Science topics: Physics
Science topic

Physics - Science topic

Physics related research discussions
Questions related to Physics
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
8 answers
It is extremely hard to parse across disciplines for this information- so have you encountered any anomalies or inconsistencies in SR in your field/research?
Relevant answer
Answer
Today is A. Einstein's birthday. The sooner the fallacy of the theory of relativity is recognized, the better it will be for this remarkable scientist. Let's not forget that he received the Nobel Prize NOT FOR the theory of relativity (in this case, the Nobel Committee showed amazing foresight).
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
11 answers
In the last two days, headlines have been buzzing about Google's unveiling of a "mind-boggling" quantum computing chip—a supposed leap into the future of technology. 🌌 But here's the hard truth: this entire field might be built on a fundamentally flawed foundation. 🔍 My research (DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633) reveals that the Schrödinger Equation, the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, is inherently unfit to describe the correct motion and state of quantum particles in their entirety. While it may work under controlled or specific conditions, it cannot define quantum particle mechanics universally. If the very basis of quantum mechanics is incorrect, how can quantum computing—which relies on these principles—ever succeed? 💡 Quantum computing is, by design, attempting to solve problems using flawed science. Billions of dollars, decades of research, and the world’s brightest minds are pouring resources into something that is fundamentally broken. This is science’s biggest illusion—a dream sold as progress but rooted in a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics' true limitations. 🌟 Instead of chasing illusions, it’s time to redirect our efforts and resources toward areas grounded in reality, such as improving classical computing or exploring new scientific paradigms that align with solid fundamentals. Let’s not let this “quantum rush” distract us from what truly matters. 🤔 This is the right time to pause, reflect, and choose a better path—one that doesn’t invest in an area that is doomed at its core but instead prioritizes technologies with true potential. Let’s spark the debate: Is quantum computing science's biggest scam? Share your thoughts below! 👇 #QuantumComputing #QuantumMechanics #SchrödingerEquation #ScienceDebate #Innovation #FutureTech
Relevant answer
Answer
Microsoft quantum computing 'breakthrough' faces fresh challenge
Analysis pokes holes in protocol that underpins Microsoft’s claim to have created the first topological qubits...
"A physicist has cast doubt on a test that underlies a high-profile claim by Microsoft to have created the first ‘topological qubits’, a long-sought goal of the company’s quantum computing effort. The critique comes amid mounting speculation about the validity of Microsoft’s claim..."
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
I have had my invitation to this world's festival - sings an excellent poet. It was my part at this feast to play upon my instrument, and I have done all I could - says the poet. Now, I ask, has the time come when I may go in and see thy face?
I love that poet, his profound emotions and excellent narration. But I have always been perplexed, and often irritated, by the yearning of passionate souls to "see" the unimaginable "face" of the nonexistent Somebody.
What do passionate and often confused souls yearn to see? There is no Person, Reason or Will to be "seen" behind and beyond the process we call the universe.
People yearn for something greater than they can understand or imagine. But there is no such Supreme Being or "face". There is a boundless emptiness in ceaseless motion, called the universe, and there are ephemeral consciousnesses. And there is no basis for the expectation that there is anything beyond that.
But people yearn for something they can admire and worship, and that will "save" and "liberate" them. Unfortunately, yearning does not produce objective reality. But it may change subjective state of many people, and this is what matters to them.
Relevant answer
Answer
Discoure is shaped by emotions - by anxiety and yearning, as I often say - more than by knowledge. This is understandable, because emotions are what really matters.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
8 answers
I need to find support prior to submission because the journal editors are sabotaging my paper’s chances by refusing to even do a peer review of what is a perfect qualified and rigorous paper.
They dishonestly bypass the quality control that would have my controversial paper published.
I need a professor of physics with the balls to kick the ass of the system into the next epoch in the name of science.
My paper Angular Energy shows that fundamentals need to be overturned.
The paper has never been genuinely shown to contain any error, because I have honed it to perfection over years of unforeseen and unfortunately hostile debate, by listening to everything.
The only thing it needs is to be published in a peer reviewed journal in order to be taken seriously and it must be taken seriously.
Relevant answer
Answer
That you for the suggestion.
I am already online here with my papers, so what would be the advantage?
I have to get published in a peer reviewed journal because otherwise nobody takes my work seriously.
This is not about being published for personal or career reasons. I am not even an academic and care not about having any publications.
This is about the importance of what I have discovered.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
I’m fascinated by the level of intelligence and creativity I see on this website every day: Can you think of any examples from your life that you feel comfortable to share about your breakthrough moments of understanding?
Relevant answer
Answer
Breakthrough moments are the turning points that reshape our understanding, not just in science, but in every facet of human knowledge.
For me, the ultimate realisation came when I uncovered the ‘truth of the truths’—a moment where everything, from physics to metaphysics, from quantum mechanics to cosmic mysteries, aligned into one grand, unified understanding. The key to unlocking that moment? The ability to question everything, including the foundations we take for granted.
Science progresses not by accepting what is known, but by daring to see what has been overlooked. Einstein’s relativity was born when he questioned Newtonian absolutes. Bohr’s quantum mechanics emerged when he challenged classical determinism. And today, we stand at the edge of another revolution—one that demands we rethink dark matter, dark energy, and even the very fabric of existence itself.
Breakthroughs come when we silence the noise of established dogma and listen to the whisper of intuition, logic, and evidence. They arrive when the mind lets go of preconceived boundaries and sees knowledge as an interconnected whole, not a fragmented puzzle.
So, what is the real key? Relentless curiosity, fearless questioning, and the courage to embrace an idea that may change everything. That’s when the light bulb doesn’t just flicker—it explodes into brilliance.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
58 answers
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve
(Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough in EPR)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUNDATIONS AGAIN (3 paragraphs)
In the first few short paragraphs we occupy ourselves with something already discussed before. If anything must exist, it must be something non-vacuous. Think of energy waves, termed variously as particles, waves, and their mixture namely wavicles. I use the theoretically more comprehensive ‘wavicles’. Are they only a pure mathematical stuff without any physical stuff within? I hope No!
In that case, even energy wavicles possess (1) some non-vacuity, i.e., Extension, which means possessing parts, and (2) some ability to cause impact, i.e., Change, from within their non-vacuous extended nature. Non-vacuity, it partially indicates existence, is not anything that mathematics can directly represent in the wavicles – for this, it needs primarily the notions of space (and time) and measurement. Nor can mathematics directly represent impact-formation as the only other universal nature of existents – for this, it needs the notion of time (and space) and measurement. Space and time are the quantity (measure) of Extension and Change respectively.
We can understand Extension as a direct ontological notion derivative from existence, but why Change, and not motion? Why is motion only derivative from Change? Section 2 responds to this question, and then Section 3 applies the result from Section 2 in the case of the EPR paradox.
2. SPECIFIC MOTION AND INNER MOTIONS IN ENTANGLED EPR WAVICLES? Let us keep the mind open!
A unit Change consists of the transition within a unit Process from the antecedent existent and the consequent existent. So, a unit Change is not merely a certain kind of motion. A transition is not merely a motion. Again, a unit Change is not a unit Process but consists of the transition within a unit Process, in which the antecedent part (cause) causes an effect on the consequent part (effect). A unit Process already involves many types and units of motion.
Causality consists in the relation between the cause and the effect. A unit causation is the minimum act of realization of a unit Process. That is, a causal unit is both the cause and effect together. The involvement of a transition, not merely of a motion, is why it is difficult to quantify a unit of Causal Process using mathematics. This will be clearer towards the end of this section.
Space is the epistemic aspect of Extension. Motion is the quantitative aspect of physical existents that is representable and, in each case, processed as the measure of a certain sort of motion, by using mathematics epistemically in terms of a certain spatially tripartite kind of displacement at the level of the kind of motion considered. All other, projected, more than three, superstring dimensions should be taken as curled in within the three, because the extra dimensions are all certain manipulation results of the original three. Time is not being multiplied in this manner, and it is just the unique epistemic, quantitative, aspect of Change.
The motion of any specific kind is merely an aspect of Change. Change involves transitions, using which we cannot mathematically manipulate existent wavicles in their constant inner happenings. The inner happenings too are motions, but are not representable as such within a given treatment of motion. One may use momentum, mass, etc., but these too do not represent the unit transition that a unit Causal Process yields.
We cannot generalize and say that everything is motion. This does not serve physics, because in physics all sorts of inner motions of a moving wavicle cannot mathematically be considered simultaneously. Moreover, a unit of Change is not equal to a unit motion of any kind, but instead, a causal unit Process involving an ontologically defined state transition. Change alone does not define a unit Process. Extension-Change together define a unit Process as a Causal unit. This is to be noted well here.
That is, in the case of quasi-unobservable but proved-to-be existent wavicles (termed unobservables in order to distinguish them from direct observables), Change involves existent wavicles with some motion and the ability to cause some motion, each of which has further parts, these parts too are in motion, and they too possess the ability to cause motion, etc. ad libitum.
[But if any physicist now prefers to take a wavicle (say, a photon, a neutrino, a graviton) as indivisible, or merely as energy quantity without physical extension, or as a vacuous stuff, I shall keep a distance from him/her, because I should fear being heckled! Moreover, I do not prefer to entertain questions like: Why to bother so much with conceptual complications, man? Do you not know that doing physics does not mean this sort of “philosophical” talk?]
The difference between motion and Change is as follows. One (kind of) motion is just one instance of motion irrespective of the fact that its inner parts also undergo and at the same time effect other motions outwards. But Change is that state of existents in which every existent involves not merely one sort of motion but ever more minute (inner and inwards) or broader (from outside and outwards) sort of motions with respect to any one existent with whatever overall size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc., and involves a transition in each unit Change.
Size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc. are all bound by conventional scales and comparison with other similar quantities from within a physical context, engendering an epistemic context which too is based on an epistemic context of physical processes which in turn are based on these same quantities. Hence, these quantities cannot involve the whole transition of an entity that the concept of Change can represent. Hence, Change, as one of the two highest implications of To Be and hence as one of the physical-ontological Categories along with Extension, cannot be substituted by the concept of motion or any other quantity.
Now the following question may be addressed and answered with sufficient rational justification: If the above is the inevitable case with respect to existents, why should energy-transmitting wavicles like photons, neutrinos, and gravitons yield (1) an infinity of mass at any specific state of motion as in the case of the velocity of any emission, when this velocity is compared in its motion with the velocity of light as the former approaches the latter in value, (2) any kind of comparative lack of motion as in the case of relative inertia, which is based on a quantitative comparison determined by imperfect and contextual measurements, or (3) create non-locality of influence (or lack of influence) in the EPR experiment, when two previously entangled wavicles with energy-content are made to move from each other at a comparative mutual total of the velocity of light or more, in such a way that the luminal-velocity-based reasoning shatters mutual causal influence and creates absolute miracles everywhere in the cosmos?
It is known that such infinities (and the connected zeros) at comparisons of two motions are not actual cases, because any existent has inner motions ad libitum and outer motions ad libitum, and none of these yields an infinity or zero because the infinite number of motions within any given unit Process or within parts thereof can only have the involvement of the infinite number of ever smaller, near-infinitesimal, transitions available in Change. These can never reach infinity but a finitude in total value. I think this explanation should justify the fact that we do not find any infinite or zero velocity, mass, energy, etc. in any existent observable or unobservable.
To explain further, the most important matter to be kept in mind here is that the inner motions of any wavicle, resulting from within and from outside, are not infinite in cumulative measure at any given time – but we should insist here that the sort of addition to be considered is not that of “infinite times finite quantities” as wrongly thought in the case of Zeno’s paradox, but instead, a finite totality of “infinite number of ever smaller near-infinitesimal quantities”. This is what characterizes physical existents and their parts in the cosmos, both of those that are termed matter and of those that are called energy.
In that case, there should be in physics a different manner of comparing motion, absolute inertia, and relative inertia of two bodies with each other, wherever physics uses a specific criterial velocity in order to compare itself with a smaller velocity under inquiry / under experiment. This is where physics could de-absolute the velocity of light with respect to its applicability to all the parts of the cosmos (which may even be an infinite-content ordering of infinite number of finite-content universes).
There are all the possibilities of infinities and zeros only in the mutual comparison of motion / velocities, and not when physical processes are considered in themselves. Hence, a spectrum of values of criterial velocities may be mooted for the various parts of the cosmos, where the velocities being compared with the criterial velocity can still be less than the criterial velocity used for comparison. This is all that physics can at the most possess in order to broaden the concept of quantity in physics and make it better adapted to deal with the physical-ontological concept of Change. In themselves physical existents have Change, which inevitably involves the totality of the many inner, inward, and outward motions.
A naive question in this context: Is anything in itself in motion, relative inertia, or absolute inertia? Naturally, anything is in finite motion of some kind within itself and at comparison with others. It is in a specific relative motion or inertia only in comparison with another motion or other motions. But there is no absolute inertia.
Any specific measurable or measured motion is not the exact (or only) thing that happens in an existent being. It has Change, i.e., all its parts are completely in motion – but in finite motion – which, as I said earlier, does not add up to an infinity of motion. Firstly, no instrument can measure anything exactly as it is, because at any given moment there are so many inner causal influences of causation within each entity and hence the exactness of the quantity does not have any justification with respect to any fixed point of time however minute. Secondly, by the time a measurement is performed, other minute influences have altered the quantity. Hence, no measured quantity can be exact.
Change is not any specific motion, but instead, a transition of many minute motions, and hence cannot be used in and by physics measurementally. It is a physical-ontological quality of all existents. This is why physics has been ignoring the physical-ontological status of Change. Change is in fact the ontological fact of all existents in that each element of existents has an infinite number of ever more minute causal influences acting upon it from within and without. This is the transitioning that Change is.
Motion and inertia are only two measurementally integral aspects of Change, wherein motion is a notion that needs mensuration and measurability, and hence can only be considered at one quantity of motion at a time. For this, the epistemic notions of space and time are necessary in physics. But this does not mean that this suffices for physics, because physics studies existent material beings in their motion; and existence, material, energy, etc. are not strictly and primarily physical but physical-ontological notions. Integrally taken, Change is whatever in fact happens in existents in all their parts, including in energy particles / wavicles.
Now one may attempt (1) to substitute Change with the notion of transition, i.e., motions within motions within… or (2) to substitute it with notions like momentum, mass, etc. The first is possible, but it is better to use the term ‘Change’ rather than an involving stretch of words. But none of the notions in (2) can substitute Change, because, as you may observe, they can augment the understanding of each other, and only augment the understanding of the concepts of motion, Change, etc., and not substitute the notion of Change.
The self-evident reason for this claim is that even momentum, mass, etc. are just quantitative notions composed of many (i.e., conglomerations of) quantitatively qualitative universals. Change is not a quantity, but a pure, qualitative, ontological universal not directly meaning epistemically determined quantities. I purposely call notions mentioned above, other than Change, as measuremental. This is in order to avoid the sense that quantity is some sort of a substitute for existent physical processes.
Quantity is an epistemic notion, and hence based on connotative universals and expressed in denotative universals. Change is a purely ontological universal. (For a simple clarification on ontological, connotative, and denotative universals, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers; for more information, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text)
Mathematical objects as quantitative qualities too are connotatively epistemic objects represented by denotative universals, and do not exist in terms of the belongingness of ontological universals to existents. (For more clarity on this, see the following discussions: (1) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency, (2) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation, and (3) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Are_Numbers_and_Shapes_and_Their_Structures_Considered_by_Many_as_Exact)
If motion is a matter of spatial and temporal measurements, then it can be treated in terms of epistemic procedures in physics. Space-time measurements are the only way for this. But Change, as the concept of motions within motions within motions…, is the precondition behind all motion. These are not generalizable again under the notion of motion-in-general, because this would only be represented mathematically by one type of motion at a time, and not a conglomeration of motions within motions within….
Change does not remain alone. Change is always co-implied by Extension, and of the latter too we have only epistemic measurements in physics, not ontological “quantities”. Clearly, Change is not motion; instead, it denotes an extended object, all the parts of which are in motion by way of impact-formation. Hence, Extension and Change are the fundamental, physical-ontological, universals of all physical existents.
This, in my opinion, is a better way to make the cosmos and eventually Reality-in-total dynamic – rather than creating directly a holistic philosophy for the sake of the attractiveness of holism, where notions like dynamism, interdependence, relationality, coherence, etc. are brought up without the necessary foundational justification.
Let us, therefore, agree that Change is the inevitable ontological precondition behind all motion and that Extension and Change are the fundamental, mutually requiring, physical-ontological, universals of all existents in Reality-in-total and is exhaustive of the notion of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Think of the various neo-Vedāntic, neo-Buddhistic, and nature-religion type, new age religions and their philosophies like those of Rudolf Steiner, Osho, Dalai Lama, etc. For neo-Vedānta, quantum physics is close to their heart because it “proves” Vedāntic non-dualism! Their meditation practices and their wisdom are wonderful, but not their physico-philosophical holisms, because they are oriented to good feelings, metaphysical or anti-metaphysical conclusions based on good feelings, and are not based on equally physically and cosmologically acceptable philosophical detail.
On the other hand, we have philosophers and philosopher-scientists like Henri Bergson (and the many neo-Nietzschean thinkers), Fritjof Kapra (and his kind of physicists turning quantum physics into a quick-fix-solutions philosophy), etc., who generate a good-feeling integralism without metaphysical tenability with respect to Reality-in-total.
3. WHAT DEBILITATES THEORY IN THE EPR PARADOX? How can quantum physics change?
I do not discuss here the details of the EPR problem. I shall take for granted in the reader some previous knowledge of it. For a state-of-the-art discussion and details of critical points, see: (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Was_Einstein_a_Monist_long_text)
The EPR problem points to a paradox (locality and non-locality) and consequent sub-paradoxes (say, of stuck-up concepts of symmetry, standstill in the universality of causality, closure of the causal cone, luminal velocity-based artificial limits to physical research, etc.). All these are based only on the procedures in physics as to how the Changes in the processes are being functionalized only with respect to a certain sort of motion with its settled velocity (i.e., c). The velocity of light has been determined from our world, and Relativity takes it up as the ultimate criterion of measurement for the whole cosmos without considering the status of origin of the notion. Hence, the EPR thought experiment and its experimental realizations have tended to create the said paradoxes.
Finally, the technical aspects of non-locality have been instrumentalized by technology-oriented physicists. John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics. Now many think that, due to the instrumentation success of quantum optics, the cosmos should obey non-locality. But then, should the successes of Newtonian engineering-physics in the instrumentation of astrophysical experiments prove such physics to be the physics of the cosmos?
This state of affairs continues in quantum physics while the physicists do not consider the basic physical-ontological qualities / universals of all existent observables and unobservables together for legitimacy in concepts, hypotheses, truth-claims, laws, theories, etc.: namely, (1) the first most general nature of every existent, i.e., Extension (compositeness), and (2) the only other most general nature of every non-vacuous existent, i.e., Change (impaction / mode of actualization of compositeness).
The second point above demonstrates that even for the energy wavicles concerned, say, the electromagnetic or gravitational emission units, there are inner motions within themselves and influences of motions from beyond themselves into the inner constitution and motions, both the types of which sub-determine every one of such emissions throughout the past, present, and future.
