Science topics: Physics

Science topic

# Physics - Science topic

Physics related research discussions

Questions related to Physics

If physics adjusted for the law of identity, could we exactly quantify the afterlife? How?

Maybe so:

1)On Physics:

Presentation Critical Rationalist Physics

2)Deductive reasoning:

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.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 ?

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.

Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion

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?

Starting from the universal gravitational potential V

_{u}= c^{2}= 2GM_{u}/R_{u}we might interpret c = √V_{u}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.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.

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

**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

**. 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***potential energy**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.

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.

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 = mc

^{2}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.

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.

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?

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

**appear; when two strings are in cascade,***π**L=l*, 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, c_{1}+l_{2}^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}, the law of sums of interior angles of triangles ∠A + ∠B + ∠C = 180° , and the irrational constant**√2**appear ...... ; and the transcendental number**appears when the string length L grows in a fixed proportion (continuous compound interest)[4]***e*^{‡}...... ; when the string vibrates, sine waves (sinωt) appear; when two strings are orthogonal,**appears ...... ; and when more kinds of vibrating strings are superimposed under specific conditions, more phenomena appear***i*^{*}....... 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.

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 [m

^{3}s^{-2}]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×10^{21,}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.

Correcting cellular growth errors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382049802_Correcting_Cell_Errors

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.

**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:

**Conference Secretariat:**editor@academicedgepub.co.uk**Address:**Academic Edge Publishing LTD, London, United Kingdom

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**

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

maybe in the afterlife I've failed at... Uniqueness may be the arche...

Everyone is special:

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.

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

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."

Thus explaining free will, the self and the law of identity.

**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:

**Conference Secretariat:**editor@academicedgepub.co.uk**Address:**Academic Edge Publishing LTD, London, United Kingdom

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**

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/

Critical rationalism respects the law of identity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics

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)

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

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?

This is it: https://forms.gle/2BskfDeAoeqKf5Wt5

Are you one of us? https://youtu.be/ewOuhohAjWc

Write your comment below!

Good conscience leads to heaven. Bad conscience leads to hell. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Parsimoniouslyleast_complicated_explanation_with_greatest_evidence_the_afterlife_completely_resembles_a_dream_BUT_is_REAL

Does Wolfram prefer quantum mechanics or relativity? Why?

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.

Quantum mechanics because the statistics. Relativity is more theoretical.

Do you must use paper and pen to do physics research?

Einstein field equations [1]:

R

_{µν}- (1/2)g_{µν}R + Λg_{µν}= T_{µν}...... (EQ.1) where Λ is the cosmological constant, g

_{µν}is the spacetime metric, and R_{µν}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：

ds

^{2}=g_{µν}dx^{µ}dx^{ν}=dt^{2}-a^{2}(t)dX^{2}....... 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.

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

No mutation can change an animal into a human and no gene is completely known to manifest into a trait.

0.5)

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:

MAYBE eternal individual consciousness:

1)

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.

can someone guide me to the equation of SINGLE ATOM of any element? which equation that defines it's birth?

Thanks

“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 T

_{µν}[2]. Why isn't gravity generated directly by T_{µν}, but must take a circuitous route and be generated by the geometry of spacetime G_{µν}^{‡}? G

_{µν}=G*T_{µν} This is Einstein's field equation, and the Einstein tensor G

_{µν}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).

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.