We don t know in fact simply, we have our own philosophies but we have too much limitations and we cannot affirm to possess the truth. Personally I work my theory in physics , the theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres to be very simple.

The philosophies and the religions have created confusions and they are mainly assumptions, and it d be odd to pretend to affirm the truth. The sciences community is divided about the origin of the universe , a part consider a kind of conscious infinite energy that we name god, others consider that we come from a mathematical accident , but nobody knows, we have the same problem about the foudamental mathematical and physical objects creating this physicality, we don t know what they are really, we are divided also inside the theoretical sciences community, a part consider points and geometrodynamics, others consider strings in 1D at this planck scales oscillating, vibrating connected withna 1D cosmic field of the gneral relativity , so they try to explain the geometries, topologies with different geometrical algebras like hopf, clifford, lie or the hilbert spaces or others in extending the euclidian space. But we don t affirm to know in fact the truth.

Personally Like I said I consider an infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality and this thing that we cannot define in my model has created a central sphere , a kind of super matter energy physical sending informations coded in the quantum spheres to create the universe and its more than 10000 billions of galaxies. But I have many limitations of scales about these foundamental objects and the philosophical origin of this universe.

We search answers and a sure thing is that we are obliged to prove our assumptions, we cannot affrim them , the same for a general philosophy about the origin of this physicality and from what .

6 days later

G'day Steve

"Hi Mr Gilbert,

All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were famous and have well detailed this electromagnetism, but now these persons have created also a kind of prison , where the thinkers don t go deeper , they consider only these photons like the primoridal essence, the general relativity and this electromagnetism,"

I in my opinion the "prison" is not classical physics or Maxwell, but Quantum theory(QT) and theoretical mathematicians. Since Maxwell has been abandoned by physicists, physics has not progressed, but returned to bizarre nonsensical mysticism. QT tends to ignore the myriad of paradox's, e.g. EPR, Young's two slit etc. Many folk are titillated by the magic of QT but I'm not one of them. Fortunately, engineers have developed modern electromagnetic(EM) theory, derived from Maxwell to a remarkable degree. Laser, optical communications, 3 4 and 5G cellphones, stealth and anti stealth technology,internet and great advances in astronomy. We are still communicating with the 2 Voyager spacecraft at over 40 light hours round trip. The received signals at the receiver input are equivalent to several RF "photons" per bit. Remarkably, they don't use photon counting equipment(photo multiplier tubes, avalanche diodes etc.), as theoretical physicists might expect, but amplifiers, mixers and filters. This is problematical to those who believe in "photons".

My conclusion is that the foundations of physics should be revised, using modern EM theory right down to the atomic level.

Below is a link that includes using an EM simulator to analyse the behaviour of Silver atoms passing through the Stern Gerlach apparatus. Highlight the link and paste it into your search engine.

https://jumpshare.com/v/WNETrGGUb7UYcoR4YacS

Barry

    Hi Mr Gilbert, like I told we have more difficulties to reach the unknowns . The actual works consider like I explained the GR , the photons, strings at this planck scale in 1D connected with a 1D main cosmic field of this GR and so with the geometrical algebras and the extradimensions they create the topologies, geometries,... Their philosophy considers a kind of god , and it is not really mysticism, they just try to understand how this infinite eternal energy probably conscious tranforms this energy.

    I consider myself also a kind of god , but in respecting the pure determinsim and I never affrim my assumptions. You know the best past and actual thinkers consider philosophically this kind of god of spinoza , that permits to consider a coder, transformer.

    A sure thing is that we are limited in knowledges and nobody knows the answer, personally I don t consider only this GR and the strings, I consider 3 main ethers and spheres like you know.

    I agree that the foundations of physics must be revised , we must superimposed deeper logic for me , I doubt really that this universe is just an infinite heat and after has just created these photons and after strings inside, the truth is deeper than this.They are just a tool for this universe these photons, permitting the electromagnetic forces, the fact to observe and the heat, that is all, these forces are just emergent and the main chief orchestra like force seems the gravitation.

    Best Regards

    You know Mr Gilbert, if we find these bridges beyond this GR and the electromagnetism, we shall understand deep unknowns very relevant. All seems a question of philosophy about the general origin of this universe and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects. The evolution also must be considered, it is a little bit the meaning of my theory of spherisation , an evolution of the universe. There are several major problems in considering only our actual logic with this GR , the main problems cannot be explained and all the best thinkers have tried with many mathematical tools but the hierarchy problem, the cosmological constant problem, the gap mass problem, the quantum gravitation, the gluons problem, the consciousness even also, and others are not explained, it proves that it lacks pieces in this puzzle and for me this DE , this DM, the foundamental objects like spheres coded and 3 main primoridal finite series seem the answer to solve these deep unknowns. We turn in round actually in this GR prison. The fields also like main origin are a problem, they are just emergent and under a deeper logic also. So the EM theory and these photons have well been detailed and they don t solve , we need to superimpose other foundamentals for me. The problem is the scales and also the obsetvations non relativistic . Other mathematical tools also must be invented , that is why I work about these spherical geometrical topological algebras and spheres 3D like foundamental objects. The non associativity and non commutativity are important to go beyond this relativistic bridge at my humble opinion. The EM forces and photons cannot answer.

    21 days later

    Dear Steve

    The whole edifice of modern theoretical physics is predicated on the flawed concept of QM and nonsensical abstract mathematics. A case in point is the pioneer anomaly. Space scientists were flummoxed by the observation that pioneer space craft was decelerating, new physics was proposed. The space craft's electrical power was was provided by, heat generated by several kilogram's of Plutonium, heating one side of an array of Peltier cell's, radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG). Peltier cell's are 20% efficient at best. For every 100 watt's of electric power, 500 Watt's is rejected to space. This radiation provides thrust, a well known and observed prediction of Maxwell. This thrust could have been used to accelerate the spacecraft if it had been oriented correctly, instead of decelerating it. This fiasco was caused by insufficient knowledge of Maxwell's equation's. Maxwell or your average RF engineer would have solved this problem. There is a simple resolution of the EPR paradox using Maxwell.

    Regards

    Barry

      Dear all is, Robert H McEachern around, I believe we may have something in common?

      There was no response to my last post, so I will keep on with my heresy.

      The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is not quantum fluctuations left over from the big bang, but rather the signature of the black body radiation from the missing Baryonic matter in the universe. Cold H1, protons, electrons, Helium, Lithium, also iron and carbon dust etc. The so called dark matter is in fact optically dark, but reasonably bright at microwave frequencies. This matter slightly attenuates optical light (scattering and absorption), therefore negating the dark energy hypothesis (dimming of the standard candles), causes frequency and pulse dispersion and just for good measure, solves Olber's paradox. Olber's was a bit right, the sky should be bright, but only in radio frequency and infrared region. That's not all, zero point radiation (ZPR) is that part the total radiated energy in the IGM that falls below the threshold of Planck's constant per mode, it is therefore normally undetectable. Feeble signal's below the Planck threshold are detectable, because Detecting atom's can be biased by the zero point radiation in such a way that the vector sum of ZPR and signal exceeds the threshold. Such detection is subquantal and addresses Einstein's original objection (energy conservation) to Planck's plea that discreteness only occurs in matter and not in the radiated field.

      Dust and zero point radiation are real all round paradox solver's really!

      Regards

      All

        Still here. And here. And many more comments on Disqus.

        As you may infer from my comments in the first two links above, I believe that the real problem with fundamental physics, is not "nonsensical abstract mathematics" per se, but that much of that math is being built upon foundational premises that have little or no relevance to the real world. All the actual Physics, is contained entirely in the premises. All the rest (like Bell's theorem and all other such theorems), is just math, not physics. The math is not "wrong" or "nonsensical"; It just is not relevant to real-world physics, in spite of the fact that it may perfectly describe the "toy" world of some thought experiment, based upon idealized conceptions, such as absolutely identical particles etc. A good computational model, is not the same as a good physical model, even if the former happens to perfectly agree with observational results; physically, identifying the correct mechanism for producing the results, is more important than the mere ability to produce the correct results.

