Science topics: Physics
Science topic

Physics - Science topic

Physics related research discussions
Questions related to Physics
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
If physics adjusted for the law of identity, could we exactly quantify the afterlife? How?
Maybe so:
1)On Physics:
Relevant answer
Answer
i would point to consciousness as the underlying fact which pivotals the afterlife! Physics would touch on this on the basis of our mental capabilities... So then, perhaps we could quantify the afterlife, given the availability of resources.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Building technology to preview the afterlife presents both scientific and philosophical challenges. The concept of the afterlife is rooted in metaphysical, religious, and spiritual beliefs, which lack empirical evidence and measurable data that technology typically relies on. Science focuses on the material and observable universe, while the afterlife, by definition, transcends physical experience and is often considered beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Therefore, attempting to build technology for such a purpose would face fundamental limitations in verification, evidence, and universality of belief systems.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
KAGRA is said to be less sensitive to claimed LIGO type gravitational wave signals by two orders of magnitude as compared to the LIGO/VIRGO detectors. After KAGRA has substantially improved their seismic suspension systems it rather appears likely that KAGRA was successful in reducing the level of crackling noise* by two orders of magnitude and thereby increased the signal-to-noise ratio by two orders of magnitude.
Relevant answer
Answer
This morning I answered your question first. It seems that the reply was not sent due to my carelessness.
That's about all it contained:
This whole LIGO gravitational wave narrative is a huge hoax. I have been four weeks in China, came back yesterday (2024.10.13). There were opportunities to perform simple experiments that could be used to prove that the prediction of the my theory of gravity gives a positive result.
and quoted the wise remark of the late W.W. Engelhardt from:
'I am missing much more:
How do they manage to keep the amplitudes of the interfering beams exactly equal within a factor 10-12?
How do they manage to reduce the stray light in the dark field by a factor of 10-24 compared to the bright field?
How do they keep the circulating power constant within a factor 10-12 in order to avoid motions of the mirrors induced by fluctuating radiation pressure?
Where is the calibration curve showing displacement of the mirrors as a function of the radiation pressure? (10-18 m displacement are caused by 10-7 W light power during .2 s)
How do they know that the velocity of light is unaffected when "spacetime" is "compressed"?'
Regards,
Laszlo
'
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
7 answers
1. World Order has shown changes, especially after 2020 in almost all major fields of Politics, Economics, Social, Geopolitical etc.
2. Where the world order in real is diverting?
3. What will be the ultimate outcomes?
4. The alteration & changes of systems on Earth will change anything in Space?
5. Which systems will lose centuries-long grounds and what new will rise?
6. Is the current scenario being same as the Rise/Fall of Nations, Games of Thrones etc. or there is something significantly different this time?
7. Ultimately what impact will the Next World Order make on the entire human race and especially on the Bio-sphere?
8. How much was any World Order got impacted/formed/shaped through/by religious education directly/indirectly and why did such neuroplasticity/mind exercises base practices remain an integral part of World Orders in past? Can humans afford to continue past practices to build any new future?
9. What changes do you suggest in Next World Order, and Why?
10. Are Human going to accept defeat & surrender in front of Alien powers like gods, AIs, energy, any other life forms etc.?
11. How long more humans have the current status of rapidly shrinking freedom?
12. Will the current form of human life exist after such surrenders and what will be the expected shape of any of such life?
13. Its understood that human have to sacrifice current systems and life forms for existence, but, Is it necessary? Any workable solutions ?
Relevant answer
Answer
The notion of a unified world underpinned by industrial primacy while sidelining commercial interests poses profound questions about the future of global cooperation, the balance of power, and the potential for conflict in an increasingly multipolar world. The outcomes of these dynamics could reshape international relations and influence economic models for decades to come.
The transition from the U.S.-Soviet rivalry to what you're describing as the "era of the Warring States" reflects a complex geopolitical landscape characterized by fragmented power dynamics and the rise of emerging economies. In this new world order, traditional superpower rivalries have given way to a multipolar framework where various nations pursue their own interests, often leading to competition and conflict.
In this context, the concept of a country prioritizing industrial development while suppressing commercial interests can be interpreted through the lens of nationalism and state-driven economic models.
Nations that prioritize heavy industrialization and seek to centralize control over their economies may aim for self-sufficiency and greater global influence. These countries might invest heavily in technology, infrastructure, and human capital, viewing industrial prowess as a means to enhance their international standing and attract global partnerships.
This approach might involve limiting foreign competition, protecting domestic industries, and implementing policies that favor state-owned enterprises or public-private partnerships. By doing so, these nations could aim to create a strong internal market that fosters economic growth and innovation.
As countries pursue industrialization aggressively, the potential for conflict increases. Nations might compete for resources, markets, and influence, leading to tension and rivalry. This competition can manifest in trade wars, military conflicts, or ideological clashes.
In this scenario, countries like China or India could be viewed as potential unifiers in a fragmented global landscape. Their large populations, growing economic clout, and strategic initiatives (like China's Belt and Road Initiative) reflect attempts to assert influence over global trade routes and bolster their geopolitical interests.
The rapid advancement of technology can serve as both a catalyst for industrialization and a factor that disrupts traditional commerce. Innovations in automation, artificial intelligence, and manufacturing processes may allow nations to achieve unprecedented levels of productivity, potentially reshaping global supply chains and economic relationships.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
6 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
I see that there are responses questioning whether reincarnation actually occurs, scientific studies, as best can be conducted, indicates that it does exist. Far too many people are able to accurately report details of an existence that they should not have knowledge of via any known physical means, sometimes details that take extensive research in restricted files to verify.
The second issue seems to be that people assume that there is just one understanding of reincarnation while in fact there are at least 4 different and widely separated cultures that generally accept it. One in India/SE Asia, one in Africa, one in the Northern portions of North America and historically one in Greece and other parts of Europe. Of these, only the India/SE Asia variety suggests that a human may reincarnate as anything other than a human. All the other cultures insist that reincarnation is always within the human species.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
13 answers
The demarcation between philosophy and science is defined by the validation of ideas through experimentation. However, what happens when loopholes are created that allow unsubstantiated thoughts to re-enter science under the guise of scientific rigor? This, in fact, was achieved by scientists like Einstein and has since been embraced by the scientific community. Below are three specific examples of such loopholes. I invite you to comment on them:
  • Thought Experiment: Einstein reintroduced a core philosophical concept by renaming it, substituting real experimentation with hypothetical scenarios. This approach has significantly altered the scientific landscape.
  • Thought Instrument: Einstein also introduced the idea of the "thought instrument," exemplified by constructs like the "light clock" and the "graphene-thick windowless laboratory (GTWL)," to support his thought experiments.
  • Handicapped Experimentation: The most striking loophole was the deliberate exclusion of key observations in experiments, which allowed for experimentation within the confines of the GTWL. This last loophole is the hardest to detect but becomes obvious once revealed. Imagine being given two identical bottles containing two transparent liquids. You're told that no experiment can differentiate between the two liquids. However, when informed that one smells like white vinegar and the other does not, you're instructed not to use your sense of smell in the experiment. This is similar to the rationale given to justify the "equivalence principle" and, subsequently, general relativity.
For more on the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science, please refer to the attached presentation materials.
Relevant answer
Answer
Loopholes from physics to metaphysics refer to gaps or ambiguities in scientific understanding that invite philosophical interpretation. Examples include:
  1. Quantum Mechanics: Phenomena like superposition and entanglement challenge classical notions of reality and causality, prompting metaphysical questions about the nature of existence and observation.
  2. Consciousness: The hard problem of consciousness—how subjective experience arises from physical processes—raises metaphysical inquiries about the mind-body relationship.
  3. Space and Time: The nature of spacetime in relativity, especially concepts like time dilation, leads to questions about the fundamental structure of reality.
  4. The Big Bang: The origins of the universe and what (if anything) preceded the Big Bang open discussions about existence, creation, and causality.
These loopholes highlight the interplay between scientific inquiry and philosophical speculation, suggesting that our understanding of reality may extend beyond empirical evidence.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
If a string vibrates at 256 cycles per seconds then counting 256 cycles is the measure of 1 second. The number is real because it measures time and the number is arbitrary because it does not have to be 1 second that is used.
This establishes that the pitch is a point with the real number topology, right?
Relevant answer
Answer
Since I wrote this question I realized that frequency is not a velocity but a potential energy, which like 25 mph, is also defined on a time interval.
The string frequency is not a real valued function, it is a scalar output by a functional. The functional takes the equation of motion as input and outputs a number. The number is an extremal given by the calculus of variations. When the string is plucked, it quickly zeros in on the frequency with the lowest energy as a solution to the calculus of variations.
This is important in music theory because we want the frequencies on musical instruments to be algebraic numbers, not sine wave. That is, frequecy is real but constant and cannot change as long as the instrument is in tune.
This explains how the frequency is constant right up to the moment it stops. Velocity cannot go to zero at a point.
The frets on guitar are functionals that take the string tuning function as input and output the frequency.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
25 answers
Starting from the universal gravitational potential Vu = c2 = 2GMu/Ru we might interpret c = √Vu as the escape velocity out of the visible universe. If c is independent of the location, ie we are not at the center of the universe as prescribed at the times of Galileo, the total universe should be unlimited.
Relevant answer
Answer
I have read your preprint. You are absolutely correct with your consideration of reference frames and the perception of light signals.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
I am interested in the existence of intelligent tutoring systems for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary schools or artificial intelligence tools that can be used in the classroom for student-teacher collaboration in these subjects, preferably with free access.
I am also interested in any relevant studies/research or information on the above topic.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Aikaterini Bounou , there are many AI tools available, as most of them are free of charge.
"How can AI help you improve Mathematics learning and teaching? In this post, we will dive into various use cases of AI for learning math and what are some of the popular AI tools for learning and teaching math. Mathematics can be a overwhelming for some, but with AI's personalization powers, it can become an accessible and fun topic to learn for all. Learners of any age can be better at math with AIs help..."
Also, have a look in this article where you will find more info on AI tools for science:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
In principle, this situation offers opportunities for new insights. However, it sometimes rather leads to the rejection of observational data without serious examination. So experimental data [1] that apparently confirm James C. Keith's prediction [2] about the energy loss of highly accelerated mass systems due to interaction with large external masses is not even considered for serious discussion, in particular, as it seems to confirm Mach's principle, see [2] on page 11. Other objections are based on purely theoretical grounds [3] and/or on inaccurate comparative data [4] without any comment on the experimental setup and procedures.
[3] Frehland E., 1973, Critique of the Gravitational Radiation Damping Effects Calculated by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 7 (12), 490-492
[4] Reinhardt M. and Rosenblum A., 1973, The Nonexistence of a Relativistic Effect Proposed by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 6 (5), 189-191
Relevant answer
Answer
@ Preston Guynn
Thanks for your kind and detailed response. I have some questions/remarks:
PG: "electron mass is due to relativistic rotational motion, with the result of the model matching the experimentally determined value to nine significant digits."
... Are there theoretical attempts from other authors and, if so, how do they match with experiments?
... How was the experimental value determined?
PG: "the velocity that the center of the galaxy rotates around the earth on average."
... How do we make sure that the coincidence is not accidental?
PG: "it appears that our galaxy rather than the universe is the relevant factor in a modified Machian principle."
... As the number of galaxies increases with the 3rd power of distance, gravitational potential should mainly build up from the most distant galaxies rather than from nearby masses of our Milky Way galaxy.
PG: "Since the rotation is central to particle structure, then over the dimensions of a macroscopic object, that may well have an effect such as described in your experiment."
... The experiment rather tells something about the possible interaction of accelerating (orbiting) atomic nuclei with large external masses.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
40 answers
UNTENABLE REIFICATION OF CONCEPTS IN PHYSICS: With Examples
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Ph.D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)
This document consists of some reflections in the conceptual practices in physics, and starts with some questions at physicists. It is conceived as a sequel to the text of the following discussion: [[https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution]]. Thereafter follow some arguments with examples, showing reification in physics.
Questions on Reification of Concepts in Physics: The best of physicists and philosophers of physics even today do not seem to be decided on any concrete but all-encompassing solution by reason of the rational strength of arguments given in favour of the one or another solution here below. The questions not answered here are these:
(1) Why do physicists not let their reification of mathematical concepts rest for some time, think from the side of POC, and question the epistemic processes of identification of energy propagations as a geometrical wave at some occasions, as a geometrical particle at other occasions, at times paradoxically even as their alternation, or even as their superposition as if this would solve the problem? What are the reasons for such misplaced identification of concreteness of the mathematical entities as if they both existed physically out there?
(2) Then, when they feel confronted from outside or in themselves as to the gravity of paradoxes involved in their own ad hoc explanatory creation, why do they tend to declare that all these solutions rationally and realistically (doubtlessly by way of reification of the mathematical objects used, but, as they seem to suggest, mathematically), (a) demonstrate that quantum reality is just virtual, or (b) need to be accepted merely by reason of a statistical causality in the existent world – and not by reason of the statistical measurements of causal events upon the experimental history of extent of access of causal events via measurements and identification of causes, or (c) show that these reified mathematical objects (waves and particles separately, alternately, or superpositionally) should be paradoxically the external reality because the mathematics says so?
(3) Are these traditional quantum solutions not also the modes of reification of what is made out in concepts in our brains, of which the only possible basis is the continued tendency to indirectly hold on to substance metaphysics and/or to oppose such a metaphysics absolutely, as if it were unnecessary to accept that in the cosmos there would be existents at all, behind the phenomena and the data that are being spoken of in fundamental physics.
(4) When one, for example, says that the wavefunction collapses in the physical calculations, does one, in quantum physics, tend to insist that the existent carrier of propagative energy is just collapsing into nothing or into something else that is either existent or mysteriously absolutely virtual? Does any of this sort of solutions solve anything explanatorily and realistically? Or, does it mean only and merely that the wave function collapses in the written paper, because thefunction exists in the mathematical expression, and not in the wavicles out there? In the name of the collapse of the wavefunction, are not quantum physicists reifying the mathematical entity into something existent?
(5) Are all these not the results of the reification of our concept of collapse of a mathematical function so as to naming it as an external physical process, wrongly suggesting that the function has an exact existential correspondence with our imaginative and mathematically driven conceptualization? One might argue that it is not the function but the functioning that collapses. But can the functioning be represented by a mathematical function in such a manner that the collapsing of the functioning of the physically existent wavicle would then mean a dysfunction of some sort? Would such dysfunction mean that the wavicle disappears into nothingness or becomes transformed? If it disappears into nothingness, physical matter-energy would not be conserved; and if there is only a transformation, it is not a collapse of the mathematical function. If the mathematical function alone has the collapse at observation, then the superposition causes reduction to classical concepts.
(6) In the above scenario, why do some physicists not have enough ability to recognize the need to further establish that the physical equations must first be proved to have an existent process out there at least somewhat as mentioned in the equations, in order for them to equate the mathematical function and the existent process out-there? But why are they unable to spell out the ontological and epistemological reasons for the human inability to identify the collapse in the equations in a better-than statistical manner, with its supposed correspondent event in the external world identified (as we do when we say that the pen exists)?
(7) Can they not rationally imagine at least that any epistemic identification via any version of logic and mathematics does not ipso facto produce a correspondence between the notion and the physical reality or events outside? In case of absence of sufficiency in this ability in physicists, is not fundamental quantum physics again becoming prey to the same age-old correspondence theory of truth that they tendentially denounce and accuse many philosophers of the past as having already been prey to?
A typical manner of countering the above arguments is to allege these same arguments as originating from classical physics and notions. But such a counter-allegation is feasible only if the epistemology of concept formation that I have presented can be shown to be reifying in any manner. My viewpoint may be summarized as follows: Except that whatever exists, exists in processuality of every near-infinitesimal part, I have not suggested an ontology that holds either (1) that every existent is in infinite flux, or (2) that everything existent is existent as such without flux. The epistemology of concept formation in the system I have suggested consists in (1) the connotative and denotative abstractions and concatenations of the ontological universals and the respective conglomerations that pertain to finitely fluent processual existents. Finite fluency of every near-infinitesimal part of existents is physical process; and hence finitely existent finitely fluent consciousnesses can never obtain any static manner of conceptualization of any existent process.
The classical origin of some reified notions is exactly what I attempt to demonstrate as present in quantum physics and other related sciences – using notions of concept formation, of their foundation in existent physical processes, and of the ultimate and undeniable Categories of all existence – because quantum physics is still at the realm of believing that what the physicist “sees” are mathematical waves and points. That is, more than the physical existents, they find mathematical entities as existent in physical entities, for which they give statistical and other mathematical reasons of correspondence of the two mathematical objects with the experimentally perceived reality.
Arguments with Examples, Showing Reification: I add here a few clarifications to what I said above, based on some examples from physics, beginning from a traditional concept and ending with some recent ones. There exists in physics reification of notions and quantities beyond limits permissible. By reification is meant here not merely the crude ideational substitution of a concept with a denotable thing or process. Even a quantity, when used beyond its permissible realms of application, can be taken as a reification of the significance or applicability of the quantity in a different context or in the form of a generalization. Especially (2) and (3) below are of consequence to the present work.
(1) Take the case of potential energy. It is a form of energy termed after a certain difference of states, positions, or arrangements of parts. It arises due to the difference created by the storing of any kind of energy, which will be active at release of the state or arrangement by a suitable action. This energy is not carried by any one sort of wavicle. It is the difference of states of any sort of energy expressed in any one sort of action. Thus, gravitation is one sort of potential energy; and potential energy is not gravitation. Just because of this, the sub-types of potential energy must each be carried by a specific sort of wavicle. The difference between any two stages of such special propagations is termed potential energy from the viewpoint of the earlier stage. After release to the next stage, it is spent and is no more the potential energy within those two stages exhibiting a difference. We may discover its effects quantitatively everywhere. But the discovery is as the energy obtained due to a difference of calculated or calculable energy values, not directly as of an energy carrier so identified or identifiable as in the case of photons.
But the case with photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc. is different. These wavicles are experimentally identifiable as the carriers of one kind of energy, whatever quantity of energy they may carry, and the carrier is an existent with the basic Extension-Change Categorial characteristics (ontological universals). The energy carried is measured in terms inevitably of criteria dependent on conventions. Whatever energy they contain is of a finite amount, of course not necessarily the exact amount of energy that we tend to calculate them to contain at any time and context. Science must insist on its exactness. For the purpose of generalized discussions on such quantities, it suffices to use what pertains to it from the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (infinite, finite, zero) values. The finite quantity of energy is carried by energy wavicles, and hence the energy wavicles are identifiable with the energy carried. This is not the case with potential energy.
No specific measurement result can be exact, also in the case of values concerning photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc., because humans cannot get at absolute accuracy. As an absolutizable general truth about these quantities, it is tenable that we can only determine whether they are zero or finite in quantity as long as the measurements are of existents. This is clear enough from the fact that within a finite quantity a sudden evolutionary or other sort of annihilation of the energy into zero and augmentation into infinity are only mathematically imaginable, but physically these are unimaginable. Zero and infinity can only work here as limiting but unrealizable evolutionary values of some existent finite-content energy or matter. Any quantity of measurement of matter-energy beyond finitude is merely by mathematics.
Absolute ontological commitment in mathematical conclusions in physical theory is impossible, and cannot be borne out via experimental verification and augmentation of theoretical and experimental results by use of any future theories and experimental expansions, even if it happens in the future that humanity can experiment with universes or phases of a universe in their totality. Here too the main reason is that here too there cannot exist a phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) to the effect of evolution of the finite into non-entity or infinitude. Hence, it is clear that finite Extension and Change are the foundational criteria upon which such measurements and the proofs of existence of both observable and unobservable energy and matter should be based. This fact becomes sacrosanct also in the case of the merely mathematically possible infinite density in black holes.
Thus, the speculations of existence of an infinite number of finite universes merely topologically from the “infinite volume in the null and negative curvature” case of the Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker cosmological models and their large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the distribution of matter-energy: e.g., speculations like “the existence of an infinite number of models, which are based on these same metrics, but have compact, finite volume, multiply connected spatial sections” [Fagundes 2012], are physical nonsenses. Similar is the truth-value of the popping up of infinite number of universes from the quantum vacua within a universe or between its expansion and contraction phases can only be nonsensical and an eyewash dependent only on the mathematics. The constant experience of finite phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) behind true statements and theories permits us to pronounce a corollary: No POC is possible concerning any evolutionary disappearance of matter-energy into zero or augmentation into infinite content at any point or stage of evolution of any universe or parts thereof.
In the case of potential energy, the verification is of the difference, and not of the necessary correspondence with a wavicle as the carrier of potential energy. The latter should have been seen as a must for us to suppose that potential energy does not exist as an energy carrier propagation. Here exists no chance of obtaining POC of anything existent in a finite quantity termed potential energy, because there is no existent energy carrier here. One thing becomes clear here: Genuine (existent) energy propagations are theoretically to be posited as energy carriers. Of course, the energy as such is not a thing. Instead, it is the quantity of some finite capacity of any so-identifiable “energy carrier” to cause an amount of work, always involving movement.
As a result of such movement, some Change takes place in the stuff of the energy carrier, however minute the Change is. This Change is not the same as motion, but instead, it is the ontological aspect of motion anywhere. Moreover, the Change is in stuff in Extension. The stuff of the energy carrier is not in the epistemic space that the millennia have spoken of. The quantity of some work / action being transferred by an energy carrier is not the same as the difference between two states of quantity of work / action, the difference being what we call potential energy. The energy carrier has the Categories of Extension and Change as its internal ultimate qualities. That is, the movement is within it not merely as an additional capacity but as the very quality. Every part of an energy-carrier is in Extension-Change. But potential energy is not in Extension-Change. Thus, it is clear that the concept of potential energy has been reified by a couple of centuries of practice in physics.
(2) If the electron is taken as the same sort of energy carrier as photons, gravitons, etc., there is a conceptual difficulty. At least from today’s perspective in physics, an electron is a matter wave, i.e., at the most a carrier of many energy carriers. It is not a relatively well finalizable carrier wavicle of energy of the type that photons are, with respect to the phase of the universe or parts of it or groups of universes wherein photons are relatively more unified as energy carriers than perhaps in other phases of this world or in other worlds. Electrons are matter-wavicles containing many smaller quanta of photon energy.
There is nothing wrong in saying this, even if these energy-carrying quanta are processually resident in electrons i.e., under some constant processual transformation, but not in the very form in which they produce the sort of work or as when they are freed of the higher condensation of electromagnetic wavicles in electrons and are transmitted at the luminal speed or transformed processually into something else. Hence, electrons are essentially matter particles moving in the wave form. If an electron is termed as energy carrier and conceptualized on par with photons and other electromagnetic energy, we may have to term also a stone as energy wavicles themselves, and not as a set of energy wavicles in condensation. That would miss the mark set as the purpose in general of scientific activity and thought. But this is a fact.
As already discussed, wavefunction collapse cannot be identified as an existent process out there in a manner similar to that in which we can adduce quanta of energy to any pure wave or pure point particle. Wavefunction collapse is a collapse of measurements into one of the states. The states are purely mathematical cases, surmised by reason of some statistical values. The existent energy-carrier wavicle in propagation alone is the real case. This is because the wavefunction collapse is not a collapse of some existent waves and/or existent particles out-there, but the collapse of a certain quantitative symmetry between the mathematically fixed states, a certain expected behaviour of the quantities yielded by theory, implied within the relationship between the mathematical wave and mathematical point-particle.
This is not the same as what happens when we create a notion to correspond to a process and identify the latter with a supposed external correspondent of the notion. Hence, a wave function collapse is not to have an exactly corresponding change definable as what the word ‘collapse’ can mean, in any existent energy-quanta carrier wavicle. We witness many physicists taking for granted, or omitting to differentiate between, the technical and the ordinary meanings of ‘collapse’; and thus, their audience gets convinced into believing in their new physics under the same lack of clarity and belief in the superiority of quantum mathematics.
Is it not necessary to condone such matters in the sciences on the count that human cognition has limits? True. But if this is admitted, the same limitedness must be admitted also at the theoretically notional sources of any system of thought and science. It must especially be infused at the experimental methods and interpretations of experimental and theoretical results of the system of thought and science at question. This aggravates the need to avoid reification of purely mathematical concepts of waves and points in microphysics.
To conclude, the successes of quantum physics consist in that at least many of the measurementally determined mathematical explanations of phenomena (phenomenon: the showing-themselves of existent processes from some layers of the processes) are such that, within the system of mathematically discussing these explanations, (1) further calculations and approximations fall in place, and (2) further theoretical constructions are made possible.
This demonstrates a certain extent of consistency in the theoretical apparatus wherein the initial mathematical definitions and experimentally approximate quantifications permit the acceptance of many further results as true to the foundations of the theoretical apparatuses. But if very evident paradoxes arise, then evidently their source most probably should bee seen to lie in the foundational notions of the system, their definitional specificities, etc.
Fundamental quantum physics has many unclarified notions that play into its interpretations as miraculous mystifications of physical events, which may directly be attributed to the custom of misplaced identification of concreteness in quantum physics. The test case will be that of entanglement. Even on a day when the instrumentation evolves to high capability to observe or calculate what is behind the statistical causalities in quantum physics, teleportation via entanglement may be developed as a technological advancement as whatever teleportation is in reality, even when the concept of entanglement may be found to continue to be true beyond the maximal level of the speed of light.
This is similar to when water continuously – presumed here ad hoc – falls on two adjacent leaves of a tree, where the leaves send an algorithmic signal as and when they come into contact with a drop of water stipulated as heavy enough for the signal during the flow of water over the leaves. The water that continuously flows does not make the leaves to send signals so continuously. Heavier drops within the flow send signals. This is an intermittent process and can be used to formulate an algorithm. In the EPR experiment a mesoscopic device is made to work on some selective micro-, nano-, or more minute effects without asking about the apriority or not of the causal/non-causal continuity of the totality of micro-effects on the discrete quanta of any level existent thereby. [Neelamkavil 2018: 195-196]
The processes in the objects of inquiry create some processes and their phenomena in the apparatuses. The apparatus-related phenomena and data behind the experiments related to the existent object processes within the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, which is meant to bring out a theory of the physical processes behind two wavicles in prior entanglement, can continue to be the same even after our explanation of the EPR goes clearer than today and the explanation clarifies that the processes in both the wavicles are fully caused by each other – in this case, superluminally-locally. [Neelamkavil 2018: 191 ff; 2014: Chapters 9 and 10]
These phenomena and data can be utilized further to create technological devices. This is like using the continuous falling of drops on two leaves can be used to give algorithmic signals, which may be used to create a system of harnessing the phenomena and data for service to humanity. Even today Newtonain phenomena and data are being used in engineering, medical, and other sciences profitably. But these do not mean that these successes render these branches of physics as representing reality best. The technological successes do not justify accepting in a literal manner all that is intended by the “even-now substance-philosophically” dominated or “radically virtual-philosophically” dominated minds of many physicists. Quantum cosmology is no exception to what is said above. [Neelamkavil 2018: Chapter 6]
(3) Another example is the case of reification of a quantity in the special theory of relativity. It defines in a scientistically tacit manner in the velocity-dependent Lorentz factor (γ = 1 / √(1 – [v2/c2])) that, since all our physical observations are based on the speed of electromagnetic propagations, the said system of theory “proves” the velocity of light as ultimate and, even more mysteriously, that this fact does not permit superluminal velocities. This is nothing but begging the question. For more than a century, practically none questioned this assumption that does a self-defeating of the foundations of all reason and physical ontology. Almost everyone today is blissful about the technical tool this stipulation offers for science and technology: if sonar velocity is taken as the speed limit in nature, and if all other velocities are measured in terms of this value, all higher velocities will involve zeros and infinities. Even at the level of sonar velocity as the highest limit, much technological success is thinkable, and that does not preclude higher velocities. This is an example for reification of experimental quantities. Under a similar attitude are also many AI specialists who do not inquire what the stuff of information is, but can manipulate it for much technological success, even to create BI. This will be discussed much later I detail.
Relevant answer
Answer
Go on.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
During Kurt Gödel's lecture on the occasion of Albert Einstein's birthday in 1945, this question was already raised by John Wheeler. Gödel did not comment on it. Both Einstein and Gödel did not believe in quantum theory. Is there currently any reference or article that relates to this question? From today's scientific perspective, is there a relationship between Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? Even so, when both the principles arise from different theoretical frameworks and serve different purposes within their respective domains. Please provide references.
Relevant answer
Answer
The uncertainty principle is very linked
to fourier properties of waves.
Not so with incompletness in arithmetic.
There are a few similarities. For example addition and multiplication are non commutative as operations
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
19 answers
The gravitational potential (GP) is widely ignored by the science community which appears rather strange as it is responsible for a series of quite obvious physical phenomena such as eg:
1. GP is a quantity that sums up to huge values in space as it falls off by 1/r and so mainly buids up from distant masses of the universe.
2. GP gradients, ie a secondary feature of GP, are the origin of huge forces that keep planets in orbit and galaxies in clusters.
3. Cumulative GP of all masses within the observable universe directly leads to E = mc2 and indicates relation between gravitation and electromagnetic properties of space:
4. GP has been identified as responsible for the observation of light bending over large distances (Einstein rings) by heavy celestial bodies.
5. GP is the basis for calcuation of escape velocities and the generally accepted Schwarzschild radius.
6. Interaction of accelerated bodies with distant masses of the universe was suggested by Ernst Mach and substantiated by James C. Keith, see appended reference on page 11, as the origin of acceleration forces.
Relevant answer
Answer
James Cler Maxwell : "As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any
further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."
Thanks Stefano for linking us to the above Maxwell statement.
I'm certainly quite far away from understanding the cause of gravity. I just try to find out special relations between observations that I find cannot be just accidental, so eg my estimate of the proton radius and magnetic moment which in particular depends on the E = mc2 equivalence:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Please do not underestimate ISRO. Generally, I do not share but I was a Rocket Scientist at ISRO. Attosecond based experiment will add new flavor.
Let me try to respond in poetic form.
Your query:
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how advancements in technology and experimental methods might continue to refine our understanding of time dilation. Do you see any emerging trends or challenges in this area?
Response:
Here is a poem exploring how advancements in technology and experimental methods might continue to refine our understanding of time dilation:
Unveiling Time's Elusive Dance
As science marches forth, unbowed,
Machines of precision, ever more proud,
Unravel the mysteries that time doth enfold,
Revealing secrets long left untold.
Atomic clocks, with trembling ticks,
Measure moments, as space-time complexly mix,
Exposing the truths that Einstein foresaw,
Of gravity's sway, defying time's law.
Experiments reach, to realms of extremes,
Black holes and pulsars, celestial themes,
Where time bends and warps, before our very eyes,
Shattering notions, that we once surmised.
Yet, challenges linger, in the depths unseen,
Where physics' foundations, may not be as they seem,
New phenomena, yet to be found,
Reshaping the canvas, that time doth bound.
As technology soars, and insight takes flight,
We glimpse time's dance, in ever-changing light,
Unraveling mysteries, one by one,
Toward a future, where time's secrets are won.
In this cosmic ballet, we seek to understand,
The ebb and flow, of time's elusive hand,
Empowered by tools, ever more precise,
Unveiling time's secrets, in ways once undevised.
and in Hindi:
यंत्रों के उन्नयन और प्रायोगिक विधियों में प्रगति के साथ, समय विस्तारण की हमारी समझ को किस प्रकार और अधिक परिष्कृत किया जा सकता है? क्या इस क्षेत्र में कोई उभरते प्रवृत्ति या चुनौतियाँ दिखाई दे रही हैं? यहाँ है एक कविता जो इन प्रश्नों पर हिंदी में विचार व्यक्त करती है:
कालचक्र के रहस्यों का उद्घाटन
जैसे-जैसे विज्ञान आगे बढ़ता है,
तकनीक में परिवर्तन आता है।
समय विस्तारण की आंखें खुलती हैं,
रहस्य प्रकट होते, तथ्य जुलते हैं।
परमाणु घड़ियों के कंपन-धीर,
मापते हैं क्षण, जिनमें रुप धीर।
आइंस्टीन के सिद्धांतों को साबित करते,
गुरुत्वाकर्षण के प्रभाव को प्रकट करते।
प्रयोगों ने अंतरिक्ष तक पहुंचा,
ब्लैक होल और पल्सर का सच्चा।
जहां समय बदलता, रूप बदलता,
हमारे सिद्धांत पूर्णतः नहीं मिलता।
चुनौतियाँ विद्यमान, अज्ञात में छुपी,
क्या होगा जब नई क्षमता जुटी?
क्या मूलभूत भौतिकी बदल जाएगी?
समय के नए रहस्य क्या खोल जाएंगे?
तकनीक के उत्थान के साथ,
समय की नृत्य-लीला का ज्ञान आता है।
एक-एक रहस्य खोल कर,
समय के रंग-रूप का सच्चा चमत्कार।
Good luck! partial credit ai
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
According to one popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you are experiencing a challenging life, there exists a universe where you are thriving. Meanwhile, in another universe, you might be a mighty king or queen who is unmatched in power and fame. This idea, known as the "Many-Worlds Interpretation," suggests that every decision and action lead to the creation of a new universe.
For example, when you come to a junction and decide to turn left, an entirely new universe is created where you turned right. In this view, billions of new universes are created in the blink of an eye, constantly branching out from every possible event or choice.
This raises an interesting question: When was our universe created? Was it 40 years ago when a young bachelor proposed to his girlfriend, and she rejected him, causing the creation of our universe where she joyfully accepted the ring, leading to their happy life together? Or was it just three years ago when a toddler fell ill and died in his mother's arms, causing the creation of our universe where he survived?
Given this perspective, can we really determine the age of our universe? Traditional physics suggests that our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, but quantum mechanics introduces the possibility of infinitely branching timelines. While we may be able to measure the age of our observable universe, the idea of multiple universes complicates the notion of a singular timeline or fixed creation point. Thus, determining the age of our universe in this context may ultimately be impossible.
Please comment.
Relevant answer
Answer
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/03/12/is-the-multiverse-real-the-science-behind-everything-everywhere-all-at-once/ under 'Misconceptions about the Multiverse'. There is absolutely NO (NADA, NONE) scientific evidence to prove a multiverse. It is an offshoot of string theory which has been shown to be fun mathematics, but not science.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Distance is a scalar representing the length of a traveled path. Displacement is the length of the straight line (a vector) connecting start and end points.
In a Euclidean plane, they appear to be described by the same number of units.
Light travels in a straight line, analogous to the straight line in a plane.
Is displacement measured using luminosity equal to the corresponding cosmological distance?
Are there experiments? Are there theoretical proofs? Are there articles about this? What are the cites?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Professor Shour,
This is a good question.
The answer is simply that "distance" is "distance" as normally understood.
There is actually no Special Relativity and no General Relativity, because there is no "spacetime". The Lorentz relations (light cone &c.) describe the offsets and corrections to the light rays -only-, such that space and time are left Absolute.
The reason why we know, for certain, that we have an Absolute character to space and time, is because the "Relativity of Simultaneity" has been demonstrated to be a logical impossibility. Confer above and below, tilting-mirror demonstration, and also the proof by Kılıç (2005) below :
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
10 answers
In his article "More is different", Anderson said that new laws of physics "emerge" at each physical level and new properties appear [1]; Wheeler, when claiming that "law without law" and "order comes out of disorder", argued that chaotic phenomena " generate" different laws of physics [2][3]. What they mean is that the laws, parameters, and constants of the upper level of physics appear to be independent of the laws of physics of the lower level. Is this really the case? Are we ignoring the conditions that form the physical hierarchy, thus leading to this illusion?
Let's suppose a model. The conditions for the formation of new levels are at least two: i. Existence of low-level things A,B ...... , the existence of interaction modes a, b,...... ; two, the existence of a sufficient number of low-level things, NxA, MxB....... Then when they are brought together, there are many possible combinations, e.g., (AA), (AAA), (AAA)', ...... , (AB), (BA), (AAB)', (BAB), ........ Then it escalates to [(AA)(AA)], [(AB)(ABA)], ....... What this actually leads to is a change in the structure of things and a corresponding change in the way they interact. The result of the "change" is the appearance of new physical phenomena, new forces, and so on.
Physics is an exact match for math, so let's use math as an example of this phenomenon. Suppose we have a number of strings (threads) that can be regarded as underlying things, then, when a string is curled into a circle, L=2πR, the law of the relationship between the length of the string and its radius, and the irrational constant π appear; when two strings are in cascade, L=l1+l2, the law that the total length of the string is equal to the sum of the individual string lengths (Principle of superposition) appears; and, when three strings form a right triangle, the law of Pythagoras, c2=a2+b2, the law of sums of interior angles of triangles ∠A + ∠B + ∠C = 180° , and the irrational constant √2 appear ...... ; and the transcendental number e appears when the string length L grows in a fixed proportion (continuous compound interest)[4] ...... ; when the string vibrates, sine waves (sinωt) appear; when two strings are orthogonal, i appears ...... ; and when more kinds of vibrating strings are superimposed under specific conditions, more phenomena appear *.......
All these "qualitative changes" do not seem to be caused by "quantitative changes", but more by the need to change the structure. As mathematical theorems emerge, so must the laws of physics, and it is impossible for physics to transcend mathematics. Therefore, as long as there is a change of structure in physics, i.e. the possibility of symmetry breaking [5]**, new "symmetries", new "laws", new "forces", new "constants", new "parameters" are almost inevitable.
Can we try to attribute all physical phenomena to emergence under hierarchical structural conditions? For example, the fine structure constant‡‡and the Pauli exclusion principle emerge because of the formation of atomic structure; the "nuclear force" emerges because of the combination of protons and neutrons; The "strong interaction force" and "weak interaction force" appeared because of the structure of protons and neutrons. We should pay attention to the causal relationship here. Without structure, there would be no new phenomena; it is the more fundamental interactions that form structure, not these new "phenomena".
-----------------------------
Notes
* e.g. Blackbody radiation law, Bose statistics, Fermi statistics, etc.
