Physics - Science topic

Dear Stam Nicolis

Although the gravitational constant G - originally a force constant in Newtonian gravity - is reintroduced in general relativity as a coupling factor between spacetime curvature and the stress-energy tensor, its inclusion raises conceptual questions.

If Newtonian gravity has been fundamentally replaced by general relativity, why does a key element of that classical theory - complete with the same physical dimension - persist in the new framework?

It seems that G was borrowed as a convenient tuning parameter, not derived from deeper relativistic principles. To complete the dimensional consistency, additional factors of the speed of light c were incorporated, making the formulation appear more like a patchwork to match empirical data than a purely theoretical leap. One might ask: was this an elegant unification or simply a clever retrofit?

see my attached article "Physical-Mathematical Proof of God"

Jan Slowak

Dear Jan,

Thank you for your thoughtful message and for sharing your contribution to this enduring mathematical enigma. I deeply appreciate your work and your hope to be part of this larger discussion.

My recent article doesn't aim to present a partial or extended proof but rather to decisively demonstrate the impossibility of the conjecture itself through ten independently formulated disproofs — each attacking a different foundational assumption. These disproofs are not just mathematical arguments but structural exposures of contradiction, aimed at settling this question conclusively and irrevocably.

As for community acceptance — I believe that truth earns its place over time, regardless of initial resistance. I welcome scrutiny and peer feedback, including yours, as part of this evolving dialogue.

Your article (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36787.23848) will be reviewed with interest, and I would be glad to reference it in future updates if it aligns with or complements any of the contradictions identified in my framework.

Looking forward to a constructive exchange — and thank you again for your engagement and collegial spirit.

With rgs, Sandeep Jaiswal

“… I see that you reference The Information as Absolute; that’s new to me, and I will check it out. Philosophically, it sounds aligned in treating information as fundamental, though I am curious whether they go into thermodynamic or operational constraints on the observer.

Would love to hear more if you have explored this line of thinking further!.….”

- really in the SS post above the problem what is “Information” and how it reveals itself /is actualized in informational systems “Matter” and “humans’ consciousnesses” is clarified sufficiently. However that isn’t trivial, so to understand this it is nevcesary to spend some time - and to think really scientifically, i.e. critically, first of all to self, logically, and objectively.

So in this case note only that before to read the main paper, where on first pages the 2007 logically rigorous proof of that nothing exist bedsides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns is given, firstly to read rather short “the response…” and SS comments to some concrete points in the linked threads.

Relating to “thermodynamic or operational constraints on the observer” - that is rather specific subject for study, thermodynamics is a specific topic in physics, including in QM, which describes rather general traits of studied systems, while the systems have other concrete parameters, which are well more interesting at the study;

- and, besides/correspondingly thermodynamics relates to “information” rather indirectly. Though yeah, in mainstream physics thermodynamical systems are in many cases described by using “the [Shannon] information theory”, and so , say, the term “informational entropy” is well popular.

But really this “theory” by no means is a real theory of what is just “information”, and really so this “fundamental breakthrough” had/has practically no scientific sense - really the thermodynamics remains now as it was soon 200 years ago.

Cheers

Please upload it as a PDF so it can also be read online.

If you simulate your FDTD fields in a periodic lattice, you can extract the Berry curvature from it under certain conditions and use it to calculate the Chern number.

First you extract modes. Then you reconstruct the Bloch states.

If your lattice is periodic, you can use Fourier analysis to obtain the Bloch states ψ_k(r). Alternatively, you can calculate a band structure in k-space and specifically compare modes at k-vectors.

For various k values, calculate the Berry connection A(k) from your Bloch states. The Berry curvature mathcalF(k) is obtained as a rotation of this. The (valley-resolved) Chern number is then:

C=frac12pi int_BZ mathcalF(k) , d^2k

If you only have discrete points, you can use the Fukui method or Wilson loops (there are also ready-made Python scripts for this).

If you need further help we will try to help...

@ Author

Good attempt to show that gravity is an electromagnetic force but lacks in totality because he does not use the existence of aether as the basic substance which as the medium for propagation of gravity, the electromagnetic force

Douglas Ruffini

Dear Douglas,

You wrote: "you refer to a series of historical developments in theoretical physics between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, focusing on the concept of electromagnetic mass of the electron and the implications for quantum mechanics and relativity."