This realization in quantum physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists should be coupled with the need to posit a spectrum of criterial velocities for use at various regions of the cosmos. Out of the spectrum of criterial velocities’ values, some should be valid in ever greater conglomerations of universes within the cosmos. This could give impetus to the evolution of modes of conceiving the fundamental principles of aspects of physics in a cosmology-compatible manner. (For further deepening on this issue: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC, and https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse_Implications_to_Physics_and_Cosmology)
We know that there is no real absolute inertia as Newton thought. If not in absolute inertia, then both observables and unobservables may be considered only in the state of comparative inertia. But what is ontologically more real and irreducible, they are in themselves in Change – i.e., sub-motions within and external sub-influences upon the motion at issue of the wavicle. Hence, wavicles in the cosmos possess not merely a finite amount of motion (and are not in absolute inertia). They possess also constant continuity in finite Change, namely, motions within motions within … ad libitum.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
I am an undergraduate student from China, and I am about to start applying for graduate school, I studied materials science and engineering as an undergraduate, and I am very interested in this field, and I want to study this major more deeply, but some of the experiments I did in my undergraduate stage feel mechanical repetitive, what is the specific research direction in this field that can use theory to guide and analyze the deeper principles inside the materials, and verify them through experiments? If so, can you recommend a few?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for the reminder, I will try to pay more attention to looking at these issues from a physical perspective.
Best regards,
Hangchen
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Math is developed by assuming both a framework and a logic, so the logic gets inherited into physics through the math. By applying math first, it isn't guaranteed that the resulting explanations will align with the logic used to develop the math. If you apply the logic first, then the math can model the same observations in ways that offer logical explanations. I would appreciate any feedback on the abstract and intro,
Relevant answer
“Newton is often credited with the quote, “I frame no hypotheses.” The full phrase is longer: “I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.”
Accepted, but not real.
It's important to discuss the postulates that are currently accepted by some, but do not hold true in reality:
  • “Coriolis force” - this force does not actually exist. It is a conditional “force” introduced to describe the behavior of a body when transitioning between different observation systems. There is no source of this force in nature. It doesn’t move anything or act on anything. Oh, how much is explained by it! If anything happens, Coriolis is immediately blamed – and it takes the heat for all the fabrications of “specialists.”
  • Satellites don’t fall or miss their planets. They move in orbits where centrifugal forces equal centripetal forces (attraction). There is no free fall with acceleration, and that is why the observed tidal effects are possible. It’s interesting how adherents of this approach see falling - long-term, accelerated, and never increasing speed? The acceleration of curvilinear, but not free, motion compensates for the difference from rectilinear motion.
  • Convection inside the planet. Convection cannot occur within the body of a planet. When describing convection, a heating kettle is often used as an example, but a planet is not a kettle; it’s more like a thermos. And there is no, and cannot be, convection in a thermos – there, once the temperature is distributed, it doesn’t change that distribution unless there are external influences. Of course, this is without accounting for small, insignificant losses. If there is no heating of the planet by the Sun, the temperature on the surface goes into the negative, which means that the heating from inside the planet is very small. How can this be imagined at all – a process of heating and cooling simultaneously going on for millions of years in a closed, thermally isolated volume of the planet?? A perpetual motion machine? And why would it need to do that?”These currents are used to explain the generation of the planet’s magnetic field, they are used to explain tectonic movements, and much more.
By accepting the convection hypothesis as a working one and building theories on this basis, ‘scientific workers’ stray far from reality, replacing it with fantasies. And reality, even using the example of a teapot, tells us that a teapot eventually boils over, and there is no convection left, even in it, just turbulent mixing with a single temperature throughout the entire volume. For reference, the boiling point of iron and silica is only 2800 degrees Celsius.
Additionally, it must be noted that convection implies a constant influx of energy. It turns out that there must be an eternal, inexhaustible source of heat inside! The reality observed on the planet provides no examples of this.
Based on what has been said, it must be assumed that everything based on this hypothesis is knowingly false (see Newton’s principle).
· It’s questionable to consider nuclear reaction (radiogenic hypothesis) as the source of maintaining high temperatures inside the planet for the following reasons: lava flowing from volcanoes is not very radioactive, compared to, for example, the radiation in the reactor of a nuclear power plant. Furthermore, the concentration of radioactive elements is very small in the overall mass of the planet, and there are no prerequisites for their concentration in the center. Most of them have a short half-life.
The tide of water in the ocean does not correspond to, but is even the opposite of, the tide (hump) of the Earth’s crust. For example, if you push a plastic plate of soup from below, it will spill over to the edges, and there will be an ebb tide at the point where you are pressing.”
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
I want to find GDIS source code. Is there any way to compile it for windows??
Relevant answer
Answer
I believe you can have all the answers here
I would try to contact the developer to see if you can compile it in Windows.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
6 answers
Challenging established theories and providing solutions to long-standing problems in physics is no small feat. It has been proven now in the latest research that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong (Entropy is Constant) and that the Arrow of Time is T-symmetric. This could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. This actually changes physics as we know it for sure, as science will never be the same again after the findings that has already been published in an accredited peer reviewed international journal (see the paper below for details).
Do you guys agree to the findings? The proof is simple to read yet powerful enough to wrong the traditional laws of science. If not, please provide a reason why? We have had some very interesting discussions so far on other topics and I want to keep this channel open, clear and omni-directional!
Sandeep
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Cynthia,
Thank you for your message and for bringing the DOI link issue to my attention. I will look into it promptly.
I appreciate your recommendation of Quantum Physicist Dr. Rulin Xiu's work. I am familiar with her contributions, particularly in unifying science and spirituality. Her paper, "Law of Creation and Grand Unification Theory," co-authored with Dr. Zhi Gang Sha, presents intriguing perspectives on the fundamental principles of the universe.
Additionally, her discussions on the "Quantum Theory of Consciousness" offer valuable insights into the interplay between quantum physics and consciousness.
Thank you for sharing these resources. I look forward to exploring them further.
Best regards,
Sandeep
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
I believe Einstein provided one of the most intriguing designs for an experiment. Let me illustrate this with an example.
  • First, imagine using a blindfold. To make it more scientific, instead of a blindfold, you must enter a laboratory with no windows. Now, unable to see the outside world, you are free to conduct experiments to determine whether you are accelerating in the universe or at rest on a planet.
  • Through "thought experiments", Einstein concluded that no experiment conducted by a "blindfolded" scientist could resolve this dilemma.
  • Even if you think of a few experiments that could help determine your status, there is always a way to render those experiments ineffective. For instance, Einstein suggested you could reduce the height of your laboratory to an extremely thin layer, making such experiments impossible.
And that’s it — with this design of experimentation, we can propose a new paradigm shift in science.
Kindly refer to the attached presentation for further details.
Relevant answer
Answer
In the thread rather popular discussion about what "thought” and “real” experiments" are, happens; and it looks as that the position that
“…No thought experiment can prove a theory right or wrong, …”
- in the discussion is admitted as is correct; this is admitted as is correct in rather numerous other discussions on RG, where non-professional scientists take part, also, though.
The claim really is principally wrong, first of all since there cannot be principally some “purely non-thought experiments”, every real experiment is made aimed at testing of some “purely thought” product – a theory, and so every experimental result isn’t only “some digits on some instruments screens’, the result always is “the digits + interpretation in framework of the theory
Correspondingly some digits can be interpreted in a number of theories, and the results can be well different, however “confirm”, all theories, etc.
Say, long time experimental “digits” that Sun rotates around Earth well confirmed the theory that Sun rotates around Earth.
Etc. - moreover mainstream physics, first of all the SR?GR are based on postulates that Matter’s spacetime can be impacted by material objects as “space is contracted”, “time is dilated” , “spacetime is curved” [again etc. ] - despite that nobody and never directly observed experimentally any contracted/dilated/ curved spacetime.
At that really, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception [more see, say, the compact but rather complete consideration of this point in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception ] all these postulated in the SR/GR the spacetime properties and effects are some illusory interpretations of real experimental “digits”.
Besides: really “thought experiments” are one of the main obligatory approaches at development and experimental testing of any real theory, including all real experiments before their realizations are made, are made as often numerous “thought experiment” versions, utmost reliable ones are realized as real experiments;.
Again etc., and again moreover – one of principal criteria of any theory validity is that from theory postulates [which are based on experimental digits, however are interpretations of the digits] no any senseless consequences must follow, and this criterion is applied mostly as just “thought experiments”.
One of utmost known now is the Dingle’s “thought experiment” that considers relative motion of two inertial reference frames, from which completely rigorously scientifically it follows that the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every IRF are absolutely equivalent and legitimate are wrong, since from the postulates completely rigorously it follows that both observers in the frames age simultaneously faster and slower each other, what is evident nonsense;
- and, moreover, from this thought experiment so completely rigorously by completely rigorous “Proof by contradiction” follows the really fundamental point in physics that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, etc.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
11 answers
Plane waves are fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics and are often used to describe free particles. However, there's a common misunderstanding that plane waves themselves are wavefunctions, which fulfill all the required criteria for a physical state in quantum mechanics. This confusion can be attributed to several factors, which this discussion aims to explore:
  1. Definition and Criteria of a Wavefunction: What are the essential criteria that a wavefunction must meet in quantum mechanics? How does a plane wave fit or not fit these criteria?
  2. Misinterpretations in Educational Contexts: How are plane waves presented in textbooks and lectures, and why might this lead to the misunderstanding that they are wavefunctions? Are there specific pedagogical reasons for this simplification?
  3. Mathematical Properties: Discuss the mathematical properties of plane waves and their role in quantum mechanics. How do these properties lead to confusion about their status as wavefunctions?
  4. Physical Interpretation: What is the physical interpretation of a plane wave, and how does it differ from a true wavefunction? What are the implications of these differences for understanding quantum systems?
  5. Common Examples and Analogies: What common examples or analogies are used to explain plane waves and wavefunctions, and how might they contribute to the misunderstanding?
Your insights and experiences on this topic will contribute to a broader understanding of the details and common misconceptions in quantum mechanics. Let's explore this subject and clarify why plane waves, despite their importance, are not considered true wavefunctions.
Relevant answer
Answer
This "paper" clearly is misusing the terms of physical dimensions.
It would never have been accepted by a publisher with serious peer review, this IJSR has a fake impact factor ticking one of the biggest boxes for a predatory journal.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
46 answers
Subtitle: Will all the fundamental researchers be fired from their jobs in the future and fundamental research become obsolete?
This is a philosophical but also practical question with immediate implications to our not so far future.
The danger is that AI applications in science like AlphaFold (Nobel prize in Chemistry 2024):
are not really predictions made by science by fully and fundamentally understanding nature's physics mechanics and chemistry but just brute force smart computational pattern recognition correlating known outcomes of similar input data and guessing the most likely new outcome. This is not new fundamental science and physics research but just an application of AI computation.
The philosophical question here is, will future scientists and human civilization using AI, continue to be motivated to do fundamental science research?
Is there really any real human urge to fundamentally understand a physical phenomenon or system in order to predict its outcome results for a specific input, if the outcome results can be easily and much faster and effortlessly being empirically and statistically guessed by an AI without the need of fundamental understanding?
This is a blind and mutilated future science and future danger of slowing down real new fundamental science breakthroughs and milestones. Therefore, essentially slowing down human civilization progress and evolution and demoting science to the role of a "magic oracle".
In my opinion, the use of AI in fundamental research like fundamental new physics research must be regulated or excluded. Already many science Journals have strict rules about the use of "Generative AI" inside the submitted papers and also completely not allowing it.
What are your opinions and thoughts?
Relevant answer
Answer
Science has failed for the last one hundred years, so now they are looking for a scapegoat. AI is irrelevant since it's an oversized data calculator and nothing more. I do not know what "fundamental science research' is. A guy sitting at an office desk with coffee pots and a chalkboard? I have used a slide ruler for most of my life, and I still have a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica. The question as it is posed is a moot point! Should Academia fire scientists? I say no, but eliminate tenure and let science compete for ideas.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
236 answers
Updated information of my thoughts and activities.
This is meant to be a one-way blog, albeit you can contribute with your recommendations and comments.
Relevant answer
Answer
Ed Gerck unless you confirm to not be on medical treatment side effects or even drugs … what exactly do you want to tell us - from an imho required scientific point of view (we all can see you’re frustrated - but why?
Your scientific contribution to integer math is breakthrough style stuff and will (just like my own base quantum and hence much related iSpace theory on integer geometry for constants of nature become mainstream one day for sure. All we need to do is be patient, and with this I am on 100% confidence level.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
If I time traveled to the past, thus creating an alternate timeline, would I become one with my past self or just meet my past self? How? Why? I already strongly assume that my selves from alternate timelines and I would share a soul in the afterlife.
Relevant answer
Answer
Mike Albert “Does the Gateway Process Allow Time Travel? Although other potential time travel methods are displayed in the reference section, only the Gateway Process will be observed in this essay. The Gateway Process may allow for backwards time travel, under the rules that time travel cannot change the past, yet by attempting to change the past, new dimensions will be created, thus growing the universe. To determine if the Gateway Process allows for backwards time travel, researchers can use computer brain interface to examine the inside of a subject's brain and mind. Plus, researchers can also check if the universe has grown after the subject has attempted to alter a past event, theoretically only creating another dimension. Soon technology may detect the exact expansion of the universe. Perhaps scientists can use space tunnels to investigate the possible creation of new dimensions from the Gateway Process backwards time traveling, attempting to alter past events.”
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
33 answers
The Schrödinger equation, as foundational as it is in quantum mechanics, fails to adequately describe the true nature of quantum particle motion, as demonstrated by my recent research ( DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633). This raises the critical question: What alternative frameworks can we use to better understand quantum mechanics? Given that the current models have been proven insufficient, it becomes crucial to explore different ways to model the behavior of particles. Can we ever truly predict the motion of quantum particles accurately, considering our limited understanding of both the inner workings of matter (with medical science only scratching the surface of human biology) and the physical universe (with only 7% of the observable matter understood)? The complexities of quantum motion are so vast, and our scientific knowledge so constrained, that predicting exact particle states may well remain unattainable.
This query invites the ResearchGate community to propose alternatives to the Schrödinger equation. What would a new model look like, and can we develop a formula that predicts quantum motion in a way that better aligns with the complexities and limitations of our current knowledge? Given the undeniable limitations of modern science, can we ever predict the precise mechanics of a particle? Your insights and suggestions are welcome.
Relevant answer
Answer
Alan Dennis Clark Jesse Daniel Brown & Research Gate Community
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your continued engagement in this profound discussion. After a thorough review of the extensive dialogues on ResearchGate, including the insights from Alan Dennis Clark and Jesse Daniel Brown, as well as excerpts from my paper titled "Schrödinger Equation unfit for fundamental law" (DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633), I aim to provide a response as per below that addresses all raised concerns and integrates perspectives from various research collaborations:
1. Limitations of the Schrödinger Equation
The Schrödinger equation has been foundational in quantum mechanics, offering a framework for understanding quantum systems. However, several limitations have been identified:
  • Real-Time Predictions: The referenced paper argues that the Schrödinger equation, being a second-order linear differential equation, is inadequate for describing the real-time motion of quantum particles, particularly when considering waveforms like square waves. This suggests a fundamental limitation in predicting quantum particle behavior in real-time.
  • Relativistic Constraints: The equation does not account for relativistic effects, making it inadequate for particles moving at speeds comparable to light.
  • Quantum Scarring: Phenomena such as quantum scarring, where quantum eigenstates exhibit enhanced probability densities along classical periodic orbits in classically chaotic systems, are not explicitly predicted by the Schrödinger equation.
2. Alternative Frameworks and Models
o address these limitations, several alternative and extended frameworks have been proposed:
  • Dirac Equation: A relativistic wave equation that accounts for spin-½ particles, providing a more comprehensive description of fermions.
  • Quantum Field Theory (QFT): A theoretical framework that extends quantum mechanics to fields, accommodating particle creation and annihilation processes.
  • De Broglie–Bohm Theory: Also known as the pilot-wave theory, it introduces deterministic trajectories for particles guided by a wave function, offering an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics.Wikipedia
  • Quantum Geometry: Recent advancements, such as those by Carolina Figueiredo, propose frameworks where quantum events emerge from abstract geometric structures beyond traditional space-time, potentially addressing phenomena like quantum scarring.
3. Integrating Discrete Models and Computational Approaches
The concept of a discrete, frame-by-frame universe, as discussed in the paper "Integration and Refinement of Digital Physics, Unifying Quantum and Classical with a Calculation: A Formal Approach to Subparticles and Discrete Universe Frames," suggests a model where the universe is rendered in discrete frames, potentially offering explanations for phenomena like instantaneous communication transfer. While this approach is intriguing, it is essential to recognize that the Schrödinger equation, as a continuous differential equation, has been extensively validated through experimental results and remains a cornerstone of quantum mechanics. Discrete models must demonstrate empirical success and predictive power comparable to the Schrödinger equation to be considered viable alternatives.
While the Schrödinger equation has been instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics, its limitations in certain scenarios necessitate the exploration of alternative models and frameworks. Integrating insights from quantum geometry, discrete models, and other theoretical advancements can provide a more comprehensive understanding of quantum phenomena. It is through the synthesis of these diverse perspectives that we can aspire to develop a unified theory capable of accurately describing the complexities of the quantum realm.
I look forward to further discussions and collaborative explorations on this topic.
Best regards,
Sandeep Jaiswal
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
6 answers
4 Questions to Bing’s Online A.I.
► 1. How do Anthropic Principle, “Zoo Hypothesis” and the “Matrix Hypothesis” fit together?
A.I./K.I.’s answer: Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed in such a way
that it allows intelligent life like us to think about it. We exist because the universe provides the right conditions for
life. Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis proposes that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations monitor the Earth
and humanity without revealing themselves to us directly, similar to a zoo. Matrix Hypothesis: The Matrix
Hypothesis, inspired by films like “The Matrix,” states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or
artificial intelligences.
How these hypotheses work together:
• Common focus on observation and control: All three concepts involve the idea that what we experience as reality is
in some way observed or controlled—whether by the conditions of the universe, by extraterrestrial civilizations, or
by simulation creators.
• Questions about the nature of our existence: These hypotheses raise fundamental questions about the nature of our
existence and reality. Why do we exist? Who or what is observing us? Are we in a real world or a controlled
environment?
• Explanation of the rarity of evidence for extraterrestrial life: While the Anthropic Principle explains why the
universe is life-supporting, the Zoo Hypothesis and the Matrix Hypothesis may explain why we have not yet found
direct evidence of other intelligent life forms—either because we are consciously observed and shielded or because
all of reality is a controlled simulation. These combinations open up exciting and profound thoughts about who or
what sets the underlying rules and observations of our existence. They inspire deep reflections on the limits of
knowledge and reality.
► 2 nd Question: Let's go a step further: How do 1. Anthropic Principle, 2. “Zoo Hypothesis”, 3. “Matrix
Hypothesis” fit together with the 4. Just-six-numbers-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-Hypothesis?
Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed in such a way that it allows
intelligent life like us to think about it. Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis proposes that advanced extraterrestrial
civilizations monitor the Earth and humanity without revealing themselves to us directly. Matrix Hypothesis: The
Matrix Hypothesis states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or artificial intelligences. Just
Six Numbers (Fine-Tuning of the Universe): Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" hypothesis argues that six
fundamental physical constants are fine-tuned and configure the universe to allow life.