** Should there be "spontaneous symmetry breaking"? Any change in symmetry should have a cause and a condition.
‡ What does it mean in physics if e will appear everywhere and the individual mathematical constants appear so simply? They must likewise appear at the most fundamental level of physics.
-----------------------------
2024-07-27 补充
In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.
Typical examples of such expressions can be seen @ Ingo D. Mane: “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“:
-----------------------------
Referencs
[1] Anderson, P. W. (1972). More Is Different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science.
. Science, 177(4047), 393-396. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.177.4047.393
[2] Wheeler, J. A. (1983). ‘‘On recognizing ‘law without law,’’’Oersted Medal Response at the joint APS–AAPT Meeting, New York, 25 January 1983. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 398-404.
[3] Wheeler, J. A. (2018). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. Feynman and computation, 309-336.
[4] Reichert, S. (2019). e is everywhere. Nature Physics, 15(9), 982-982. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0655-9;
[5] Nambu, Y. (2009). Nobel Lecture: Spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics: A case of cross fertilization. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(3), 1015.
Relevant answer
Answer
The way the laws of physics emerge
In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.
One of examples of such expressions can be seen in Ingo D. Mane 's paper : “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“:
Preprint On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitati...
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 140 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.
The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.
As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.
I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be a rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.
The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper
====================================================
As a results of discussions and critical analysis, I have summarised my position a few answers below, but I have decided to consolidate the most recent here as a supplement to the attached pdf.
I intended to improve my arguments that would increase the level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence.
Assumptions:
  • Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied or explicit ontological status claims.
  • Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
  • The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [1]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[1], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that in contrast, the Planck mass SI/CGS expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The meaning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
Relevant answer
Answer
Crafting a Robust Rebuttal to the Critique
I previously explained my position in [1] .
I intended to improve it to make a point, increasing its level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence, and this can be typed in this message
Assumptions:
  • Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied ontological status.
  • Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
  • The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [2]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[2], we find that there is no equivalent dimensional constants in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge and produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and charge, leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that the Planck mass expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The mea@ning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Great question! The concept of time being an illusion can be tricky, especially when we consider the existence of the individual. Let me explain how this idea fits within the Interactive Universe Theory (IUT). In IUT, time is viewed as an emergent property of the consciousness field. This means that while time as we perceive it—linear and continuous—might be an illusion, it still plays a crucial role in our experience of reality. Consciousness is the fundamental fabric of reality, and time emerges from the way consciousness processes and integrates information. The individual, as an expression of this consciousness, experiences time as a necessary framework for existence and change. Without this framework, the continuous evolution and development of the individual wouldn't be possible. When we say time is an illusion, it doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Instead, it means that time, as we perceive it, is a construct that arises from deeper, more fundamental processes. These processes are part of the consciousness field that underlies all reality. So, time is real in the sense that it structures our experiences and interactions, but it is not a fundamental aspect of reality itself. The individual exists because of the consciousness field, and time is the way this field organizes and processes experiences. If time were to "disappear," it would indeed disrupt the individual’s sense of self and continuity. But because time is an emergent property of consciousness, it remains a crucial aspect of how consciousness expresses itself in the universe. The continuous change and evolution of the individual are made possible by the flow of time. This flow is how consciousness experiences and processes reality. Even if time is an illusion at a fundamental level, it is an essential aspect of our reality as individuals within the consciousness field. So, while time might be an emergent property rather than a fundamental one, it is still crucial for the existence and evolution of the individual. Time provides the structure necessary for consciousness to experience change, growth, and development.
"Check my paper; it might interest you."
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you, Alexander Ohnemus, for presenting this fascinating question about the role of machine learning (ML), Occam's Razor, and the law of identity in potentially previewing the afterlife. Your inquiry touches on complex and thought-provoking topics at the intersection of technology, philosophy, and cognitive science.
The Concepts:
  • Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that the simplest explanation, with the fewest assumptions, is usually preferred. It helps us avoid unnecessarily complex theories when simpler ones suffice.
  • The Law of Identity: This foundational logical principle asserts that an entity is identical to itself and not different from its own nature. It’s crucial for coherent reasoning and identity in both philosophy and cognitive science.
Machine learning, particularly through techniques like neural networks and deep learning, has indeed made strides in mimicking certain aspects of human cognition. For example, ML models can simulate pattern recognition, language processing, and decision-making processes, mirroring some elements of human thought. However, these models operate within the boundaries of their programming and the data they are trained on.
When it comes to previewing the afterlife, this concept involves metaphysical and existential questions that lie beyond the empirical scope of current scientific and technological capabilities. ML can analyze and interpret data from observable phenomena but cannot access or simulate experiences or realms that transcend physical reality, such as the afterlife.
Current Limitations and Considerations:
  • Empirical Boundaries: ML operates based on data and patterns derived from the physical world. It lacks the ability to access or predict metaphysical states or experiences, as these are not empirically measurable or scientifically validated.
  • Philosophical and Metaphysical Dimensions: The afterlife is typically a topic explored through philosophy, religion, and personal belief rather than empirical science. ML and Occam’s Razor are not designed to address or validate metaphysical concepts but rather to optimize and analyze data within the limits of human understanding.
It’s intriguing to consider how advancements in ML and cognitive science might influence our understanding of consciousness and related philosophical questions. While ML may not currently offer insights into the afterlife, ongoing research in artificial intelligence and cognitive science could potentially contribute to broader discussions about human cognition and consciousness.
I would be interested in exploring how you envision the role of ML in the context of consciousness and metaphysical inquiries. Are there specific ways you think ML could contribute to our understanding of such profound questions, or any new approaches that might bridge technology and philosophy?
Looking forward to your thoughts and continuing this intriguing discussion.
Best regards,
Sandeep Jaiswal
  • asked a question related to Physics
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Fundamentalmente: Muriéndose. Solo envejece lo vivo, aunque vivas muy sanamente. Lo no vivo no envejece, solo cambia.
Envejecer es inevitable a corto o a largo plazo.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Yes because critical rationalism recognizes substance, parsimony and identity(adjusts premises upon contradiction), while skeptical empiricism believes all results from impressions. Skeptical empiricism also believes the self is an illusion.
Relevant answer
Si lo es, definitivamente, porque el gran valor de la CIENCIA RACIONAL, a demostrado y lo sigue haciendo hoy,su inconmensurable valor social y humano al solucionar infinidad de padecimientos y grandes sufrimientos humanos. Además del la mayor duración y esperanza de vida actual es disfrutada y dá esperanzas de ser prolongada.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024)
Date: 19-09-2024
Location: Online
Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024**** Extended to 1-8-2024
The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024) is pleased to invite researchers, practitioners, and professionals to submit papers for presentation and publication at the IESTI conference. This prestigious event aims to bring together leading scholars, researchers, and industry experts to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Topics of Interest
Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
  • Engineering:
    • Mechanical Engineering
    • Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    • Civil Engineering
    • Chemical Engineering
    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Materials Science and Engineering
    • Computer Science and Engineering
  • Science:
    • Physical Sciences
    • Life Sciences
    • Environmental Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • Chemical Sciences
    • Artificial Intelligence
  • Technology:
    • Information Technology
    • Communications Technology
    • Nanotechnology
    • Biotechnology
  • Innovation:
    • Technological Innovation
    • Innovation Management
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Sustainable Development
    • Policy and Innovation
Submission Guidelines
Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are not currently under review elsewhere. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and evaluated based on originality, technical and research content, correctness, relevance to the conference, contributions, and readability.
Paper Submission Process:
1. Format: All papers must be formatted according to the conference template available on the conference website.
2. Length: Full papers should be between 6-10 pages, including all figures, tables, and references.
3. Submission Link: Submit your papers through the online submission system available on the conference website.
4. Review Process: Each paper will undergo a blind peer review process.
5. Notification: Authors will be notified of the review results by 15-08-2024.
6. Camera-Ready Submission: Final versions of accepted papers must be submitted by 31-08-2024.
Important Dates
  • Paper Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
  • Notification of Acceptance: 15-08-2024
  • Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 31-08-2024
  • Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20-08-2024
  • Conference Dates: 19-09-2024
Conference Proceedings
All accepted and presented papers will be published in the journals listed on the following website:
Special Sessions and Workshops
  • IESTI 2024 will also feature special sessions and workshops focusing on current trends and emerging topics in Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation. Proposals for special sessions and workshops can be submitted to editor@academicedgepub.co.uk, by 1-8-2024.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding paper submissions or the conference, please contact:
We look forward to your participation in IESTI 2024 and to a successful conference!
We would like to extend our invitation to invite you to join the editorial board of the:
- Journal of Probiotics and Bioactive Molecules Research (JPBMR)
Please send an email including your full name, affiliation, CV, and mention the selected journal to the following email address: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
Sincerely,
IESTI 2024 Organizing Committee
Relevant answer
Answer
Looking forward to seeing this all progress
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
7 answers
I have put this question for the discussion.
Relevant answer
Answer
AI and IoT in nanoscience leverage advanced algorithms to enhance data analysis and control mechanisms at nanoscale levels, aiding in precise measurement and manipulation of nanomaterials. This synergy enables breakthroughs in quantum computing, nanoelectronics, and sensor technology, propelling innovations in physics, materials science, and beyond.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Is there any article or project about interaction of the "Schumann Resonance" on the brain alpha or theta waves?
  • The Schumann resonances (SR) are a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum :: Schumann Resonance Freq. : 7.83 Hz
  • Alpha waves are neural oscillations in the frequency range of 8–12 Hz
More:
Best Regards
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe there's a Russellian Platonic Form -- the Form of not having a Form.... 🤣
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
209 answers
Updated information of my thoughts and activities.
This is meant to be a one-way blog, albeit you can contribute with your recommendations and comments.
