First Things First: The Physics of Causality

Joe, your words do not mean Nothing. A visible surface for millions of Years? already Joe,our earth has 4,5 billions years and universe 13,7 billions years. A surface in in 2D and we observe in 3D ?? You say too that there was reality before human beings,yes we know all this,humans are youngs considering evolution and what Joe,please add ,improve,explain.

Joe,

"Where do you think reality came from?"

Sorry, I don't see this kind of questions fundamental ones because I consider reality just a reasonable conjecture. Experience and reasoning seem to confirm that all speculations are wrong which effectively subordinate this most fundamental credo to a model which teleologically attributes putative human reasoning to a creator or the like. Let's be realists instead.

Incidentally, I wrote (Joseph?) because it is Joe Kaeser's first name.

Did you read what I wrote on Cusanus and my guess on neutrinos?

Eckard

Eckard, I know reality could only have been provided by NATURE. There am no such REAL thing as abstract human invisible finite reasonable or unreasonable conjecture.

Joseph William Fisher, Realist

Steve, our planet Earth and all of the universe has always had, and will always continue to have oneunified VISIBLE surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joseph,

The primary meaning of Latin word natura is birth. Reality was imagined as something that was born.

When I called reality a conjecture, I expressed my credo, the credo of perhaps all serious realists: In contrast to mere imagination, reality is something that objectively belongs to genuine predominantly direct material traces of the unchangeable past. While even predictions and plans can be real possibilities, which may come true with some probability and to some extent, no matter whether they are visible or not, e.g. the plans by Clemenceau and Morgenthau to reduce the Germans by 40 millions, the future is by my definition not yet real at a particular moment.

A conjecture is the formation of ideas or opinions from incomplete or doubtful information. I am not an agnostic at all in the sense of questioning objective reality but I am hesitating to attribute the conjecture of reality to several theories.

Eckard

I have an idea for quantum gravity that would also be the physics of causality. I can also explain the physics constants: c, h and G. I was inspired by the idea by looking at several facets of physics that include: big bang cosmology, the derivation of special relativity, the spacetime interval, the spacetime continuum, quantum mechanics, and the Casimir effect. There can only be one mechanism that best describes quantum gravity. There is one mechanism that can explain a large part of physics. It goes like this. Every time there is an "event", there is a spherical wavefront that travels outwards at the speed of light. This spherical wavefront broadcasts spacetime geometry and quantum states of frequency, energy, wavelength and momentum. The whole electromagnetic frequency range, from f_min to f_max, whatever those are. But spacetime geometry is made of quantum states of the form, [latex]e^{i(k_x x k_y y k_z z - omega t)} [/latex]. The important features are that (1) is expands outward at the speed of light, similar to how the big bang expands outward, (2) spacetime geometry is made of quantum states of frequency and wavelength, (3) these wavefronts are often detected as virtual photons of the Casimir effect, (4) the spacetime continuum is really the spacetime-momentum-energy continuum that is made of quantum states that can be excited in the same way that a quantum field can have excited states. (5) Particles of the standard model actually cause these wavefronts to form around these particles, these charges, because of the wavefront's inherent electric and magnetic fields. These wavefronts are interacting with charged particles creating the effect of a wave function. In other words, any charged standard model particle will interact with these wavefronts, producing the phenomena of quantum mechanics, describable with wave functions. (6) These wavefronts expand very quickly and begin to contribute to the quantum energy and momentum states of the spacetime continuum. Gravity is the effect of mass-energy being "mirrored" by the quantum momentum/energy states to produce a negative potential energy.

Do any of you understand the picture that I'm trying to describe?

Incidentally, causality is transmitted outward at the speed of light because these spacetime geometry wavefronts travel outward at the speed of light.

(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Dr Kuhn, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.

Please stay on topic.)

You do believe the large Hadron collider has been slamming protons into each other, and measuring their byproducts, right?

(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Nima Arkani Hamed, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.

Please stay on topic.)

Hi Joe,

You're welcome to post your ideas to the alternative models thread, as you have done. But no members of the FQXi community are obliged to comment on them if they don't have anything they feel they want to say in response.

You are not welcome to post letters to Dr Kuhn regarding the Closer To Truth Facebook page on this thread, however, as it really has nothing to do with this thread, and is not the place to reach Dr Kuhn. Please use his Facebook page as a forum on which to discuss his Facebook page.

Without subjectivity research, physics will become a new religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY

Zeeya Merali,

I suspect my post "on 9/18/19 at 15:39pm UTC, [I] wrote Joseph, The primary meaning of Latin word natura is birth. Reality was..." was deleted from the path "First Things First: The Physics of Causality".

I addressed Joe as Joseph after he himself signed a (deleted?) post with this name.

Maybe, my choice of examples was also unwelcome. Why not deleting just such marginal details?

I defended my idea to interpret reality as a very basic conjecture. Is it off topic or unacceptable?

Eckard Blumschein

Housewife intelligence is much more alive than the intelligence of the Ph.D. physicist. The development of science will happen by layman people. They still have a common sense which theoretical physics has lost long ago. Today science is lost in its own mental labyrinths. Today 5 years of Ph.D. is needed for things which my grandma knew it just by walking in the fields. Science has become a new religion. If you think differently, you are out, you are disbeliever, a dissident. Only alive housewife intelligence can push science forward.Attachment #1: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf

While cause and effect belong to reality as I understand it, systems, choice entropy, God, and all that seem rather to be something manmade.

Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.

If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?

I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.

Joe Fisher, Natural Realist

Dear Joe,

Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real

Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.

We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Eckard,Joe,

Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain....