How to Learn to Ask Good Questions in Physics by Johan Noldus

ahaha your credibility is finished due to your hate.....ps you are a comic and I eat you in live poor thinker.

100-5

Banned yes of course you think what that FQXi is as you, no my friend they are universal.And of course they are just.Viva el transparence no, even it that irritates you, the net is revolutionarry as my ideas.Ahahahah

Steve

who suffers due to my intelligence it's that, you become crazzy my friend.Wawww beauitiful heart.

Ps I have had a bankupcy due to this left politicians at the age of 27 thus of course I am laughing and more than you, be sure.

Well you haven't answer about what I meant above, thus still you are a pseudo.but you can evolve.

Banned no but frankly you are ironic,

Steve

120-5

still one thing pseudo scientist...FQXi is not psysics forum and advanced physics forum...there you can be banned when you critic,.......... here no !!! Thus of course we are going lo laugh my belgian friend.

hihihi ironic, ......I love this platform

you know FQXi has habit with me, I know the under review, and you know what, after they approve in general,thus of course you confound a little the platforms and the serious of these platforms....please respect FQXi.Or go on physics forum with a false name, here it's the real name ok.

no dear, not here and you know why because it's transparent.You are full of hate, and your uniersality is for me as a water drop compated with an ocean.

Some people have so many vanity that I just critic and of course after their only solution is the banned system.....but not here,fortunally.Thus of course let's continue without being deleted.But you repeat now always the same....you haven't nothing to say of more....you can speak about physics....but perhaps you prefer to loose your time for my banned hour.ahahah

Steve

ahahahah wawww a charlatan and a crank now and what after I am a people who likes monney, ahahaha erro dear pseudo I dislike several things dedicated to disappear in time space evolution, here is their names, monney, arms and weapons, frontiers and borders, stupidities and differences.......ahahah of course dear pseudo.

You are very bad fall with me you now,.....the love and the compassion are my sisters small thinker.Ahahah still more hate it's that and now you are going to say what after....

140-5 and still I am cool no?

my defaults are parano and a little babby in my characterial comportment, vanitious also but I am obliged in the sciences comunity..that's all, I have had some discussions here since these 2 years, sometimes I am parano with Ray or this and that but I like them , I like people.

You are very very ironic.

To you

Steve

Good luck he says me ahahah let's continue thus.

I have to translate the language that is so pretty, French. My work is practical and rational, with or without your approvement. The pursuit of truths and the truth is not a game, but a sincere and humble search to this universality and its increasing entropy. Your essay is for me a proud and poor impulse of inconsistencies. You should definitely restudy more subtly your surrounded rationalities. You can discriminate against me, say this and that about me, vilify on my personality. Know that it will not affect my works. You do not consider certain evidence . If you knew how childish these pseudo things are important to me. The shadows of casualness bog down the steps of the unconscious, such chasms without glow and fervor. It would be pointless to explain the color blue to someone seeing red.

To you

Steve

"I challenge you to find someone with a reputation who is of the opinion you are not a crank and is willing to say so here."

Well interesting, perhaps your friends but not everywhere in the world my belgian friend ahahah I challenge you to put a list here if you want.Ahehehe

ps I am persuaded that several rationalists, very intelligent have seen my theory, that's why my theory will be in the books for universities, yes indeed,with or without your approvement.It's as that whern a work is rational and serious and pragmatic , you kniow when I classed animals and vegetals or when I study my game at piano or when I write poems, always I am serious, thus of course frankly ....I am laughing really and even I am sad for you in the same time, because there you are really full of hate, not me.It's that the universality and the compassion of love. I will pray for you hihihi

To you,

Steve

ahahaha well I will publish my friend, I will publish. I just begin to create the Intyernational Humanistic Sciences Center and I am a very very bad administrator and management,thus it's difficult.Thus In fact I seach a kind of team,it's important the team and the complementarity. But I am a little parano thus of course I am waiting the good persons. In fact my works of classments and others are numerous as my inventions. Thus of course I must be rational and prudent for my society. Furthemore more my past problems in belgium with this bankrupcy, I have lost vegetals due to bad people.I understand my parano.

At my opinion, you have bad advices around you,....but let's continue

Vixra and arxiv are interestings , but of course a real occham razor is essential, I prefer the good books of thermo, QM,or maths.....the learning is all days , and the books are so important.You are very bad fall you know.

The sciences are universals and rationals. Your works no. Mine yes.the complexity returns to simplicity.

to you

Steve

ok well let's go for thermo now ask a question and I answer and after I ask and you answer ok.

Begin now

the entropy is maximum in all thing,at this Wall separating the unknown and the physicality but for that you must understand the concept of increase of entropy also because the mass polarises the light my firend.

Ps The entropy of a system is a function of the thermo coord ......between thermal states no but frankly

To me what is for you the form of an elementary particles, be short concrete and precise.

Ok you know what , you are a comic, restudy witht he help of Carnot the real meaning of S and its intergrations.The entropy and its increasing is not a play my friend.I haven't a program for maths but let's go for the principle of entropy. The mass the energy and the light are purelly linked with the rotating entangled spheres and their pure finite number and volumes. iT IS THIS FUSION DUE TO EVOLUTION which implies the increase.But I doubt you see this subtitles.don't forget S=const.ln omega.The real equilibrium against the disorders.If you see thye second law my friend ....and the Gibbs function .....THE SPINNING ROTATING SPHERES IN 3D EXPLAIN ALL .You shall see perhaps the fields of energy towards the Planck scale.

To you

Steve

the spheres and their pure rotations proportional with mass are purely linked with their volumes with the delta S if you intergrate with temperature and pression and cosnt....you shall see the quantization of mss and its correlated fields. But I doubt, really ....it's a little te same tha for ideal gas and delta S between rotating spheres.S=Cp lnT-nRlnP+So....if you now substituate correctly your differential equations, the serie of decreasing of volumes and incerasing of E correlated with mass, perhaps I shall more interested than at this moment.S=CvlnT+nRlnV+So.....

your credibility falls in live my friend with your ironical answers.You do not even understand the principle of entropy, in fact you are now in a bizare position.You haven't answers, thus always since several posts you say the same.

Aswer to mine for now me I HAVE ANSWERED YOU NO...in fact you don't know how are these elementary particles. I am nice I give you 3 choices a point, a string or a sphere.It's easy no and even you can post an other, but even that you haven't answer....

200-5 I am still nice, 5 point of bonus

200-10 I am cool no

Clausius and fermi shall laugh.Giibs Dirac also.Carnot, Joule Maxwell also...Lorentz will say you, my young thinker, be more rational, and nernst and Planck shall smile to your hates.As a quiet road relativistic of our Laws.Do you see the constants, irreversibilities and coherences of our foundamentals, I beleive that no unfortunally. Make a BEC with infinities if you want after all, it's not my problem hahaha

Steve

ahahah that's all...ahaha 250-10 return at school , a PhD you say , where in fact in a bar or what? Aahhah Well could you develop that ,pi exp 4=piexp4/5=8pi² SUM inf and n=1 1/n²-48SUMinf and n=11/nexp4 what is it ?YOU CAN BE HELPED BY FOURIERS ten second too late ahahah

a real comic about our foundamentals.You do not understand the universality of the entropy and its increasing of mass.You ponder a pseudo work of relativity and hidden variables.A real comedy for rationalists.They exist you know.

to you

Sorry but it's you the crank and in live furthermore, and the most impressing with a PhD. You can try to eat me but at this momment??heuh I will say 280-15 hahah still 5 point of bonus of hopes. ,you try to understand Van neuwman, you search a place at IBM or whathihihi you confound the computing and our reality and of course you do not really understand wht is the evolution at the quantum scale and at the universal scale.You can say what you want, your work is weak and with a kind of mix withs some ideas of others, but where are yours, answer anywhere, because you confound the informations as the infinities, in fact you try to explain the realitivity and you can't even relativate your weak work.The computing is a maths applications and if you want simulate correctly, please use our rational proportionalities if it's possible.You think what that Van neuwman has invented irrationalities, it's that.No dear.

Ps thanks for the pharmacy, indeed I take meds, it's essentyial for my health,thus of course we see still your hate and your real heart, we are in total transparence here you know, we aren't on physics forum. At my humble opinion, your place is on physics forum or others,there you can make what you want and this and that, not here.You think what that FQXi is not rational and it doesn't exist real scientists.No but frankly, wake up , we aren't in a bar of Gent you know, we are on the first international transparent universal sciences platform.....