Relevant answer
Answer
Use (free PDF, also in print) the book QUICKEST CALCULUS with programmed instruction. Integral is immrdiate, just the inverse of differentiation plus a constant.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
9 answers
Relativity is used when speed is high enough. Quantum mechanics is used at subatomic scales. Thus, relativity and quantum mechanics are complimentary, depend on different variables, and should follow the law of identity: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics
Relevant answer
Answer
Turns out it is surprisingly simple to unify Relativity theories with Quantum Mechanics. Those who have been "indoctrinated" into the "flat spacetime" mindset, "think" that Planck units of length & time are fixed throughout time -- for them it is impossible to reconcile QM with Relativity.
Cosmological Relativity successfully unifies Special and General Relativity with QFT by consciously mixing quantum and emergent metrics in the same equations, thus making relativistic math compatible with quantum-scale metrics.
From a higher perspective all we need is to realize that our "here & now" local reference frame experiences Space~Time expansion. This means that all atoms, meter sticks, pendulums, people, planets & galaxies expand with time. Suddenly, the math becomes so simple that it will boggle the minds of many physicists who think that unification has to be made so complex that is needs mathematical notations so abstract it becomes impossible to relate the math to actual measurements.
Many equations contain the speed of light squared, c² [m²/s²] this becomes [Δ area]/[(Δ Planck times)/second] - this describes the local reference frame spreading forth its surface area while the number of Planck seconds -- per each passing second -- increases linearly with the age of the universe. Thus, the Speed of Light, c = l_P/t_P remains constant because (Number of Planck Lengths/second) grows in lockstep with the number of Planck times/second -- this is called being covariant to the 1st.
This 2nd differential has the astonishing value of:
(d²tP/s²) = 4.2709338x10^25 [(Planck times/second)/second]!
With this understanding comes the realization that Hubble's Constant is not (and never was) constant. When you simplify the units of [km/second/Megaparsec] this becomes [/second]. Hubble's parameter is simply the reciprocal of the age of the universe measured in seconds.
What makes this quantity so incredible is with this understanding comes the realization that this 2nd differential does all the work that the cosmological constant, Λ, hoped it could do.
I could go on for another 30-50 pages. Please see: (PDF) Foundations of Cosmological Relativity: Redefining Space~Time and Physical Constants (researchgate.net)
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
I Think Self publication can be a good option for you.
read the following article for further motivation :)
Should You Self-Publish Your Research?
In 1901, Beatrix Potter’s “The Tales of Peter Rabbit” was rejected by several publishers, so she self-published the book. Less than a year later, publisher Frederick Warne & Co., one of the original group of publishers who rejected her manuscript, became Beatrix Potter’s publisher. The relationship lasted for 40 years and led to the publication of over 23 books. Over a century later, over two million books, which have been authored by Beatrix Potter, are sold each year!
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 16 June 2024. "Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman have denounced modern physics as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Physics, they say, must return to a Newtonian viewpoint; much of relativity theory must go, along with essentially all of quantum mechanics, string theory, and modern cosmology. In their insistence on justifications in terms of “physical nature,” they cling to a macroscopic worldview that doesn't work in the high-velocity arena of relativity or the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. It is suggested that the concept of identity be widened to accommodate the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena."
Relevant answer
Answer
I completely agree with Peikoff and Harriman
Already in the 1920's Alfred Korzybski was warning:
Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are revised.” ([1], page liii) Alfred Korzybski, 1921
Quoted from (PDF) Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI).
Following his recommendation, and going back to Wilhelm Wien's 1901 project to consider electromagnetic mechanics as a better foundation to both kinematic and electromagnetic mechanics rather than kinematic mechanics chosen in 1907, the following developments were progressively described:
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The central idea in Jewish philosophy is that God is a singular, indivisible entity beyond human comprehension, distinct from any creation or being. Understanding God as each being's individualized higher self might not be entirely aligned with this. However, Jewish mysticism does talk about the concept of a Divine spark within every living being, indicating a connection and inherent sacredness. Thus, one could think of seeking alignment with their 'higher self' as trying to live in accordance with God's laws and the spark of divine within them. It's important to note that interpretations can vary widely, and other religions or spiritual traditions might have different understandings of the relationship between God and the self.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024)
Date: 19-09-2024
Location: Online
Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024) is pleased to invite researchers, practitioners, and professionals to submit papers for presentation and publication at the IESTI conference. This prestigious event aims to bring together leading scholars, researchers, and industry experts to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Topics of Interest
Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
  • Engineering:
    • Mechanical Engineering
    • Electrical and Electronics Engineering
    • Civil Engineering
    • Chemical Engineering
    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Materials Science and Engineering
    • Computer Science and Engineering
  • Science:
    • Physical Sciences
    • Life Sciences
    • Environmental Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • Chemical Sciences
    • Artificial Intelligence
  • Technology:
    • Information Technology
    • Communications Technology
    • Nanotechnology
    • Biotechnology
  • Innovation:
    • Technological Innovation
    • Innovation Management
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Sustainable Development
    • Policy and Innovation
Submission Guidelines
Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are not currently under review elsewhere. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and evaluated based on originality, technical and research content, correctness, relevance to the conference, contributions, and readability.
Paper Submission Process:
1. Format: All papers must be formatted according to the conference template available on the conference website.
2. Length: Full papers should be between 6-10 pages, including all figures, tables, and references.
3. Submission Link: Submit your papers through the online submission system available on the conference website.
4. Review Process: Each paper will undergo a blind peer review process.
5. Notification: Authors will be notified of the review results by 15-08-2024.
6. Camera-Ready Submission: Final versions of accepted papers must be submitted by 31-08-2024.
Important Dates
  • Paper Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
  • Notification of Acceptance: 15-08-2024
  • Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 31-08-2024
  • Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20-08-2024
  • Conference Dates: 19-09-2024
Conference Proceedings
All accepted and presented papers will be published in the journals listed on the following website:
Special Sessions and Workshops
  • IESTI 2024 will also feature special sessions and workshops focusing on current trends and emerging topics in Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation. Proposals for special sessions and workshops can be submitted to: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk, by 1-8-2024.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding paper submissions or the conference, please contact:
We look forward to your participation in IESTI 2024 and to a successful conference!
We would like to extend our invitation to invite you to join the editorial board of the:
- Journal of Probiotics and Bioactive Molecules Research (JPBMR)
Please send an email including your full name, affiliation, CV, and mention the selected journal to the following email address: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
Sincerely,
IESTI 2024 Organizing Committee
Relevant answer
Answer
شكرا جزيلا دكتور🙏🏻
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
3 answers
I built an AI powered tool that gives you a detailed PDF report on your manuscript to improve your chances of publication.
The report includes:
- Strengths and Weaknesses
- Quantitative scoring for each section
- Actionable recommendations with examples
It's $1 per upload to cover costs. The first 20 users can use discount code "FREE" to try it out now.
Would love to hear any feedback and thoughts - https://reviewmypaper.ai/
Relevant answer
Answer
That's a great question and definitely a valid concern of protecting IP!
Here's how data is handled:
- The manuscript is sent to our backend and deleted from our database within 72 hours of generating your report.
- In creating the review the only external service used is the OpenAI API, and they've explicitly stated "data sent to the OpenAI API will not be used to train or improve OpenAI models" [reference here](https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/how-we-use-your-data#:~:text=As%20of%20March%201%2C%202023%2C%20data%20sent%20to%20the%20OpenAI%20API%20will%20not%20be%20used%20to%20train%20or%20improve%20OpenAI%20models)
It won't save the data longer than it needs to and will never be used to train a model.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
The concept of fine tuning suggests that each being gets one life in the material realm followed by an eternal afterlife. This view posits that life on Earth is intricately balanced and designed to support a singular physical existence, after which individuals transition to an eternal spiritual existence or afterlife.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
These three areas are quite different, although they can touch on related ideas in some ways. Here's a breakdown:
  • Information theory: This is a branch of applied mathematics that focuses on quantifying, storing, and transmitting information. It uses concepts from probability and statistics to analyze how efficiently information can be communicated through channels with noise or limitations.
  • Concrete concepts: This refers to ideas that are well-defined, specific, and easy to grasp. They are not abstract or theoretical. Examples include the concept of a chair, the number 5, or the color red.
  • Critical rationalism: This is a philosophical approach to knowledge acquisition. It emphasizes the importance of testing and criticizing ideas to see if they hold up under scrutiny. It rejects the notion of absolute certainty and suggests that knowledge is always provisional, open to revision based on new evidence.
There might be some connections:
  • Information theory and concrete concepts: Information theory can be used to analyze how efficiently concrete concepts are communicated. For example, a simple concept like "red" might require fewer bits to transmit than a more complex idea.
  • Critical rationalism and information theory: Critical rationalism can be used to evaluate the quality of information itself. If information is incomplete, contradictory, or not well-sourced, then a critical rationalist approach would be to question its validity.
Overall, information theory is a mathematical framework, concrete concepts are specific ideas, and critical rationalism is a way of approaching knowledge. They are all valuable tools in different areas.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
What is inside an outer space black hole?
Relevant answer
Answer
Contrary to current theory, my own theory proposes that black holes are very simple entities. A number of theorists, past and present, have proposed Zero Point Energy as also being a physical field called the Zero Point Field, theorists such as De Broglie, Dirac, and many others, which many have called a super-fluid.
The creation of a neutron star is the result of a supernova explosion and implosion. When big enough, a back hole can be created.
Following this logic, a black hole is nothing more than the most condensed form of matter, made up of highly compressed field material of the Zero Point Field. A presently unknown form of matter, of the simplest, and densest type. They all have a finite size to them and are the opposite of being vacuous.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Rationalism is referring to rational behavior, and it can be based upon many kinds of evidence sources like testimony, history, empirical evidence, etc.. and so on. Critical entails a behavior of carefully analyzing something to the point where it is required. From there we can understand that critical rationalism means that the person is employing a behavior in which they are employing rationality to their thinking using different kinds of evidences as a base for their analysis.
On the other hand, empiricism entails that we are demanding about empirical evidence. Skepticism means that the person is employing a behavior of radically questioning something. So if we join both terms, it will mean that the person is asking simultaneous questions about something while demanding only empirical evidence.
So, from the above mentioned understanding we can conclude that critical rationalism is a concept and empirical skepticism is a type of critical rationalism but the latter employ a bit more strong behavior then the former.
So, I am not an expert on the field, neither do I know what these terms actually mean. But from names, I have derived this meaning which is quite sensible in my view
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Physics vs philosophy.
Relevant answer
Answer
Every day we see similarities. For example, the rainbow caused by refraction of light, diffraction patterns off a compact disc, the patterns when viewed in a kaleidoscope, the blue hue of the sky and bodies of water, etc. This is only a small list.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
1 answer
I don't know.
1)
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 14 June 2024.
2)
Relevant answer
Answer
Wolfram physics is a mathematical abstraction, far from real physics.
Her criticism in my book: Pages 38 - 48:
Nastasenko V.(2023) Initial Quanta Level of the Material World and Substantiation of Its Parameters. India. United Kingdom. London Kolkata Tarakeswar. BP International. – 65 P. ISBN 978-81-19491-00-1 (Print) ISBN 978-81-19491-01-8 (eBook) DOI: 10.9734/bpi/mono/978-81-19491-00-1
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Either history does NOT EXACTLY repeat or the future is too unpredictable to risk such rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation
Relevant answer
Answer
The statement aligns with Michel Talagrand's work on probability and randomness, which won him the 2024 Abel Prize.
Key Points:
  • Non-repeating History: Unique conditions and randomness prevent exact repetition.
  • Unpredictable Future: Talagrand's research shows precise predictions are difficult, highlighting the limits of deterministic models.
Talagrand’s Contributions:
  • Concentration Inequalities: Measure deviations in random variables, useful in finance and machine learning.
  • Stochastic Processes: Understand systems influenced by randomness over time.
Implications:
  • Risk Management: Must account for unpredictability.
  • Decision Making: Use probabilistic models.
  • Scientific Approach: Focus on likelihoods, not certainties.
Talagrand’s work shows the need to complement rationalism with probabilistic methods to handle real-world complexities.
2024 Abel prize: Michel Talagrand wins maths award for making sense of randomness | New Scientist
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Dear Colleagues,
Peer-review isn't working well, and it needs an overhaul. In the time of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and remote work, it doesn't make sense to wait for months just to receive few lines rejecting an excellent manuscript or accepting a poor one!
Would you spend five minutes to answer a questionnaire on Google forms, and help SCIENEUM.io solve this problem for all of us?
Are you one of us? https://youtu.be/ewOuhohAjWc
Write your comment below!
Relevant answer
Answer
Done, participated ! Good video Khalid M. Saqr
Reminded me to:
I. Bentov human evolution.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Alexander Ohnemus
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Birth marks the beginning and equally marks the day, date, and second of death, the end for all living beings who breathe oxygen, consume water, or ingest the carbon and the nitrogen that grace the food on Earth, even if it be the gum at the back of a postage stamp that allows the cockroach to live upon for years and even longer.
The two phases are unalterable and absolute but a completely transparent certitude that defies challenge as well as the highest level of comprehension, and a level of acceptance that is achieved only by rarely-of-the-rare, and, is far beyond our narcissistic and simplistic ego-massaging or understanding to ascribe even the slightest or infinitesimal meaning to our existence. Beyond NATURE that we partially or minimalistically perceive by our senses or lack of senses, lie oceans of incomprehension. A simple fusion of microscopic sperm and ovum marks birth while dissipation of all body processes underscore death. The humility of understanding (standing under and inner) NATURE can yield a nano-drop or quintillionth of the Cosmos with endless galaxies dwarfing the ignorance of our existence.
-- when breath turns air, death is the end, yours and mine and all those who live. Our existence as such is the product of a long evolution over millions of years. Everything has to be considered in order to understand ourselves as we are today. But, first of all, what we can remember, or research, about the causes and the course that man has taken in his life, of long distance, can never make us forget that man, or the being that gave rise to him, the first reaction that he produced, gave rise to another reaction, or sensation. which is not one of trust, but of fear. It is this feeling that is at the origin of a whole process that, from a cultural and even philosophical point of view, translates the emergence of a life beyond the existing one. With it came a whole set of figures, which man needed to use to calm this feeling: fear. At the moment, we have a broader set of knowledge, technological means and processes, which we can use, at any time, and thus guarantee our confidence, security, so that we are not afraid, but we are afraid. We continue to feel fear and, for this reason, we cannot completely disconnect from a symbolic pretext, with evaluative content, that we create to calm ourselves, or self-regulate our emotional tension; And we didn't even realize it. Heaven and hell are figures created by an ideology, the dominant one, that has entertained us. However, we cannot disregard all this reality, because although philosophical, it has produced an action of guaranteeing comfort in man and with man. Am I wrong? Am I frivolous, because I question a whole magical reality that man has created? I do not think so. I am not an atheist, because I continue to believe in something that does not exist, but that gives me comfort as it exists. I would have been burned alive if the words I now produce had been produced in the time of the Inquisition. I wasn't burned, but a lot of good people were burned, because they defended ideas identical to those I hold today. In my country, every day, or almost every day, I move in squares where people have been burned alive by the work of the Tribunal of the Holy Office. This fact arose in Spain and was also transferred to Portugal. We condemn the atrocities of Hitler, Putin and others, who are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, millions of people, but we forget that we have whitewashed, and are whitewashing, the attitude of a religious institution, which was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. This forgetfulness exists, and will continue to exist, because we are afraid of fear.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Does Wolfram prefer quantum mechanics or relativity? Why?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello, Stephen Wolfram, has a unique perspective when it comes to the age-old debate between quantum mechanics and relativity. Rather than explicitly favoring one theory over the other, Wolfram takes a more holistic approach, seeking to unify these seemingly disparate branches of physics through his groundbreaking work on computational models and the fundamental theory of physics.
At the heart of Wolfram's philosophy lies a deep fascination with the complex behaviors that can emerge from simple computational rules. In his seminal book, "A New Kind of Science" and his subsequent research, he explores how cellular automata and other computational processes might hold the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe. His ultimate goal is to develop a unified theory that can encompass both quantum mechanics and relativity, transcending the traditional boundaries between these two pillars of modern physics.
The Wolfram Physics Project, a recent endeavor spearheaded by Wolfram himself, embodies this ambitious vision. By proposing that the universe operates as a vast computational system governed by simple rules, Wolfram aims to reconcile the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity, deriving them from a more fundamental, computational substrate. This approach represents a bold departure from conventional thinking, suggesting that the dichotomy between these theories might be resolved through a deeper understanding of computation in physics.
Wolfram's reluctance to express a clear preference for either quantum mechanics or relativity stems from his commitment to a unified approach. He believes that both theories are likely emergent properties of underlying computational processes, and that a true understanding of the universe will require a framework that integrates them seamlessly. By focusing on cellular automata and the concept of computational irreducibility, Wolfram seeks to develop new ways of thinking about physical laws that go beyond current paradigms.
It's worth noting that Wolfram's ideas have not been without controversy. Some physicists have criticized his claims as being non-quantitative and arbitrary, arguing that his model has yet to reproduce the precise quantitative predictions of conventional physics. However, Wolfram remains undeterred, believing that new ideas in science often take time to gain acceptance, much like Einstein's theory of relativity did in its early days.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
The simulation theory is NOT parsimonious because at least partial free will is self-evident. Reason would not exist without the fundamental choice to focus on life. Even animals probably make decisions thus, have souls.
Relevant answer
Answer
this is a good start, you will see how subject to environmental and pseudo-random chaos theory effects of critical systems like the brain, are. the idea that we are masters of our brains and minds, is an illusion to all but probably some very dedicated monks and practices of discipline.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
11 answers
Quantum mechanics because the statistics. Relativity is more theoretical.
Relevant answer
Answer
Both, in the sense that global Lorentz invariance-in the absence of gravity-and local Lorentz invariance-in the presence of gravity-are exact symmetries and quantum mechanics, in the sense that the probability distribution of a system subject to quantum fluctuations can be obtained in a well-defined way, once the space of states has been identified.
Quantum mechanics doesn't predict Hawking radiation-because the space of states of a gravitational system, in general, isn't known, due to the appearance of spacetime singularities, which the semi-classical approximation that describes Hawking radiation, doesn't resolve. A more robust prediction of quantum mechanics, in the presence of gravity, is that black holes, when probed by quantum matter, have finite entropy (the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), for which the degrees of freedom that can account for it have been identified in certain cases, cf.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Do you must use paper and pen to do physics research?
Relevant answer
Answer
In experimental studies, you will be required to keep a certifiable notebook that documents your work. Rarely are electronic notebooks as robustly accepted as certifiable compared to pen written notebooks. Exceptions may exist when they have been well implemented.
In theoretical studies, you will be challenged to develop a logical work flow to your analysis or derivations. Rarely are such developments done well "just in your head" without some form of note taking. Here again, you return to keeping a notebook, logbook, or journal to record your thoughts. Unlike with experimental studies, you may be under a less firm guideline that you must keep your journal in a written form rather than an electronic format.
I hope this helps you address your question. Otherwise, you will need to provide more specifics.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
14 answers
Einstein field equations [1]:
Rµν - (1/2)gµνR + Λgµν = Tµν ...... (EQ.1)
where Λ is the cosmological constant, gµν is the spacetime metric, and Rµν is the Ricci tensor. EQ.1 expresses the relationship between the amount of energy-momentum (mass) and the curvature of spacetime in a region (or point) of spacetime.
The basic Friedmann equation that dominates the expansion of the universe [2]:
(a')2+K=8πGρa(t)2/3 ...... (EQ.2)
where a(t) is the Robertson-Walker scale factor, and it determines how large-scale distances in space change with time in Friedmann-Lemaître -Robertson-Walker metric:
ds2=gµνdxµdxν=dt2-a2(t)dX2 ....... EQ.3
And it is a solution of Einstein field equations. Two Space-Time properties are expressed here: curvature and expansion over time.
What causes Space-Time Curvature is local energy. What drives spacetime expansion is dark energy. ”Physics welcomes the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant,Λ; today the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence." [3] Dark energy is not the usual matter and radiation[2].
Our questions are:
1) Space-time is interconnected, confined by the speed of light c =Δx /Δt; the factor a(t) that determines space-time is of a kinetic nature; what makes it relevant only to time (it affects all of space in the same way as time passes) [4] and not to space?
2) Can the Einstein field equations essentially be written as two separate equations, the bending effect equation and the expansion effect equation?
3) How does Space-Time know to distinguish between energy and dark energy if Space-Time Curvature and Expansion are both different properties?
4) Can local Space-Time Curvature geometrically affect expansion if it appears to be strongly curved?
-----------------------------
Notes
* “How the view of space-time is unified (3)-If GR's space-time is not curved, what should it be? ”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO17How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_3-If_GRs_space-time_is_not_curved_what_should_it_be
** How the View of Space-Time is Unified (4) - Is Space-Time Expansion a Space-Time Creation?
-----------------------------
Refererncs
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY (Chinese ed.). Oxford University Press.
[3] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm
Thank you for the suggestions and tips, but I published for the love of science and my publication alone is enough for me.
I thought you were a very nice person, I like people who speak the truth and objectively. Congratulations.
I stopped researching due to lack of time and money, because without support the research would take too long and therefore, I published all the research for other researchers, if they want, they can continue with the research.
Best Kind Regards
Stenio
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Challenging established theories and providing solutions to long-standing problems in physics is no small feat. It has been proven now in the latest research that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong (Entropy is Constant) and that the Arrow of Time is T-symmetric. This could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. This actually changes physics as we know it for sure, as science will never be the same again after the findings that has already been published in an accredited peer reviewed international journal (see the paper below for details).
Do you guys agree to the findings? The proof is simple to read yet powerful enough to wrong the traditional laws of science. If not, please provide a reason why? We have had some very interesting discussions so far on other topics and I want to keep this channel open, clear and omni-directional!
Sandeep
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Arieh,
Thank you for your insightful response and for highlighting the importance of context when discussing entropy. Your point about entropy being a state function, determined for a macro-system at equilibrium, is well taken. I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify and expand on my position regarding entropy and the Arrow of Time.
You are absolutely correct that entropy is a state function, meaning its value depends on the state of the system and not on the path taken to reach that state. This foundational concept is crucial in thermodynamics and helps avoid misunderstandings about entropy’s behaviour.
I agree that it is essential to specify the system and the process when discussing whether entropy increases. Traditional thermodynamics tells us that for isolated systems, entropy tends to increase, leading to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, recent research by me, including the study I referenced by myself, challenges this view by suggesting scenarios where entropy remains constant, particularly in non-isolated systems or when considering quantum effects.
The latest research I mentioned posits that under certain conditions, entropy does not necessarily increase and could be constant. This assertion arises from the exploration of systems beyond the classical isolated frameworks typically considered. The implications of these findings are profound, potentially altering our understanding of thermodynamic processes, particularly in complex or quantum systems.
Regarding the Arrow of Time, the traditional view holds that it aligns with the increase of entropy, thus giving time a direction from past to future. However, the concept of T-symmetry (time-reversal symmetry) suggests that the fundamental laws of physics should remain invariant if time were reversed. The new findings propose that if entropy can be constant, then the Arrow of Time might be T-symmetric, challenging our conventional understanding and opening new avenues for theoretical exploration.
I would love to delve deeper into the specifics of the system and processes under which these new entropy findings were derived. Perhaps we can examine particular case studies or models where entropy behaves differently than traditionally expected. This could lead to a richer understanding of both entropy and the Arrow of Time.
Thank you again for your thought-provoking response. I look forward to continuing this stimulating discussion and exploring these groundbreaking ideas further.
Best regards,
Sandeep
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
One doesn't need to be a philosopher, but understanding philosophical concepts relevant to their field, like epistemology or ethics, can enhance critical thinking and methodology in science, promoting more robust and ethical research practices.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
5 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The vastness or sustainability of a belief system doesn't necessarily indicate its plausibility. Plausibility depends on evidence, logical coherence, and consistency with observable phenomena, rather than the popularity or longevity of a belief. While a belief system's widespread acceptance or enduring nature may influence perceptions, plausibility is determined by its ability to withstand critical scrutiny and align with empirical reality.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Please talk about the topics you are familiar with or things which makes sense (recommendation) on this site as this is not a general social media.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
12 answers
The theme of the diffraction typically refers to a small aperture or obstacle. Here I would like to share a video that I took a few days ago that shows diffraction can be produced by the macroscopic items similarly:
I hope you can explain this phenomenon with wave-particle duality or quantum mechanics. However, I can simply interpret it with my own idea of Inhomogeneously refracted space at:
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Researchers,
I am pleased to share my latest work on optics and diffraction, focusing on the deformation of shadows when they intersect. This article has recently been published in the European Journal of Applied Physics. I hope you find it intriguing.
Best regards, Farhad
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
To avoid contradictions, concepts must be adjusted, so eternal ones probably don’t exist. Without free will, on SOME level, we would only be clumps of cells without the ability to reason. Free will is intimately connected to the law of identity.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
10 answers
1)No one can predict the future completely accurately.
2)So, all beings probably have a unique enough form.
3)Plus, the most fundamental essence of reality is unknown.
4)Thus, upon death, each being probably doesn't return.
Relevant answer
Answer
The corruption of thought and character suggests its unlikely, unless both are simply renewed.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
10 answers
can someone guide me to the equation of SINGLE ATOM of any element? which equation that defines it's birth?
Thanks
Relevant answer
Answer
The equation that defines the birth of a single atom of any element is not distinctively defined, in Chemistry or Physics. Atoms are not treated as living organisms,meaning that atoms are not "born" or birthed like other living organisms do, however, atoms are essential particles that constitute all matter universally which are formed by nuclear fusion, radioactive decay etc.
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
24 answers
“According to general theory of relativity, gravitation is not a force but a property of spacetime geometry. A test particle and light move in response to the geometry of the spacetime.”[1] Einstein's interpretation of gravity is purely geometrical, where even a free point particle without any properties and any interactions, moves in a curved spacetime along geodesics, but which are generated by the energy tensor Tµν [2]. Why isn't gravity generated directly by Tµν, but must take a circuitous route and be generated by the geometry of spacetime Gµν?
Gµν=G*Tµν
This is Einstein's field equation, and the Einstein tensor Gµν describes the Space-Time Curvature. We know that in classical mechanics and quantum field theory, it is the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian quantities that determine motion. Motion is essentially generated by energy-momentum interactions. Why is it irrelevant to energy-momentum in GR? Einstein had always expected the unification of electromagnetic and gravitational forces to be geometrically realized [3]*. Is such an expectation an exclusion of energy-momentum interactions in motion? Can the ultimate unification of forces be independent of energy-momentum and manifest itself only in motion in pure spacetime? If not, one of these must be wrong.
--------------------------------------
Supplement: Gravity is still a force
Gravity appears to be a ‘spacetime gravity’, i.e., gravity caused by spacetime metric differences, the same as gravitational red shift and violet shift [1]. The current four-dimensional space-time ‘geodesic’ interpretation of gravity is to match the geometric appearance of Space-Time Curvature. Time and space are symmetrical, and geodesic motion is not initiated by the ‘arrow of time’ alone, but must be accompanied by equivalent spatial factors. Any interpretation that destroys the equivalence of space and time should be problematic.
[1] "What is Force, a Field? Where is the Force Field? How does it appear? Is the Force Field a Regulating Effect of the Energy-Momentum Field?"
-----------------------------
Notes
* "After his tremendous success in finding an explanation of gravitation in the geometry of space and time, it was natural that he should try to bring other forces along with gravitation into a “unified field theory” based on geometrical principles."
If one thinks that it holds only at Tµν = 0, see the next question NO.37: Is there a contradiction in the Schwarzschild spacetime metric solution?
-----------------------------
References
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Earman, J., & Glymour, C. (1978). Einstein and Hilbert: Two months in the history of general relativity. Archive for history of exact sciences, 291-308.
[3] Weinberg, S. (2005). Einstein’s Mistakes. Physics Today, 58(11).
Relevant answer
Answer
Does a body fall in a gravitational field without passing time?
  • asked a question related to Physics
Question
51 answers
To date the presence of Dark Energy, has remained a mystery. This is solved on the basis of fundamental unit of energy, Planck's constant, from which space-time itself, the forces of nature including gravity, and all particle physics can be derived. This is achieved on the on the basis of the speed of light and classical geometry. In the first instance new research points to a definitive answer to the presence of space time and the value of Hubble's constant. Here we invite open access research and discussion to probe the mysteries and very nature of Dark Energy, and the origins of all the aspects of Nature including the laws of thermodynamics.
Relevant answer
Answer
Theories which imply a violation of conservation laws are irrelevant by default. There is no specific proof necessary.