Theoretical Physics - Science topic

The working fluid is the core of the heat engine, and the Carnot efficiency is independent of the working fluid (core). Do you believe in the second law of thermodynamics?

Conclusion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the Carnot efficiency of carbon dioxide, water vapor, liquid water, solid water... is 1-T2/T1. Do you believe it?

According to the logic of the second law of thermodynamics, it can be inferred that a person's grades are not related to their intelligence. Do you believe it? The specific derivation is as follows

1. Carnot efficiency (thermal engine function) is independent of the working fluid (thermal engine soul).

2. The function of a heat engine is not related to its soul.

3. Analogous to humans, it can be concluded that a person's academic performance is not related to their intelligence.

4，Do you still believe that Carnot efficiency (thermal engine function) has nothing to do with the working fluid (thermal engine soul).?Is this a low IQ perception?

What is the ethical-spiritual and universal world formula, the Grand Unifying Theory? Does ancient Indian knowledge lead us to an intercultural world peace formula? Does it have an impact on physics, metaphysics, biology and our absorption of spiritual healing power, etc.? 11/27/24 Chris K. Früh – Intercultural-philosophy-institute.ch / guna.ch / emailATyogapsychologie.ch (Summary of the Peace Manifesto on one sheet of paper, printed on both sides. The page numbers refer to the free downloadable ebook at: guna.ch/yoga.pdf – Sources for the Gunas and synonyms; e.g. Bhagavad Gita 2.45, chapters 14-18, Bhagavad Purana 11.15.28, 11.25.2–5, 12.8.46) First of all: What is the physical, spiritual and universal world formula, this “Grand Unifying Theory”? The “Gunas”, to which the Bhagavad Gita (p. 3) devotes over three chapters, have an impact on metaphysics, on consciousness, its respective forms of life, but also on physics, as time factors of ● emergence, creation (Raja), ● existence, preservation maintenance (Sattva) and ● decay, destruction (Tama, p. VIII). Let us begin with a simple, everyday example: our teeth and, in this comparison, first look at the synonyms for the Sanskrit umbrella term Sattva (from Sat = being): ● Existence / preservation / maintenance: In order to preserve our teeth, we must clean them, then they are beautiful, healthy, and attractive, and we enjoy them and also become fearless of the dentist. But we must first know that and also have the wisdom and our mindfulness and self-control to carry out this cleaning and care rhythmically and regularly. It is the same in music; Beauty is tactful and a regular oil change also keeps the car engine running (for further synonyms see p. 31 ff and 64 ff). ● Decay and destruction: But if we come home every day intoxicated on drugs (or drunk), then we forget to brush our teeth and soon our teeth are dirty, sick, disgusting, rotten; and we suffer and are afraid of the dentist. These are synonyms for Tama, the thought transmitter that holds us down and wants to prevent us from ethical-spiritual evolution. ● Creation: In order for the dentist to “create” new teeth, we first have to “acquire” the money, go to work and/or exploit something (raw materials etc.): These are synonyms for Raja, the marginal intermediate stage (p. 63) of the working person, because: “People have to eat (and work :-)!” (p. 65). The knowledge of this natural and timeless scale of ethics, which is described, for example, in the millennia-old Bhagavad Gita, is not outdated, but rather timeless. It is timeless and old and yet always relevant – and especially today of the utmost urgency for all of us, for our spiritual evolution: This trinitarian world view of the three Gunas is illustrated with further examples: Just as a three-legged transistor controls the dual/digital computer world, the three Gunas are now above material duality. This means that what is really good or goodness can only be precisely defined in this trinity (p. 31)! Let us try to illustrate this graphically, because these Gunas are always mixed in different ways in our changing, temporary world: They are the umbrella terms for all characteristics and can thus be compared to the primary colors or color diodes in a screen, which can display an infinite number of beautiful or ugly images; ● Red for Raja: origin, creation, exploitative passion, ● Yellow for Sattva: existence, preservation and healing, goodness, happiness, joy, peace, health and wisdom, etc. and ● Blue for Tama: decay and destruction and degenerating ignorance (on the graphic below, and on the website Yogapsychologie.ch, or in the e-book on Guna.ch/yoga.pdf) The knowledge of this intercultural-natural scale of ethics, which is described in the millennia-old Bhagavad Gita (S V ff), is not outdated, but rather it is timeless and of utmost necessity: ● 1.: We, the conditioned souls, are ourselves the cause of our karmic radius of freedom and live here as if in an amusement park, in a kind of virtual reality for training and testing our free will (within the respective karmic radius of freedom) in (we hope) the direction of our ethical evolution, in the direction of non-violence and Prema, the all-encompassing love. Our intercultural world peace formula of the Grand Unifying “Theory” for the material universe is thus: S = Vs + R + T + Z, or: Vs = S - R - T - Z (Vs = Visuddha-Sattva, S = souls, R = Raja-Guna, T = Tama-Guna, Z = time, as the constantly remixing element of these Gunas).

● 2.: In the liberated state of the souls, Visuddha Sattva is S = Vs, since the unmixed pure form of Sattva is the eternal spiritual good (NityaSattva, Gita 2.45) that is worth striving for. Sattva has its root in Sat = eternal. Therefore, the word Guna (mixture) is omitted from the word Visuddha Sattva. The Visuddha-Sattva is now ”the wood we are made of” and our eternal spiritual nature, and so is pure all-encompassing love Prema, our actual, eternal, real uncovered nature. ● 3. When pure, spiritual love (Nitya-Prema-Sattva) comes into contact with exploitative passion (Raja-Guna), it turns into lust, and when it comes into contact with destructive ignorance (Tama- Guna), it turns into hatred. The exploitative passion and the destructive ignorance are only temporary, material conditions that only temporarily cover the living being, the eternal spiritual souls. Even if, from our materially conditioned perspective, this can last a very long time. From the perspective of the liberated living being, all these quartillion+ lives, in all the possible life forms, are only an infinitely short period of time. ● 4. On our liberated plane of pure, unmixed Sattva, after having left the gross and subtle bodies, one has only a spiritual body of Visuddha Sattva, selfless and all-embracing love, without the slightest trace of exploitative passion and destructive ignorance. The word body, however, is poorly chosen in this context, for one must understand that the spiritual soul is no different from the spiritual body. The yogi, the true artist and the true philosopher are all searching for one and the same substance; the pure form of Visuddha-Sattva, because it is the “place” or state where the three aspects of cultural life meet in their pure form: 1. Truth, 2. Enjoyment and 3. Spirituality (Tattva, Rasa, Yoga): Tattva = Truth, Wisdom, Science, Philosophy etc. and Rasa = Enjoyment, Taste, Art, Music, Poetry etc. Yoga = Connection, Spirituality, Healing, Religion etc. (Sanskrit: Yoga = yoke, connecting, Latin: Religare = reconnecting). The Self-realization and highest stage of perfection is now Visuddha- Sattva, which is achieved when the Yogi has understood and realized the principle of Rasa-Tattva: an omnipresent Truth, unmixed Beauty and all-embracing Love, which is only possible in free will. ● 5. The universal ethical scale of the three Gunas is of divine origin as the world peace formula and also the “creative design” of a world joy formula in the origin, nature, meaning, purpose and goal of the universe. NityaSattva is the characteristic of the personal aspect of the absolute truth (p. 11). The first verse of Sri Isopanishad is in this sense: “Om purnam adah purnam...: If the Absolute is to be absolute, then it must contain all that is found in its parts, i.e. it must contain a holistic, healing personal and loving aspect in addition to its impersonal aspect, otherwise we would have something more than the Absolute. The spiritual joy and the eternal, spiritual sphere are attained through the pure virtue of Nitya-Vishudda-Sattva. ● 6. Pure Sattva, i.e. Prema, all-embracing love and the strict avoidance of unnecessary violence, is the definition and ethical development of the true culture of humanity. And this brings us to our formulas for peace found in the Sanskrit texts. Gandhi was inspired, for example, by the Bhagavad Gita with its formula for peace in verse 2.45: “The Vedas (ancient Indian scriptures) mainly deal with the manifestations of the material nature of the three Gunas that occasionally mix (p. 32). Transcend all these illusory mixtures and be free from the material dualities and manifestations! Do not worry about illusory security and be anchored in the true self, in the NityaSattva (eternal, all-good Sattva healing current) of the “Atmavan”, the individual soul!” This formula is further explained in the Bhagavad Purana 12.8.46: “The place of fearlessness and eternal existence is the characteristic and direct, liberating and healing spiritual energy (“Sattvam”) of the all-good personal aspect of the Absolute. Exploitative passion (Raja) and destructive, degenerating ignorance (Tama) are only His indirect material energies, which exist only in the material (= transitory) and illusory world; we never consider these as His personal energy and divine attribute!” And we have an explanation of this verse from Jiva Goswami, an Indian philosopher 1513 –1598, in his Sat Sandarba in Bhakti Sandarba Anuccheda 103/38, p. 73): “Sattva-Guna is always a little mixed with Raja-Guna and Tama-Guna in the transitory and illusory material world. If we let our emotional body (the Citta, p. 67) be cleansed of the shell of the materially mixed and impure Sattva-Guna with the pure, eternal and divine healing current, then we will soon be on our real, genuine, spiritual and liberating, i.e. healthy, level of NityaSattva (the eternal goodness of the soul, as in Bhagavad Gita 2.45). (The page numbers refer to the free downloadable e-book at: guna.ch/yoga.pdf – More information about Jyotish, Ancient Indian Ayurvedic Astrology (AAA), the “source code of the matrix”, the scientific, mathematical proof of Guna, Karma, reincarnation and God and last but not least; setting the attitude to the Sattva healing current at: guna.ch)

Compared to other scientific laws, the second law of thermodynamics lacks effective "quantitative" experimental support.

It seems clear, and mostly limited to Theoretical Physics, that the RG Discussion and ‘Technical Question' boards have become platforms wherein the individual asking the “question” goes off pontificating on their Big Theory.

Other ‘scientists' chime in and begin pontificating their Big Theory, like a sales pitch. In cases where the author can actually read math, they express junior level equations cut and pasted from elsewhere on the web, usually Wikipedia, in Hex Latex, which no one is going to read.

There are multiple things going on here. 1) Theoretical Physics, in the wake of a century of Ontology that resulted from misconceptions of the 2-slit, has become a Circus of absurd gibberish and related mathematical rubbish.

2) The human penchant to force feed one’s Personal Voodoo down Your throat.

NOTE: ALL of those who respond to this are the worst violators, others won’t bother. It will be puerile and bitter.

In quantum physics, bosons are elementary particles that can occupy the same place in space, but to not accumulate like classical particles, as having been shown in recent experiments on photons where tens of thousands of particles behave as a single quantum particle. Please see the attached link.

This result can be interpreted mathematically if we use a mathematics in which 1+1=1. And from this we obtain 1+1+1+1...=1, in other words ∞→1. For clarity, it should be mentioned here that this kind of mathematics has the form of a Boolean algebra. We can hardly use it, but as shown by the experiments on photons, bosons can.

If these are also true for Higgs boson then the state of an infinite density of matter cannot be achieved because Higgs boson is considered to be the particle that gives masses to other particles. How can  a black hole be formed?

On the other hand, fermions can be considered to follow a mathematics in which 1+1=0.

Actually, the inverse process is more interesting because it can be used to explain the wave mechanics. If tens of thousands of quantum particles can occupy the same place in space and behave as a single quantum particle, i.e., ∞→1, then there is no reason why a single quantum particle cannot make copies of itself to form a medium, i.e., 1→∞, so it can manifest as a wave.

Quantum physics is weird as long as we don't understand it. This statement seems to be obvious as 1+1=2. However, if we follow Einstein's way of thoughts, it's even weirder if we have the ability to understand it at all. 

Recently, I have been able to construct spacetime structures of quantum particles entirely in terms of geometry and topology which shows that the concept of infinite density matter seems to be irrelevant. Please refer to my work entitled  SPACETIME STURCUTURES OF QUANTUM PARTICLES and  A DERIVATION OF THE RICCI FLOW for more details.

“actual decomposition voltage < reversible decomposition voltage” indicates an error in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Please refer to the attached diagram for details.

I hope everyone respects the experiment

C.N.Yang vs Carnot: mathematical symmetry extension vs super empirical fantasy

By comparison, help everyone break free from the empirical quagmire of the second law of thermodynamics. See the picture for details.

The first law of thermodynamics replaces the second law of thermodynamics.Please refer to the attached diagram for details

The second law of thermodynamics switches formulas surreptitiously in mathematical calculations.

For details, see the attached figure.

Abstract: There is heat exchange between two real gases at the same temperature. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the temperature changes of V1 and V2 in adiabatic cycles are not equal to 0. When the temperature change of the cycle is less than 0, thermal work conversion is achieved. Set a single heat source and restore the initial temperature T0 of the system. This is the second type of perpetual motion machine.

Please refer to the attached diagram for details

The foolish logic of the second law of thermodynamics (Kelvin's argument): I am against the second type of perpetual motion machine, so I am right. Please refer to the attached diagram for details.

The second law of thermodynamics: η=1-T1/T2 is only a physical 0-order approximation.(Interaction is castrated) as shown in the picture

The expression Catch 22 is from the novel of that name by Joseph Heller:

" ... a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions."

The escape from a dilemma condemned the victim to the dilemma.

I wonder if that applies to dark energy.

(1) Current conventional cosmological paradigms leave problems answered. Examples: dark energy, The cosmological constant problem, Steven Weinberg Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 – Published 1 January 1989, the cosmological horizon. Current conventional cosmological paradigms are incomplete and some may be wrong.

(2) Any proposed solution of dark energy must conform to current cosmological paradigms.

If trying to solve dark energy is a catch-22, solving it is going to take a while.

Your views?

Is it possible in a world as fragmented as ours to present a new concept of Unity in which Science, Philosophy and Spirituality or Ontology can be conceived working in Complete Harmony?

In this respect the late Thomas S. Kuhn wrote in his

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

"Today research in parts of philosophy, psychology, linguistic, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed here."

And even the father of Quantum Physics complained strongly in his 1952 colloquia, when he wrote:

"Let me say at the outset, that in this speech, I am opposing not a few special statements claims of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing its basic views that has been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. It has been worked out in great detail to form a scheme of admirable logical consistency which has since been inculcated in all young students of theoretical physics."

Where is the source of this "crisis of physics" as has been called?

Certainly the great incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is in a certain sense, one of the reasons, of that great crisis, and that shows clearly the real need of a paradigm shift.

As one that comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition, that need of a real paradigm shift was of course a real need too. Philosophers such as Teilhard de Chardin, Henry Bergson, Charles Pierce and Ken Wilber, all of them worked for it!.

Ken Wilber said that goal of postmodernity should be the Integration of the Big Three, Science, Philosophy and Spirituality, and a scientist as Eric J. Lerner in his The Big Bang Never Happened, show clearly in it, how a paradigm shift was in cosmology is a real need too.

My work about that need started in 1968, when I found for the first time, an equation that was declared the most beautiful equation of mathematics, I mean Euler's relation found by him in 1745, when working with infinite series. It was this equation that took me in 1991, to define what I now call a Basic Systemic Unit, that has the most remarkable property to remain the same in spite of change, exactly the same definition of a Quantum as defined by professor Art Hobson in his book The Tales of Quantum, and that the University of Ottawa found when working with that strange concept that frightened Einstein, the entanglement concept, that seemed to violate Special Relativity.

Where is the real cause of the incompatibility between GR and QM?

For GR Tensor Analysis was used, a mathematical tool based on real numbers, and with it there was the need to solve ten functions representing the gravitational field:

"Thus, according to the general theory of relativity, gravitation occupies an exceptional position with regards to other forces, particularly the electromagnetic forces, since the ten functions representing the gravitational field at the same time define the metrical properties of the space measured."

THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

By A. Einstein

Well the point is that, in that metrics that define the GR, time is just another variable, just as space, and as so with the same symmetrical properties, at the point that is can take both signs positive and negative, so time travel could be conceived just as a space travel, and any direction, in fact Stephen Hawking in his A BRIEFER HISTORY OF TIME, writes:

"It is possible to travel to the future. That is, relativity shows that it is possible to create a time machine that will jump you forward in time." Page 105

This is exactly the point that has made physics some sort of metaphysics, and as so created the great crisis of physics. While QM is based on the complex Schrödinger's wave equation or on complex numbers, in which the symbol sqr(-1), is a symbol to separate two different orders of reality, such as Time and Space, GR is based just on real numbers.

The Basic Systemic Unit concept, based on Euler's relation is in fact the definition of a Quantum, and as so it can be used to deduce all fundamental equations of physics as can be seen in my paper... resolving in this way that great crisis of physics

Quantum Physics

Edgar Paternina

retired electrical engineer

Have any of you come across in publications the definition of the left-side limit of 1/f noises ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a conjecture about the efficiency of a heat engine that deviates from reality and has become witchcraft.

Comparing the first and second laws of thermodynamics when studying heat engines, you will find that the second law of thermodynamics is purely speculative.See the picture for details.

E - has spatiotemporal continuity, S - is statistical and does not have spatiotemporal continuity. Is it correct to write E = F + S*T together?

The second law of thermodynamics is statistical.S - is statistical and does not have spatiotemporal continuity.

It's hard to imagine a concept that exists outside of time and space.

Consider the case of negligible gravity but there is an accelerating reference frame. Its origin traces out a trajectory, or world line, seen in some inertial reference frame. The Lorentz metric in the inertial frame assigns a proper time to each point on this world line. I have read that the proper time at a given point is also the time reading of the accelerating clock when reaching that point. However, if we express the proper time in terms of the metric of the accelerating system we conclude that the clock time in the accelerating system agrees with proper time if and only if the zero-zero component of the metric tensor in the accelerating system is equal to 1 (or -1 depending on convention). I question this because of the equivalence between acceleration and gravity, together with the fact (or at least I think) that the zero-zero component of the metric tensor need not be 1 (or -1 depending on convention) when gravity is present. The question is, is it correct that the zero-zero component of the metric tensor is 1 (or -1 depending on convention) for an accelerating system?

I'm attempting to understand Einstein's theory and I'm sure my question has an answer there. I'm not arguing for or against Einstein's theory, I'm just trying to understand what it says. Since my goal is to understand Einstein's theory, the answer I am looking for is an answer from his theory. I don't know what the answer is but people with a better understanding should know. Another way to ask the question is: If the gravitational field is spatially uniform (a field equivalent to acceleration of a reference frame), do the Einstein equations imply that the zero-zero component of the metric tensor is 1 (or -1 depending on the convention)?