To you ,always without answer about our particles, elementaries and their informations apparently. I know they are superstrings no and a binar code, let's me laugh,it's that your derivations, wawww viva el continuity and the determinism.I am persuaded you like the violations of bells and even you like the paradoxs without answer.Hidden variables , some magic informations also no??

Steve

I have taken my meds,thanks it's nice I am better now wawww impressing, you are a poet or what, or no I know a musician and you like led zep, a pseudo revolutionarry yes,me no I am not a pseudo and all I I said is true, but perhaps you don't like my passions, sciences, piano, writings,guitar, ...ahahaha it's your ideas which are garbages as your small mind.But let's continue in live and total international transparence. he is from Mensa now, pay attention dear all he is the master of conferences at mensa gent association,waww impressing your spirituality and universality. and of course you are better than all people also,I haven't my PhD it's true due to many problems but in all humility I understand somethings you don't understand, you are very bad fall here on FQXi ,you shall see,in fact my dear belgian friend, we are all uniques, precious, and equals, with or without your approvement. Here we are numerous who have a high QI, that is not the question, each person has qualities and defaulst.You aren't rational.And frankly that begins our discussions in live you know, me that doesn't irritate me you know.It's a play for me due to your hate now.

Ps my theory is logic , rational and all foundamentalists shall agree, our universe is a sphere and our quantum particules are entangled spheres.This gauge is evident, you think what that the universe is infinite or what, and our particules points , that has no sense in a general point of vue respecting the rotations also.It was logic and one day we shall see the truth, so simple and we shall say all oh my god how it was possible to have not seen that before...don't forget my words , 3D riotating spheres proportional with mass....and the universal gauge.The circles, the spheres, the spheroids, the ellipsoids,the tori.....all is in this logic of spherization by quantum spheres on spheres inside a sphere, return really at school dear belgian scientists.

Steve

no I dislike the extradimensiosn and my model is purely realistic and deterministic and in 3 dimensions, don't confound with pseudo similarities, tha mass dear the mass.I eat you in live and without a PhD wawww a bachelor you say, let's me say that perhaps your parents have paid the teachers because frankly with your hidden variables....learn the foundamentals or I don't know me go to a better university if you dislike the good books.

Ps it exists bad people who doesn't like my works, the systems of my region permitted me to relativate and now I know that in gent also. That won't change my life you know(I am without nothing and my health is tired as the health of my mother), I have already lost all, thus perhaps you want what after, my life also no.You are a pseudo searcher of truth, you are vanitious, and without real understanding of our universe in evolution, harmonious furthermore.You are lost in your own line of reasoning.The circles and the spheres are foundamentals and it doesn't exist extradimensions with lie or this or that or a string here or this or that,,,,,no my work is about the classment of mass, and the best explaination of mass is instrinsic in its codes, here the rotations orbitals and spinals of the entanglement, the sphere is the only and the best form for all universal correlations. Thee xtradimensions are a wind for me, a pure joke as your weak work.In fact you must study before pondering so many stupidities.I doubt you understand the rule of the universal polarization of evolution...but it is just a suggestion of course from a person without his PhD.

Still ione thing I am parano ok, but I am not against all ideas, where have you seen that??? I critic simply the stupidities.It's essential at my humble opinion.

Ps2 your zillions of arguments shan't change the universe to be a sphere you know as the planets, the moons, the stars, the BH...even a fruit is spheroidal and the flowers also, you think what .....I observe, I shut up , I contemplate,I calculate, I recontemplate,I reobserve, I reshut up, I analyze, I calculate and I make rational and general conclusions and I rebegin to contemplate.....

Cheers

Steve

Hi all,

It's interesting your point of vue dear Fredrik, these hidden variables are just a false road. The strings are al a false road. The problem is in fact the lack of pure correlations with the pure objective reality.The maths are a tool, which helps to see and proof the physicality and its properties. The universal logic inside this universal doamin and its laws is rational in the quantum scale and in the cosmological scale.Relativelly speaking with the evolution and the increase of entropy. The determinism is a road important showing the real proportionalities in their pure rotations and motions. If we are still far of our walls, there is a reason due to evolution, the hidden vaiables are just different scales in 3 dimensions and the laws rest universal.It's the real sense of entropy and its max in all things at these walls.The violations of Bells .......see Zeilinger and Christian about the rationalism of our axiomatization towards the real series. The universe rests logic and rational at all scales in 3D .....