        Rob McEachern

        G'day Robert

        I appreciate your reply, but I don't want to get bogged down arguing about math.

        The model is all important, as is crucial assumptions! Bell's crucial assumption, was Einstein's "absurd photon", Bell insisted that the photon must "maintain its integrity". Maxwellian wave theory is in total agreement with Quantum predictions, 60 or more elaborate experiment's. What has been refuted is the notion of the particle nature photon's as well as classical particle particles. The elaborate experiment's are predominately performed with light using polarizers to determine outcomes. Most experimental configurations simply produce the law of Malus. I can produce that at home with with a pair polarizing sunglass lens's and a light meter. Although the "talk" is always about spin and Stern Gerlach it's all Gedanken. To my knowledge such experiments are not realized. It is the QM community that have the problem of explaining Their "absurd math" that predicts the the law of Malus from paticles without faster than light influences? I discussed the early part of this post in last years FQXi essay. There is no EPR paradox or "entanglement", you simply abandon the photon, causality and local realism will be restored. What about the photoelectric effect, or Compton scattering, I hear some wag's say, I say Maxwell can!

        [https://jumpshare.com/v/WNETrGGUb7UYcoR4YacS]Stern Gerlach[/link]

        Regards

        Barry

        G'day Robert

        I appreciate your reply, but I don't want to get bogged down arguing about math.

        The model is all important, as is crucial assumptions! Bell's crucial assumption, was Einstein's "absurd photon", Bell insisted that the photon must "maintain its integrity". Maxwellian wave theory is in total agreement with Quantum predictions, 60 or more elaborate experiment's. What has been refuted is the notion of the particle nature photon's as well as classical particle particles. The elaborate experiment's are predominately performed with light using polarizer's to determine outcomes. Most experimental configurations simply produce the law of Malus. I can produce that at home with with a pair polarizing sun glass lens's and a light meter. Although the "talk" is always about spin and Stern Gerlach it's all Gedanken. To my knowledge such experiments are not realized. It is the QM community that have the problem of explaining Their "absurd math" (you may be able to convince me otherwise Robert?) that predicts the the law of Malus from particles with faster than light influences between them? I discussed the early part of this post in last years FQXi essay. There is no EPR paradox or "entanglement", you simply abandon the photon, causality and local realism will be restored. What about the photoelectric effect, or Compton scattering, I hear some wag's say, I say Maxwell can!

        I'm experimenting with using links, If it's successfull I'll post some more links to peer reviewed material.

        Stern Gerlach

        Regards

        Barry

          Sorry all

          I failed to attach the link correctly in the 07:54 GMT post, the 08:20 GMT post contains the correct link.

          Barry,

          The problem is much more fundamental than "waves" versus "particles", or even "classical" versus "quantum"; what Shannon demonstrated over seventy years ago, is that regardless of whether or not an input to a decision-making process is "continuous" or "discrete", if the decision-making process always "elects" to "behave" as if there are "discrete symbols" embedded within that input, then perfectly deterministic behavior can be possible and, more importantly, such perfectly deterministic behaviors will not be possible, otherwise. In other words, deterministic behaviors per se (AKA the laws of physics, whatever they may happen to be) emerge from the peculiar nature of such perfect (AKA error-free), decision-making processes and not from any properties (such as waves versus particles) of the inputs to that process. Consequently, "Determinism" itself, as a physical phenomenon, can only exist for processes that happen to succeed at exploiting Shannon's mechanism (not all processes do, which is why "free-will" etc. exist, in an otherwise, seemingly, deterministic world).

          The fundamental question, that Shannon addressed, is: How does any entity ever come to "know" what it is actually interacting with? For example, how do the interacting-entities, in either Newton's theory of gravity or Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, "know" where all the other entities are? The point is, as was recognized to be a problem, as soon as Newton's theory was introduced, is that these theories require knowledge of the exact locations of all the distant, interacting-entities, in order to "determine" what will happen. But by what miraculous mechanism does this required knowledge ever become known to all the interacting-entities? Einstein attempted (but totally failed) to resolve this problem, by naively assuming that the required knowledge could be extracted from the local conditions (such as a supposed curvature of spacetime) existing at each interacting entity. But that idealistic assumption merely sweeps the real-world problem under the carpet; by what miraculous process, can each such entity ever perfectly "know" such infinitesimal, local curvatures, or a local "field"?