1)

2)

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

The second law of thermodynamics, including Carnot's law, is self-contradictory. For details, please refer to the picture. France is inviting scientists from all over the world to commemorate this self-contradictory theory. Isn't it funny and ironic?

One more Carnot's celebration: https://carnot-legacy.sciencesconf.org/

The colloquim, focusing on modern thermodynamics, will take place on the week following Carnot Lille 2024, which follows a more historical focus on Sadi Carnot and his publication.

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."

The origin of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be better understood through the lens of complex vector spaces. In my paper " ," I explore how representing complementary variables as complex numbers provides a deeper insight into quantum mechanics.

These points illustrate how the use of complex numbers in quantum mechanics aligns with the holographic principle ( ) and offers a unified framework for understanding quantum phenomena. For a detailed exploration of these ideas, you can refer to my paper available on ResearchGate.

The holographic principle, which posits that the information contained within a volume of space can be represented on its boundary, has profound implications for quantum mechanics. In my paper " " I explore how this principle can explain quantum phenomena such as entanglement and wave function collapse.

These points illustrate how the holographic principle can provide a unified framework for understanding quantum mechanics and cosmology. For a detailed exploration of these ideas, you can refer to my paper available on ResearchGate.

The discovery of the spooky quantum phenomena as an aspect of objective reality at the turn of the 20th century demolished the notions of certainty, causality, determinism etc. It unnerved the theoretical physicists to consider even the insensitive Michelson–Morley (M-M) experiment (to find the constancy of the velocity of light c) as the Holy-Grail of physics. The velocity of light became an axiomatic and absolute truth in God’s perfect universe, safe from the "Evil Quanta"!! The velocity of light c was an ordinary constant in Maxwell’s equation, as is the case for any wave propagation. This was known for a long time, but nobody made any fuss about it, until M-M experiment; when Maxwell’s c got a divine dimension!

As the following references would show, taking c as an absolute quantity and primary basis; the Lorentz Transforms ( LTs), “spacetime”, gamma factor, relativistic mass, Special Relativity (SR), and in general most of theoretical physics was fabricated using brain-cooked Kantian logical/mathematical categories, and even dodgy mathematics by Einstein himself! With “absolute” c turned into a geometric parameter as one invariable side of a Pythagorean (Rt. Ang.) triangle, with space (length) and time as the other two (variable) sides, one can then easily fabricate all the items stated above in a “Thought World”; masquerading as the real world!

It can be argued that modern official theoretical physics has two forms 1) Thought (logical/mathematical categories) derived scholasticism of Einstein, 2) Bishop Berkeley’s crass positivism ('Esse est percipi' - 'To be is to be perceived”), adopted by Niels Bohr (Collapse of the wave function). Einstein was a mystic, or at best a mathematical idealist; promoted and choreographed from backstage by powerful interest groups; which continues even today! Physics was made to preach theology!

Please see:

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

"New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity - The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion": https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9594

"New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc^2":

Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!

Radiation perpetual motion machine: uses radiation pressure to do work and consume heat energy. ---Radiation is remote energy transfer. See image for details

Does Wolfram prefer quantum mechanics or relativity? Why?

1)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation

2)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374913431_Highly_Theoretical_Differential_Equations_of_the_Afterlife

Quantum mechanics because the statistics. Relativity is more theoretical.

1)After revealing the signs, He cautioned: “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. … “… Be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 24:42, 44).

2)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation

Scientists have abandoned experimental proof of η=1-T1/T2 and instead used experimental data to piece together η=1-T1/T2. Shameful! Please refer to the attached diagram for details:

1) Method A in the figure is a method for verifying Carnot efficiency, which scientists rarely use because the experiment deviates significantly from theoretical predictions.

2) Scientists extensively use method B in the figure, which does not involve theoretical predictions, but instead uses experiments to gather theory. This is shameful, it's data fraud. The enthalpy entropy charts we use are all pieced together using method B.

3) Scientists explain why method A is not necessary. It's because the experiment is not good, which is deceiving. Science has developed for hundreds of years, and even more rare experiments can be conducted.

4) The core is that scientists are unwilling to admit that the second law of thermodynamics is inconsistent with experiments, but this violates scientific discipline and morality.

The picture is a screenshot of the literature: 1. It illustrates the Crabelon equation derived from the second law of thermodynamics: the calculated heat of vaporization does not match the experiment.

The more precise the experiment, the more obvious the inconsistency between the second law of thermodynamics and the experiment.

3. Why would this happen? The second law of thermodynamics violates symmetry and conservation (which is the mainstream of natural science).

4，Some scientists are packaging the experimental deviations of these theories, and the data in the enthalpy entropy chart that everyone sees is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, which is a deceptive illusion.

1，The image comes from the scientific classic "the propeties of Gases and Liquids"

The picture is a screenshot of the literature: 1. It illustrates the Crabelon equation derived from the second law of thermodynamics: the calculated heat of vaporization does not match the experiment.

2，The more precise the experiment, the more obvious the inconsistency between the second law of thermodynamics and the experiment.

3，Even in the face of such facts, scientists still confidently persist.

4，The second law of thermodynamics does not conform to experiments, and scientists use it to make money is a scam.

1)

2)

3)

The actual decomposition voltage is less than the reversible decomposition voltage, which violates the second law of thermodynamics.

1）Experiments show that there exists an actual decomposition voltage which is less than the reversible decomposition voltage. ==》

2）The change of Gibbs free energy is related to the path.==》

3）The cyclic integral of entropy is not zero.==》

4）The second law of thermodynamics becomes invalid.

5） Scientists can only pretend to be deaf and dumb to such a fact.

Please see the picture for details.

PROBABLY not because:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Abstract: There is gas in the container: CO, O2, CO2, and solid C, among which there are four equations: three chemical equilibrium equations and one element conservation equation, but there are only three variables: the densities of three kinds of gases. In this way, the number of equations is greater than the number of variables, there is no solution, an isolated system has no equilibrium state, and the second law of thermodynamics fails.

See image for details

Scientists can determine the truth of the second law of thermodynamics as long as they can count. Come on!

The Maxwell demon utilizes temperature fluctuations to achieve a perpetual motion machine, independent of information theory.

Please refer to the attached diagram and the following text for details.

1，The Maxwell demon measures the instantaneous temperature fluctuations of a and b on both sides of the switch.

2，When Ta>Tb, the switch is turned on. Heat is transferred from a to b

When Ta<Tb, the switch is turned off. a&b Insulation.

3，Finally, the temperature difference in the container: TA<TB

4，The Maxwell demon is unrelated to information theory and satisfies Newton's laws and energy conservation.

5，Fluctuations themselves violate the second law of thermodynamics. Maxwell's demon utilizes the defect of the second law of thermodynamics.

Longwinded Speculation 1:

Long winded Speculation 2:

TRYING to BEGIN a concise chart:

Gas radiation intensity is a function of space: I=I (r). This is recognized in the textbook of heat transfer. Pushing forward two more steps will result in a temperature difference (this is the second type of perpetual motion machine). Please refer to the picture for details.

The second type of perpetual motion machine for gas radiation is the simplest, easy to implement, and commercialized. The wealth generated by the second type of perpetual motion machine can satisfy everyone's desires.

The current war of Russian aggression against Ukraine is trending towards a third world war. If scientists accept the second type of perpetual motion machine, they will find that the things being fought for in the war are no longer scarce, and the war will come to an end. I hope scientists can play their role.

Maybe we should identify what is the most parsimonious afterlife. Expanding the law of identity, maybe physics can determine the exact afterlife all have coming.

My previous attempts:

Guessing what the afterlife broadly is:

1)

Guessing what the afterlife is NOT.

2)

3)

4)

Whites(more specifically Northwestern Europeans) are the most privileged, least indigenous and most recessive, MAYBE all because they are the last derivative people.

Sources:

1)

2)

3)

4)

We cannot see, or predict the existence or not of limits of the edges of the universe. But, merely due to our inability to see or predict, the universe need not be infinite in content and extent. Similarly, nor should it be taken as finite in content and extent. Any number of insistent avowals on experimental proofs become useless here.

Some have attempted to determine the content of the universe by first determining the geometry of the universe by depending on their determination of isotropy and anisotropy at any local region or layer of the universe. Then they formulate the separate geometry of the finite or infinite spatial or temporal content of the universe, in order thus to indicate the matter-energy content (as finite or infinite) of the whole the universe...!

Does the absence of empirical evidence mean that we should not speak of the rational cases possible in the maximal, medial, and minimal cases of extent of time and space, and of content of matter-energy in the universe? I do not think so. Why not we treat each possible case and sub-case separately and come to conclusions not merely about the geometry, but also of the rationally most acceptable amount of content of the universe?

Many people in the physics and astrophysics of the whole cosmos often tend to insist that the mathematics used to derive conclusions from the particular / local portions of the universe to the total / overall cosmos will help to conclude physically to whatever the mathematics suggests. This is because they tend to equivocate the physics to the mathematics.

If in a physical system within a controlled environment on earth tends to reverse all the physical dispersion of matter (where no real tab is possible on the loss of a minute energy from the system), then they tend to conclude on a cosmic scale theory on the energy loss at the fringes of each local universe or portion of it that all energy propagated will return at some point. This goes without saying, they tend to conclude so.

If there is an internal gravitational reason that makes the loss of energy at the fringes from the first moment of expansion (due to whatever amount of expansion, because there is no total absence of expansion and contraction in any physical system!), then it is rationally and astrophysical-cosmologically clear that some energy will have left the system at least at the speed of light at the first moment of the process of expansion considered and it will continue at an intensive or less intensive mode.

Then many cosmologists tend to insist that our finite-content big bang universe (which either is just the totality of the cosmos that ever has existed, or is only our finite-content portion of the infinite-content cosmos) has only two options: (1) EITHER it will go on expanding eternally and become rarefied forever (in which case it could already have been so if the universe had no origin), (2) OR it will oscillate between expansion and contraction (which is the cyclic model, which too incurs a non-eternal process of rarefaction of the finite content by reason of the fringe-loss of energy).

In the latter case, all the mathematics-is-omnipotent sort of physicists just calculate the implications of their theory by depending merely on the strength of the mathematics. They say first that in any system most of the matter-energy return in any system, because even in the case of entropy of a given system the loss of energy – in case it is the case – is not great with respect to the system.

This is very inaccurate and in any case gives rise to the prejudice that the negligible loss is zero loss for all purposes. We do not know for sure whether every energy wavicle that left the system returns. It is impossible to measure the loss so exactly. The “sufficiently accurate empirical measure” is no guarantee for a total correctness. They then say that, whether there is a big bang universe or not, every system contains and preserves all the energy that it has, merely because of their presumption that matter and energy are interconvertible, and hence all the energy that left at the outskirts should return.

Lots of geometrical restrictions are then rendered for the fringe-loss energy to return: that the fringes are not infinite, any universe has within itself all that its space-time has, etc. In none of these do they try to really rethink the foundations of their merely mathematical concept of spacetime with respect to the fringes of local universes from the start to the finish of any amount of expansion and contraction that any cosmic body should have. Consequently, they consider the local universe as a complete system – by their unresearched presumption – and presuppose that cosmic bodies within that universe can lose energy forever, which of course will be within the system of this universe. Does anyone sense an inconsistency here?

As we all know, the second law of thermodynamics is formulated with almost closed terrestrial systems in mind, and no methods exist to perfectly measure all the minute losses of energy from within the system. If gravitation alone is involved in bringing back all the lost energy of the finite-content local universe, then the second law need not have applicability there at all!

Merely because we have formulated the physics in such a way that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply also to the entropy of the outermost fringes of the local universe, we cannot insist that the energy lost at the fringes will automatically return without the agency of a later gravitational propagation. One should naturally use the wisdom that no gravitational propagation issued before or after the start of the expansion can run slower or faster than the lost (gravitational and/or non-gravitational) energy and bring the lost energy back to the centre for recycling for use in another phase of the cycle of expansion and contraction.

In order to avoid this state of affairs, many might bring up geometries and cosmological theories requiring no big bang or big crunch. But who can insist that the local universe never has any amount of expansion and contraction? Even if it does not have expansion and contraction, energy at the fringes will be propagated off. There is no special wall there (except the geometrical walls created by a few cosmologists) to block the outward-bound propagations forever!

In short, the big bang universe cannot go on eternally in existence as a conglomeration with the same amount of matter-energy. If it had to be insulated from all other possible universes outside, it was certainly not in existence from the past eternity proper to it, because the fringe-loss of energy, however minute, could have exhausted such an eternally existent finite-content universe an eternity ago. It would have to evaporate all or most of its content, and hence, if it had existed from the past eternity as the sole physical cosmos, it should already have exhausted itself.