It's always the same problem about Copenaghen and on the otehr side, the parodoxs due to a bad understanding of the relativity,general and special.

Just a thought

Steve

Johan

I hadn't noticed your essay until now. I had missed a brilliant analysis (expect to see your position improve!) I believe it conceptually goes to the heart of the issue in more than one way. As much seems to be setting up my own essay I can hardly think differently!

In particular; "a new way of treating interactions" I believe is very incisive, and I hope you will consider reading my essay which I beleive proves you correct. And even more pertinent;

"Einstein's formulation in terms of the field equations is a truely local one and suggests more a boundary value point of view rather than an initial value perspective. The manifold is not fixed at all in this picture and may be seen as an evolving entity by pasting together local coordinate patches."

(It's the pasting that's the secret). ..And too many others to quote.

But mine is a physical 'coalface' theory based on logic and evidence without mathematical abstraction, no moving points or lines to invalidate geometry, Bell and Lorentz validity are tamed, and it has high predictive power and falsifiability. (2020 Vision...).

Do please read it if you can and give me your honest views. It will test your conceptual powers to picture and manipulate multiple dynamic variables and observer frames, but I think you are better equipped than most.

Very best wishes, and good luck.

Peter

Dear Johan,

Yours is perhaps the most 'dense' essay in the contest, in terms the concepts you cover and the depth of treatment. I am trying to read as many essays as possible, but after this contest closes I may try to read your new book.

In an above comment you make several very interesting points: "classical gravity is a theory of hidden variables; likewise is classical Maxwell theory." I do not understand your meaning but would like to.

You also state: "nobody knows what information is...". This is a point that I have made several times in these threads. There are certainly some who seem to think they know what it is.

I also agree with you that "the universe is holistic and identities are emergent, not fundamental at all." My essay develops this theme.

And you say, "consciousness is a hidden variable which has no materialistic interpretation." My previous essay was an unorthodox treatment of consciousness, not unrelated to my current essay.

I like that you "started out by questioning those reasons to abandon the continuum, but ... have also offered deep reasons FOR the continuum."

And finally, "Alas, 10 pages do not allow me to explain all this in sufficient detail." Amen.

At this point, there is too much in your essay for me to digest and comment on specifically, but I do believe that we agree on the major issues of continuity and locality.

Johan, your level of treatment is such that I almost hesitate to ask you to read my essay, but I would appreciate feedback from you. I use the ten pages for an overview at a much lower level of mathematical sophistication than you use, but my goal is to try to convey a physical picture, to develop physical intuition and explanatory power, not deepest abstract representation. Some participants who are extremely wrapped up in symmetries do not appreciate my view, but I would nevertheless hope you will find time to look at my essay and provide your opinion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Johan Noldus

Your work is probably very mathematically demanding, similarly as all quantum gravity. So, before I will deepen in it, I please you for one answer. What is your position about Zeilinger, Brukner, Feynman, Weizscaker... that finite volume carries only finite information? And what is your position about connection between continuity and information?

I have also two articles. The first one is speculative and the second one is not:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf

I claims that special relativity is enough to claim, that space does not exist without matter. We do not need General covariance.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v3.pdf

Any comment will be useful.

As you can see, it follows a model that elementary particle is a superposition of zero mass and planck's mass.

Best regards

p.s.

I was in Gent university in 2008 in conference about magnetic materials. Is this your building?

Dear Janko,

The question is what you mean by finite volume, volume of what?? If you would tell me that a finite region in space-time as a 4 dimensional manifold has only a finite information content, then I would say no. This is just like Plato's cave where we can see fairly elementary shadows but the reality behind them could very well be infinite. Furthermore, I feel very uncomfortable about the word information because I have not really a good idea how to define it in a canonical way; perhaps you care to elaborate on your own words?

Your words about mass baffle me because mass is usually thought of as a quantum number and not an observable; this actually follows from representation theory of the universal cover of the Poincare group. One can only superpose particles of equal mass to obtain another ''particle'' with ill defined energy-momentum / mass relationship. So, if you want to create particles of new mass you have to compose them instead of superpose them.

