The Metaphysics of Physics by Constantinos Ragazas

Constantinos Ragazas

Sergey,

Thanks for pointing this out. And I thought it was my controversial topic! The math makes sense. And so does your critic of fqxi rules for selecting the final 35. As I already mentioned to Branden Foster, the number of finalists should be a percentage of the total number of essays submitted. And not a fixed number And there should probably be some broad categories for selecting a greater variety of topics, professional and non-professional, in the final group. Too much emphasis currently is given by the community to the more 'standard theories' with more extreme and exotic extensions of these. But this only gets us deeper in the rabbit's hole of unreality we are in. Raising such questions as my essay and others do, the 'professional physicists' of course would adversely react to what they just don't want to think.

I have no illusions about winning a prize! But just wanted to draw greater attention to the many results and ideas in my papers. Which aim to 'make sense' of physics. "Shut up and calculate" is not acceptable to me. Nor it should be to any other intellectually honest thinker.

Best,

Constantinos

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Constantinos,

Here is my answer to your previos post at my page.

Firstly, the entropy of stars is negative, and if the radius of star is little the entropy is more negative. Secondly we must take into account entropy of gravitational fields itself. Gravitons of low levels of matter carry negentropy to the high levels of matter. According to formula for entropy in the book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik, entropy is proportional to ratio of ordered energy of system to thermal energy of the system. Tensor of entropy has negative components too (the book `The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter`, § 21). I suppose that each scale (level of matter) in the hierarchy may be used as a frame of reference to the scale levels above it and vice versa. For example our reference frame at the Earth can be used for atomic research. I do not agree with idea of the most fundamental level (empty space?). If great metagalaxies interact with each other from the point view of their observers (which so great as the metagalaxies) it seems the space is empty. But in reality in the space a lot of stars and other objects. Speed of propagation of light is real constant for all space direction only in the reference frame 'local' to the 'ether', i.e. in isotropic reference system. In other frames real speed of light is another. See: Marinov S (2007). New Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity with the Help of the Coupled Shutters Experiment . Progress in Physics 1: 31-37. ; Stefan Marinov (1983). The interrupted 'rotating disc' experiment . Journal of Physics A 16: 1885-1888. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/16/9/013. Bibcode: 1983JPhA...16.1885M. ; Eugene I. Shtyrkov (2005). Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites. Proceedings of the NPA, Volume 2, pp. 201-205. Also speed of light is constant in inertial systems if all measurements are made with the help of two-way propagation of light signals.

Sergey Fedosin

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your response and references. A lingering curiosity I have with every theory - what in your theory determines "being in the Universe"? And don't you agree this is a fundamental question that every theory must answer? As this determines 'physical existence'. As compared to 'mathematical existence' which never needs to be 'real'.

Constantinos

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Constantinos,

For any object its being in the Universe and physical existence is the next: 1). The object was born in the Universe (which as a system is so infinite as it necessary to include all forms and entities which were the base for formation of the object in question). The physical object can not exist without of its previous evolution and development. 2). Any physical object (including wane quanta) consists of matter in the form of substance particles which belong to low levels of matter in comparison with the level of matter of the object. For example a galaxy consists of stars, their planets, moons, asteroids, dust, gas, particles and so on. 3). All the known forces of Universe influence any physical object through its compound particles. 4). We know two long-range fundamental forces in the Universe - gravitational and electromagnetic. These main forces form any object and stationary fields near the objects are observable. The quanta of these forces are waves in fluxes of gravitons. These waves may have rotational structure and carry rotational momentum, energy and linear momentum, for electromagnetic waves they have name photons. As the gravitons we suppose: the quanta of neutrino; photons; relativistic particles similar by their properties to cosmic rays having electric charge. All the gravitons for the strong gravitation and usual gravitation appeared at low levels of matter. When stars of visible universe will transform in neutron star and white dwarfs the radiation of the stars will the base for new gravitons which will influence such great objects which are much more bigger then the metagalaxies. 5). We suppose that strong interaction may be explained with the help of strong gravitation and Gravitational torsion field in gravitational model of strong interaction. And the weak interaction is simply transformation of substance inside of objects under action of fundamental fields, fluxes of the fields or result of collision with other objects.6). The objects are open systems; they interact with fundamental fields and other objects. The flux of negentropy comes to the objects from the low level of matter by means of fluxes of gravitons. At the same time entropy have rise in the processes of collision of objects with other matter objects. 7). We found the reason of redshift in existence of nuons, which have mass about mass of proton and are similar by their properties to white dwarfs: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. And the other reason is possible - the mutual interaction of wave quanta and dissipation of their energy. In modern cosmology we find unphysical `explanation` of redshift through space expansion. But space is not a physical object and its expansion may help only calculate the process but cannot explain it. The same situation is in general relativity which can not explain the reason of curving of spacetime near objects. And the same we find in quantum chromodynamics which tries fit experiments with the help of about 20 unexplained parameters!??? It is not a physics it is mathematical work only. There are not real substantial models of objects; instead of it we see only mathematical theories based on ideas of symmetry of properties of particles; and based on supposed forces from interaction of particles with virtual the same particles??? (how it is possible to explain interaction of two protons through virtual pions which must appear between these protons?).