Indeed I do. Actually, I spent the past 30 years searching through readings and discussing with physicists online for any bit of info that I progressively collected and synthesized about the origins of electromagnetic mechanics, that seemed to never be mentioned anywhere in the current literature.

The whole case seemed to have revolved about whether or not the confirmed electromagnetic mass increase of electrons with velocity (Kaufmann's experiments) also applied to macroscopic ponderable bodies.

The community chose that it did not in 1907 as SR was adopted without this discovery being taken account of, since SR was meant to mainly address the relative motion of macroscopic ponderable bodies whose masses at any velocity was assumed to remain invariant.

I eventually retraced the ontological origin of electromagnetic mechanics to the historical research work of Heaviside, Searle, Wien, Lorentz, Abraham and Kaufmann, who first established the foundation of the electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles, before the community stopped referencing and teaching it in 1907.

If specifically interested, all their papers are now in the public domain, and direct links to them are available in the Reference section of this synthesis that now synchronizes electromagnetic mechanics with kinematic mechanics, according to Wien's project as formulated in 1901:

You wrote: " In my work — the Approach Theory — I address an alternative interpretation of the temporal evolution of the electron. In fact, I propose that its motion is the result of a space-time oscillation between two poles: a relativistic future, where the electron accelerates and “gives up” mass and energy to the field, and an absolute past, in which these values ​​are recovered. This configures a closed loop of energy feedback, which provides dynamic stability without having to postulate instantaneous conservation."

I have not yet had time to look at your model, but I always had a view that no stone should remain unturned in our search to understand the physically existing universe in which we exist. This is why I manage an informal journal initially set up by a dear friend of mine in 2001, Walter Babin now passed away, in which all ideas are allowed as preprints for public exposure and discussion, including ideas that run contrary to my own views.

One never knows out of which proposition well or even less well presented, the next major progress will emerge from, so we accept all preprints, and of course all papers that discouraged authors can't se the day that they could be published in some mainstream approved journal.

You wrote: " I was struck, for example, by your mention of Kaufmann's experiments and the systematic removal of the concept of electromagnetic mass from standard treatments (already in the Annalen der Physik, 1905–1907)."

Yes. I had the same reaction at becoming aware of this back in the 1990's.

You wrote: " Of course, the main difficulty today remains experimental validation. Finding a setup that distinguishes between equivalent predictions of competing theories — especially in a landscape where the current formalism “works” — is far from trivial. "

This may come as a surprise to you, but such a set up has been in constant use in the engineering community ever since Kaufmann established the method. All cathode ray tubes (CRT screens, such as our old style TVs) reproduce exactly the method used by Kaufmann in his bubble chamber.

Propelling electron beams on utterly precise curved trajectories by energizing them with a calibrated E-fields, and deflecting them by an added precisely calibrated B-field. The detailed Lorentz force equation required is presented in the previously referred synthesis and is available although less detailed in all high energy accelerators reference works, and of course in all engineering reference works on cathode ray tubes.

Given that Kaufmann did this with the rudimentary means then available to him, this should be no big feat to recollect the related data and analyze it in light of the more extensive pool of knowledge that we now have at our disposal.

You wrote: "Not to mention the weight of the academic infrastructure in determining who receives attention, funding, and peer-review validation. A scientific revolution, between us, I see as difficult: "why should we change to something that needs experimentation and fine-tuning when we already have something else that works more or less well?""

Indeed, this seems to be the ultimate hurdle. Note that I was aware of this problem from the get go. It seems obvious that the fear inducing peer-pressure driven mental straightjacket that the Copenhagen interpretation forces all practicing mainstream theoreticians to restrict their thinking within cannot be directly breached.

Actually, my articles were never meant to catch the attention of mainstream.

Not possible since peer-pressure induced fear for their careers and reputation irretrievably prevents public discussion of any idea not already rubber stamped by their forced collective consensus.

You may have noticed that all equations in my articles are first level, meaning that they all are immediately resolvable on a simple pocket scientific calculator, involving only known constants plus a single variable, the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy of the particle considered. This is to put all my analyses within easy reach of even beginners in physics, typically physics students of the upcoming generation who are not yet captive of the mainstream mental straightjacket, and who feel totally free to read whatever catches their attention in their domain of interest.

From the RG site alone, my papers have been downloaded at a rate exceeding 500 per month for the past 7 years, the period that I know of. So these recovered discoveries are now progressively re-entering general awareness in the community, and I expect that at some point, discussions of these issues will naturally start among these new theoreticians as they integrate mainstream. When in sufficient numbers, they will eventually run the show, and theoretical progress will resume.

This about summarizes what my project was all along.

Luckily for us all, the engineering community kept the flame alive by never stopping their successful use of the Lorentz force equation, first tested by Kaufmann.

You wrote: " Yet, without opening the space for “heretical” proposals, the great scientific revolutions of the past — from quantum mechanics to relativity itself — would never have happened."

I completely agree. Hopefully, this will happen again.

Have a nice day and Best Regards, André

"Researchers at the UK quantum-computing company Quantinuum report that their quantum machine, H2-2, can distinguish between different types of knot on the basis of topological properties, and show that the method could be faster than those that run on ordinary, or ‘classical’, computers. The finding hints at where the innovative computers could someday be particularly useful. This is owing to mysterious connections between topology and quantum physics. “That these things are related is mind-blowing, I think,” says Konstantinos Meichanetzidis, a Quantinuum researcher who led the work behind the preprint..."

At any instant of time, we can consider our position to be located in local Laboratory Reference Frame, or in ECI Reference Frame or in Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame or in Galactic coordinate reference frame. Our physical living conditions are not affected in any way whether our physical location is referred to Laboratory, or ECI or Barycentric or Galactic Reference Frames. Similarly, the time measured by all precision clocks is independent of the fact whether their position or velocity is referred to Laboratory, or ECI or Barycentric or Galactic Reference Frames. All clocks measure the Newtonian absolute time irrespective of their position in any reference frame.

However, to support his assumption of light speed isotropy in ECI frame, Albert Einstein introduced a different notion of time in his 1905 paper. "…We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A". The "common time" thus defined in SR is not the absolute but relativistic time and this definition of 'time' formed the basis for relativistic synchronization convention or simply the "e-synchronization" of clocks. This arbitrary definition of relativistic time constitutes a fundamental departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time. When the clocks at two spatially separated points A and B are adjusted or set to the relativistic time, it will ensure that the time interval measured for the light to travel from A to B will be equal to the time interval measured for the light to travel from B to A. In other words, if a group of identical clocks are adjusted or set to the relativistic time then the light speed measured with such clocks will always be isotropic. Reversing the argument, if precision time of a standard clock is distributed to a group of identical clocks through light (or EM) signals by assuming light speed isotropy in the ECI (or any other inertial) reference frame, then the time thus transferred to these clocks will be relativistic time and not the absolute time.

Relativity is essentially rooted in the assumed isotropy of light speed in earth centered inertial (ECI) reference frame. Under the current procedures of satellite based time transfer, due to the assumed isotropy of light speed in ECI frame, an e-synchronous or relativistic time gets distributed to the master clocks of Timing laboratories located all over the globe. That is, the master clocks in all Timing Labs get e-synchronized instead of achieving absolute synchronization. The absolute synchronization mismatch between two e-synchronized clocks is given by the relation (D.U)/c², where D is the separation distance between the two clocks and U is the absolute velocity vector (unknown) of the earth.

When the frequency and phase or displayed time of two or more precision atomic clocks are adjusted to match exactly in close-by position, the clocks are said to be in absolute synchronization. Since the time and frequency of any precision atomic clock is independent of their position in any reference frame, the absolute synchronization of two or more clocks will not be disturbed by any change in their position. Therefore, when two or more precision atomic clocks are in absolute synchronization, they will display absolute time, regardless of their state of motion with respect to any observer. On the other hand, the relativistic or e-synchronization of two or more clocks will get disturbed by any change in their state of motion and this disturbance is accounted for through a hypothetical notion of Time Dilation.

Therefore, if we could practically measure the absolute velocity U of earth, then we can achieve absolute synchronization between two or more distant clocks even by satellite based time transfer methods.

Most crucial aspect of the proposed experiment for practical measurement of absolute velocity of earth is the use of absolute clock synchronization. We can never measure the absolute velocity of earth or one way speed of light if we set our system clocks to relavistic time through e-synchronization.

Practical measurement of absolute velocity of earth will validate Newtonian notions of absolute space, absolute time and absolute motion. It will invalidate Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and junk the notions of motion-induced length contraction and time dilation. It will re-establish the validity and utility of absolute clock synchronization and facilitate international Time keeping Labs to transfer absolute time by taking into account the absolute velocity of earth. Thus, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and International Atomic Time (TAI) will get hooked on to the absolute time in place of currently maintained Relativistic time. It will also facilitate putting precision Atomic Clocks in spaceships for enhanced navigation in deep space flights. Currently, the relativistic time cannot be maintained through e-synchronization process in space ships moving at high speeds and located far away from the earth.