Kind regards,

Johan

Dear Johan

Maybe I cannot ask properly. My question is what you think about Zeilinger views? One example of his reference is

Brukner Caslav and Zeilinger Anton 2003 Information and Fundamental Elements of the Structure of Quantum Theory Time, Quantum, Information ed L Castell and O Ischebeck (Berlin, Springer) p 323 preprint quant-ph/0212084

But it seems to me that you have a different view. But it is not a problem. I have also different views as mainstream ones.

I will think about your words. But if you will have time, I please for some words about article:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v3.pdf

It is conservative, but it is a foundations for speculative articles.

Regards Janko

Dear Janko,

I do not know Zeilinger's views, I have only heard that indeed he proposes such finite information theory like you mentioned. However, just reading the abstract makes me already feel uncomfortable; when he states that there is a difference between saying what the world is and what we can say about nature. There is no distinction between these two sentences at all, it depends all upon what we mean with to be and we. All quantum physics says is that the states are, it is just never specified with respect to what or who these states are. That this must be with respect to something is clear, otherwise the theory would have no interpretation. Now, the only problem with this view is that you could utter that if you change observer the Hilbert spaces might not be equivalent; I know a way out of that and it is all in my book.

The same thing is true for the point particles in classical theories and for space-time in relativity. The quantum revolution was that what is, is not what we see and moreover, what we perceive as local is nonlocal. So quantum mechanics is a very holistic theory and Einstein and Mach should have been happy about it. What quantum field theory teaches us is that there are no elementary constituents of nature of finite extend; all pure momentum particles are nonlocal and those happen to be the natural states for the quantum Hamiltonian. Just too many people do not want to understand this fact and it is too bad. If I have time tonight, I will look at the paper.

Kind regards,

Johan

This unclear sentence bother me also. But, I understand it, that it is more 'political'. My translation is: What you measure is what exist, or something still more precisely said.

Regards

Dear Janko,

I did not have the time to study this paper but let me give you the following thoughts on what you say. By what physical principle do you define the information density? How would you ''tensor'' the information associated to the different questions ? How many letter should a question have? In what language is it written? For example if the limit were 11, then I could ask the question: ''do you love me?'' in English but not in German. Furthermore a question requires a dictionary, so the whole information gathered in the past should be available to you in this region no matter how small it is. For example English would be the standard language and I would say, in Timbuqtoe, ''lala li?'' suppose now ''lala li'' is by accident a sentence of 100.000 lines in English, would you then say that a few bits contain 100.000 other bits? So I ask you what is information ? Information is attached to meaning, words have meaning and nobody can define what that is. If I think about love, immediately I perceive, sex, body, girl, breasts, legs, feet, brain, nose, face,... and so on my experience of the world love is more than just 5 bits.

I have learned from relativity that everything you can ask about nature is dynamical and likewise it should be for the information content in a finite region, where information is expressed in your favorite language. if this attitude is correct then the potential information available in a region should be infinite.

Cheers,

Johan

So, it it seem Herrn Zeilinger has his own reality which is that the world is about yes and no questions you can ask. Moreover, he puts in by hand that in a finite spacetime-volume only a finite number of ''pointer-questions'' exist. This is realism of the old school and goes straight in the face of quantum mechanics in many ways. Let me just mention a few ... how to combine the questions ? I mean an ordinary tensor product is not realistic, perhaps these innocent pointer questions do automatically generate an infinite dimensional algebra which does not have a finite dimensional representation? For example a Von Neumann algebra of type II or III? There are many people who have written about the inadequacy of the ordinary tensor product for quantum gravity. Furthermore, why not letting the dynamics decide about what happens at the Planck scale ? This reminds me of a kind of Van der Waals type of calculation where you simply replace atoms by hard balls of say 10^{-10} meters diameter. By now, we have a very different view on ''atoms'', we actually know that they are retrieved from a continuum formalism and that what we perceive as an atom depends upon the way we look. Also, in the quantum formalism, we have a complete freedom of asking any questions we like; and we know that these questions are grounded in an infinite dimensional space. It has to be, because of the Heisenberg commutation relations. Now, of course, you may think about tampering with those by hand. But that is not how good physics works. Good physics starts from principles about the vacuum and you are free to derive all the mathematical consequences of that.

Kind regards,

Johan