Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455854 > unrolled thread

The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 15:03 -0400
    The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:08 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:09 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:24 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 13:15 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 13:19 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 19:21 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:24 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 14:06 +0000
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:09 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:19 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-21 16:56 +0200
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-21 13:43 -0400
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:25 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-21 19:43 -0500
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-22 17:40 +0200
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 09:07 -0700
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-23 10:47 -0500
                  Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-26 20:12 +0200
                    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:57 -0700
                      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-26 15:05 -0700
                      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:42 +0000
                        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:57 -0700
                          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:08 +0000
                            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 16:26 -0700
                              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:00 +0000
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 19:22 +0000
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 19:24 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 02:44 +0200
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 10:20 +0000
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 13:32 +0200
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 13:53 +0000
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:14 -0400
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:10 -0400
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:26 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:30 -0700
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:46 -0700
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:55 -0700
                  Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:08 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-14 11:59 +1000
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:02 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:24 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:51 -0500
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:26 -0700
    The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 21:17 -0700
      The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 21:21 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-14 21:00 +0200
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:15 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 15:28 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:50 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 13:05 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-14 22:07 +0200
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 06:14 +0100
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 13:50 +0200
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-16 19:31 +0000
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:48 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:10 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:30 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:56 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 10:33 -0500
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-18 21:10 +0200
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 00:14 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 06:21 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#455854 — The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics

So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?

That has to be the view of the aether deniers.

Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up 
their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
"probability waves in nothing at all"! By denying aether they make the 
bold assertion that nothing at all can have properties. That the 
"nothing" of space can have properties. When it comes to electromagnetic 
phenomena, they suggest that behavior can exist without anything which 
possesses the behavior. It's clearly an insane view.

Take the case of waves. Waves by definition are stresses in SOMETHING 
that can propagate outward from one point to another. Can one stress 
"nothing at all"? The question makes no sense at all. Hence if radio 
energy is waves then it is stresses of some kind in space that propagate 
outward. If space is "nothing at all" then WHAT is being stressed?

The whole aether denier theory has sunk into a morass where only blind 
religious belief can save it from the mental hospital. It clearly is NOT 
science, so what is it doing there?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#455855

benj wrote 

So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics? 

That has to be the view of the aether deniers. 

Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up 
their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
"probability waves in nothing at all"! By denying aether they make the 
bold assertion that nothing at all can have properties. That the 
"nothing" of space can have properties. When it comes to electromagnetic 
phenomena, they suggest that behavior can exist without anything which 
possesses the behavior. It's clearly an insane view. 

Take the case of waves. Waves by definition are stresses in SOMETHING 
that can propagate outward from one point to another. Can one stress 
"nothing at all"? The question makes no sense at all. Hence if radio 
energy is waves then it is stresses of some kind in space that propagate 
outward. If space is "nothing at all" then WHAT is being stressed? 

The whole aether denier theory has sunk into a morass where only blind 
religious belief can save it from the mental hospital. It clearly is NOT 
science, so what is it doing there? 

Your my best friend now...

https://i.imgflip.com/28c1kp.jpg

http://vixra.org/author/david_e_fuller

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455856

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 12:03:46 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> 
> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
> 
> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up 
> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
> "probability waves in nothing at all"! 

Not even wrong.

You are wasting your time.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455860

(hbar * (13.88805 billion light years) * (299792458 (s / m))) / (4 ((kg m) / s)) = 1.03846899 m s

Aether 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455862

(((((13.7098767318 billion light years)^2) / (((c^7) / (hbar * G))^0.5)) * 6.52485) / (pi^2)) / 2 = 0.999999999 m s2

((c^7) / (hbar * G))^0.5 Planck Acceleration 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455863

(2 / ((((13.7098767318 billion light years) / pi)^2) * (Planck length^2) * (c^2))) * c * G = 0.999993334

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455875

On 4/13/2018 3:09 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 12:03:46 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
>>
>> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
>>
>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up
>> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by
>> "probability waves in nothing at all"!
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
> You are wasting your time.
> 
> --
> Jan

You are correct that I am wasting my time trying to convert you aether 
deniers, but the correct comment on your beliefs is not "not even wrong" 
but rather "not even sane".

Here, let me waste some more time: Please explain to us all how "nothing 
at all" can have properties?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455876

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 4:22:06 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 4/13/2018 3:09 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 12:03:46 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> >> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> >>
> >> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
> >>
> >> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up
> >> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by
> >> "probability waves in nothing at all"!
> > 
> > Not even wrong.
> > 
> > You are wasting your time.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> You are correct that I am wasting my time trying to convert you aether 
> deniers,

Not even wrong. It's like saying: "I am wasting my time trying to convince
you that "2 + airplane equals purple".

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455913

JanPB wrote:

>> You are correct that I am wasting my time trying to convert you aether
>> deniers,
> 
> Not even wrong. It's like saying: "I am wasting my time trying to
> convince you that "2 + airplane equals purple".

This is wrong, a 2+airplaine equals moon landing. It always is been like 
that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455939

((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (((planck length / (c^2)) * G)^2) * (0.5 (m^2)) = 3.71295774-28 m^3 / kg 

Planck Density / Friedmann Density (((planck length / (c^2)) * G)^2) * (0.5 * (m^2)) = 1 

(((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((3.71295774e-28 (m^3)) / kg)) * (((planck length / (c^2)) * G)^2) * (0.5 * (m^2)) = 1 

Luminiferous Aether Medium 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455942

On 4/14/2018 10:06 AM, Rusty Willard wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
>>> You are correct that I am wasting my time trying to convert you aether
>>> deniers,
>>
>> Not even wrong. It's like saying: "I am wasting my time trying to
>> convince you that "2 + airplane equals purple".
> 
> This is wrong, a 2+airplaine equals moon landing. It always is been like
> that.
> 
You are both right and both wrong!

Math is pure fantasy.
Hence ANY equation can be proved "right" or "wrong" by the appropriate 
choice of axioms in your mathematical systems.

If you think 2+2=4 is the only system, you are both mathematical idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456560

Am 14.04.2018 um 01:21 schrieb benj:

>
> You are correct that I am wasting my time trying to convert you aether
> deniers, but the correct comment on your beliefs is not "not even wrong"
> but rather "not even sane".
>
> Here, let me waste some more time: Please explain to us all how "nothing
> at all" can have properties?
>
The question is good, but apparently you are thinking about the wrong 
answer.

The common view about the universe is similar to that of Newton and 
Descartes.

There you have a 'stage' called 'vacuum' and things flying around 
through nothingness.

But possibly the universe is not a Cartesian space. Then 'nothing' would 
also have a different meaning.

If you allow points (in some sort of specific space) to have features, 
than the nothing could be actually a medium (kind of).

Only it is not invisible stuff that fills the vacuum, but the space 
itself is the medium.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456575

On 4/21/2018 10:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.04.2018 um 01:21 schrieb benj:
> 
>>
>> You are correct that I am wasting my time trying to convert you aether
>> deniers, but the correct comment on your beliefs is not "not even wrong"
>> but rather "not even sane".
>>
>> Here, let me waste some more time: Please explain to us all how "nothing
>> at all" can have properties?
>>
> The question is good, but apparently you are thinking about the wrong 
> answer.
> 
> The common view about the universe is similar to that of Newton and 
> Descartes.
> 
> There you have a 'stage' called 'vacuum' and things flying around 
> through nothingness.

Speaking of tradition, Maxwell pointed out that there are only two known 
ways that energy is transmitted from place to place. One is as you say 
by kinetic energy of particles and the other is waves in a medium.

of course the particles can travel in "nothing at all". but they also 
can travel through 'something" if say it's light and frictionless (like 
say aether). Waves on the other MUST by definition have a medium. To say 
otherwise is simply nonsense. The interesting thing here is that 
theoretically particles could travel faster than c IF you could find a 
way to make them go that fast. Waves on the other hand can never travel 
faster that their propagation speed in the given medium. Gives you the 
big hint that light is waves in aether. c is the speed of waves in aether.

> But possibly the universe is not a Cartesian space. Then 'nothing' would 
> also have a different meaning.

Now all you want to do is play word games and define nothing to mean 
something! You think that is enlightening? Just causes confusion!

> If you allow points (in some sort of specific space) to have features, 
> than the nothing could be actually a medium (kind of).

In your mathematical fantasies you can allow anything you want. But that 
is not the question. The comparison is always with reality. I could 
point out that "points' are "nothing at all" have NO dimensions at all 
and yet you want to say that nothing at all with no dimensions has 
properties. This is not science it is science fiction.

> Only it is not invisible stuff that fills the vacuum, but the space 
> itself is the medium.

And what exactly is "space itself"? The phrase can't even be defined. 
All you've proposed is that nothing has properties, which is the whole 
point making this line of argument bogus. So if you want to change 
nothing that is nothing to nothing that is "something" then give it a 
new name! Hey, I've got it! Lets call this new "nothing" Aether!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456577

Benj wrote 

And what exactly is "space itself"? The phrase can't even be defined. 
All you've proposed is that nothing has properties, which is the whole 
point making this line of argument bogus. So if you want to change 
nothing that is nothing to nothing that is "something" then give it a 
new name! Hey, I've got it! Lets call this new "nothing" Aether! 

((((c^2) / (Boltzmann constant^2)) / (1.416808e32 kelvin)) * electron mass * (6.52489 / tau)) / pi = 1.00206659 m^-2 kg^-1 s^2 K 


(((electron mass / 6.52489) * (((1.35291025e-57 / pi) * m)^2)) / (((2/1.416808e32) kelvin) * (((1.35291025e-57 * m) / c)^2))) / (c^2) = 1.00206768 kg / K 

(((electron mass/2)*c^2)/m^3) = CMBR joules /m^3 

((electron mass / 2) * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals 

((2.4263102367e-12 / (((electron mass / 2) * (c^2)) / (m^3))) / 2) / 29.9792458 = 0.988542244 

2.4263102367e-12 m Compton wavelength 



2.4544325e-12 m/(((electron mass)*c^2)/m^3)/29.9792458 = 1 


Atomic Structure “Dictated” by Aether Geometry 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/B2FCGkIeeMWkvHo73 


2.4701179157e-12^2/(2kg*G/c^2)/137.035999172/29.9792458 = 1 


(Electron & Proton properties & parameters) are Dictated by the Aether 

Matter is “Relativistic Ballast” resulting in “Flat Space Time” 


(2/3^2 /5^2 * 11 *137.035999172^2) = 1836.1556956 

Fibonacci (2*5)D 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456609

On 4/21/18 12:43 PM, benj wrote:
> Maxwell pointed out that there are only two known 
> ways that energy is transmitted from place to place. One is as you say 
> by kinetic energy of particles and the other is waves in a medium.

Sure, a century and a half ago. TODAY we know of an additional 
possibility: transport of quantum objects, such as electrons and photons.

> of course the particles can travel in "nothing at all". but they also 
> can travel through 'something" if say it's light and frictionless (like 
> say aether).

Yes. Ditto for quantum objects. Though they, of course, interact with 
anything in their path (insofar as "path" has meaning)....

> Waves on the other MUST by definition have a medium.

Only for an OUTMODED meaning of "wave".

Physicists today consider anything that satisfies a wave equation to be 
a wave, and this does NOT need any medium.

	A wave equation is an elliptic second-order partial
	differential equation. The solutions of such equations
	have the ability to self-propagate, which is really the
	defining characteristic of waves.

So, for instance, we consider gravitational waves to be waves (duh!). 
They have no "medium", but they do satisfy a wave equation (at least in 
the weak-field linear approximation to GR).

> To say 
> otherwise is simply nonsense.

No. You merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

> [... speculations and nonsense]

In modern physics we don't "assign properties to space" (or to points). 
Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base 
manifold. The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456639

Am 22.04.2018 um 02:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
..
>
> In modern physics we don't "assign properties to space" (or to points).
> Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base
> manifold. The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory.

Who is 'we'??

And why don't you allow points to have features?


I personally try to promote an idea I call 'structured spacetime'.

The term 'spacetime' is meant in way like Herman Minkowski used it and 
is regarded as physical entity.

The term 'space' refers a certain subset. These 'structures' are (among 
others) what I call 'timelike stable patterns' (aka matter).

The idea of points with features would make sense, if you would allow a 
different space than the Euclidean.

I assume something similar to a quaternion field. This is actually a 
real physical space and is composed from pointlike 'elements'.

A main difference to standard physics is, that it allows different local 
directions of time.

So timelines can have an angle and even opposite directions.

If we would start from nothing and allow two opposite timelines point in 
opposite directions and leaving behind something, which would actually 
add to nothing (if it could add). Then along any timeline we find a 
different 'world', which is equipped with a different 'universe'.

(This 'universe' is actually the own past light cone of the observer.)

The resulting spaces would then have points with features.

These features can build certain patterns and those are what we call 
'matter'.

Only: this matter is 'relative', too, since 'timelike' is based on the 
local timeline of the observer.


(long version can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
)


As proof of concept I would like to mention:
- Growing Earth
- a phenomenon called 'magic dust'

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456640

Thomas Heger
Am 22.04.2018 um 02:43 schrieb Tom Roberts: 
.. 
> 
> In modern physics we don't "assign properties to space" (or to points). 
> Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base 
> manifold. The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory. 

Who is 'we'?? 

The “WE” is the mainstream NON-AETHERISTS writing Government Grant applications for our tax dollars 

As long as it is NOT solved, they keep getting grant applications approved & Funded

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456729

On 4/22/18 10:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.04.2018 um 02:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> In modern physics we don't "assign properties to space" (or to points).
>> Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base
>> manifold. The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory.
> 
> Who is 'we'??

Modern physicists. That is, those that use QFT.

> And why don't you allow points to have features?

Because the points of a manifold have no features (other than existence and 
topological relationships to adjacent points). Physical features live in the 
fibers, not the points of the base manifold.

> The term 'spacetime' is meant in way like Herman Minkowski used it and is 
> regarded as physical entity.

Not in modern physics, where spacetime is part of the MODEL, not the world.

> [... further nonsense ignored]

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457013

Am 23.04.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 4/22/18 10:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.04.2018 um 02:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> In modern physics we don't "assign properties to space" (or to points).
>>> Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base
>>> manifold. The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory.
>>
>> Who is 'we'??
>
> Modern physicists. That is, those that use QFT.
>
>> And why don't you allow points to have features?
>
> Because the points of a manifold have no features (other than existence
> and topological relationships to adjacent points). Physical features
> live in the fibers, not the points of the base manifold.
>
>> The term 'spacetime' is meant in way like Herman Minkowski used it and
>> is regarded as physical entity.
>
> Not in modern physics, where spacetime is part of the MODEL, not the world.
>

Well, it was actually MY idea, that I try to promote.
I call it 'structured spacetime'.

The text I have written circles around the question: how could you 
connect GR to QM?

The idea is, that both theories have their merits and are most likely 
correct. But how to connect both into a single framework?????

My approach was this: the both theories are like 'cities' in a rough 
terrain, which have a hidden connection, that is unknown.

To find this connection I had estimated the 'midpoint' and searched for 
similarities between relativity and quantum mechanics in the 'vicinity' 
(of that assumed 'midpoint').

In my 'dragnet' I had found a certain formula for quaternions, which 
represent rotations.

(Later I have switched to biquaternions (aka 'complex-four-vectors) and 
'Pauli algebra'.)

Then I turned around and tried to model various phenomena with that 
assumption. It did actually work. So I wrote a longish text about it. 
(That text you find here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )

Certainly a few things could be made better, but actually I think, the 
concept itself is quite good.

>> [... further nonsense ignored]
>

We'll see, which concept will be regarded as nonsense.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457020

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:12:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.04.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 4/22/18 10:40 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 22.04.2018 um 02:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> >>> In modern physics we don't "assign properties to space" (or to points).
> >>> Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base
> >>> manifold. The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory.
> >>
> >> Who is 'we'??
> >
> > Modern physicists. That is, those that use QFT.
> >
> >> And why don't you allow points to have features?
> >
> > Because the points of a manifold have no features (other than existence
> > and topological relationships to adjacent points). Physical features
> > live in the fibers, not the points of the base manifold.
> >
> >> The term 'spacetime' is meant in way like Herman Minkowski used it and
> >> is regarded as physical entity.
> >
> > Not in modern physics, where spacetime is part of the MODEL, not the world.
> >
> 
> Well, it was actually MY idea, that I try to promote.
> I call it 'structured spacetime'.
> 
> The text I have written circles around the question: how could you 
> connect GR to QM?
> 
> The idea is, that both theories have their merits and are most likely 
> correct. But how to connect both into a single framework?????
> 
> My approach was this: the both theories are like 'cities' in a rough 
> terrain, which have a hidden connection, that is unknown.
> 
> To find this connection I had estimated the 'midpoint' and searched for 
> similarities between relativity and quantum mechanics in the 'vicinity' 
> (of that assumed 'midpoint').
> 
> In my 'dragnet' I had found a certain formula for quaternions, which 
> represent rotations.

This is groping in the dark, your chance of getting anywhere using this
approach are virtually nil. In the meantime, you should perhaps familiarise
yourself with some of the recent conceptual advances in quantum theory,
like the Conway-Kochen "free will theorem" which reduces the set of
assumptions on _experimental results_ (not theories!) to a tiny minimum
(3 statements). This can presumably go a long way toward weeding out
lots of speculative ideas, I highly recommend it:

the original paper from 2006:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079 

a stronger version with more discussion from 2009:
http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf?q=will&sa=U&ei=k71jU8X7DoypyASw9YGoCA&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE7L-k87yWE32ru0rDjkLOdg12LRQ 

Bottom line is any unification of QM and GR must involve either a direct
physical (abstract) model of "will" (in some sense) or there has to be
a non-trivial addition made to spacetime: more "events" than GR's current
4D continuum. Both potentially involve an enormous number of extra
parameters and choices, so this is highly non-trivial.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web