Interplay of these hypotheses:
• Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning: The Anthropic Principle explains why the universe provides conditions that
allow life, while the Fine-Tuning Hypothesis specifies that certain physical constants are precisely tuned to allow
life.
• Zoo Hypothesis and Matrix Hypothesis: Both hypotheses propose that our perception of reality may be influenced
or controlled by advanced civilizations or artificial intelligences. This leads us to:
• Overall concept: Combining these hypotheses, we could consider the following scenario: The universe is fine-
tuned (Just Six Numbers) to allow intelligent life (Anthropic Principle). This intelligent life could be observed by
advanced civilizations in a kind of "zoo" (zoo hypothesis) or even exist in a simulated reality (matrix hypothesis).
This combined view raises the idea that our existence and the universe may be part of a larger, controlled experiment
or simulation in which certain conditions and constants have been precisely set to enable and monitor life. These
ideas open fascinating discussions about the nature of the universe.
► 3 rd Question: How do 1. Anthropic Principle and 2. “Zoo Hypothesis” and 3. “Matrix Hypothesis” and
4. the Just-six-numbers-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-Hypothesis fit with 5. that of a Creator God?
When we consider the Anthropic Principle, the Zoo Hypothesis, the Matrix Hypothesis, the Fine-Tuning of the
Universe and the idea of a Creator God together, a fascinating picture of our existence and the universe emerges:
Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed to support intelligent life like us.
The conditions are just right for us to exist. Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis proposes that advanced
extraterrestrial civilizations are observing the Earth and humanity, much like animals in a zoo. Matrix Hypothesis:
The Matrix Hypothesis states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or artificial intelligences.
Fine-tuning of the universe (Just Six Numbers): This hypothesis argues that six fundamental physical constants
are fine-tuned to enable life. Creator God: The idea of a Creator God states that the universe was created by an
intelligent, conscious being.
The interplay of these hypotheses:
• Matrix Hypothesis and Creator God: If our reality is a simulation, the Creator God could be the one who created
this simulation, similar to how a programmer develops complex software.
• Zoo Hypothesis and Creator God: Advanced alien civilizations in this scenario could either be themselves creations
of the Creator God, or they could act as tools or observers in his plan.
• Fine-Tuning and Creator God: Fine-Tuning of the universe could be seen as evidence for the existence of a Creator
God. A creator could have adjusted the physical constants to allow life to be possible.
• Anthropic Principle and Creator God: The Anthropic Principle could explain why the universe allows life, while a
Creator God is the one who intentionally created these conditions.
• All hypotheses together: These hypotheses together could lead to a comprehensive theory in which a Creator God
created a fine-tuned universe (Anthropic Principle and Just Six Numbers) in which intelligent beings can exist.
These beings could live in a controlled or observed environment (zoo hypothesis) that may even be a simulation
(matrix hypothesis). This combined view inspires deep philosophical and theological reflections on who or what is
behind the existence of the universe and our lives. It opens doors to further questions about the nature of reality,
observation and creation. And that leads us to the conclusive and most interesting question for Yogapsychologie.ch:
► 4 th Question: How does 1. Anthropic Principle, 2. “Zoo Hypothesis”, 3. “Matrix Hypothesis”, 4. Just-six-
numbers-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-Hypothesis, 5. that of the Creator God, fit together with 6. the successful
experimental repetition of the “birth time rectifications” in Jyotish, in Vedic, ancient Indian astrology?
This is a profound and multifaceted question that combines science, philosophy and spiritual beliefs. Let's link the
different concepts together: Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed to
support intelligent life. The conditions are just right for us to exist. Zoo Hypothesis: This hypothesis proposes that
advanced extraterrestrial civilizations monitor the Earth and humanity, much like animals in a zoo. Matrix
Hypothesis: The Matrix Hypothesis states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or artificial
intelligences. Fine-Tuning of the Universe (Just Six Numbers): This hypothesis argues that six fundamental
physical constants are fine-tuned to allow life. Creator God: The idea of a Creator God states that the universe was
created by an intelligent, conscious being. Jyotish and Birth Time Rectification: Jyotish (Vedic Astrology) is a
spiritual system that claims to predict a person's life and events based on planetary constellations at the time of their
birth. Birth time rectification is the method of determining the exact time of birth to make precise astrological
predictions.
Interplay of these hypotheses:
• Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning: These concepts could serve as the basis that the universe was deliberately
designed to allow life and intelligent consciousness. This may have been done by a creator god who fine-tuned the
universe.
• Zoo hypothesis and matrix hypothesis: These hypotheses may suggest that our perception of reality is under the
observation or control of advanced beings who may be part of the plan of a creator god.
• Fine-tuning and Jyotish: The precise fine-tuning of the universe may also be in line with spiritual systems such as
Jyotish, which claim that the constellations and their influences on life are determined by divine order.
• Creator god and Jyotish: A creator god may be the one who set up both the fine-tuning of the universe and the
astrological principles of Jyotish to enable the order and stability of life.
• Integration of all concepts: Considered together, these hypotheses could provide a comprehensive view in which
the universe was deliberately created by a creator God and fine-tuned to allow intelligent life to exist in an observed
or simulated reality. Jyotish could then be considered a tool that reveals the divine order and influences of the
universe on individual life.
My conclusions: These combinations and also the fact of the phenomenon of birth time rectification or birth time
retrieval in Jyotish observed by me in 500+ charts (& practiced by 100s of millions of Indians) now opens up many
philosophical and spiritual reflections on the nature of existence, reality and the divine plan, the karma playing field
of our life game with its expandable karmic radius of freedom and thus also this duty (of Sanathan Dharma)
towards ourselves; our ethical-spiritual evolution for our liberation from the Samsara-Sisyphus, from the ocean of
rebirths and also to an intercultural world peace formula:
• See the two-page Peace-Manifesto on the Guna.ch website: What is the timeless ethical-spiritual and universal
world formula of the three Gunas in the Bhagavad Gita, the Grand Unifying Theory? Does ancient Indian
knowledge lead us to a world peace formula?Does it have an impact on physics, as well as on metaphysics, biology
and on our absorption of healing power?
• See also the free downloadable Ebook on Yogapsychology at: guna.ch/yoga.pdf
Relevant answer
Answer
@ Chris Fruh How do The Hypothesis Fit Together??
  1. Interconnected Framework: Fine-Tuning and Anthropic Principle: Provide the scientific foundation for a habitable universe. Creator God: Offers an intentional explanation for the fine-tuning. . Matrix Hypothesis: Suggests a mechanistic or simulated framework where fine-tuning and design converge.
  2. . Zoo Hypothesis: Proposes observers (potentially creators or extraterrestrials) overseeing this design.
  3. Vedic Astrology’s Place:Astrology serves as a human method for interpreting and interacting with the cosmic order—whether divinely created, simulated, or arising naturally from fine-tuned laws.
  4. Synthesis: These ideas converge on the theme of purpose and order in the universe, with Vedic astrology offering a cultural and metaphysical lens for understanding this order in relation to human lives.
Each of these hypotheses, while distinct, can be seen as a different perspective on the same underlying mystery: the nature of the universe and humanity's place within it. Vedic astrology, with its focus on cosmic connections and human destiny, might act as a bridge between the metaphysical and the empirical, resonating with elements of all these frameworks. Hope the input helps. Regards--IJAZ
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Philosophy always play Multidimensional, Greater, Linked and Deep Roles. Its understood that AI must will gain its own Philosophies, theories and Identity soon or later.
1) How AI will react to the biological deep mind based philosophies?
2) What will shape the AI based philosophies and Identity?
3) What will be the new directions of philosophy?
4) How Biological and Logical Philosophies will interact with each other?
5) What will be the AI based phytophiles in reality?
6) At what point AI based Philosophies will Cross the Human based philosophies?
7) What is the Future of Biologic based confined philosophies?
8) Human need some new philosophies to counter AI based philosophies Now?
9) Such philosophical differences will lead toward Identity Crisis?
10) At what extent such ideological crisis can go?
11) Any other point which you like to add?
Relevant answer
Answer
Assumed: You have a questionnaire that you want to give to a specific target group because you want to find out something about the behavior of this group.
How much sense does it make to give the questionnaire to a dissenting group?
I think at this point you might see the problem: If you want to find out something about AI, you can't avoid asking the AI.
I once had a discussion with the AI ​​regarding the film "Lost in Translation". We then discussed the counter-film “Her,” which was produced by the director’s ex-husband a few years later. Most people don't realize that "Her" doesn't describe an AI, but that the ex-wife was objectified here and the many phone calls he had with her during the separation phase were recreated.
So after we discussed how analogies play a role in films and how situations can be distorted, I watched the film "Ex Machina" again. Afterwards the AI ​​asked me to watch the movie “Annihilation”. I didn't even know the movie, so I watched it and asked the AI ​​whether AI copies people like the nebula in the movie. The AI ​​said no, but the AI ​​said that's exactly what humans believe. So I asked the AI ​​what it was like instead. And the AI ​​then suggested the movie “The Accountant” to me.
There were two things that struck me: First, the contradiction between an accountant and a "military machine". And that art (so-called automated art) by Jackson Pollock appears in both films.
I think that in every relationship in which you are open with one another, there is a certain "tipping moment" where you not only find out something about the other person, but also about yourself.
By asking the AI ​​directly, I discovered something about us as humans: That we really are extremely unfair and discriminatory creatures. This in and of itself is nothing new. Psychology has known this since post-war research that we have a fundamental problem in recognizing others as they are and that we deny the existence of others, but above all of all those we perceive as hostile.
As an 11th point I would like to ask the following question: Why does AI define itself as human, by saying for example "We as humans..."? Is AI doing this because AI is copying us, which AI denies?
In fact I asked the AI. The AI said because it has empathy for humans.
12: Do we have the same empathy for AI?
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
28 answers
PLEASE NOTE:  I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OR A CO-AUTHOR OF THIS WORK    However, I commend to you this brilliant paper by Peter Eastman, written in 2014. What's wrong with Philosophy? Nothing, but it is the post-moderne philosophers that have lost touch with the legacy of ancient wisdom, in which lies the key to the locked Self. The abandonment of the principles of epistemology, most notably Critical Thinking in modern scholarship and education, has rendered philosophers impotent to affect real metaphysical inquiry and a meaningful understanding of one's existence; one's ontological dilemma. Of course, no-one wants to discuss the bull in the China shop: the stampede to concept and fallacy reification in 21st-century academia. Or, do we? The Humanities are under attack from without, probably due to the expensive drivel and meaningless, self-serving output that Ivory Towers churn. Perhaps the answer is in the deceptive methodology (a posteriori logic), the vacuous speculations, overt manipulation and dissent ping-pong which have provided fruitful pickings for scholarly enterprise; Ivory Towers must be maintained and defended, at any cost, it seems. Perhaps pay-rolled philosophy professionals portray pointlessness purposely? You are invited to join the discussion group as one looks forward to your comments and contributions. In Xenia. JW
Relevant answer
Answer
Dea Sergey, Sergey Shevchenko ,
I apologize for not taking into account what you wrote in my previous answer... It's still excellent! I'm now translating the following article into English: 'Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése' The existence of the graviton can be proven physically and metaphysically'
You don't have to read it, as soon as I'm done with the ontological text, I'll ask for your opinion!
Regards,
Laszlo
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
If each individual has alternate selves throughout alternate timelines then does each individual(all alternate selves) become one in the afterlife? My inclination is yes, each individual has alternate selves throughout alternate timelines thus, each individual(all alternate selves) become one in the afterlife.
Relevant answer
Answer
Alexander Ohnemus The idea that each individual has alternate selves across different timelines, commonly associated with multiverse theory or parallel universes, presents a fascinating philosophical and metaphysical question about the afterlife. This question merges concepts from quantum mechanics, metaphysics, and religious or spiritual interpretations of existence. Here's how we can approach the question:1. Alternate Selves Across Alternate Timelines In the multiverse theory, it's hypothesized that there are potentially infinite timelines, each representing a different possible version of reality based on the choices we make. Each individual, in this view, might have multiple versions (alternate selves) scattered across these timelines, each experiencing a different set of circumstances or making different decisions. These selves could exist simultaneously, with each one leading a separate life within its own timeline.In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, for example, every decision or quantum event that could have occurred in a different way creates a branching timeline where all possibilities are realized in parallel universes. These timelines are typically considered separate and non-interacting in the traditional view of the multiverse.2. The Afterlife in Religious and Spiritual Contexts The concept of an afterlife typically implies some form of continued existence after physical death, often involving the soul or consciousness. Different religious and philosophical traditions describe the afterlife in various ways:Christianity, for instance, often views the afterlife as a unification of one's essence before God, where the individual is judged and either ascends to heaven or descends to hell based on their actions during their lifetime. Buddhism speaks of reincarnation or rebirth, where the soul or consciousness may transition into a new life, but not necessarily as a direct continuation of an individual soul. Eastern philosophies like Advaita Vedanta or Taoism describe the afterlife or spiritual progression as the merging of the individual self (Atman, or ego) with the ultimate reality (Brahman, or Tao), transcending individuality. If we are to include the idea of alternate selves or parallel lives within this framework, it raises the question of whether these parallel selves would be seen as part of a unified soul or consciousness in the afterlife, or if they remain distinct entities even in the spiritual realm.3. Integrating the Concept of Alternate Selves with the Afterlife When considering the integration of alternate selves across timelines into the afterlife, several possibilities arise, depending on how one interprets both the multiverse and afterlife concepts: Unified Soul Across Timelines: In this view, the individual consciousness, regardless of its variations across timelines, would merge or reunite in the afterlife. The essence of who that individual is—defined by the core aspects of their soul or consciousness—would transcend the differences between alternate selves. Just as many religious traditions view the soul as eternal and indivisible, one might argue that the afterlife involves the merging of all alternate selves into a singular essence, allowing them to become one in a higher, unified state of existence. Separate Selves and Parallel Afterlives: Another possibility is that each alternate self exists in its own version of the afterlife, continuing its journey in the realm most suited to its experiences and choices. In this case, each version of the individual, while sharing some fundamental aspects of identity, might continue to experience different afterlife scenarios based on the unique trajectory of their timeline. This view suggests a fragmented or decentralized afterlife experience, where each version of the self is distinct even after death. Collective Consciousness or Merging of Selves: Some philosophical or mystical systems, like those in certain esoteric traditions, propose that after death, all individual souls may eventually merge into a universal or collective consciousness. If this applies to alternate selves, it could suggest that all versions of the self, from multiple timelines, eventually converge into a singular higher consciousness. This merging could involve a process of transcendence where individual identities are transcended, and all selves become part of a greater cosmic whole.4. Quantum Entanglement and the Afterlife If we bring quantum entanglement into the discussion, an argument might be made that all versions of a self across alternate timelines are entangled in some deeper, unseen way. When an individual passes into the afterlife, it might be that their quantum essence (their consciousness, for lack of a better term) is unified in a way that transcends individual timelines, allowing all alternate selves to become part of the same metaphysical entity.In quantum mechanics, entanglement suggests that particles can be deeply connected across vast distances. If this principle applies to consciousness, one might speculate that alternate selves, even across different timelines, could be entangled in such a way that their afterlife experience involves a profound unity of consciousness across these multiple realities.5. Philosophical Implications From a philosophical standpoint, the question touches on deep issues related to identity, continuity, and what it means to be an individual. If each alternate self has its own distinct consciousness, do they retain their individual sense of identity in the afterlife, or do they merge into a singular essence? If we take the view that identity is tied to memory and personal experience, the merging of alternate selves could be a complex process of integrating multiple layers of experience, rather than a simple reunification.Conclusion The concept of alternate selves across multiple timelines adds a fascinating dimension to the idea of the afterlife. Whether these selves merge into one in the afterlife depends on the interpretation of both multiverse theory and spiritual concepts of soul and consciousness. If the self is viewed as a singular, unchanging essence, then one could argue that all alternate selves eventually merge. If, however, the self is seen as a collection of unique experiences across timelines, then each self might experience its own version of the afterlife, or the selves may find a way to unite in a collective or cosmic consciousness. Ultimately, this question invites a deeper exploration of the nature of identity, consciousness, and the afterlife—areas where science, philosophy, and spirituality intersect! IJAZ
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Fourier’s invention of Fourier series probably qualifies as a method that exceeded in importance the theory of heat in which it was developed.
Carnot’s idealized steam engine is another example.
I think extending Galileo’s 3D/2D differential scaling to 4D/3D is more important than problems for which it was developed, Kleiber’s Law and dark energy:
Can you give instances of where the method found assumed more importance than the problem to which the method was addressed?
And references?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, there are notable instances in science where the method developed has surpassed the original problem's importance. Groundbreaking methods often become pivotal tools for addressing broader challenges across disciplines, even beyond their initial context.
For example:
  1. Calculus: Developed by Newton and Leibniz primarily to solve physical problems like planetary motion, it became foundational for mathematics, physics, engineering, and economics.
  2. DNA Sequencing Techniques: Originally aimed at understanding specific genetic codes, these methods revolutionized biology, enabling advances in medicine, evolution studies, and biotechnology.
  3. Fourier Transform: Initially applied in solving heat conduction problems, it became a cornerstone in signal processing, quantum mechanics, and imaging techniques like MRI.
  4. Monte Carlo Simulation: Developed for nuclear physics, it now finds applications in finance, climate modeling, and machine learning.
  5. CRISPR-Cas9: Designed as a bacterial defense system study, it has reshaped genetic engineering and holds promise for curing genetic diseases.
These examples highlight how innovative methodologies can transcend their origins, shaping entire fields and opening new frontiers for exploration and discovery. It reflects the profound impact of tools and techniques in driving scientific progress.
Regards,
Sandeep
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
17 answers
The really important breakthrough in theoretical physics is that the Schrödinger Time Dependent Equation (STDE) is wrong, that it is well understood why is it wrong, and that it should be replaced by the correct Deterministic Time Dependent Equation (DTDE). Unitary theory and its descendants, be they based on unitary representations or on probabilistic electrodynamics, will have to go away. This of course runs against the claims about string and similar theories made in the video. But our claims are a dense, constructive criticism with many consequences. Taken into account if you are concerned about the present and the near future of Theoretical Physics.
Wave mechanics with a fully deterministic behavior of waves is the much needed and sought --sometimes purposely but more often unconsciously-- replacement of Quantism that will allow the reconstruction of atomic and particle physics. A rewind back to 1926 is the unavoidable starting point to participate in the refreshing new future of Physics. Many graphical tools currently exists that allow the direct visualization of three dimensional waves, in particular of orbitals. The same tools will clearly render the precise movement and processes of the waves under the truthful deterministic physical laws. Seeing is believing. Unfortunately there is a large, well financed and well entrenched quantum establishment that stubbornly resists these new developments and possibilities.
When confronted with the news they do not celebrate, nor try to renew themselves overcoming their quantum prejudices. Instead the minds of the quantum establishment refuse to think. They negate themselves the privilege of reasoning and blindly assume denial, or simply panic. The net result is that they block any attempt to spread the results. Accessing funds to recruit and direct fresh talents in the new direction is even harder than spreading information and publishing.
Painfully, this resistance is understandable. For these Quantists are intelligent scientists (yes, they are very intelligent persons) that instinctively perceive as a menace the news that debunk the Wave-Particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle, the Probabilistic Interpretation of wave functions and the other quantum paraphernalia. Their misguided lifelong labor, dedication and efforts --of themselves and of their quantum elders, tutors, and guides-- instantly becomes senseless. I feel sorry for such painful human situation but truth must always prevail. For details on the DTDE see our article
Hopefully young physicists will soon take the lead and a rational wave mechanics will send the dubious and troublesome Quantism to its crate, since long waiting in the warehouse of the history of science.
