Is Causality Fundamental?

Hi John, it is this planck constant and the fact to consider only these photons wich has created this philosophical prison with the strings added,that implies that all they consider now that the frequences, vibrations oscillations of photons are the only one piece to understand the matter energy tranformations and the energies, that is why they have inserted the geometrical algebras , if my equation is correct, we must add several things and not only this , so the aim is not to unify G c and h only

Of course this constant and the frequences are essential for our electromagnetism and for the photoemectric effect, we measure these effects due to fact that we can only measure these photons and their properties, but if we measure beyond our actual logic, we have probably the two other energies to consider , probably in considering observations different and also in going farer in our scales for the main codes of this DE , for the DM the cold probably balancing is the answer. The actions in fact must be considered with a superimposed different reasoning added. That implies so a constant correlated also for this DM, and an other for this DE and all is balanced together under a gravitational logic. The electromagnetism so is emergent and the gravitation is the main chief orchestra simply, it is an opposite general reasoning in fact.The problem is that it is not easy to observe, measure and check them, because it is not relativistic.

Hi.

It was Dirac that told about his Sea,not Planck, what I know about.

There are models describing electrons surfing the edge of this Sea, together with light and other massless particles, like the presumed graviton, neutrinos etc.

Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda etchas done great work with this. But it is indeed odd that gravitons does not give an action principle,other than the weight impact on mass and the supposed curvature of geodesics. We still are a bit unsure what really is the inertia principle at its heart, etc. Together with Jerry Decker, publ. at vixra, I have discussed these things a bit.

Now a stochastic Seais coded in bytes too, like a computer. It is information,but how is it explained in physical terms? It cannot possibly be entropy, because it is a classical outcome from just Plancks constant. Von Neumann had something about a quantum thermodynamics, but there should be other models? Does anybody know about it?

I think it should be something holographic. Also the Dirac Sea must be chaos then and the quantum model we use must start from chaos. It is hard to unify with detrerministic thinking? We need non-deterministic models?

Regards. Ulla Mattfolk

Barry, and others,

along this line of reasoning, Constantinos Ragazas essay 'A World Without Quanta' was his entry in the Essay Contest - 'Is Reality Digital or Analog?' (2010-2011).

Good mathematically supported argument. jrc

Hello Ulla, happy to see you again on FQXi,

Dear John, Steve, Ulla.

Planck preceded Dirac by about 20 years, with his second quantization paper or, presentation. I will start with a Scientific American article (SA) before they went to pop science. Please pay attention to the highlights in the SA article

https://jumpshare.com/v/Fj0809OpYJdnq8CgYBtY

The discussion on Planck's work To be continued.

Regards All

Barry

Thanks.

I have noted the classical Plancks constant earlier. Then nobody was interested in it.... Note that at Plancks time we had no quantum physics.

Here the link to discussions.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Decker

I will read the article later./Ulla.

John said

I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein. I would appreciate some references of select reading. Does this go to Planck's 'pre-loaded' hypothesis? And did Planck argue an inherent causality.

Reply

If you go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Second_quantum_theory

You will find Planck comes up with the notion that we now know as "zero point radiation", I have not heard of the "pre-loaded" hypothesis in the old literature, but Eric Rieter refers to it. I suspect that that the "pre loaded" hypothesis, and zero point radiation have morphed over time to be the same.

Note, Einstein states, Planck's zero point radiation is as dead as a door nail early in the article. "Zero point", whether real or virtual, is considered crucial in modern physics.

Regards

Barry

Dear all.

My observations have lead me to the notion that people can be roughly divided into three camps:

#1. Practical, hands on realists, seeing is believing and tend to be boring although handy in a crisis (your car breaks down).

#2. Don't know, don't care, wont commit, follow the crowd.

#3. Love Disney land, conspiracy theories, supernatural stuff, astrology, Theism, and the wonderful, mystical world of Quantum mechanics, abstract mathematics and beauty of paradox's It physics. Oh! did I forget Aliens and ghosts!

There are overlaps in these camps as the boundaries are soft. These camps extend or apply to physics and physicists. If you combine this with "Paradigm inertia", then you have the present "crisis in physics"!

What crisis you say? There is confusion between the wonderful advances in ENGINEERING technology, say: optical fibres, the internet, lasers, cellphones, space travel, jumbo jets etc.

Much of this advancement is commonly attributed to modern physics and QM. I beg to differ, the field effect transistor (FET), the most important advance in technology since the wheel, was patented in 1926, and not by a QM. The inventor of the laser, H R Townes, was told by Niels Bohr that it could not possibly work because of the uncertainty principle.

Why did Feynman say this: "From a long view of the history of mankind, seen from, say, ten thousand years from now, there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as聽Maxwell's聽discovery of the laws of electrodynamics." how could he get it so wrong, Maxwell is all but forgotten, he is certainly ignored by the current generation.

My thought's for comment.

Barry

What is the reason for the existence of the universe?

The only exact answer, in my opinion, is the life of the universe.

According to the New Unity Physics, the universe is defined as a living being that on Earth resembles an angiosperm plant. This plant is from the seventh level of circulation in the universe.

Each galaxy or constellation is also the same angiosperm Galactic or Constellation Plant. The Galactic Plant is of the sixth level, and the Constellation Plant is of the fifth level of circularity in the universe.

Different areas of space are different Galactic or Constellation Plant.

Each plant is a biological living matter.

There is no physical definition of biological living matter yet. But one of the necessary conditions for a matter to be alive is to have gravity.

Is the existence of the universe a cause, or is it a consequence?

The existence of the universe is defined as a single cyclical process. In this cycle, one passes into another continuously.

This is the cycle of life of the universe. This cycle can generally be expressed this way:

The four bison convert dark matter and dark energy of the first kind into familiar matter and energy.

During the existence of the universe, matter is converted into energy, and energy is converted into matter.

At the end of the universe, matter and energy are converted into first-kind dark matter and dark energy.

What is causation in the universe?

Causation is organized in nine different levels of circulation.

At the beginning of each level begins from the created matter at the front level. At the end of the level created so far, matter forms biological living matter, which in turn creates the necessary matter to build the next level of circularity. This is a model of the most economical, self-regulating, stable, and securely functioning way of creating matter in the universe.

This model cannot be "copied" when creating Al.

What is Al? Al is made of non-living matter. For this non-living matter, a program has been created under which Al performs certain actions. This program cannot foresee the modification of the environment, which is living matter. These changes depend on the dark energy of the first species, which creates the conditions for the corresponding change.

How is the question of mathematical models of causation necessary for the developer to decide on complex medical treatments and dosages of drugs?

The approach of thinking about such Al is inaccurate. This can be done without a mathematical model. It is only necessary to make an analog "device" that measures the space-time continuum of the person for which the drugs are. This device uses the nature model with which the universe was created, and the answer is simple, instant and 100% sure.

This isn't about Minkowski's space-time. It's a space-time continuum of Hawkings. This continuum is a factor.

The analog device measures the patient's space-time continuum, which is one number. Then the patient takes in his hand, for example, a pill. The space-time continuum is changing. Depending on the modification of the continuum, a quick and correct decision is made. For each patient, there is a different pill and a different amount that is easily analyzed and established.

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.

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.