Why is it that this our finite-content big bang (or slightly expanding) universe did not already conclude at an earlier point of time by getting fully evaporated into the outer realms, if it was not created at all and if it really existed from eternity? Hence, IF MERELY THIS FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSE EXISTS, some sort of creation of this finite-content universe should have been the case. Hence, let us leave this possibility – for otherwise scientistic scientists would begin attacking me.

Let’s ask: Why should only this one universe exist? The following are the only two possible sub-cases:

(1) Probably there existed, from the past eternity of each universe, an infinite number of universes bigger or smaller. These need not have an origin, since the small amount of energy that each universe loses at each of its expansion- and contraction phases will end up at some finite future in other similar universes; and perhaps this is enough for an eternal co-existence of each of them from the past eternity proper of all parts of each such universe as parts of one or many other universes within the infinite-content universe.

(2) If the one universe was the result of an instant creation or continuous creation of various parts, there should be other infinite number of universes too – because, the Source should not be this same universe or other universes, and the Source should then have the eternal ability of performing continuous creation. Moreover, the other universes in the cosmos cannot create themselves, and this big bang universe of ours cannot create itself, except when they have infinite activity within and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.

Any number of arguments articulating a quantum vacuum creating new universes from themselves will naturally involve creation only from already existent matter-energy and/or universes. Existing matter-energy – however empty or full the quantum vacuum as the supposed agent of creation is – cannot create fresh matter-energy except from within existing matter-energy in each universe. But this is finite in amount, and cannot go on by fresh creation.

Transfer and re-formulation of matter-energy is not creation. It is just a new mixing with other matter-energy at finite distances. This activity is already included in the processes of the universe, by including which the finite-content universe/s exhaust themselves into their own outer spaces within a finite time, not permitting further prospects of new creation.

In the case of eternal and continuous creation from a Source, it must be admitted that the universe is infinite in content, that is, contains an infinite number of finite-content universes. This is because the Source cannot be this infinite-content cosmos or be part of it, and must exist continuously in the act of infinite and eternal creation.

I do not insist that the above is the case. I have presented one possible case given by any sort of open reasoning. I have elaborated all these and similar other cases of cosmogenesis in the 647 pages of my book: Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin. It is the result of more than 35 years of reading, research, and cogitations – from my very school days.

I have published a short but differently argued version of it in less than 100 pages, presenting the logic of these reasonings in a more simplified manner, so that an ordinary educated person interested in cosmology can grasp the basic lines of the above book easily. It is titled: Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All, KDP Amazon, 2022. This book is available as Kindle and Printed, for a few Euros or Dollars.

I suggest these books because I cannot write more than a few pages here….

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?

They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.

Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.

Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.

Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.

Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.

Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?

Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.

Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.

The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Realit-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.

Bibliography

Causal Horizonal Research is a method that works beyond empirical methods in the positive sciences and serves at existential generalizations that are an essential condition for the possibility of positive sciences. Thus, it may be seen as (1) a philosophical method, but (2) a method of recognition of the foundations of positive sciences. The foundational notions of positive sciences need not themselves be formulated as merely empirically formulable notions!

Although a short text, the arguments here are an attempt to bridge the defects of statistical applications in the sciences and avoid the same in physical ontology, philosophy of physics, philosophy of science (in general), and in the various philosophical disciplines. Implications may be drawn to the philosophy of mathematics and to the foundations mathematics and the sciences in general.

The uninterruptedly but finitely contributive past-existent causal influences point ever backward for recognition of causal pervasiveness of the past horizon. Therefore, this must be accepted as a beckoning for consideration of causal pasts in any research, for achievement of the maximum rational adequacy with respect to the perceived causes of any particular existent process.

There are both already detected and easily detectable aspects and parts of the causal pasts. But there is also the portion of the causal horizon which is not easily discovered or discoverable. At any time, some of this portion of past-existent causal players will remain unreached. But its existence cannot be said to be an impossibility, whatever this portion is. This is what I call the ontological givenness of the causal horizon of anything whatever.

The whole of the past causal influences are together never fully actually traceable back from a given point of time by human intellects and instruments. All processes are in principle and in general ever better traceable and capable of being theoretically included, in general, in physical research and in physical-ontological research. Such theoretical traceability of causes is rejected by their probabilistically ontological exclusion at any given result, if merely probabilistic calculation is considered as the only mode of scientific inquiry.

Examples are the “probabilistically causal” results in QM despite the very finite Extension-Change distances between any two QM events and between a QM event and an arbitrarily chosen experimenter. The problem here is the utter lack of admission of the existence of the totality of the causal horizon, whether detected or detectable or undetected.

Due to the principle of inner-universe conservation of matter-energy, these past causal influences – the causal horizon – as influences at any time traceable to the future, are not annihilated into non-existence in their transformed existence in the present. Therefore, they have their real and ubiquitously causal significance from the past in the present of any process.

I propose, therefore, a physical-ontologically and cosmologically tenable Causal Horizonal Research (CHR)[1]into inner-universe causalities as traceable theoretically to the indefinite past of any process at inquiry – even in case of existence of the external originative cause of all that is physical within the cosmos. This can yield at least a more than vague and sufficiently broad outlook at some problematic issues of statistically causal reach into existent unobservables / quasi-observables within micro-physics, cosmology, physical ontology, and philosophy. That is, the status and extent of causal processes in the micro- and macro-cosmos, the relation of real causality with the recognition-level or calculation-level probability, randomness, chaos, catastrophe, etc. can be further elucidated and systematized by CHR.

If individual processes in the universe have had any measure of past causality active in their parts in any manner (wholly or allegedly partially), this demonstrates by definition the fact that any causal explanation of any process hints at all the processes (causal or allegedly non-causal) that are prior to a phenomenon / event / process, relative to the spatiotemporally connected posteriority of the thing being explained and the priority of the causes being generalized upon. The measure of Extension-Change (measured as space-time in science and ordinary parlance) that has already taken place is theoretically traceable.

Suppose that a certain process’s causal roots proper (or, to please Hume-inspired theoreticians, in terms at least of what we call antecedents proper) are conceivable in principle as having been existent in the past. Then there is no reason why the experimentally and theoretically in-principle feasible extent of statistically tracing the causal horizon should obstruct us from taking at least a theoretically general look at the ontological structure of past causal antecedent roots, and then from them still farther past roots, etc.

Some of it can be traceable in future instances of statistical inclusions; and some will ever remain unreached. But science must accept the existence of the latter – which is not the case in merely statistically characterized sciences.

The causal horizon’s ontological structure is, in general, the Extension-Change antecedent-horizonal processuality as something that existed in the past. The need to tracing causal roots is in simple terms the rational basis of the principle and procedure of CHR, granting the fact that the antecedents proper of all that is today, of all that we speak of, are in fact causes. Only when one tends to claim that causes are not causes arises theoretical impasses. To make sure in the present context that these are causes, science should always wait a finite amount of time. But the pragmatic attitude of severing the relation of the theory from the past-existent but so-far not-reached parts of the causal horizon is the case only in statistics and statistically oriented positive sciences, and nowhere else.

By positing causes (1) as ever having been active in the past of any current physical process, (2) as causally relevantly dormant in the present forms of existence of the current physical processes, the proposed ontological and cosmological methodology of CHR is theoretically implementable. The physical explanation for this is the physical principle of conservation as it is active towards the future proper in all past and present processes. Science and philosophy always want to witness the extent of reachable causality. Hence, the fact of not having already attained the capture of certain causal horizonal members of the past is no justification to be overly pragmatic of the past causes. This is where CHR takes us to.

This will not take us to a meaningless infinite regress. Any infinite regress without the involvement of an abruptly theorized non-causal and non-physical Creator will still be reasonable since the search is with reference to causes within the universe, and such an infinite regress within the universe should naturally be physically meaningful.[2]The stage for CHR in micro-cosmology and macro-cosmology (by this meaning all physical sciences) will thus be set. The major result from here is that in QM causation will somehow have be discussed from various angles, along with making the need for our methodology further explicit.

CHR is treated in my books of 2014 (Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology) and 2018 (Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology):

[1] For detailed reflections, see Raphael Neelamkavil, “Causal Horizonal Research in Cosmology” (21-47), Journal of Dharma 34, 2 (April-June 2009).

[2] In order to circumvent infinite regress, we do not posit an unmoved creator as the final past end of any causal horizon. It is beset with metaphysical paradoxes. We keep the option of a continuously creating Divine open, but this is not needed for our more restricted methodology for physical research, namely, Causal Horizonal Research.

1. Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking of Choice

2. Defining Causality

3. Defining Symmetry Causally

I discuss here the concept of symmetry and relate it to Universal Causality. I do not bring in the concept of Conservation here. Nor do we mention or discuss the mathematicians and physicists who deal with this concept, because such a short document cannot study their work or critique them in order to related them to Universal Causality.

Suppose that, by use of a conventionally decided unit of physically causal action α (of whatever, say, a photon) from A, the choice is met by the unit of action between two given electrons B and C. We consider B and C to be the immediate candidates for direct causal action by α, but the said causal action does not take place in B or C by an external causal action α from A. Then we tend to claim that there exists a PERFECT SYMMETRY OF CHOICE between B and C, for the unit of action α from A.

Whether α is from A or anything else does not matter here. What matters is that in nature such a perfect symmetry is never the case. Suppose there is no choice for α other than that between B and C, that is, there exist only A, B, and C in the world. In that case, at some point of time in the future of occurrence of the physically real mutual (causal, if A were to interact with B or C through the exertion of the causal action α) approach between (1) the unit of action α issuing from A and (2) any one or B and C, then there occurs the causal choice between the two.

If it is possible to stipulate that A, B, and C are in motion at various directions, then there exist some other D, E, etc. in the universe and A, B, and C have had causal interaction with many others. In that case, the decision of α for interaction with either B or C at a stipulated point of time lies in the acquisition of the knowledge as to how much A, B, and C have been causally affected by others, and to what extent of time.

This is not determinable given the fact that we are unable to causally contact all the agents of causal action upon A, B, and C. The final choice by us will be considering at least in a percentage-wise manner how much, how many other As, Bs, and Cs have causally influenced A, B, and C, beginning from a certain past relative point of time. But our decision is a speculation based on a few nearby-lying causal influences upon them. But this is not as much true as when we had the whole information.

We tend to term the action that follows with the so-called “choice” for B or C by the action potential α of A as symmetry breaking. Symmetry breaking here is nothing but the ability of any action potential α of A to affect B or C (or any other) processual entity causally – but this ability is presumed and calculated without taking, and without being able to take, into consideration all the causal antecedents of the action potential α of A and the processual entities B, C, etc.

These causal antecedents are such that, if known fully well, the action route of the action potential α of A can be predicted without access to the notion of symmetry or symmetry breaking. Such symmetry breaking may then even be cited by some physicists as the reason for the choice. Note also that this or any other concept of symmetry and symmetry breaking is not such that all the causal antecedents in A, B, C, etc. are already summed up in it. Recall to mind here also the Bohmian notion of hidden variables. Hidden variables are not actual variables, but instead, a device to merely represent unknown and non-represented variable values.

One may argue that symmetry too is causal. The direct cause of the choice is the action α by A on B or C. But even within the notion of the direct or immediate cause, cannot be included the notion of other external and remote causes of the event of the action potential α of A choosing B or C causally. That is, immediate causes do not contain within themselves all the remote past causal routes that have contributed to the choice by the action potential α of A to choose B or C causally at a moment to interact with.

This shows that the notions of symmetry and symmetry breaking are the results of conceptually ostracizing (or of our inability to reach and include) the past causal horizon of the causal event at discussion. Hence, these are instruments to do physics in our given context. This does not mean that science and philosophy should not recognize the universal nature of causality or that physics and philosophy should ostracize Universal Causality.

The action is physically processed in the form of a conglomeration of existent processes, whichever be the participating causal forces from within them and from outside – the latter of which normally are not being taken into consideration by the experiment and the symmetric-mathematical description, because there are limits to experimental setups and mathematical tools. But theoretically generalizing inquiry has no limits. This is why we need a theoretically generalizing notion of Universal Causality based solely on the notion of existence. The generalities in the natural kinds of physically existent processes are called ontological universals. These are not merely and exclusively in individual token entities.

In nature there are only causes, not reasons. Reasons are in human minds, and are active in two ways:

(1) In a connotative manner (i.e., consciousness notes together the generalities in processes. and then concatenates the connotative universals achieved / formed within consciousness in order to facilitates concepts and their expression in statements).