Sergey Fedosin

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your very long answer! But 'being in the Universe' should not be so complicated. But should be foundational and simple for any physical theory, in my humble opinion. In my view, 'being in the Universe' requires that an entity have 'physical space' and 'physical time'. The former is what CSL assures while the later is what the Second Law requires. Can't have 'physical space' without 'physical time', and visa versa. The two are necessarily interlinked through a prime physis quantity eta (in my formulation the 'time-integral of energy').

Constantinos

[deleted]

Constantinos,

I wrote: "When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, he encounters more wavecrests in a given time and accordingly the speed of the light waves RELATIVE TO HIM has increased. Is that true?"

You replied: "In the mental frame you frame the issue, the answer for me too would be "yes". But the problem, as always, is our 'mental views' are only our views and not necessarily what Nature has in mind."

You get maximum rating from me for the first part of your reply.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Sorry Constantinos I was not able to vote. Some time ago I withdrew my essay but I still could vote. My voting code does not work anymore.

Good luck in the contest.

Pentcho Valev

Constantinos Ragazas

Pentcho,

Thanks for your good wishes. That you cannot vote for my essay is not nearly as important to me as thinking it deserves a high rating. I look forward to future exchanges I know we will have in these blogs!

All the best,

Constantinos

Richard Kingsley-Nixey

Constantinos

Nice essay. You must explain in detail the relatively limited value of a non tautological equation just in case it's not as important as I beelive. I saw Peter recommend your essay, and find he was right. It desreves a good score.

Rich

Constantinos Ragazas

Richard,

Thanks for your support of my essay. Just briefly looking at your essay (didn't have the time to read through it carefully) I feel certain we agree on many ideas. The following quote from your introduction hit an immediate chord with me, "We postulate 'photons' as not conserved, and that light can be subtly changed on re-emission.". The conservation of 'photons' can only make sense if 'photons' are 'particles'.

In my Endnotes I mathematically prove the following proposition: "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave". This, together with Maxwell's results, "if light propagates as a wave, then the speed of light is constant" disproves, in my opinion, the Photon Hypothesis that light consists of 'photon particles'. And this goes along with what you are saying. Furthermore, and this you will find especially important, Eric Reiter in his essay, , presents experimental evidence to exactly what you are postulating. Check it if you have not yet done so. And do support Eric's efforts to bring this to the attention of the larger physics community with a good rating to put his essay (more so than mine!) into the final group.

You ask, "You must explain in detail the relatively limited value of a non tautological equation". Fair enough! My reasoning on this is grounded on two issues for me: 1) Why should our mathematical deductions and calculations be reflected in our measurements of 'what is' the Universe? And 2) How postulated mathematical models of 'what is' the Universe are any different from past metaphysical models of 'what is' the Universe. All having failed!

To answer, I see no logical or philosophical basis for our Math to be reflected in Nature. Thus, mathematical models of the behavior of Nature can best be convenient human approximations of that behavior. As such, definitely they are very useful. The problem for me arises when more is claimed of these! When the model of 'what is' is 'what is'. That somehow in our models we are able to describe 'what is' the Universe. This I find to be 'metaphysical'. No different than all past attempts by humans to answer the same question. Claims to knowing truly 'what is' the Universe are as absurd to claims of truly knowing another human being. All we can really know for sure (if that) are our experiences and 'measurements' of another person. But not the person himself. But claiming to know another person and acting on that knowledge can not only be wrong, but can do damage to our ability to understand them further. So Richard, for me this is a crucial issue. I wrote my essay with that deep conviction and passion. Sorry if that did not come through!

Whereas postulated mathematical models of 'what is' the Universe have no logical validity (but are simply empirical ), mathematical tautologies have logical certainty! And when these are applied to 'data mine' our measurements of Nature (what we can only claim to truly know) the conclusions we draw have logical validity. Thus, these will be reflected in Nature. I have shown, for example, that Planck's Formula for blackbodies is not actually a physical law that depends on the physical existence of energy quanta! But this Formula in fact a mathematical tautology, A = A. This fact is what can explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum of deep space is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve based on Planck's Formula!

All the best,

Constantinos

Anton Biermans

Dear Constantinos,

I agree that much of present physics (like Big Bang Cosmology, String Theory, and probably the Higgs mechanism as well) is pure metaphysics, though for other reasons, as you can see in my essay.

I post this reaction not because I want to advertise my essay, but because I think you may like it: if not, then do punish me for bothering you by awarding me a 1!

Anton.

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Anton,

Have no fear, the end is here! The community rating has stopped some two days ago!

But really! The true value of this and other fqxi contests for me is the opportunity to air my views and engage others in an open and intellectually honest discussion. And fqxi is succeeding in that and deserve great credit. As for 'winning', none of what I write and submit is about me! In this contest, "ideas" win, and not people. And though there are typical human obstacles for ideas to sometimes emerge, the fqxi forums continue to be the "best hope for ideas" to be aired and recognized.

I am very interested to know how we reach the same conclusions on The Metaphysics of Physics but for different reasons. I will read your essay but there is no longer a rush.

Constantinos

« Previous Page