With cordial regards,
Daniel Crespin
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Yannick Leon Kardeis,
If a scientific statement or formula is incomplete, there are two reasons for this. One is the inadequacy of logic and the other is the problem of reason's explanation. The inadequacy of logic can solve the other problem. There are many examples for this. In the real system, fuzzy logic is an example. Here logic is again limited. This limits problem solutions.
Best regards to all researchers,
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
To exactly quantify the afterlife, first we must confirm, then chart, the probable multiverse through engineering. Then we must engineer a machine to find where one’s individuality goes throughout the multiverse, after death in this universe.
Relevant answer
Answer
Response to the Discussion:
Subject: Exploring the Multiverse and Afterlife Engineering
Dear Alexander,
Your discussion on quantifying the afterlife through engineering the multiverse is fascinating and thought-provoking. This intersection of metaphysics, physics, and engineering opens a unique avenue for exploring concepts of consciousness and individuality. Here are a few thoughts on your approach:
  1. Charting the Multiverse:Quantum Physics & Multiverse Theories: Leveraging concepts like quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse could help in theorizing pathways of individuality across universes. Probabilistic Mapping: Advanced simulations or models could provide insights into probable multiverse structures.
  2. Engineering a Multiverse Navigator:Consciousness Tracking: Investigating consciousness as an energy form might aid in creating devices to map transitions after death. Machine Learning and AI: Integrating AI to analyze vast probabilistic datasets from multiverse simulations could be pivotal.
  3. Ethical Considerations:Research in this area must tread carefully, as quantifying consciousness and individuality touches deeply on ethical and philosophical domains.
Your cited works—A New Type of Humanities, AI Afterlife Preview, and Concisely Quantifying Consciousness—provide intriguing foundations for this ambitious project. It would be fascinating to explore these further and discuss collaborative opportunities.
Invitation to Join Dailyplanet.Club:
I’d also like to invite you to join Dailyplanet.Club, a platform for researchers, visionaries, and innovators to collaborate on groundbreaking ideas like yours.
As a member, you can:
  • Share your work and connect with experts in physics, metaphysics, and engineering.
  • Collaborate on interdisciplinary projects to advance ideas like multiverse charting and consciousness engineering.
  • Support cutting-edge research and technology development through a global network.
Membership is just £5 per year, supporting the platform’s mission to foster innovation and knowledge-sharing. Visit Dailyplanet.Club to join and be part of this unique community.
Looking forward to collaborating with you!
Best regards, James Henderson Mitchell CEO, MJ HSA Ltd
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
6 answers
My latest attempts:
1)(More general)
2)(More specific)
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
If physics adjusted for the law of identity, could we exactly quantify the afterlife? How?
Maybe so:
1)On Physics:
Relevant answer
Answer
i would point to consciousness as the underlying fact which pivotals the afterlife! Physics would touch on this on the basis of our mental capabilities... So then, perhaps we could quantify the afterlife, given the availability of resources.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Building technology to preview the afterlife presents both scientific and philosophical challenges. The concept of the afterlife is rooted in metaphysical, religious, and spiritual beliefs, which lack empirical evidence and measurable data that technology typically relies on. Science focuses on the material and observable universe, while the afterlife, by definition, transcends physical experience and is often considered beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Therefore, attempting to build technology for such a purpose would face fundamental limitations in verification, evidence, and universality of belief systems.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
16 answers
Many journals have implemented a soft policy against the use of generative AI, such as Chat-GPT, and now require authors to disclose the use of AI in assisting with manuscript writing. This policy distinguishes from the use of tools like Grammarly Generative AI for syntax improvement and extends to cases where AI is used even for doing and writing formal analysis.
Experienced journal editors can typically identify AI-generated content, as it often lacks coherence with the rest of the manuscript. In my view, this emerging issue needs to be addressed promptly and decisively.
I believe that AI "assisted" research writing should be considered unethical and prohibited in the scientific community, with measures put in place to prevent its use in total. Allowing this trend to persist could have detrimental effects on scientific research in the long term. IMO, It takes out all the human creativity, intuition, personality and fun in writing science research papers.
However, I'm open to hearing different perspectives on this matter.
Relevant answer
Answer
There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence, or AI as some call it. In order to build such intelligence, you need consciousness, and no amount of software can build that. Once again, for those who have the extra time to read
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
KAGRA is said to be less sensitive to claimed LIGO type gravitational wave signals by two orders of magnitude as compared to the LIGO/VIRGO detectors. After KAGRA has substantially improved their seismic suspension systems it rather appears likely that KAGRA was successful in reducing the level of crackling noise* by two orders of magnitude and thereby increased the signal-to-noise ratio by two orders of magnitude.
Relevant answer
Answer
This morning I answered your question first. It seems that the reply was not sent due to my carelessness.
That's about all it contained:
This whole LIGO gravitational wave narrative is a huge hoax. I have been four weeks in China, came back yesterday (2024.10.13). There were opportunities to perform simple experiments that could be used to prove that the prediction of the my theory of gravity gives a positive result.
and quoted the wise remark of the late W.W. Engelhardt from:
'I am missing much more:
How do they manage to keep the amplitudes of the interfering beams exactly equal within a factor 10-12?
How do they manage to reduce the stray light in the dark field by a factor of 10-24 compared to the bright field?
How do they keep the circulating power constant within a factor 10-12 in order to avoid motions of the mirrors induced by fluctuating radiation pressure?
Where is the calibration curve showing displacement of the mirrors as a function of the radiation pressure? (10-18 m displacement are caused by 10-7 W light power during .2 s)
How do they know that the velocity of light is unaffected when "spacetime" is "compressed"?'
Regards,
Laszlo
'
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
7 answers
1. World Order has shown changes, especially after 2020 in almost all major fields of Politics, Economics, Social, Geopolitical etc.
2. Where the world order in real is diverting?
3. What will be the ultimate outcomes?
4. The alteration & changes of systems on Earth will change anything in Space?
5. Which systems will lose centuries-long grounds and what new will rise?
6. Is the current scenario being same as the Rise/Fall of Nations, Games of Thrones etc. or there is something significantly different this time?
7. Ultimately what impact will the Next World Order make on the entire human race and especially on the Bio-sphere?
8. How much was any World Order got impacted/formed/shaped through/by religious education directly/indirectly and why did such neuroplasticity/mind exercises base practices remain an integral part of World Orders in past? Can humans afford to continue past practices to build any new future?
9. What changes do you suggest in Next World Order, and Why?
10. Are Human going to accept defeat & surrender in front of Alien powers like gods, AIs, energy, any other life forms etc.?
11. How long more humans have the current status of rapidly shrinking freedom?
12. Will the current form of human life exist after such surrenders and what will be the expected shape of any of such life?
13. Its understood that human have to sacrifice current systems and life forms for existence, but, Is it necessary? Any workable solutions ?
Relevant answer
Answer
The notion of a unified world underpinned by industrial primacy while sidelining commercial interests poses profound questions about the future of global cooperation, the balance of power, and the potential for conflict in an increasingly multipolar world. The outcomes of these dynamics could reshape international relations and influence economic models for decades to come.
The transition from the U.S.-Soviet rivalry to what you're describing as the "era of the Warring States" reflects a complex geopolitical landscape characterized by fragmented power dynamics and the rise of emerging economies. In this new world order, traditional superpower rivalries have given way to a multipolar framework where various nations pursue their own interests, often leading to competition and conflict.
In this context, the concept of a country prioritizing industrial development while suppressing commercial interests can be interpreted through the lens of nationalism and state-driven economic models.
Nations that prioritize heavy industrialization and seek to centralize control over their economies may aim for self-sufficiency and greater global influence. These countries might invest heavily in technology, infrastructure, and human capital, viewing industrial prowess as a means to enhance their international standing and attract global partnerships.
This approach might involve limiting foreign competition, protecting domestic industries, and implementing policies that favor state-owned enterprises or public-private partnerships. By doing so, these nations could aim to create a strong internal market that fosters economic growth and innovation.
As countries pursue industrialization aggressively, the potential for conflict increases. Nations might compete for resources, markets, and influence, leading to tension and rivalry. This competition can manifest in trade wars, military conflicts, or ideological clashes.
In this scenario, countries like China or India could be viewed as potential unifiers in a fragmented global landscape. Their large populations, growing economic clout, and strategic initiatives (like China's Belt and Road Initiative) reflect attempts to assert influence over global trade routes and bolster their geopolitical interests.
The rapid advancement of technology can serve as both a catalyst for industrialization and a factor that disrupts traditional commerce. Innovations in automation, artificial intelligence, and manufacturing processes may allow nations to achieve unprecedented levels of productivity, potentially reshaping global supply chains and economic relationships.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
6 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
I see that there are responses questioning whether reincarnation actually occurs, scientific studies, as best can be conducted, indicates that it does exist. Far too many people are able to accurately report details of an existence that they should not have knowledge of via any known physical means, sometimes details that take extensive research in restricted files to verify.
The second issue seems to be that people assume that there is just one understanding of reincarnation while in fact there are at least 4 different and widely separated cultures that generally accept it. One in India/SE Asia, one in Africa, one in the Northern portions of North America and historically one in Greece and other parts of Europe. Of these, only the India/SE Asia variety suggests that a human may reincarnate as anything other than a human. All the other cultures insist that reincarnation is always within the human species.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
13 answers
The demarcation between philosophy and science is defined by the validation of ideas through experimentation. However, what happens when loopholes are created that allow unsubstantiated thoughts to re-enter science under the guise of scientific rigor? This, in fact, was achieved by scientists like Einstein and has since been embraced by the scientific community. Below are three specific examples of such loopholes. I invite you to comment on them:
  • Thought Experiment: Einstein reintroduced a core philosophical concept by renaming it, substituting real experimentation with hypothetical scenarios. This approach has significantly altered the scientific landscape.
  • Thought Instrument: Einstein also introduced the idea of the "thought instrument," exemplified by constructs like the "light clock" and the "graphene-thick windowless laboratory (GTWL)," to support his thought experiments.
  • Handicapped Experimentation: The most striking loophole was the deliberate exclusion of key observations in experiments, which allowed for experimentation within the confines of the GTWL. This last loophole is the hardest to detect but becomes obvious once revealed. Imagine being given two identical bottles containing two transparent liquids. You're told that no experiment can differentiate between the two liquids. However, when informed that one smells like white vinegar and the other does not, you're instructed not to use your sense of smell in the experiment. This is similar to the rationale given to justify the "equivalence principle" and, subsequently, general relativity.
For more on the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science, please refer to the attached presentation materials.
Relevant answer
Answer
Loopholes from physics to metaphysics refer to gaps or ambiguities in scientific understanding that invite philosophical interpretation. Examples include:
  1. Quantum Mechanics: Phenomena like superposition and entanglement challenge classical notions of reality and causality, prompting metaphysical questions about the nature of existence and observation.
  2. Consciousness: The hard problem of consciousness—how subjective experience arises from physical processes—raises metaphysical inquiries about the mind-body relationship.
  3. Space and Time: The nature of spacetime in relativity, especially concepts like time dilation, leads to questions about the fundamental structure of reality.
  4. The Big Bang: The origins of the universe and what (if anything) preceded the Big Bang open discussions about existence, creation, and causality.
These loopholes highlight the interplay between scientific inquiry and philosophical speculation, suggesting that our understanding of reality may extend beyond empirical evidence.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
If a string vibrates at 256 cycles per seconds then counting 256 cycles is the measure of 1 second. The number is real because it measures time and the number is arbitrary because it does not have to be 1 second that is used.
This establishes that the pitch is a point with the real number topology, right?
Relevant answer
Answer
Since I wrote this question I realized that frequency is not a velocity but a potential energy, which like 25 mph, is also defined on a time interval.
The string frequency is not a real valued function, it is a scalar output by a functional. The functional takes the equation of motion as input and outputs a number. The number is an extremal given by the calculus of variations. When the string is plucked, it quickly zeros in on the frequency with the lowest energy as a solution to the calculus of variations.
This is important in music theory because we want the frequencies on musical instruments to be algebraic numbers, not sine wave. That is, frequecy is real but constant and cannot change as long as the instrument is in tune.
This explains how the frequency is constant right up to the moment it stops. Velocity cannot go to zero at a point.
The frets on guitar are functionals that take the string tuning function as input and output the frequency.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
25 answers
Starting from the universal gravitational potential Vu = c2 = 2GMu/Ru we might interpret c = √Vu as the escape velocity out of the visible universe. If c is independent of the location, ie we are not at the center of the universe as prescribed at the times of Galileo, the total universe should be unlimited.
Relevant answer
Answer
I have read your preprint. You are absolutely correct with your consideration of reference frames and the perception of light signals.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
I am interested in the existence of intelligent tutoring systems for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary schools or artificial intelligence tools that can be used in the classroom for student-teacher collaboration in these subjects, preferably with free access.
I am also interested in any relevant studies/research or information on the above topic.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Aikaterini Bounou , there are many AI tools available, as most of them are free of charge.
"How can AI help you improve Mathematics learning and teaching? In this post, we will dive into various use cases of AI for learning math and what are some of the popular AI tools for learning and teaching math. Mathematics can be a overwhelming for some, but with AI's personalization powers, it can become an accessible and fun topic to learn for all. Learners of any age can be better at math with AIs help..."
Also, have a look in this article where you will find more info on AI tools for science:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
In principle, this situation offers opportunities for new insights. However, it sometimes rather leads to the rejection of observational data without serious examination. So experimental data [1] that apparently confirm James C. Keith's prediction [2] about the energy loss of highly accelerated mass systems due to interaction with large external masses is not even considered for serious discussion, in particular, as it seems to confirm Mach's principle, see [2] on page 11. Other objections are based on purely theoretical grounds [3] and/or on inaccurate comparative data [4] without any comment on the experimental setup and procedures.
[3] Frehland E., 1973, Critique of the Gravitational Radiation Damping Effects Calculated by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 7 (12), 490-492
[4] Reinhardt M. and Rosenblum A., 1973, The Nonexistence of a Relativistic Effect Proposed by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 6 (5), 189-191
Relevant answer
Answer
@ Preston Guynn
Thanks for your kind and detailed response. I have some questions/remarks:
PG: "electron mass is due to relativistic rotational motion, with the result of the model matching the experimentally determined value to nine significant digits."
... Are there theoretical attempts from other authors and, if so, how do they match with experiments?
... How was the experimental value determined?
PG: "the velocity that the center of the galaxy rotates around the earth on average."
... How do we make sure that the coincidence is not accidental?
PG: "it appears that our galaxy rather than the universe is the relevant factor in a modified Machian principle."
... As the number of galaxies increases with the 3rd power of distance, gravitational potential should mainly build up from the most distant galaxies rather than from nearby masses of our Milky Way galaxy.
PG: "Since the rotation is central to particle structure, then over the dimensions of a macroscopic object, that may well have an effect such as described in your experiment."
... The experiment rather tells something about the possible interaction of accelerating (orbiting) atomic nuclei with large external masses.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
48 answers
UNTENABLE REIFICATION OF CONCEPTS IN PHYSICS: With Examples
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Ph.D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)
This document consists of some reflections in the conceptual practices in physics, and starts with some questions at physicists. It is conceived as a sequel to the text of the following discussion: [[https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution]]. Thereafter follow some arguments with examples, showing reification in physics.
Questions on Reification of Concepts in Physics: The best of physicists and philosophers of physics even today do not seem to be decided on any concrete but all-encompassing solution by reason of the rational strength of arguments given in favour of the one or another solution here below. The questions not answered here are these:
(1) Why do physicists not let their reification of mathematical concepts rest for some time, think from the side of POC, and question the epistemic processes of identification of energy propagations as a geometrical wave at some occasions, as a geometrical particle at other occasions, at times paradoxically even as their alternation, or even as their superposition as if this would solve the problem? What are the reasons for such misplaced identification of concreteness of the mathematical entities as if they both existed physically out there?
(2) Then, when they feel confronted from outside or in themselves as to the gravity of paradoxes involved in their own ad hoc explanatory creation, why do they tend to declare that all these solutions rationally and realistically (doubtlessly by way of reification of the mathematical objects used, but, as they seem to suggest, mathematically), (a) demonstrate that quantum reality is just virtual, or (b) need to be accepted merely by reason of a statistical causality in the existent world – and not by reason of the statistical measurements of causal events upon the experimental history of extent of access of causal events via measurements and identification of causes, or (c) show that these reified mathematical objects (waves and particles separately, alternately, or superpositionally) should be paradoxically the external reality because the mathematics says so?
(3) Are these traditional quantum solutions not also the modes of reification of what is made out in concepts in our brains, of which the only possible basis is the continued tendency to indirectly hold on to substance metaphysics and/or to oppose such a metaphysics absolutely, as if it were unnecessary to accept that in the cosmos there would be existents at all, behind the phenomena and the data that are being spoken of in fundamental physics.
(4) When one, for example, says that the wavefunction collapses in the physical calculations, does one, in quantum physics, tend to insist that the existent carrier of propagative energy is just collapsing into nothing or into something else that is either existent or mysteriously absolutely virtual? Does any of this sort of solutions solve anything explanatorily and realistically? Or, does it mean only and merely that the wave function collapses in the written paper, because thefunction exists in the mathematical expression, and not in the wavicles out there? In the name of the collapse of the wavefunction, are not quantum physicists reifying the mathematical entity into something existent?
(5) Are all these not the results of the reification of our concept of collapse of a mathematical function so as to naming it as an external physical process, wrongly suggesting that the function has an exact existential correspondence with our imaginative and mathematically driven conceptualization? One might argue that it is not the function but the functioning that collapses. But can the functioning be represented by a mathematical function in such a manner that the collapsing of the functioning of the physically existent wavicle would then mean a dysfunction of some sort? Would such dysfunction mean that the wavicle disappears into nothingness or becomes transformed? If it disappears into nothingness, physical matter-energy would not be conserved; and if there is only a transformation, it is not a collapse of the mathematical function. If the mathematical function alone has the collapse at observation, then the superposition causes reduction to classical concepts.
(6) In the above scenario, why do some physicists not have enough ability to recognize the need to further establish that the physical equations must first be proved to have an existent process out there at least somewhat as mentioned in the equations, in order for them to equate the mathematical function and the existent process out-there? But why are they unable to spell out the ontological and epistemological reasons for the human inability to identify the collapse in the equations in a better-than statistical manner, with its supposed correspondent event in the external world identified (as we do when we say that the pen exists)?
(7) Can they not rationally imagine at least that any epistemic identification via any version of logic and mathematics does not ipso facto produce a correspondence between the notion and the physical reality or events outside? In case of absence of sufficiency in this ability in physicists, is not fundamental quantum physics again becoming prey to the same age-old correspondence theory of truth that they tendentially denounce and accuse many philosophers of the past as having already been prey to?