(2) In a denotative manner (i.e., connotative universals are mixed with brain elements and then expressed in symbols and language, and thereafter denotative universals are concatenated in various ways in symbolically formulated statements in language, mathematics, automated intelligence, and other symbolic instruments).

Both these are aspects of the constitution of reason in their own ways as and when they have to do with reasons in consciousnesses and expressions via symbols and languages. Causes in physical processes are existent as such outside our connotative universals, connotative concatenations of connotative universals, denotative universals, and denotative concatenation of denotative universals. Reasons occur in the concatenations of connotative and denotative universals, respectively in the pure conceptual aspect of consciousness and in its symbolizing aspect in various natural and artificial languages.

The symmetry or symmetry breaking in any given case is such an explanation, a reason. It is not a cause or the cause of anything. Many a time physicists tend to get confused between reasons and causes. Symmetry is just an example for instances where this universal phenomenon of confusion occurs.

Anything existent is in Extension, i.e., is composite and thus has a finite number of parts, none of the parts of which can be taken as an infinitesimal in any exercise of division and counting. Anything in existence is in Change, i.e., all existent processes and parts thereof make new impact-generation on other such and as a result also within itself – this is the only other aspect of composition of existents. The latter part of Change, namely, the inner and inward action as a result of the previous action, is to be recognized as an additional action.

The combined action of Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but causation. Everything existent is in causality – hence Universal Causality. Causes are always in the Extension-Change-wise mode of being of existents. Extension and Change together are the exhaustive meaning of existence (To Be) of Reality-in-total. All Extension-Change-wise instances of existence are instances of causation.

In short, everything existent has parts (Extension), every part has parts because it is in Extension, and all of them are in their own proper action of impact-formation (Change) inwards and outwards. Extension and Change are the only two exhaustive modes of the meaning of existing non-vacuously. Every existent is thus in causal action.

Such causation is everywhere, in all existents, as the very implication of existence. Hence, Universal Causality is the principle of nature that is instantiated when the choice by a unit of processual action (α of any A) between two electrons (B, C) breaks the principle of symmetry. Symmetry breaking with respect to a preferred or prescribed sort of action should always be causal, because this event has a past causal horizon, however long. (The question as to whether the past causal horizon is physically past eternal or past finitely eternal is the cosmogenetic question. We do not treat it here.)

Symmetry and the symmetry breaking are names for what may be called reasons in any case that may be discussed. But reasons must be explained always in terms of the causal actions within the given contexts. If physics is unable to do that in any instance, it is not entitled to call it non-causality or a-causality. Nor should the situation be filled up with an indescribable something called vacuum energy, ubiquitous ether, etc., and make vacuum energy and ether do the creation of the universe/s.

If the various laws of Conservation are considered as instances of symmetry, such symmetry is not merely of a choice of interaction, but much more, as a symmetry that may be defined as not being otherwise than what the processes involved (and thus all that exist as processes) are.

Existent processes are fundamentally in existence, which is the same as being in Extension-Change, i.e., in Causal existence, and only derivatively (i.e., by preferring to involve only a few causes) from the continuously Causal existence are they in the states of symmetry or symmetry breaking – whatever be the states or choice of states considered. This is done in terms of reasons, in terms of conceptual explanation, all this is in fact based on causal processes that guide everything being considered for investigation in the cosmos.

To be clearer in terms of what physics does, symmetry is a mode of perception and explanation of causal physical action quantitively within a given limited context of causes, where the totally causal nature of all existents does not get considered as playing a direct role in the formation of the immediate causes that are being considered.

Universal Causality is equivalent to non-vacuous existence, because Universal Causality, composed of Extension and Change, is the very exhaustive meaning of existence. Hence, Universal Causality is physical-ontologically more a priori than the symmetry and symmetry breaking of some select states, where the state of having two sides, aspects, choices, possibilities of actions, etc. are based on the Extension-Change-wise modes of existent processes in being in finite measures of activity and in stability in the same finite measures of activity.

The finite measures of causal action may be quantified. But this quantification in terms of any conventional mode of measurement does not represent all that the physical processes involved are in themselves, in terms of all that have causally happened in them.

Symmetry is not a matter of absolutely virtual knowledge. It is naturally based on the causal action of parts in parts of the universe and their comparability with respect to certain criteria of comparison. Various mathematical tools have come to be used to make comparisons effective and productive.

But this is not the case concerning Universal Causality, which I have defined here, because mathematical applications in physics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. tend to forget the basic fact of the universality of Causality, which should have been dealt with in every little part of these sciences. This is the sad part of the story of Universal Causality.

Bibliography

Gas diffuses into vacuum, dQ=0, thermodynamic entropy dS=dQ/T=0. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be calculated.Please refer to the attached diagram for details。

"Ds=dQ/T" is defined as a reversible process that can be used, but an irreversible process that cannot be used. This violates the universality and consistency of natural science.

Heat transfer (gas radiation) does not support the second law of thermodynamics.

Please refer to the following text and pictures for details

Gas radiation and absorption occur throughout space, and gases at different locations absorb energy differently from remote radiation. The different amount of radiation absorbed by gases at different positions can lead to temperature differences. The second law of thermodynamics is invalid.

Do scientists have to wait until nuclear war breaks out to believe in the existence of perpetual motion machines?

Humanity has reached a new threshold in the study of the Universe.

It is proposed to discuss obstacles in the development of theoretical physics and ways to overcome them. Despite the difficulties encountered, progress toward a next-generation theory seems possible. But is it endless?

I have started discussion in my essay: DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.18662.19526

The text is also attached.

Gas radiation has no thermal equilibrium, and the second law of thermodynamics is invalid. The following pictures are all from the content of heat transfer and university physics, combined together, it is found that the second law of thermodynamics is invalid.

Please refer to the picture for details.

When reading the literature, I frequently encounter the assertion that the arrow of time is controlled by increasing entropy. But I never find an explanation of what physical system the entropy refers to. Is the physical system the entire universe? Or is it the environment that is local to a point in space in question? There are examples of physical systems that can be divided into two interacting subsystems with a decreasing entropy in one subsystem and a correspondingly increasing entropy in the other so that the entropy of the combined system is increasing. Should a clock that is residing in one subsystem run in a different direction than a clock that is residing in the other subsystem? Perhaps this question is answered by the answer to the original question: The entropy of what?