Unfortunately, most Physicists are so indoctrinated into believing in the sanctity of relativistic time that they have stopped believing in the notion of Newtonian absolute time. At any reference to the word 'time' they only conceive of relativistic time and not absolute time. Even GPS system depends on relativistic time as distributed by Timing Labs.

Adding to Ed fully seconding what he imho brilliantly summarized above what urgently needs to be done - it’s also fully compatible to iSpace theory, using a simple first order multiplicative integer geometric schema to derive (by now 50+) exact values and integer geometry of constants of nature (!).

>>>

I would argue that the problem of consciousness cannot be solved by physics. It is possible to explain the wave movement of sound waves or the electromagnetic propagation of light, touch or even scent, but how these physically measurable things transform into the qualia of our personal experience cannot be explained. To claim that qualia are an emergent property is an excuse for ignorance, not an answer. And this does not touch upon the verified accounts of people gaining veridical knowledge that should not be available to them due to constraints of time and/or distance such as concurrent events occurring several hundred miles away without use of any communication device, yet with accurate descriptions of colors, person's involved and sounds.

V. G. Rousseau

Please let us behave like civilized scientists. It is not now it is about fifteen years back I have accepted the time dilation as you can see my publications date back to 2010 and it so important that the very forces of nature are dependent upon time dilation.

LOL

This will never happen. For those who don't know the crackpot John Mandlbaur, here is his biography: https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-JohnMandlbaur.php

Hi, the material in question is very vita if you consider the chemistry.

However, consider the surface area and the affinity between the two.

I hope I'm able to answer your question.

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).

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.

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.

Dear Agustin Forchetti Casarino ,

Thank you for the reminder, I will try to pay more attention to looking at these issues from a physical perspective.

Best regards,

Hangchen

“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:

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.”

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.

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

In the thread rather popular discussion about what "thought” and “real” experiments" are, happens; and it looks as that the position that

- 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

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.

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.

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.”

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:

The Schrödinger equation has been foundational in quantum mechanics, offering a framework for understanding quantum systems. However, several limitations have been identified:

o address these limitations, several alternative and extended frameworks have been proposed:

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

@ Chris Fruh How do The Hypothesis Fit Together??

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

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?

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

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

Robert Shour

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:

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

Dear Yannick Leon Kardeis,

Response to the Discussion:

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:

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:

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

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.

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

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

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:

How do they know that the velocity of light is unaffected when "spacetime" is "compressed"?'

Regards,

Laszlo

'

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.

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.

Loopholes from physics to metaphysics refer to gaps or ambiguities in scientific understanding that invite philosophical interpretation. Examples include:

These loopholes highlight the interplay between scientific inquiry and philosophical speculation, suggesting that our understanding of reality may extend beyond empirical evidence.

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.

Gary Stephens

I have read your preprint. You are absolutely correct with your consideration of reference frames and the perception of light signals.

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:

@ Preston Guynn

Thanks for your kind and detailed response. I have some questions/remarks:

... Are there theoretical attempts from other authors and, if so, how do they match with experiments?

... How was the experimental value determined?

... 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.

Go on.

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

James Cler Maxwell : "As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any

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:

Sandeep Jaiswal Ji,

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:

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

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.

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 :

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...

Peter Jackson

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:

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.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Wutke/post/Whats_wrong_with_the_Stoney_Mass_Prove_me_wrong/attachment/669bbe046e715e59922c01b6/AS%3A11431281212836662%401702877072049/download/SimpleStoney2-1.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6ImhvbWUiLCJwYWdlIjoicXVlc3Rpb24iLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19

[2]https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ad0090/pdf

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.

Alexander Ohnemus

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.

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.

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

Have you heard about Faraday cup?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cup#:~:text=A%20Faraday%20cup%20is%20a,first%20theorized%20ions%20around%201830.

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.

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.

Looking forward to seeing this all progress

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.

People have been asking this for a century! Here's an 2002 review paper you may might useful: https://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/tech/Schumman.resonances.health.pdf

These webpages seem reasonably well-researched: https://www.brmi.online/post/2019/09/20/schumann-resonances-and-their-effect-on-human-bioregulation