A typical manner of countering the above arguments is to allege these same arguments as originating from classical physics and notions. But such a counter-allegation is feasible only if the epistemology of concept formation that I have presented can be shown to be reifying in any manner. My viewpoint may be summarized as follows: Except that whatever exists, exists in processuality of every near-infinitesimal part, I have not suggested an ontology that holds either (1) that every existent is in infinite flux, or (2) that everything existent is existent as such without flux. The epistemology of concept formation in the system I have suggested consists in (1) the connotative and denotative abstractions and concatenations of the ontological universals and the respective conglomerations that pertain to finitely fluent processual existents. Finite fluency of every near-infinitesimal part of existents is physical process; and hence finitely existent finitely fluent consciousnesses can never obtain any static manner of conceptualization of any existent process.
The classical origin of some reified notions is exactly what I attempt to demonstrate as present in quantum physics and other related sciences – using notions of concept formation, of their foundation in existent physical processes, and of the ultimate and undeniable Categories of all existence – because quantum physics is still at the realm of believing that what the physicist “sees” are mathematical waves and points. That is, more than the physical existents, they find mathematical entities as existent in physical entities, for which they give statistical and other mathematical reasons of correspondence of the two mathematical objects with the experimentally perceived reality.
Arguments with Examples, Showing Reification: I add here a few clarifications to what I said above, based on some examples from physics, beginning from a traditional concept and ending with some recent ones. There exists in physics reification of notions and quantities beyond limits permissible. By reification is meant here not merely the crude ideational substitution of a concept with a denotable thing or process. Even a quantity, when used beyond its permissible realms of application, can be taken as a reification of the significance or applicability of the quantity in a different context or in the form of a generalization. Especially (2) and (3) below are of consequence to the present work.
(1) Take the case of potential energy. It is a form of energy termed after a certain difference of states, positions, or arrangements of parts. It arises due to the difference created by the storing of any kind of energy, which will be active at release of the state or arrangement by a suitable action. This energy is not carried by any one sort of wavicle. It is the difference of states of any sort of energy expressed in any one sort of action. Thus, gravitation is one sort of potential energy; and potential energy is not gravitation. Just because of this, the sub-types of potential energy must each be carried by a specific sort of wavicle. The difference between any two stages of such special propagations is termed potential energy from the viewpoint of the earlier stage. After release to the next stage, it is spent and is no more the potential energy within those two stages exhibiting a difference. We may discover its effects quantitatively everywhere. But the discovery is as the energy obtained due to a difference of calculated or calculable energy values, not directly as of an energy carrier so identified or identifiable as in the case of photons.
But the case with photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc. is different. These wavicles are experimentally identifiable as the carriers of one kind of energy, whatever quantity of energy they may carry, and the carrier is an existent with the basic Extension-Change Categorial characteristics (ontological universals). The energy carried is measured in terms inevitably of criteria dependent on conventions. Whatever energy they contain is of a finite amount, of course not necessarily the exact amount of energy that we tend to calculate them to contain at any time and context. Science must insist on its exactness. For the purpose of generalized discussions on such quantities, it suffices to use what pertains to it from the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (infinite, finite, zero) values. The finite quantity of energy is carried by energy wavicles, and hence the energy wavicles are identifiable with the energy carried. This is not the case with potential energy.
No specific measurement result can be exact, also in the case of values concerning photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc., because humans cannot get at absolute accuracy. As an absolutizable general truth about these quantities, it is tenable that we can only determine whether they are zero or finite in quantity as long as the measurements are of existents. This is clear enough from the fact that within a finite quantity a sudden evolutionary or other sort of annihilation of the energy into zero and augmentation into infinity are only mathematically imaginable, but physically these are unimaginable. Zero and infinity can only work here as limiting but unrealizable evolutionary values of some existent finite-content energy or matter. Any quantity of measurement of matter-energy beyond finitude is merely by mathematics.
Absolute ontological commitment in mathematical conclusions in physical theory is impossible, and cannot be borne out via experimental verification and augmentation of theoretical and experimental results by use of any future theories and experimental expansions, even if it happens in the future that humanity can experiment with universes or phases of a universe in their totality. Here too the main reason is that here too there cannot exist a phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) to the effect of evolution of the finite into non-entity or infinitude. Hence, it is clear that finite Extension and Change are the foundational criteria upon which such measurements and the proofs of existence of both observable and unobservable energy and matter should be based. This fact becomes sacrosanct also in the case of the merely mathematically possible infinite density in black holes.
Thus, the speculations of existence of an infinite number of finite universes merely topologically from the “infinite volume in the null and negative curvature” case of the Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker cosmological models and their large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the distribution of matter-energy: e.g., speculations like “the existence of an infinite number of models, which are based on these same metrics, but have compact, finite volume, multiply connected spatial sections” [Fagundes 2012], are physical nonsenses. Similar is the truth-value of the popping up of infinite number of universes from the quantum vacua within a universe or between its expansion and contraction phases can only be nonsensical and an eyewash dependent only on the mathematics. The constant experience of finite phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) behind true statements and theories permits us to pronounce a corollary: No POC is possible concerning any evolutionary disappearance of matter-energy into zero or augmentation into infinite content at any point or stage of evolution of any universe or parts thereof.
In the case of potential energy, the verification is of the difference, and not of the necessary correspondence with a wavicle as the carrier of potential energy. The latter should have been seen as a must for us to suppose that potential energy does not exist as an energy carrier propagation. Here exists no chance of obtaining POC of anything existent in a finite quantity termed potential energy, because there is no existent energy carrier here. One thing becomes clear here: Genuine (existent) energy propagations are theoretically to be posited as energy carriers. Of course, the energy as such is not a thing. Instead, it is the quantity of some finite capacity of any so-identifiable “energy carrier” to cause an amount of work, always involving movement.
As a result of such movement, some Change takes place in the stuff of the energy carrier, however minute the Change is. This Change is not the same as motion, but instead, it is the ontological aspect of motion anywhere. Moreover, the Change is in stuff in Extension. The stuff of the energy carrier is not in the epistemic space that the millennia have spoken of. The quantity of some work / action being transferred by an energy carrier is not the same as the difference between two states of quantity of work / action, the difference being what we call potential energy. The energy carrier has the Categories of Extension and Change as its internal ultimate qualities. That is, the movement is within it not merely as an additional capacity but as the very quality. Every part of an energy-carrier is in Extension-Change. But potential energy is not in Extension-Change. Thus, it is clear that the concept of potential energy has been reified by a couple of centuries of practice in physics.
(2) If the electron is taken as the same sort of energy carrier as photons, gravitons, etc., there is a conceptual difficulty. At least from today’s perspective in physics, an electron is a matter wave, i.e., at the most a carrier of many energy carriers. It is not a relatively well finalizable carrier wavicle of energy of the type that photons are, with respect to the phase of the universe or parts of it or groups of universes wherein photons are relatively more unified as energy carriers than perhaps in other phases of this world or in other worlds. Electrons are matter-wavicles containing many smaller quanta of photon energy.
There is nothing wrong in saying this, even if these energy-carrying quanta are processually resident in electrons i.e., under some constant processual transformation, but not in the very form in which they produce the sort of work or as when they are freed of the higher condensation of electromagnetic wavicles in electrons and are transmitted at the luminal speed or transformed processually into something else. Hence, electrons are essentially matter particles moving in the wave form. If an electron is termed as energy carrier and conceptualized on par with photons and other electromagnetic energy, we may have to term also a stone as energy wavicles themselves, and not as a set of energy wavicles in condensation. That would miss the mark set as the purpose in general of scientific activity and thought. But this is a fact.
As already discussed, wavefunction collapse cannot be identified as an existent process out there in a manner similar to that in which we can adduce quanta of energy to any pure wave or pure point particle. Wavefunction collapse is a collapse of measurements into one of the states. The states are purely mathematical cases, surmised by reason of some statistical values. The existent energy-carrier wavicle in propagation alone is the real case. This is because the wavefunction collapse is not a collapse of some existent waves and/or existent particles out-there, but the collapse of a certain quantitative symmetry between the mathematically fixed states, a certain expected behaviour of the quantities yielded by theory, implied within the relationship between the mathematical wave and mathematical point-particle.
This is not the same as what happens when we create a notion to correspond to a process and identify the latter with a supposed external correspondent of the notion. Hence, a wave function collapse is not to have an exactly corresponding change definable as what the word ‘collapse’ can mean, in any existent energy-quanta carrier wavicle. We witness many physicists taking for granted, or omitting to differentiate between, the technical and the ordinary meanings of ‘collapse’; and thus, their audience gets convinced into believing in their new physics under the same lack of clarity and belief in the superiority of quantum mathematics.
Is it not necessary to condone such matters in the sciences on the count that human cognition has limits? True. But if this is admitted, the same limitedness must be admitted also at the theoretically notional sources of any system of thought and science. It must especially be infused at the experimental methods and interpretations of experimental and theoretical results of the system of thought and science at question. This aggravates the need to avoid reification of purely mathematical concepts of waves and points in microphysics.
To conclude, the successes of quantum physics consist in that at least many of the measurementally determined mathematical explanations of phenomena (phenomenon: the showing-themselves of existent processes from some layers of the processes) are such that, within the system of mathematically discussing these explanations, (1) further calculations and approximations fall in place, and (2) further theoretical constructions are made possible.
This demonstrates a certain extent of consistency in the theoretical apparatus wherein the initial mathematical definitions and experimentally approximate quantifications permit the acceptance of many further results as true to the foundations of the theoretical apparatuses. But if very evident paradoxes arise, then evidently their source most probably should bee seen to lie in the foundational notions of the system, their definitional specificities, etc.
Fundamental quantum physics has many unclarified notions that play into its interpretations as miraculous mystifications of physical events, which may directly be attributed to the custom of misplaced identification of concreteness in quantum physics. The test case will be that of entanglement. Even on a day when the instrumentation evolves to high capability to observe or calculate what is behind the statistical causalities in quantum physics, teleportation via entanglement may be developed as a technological advancement as whatever teleportation is in reality, even when the concept of entanglement may be found to continue to be true beyond the maximal level of the speed of light.
This is similar to when water continuously – presumed here ad hoc – falls on two adjacent leaves of a tree, where the leaves send an algorithmic signal as and when they come into contact with a drop of water stipulated as heavy enough for the signal during the flow of water over the leaves. The water that continuously flows does not make the leaves to send signals so continuously. Heavier drops within the flow send signals. This is an intermittent process and can be used to formulate an algorithm. In the EPR experiment a mesoscopic device is made to work on some selective micro-, nano-, or more minute effects without asking about the apriority or not of the causal/non-causal continuity of the totality of micro-effects on the discrete quanta of any level existent thereby. [Neelamkavil 2018: 195-196]
The processes in the objects of inquiry create some processes and their phenomena in the apparatuses. The apparatus-related phenomena and data behind the experiments related to the existent object processes within the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, which is meant to bring out a theory of the physical processes behind two wavicles in prior entanglement, can continue to be the same even after our explanation of the EPR goes clearer than today and the explanation clarifies that the processes in both the wavicles are fully caused by each other – in this case, superluminally-locally. [Neelamkavil 2018: 191 ff; 2014: Chapters 9 and 10]
These phenomena and data can be utilized further to create technological devices. This is like using the continuous falling of drops on two leaves can be used to give algorithmic signals, which may be used to create a system of harnessing the phenomena and data for service to humanity. Even today Newtonain phenomena and data are being used in engineering, medical, and other sciences profitably. But these do not mean that these successes render these branches of physics as representing reality best. The technological successes do not justify accepting in a literal manner all that is intended by the “even-now substance-philosophically” dominated or “radically virtual-philosophically” dominated minds of many physicists. Quantum cosmology is no exception to what is said above. [Neelamkavil 2018: Chapter 6]
(3) Another example is the case of reification of a quantity in the special theory of relativity. It defines in a scientistically tacit manner in the velocity-dependent Lorentz factor (γ = 1 / √(1 – [v2/c2])) that, since all our physical observations are based on the speed of electromagnetic propagations, the said system of theory “proves” the velocity of light as ultimate and, even more mysteriously, that this fact does not permit superluminal velocities. This is nothing but begging the question. For more than a century, practically none questioned this assumption that does a self-defeating of the foundations of all reason and physical ontology. Almost everyone today is blissful about the technical tool this stipulation offers for science and technology: if sonar velocity is taken as the speed limit in nature, and if all other velocities are measured in terms of this value, all higher velocities will involve zeros and infinities. Even at the level of sonar velocity as the highest limit, much technological success is thinkable, and that does not preclude higher velocities. This is an example for reification of experimental quantities. Under a similar attitude are also many AI specialists who do not inquire what the stuff of information is, but can manipulate it for much technological success, even to create BI. This will be discussed much later I detail.
Relevant answer
Answer
Go on.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
During Kurt Gödel's lecture on the occasion of Albert Einstein's birthday in 1945, this question was already raised by John Wheeler. Gödel did not comment on it. Both Einstein and Gödel did not believe in quantum theory. Is there currently any reference or article that relates to this question? From today's scientific perspective, is there a relationship between Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? Even so, when both the principles arise from different theoretical frameworks and serve different purposes within their respective domains. Please provide references.
Relevant answer
Answer
The uncertainty principle is very linked
to fourier properties of waves.
Not so with incompletness in arithmetic.
There are a few similarities. For example addition and multiplication are non commutative as operations
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
19 answers
The gravitational potential (GP) is widely ignored by the science community which appears rather strange as it is responsible for a series of quite obvious physical phenomena such as eg:
1. GP is a quantity that sums up to huge values in space as it falls off by 1/r and so mainly buids up from distant masses of the universe.
2. GP gradients, ie a secondary feature of GP, are the origin of huge forces that keep planets in orbit and galaxies in clusters.
3. Cumulative GP of all masses within the observable universe directly leads to E = mc2 and indicates relation between gravitation and electromagnetic properties of space:
4. GP has been identified as responsible for the observation of light bending over large distances (Einstein rings) by heavy celestial bodies.
5. GP is the basis for calcuation of escape velocities and the generally accepted Schwarzschild radius.
6. Interaction of accelerated bodies with distant masses of the universe was suggested by Ernst Mach and substantiated by James C. Keith, see appended reference on page 11, as the origin of acceleration forces.
Relevant answer
Answer
James Cler Maxwell : "As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any
further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."
Thanks Stefano for linking us to the above Maxwell statement.
I'm certainly quite far away from understanding the cause of gravity. I just try to find out special relations between observations that I find cannot be just accidental, so eg my estimate of the proton radius and magnetic moment which in particular depends on the E = mc2 equivalence:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Please do not underestimate ISRO. Generally, I do not share but I was a Rocket Scientist at ISRO. Attosecond based experiment will add new flavor.
Let me try to respond in poetic form.
Your query:
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how advancements in technology and experimental methods might continue to refine our understanding of time dilation. Do you see any emerging trends or challenges in this area?
Response:
Here is a poem exploring how advancements in technology and experimental methods might continue to refine our understanding of time dilation:
Unveiling Time's Elusive Dance
As science marches forth, unbowed,
Machines of precision, ever more proud,
Unravel the mysteries that time doth enfold,
Revealing secrets long left untold.
Atomic clocks, with trembling ticks,
Measure moments, as space-time complexly mix,
Exposing the truths that Einstein foresaw,
Of gravity's sway, defying time's law.
Experiments reach, to realms of extremes,
Black holes and pulsars, celestial themes,
Where time bends and warps, before our very eyes,
Shattering notions, that we once surmised.
Yet, challenges linger, in the depths unseen,
Where physics' foundations, may not be as they seem,
New phenomena, yet to be found,
Reshaping the canvas, that time doth bound.
As technology soars, and insight takes flight,
We glimpse time's dance, in ever-changing light,
Unraveling mysteries, one by one,
Toward a future, where time's secrets are won.
In this cosmic ballet, we seek to understand,
The ebb and flow, of time's elusive hand,
Empowered by tools, ever more precise,
Unveiling time's secrets, in ways once undevised.
and in Hindi:
यंत्रों के उन्नयन और प्रायोगिक विधियों में प्रगति के साथ, समय विस्तारण की हमारी समझ को किस प्रकार और अधिक परिष्कृत किया जा सकता है? क्या इस क्षेत्र में कोई उभरते प्रवृत्ति या चुनौतियाँ दिखाई दे रही हैं? यहाँ है एक कविता जो इन प्रश्नों पर हिंदी में विचार व्यक्त करती है:
कालचक्र के रहस्यों का उद्घाटन
जैसे-जैसे विज्ञान आगे बढ़ता है,
तकनीक में परिवर्तन आता है।
समय विस्तारण की आंखें खुलती हैं,
रहस्य प्रकट होते, तथ्य जुलते हैं।
परमाणु घड़ियों के कंपन-धीर,
मापते हैं क्षण, जिनमें रुप धीर।
आइंस्टीन के सिद्धांतों को साबित करते,
गुरुत्वाकर्षण के प्रभाव को प्रकट करते।
प्रयोगों ने अंतरिक्ष तक पहुंचा,
ब्लैक होल और पल्सर का सच्चा।
जहां समय बदलता, रूप बदलता,
हमारे सिद्धांत पूर्णतः नहीं मिलता।
चुनौतियाँ विद्यमान, अज्ञात में छुपी,
क्या होगा जब नई क्षमता जुटी?
क्या मूलभूत भौतिकी बदल जाएगी?
समय के नए रहस्य क्या खोल जाएंगे?
तकनीक के उत्थान के साथ,
समय की नृत्य-लीला का ज्ञान आता है।
एक-एक रहस्य खोल कर,
समय के रंग-रूप का सच्चा चमत्कार।
Good luck! partial credit ai
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
According to one popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you are experiencing a challenging life, there exists a universe where you are thriving. Meanwhile, in another universe, you might be a mighty king or queen who is unmatched in power and fame. This idea, known as the "Many-Worlds Interpretation," suggests that every decision and action lead to the creation of a new universe.
For example, when you come to a junction and decide to turn left, an entirely new universe is created where you turned right. In this view, billions of new universes are created in the blink of an eye, constantly branching out from every possible event or choice.
This raises an interesting question: When was our universe created? Was it 40 years ago when a young bachelor proposed to his girlfriend, and she rejected him, causing the creation of our universe where she joyfully accepted the ring, leading to their happy life together? Or was it just three years ago when a toddler fell ill and died in his mother's arms, causing the creation of our universe where he survived?
Given this perspective, can we really determine the age of our universe? Traditional physics suggests that our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, but quantum mechanics introduces the possibility of infinitely branching timelines. While we may be able to measure the age of our observable universe, the idea of multiple universes complicates the notion of a singular timeline or fixed creation point. Thus, determining the age of our universe in this context may ultimately be impossible.
Please comment.
Relevant answer
Answer
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/03/12/is-the-multiverse-real-the-science-behind-everything-everywhere-all-at-once/ under 'Misconceptions about the Multiverse'. There is absolutely NO (NADA, NONE) scientific evidence to prove a multiverse. It is an offshoot of string theory which has been shown to be fun mathematics, but not science.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Distance is a scalar representing the length of a traveled path. Displacement is the length of the straight line (a vector) connecting start and end points.
In a Euclidean plane, they appear to be described by the same number of units.
Light travels in a straight line, analogous to the straight line in a plane.
Is displacement measured using luminosity equal to the corresponding cosmological distance?
Are there experiments? Are there theoretical proofs? Are there articles about this? What are the cites?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Professor Shour,
This is a good question.
The answer is simply that "distance" is "distance" as normally understood.
There is actually no Special Relativity and no General Relativity, because there is no "spacetime". The Lorentz relations (light cone &c.) describe the offsets and corrections to the light rays -only-, such that space and time are left Absolute.
