for informatons to have any influence you need some form of energy.

Your information is NOT a measurable entity. It has zero substance, zero wavefunction,zero momentum,zero mass, zero charge etc etc. In other words it's absolutely nothing zero zip.

 

Without measurable properties it CANNOT influence anything.

 

This is basic physics that any first year student understands.

 

 

The other problem you fail to acknowledge is your rest frame to inertial frame transformation is simply incomplete. Your not showing the Lorentz factors in the length contraction or time dilation.

 

So your coordinates will be wrong, to observational evidence we have today. At relativistic speeds.

 

GR is extremely well tested.

Why do you think GEM includes a compatible tensor to the Einstein field equations?