          Shannon definitely proved that there are no such miracles, in the real-world; hence, there is a strict limit to the amount of "information" that can be recovered from any set of real-world "measurements" being performed, right "here", right "now" (AKA "localized" in both space and time), and it is this limit that ultimately dictates how everything can ever possibly behave; Shannon's limit, is directly responsible for the existence of the Uncertainty Principle and even the very existence of such a thing as "cause and effect" itself (AKA "Determinism"), as an observable phenomenon.

          The world simply does not "work" the way physicists (either classical or quantum) have thought that it must work: instead, it works the way Shannon discovered, is the only way possible, that perfectly deterministic (error-free) effects can ever be caused to exist, in the real-world, rather than merely in the idealized, "toy" worlds, as imagined by physicists.

          Rob McEachern

          Hi Barry, the modern theoretical physics has not easy to reach these deep unknowns, like this quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the DE and DM, the gap mass problem,the cosmological constant problem.... It is more difficult than 100 years ago where it was easier due to fact that the observations, measurements, experiments were less complicated to create. It is mainly due to problem of scales and interpretations of observations, That is why the maths are utilised with partitions and symmetries, integrations,derivations, combinatory analysis, geometrical algebras....But indeed these abstracts maths can imply confusions and an ocean of assumptions that we cannot prove. Sometimes these maths permit to prove, sometimes they imply all these assumptions, and so the philosophy, the ontology, the origin of our universe, the dimensions, the foundamental objects are for me not really well interpreted.

          The thermodynamics seem more than we actually analyse considering the main codes of this space vacuum and the two fuels encoded in this space if my reasoning is correct, all seems coded and distribute a specific matter and a correlated energy, fields, ...and so a specific thermo. My reasoning intuitive is a little bit like this EPR and of course all rational thinkers can recognise that the QM and our actual standard model is not complete, I d say even that it is far to be complete lol, we know so few in fact. We need really to think beyond the box, and these actual abstratcs maths and strings for example in considering only this general relativity and these fields like main philosophical origin has created a prison where an ocean of assumptions emerge. The universe is very simple generally and the old school could rebecome the best way I believe instead to complexify a pure general simplicity. It is the meaning of my theory and these 3D spheres, why we create extradiemnsions and we consider only the fields ??? the opposite seems the key , particles like main essence and this space vacuum of the DE like main codes and this DM cold balancing could permit to superimpose two other spacetimes and that d permit to complete this QM, standard model and explain our uknowns. But the problem is that now the thinkers have difficulties to think differently because these strings are an institution and even a business and it is teached at university , and the general relativity alone also . And if we consider the vanity or the fact that these thinkers have worked hard about these abstracts maths of strings, so you imagine why I am a problem with my coded Spheres 3D and the 3 ethers. But it is the life, I must like all prove my assumptions, but it is not easy due to these problems of scales and observations, measurements.

          Hi Robert, It is very interesting what you tell, I like a thinker, one of my favorites it is von neumann, he is incredible and you could like his interpretations about all this.

          Barry, yes probably , he was famous indeed, the father of the information theory, you could like Von neumann, this thinker was also a general thinker very very incredible, see if you are interested what he has imagined , see the links with the von neumann entropy, the gibbs works and the shannon ones, regards

          Barry,

          Yes. I am referring to Claude Shannon's Information Theory. Although I was educated as a physicist, I spent most of my career in the Signal Intelligence world, where my forte was developing algorithms for doing things like extracting the maximum amount of "Information" from highly-garbled communications signals. Consequently, I became very familiar with the limitations to information recovery, that had been identified by Shannon. It is the insights gained in that realm, that I have brought to bear, on the "measurement problem" and "Uncertainty" in physics.

          Here is what the physics world has never understood about "Information": In this short article about Shannon, the first 75% of the article talks about all the probability and entropy issues - the "math". The physicists dealing with "Quantum Correlations" etc., are quite familiar with all this. But all that is "just math". But what those physicists have never even tried to understand, is the last 25% of the article, that deals with actual physical reality and not "just math"; beginning with the statement that "But it was the next step that seemed, depending on one's perspective, miraculous or inconceivable... the one Fano called "unknown, unthinkable," until Shannon thought it."

          The article continues: "Until Shannon, it was simply conventional wisdom that noise had to be endured. Shannon's promise of perfect accuracy was something radically new... it was this promise above all that made Shannon's theory "Copernican": Copernican in the sense that it... revolutionized our understanding of the world."

          This is what "quantization" is all about. It has nothing directly to do with the physical properties of space, time, matter or energy. It has to do with quantizing "Information" in order to enable perfect (error free) information recovery.

          As an analogy, think of the French Maginot Line during World War II. Instead of trying to push their way straight through that "problem", the Germans simply went around it. Shannon's "Copernican" discovery, was that there is no need whatsoever for attempting to push through the "measurement problem" and the limitations imposed by the Uncertainty Principle, because it is possible to simply go around it (by making discrete "decisions" about "Information" rather than continuous "measurements" of physical variables). "Mother Nature" also discovered this fact, eons before Shannon; and that is what put the "Quantum" in Physics, at the most fundamental level possible. This is what ultimately enables all "deterministic" behaviors to emerge from the chaos of all the unknown and non-perfectly measureable conditions, surrounding each and every entity in the cosmos. It is what enables entities to behave in the exact same manner, each and every time they happen to encounter the exact same (and perfect recoverable) "Information"; that is what "Determininism", such as Laplace conceived it, is all about. It does not happen by magic or some miraculous ability of entities to "just know", with absolute perfection, all the conditions that just happen to exist at their present location, in space and time.

          Rob McEachern

          Robert,

          Very succinctly stated. I especially applaud the last half of the last paragraph. We can model what we might imagine the physical reality to be but it will be due to like behavior to like conditions, and our observations limited to our criteria of what we choose to measure. best jrc

          Having spent most of my career in a telecommunications laboratory, I spent about half exploiting Shannon's work developing digital digital telephone exchanges. The second half exploiting Maxwell's and Shannon's work developing "smart antennas"leading to 5G, near field probing and low noise amplifier techniques, Adsl, Vdsl and fibre to the home. As a hobby I have authored or co authored several papers in international peer reviewed physics journals. All of these papers have exploited Maxwell as the arbiter of crucial experiments that underpin QM. Namely, the AB effect, uncertainty principle, the absurd photon, Stern Gerlach, Compton, EPR and entanglement etc. In my dotage I'm here peddling my wares. I'm trying to sell "local realism" and "causality" as precious commodities and I'm prepared to de-radicalize QM's, flat Earther's, water-diviner's, never landed on the mooner's, theist's and creationist's. Let's get back to the scientific method. A new renascence I guess you would call it. We are currently in a dark age, dark energy, dark matter black holes etc. Dark is code for total ignorance. I think It is probably a male thing to always proffer an answer rather than admit I don't know, no matter how absurd or illogical the answer. BTW I have solved that hoary old problem of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. New physics, new force and faster than light are very popular these days, there's a rumor that a very intelligent ant collapsed a wave function the other day, yes he peered into a box and killed a cat?

          End of rant, gee! I needed that, I'll be OK now.

          Barry

            Barry

            Yep. New force, same old problem.

            Hi Barry, we try all to respect this empirism and deterministic realism , and we are at a age where the unknowns are difficult to explain, it is mainly due to problems of scales and limitations. The philosophy and the ontology are essentials to consider , that permits to give ideas and roads for the experiments and mathematical extrapolations.

            I am curious Barry, what is for you the philosophical origin of the universe, why we exist and from What ? and what is for you the foundamental objects, are they points in the relativistic spacetime, or strings in 1D , or others ?

            What is also for you the Dark Matter, the Dark Energy, and this quantum gravitation for example? have you ideas respecting the local realism like tou tell ?

            Regards