The reason why we know, for certain, that we have an Absolute character to space and time, is because the "Relativity of Simultaneity" has been demonstrated to be a logical impossibility. Confer above and below, tilting-mirror demonstration, and also the proof by Kılıç (2005) below :
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
10 answers
In his article "More is different", Anderson said that new laws of physics "emerge" at each physical level and new properties appear [1]; Wheeler, when claiming that "law without law" and "order comes out of disorder", argued that chaotic phenomena " generate" different laws of physics [2][3]. What they mean is that the laws, parameters, and constants of the upper level of physics appear to be independent of the laws of physics of the lower level. Is this really the case? Are we ignoring the conditions that form the physical hierarchy, thus leading to this illusion?
Let's suppose a model. The conditions for the formation of new levels are at least two: i. Existence of low-level things A,B ...... , the existence of interaction modes a, b,...... ; two, the existence of a sufficient number of low-level things, NxA, MxB....... Then when they are brought together, there are many possible combinations, e.g., (AA), (AAA), (AAA)', ...... , (AB), (BA), (AAB)', (BAB), ........ Then it escalates to [(AA)(AA)], [(AB)(ABA)], ....... What this actually leads to is a change in the structure of things and a corresponding change in the way they interact. The result of the "change" is the appearance of new physical phenomena, new forces, and so on.
Physics is an exact match for math, so let's use math as an example of this phenomenon. Suppose we have a number of strings (threads) that can be regarded as underlying things, then, when a string is curled into a circle, L=2πR, the law of the relationship between the length of the string and its radius, and the irrational constant π appear; when two strings are in cascade, L=l1+l2, the law that the total length of the string is equal to the sum of the individual string lengths (Principle of superposition) appears; and, when three strings form a right triangle, the law of Pythagoras, c2=a2+b2, the law of sums of interior angles of triangles ∠A + ∠B + ∠C = 180° , and the irrational constant √2 appear ...... ; and the transcendental number e appears when the string length L grows in a fixed proportion (continuous compound interest)[4] ...... ; when the string vibrates, sine waves (sinωt) appear; when two strings are orthogonal, i appears ...... ; and when more kinds of vibrating strings are superimposed under specific conditions, more phenomena appear *.......
All these "qualitative changes" do not seem to be caused by "quantitative changes", but more by the need to change the structure. As mathematical theorems emerge, so must the laws of physics, and it is impossible for physics to transcend mathematics. Therefore, as long as there is a change of structure in physics, i.e. the possibility of symmetry breaking [5]**, new "symmetries", new "laws", new "forces", new "constants", new "parameters" are almost inevitable.
Can we try to attribute all physical phenomena to emergence under hierarchical structural conditions? For example, the fine structure constant‡‡and the Pauli exclusion principle emerge because of the formation of atomic structure; the "nuclear force" emerges because of the combination of protons and neutrons; The "strong interaction force" and "weak interaction force" appeared because of the structure of protons and neutrons. We should pay attention to the causal relationship here. Without structure, there would be no new phenomena; it is the more fundamental interactions that form structure, not these new "phenomena".
-----------------------------
Notes
* e.g. Blackbody radiation law, Bose statistics, Fermi statistics, etc.
** Should there be "spontaneous symmetry breaking"? Any change in symmetry should have a cause and a condition.
‡ What does it mean in physics if e will appear everywhere and the individual mathematical constants appear so simply? They must likewise appear at the most fundamental level of physics.
-----------------------------
2024-07-27 补充
In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.
Typical examples of such expressions can be seen @ Ingo D. Mane: “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“:
-----------------------------
Referencs
[1] Anderson, P. W. (1972). More Is Different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science.
. Science, 177(4047), 393-396. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.177.4047.393
[2] Wheeler, J. A. (1983). ‘‘On recognizing ‘law without law,’’’Oersted Medal Response at the joint APS–AAPT Meeting, New York, 25 January 1983. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 398-404.
[3] Wheeler, J. A. (2018). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. Feynman and computation, 309-336.
[4] Reichert, S. (2019). e is everywhere. Nature Physics, 15(9), 982-982. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0655-9;
[5] Nambu, Y. (2009). Nobel Lecture: Spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics: A case of cross fertilization. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(3), 1015.
Relevant answer
Answer
The way the laws of physics emerge
In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.
One of examples of such expressions can be seen in Ingo D. Mane 's paper : “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“:
Preprint On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitati...
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 140 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.
The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.
As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.
I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be a rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.
The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper
====================================================
As a results of discussions and critical analysis, I have summarised my position a few answers below, but I have decided to consolidate the most recent here as a supplement to the attached pdf.
I intended to improve my arguments that would increase the level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence.
Assumptions:
  • Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied or explicit ontological status claims.
  • Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
  • The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [1]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[1], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that in contrast, the Planck mass SI/CGS expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The meaning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
Relevant answer
Answer
Crafting a Robust Rebuttal to the Critique
I previously explained my position in [1] .
I intended to improve it to make a point, increasing its level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence, and this can be typed in this message
Assumptions:
  • Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied ontological status.
  • Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
  • The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [2]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[2], we find that there is no equivalent dimensional constants in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge and produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and charge, leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that the Planck mass expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The mea@ning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
With respect to the above paragraph, as the mere verbal construct, the recommended text is not interested at all. Instead, I would extend my idea.
First of all, time is a basic physical quantity, as real as the space is. Its sensory restriction to the present instant is conditioned by our travel along respective dimension at the speed of light propagation. Therefore, time is directly expressed by the known Hobble's ratio of a distance and the speed of mutual moving away of its two terminals.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you, Alexander Ohnemus, for presenting this fascinating question about the role of machine learning (ML), Occam's Razor, and the law of identity in potentially previewing the afterlife. Your inquiry touches on complex and thought-provoking topics at the intersection of technology, philosophy, and cognitive science.
The Concepts:
  • Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that the simplest explanation, with the fewest assumptions, is usually preferred. It helps us avoid unnecessarily complex theories when simpler ones suffice.
  • The Law of Identity: This foundational logical principle asserts that an entity is identical to itself and not different from its own nature. It’s crucial for coherent reasoning and identity in both philosophy and cognitive science.
Machine learning, particularly through techniques like neural networks and deep learning, has indeed made strides in mimicking certain aspects of human cognition. For example, ML models can simulate pattern recognition, language processing, and decision-making processes, mirroring some elements of human thought. However, these models operate within the boundaries of their programming and the data they are trained on.
When it comes to previewing the afterlife, this concept involves metaphysical and existential questions that lie beyond the empirical scope of current scientific and technological capabilities. ML can analyze and interpret data from observable phenomena but cannot access or simulate experiences or realms that transcend physical reality, such as the afterlife.
Current Limitations and Considerations:
  • Empirical Boundaries: ML operates based on data and patterns derived from the physical world. It lacks the ability to access or predict metaphysical states or experiences, as these are not empirically measurable or scientifically validated.
  • Philosophical and Metaphysical Dimensions: The afterlife is typically a topic explored through philosophy, religion, and personal belief rather than empirical science. ML and Occam’s Razor are not designed to address or validate metaphysical concepts but rather to optimize and analyze data within the limits of human understanding.
It’s intriguing to consider how advancements in ML and cognitive science might influence our understanding of consciousness and related philosophical questions. While ML may not currently offer insights into the afterlife, ongoing research in artificial intelligence and cognitive science could potentially contribute to broader discussions about human cognition and consciousness.
I would be interested in exploring how you envision the role of ML in the context of consciousness and metaphysical inquiries. Are there specific ways you think ML could contribute to our understanding of such profound questions, or any new approaches that might bridge technology and philosophy?
Looking forward to your thoughts and continuing this intriguing discussion.
Best regards,
Sandeep Jaiswal
  • asked a question related to Physics
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Fundamentalmente: Muriéndose. Solo envejece lo vivo, aunque vivas muy sanamente. Lo no vivo no envejece, solo cambia.
Envejecer es inevitable a corto o a largo plazo.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Yes because critical rationalism recognizes substance, parsimony and identity(adjusts premises upon contradiction), while skeptical empiricism believes all results from impressions. Skeptical empiricism also believes the self is an illusion.
Relevant answer
Si lo es, definitivamente, porque el gran valor de la CIENCIA RACIONAL, a demostrado y lo sigue haciendo hoy,su inconmensurable valor social y humano al solucionar infinidad de padecimientos y grandes sufrimientos humanos. Además del la mayor duración y esperanza de vida actual es disfrutada y dá esperanzas de ser prolongada.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024)
Date: 19-09-2024
Location: Online
Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024**** Extended to 1-8-2024
The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024) is pleased to invite researchers, practitioners, and professionals to submit papers for presentation and publication at the IESTI conference. This prestigious event aims to bring together leading scholars, researchers, and industry experts to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Topics of Interest
Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
  • Engineering:
    • Mechanical Engineering
    • Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    • Civil Engineering
    • Chemical Engineering
    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Materials Science and Engineering
    • Computer Science and Engineering
  • Science:
    • Physical Sciences
    • Life Sciences
    • Environmental Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • Chemical Sciences
    • Artificial Intelligence
  • Technology:
    • Information Technology
    • Communications Technology
    • Nanotechnology
    • Biotechnology
  • Innovation:
    • Technological Innovation
    • Innovation Management
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Sustainable Development
    • Policy and Innovation
Submission Guidelines
Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are not currently under review elsewhere. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and evaluated based on originality, technical and research content, correctness, relevance to the conference, contributions, and readability.
Paper Submission Process:
1. Format: All papers must be formatted according to the conference template available on the conference website.
2. Length: Full papers should be between 6-10 pages, including all figures, tables, and references.
3. Submission Link: Submit your papers through the online submission system available on the conference website.
4. Review Process: Each paper will undergo a blind peer review process.
5. Notification: Authors will be notified of the review results by 15-08-2024.
6. Camera-Ready Submission: Final versions of accepted papers must be submitted by 31-08-2024.
Important Dates
  • Paper Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
  • Notification of Acceptance: 15-08-2024
  • Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 31-08-2024
  • Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20-08-2024
  • Conference Dates: 19-09-2024
Conference Proceedings
All accepted and presented papers will be published in the journals listed on the following website:
Special Sessions and Workshops
  • IESTI 2024 will also feature special sessions and workshops focusing on current trends and emerging topics in Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation. Proposals for special sessions and workshops can be submitted to editor@academicedgepub.co.uk, by 1-8-2024.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding paper submissions or the conference, please contact:
We look forward to your participation in IESTI 2024 and to a successful conference!
We would like to extend our invitation to invite you to join the editorial board of the:
- Journal of Probiotics and Bioactive Molecules Research (JPBMR)
Please send an email including your full name, affiliation, CV, and mention the selected journal to the following email address: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
Sincerely,
IESTI 2024 Organizing Committee
Relevant answer
Answer
Looking forward to seeing this all progress
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
7 answers
I have put this question for the discussion.
Relevant answer
Answer
AI and IoT in nanoscience leverage advanced algorithms to enhance data analysis and control mechanisms at nanoscale levels, aiding in precise measurement and manipulation of nanomaterials. This synergy enables breakthroughs in quantum computing, nanoelectronics, and sensor technology, propelling innovations in physics, materials science, and beyond.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Is there any article or project about interaction of the "Schumann Resonance" on the brain alpha or theta waves?
  • The Schumann resonances (SR) are a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum :: Schumann Resonance Freq. : 7.83 Hz
  • Alpha waves are neural oscillations in the frequency range of 8–12 Hz
More:
Best Regards
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe there's a Russellian Platonic Form -- the Form of not having a Form.... 🤣
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
Relativity is used when speed is high enough. Quantum mechanics is used at subatomic scales. Thus, relativity and quantum mechanics are complimentary, depend on different variables, and should follow the law of identity: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics
Relevant answer
Answer
Turns out it is surprisingly simple to unify Relativity theories with Quantum Mechanics. Those who have been "indoctrinated" into the "flat spacetime" mindset, "think" that Planck units of length & time are fixed throughout time -- for them it is impossible to reconcile QM with Relativity.
Cosmological Relativity successfully unifies Special and General Relativity with QFT by consciously mixing quantum and emergent metrics in the same equations, thus making relativistic math compatible with quantum-scale metrics.
From a higher perspective all we need is to realize that our "here & now" local reference frame experiences Space~Time expansion. This means that all atoms, meter sticks, pendulums, people, planets & galaxies expand with time. Suddenly, the math becomes so simple that it will boggle the minds of many physicists who think that unification has to be made so complex that is needs mathematical notations so abstract it becomes impossible to relate the math to actual measurements.
Many equations contain the speed of light squared, c² [m²/s²] this becomes [Δ area]/[(Δ Planck times)/second] - this describes the local reference frame spreading forth its surface area while the number of Planck seconds -- per each passing second -- increases linearly with the age of the universe. Thus, the Speed of Light, c = l_P/t_P remains constant because (Number of Planck Lengths/second) grows in lockstep with the number of Planck times/second -- this is called being covariant to the 1st.
This 2nd differential has the astonishing value of:
(d²tP/s²) = 4.2709338x10^25 [(Planck times/second)/second]!
With this understanding comes the realization that Hubble's Constant is not (and never was) constant. When you simplify the units of [km/second/Megaparsec] this becomes [/second]. Hubble's parameter is simply the reciprocal of the age of the universe measured in seconds.
What makes this quantity so incredible is with this understanding comes the realization that this 2nd differential does all the work that the cosmological constant, Λ, hoped it could do.
I could go on for another 30-50 pages. Please see: (PDF) Foundations of Cosmological Relativity: Redefining Space~Time and Physical Constants (researchgate.net)
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
I Think Self publication can be a good option for you.
read the following article for further motivation :)
Should You Self-Publish Your Research?
In 1901, Beatrix Potter’s “The Tales of Peter Rabbit” was rejected by several publishers, so she self-published the book. Less than a year later, publisher Frederick Warne & Co., one of the original group of publishers who rejected her manuscript, became Beatrix Potter’s publisher. The relationship lasted for 40 years and led to the publication of over 23 books. Over a century later, over two million books, which have been authored by Beatrix Potter, are sold each year!
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 16 June 2024. "Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman have denounced modern physics as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Physics, they say, must return to a Newtonian viewpoint; much of relativity theory must go, along with essentially all of quantum mechanics, string theory, and modern cosmology. In their insistence on justifications in terms of “physical nature,” they cling to a macroscopic worldview that doesn't work in the high-velocity arena of relativity or the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. It is suggested that the concept of identity be widened to accommodate the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena."
Relevant answer
Answer
I completely agree with Peikoff and Harriman
Already in the 1920's Alfred Korzybski was warning:
Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are revised.” ([1], page liii) Alfred Korzybski, 1921
Quoted from (PDF) Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI).
Following his recommendation, and going back to Wilhelm Wien's 1901 project to consider electromagnetic mechanics as a better foundation to both kinematic and electromagnetic mechanics rather than kinematic mechanics chosen in 1907, the following developments were progressively described:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The central idea in Jewish philosophy is that God is a singular, indivisible entity beyond human comprehension, distinct from any creation or being. Understanding God as each being's individualized higher self might not be entirely aligned with this. However, Jewish mysticism does talk about the concept of a Divine spark within every living being, indicating a connection and inherent sacredness. Thus, one could think of seeking alignment with their 'higher self' as trying to live in accordance with God's laws and the spark of divine within them. It's important to note that interpretations can vary widely, and other religions or spiritual traditions might have different understandings of the relationship between God and the self.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024)
Date: 19-09-2024
Location: Online
Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024) is pleased to invite researchers, practitioners, and professionals to submit papers for presentation and publication at the IESTI conference. This prestigious event aims to bring together leading scholars, researchers, and industry experts to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Topics of Interest
Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
  • Engineering:
    • Mechanical Engineering
    • Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    • Civil Engineering
    • Chemical Engineering
    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Materials Science and Engineering
    • Computer Science and Engineering
  • Science:
    • Physical Sciences
    • Life Sciences
    • Environmental Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • Chemical Sciences
    • Artificial Intelligence
  • Technology:
    • Information Technology
    • Communications Technology
    • Nanotechnology
    • Biotechnology
  • Innovation:
    • Technological Innovation
    • Innovation Management
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Sustainable Development
    • Policy and Innovation
Submission Guidelines
Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are not currently under review elsewhere. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and evaluated based on originality, technical and research content, correctness, relevance to the conference, contributions, and readability.
Paper Submission Process:
1. Format: All papers must be formatted according to the conference template available on the conference website.
2. Length: Full papers should be between 6-10 pages, including all figures, tables, and references.
3. Submission Link: Submit your papers through the online submission system available on the conference website.
4. Review Process: Each paper will undergo a blind peer review process.
5. Notification: Authors will be notified of the review results by 15-08-2024.
6. Camera-Ready Submission: Final versions of accepted papers must be submitted by 31-08-2024.
Important Dates
  • Paper Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
  • Notification of Acceptance: 15-08-2024
  • Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 31-08-2024
  • Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20-08-2024
  • Conference Dates: 19-09-2024
Conference Proceedings
All accepted and presented papers will be published in the journals listed on the following website:
Special Sessions and Workshops
  • IESTI 2024 will also feature special sessions and workshops focusing on current trends and emerging topics in Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation. Proposals for special sessions and workshops can be submitted to: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk, by 1-8-2024.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding paper submissions or the conference, please contact:
We look forward to your participation in IESTI 2024 and to a successful conference!
We would like to extend our invitation to invite you to join the editorial board of the:
- Journal of Probiotics and Bioactive Molecules Research (JPBMR)
Please send an email including your full name, affiliation, CV, and mention the selected journal to the following email address: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
Sincerely,
IESTI 2024 Organizing Committee
Relevant answer
Answer
شكرا جزيلا دكتور🙏🏻
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
I built an AI powered tool that gives you a detailed PDF report on your manuscript to improve your chances of publication.
The report includes:
- Strengths and Weaknesses
- Quantitative scoring for each section
- Actionable recommendations with examples
It's $1 per upload to cover costs. The first 20 users can use discount code "FREE" to try it out now.
Would love to hear any feedback and thoughts - https://reviewmypaper.ai/
Relevant answer
Answer
That's a great question and definitely a valid concern of protecting IP!
Here's how data is handled:
- The manuscript is sent to our backend and deleted from our database within 72 hours of generating your report.
- In creating the review the only external service used is the OpenAI API, and they've explicitly stated "data sent to the OpenAI API will not be used to train or improve OpenAI models" [reference here](https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/how-we-use-your-data#:~:text=As%20of%20March%201%2C%202023%2C%20data%20sent%20to%20the%20OpenAI%20API%20will%20not%20be%20used%20to%20train%20or%20improve%20OpenAI%20models)
It won't save the data longer than it needs to and will never be used to train a model.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
The concept of fine tuning suggests that each being gets one life in the material realm followed by an eternal afterlife. This view posits that life on Earth is intricately balanced and designed to support a singular physical existence, after which individuals transition to an eternal spiritual existence or afterlife.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
These three areas are quite different, although they can touch on related ideas in some ways. Here's a breakdown:
  • Information theory: This is a branch of applied mathematics that focuses on quantifying, storing, and transmitting information. It uses concepts from probability and statistics to analyze how efficiently information can be communicated through channels with noise or limitations.
  • Concrete concepts: This refers to ideas that are well-defined, specific, and easy to grasp. They are not abstract or theoretical. Examples include the concept of a chair, the number 5, or the color red.
  • Critical rationalism: This is a philosophical approach to knowledge acquisition. It emphasizes the importance of testing and criticizing ideas to see if they hold up under scrutiny. It rejects the notion of absolute certainty and suggests that knowledge is always provisional, open to revision based on new evidence.
There might be some connections:
  • Information theory and concrete concepts: Information theory can be used to analyze how efficiently concrete concepts are communicated. For example, a simple concept like "red" might require fewer bits to transmit than a more complex idea.
  • Critical rationalism and information theory: Critical rationalism can be used to evaluate the quality of information itself. If information is incomplete, contradictory, or not well-sourced, then a critical rationalist approach would be to question its validity.
Overall, information theory is a mathematical framework, concrete concepts are specific ideas, and critical rationalism is a way of approaching knowledge. They are all valuable tools in different areas.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
What is inside an outer space black hole?
Relevant answer
Answer
Contrary to current theory, my own theory proposes that black holes are very simple entities. A number of theorists, past and present, have proposed Zero Point Energy as also being a physical field called the Zero Point Field, theorists such as De Broglie, Dirac, and many others, which many have called a super-fluid.
The creation of a neutron star is the result of a supernova explosion and implosion. When big enough, a back hole can be created.
Following this logic, a black hole is nothing more than the most condensed form of matter, made up of highly compressed field material of the Zero Point Field. A presently unknown form of matter, of the simplest, and densest type. They all have a finite size to them and are the opposite of being vacuous.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Rationalism is referring to rational behavior, and it can be based upon many kinds of evidence sources like testimony, history, empirical evidence, etc.. and so on. Critical entails a behavior of carefully analyzing something to the point where it is required. From there we can understand that critical rationalism means that the person is employing a behavior in which they are employing rationality to their thinking using different kinds of evidences as a base for their analysis.
On the other hand, empiricism entails that we are demanding about empirical evidence. Skepticism means that the person is employing a behavior of radically questioning something. So if we join both terms, it will mean that the person is asking simultaneous questions about something while demanding only empirical evidence.
So, from the above mentioned understanding we can conclude that critical rationalism is a concept and empirical skepticism is a type of critical rationalism but the latter employ a bit more strong behavior then the former.
So, I am not an expert on the field, neither do I know what these terms actually mean. But from names, I have derived this meaning which is quite sensible in my view
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Physics vs philosophy.
Relevant answer
Answer
Every day we see similarities. For example, the rainbow caused by refraction of light, diffraction patterns off a compact disc, the patterns when viewed in a kaleidoscope, the blue hue of the sky and bodies of water, etc. This is only a small list.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
I don't know.
1)
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 14 June 2024.
2)
Relevant answer
Answer
Wolfram physics is a mathematical abstraction, far from real physics.
Her criticism in my book: Pages 38 - 48:
Nastasenko V.(2023) Initial Quanta Level of the Material World and Substantiation of Its Parameters. India. United Kingdom. London Kolkata Tarakeswar. BP International. – 65 P. ISBN 978-81-19491-00-1 (Print) ISBN 978-81-19491-01-8 (eBook) DOI: 10.9734/bpi/mono/978-81-19491-00-1
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Either history does NOT EXACTLY repeat or the future is too unpredictable to risk such rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation
Relevant answer
Answer
The statement aligns with Michel Talagrand's work on probability and randomness, which won him the 2024 Abel Prize.
Key Points:
  • Non-repeating History: Unique conditions and randomness prevent exact repetition.
  • Unpredictable Future: Talagrand's research shows precise predictions are difficult, highlighting the limits of deterministic models.
Talagrand’s Contributions:
  • Concentration Inequalities: Measure deviations in random variables, useful in finance and machine learning.
  • Stochastic Processes: Understand systems influenced by randomness over time.
Implications:
  • Risk Management: Must account for unpredictability.
  • Decision Making: Use probabilistic models.
  • Scientific Approach: Focus on likelihoods, not certainties.
Talagrand’s work shows the need to complement rationalism with probabilistic methods to handle real-world complexities.
2024 Abel prize: Michel Talagrand wins maths award for making sense of randomness | New Scientist
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Dear Colleagues,
Peer-review isn't working well, and it needs an overhaul. In the time of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and remote work, it doesn't make sense to wait for months just to receive few lines rejecting an excellent manuscript or accepting a poor one!
Would you spend five minutes to answer a questionnaire on Google forms, and help SCIENEUM.io solve this problem for all of us?
Are you one of us? https://youtu.be/ewOuhohAjWc
Write your comment below!
Relevant answer
Answer
Done, participated ! Good video Khalid M. Saqr
Reminded me to:
I. Bentov human evolution.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Alexander Ohnemus
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Birth marks the beginning and equally marks the day, date, and second of death, the end for all living beings who breathe oxygen, consume water, or ingest the carbon and the nitrogen that grace the food on Earth, even if it be the gum at the back of a postage stamp that allows the cockroach to live upon for years and even longer.
The two phases are unalterable and absolute but a completely transparent certitude that defies challenge as well as the highest level of comprehension, and a level of acceptance that is achieved only by rarely-of-the-rare, and, is far beyond our narcissistic and simplistic ego-massaging or understanding to ascribe even the slightest or infinitesimal meaning to our existence. Beyond NATURE that we partially or minimalistically perceive by our senses or lack of senses, lie oceans of incomprehension. A simple fusion of microscopic sperm and ovum marks birth while dissipation of all body processes underscore death. The humility of understanding (standing under and inner) NATURE can yield a nano-drop or quintillionth of the Cosmos with endless galaxies dwarfing the ignorance of our existence.
-- when breath turns air, death is the end, yours and mine and all those who live. Our existence as such is the product of a long evolution over millions of years. Everything has to be considered in order to understand ourselves as we are today. But, first of all, what we can remember, or research, about the causes and the course that man has taken in his life, of long distance, can never make us forget that man, or the being that gave rise to him, the first reaction that he produced, gave rise to another reaction, or sensation. which is not one of trust, but of fear. It is this feeling that is at the origin of a whole process that, from a cultural and even philosophical point of view, translates the emergence of a life beyond the existing one. With it came a whole set of figures, which man needed to use to calm this feeling: fear. At the moment, we have a broader set of knowledge, technological means and processes, which we can use, at any time, and thus guarantee our confidence, security, so that we are not afraid, but we are afraid. We continue to feel fear and, for this reason, we cannot completely disconnect from a symbolic pretext, with evaluative content, that we create to calm ourselves, or self-regulate our emotional tension; And we didn't even realize it. Heaven and hell are figures created by an ideology, the dominant one, that has entertained us. However, we cannot disregard all this reality, because although philosophical, it has produced an action of guaranteeing comfort in man and with man. Am I wrong? Am I frivolous, because I question a whole magical reality that man has created? I do not think so. I am not an atheist, because I continue to believe in something that does not exist, but that gives me comfort as it exists. I would have been burned alive if the words I now produce had been produced in the time of the Inquisition. I wasn't burned, but a lot of good people were burned, because they defended ideas identical to those I hold today. In my country, every day, or almost every day, I move in squares where people have been burned alive by the work of the Tribunal of the Holy Office. This fact arose in Spain and was also transferred to Portugal. We condemn the atrocities of Hitler, Putin and others, who are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, millions of people, but we forget that we have whitewashed, and are whitewashing, the attitude of a religious institution, which was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. This forgetfulness exists, and will continue to exist, because we are afraid of fear.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Does Wolfram prefer quantum mechanics or relativity? Why?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello, Stephen Wolfram, has a unique perspective when it comes to the age-old debate between quantum mechanics and relativity. Rather than explicitly favoring one theory over the other, Wolfram takes a more holistic approach, seeking to unify these seemingly disparate branches of physics through his groundbreaking work on computational models and the fundamental theory of physics.
At the heart of Wolfram's philosophy lies a deep fascination with the complex behaviors that can emerge from simple computational rules. In his seminal book, "A New Kind of Science" and his subsequent research, he explores how cellular automata and other computational processes might hold the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe. His ultimate goal is to develop a unified theory that can encompass both quantum mechanics and relativity, transcending the traditional boundaries between these two pillars of modern physics.
The Wolfram Physics Project, a recent endeavor spearheaded by Wolfram himself, embodies this ambitious vision. By proposing that the universe operates as a vast computational system governed by simple rules, Wolfram aims to reconcile the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity, deriving them from a more fundamental, computational substrate. This approach represents a bold departure from conventional thinking, suggesting that the dichotomy between these theories might be resolved through a deeper understanding of computation in physics.
Wolfram's reluctance to express a clear preference for either quantum mechanics or relativity stems from his commitment to a unified approach. He believes that both theories are likely emergent properties of underlying computational processes, and that a true understanding of the universe will require a framework that integrates them seamlessly. By focusing on cellular automata and the concept of computational irreducibility, Wolfram seeks to develop new ways of thinking about physical laws that go beyond current paradigms.
It's worth noting that Wolfram's ideas have not been without controversy. Some physicists have criticized his claims as being non-quantitative and arbitrary, arguing that his model has yet to reproduce the precise quantitative predictions of conventional physics. However, Wolfram remains undeterred, believing that new ideas in science often take time to gain acceptance, much like Einstein's theory of relativity did in its early days.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
The simulation theory is NOT parsimonious because at least partial free will is self-evident. Reason would not exist without the fundamental choice to focus on life. Even animals probably make decisions thus, have souls.
Relevant answer
Answer
this is a good start, you will see how subject to environmental and pseudo-random chaos theory effects of critical systems like the brain, are. the idea that we are masters of our brains and minds, is an illusion to all but probably some very dedicated monks and practices of discipline.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
11 answers
Quantum mechanics because the statistics. Relativity is more theoretical.
Relevant answer
Answer
Both, in the sense that global Lorentz invariance-in the absence of gravity-and local Lorentz invariance-in the presence of gravity-are exact symmetries and quantum mechanics, in the sense that the probability distribution of a system subject to quantum fluctuations can be obtained in a well-defined way, once the space of states has been identified.
Quantum mechanics doesn't predict Hawking radiation-because the space of states of a gravitational system, in general, isn't known, due to the appearance of spacetime singularities, which the semi-classical approximation that describes Hawking radiation, doesn't resolve. A more robust prediction of quantum mechanics, in the presence of gravity, is that black holes, when probed by quantum matter, have finite entropy (the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), for which the degrees of freedom that can account for it have been identified in certain cases, cf.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Do you must use paper and pen to do physics research?
Relevant answer
Answer
In experimental studies, you will be required to keep a certifiable notebook that documents your work. Rarely are electronic notebooks as robustly accepted as certifiable compared to pen written notebooks. Exceptions may exist when they have been well implemented.
In theoretical studies, you will be challenged to develop a logical work flow to your analysis or derivations. Rarely are such developments done well "just in your head" without some form of note taking. Here again, you return to keeping a notebook, logbook, or journal to record your thoughts. Unlike with experimental studies, you may be under a less firm guideline that you must keep your journal in a written form rather than an electronic format.
I hope this helps you address your question. Otherwise, you will need to provide more specifics.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
14 answers
Einstein field equations [1]:
Rµν - (1/2)gµνR + Λgµν = Tµν ...... (EQ.1)
where Λ is the cosmological constant, gµν is the spacetime metric, and Rµν is the Ricci tensor. EQ.1 expresses the relationship between the amount of energy-momentum (mass) and the curvature of spacetime in a region (or point) of spacetime.
The basic Friedmann equation that dominates the expansion of the universe [2]:
(a')2+K=8πGρa(t)2/3 ...... (EQ.2)
where a(t) is the Robertson-Walker scale factor, and it determines how large-scale distances in space change with time in Friedmann-Lemaître -Robertson-Walker metric:
ds2=gµνdxµdxν=dt2-a2(t)dX2 ....... EQ.3
And it is a solution of Einstein field equations. Two Space-Time properties are expressed here: curvature and expansion over time.
What causes Space-Time Curvature is local energy. What drives spacetime expansion is dark energy. ”Physics welcomes the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant,Λ; today the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence." [3] Dark energy is not the usual matter and radiation[2].
Our questions are:
1) Space-time is interconnected, confined by the speed of light c =Δx /Δt; the factor a(t) that determines space-time is of a kinetic nature; what makes it relevant only to time (it affects all of space in the same way as time passes) [4] and not to space?
2) Can the Einstein field equations essentially be written as two separate equations, the bending effect equation and the expansion effect equation?
3) How does Space-Time know to distinguish between energy and dark energy if Space-Time Curvature and Expansion are both different properties?
4) Can local Space-Time Curvature geometrically affect expansion if it appears to be strongly curved?
-----------------------------
Notes
* “How the view of space-time is unified (3)-If GR's space-time is not curved, what should it be? ”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO17How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_3-If_GRs_space-time_is_not_curved_what_should_it_be
** How the View of Space-Time is Unified (4) - Is Space-Time Expansion a Space-Time Creation?
-----------------------------
Refererncs
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY (Chinese ed.). Oxford University Press.
[3] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm
Thank you for the suggestions and tips, but I published for the love of science and my publication alone is enough for me.
I thought you were a very nice person, I like people who speak the truth and objectively. Congratulations.
I stopped researching due to lack of time and money, because without support the research would take too long and therefore, I published all the research for other researchers, if they want, they can continue with the research.
Best Kind Regards
Stenio
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
One doesn't need to be a philosopher, but understanding philosophical concepts relevant to their field, like epistemology or ethics, can enhance critical thinking and methodology in science, promoting more robust and ethical research practices.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The vastness or sustainability of a belief system doesn't necessarily indicate its plausibility. Plausibility depends on evidence, logical coherence, and consistency with observable phenomena, rather than the popularity or longevity of a belief. While a belief system's widespread acceptance or enduring nature may influence perceptions, plausibility is determined by its ability to withstand critical scrutiny and align with empirical reality.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Please talk about the topics you are familiar with or things which makes sense (recommendation) on this site as this is not a general social media.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
The theme of the diffraction typically refers to a small aperture or obstacle. Here I would like to share a video that I took a few days ago that shows diffraction can be produced by the macroscopic items similarly:
I hope you can explain this phenomenon with wave-particle duality or quantum mechanics. However, I can simply interpret it with my own idea of Inhomogeneously refracted space at:
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Researchers,
I am pleased to share my latest work on optics and diffraction, focusing on the deformation of shadows when they intersect. This article has recently been published in the European Journal of Applied Physics. I hope you find it intriguing.
Best regards, Farhad
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
To avoid contradictions, concepts must be adjusted, so eternal ones probably don’t exist. Without free will, on SOME level, we would only be clumps of cells without the ability to reason. Free will is intimately connected to the law of identity.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
10 answers
1)No one can predict the future completely accurately.
2)So, all beings probably have a unique enough form.
3)Plus, the most fundamental essence of reality is unknown.
4)Thus, upon death, each being probably doesn't return.
Relevant answer
Answer
The corruption of thought and character suggests its unlikely, unless both are simply renewed.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
10 answers
can someone guide me to the equation of SINGLE ATOM of any element? which equation that defines it's birth?
Thanks
Relevant answer
Answer
The equation that defines the birth of a single atom of any element is not distinctively defined, in Chemistry or Physics. Atoms are not treated as living organisms,meaning that atoms are not "born" or birthed like other living organisms do, however, atoms are essential particles that constitute all matter universally which are formed by nuclear fusion, radioactive decay etc.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
24 answers
“According to general theory of relativity, gravitation is not a force but a property of spacetime geometry. A test particle and light move in response to the geometry of the spacetime.”[1] Einstein's interpretation of gravity is purely geometrical, where even a free point particle without any properties and any interactions, moves in a curved spacetime along geodesics, but which are generated by the energy tensor Tµν [2]. Why isn't gravity generated directly by Tµν, but must take a circuitous route and be generated by the geometry of spacetime Gµν?
Gµν=G*Tµν
This is Einstein's field equation, and the Einstein tensor Gµν describes the Space-Time Curvature. We know that in classical mechanics and quantum field theory, it is the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian quantities that determine motion. Motion is essentially generated by energy-momentum interactions. Why is it irrelevant to energy-momentum in GR? Einstein had always expected the unification of electromagnetic and gravitational forces to be geometrically realized [3]*. Is such an expectation an exclusion of energy-momentum interactions in motion? Can the ultimate unification of forces be independent of energy-momentum and manifest itself only in motion in pure spacetime? If not, one of these must be wrong.
--------------------------------------
Supplement: Gravity is still a force
Gravity appears to be a ‘spacetime gravity’, i.e., gravity caused by spacetime metric differences, the same as gravitational red shift and violet shift [1]. The current four-dimensional space-time ‘geodesic’ interpretation of gravity is to match the geometric appearance of Space-Time Curvature. Time and space are symmetrical, and geodesic motion is not initiated by the ‘arrow of time’ alone, but must be accompanied by equivalent spatial factors. Any interpretation that destroys the equivalence of space and time should be problematic.
[1] "What is Force, a Field? Where is the Force Field? How does it appear? Is the Force Field a Regulating Effect of the Energy-Momentum Field?"
-----------------------------
Notes
* "After his tremendous success in finding an explanation of gravitation in the geometry of space and time, it was natural that he should try to bring other forces along with gravitation into a “unified field theory” based on geometrical principles."
If one thinks that it holds only at Tµν = 0, see the next question NO.37: Is there a contradiction in the Schwarzschild spacetime metric solution?
-----------------------------
References
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Earman, J., & Glymour, C. (1978). Einstein and Hilbert: Two months in the history of general relativity. Archive for history of exact sciences, 291-308.
[3] Weinberg, S. (2005). Einstein’s Mistakes. Physics Today, 58(11).
Relevant answer
Answer
Does a body fall in a gravitational field without passing time?
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
51 answers
To date the presence of Dark Energy, has remained a mystery. This is solved on the basis of fundamental unit of energy, Planck's constant, from which space-time itself, the forces of nature including gravity, and all particle physics can be derived. This is achieved on the on the basis of the speed of light and classical geometry. In the first instance new research points to a definitive answer to the presence of space time and the value of Hubble's constant. Here we invite open access research and discussion to probe the mysteries and very nature of Dark Energy, and the origins of all the aspects of Nature including the laws of thermodynamics.
Relevant answer
Answer
“Patent offices everywhere in the world are authorized to reject perpetuum mobile patent claims without individual check.”
I know what you’re talking about and let me be much more precise :“in some countries, unless the said individual check has been done, they can’t even allow you to file for such a patent”.
Hahahaha... that’s one more reason why science is not about your suggested belief.
RUN YOUR OWN TEST AND EMBRACE THE FACTS.
Cheers.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
7 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
And what can you say about life before birth?
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
You can get a FREE ordination certificate and honorary degree here: https://www.dudeism.com/
The ordination actually qualifies you to perform marriages in California (and maybe some other states too). 🤩
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Imagine an enormous cylinder in a flat landscape. You are standing along the inner edge. How big would the cylinder need to be for you to not see the curvature? I.e., Instead think you are standing along a completely flat wall. Consider an average person with average eyesight. Would happily accept both the motivation, answer and calculation.
Bonus question: If you had any particular practical tools to your disposal to improve your estimate of the curvature in this scenario, what would they be and how would they help?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for you answer Belyazid Abdellatif , if I understand it correctly, are you talking about the curvature of the earth, or the curvature of the cylinder? As I am wondering how big the cylinder need to be for you to not notice the curvature of the cylinder, not the curvature of the earth being obscured by the cylinder. Or are you meaning that the curvature of the cylinder can only be obscured by the inherent curvature of the earth? I thought that the curvature of the cylinder would be unnoticable at a smaller distance than caused by the curvature of the earth?
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, @Cornelia E. Nauen, your list of classical reasons for collapse is very true. As you wisely note, "... including what may be taken from others" and "... we might reflect on how more humility and restraint can make us all live well ...". These are the morals/ethics within Civilization that are ultimately behind possible Collapse or Thrival. Civilization is Man's first basic attempt at cooperating within our species, a several millenia first-attempt at establishing rules/ethics of a Co-op game. If the Earth-civilization is to Survive/Thrive, and "Not collapse", it will need to update its Rules of Civility, and establish a social fabric which makes adherence to such rules "wholey natural and mutually advantageous" to its diverse members.
Then, with survival ensured, our civilized humanity can move to a unified "HumanKind level of consciousness". This level will most likely not happen "over-night" -- yet, strangely, I somehow sense it may happen exactly that way -- once "WE" are ("Whole Earth" is) sufficiently ready!
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
For those who are interested in Upcoming Events "CONFERENCES and WEBINARS" in 19-20 March 2025.
International Conference on Physics and Quantum Physics:
Relevant answer
Answer
For other fields (Nursing World, Health, Biotech Congress, Cancer Science, Pharmaceutics, Entrepreneurship Summit, Women's Forum, Petroleum Summit, Earth Science Congress ...) you can check them on this website:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
We are trying to sputter a metallic target. We can clearly see the plasma however after depositing for more than 30 minutes there is no deposition on the substrate. What can be the reason for this? need expert advice.
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
I think that the gas pressure is a critical factor. Increasing the gas pressure will raise the collision frequency and the sputtering rate, but it will reduce the average mean free path of the sputtered atoms to reach the substrate and will also reduce the adhesion.
So, it is better to control the gas pressure in low range to have better adhesion and allow a longer mean free path of the sputtered atoms reaching the substrate.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
Maybe we should identify what is the most parsimonious afterlife. Expanding the law of identity, maybe physics can determine the exact afterlife all have coming.
My previous attempts:
Guessing what the afterlife broadly is:
Guessing what the afterlife is NOT.
3)
4)
Relevant answer
Answer
I'm not sure, but I think you did a great job of answering your own question... 'Charting the afterlife?" Answer; Why?' Somethings can't be known. Or, even if we were explained, would we have a hope of understanding the answer? Every morning on the way to work I ask the Universe for a special watch over some friends and family (including my most recent 'best friend' Chihuahua) who have 'recently' passed. I know that they are soaring the Universe as Light Beings and I am a bit jealous of all they will see and re-understand. But charting the afterlife... it's like charting the Universe itself accurately. THEY could do it, but we can't even imagine what it looks like in totality. MY opinion, of course.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Of course I sometimes doubt the afterlife is eternal salvation for all, so, I live and deduce what it might be...
Relevant answer
Answer
Jeus can give man eternal life and redemption, according to the Scritpure.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
1)Maybe I'm slightly less intuitive. I
consider myself kind of a skeptical empiricist/critical rationalist.
2)I don't believe concepts are eternal because they need to be adjusted to avoid contradictions.
3)Without some transcendence beyond materialism, we would NOT be able to reason.
4)Maybe reason is the ONLY absolute CONCEPT. And reason derives from God.
5)Concepts also aid execution thus, maybe I'm a more skeptical Aristotelian.
Sources:
Relevant answer
Answer
There is nothing wrong with being reasonable or rational in how your base your fundamental views and perception of the universe. However we live in a society where there are thousands of beliefs and variations of beliefs exist. In order to live together, we must use our intelligence for tolerance, to live with each other. It is not important to define our perceptions, but to understand them how they are.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
81 answers
I have defined matter and energy as follows (elsewhere), but is it possible to define them independent of each other?
Meanings of ‘Matter’ and ‘Energy’ Contrasted: By ‘matter’ I mean whatever exists as the venue of finite activities of existents and itself finitely active in all parts. Matter is whatever is interconvertible with existent energy.
Existent ‘energy’ is conceived as those propagative wavicles which, in a given world of existents, function as the fastest existent media of communication of someeffects between any two or more chunks of matter or of energy (i.e., of motions / changes).
Existent matter and existent energy are inter-convertible, and hence both should finally be amenable to a common definition: whatever exists with, in all parts, finite activity and stability.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
93 answers
By reason of the application of the Lorentz Factor [(1 - (v squared / c squared)) raised to the power of 1/2] in the denominator of equations, luminal and other comparable energy propagations take on one and the same velocity. This is the relativity-effect (better, comparative effect) between v of objects, compared to c of the speed of light. That is, it is presupposed here that c is the object of comparison for determining the speed effect of velocity difference across a duration.
It is against the criterion-velocity itself c that c becomes unsurpassable! Hence, I am of the opinion that the supposed source-independence is nothing but an effect of OUR APPARATUS-WISE OBSERVATION LIMIT AND OUR FIXING OF THE CRITERION OF OBSERVATION AS THE OBSERVED VELOCITY OF LIGHT.
In this circumstance, it is useless to claim that (1) luminal and some other energy propagations with velocity c are source-independent, and (2) these wavicles have zero rest mass, since the supposed source-independence have not been proved theoretically or experimentally without using c cas the criterion velocity. The supposed source-independence is merely an effect of c-based comparison.
Against this background, it is possible to be assured that photons and other similar c-wavicles are extended particles -- varying their size throughout the course of motion in the spiral manner. Hence the acceptability of the term 'wavicle'. Moreover, each mathematical point of the spiral motion is to be conceived not as two-, but as three-dimensional, and any point of motion added to it justifies its fourth dimension. Let us call motion as change.
These four dimensions are measuremental, hence the terms 'space' (three-dimensional) and 'time' (one-dimensional). This is also an argument countering the opinion that in physics and cosmology (and other sciences) time is not attested!
The measurements of the 3-space and measurements of the 1-time are not in the wavicles and in the things being measured. The measurements are the cognitive characteristics of the measurements.
IN FACT, THE EXTENSION OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'SPACE', AND THE CHANGE OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'TIME'. Hence, the physically out-there-to-find characteristics of the wavicles and objects are EXTENSION AND CHANGE.
Extension is the quality of all existing objects by which they have parts. This is not space. Change is the quality by which they have motion, i.e., impact generation on other similar wavicles and/or objects. This is not time. Nothing has space and time; nothing is in space and time. Everything is in Extension-Change.
Any wavicle or other object existing in Extension-Change is nothing but impact generation by physically existent parts. This is what we term CAUSATION. CAUSALITY is the relation of parts of physical existents by which some are termed cause/s and the others are termed effect/s. IN FACT, THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE PARTS, WHICH BEGINS THE IMPACT, IS THE CAUSE; AND THE SECOND ASPECT IS THE CAUSE. Cause and effect are, together, one unit of continuous process.
Since energy wavicles are extended, they have parts. Hence, there can be other, more minute, parts of physical objects, which can define superluminal velocities. Here, the criterion of measurement of velocity cannot be c. That is all...! Hence, superluminal velocities are a must by reason of the very meaning of physical existence.
THE NOTION OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ('TO BE') IS COMPLELTEY EXHAUSTED BY THE NOTIONS OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. Hence, I call Extension and Change as the highest physical-ontological Categories. A metaphysics (physical ontology) of the cosmos is thus feasible. I have been constructing one such. My book-length publications have been efforts in this direction.
I invite your contributions by way of critiques and comments -- not ferocious, but friendly, because I do not claim that I am the last word in any science, including philosophy of physics.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
124 answers
In relativity (GTR, STR) we hear of masslessness. What is the meaning of it with respect to really (not merely measurementally) existent particles / waves?
I am of the opinion that, while propagating, naturally, wavicles have mass, and there is no situation where they are absolutely at rest or at rest mass. But we know that there are zero rest masses in physics. These are in my opinion masses obtained when the moving wavicle is relatively at rest. Thus, the energy here is supposed to be at a relative zero.
But such a relative rest is obtainable only with respect to a few movements (under consideration at a given relativistic situation); and always there will be some other physical processes around and within, with respect to which the zero rest mass wavicle already contextually taken as in zero rest mass is not at zero rest mass and zero energy.
If the relatively achieved zero rest mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant and permanent "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".
This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the various, most general, accessible values attributable to processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.
But I forgot to write down the said example. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But I realize that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it.
The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero value of any quantity. I have shown in the said book that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
93 answers
COMPLEXITY IN SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND CONSCIOUSNESS:
DIFFERENCES AND IMPORTANCE
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Introduction
With an introductory apology for repeating a few definitions in various arguments here below and justifying the same as necessary for clarity, I begin to differentiate between the foundations of the concept of complexity in the physical sciences and in philosophy. I reach the conclusion as to what in the concept of complexity is problematic, because the complexity in physical and biological processes may not be differentiable in terms of complexity alone.
Thereafter I build a concept much different from complexity for application in the development of brains, minds, consciousness etc. I find it a fine way of saving causation, freedom, the development of the mental, and perhaps even the essential aspects of the human and religious dimension in minds.
Concepts of complexity considered in the sciences are usually taken in general as a matter of our inability to achieve measuremental differentiation between certain layers of measurementally integrated events within a process or set of processes and the same sort of measurementally integrated activities within another process or set of processes.
But here there is an epistemological defect: We do not get every physical event and every aspect of one physical event to measure. We have just a layer of the object’s total events for us to attempt to measure. This is almost always forgotten by any scientist doing complexity science. One tends to generalize the results for the case of the whole object! Complexity in the sciences is not at all a concept exactly of measurement of complexity in one whole physically existent process within itself or a set of processes within themselves.
First, what is termed as complexity in an entity is only the measure of our inability to achieve measurements of that part of a layer of process which has been measured or attempted to be measured. Secondly, always there is a measuremental comparison in the sciences in order to fix the measure of complexity in the aspects that are measured or attempted to measure. This is evidently a wrong sort of concept.
The essential difference here must be sharpened further. As a result of what is said above, the following seems more appropriate. Instead of being a measure of the complexities of one or a set of processes, complexity in science is a concept of the difference between (1) our achieved abilities and inabilities to achieve the measurement of actual complexity of certain levels of one physical process or a set of processes and (2) other types of levels of the extent of our ability and inability to measurement within another process or set of processes. This is strange with respect to the claims being made of complexity of whichever physical process a science considers to measure the complexity.
If a scientist had a genuine measurement of complexity, one would not have called it complexity. We have no knowledge of a higher or highest complexity to compare a less intense complexity with. In all cases of complexity science, what we have are just comparisons with either more or less intense complexities. This makes the concept of complexity very complex to deal with.
2. Is Complexity Really Irreducible?
On a neutral note, each existent physical process should possess great complexity. How much? We do not know exactly; but we know exactly that it is neither infinite nor zero. This truth is the Wisdom of complexity. Let us call it complexity philosophy. This philosophical concept of complexity within the thing itself (CI) is different from the methodologically measurement-based concept of complexity (CM) in the sciences. In CM, only the measured and measurable parts of complexity are taken into consideration and the rest of the aspects and parts of the existent physical process under consideration are forgotten.
If this were not true, the one who proposes this is bound to prove that all the aspects and parts of the physical process or at least of the little layer of it under measurement are already under any one or more or all measurementally empirical procedures with respect to or in terms of that layer of the process.
To explain the same differently, the grade of complexity in the sciences is the name of the difference (i.e., in terms of ‘more’ or ‘less’) between the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another.
Both must be measured in terms of the phenomena received from them and the data created of them. Naturally, these have been found to be too complex to measure well enough, because we do not directly measure, but instead measure in terms of scales based on other more basic scales, phenomena, and data. But the measure-elements titled infinite-finite-zero are slightly more liberated of the directly empirically bound notions. I anticipate some arguing that even these are empirically bound. I am fully agreed. The standpoint from which I called the former as formed out of directly empirically bound notions is different, that is all.
Both the above (the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another) must be measured in terms of certain modes of physical phenomena and certain scales set for these purposes. But this is not the case about the scale of infinity-finitude-zero, out of which we can eternally choose finitude for the measure of ease and difficulty of measuring a specific layer of causal activity without reference to any other.
The measure-difference between the causal activities is not the complexity, nor is it available to be termed so. Instead, complexity is the difference between (1) the ease and difficulty of measuring the one from within the phenomena issuing from certain layers of the physical process and the data created by us out of the phenomena, and (2) the ease and difficulties of measuring the same in the other.
In any case, this measure-difference of ease and difficulty with respect to the respective layers of the processes can naturally be only of certain layers of activity within the processes, and not of all the layers and kinds of activity in them both. Evidently, in the absence of scale-based comparison, their complexity cannot be termed a high or a low complexity considered within itself. Each such must be compared with at least another such measurementally determined layer/s of process in another system.
3. Extent of Complexity outside and within Complexity
The question arises now as to whether any process under complexity inquiry has other layers of activity arising from within themselves and from within the layers themselves from which directly the phenomena have issued and have generated the data within the bodily, conscious, and cognitive system of the subjects and their instruments.
Here the only possible answer is that there is an infinite number of such layers in any finite-content physical processual entity, and within any layer of a process we can find infinite other sub-layers, and between the layers and sub-layers there are finite causal connections, because every existent has parts that are in Extension and Change.
The infinite number of such complexity layers are each arrangeable in a scale of decremental content-strength in such a way that no finite-content process computes up to infinite content-strength. This does not mean that there are no actual differences between any two processes in the complexity of their layers of activity, or in the total activity in each of them.
Again, what I attempt to suggest here is that the measured complexity of anything or of any layer of anything is just a scale-based comparison of the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or layer of process, as compared to the same in another process or layer of process.
4. Possible Generalizations of Complexity
Any generalization of processes in themselves concerning their complexity proper (i.e., the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or one layer of activities of a process) must now be concluded to be in possession of only the quantitative qualities that never consist of a specific or fixed scale-based number, because the comparison is on a range-scale of ‘more than’ and ‘less than’.
This generalization is what we may at the most be able to identify regarding the complexity within any specific process without any measuremental comparison with another or many others. Non-measuremental comparison is therefore easier and truer in the general sense; and measuremental comparison is more applicable in cases of technical and technological achievements.
The latter need not be truer than the former, if we accept that what is truer must be more general than specific. Even what is said merely of one processual object must somehow be applicable to anything that is of the same nature as the specific processual object. Otherwise, it cannot be a generalizable truth. For this reason, the former seems to be truer than the latter.
Now there are only three possibilities for the said sort of more general truth on comparative complexity: accepting the infinite-finite-zero values as the only well-decidable values. I have called them the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (MMM) values in my work of 2018, namely, Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology.
Seen from this viewpoint, everything physically existent has great processual-structural complexity, and this is neither infinite nor zero, but merely finite – and impossible to calculate exactly or even at any satisfactory exactitude within a pre-set scale, because (1) the layers of a process that we attempt to compute is but a mere portion of the process as such, (2) each part of each layer has an infinite number of near-infinitesimal parts, and (3) we are not in a position to get at much depths and breadths into all of these at any time.
Hence, the two rationally insufficient conclusions are:
(1) The narrowly empirical-phenomenologically measuremental, thus empirically partially objective, and simultaneously empirically sufficiently subjective amount of complexity (i.e., the extent of our capacity and incapacity to discover all the complexity) in any process by use of a scale-level comparison of two or more processes.
(2) The complexity of entities without having to speak about their existence in every part in Extension-Change and the consequently evident Universal Causality.
These are the empirically highly insulated, physical-ontologically insufficiently realistic sort of concept of complexity that the sciences entertain and can entertain. Note that this does not contradict or decry technological successes by use of scientific truths. But claiming them to be higher truths on complexity than philosophical truths is unjustifiable.
Now the following question is clearly answerable. What is meant by the amount of complexity that any existent physical process can have in itself? The only possible answer would be that of MMM, i.e., that the complexity within any specific thing is not a comparative affair within the world, but only determinable by comparing the complexity in physical processes with that in the infinitely active and infinitely stable Entity (if it exists) and the lack of complexity in the zero-activity and zero-stability sort of pure vacuum. It can also be made based on a pre-set or conventionalized arithmetic scale, but such cannot give the highest possible truth probability, even if it is called “scientific”.
MMM is the most realistic generalization beyond the various limit possibilities of scale-controlled quantities of our incapacity to determine the amount of complexity in any layer of processes, and without incurring exact numbers, qualifications, etc. The moment a clear measuremental comparison and pinning up the quantity is settled for, it becomes a mere scientific statement without the generality that the MMM realism offers.
Nonetheless, measuremental studies have their relevance in respect of their effects in specific technological and technical circumstances. But it must be remembered that the application of such notions is not directly onto the whole reality of the object set/s or to Reality-in-total, but instead, only to certain layers of the object set/s. Truths at that level do not have long life, as is clear from the history of the sciences and the philosophies that have constantly attempted to limit philosophy with the methods of the sciences.
5. Defining Complexity Closely
Consider any existent process in the cosmos. It is in a state of finite activity. Every part of a finite-content process has activity in every one of its near-infinitesimal parts. This state of having activity within is complexity. In general, this is the concept of complexity. It is not merely the extent of our inability to measure the complexity in anything in an empirical manner.
Every process taken in itself has a finite number of smaller, finite, parts. The parts spoken of here are completely processual. Nothing remains in existence if a part of it is without Extension or without Change. An existent part with finite Extension and Change together is a unit process when the cause part and the effect part are considered as the aspects or parts of the part in question.
Every part of a part has parts making every part capable of being a unit process and in possession of inner movements of extended parts, all of which are in process. This is what I term complexity. Everything in the cosmos is complex. We cannot determine the level of complexity beyond the generalized claim that complexity is normally limited within infinite or finite or zero, and that physical and biological processes in the cosmos come within the finitude-limit.
Hereby is suggested also the necessity of combining the philosophical truth about complexity and the scientific concept of the same for augmentation of theoretical and empirical-scientific achievements in the future. While determining scientifically the various natures and qualities of complexity, chaos, threshold states, etc. in a manner not connected to the philosophical concept of it based on the MMM method of commitment access to values of content and their major pertinents, then, scientific research will remain at an elementary level – although the present theoretical, experimental, and technological successes may have been unimaginably grand. Empirical advancement must be based on the theoretical.
Constant effort to differentiate anything from anything else strongly, by making differentiations between two or more processes and the procedures around them, is very much part of scientific research. In the procedural thrust and stress related to these, the science of complexity (and all other sciences, sub-sciences, etc.) suffer from the lack of ontological commitment to the existence of the processes in Extension-Change and Universal Causality.
The merely scientific attitude is due to a stark deficit of the most general and deepest possible Categories that can pertain to them, especially to Extension-Change and Universal Causality. Without these, the scientist will tend to work with isolated and specifically determined causal processes and identify the rest as non-causal, statistically causal, or a-causal!
6. Complexity in Consciousness
The above discussion shows that the common concept of complexity is not the foundation on which biological evolution, growth of consciousness, etc. can directly be based. I have plans to suggest a new concept.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
75 answers
HOW TO GROUND SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY TOGETHER AXIOMATICALLY?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?
They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.
Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.
Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.
Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.
Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.
Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?
Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.
Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.
The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.
The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Realit-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.
My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.
I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.
The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.
Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer