SPACETIME CURVATURE, GRAVITATIONAL WAVES, GRAVITONS, AND ANTI-GRAVITONS: Do They All Exist?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
There may be physicists and philosophers of physics who do not admit that, just like electromagnetism, gravitation too should have its basic wavicle units and that they too should exist physically. Merely because gravitation is termed energy, it cannot merely be a quantity with nothing existent in order to hold and transport the said quantity of energy.
Moreover, there seems to be forgetfulness to take into account the fact that “gravitational waves” must be conceived in two ways: (1) whole conglomerations of gravitational effect by an object on another, and (2) the basic unit of gravitational propagation that moves in a 4-dimensional sinusoidal manner, whereby it is clear that only infinite speed can trace absolutely straight line due to the lack of any internal or external influence upon an infinite-speed propagation. I would opine that there exists much confusion between these two notions of gravitational waves when physicists describe gravitational waves and their various discoveries in astrophysical experiments.
There may be physicists who think that, since, as of now, gravitational waves can be detected and treated only as the waves of whole measures of the gravitational effect of one gross body upon another, a basic existent wavicle unit of gravitation is unnecessary for physical purposes. These physicists may be seen as not permitting the existence of gravitons by arguing that the smallest unit of graviton is not a spacetime curvature as is so far seen in astrophysical experiments! This tendency in physics and other sciences is what I would term perspectival absolutism.
The mere fact that gravitons are so minute as not to be treated in GTR and cosmology as spacetime warps need not mean that these warps represented by mathematical expressions should not exist as physical existents. If they are existent within and between two astronomical bodies, they consist of something too, that is, of wavicle gravitons. The case is similar to that of electromagnetic unit wavicles cumulatively causing electromagnetic spacetime curvatures.
If gravitons are existent, then gravitons as particles / wavicles are supposed to be emitted by bodies and the same are received by other bodies to produce gravitational curvatures and thus gravitational attraction between the two bodies. Logically, the emitter may experience a twitch in the direction of propagation of each graviton, if gravitons may not be source-independent due to the attractive nature of gravitons. The receiver of the graviton must naturally experience a pulling force. Thus, the bodies can move towards each other gravitationally. (Note here also that electromagnetic wavicles too need not be absolutely source-independent. Maybe that the positional change causesd by the electromagnetic wavicle upon the source of emission is so minute that it is negligible.)
The emitter body may even experience a twitch in the direction opposite to that of propagation of each graviton wavicle. Determining between the two directions of twitch in the emitter body is difficult as of now, because we are yet in infancy with respect to gravitational research. I mean not researches on the effects and ways of manipulation and use of gravitation. Instead, as to what the stuff of gravitation is in its basic constituents.
But if the emitting body should experience a recoil against the direction of the propagation leaving the object, then it is perhaps the sign of anti-gravitons, and the leaving propagation should have been tearing apart every element in the emitter object. This is not the case because gravitons alone can explain the holding together of the internal parts of the object on a long-range basis. (Small-range forces too contribute to the holding together of objects, but this is at the sub-atomic level.) Hence, any theory based on the radiation of gravitons can also explain why there need not be anti-gravitons in nature at all.
Here is a short lead-text. It consists of some long-considered reflections on the subject. Critiques are welcome.
Hi Raphael Neelamkavil ,
RN: The receiver of the graviton must naturally experience a pulling force.
I think you need to study the form of gravitational waves a little more, they are purely transverse and quadrupole in nature.
RN: it is clear that only infinite speed can trace absolutely straight line due to the lack of any internal or external influence upon an infinite-speed propagation
They travel at the speed of light and LIGO results are being studied to look for gravitational lensing of gravitational waves just as for light.
Thanks, George Dishman.
The mathematical "form of gravitational waves" may be "purely transverse and quadrupole in nature."
But these forms are the modes of mathematical representation. But anything moving has vibrations in all the three dimensions, however meagre. This works out to a sinusoidal spring-like wave path. For saying this, I think, anyone has the right.
For my statement. "RN: it is clear that only infinite speed can trace absolutely straight line due to the lack of any internal or external influence upon an infinite-speed propagation"
you gave the reply:
"They travel at the speed of light and LIGO results are being studied to look for gravitational lensing of gravitational waves just as for light."
'They' means what? What did LIGO show, and what am I speaking of? A very strange reply from your side!
Preston Guynn, thanks. I shall download and read your articles. I shall get back. For 3 days I am almost completely occupied.
Hi Raphael Neelamkavil,
RN: But anything moving has vibrations in all the three dimensions, however meagre.
Think of electromagnetic waves. Those have the electric and magnetic fields as vectors both of which are transverse to the direction of propagation, there is no longitudinal component. The same is true for gravitational waves, there is no longitudinal component.
GD: "They travel at the speed of light and LIGO results are being studied to look for gravitational lensing of gravitational waves just as for light."
RN: 'They' means what? What did LIGO show, and what am I speaking of? A very strange reply from your side!
I quoted your text: "RN: it is clear that only infinite speed can trace absolutely straight line due to the lack of any internal or external influence upon an infinite-speed propagation"
You started the paragraph from which that quote was taken by writing: "Moreover, there seems to be forgetfulness to take into account the fact that 'gravitational waves' must be conceive in two ways" so the context was that you were discussing gravitational waves. LIGO has showed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light and therefore are not expected to "trace absolutely straight line".
I think my reply was completely relevant to what you had written.
The electric and magnetic fields as vectors, both of which are transverse to the direction of propagation, are the representations. Now, for this reason, will you now say that the electromagnetic propagation is not a propagation, but are just static wherever it is?
About LIGO what I wanted to communicate is that gravitons do not trace an absolutely straight line.
These would all be ultimately interesting and probably fruitful areas of study as well but I am currently writing research on how to theoretically and experimentally prove magnetic monopoles. Or I guess disprove them, I can't make any claims until I finish that document. It seems tangentially related.
Alex Wolf III, thanks. I am interested to get more details, as you continue or finish the work. Please do not forget me. Note my name somewhere, and as you are ready, kindly let me know.
One reflection: I had written in the lead-text above: "Logically, the emitter may experience a twitch in the direction of propagation of each graviton, if gravitons may not be source-independent due to the attractive nature of gravitons. The receiver of the graviton must naturally experience a pulling force. Thus, the bodies can move towards each other gravitationally."
The emitter body may even experience a twitch in the direction opposite to that of propagation of each graviton wavicle. Determining between the two directions of twitch in the emitter body is difficult as of now, because we are yet in infancy with respect to gravitational research. I mean not researches on the effects and ways of manipulation and use of gravitation. Instead, as to what the stuff of gravitation is in its basic constituents. Congrats, Alex!
Gravitons do not exist. Force fields contain an energy density. That explains everything.
Gravitons do exist. Force fields contain an energy density. That explains everything.
Otherwise, matter fields contain matter density, but matter cannot exist, and that would not explain everything!
Radiations occur from accelerated field sources. The radiation has an aperiodic part. This Part restores the field to co-moving with the source, with the new velocity. The periodic part resolves the wave equation in combination with the aperiodic part. This holds for all kinds of force fields.
You have said this earlier, where we have discussed all these in another discussion question. And finally you have admitted that energy exists as particles / wavicles in propagation, transmitted from material particles. I think I am correct. And in this context, what is the problem of admitting the interconvertibility of matter and energy?
Albert Einstein suggested, but only indirectly, that gravitons exist, because he mathematically proved that the gravitational weight/mass/density--of huge rigid bodies moving inertially in orbits around the small density/large weight/mass central orb of the Sun--causes space to curve.
Given the premise that Isaac Newton's gravitational laws are meant for huge rigid bodies orbiting in the cosmos of the solar system, based on the formula F=ma, along with Einstein's subatomic formula E=mc^2, based on the theoretical principle that everything in the solar system works to keep on going, that is, exerts an appreciable amount of energy, then any proof for the actual existence of something called a "graviton" can only be proved mathematically, and on an infinitesmal order of calculation.
Preston Guynn wrote: "By his statement, Einstein ignored everything about mass and gravity likely because he so badly wanted the equivalence of inertial and gravitational action that his hypothesis depended on. Further, Einstein wrote "Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other bodies are then , with respect to K, free from acceleration", which again is horrendously wrong." My question is, How do you define the word "acceleration"? In my interpretation of Einstein, he uses the word "acceleration" to refer to the fact that the planetary bodies are displaying what Newton refers to as "inertial motion," which simply means that they are neither speeding up nor slowing down in their respective orbital patterns. Both Newton and Einstein focus on the cosmos of the solar system, moreover; therefore, it would appear to me to be premature to ascribe to their theoretical formulations applicability to distant galaxies, or, indeed, even to our Milky Way. Here, interpretation is of the essence.
Nancy Ann Watanabe, could you please clarify "on an infinitesmal order of calculation" in your statement: "any proof for the actual existence of something called a "graviton" can only be proved mathematically, and on an infinitesmal order of calculation"? This request is in the view of no one being able to misinterpret your statement.
The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Thank you for your request for a clarification. The reason why I used the phrase "an infinitesmal order of calculation" in hypothesizing that "any proof for the actual existence of something called a 'graviton' can only be proved mathematically" is that no scientist has yet proved that such a thing as a "graviton" exists. As the following article indicates, it is not possible to observe a "graviton"; furthermore, gravitational force is "very weak." In other words, the force of gravity only becomes readily apparent on a very large scale of magnitude. Newton's mathematical proofs of the gravitational laws of inertial motion in the cosmos of the solar system specifically apply to gravity as a force that governs the orbital movement of planets, and their satellites, around the Sun. If a graviton is being viewed as belonging to the same infinitesmal order as in particle physics, where the distance between an orbiting electron in the circumference and the proton and neutron in the nuclear core is comparable to the distance between the Sun and Neptune, then any mathematical formula and equations to prove the existence of a graviton will have to resemble Einstein's E=mc^2. Einstein's mathematical equations are "infinitesmal" relative to Newton's mathematical equations, as demonstrated in the fact that Einstein's math is more accurate and precise than Newton's math in taking into account Mercury's orbital perihelion.
LINK ARTICLE: SPACE & PHYSICS
Is Gravity Quantum?
SPACE & PHYSICS
Is Gravity Quantum?
The ongoing search for the graviton—the proposed fundamental particle carrying gravitational force—is a crucial step in physicists’ long journey toward a theory of everything
- By Charles Q. Choi on August 14, 2018
Artist’s rendition of gravitational waves generated by merging neutron stars. The primordial universe is another source of gravitational waves, which, if detected, could help physicists devise a quantum theory of gravity. Credit: R. Hurt Caltech and JPL 📷All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. Finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a “theory of everything” that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles. A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the long-postulated elementary particle of gravity, the graviton. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, free-falling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang.Quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave—for instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak. To directly observe the minuscule effects a graviton would have on matter, physicist Freeman Dyson famously noted, a graviton detector would have to be so massive that it collapses on itself to form a black hole.“One of the issues with theories of quantum gravity is that their predictions are usually nearly impossible to experimentally test,” says quantum physicist Richard Norte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. “This is the main reason why there exist so many competing theories and why we haven’t been successful in understanding how it actually works.”ADVERTISEMENT In 2015, however, theoretical physicist James Quach, now at the University of Adelaide in Australia, suggested a way to detect gravitons by taking advantage of their quantum nature. Quantum mechanics suggests the universe is inherently fuzzy—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle's position and momentum at the same time. One consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with a “quantum foam” of so-called virtual particles that constantly pop in and out of existence. These ghostly entities may be any kind of quanta, including gravitons.Decades ago, scientists found that virtual particles can generate detectable forces. For example, the Casimir effect is the attraction or repulsion seen between two mirrors placed close together in vacuum. These reflective surfaces move due to the force generated by virtual photons winking in and out of existence. Previous research suggested that superconductors might reflect gravitons more strongly than normal matter, so Quach calculated that looking for interactions between two thin superconducting sheets in vacuum could reveal a gravitational Casimir effect. The resulting force could be roughly 10 times stronger than that expected from the standard virtual-photon-based Casimir effect.Recently, Norte and his colleagues developed a microchip to perform this experiment. This chip held two microscopic aluminum-coated plates that were cooled almost to absolute zero so that they became superconducting. One plate was attached to a movable mirror, and a laser was fired at that mirror. If the plates moved because of a gravitational Casimir effect, the frequency of light reflecting off the mirror would measurably shift. As detailed online July 20 in Physical Review Letters, the scientists failed to see any gravitational Casimir effect. This null result does not necessarily rule out the existence of gravitons—and thus gravity’s quantum nature. Rather, it may simply mean that gravitons do not interact with superconductors as strongly as prior work estimated, says quantum physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who did not participate in this study and was unsurprised by its null results. Even so, Quach says, this “was a courageous attempt to detect gravitons.”Although Norte’s microchip did not discover whether gravity is quantum, other scientists are pursuing a variety of approaches to find gravitational quantum effects. For example, in 2017 two independent studies suggested that if gravity is quantum it could generate a link known as “entanglement” between particles, so that one particle instantaneously influences another no matter where either is located in the cosmos. A tabletop experiment using laser beams and microscopic diamonds might help search for such gravity-based entanglement. The crystals would be kept in a vacuum to avoid collisions with atoms, so they would interact with one another through gravity alone. Scientists would let these diamonds fall at the same time, and if gravity is quantum the gravitational pull each crystal exerts on the other could entangle them together.The researchers would seek out entanglement by shining lasers into each diamond’s heart after the drop. If particles in the crystals’ centers spin one way, they would fluoresce, but they would not if they spin the other way. If the spins in both crystals are in sync more often than chance would predict, this would suggest entanglement. “Experimentalists all over the world are curious to take the challenge up,” says quantum gravity researcher Anupam Mazumdar of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, co-author of one of the entanglement studies.ADVERTISEMENT Another strategy to find evidence for quantum gravity is to look at the cosmic microwave background radiation, the faint afterglow of the big bang, says cosmologist Alan Guth of M.I.T. Quanta such as gravitons fluctuate like waves, and the shortest wavelengths would have the most intense fluctuations. When the cosmos expanded staggeringly in size within a sliver of a second after the big bang, according to Guth’s widely supported cosmological model known as inflation, these short wavelengths would have stretched to longer scales across the universe. This evidence of quantum gravity could be visible as swirls in the polarization, or alignment, of photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation.However, the intensity of these patterns of swirls, known as B-modes, depends very much on the exact energy and timing of inflation. “Some versions of inflation predict that these B-modes should be found soon, while other versions predict that the B-modes are so weak that there will never be any hope of detecting them,” Guth says. “But if they are found, and the properties match the expectations from inflation, it would be very strong evidence that gravity is quantized.”One more way to find out whether gravity is quantum is to look directly for quantum fluctuations in gravitational waves, which are thought to be made up of gravitons that were generated shortly after the big bang. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) first detected gravitational waves in 2016, but it is not sensitive enough to detect the fluctuating gravitational waves in the early universe that inflation stretched to cosmic scales, Guth says. A gravitational-wave observatory in space, such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), could potentially detect these waves, Wilczek adds. 📷Sign up for Scientific American’s free newsletters.Sign UpIn a paper recently accepted by the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, however, astrophysicist Richard Lieu of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, argues that LIGO should already have detected gravitons if they carry as much energy as some current models of particle physics suggest. It might be that the graviton just packs less energy than expected, but Lieu suggests it might also mean the graviton does not exist. “If the graviton does not exist at all, it will be good news to most physicists, since we have been having such a horrid time in developing a theory of quantum gravity,” Lieu says.Still, devising theories that eliminate the graviton may be no easier than devising theories that keep it. “From a theoretical point of view, it is very hard to imagine how gravity could avoid being quantized,” Guth says. “I am not aware of any sensible theory of how classical gravity could interact with quantum matter, and I can't imagine how such a theory might work.”ADVERTISEMENT Rights & Permissions ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) 📷Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents. Follow Charles Q. Choi on TwitterRecent Articles by Charles Q. Choi Astronomers Just Saw a Star Eat a Planet for the First Time New Record-Breaking Simulation Sheds Light on 'Cosmic Dawn' Hubble Space Telescope Spots Most Distant Star Ever Seen
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-gravity-quantum/#:~:text=The%20problem%20is%20that%20gravity,to%20form%20a%20black%20hole.
"Einstein's mathematical equations are "infinitesmal" relative to Newton's mathematical equations, as demonstrated in the fact that Einstein's math is more accurate and precise than Newton's math in taking into account Mercury's orbital perihelion."
This is what I wanted to get. I thought you may have meant this, but I also had the doubt whether you meant that gravitons must be infinitesimals. Of course not. This is why I wrote for clarification. Thanks.
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,
It's all too complicated. With a good metaphysical approach to reality a very elegant explanation could be attached to the topic of your discussion. There are gravitational waves, just as there are gravitons...
Best regards, László
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,
The text seems good in your context... My opinion is written in my contest... I am almost done with the writing, the only problem is that my current living conditions do not suit me, so that I can finish it soon...
Regards,
Laszlo
RN: The electric and magnetic fields as vectors, both of which are transverse to the direction of propagation, are the representations. Now, for this reason, will you now say that the electromagnetic propagation is not a propagation, but are just static wherever it is?
No, I would not say that. The wave propagates but the effects of its passing are perpendicular to the direction of motion. That is why you mount a radio aerial perpendicular to the direction to the source.
RN: About LIGO what I wanted to communicate is that gravitons do not trace an absolutely straight line.
That is correct (assuming they exist) and the waves travel at the speed of light, but their effects are also perpendicular to the direction of propagation. In the simple animation you see at the top here, the waves are coming directly towards the viewer:
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/gw_waves/
Farther down you can see 3D representations.
I understand this. I have read this discussion a few months ago.
But, in any case, the general foundational problems in these notions are what we should be concerned with. Obstructing genuine science will always be there. This is my opinion. But moving forward despite everything is the only possible solution.
Preston Guynn quotes Einstein: "The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration." This is precisely my point, that Newton and Einstein rigorously restrict their theoretical formulations and mathematical proofs to apply specifically to the cosmos of the Solar System, which is "sufficiently far from other bodies," thus "moves without acceleration."
The bold face part of the quotation of Einstein emphasizes my point that, as I wrote, without bold face, "it would appear to me to be premature to ascribe to their theoretical formulations applicability to distant galaxies, or, indeed, to our Milky Way." For Einstein evidently wrote, according to Preston Guynn's citation in bold face fonts, "Are there at all inertial systems for very extendeed (sic) portions of the space-time continuum, or, indeed, for the whole universe?" Here, Einstein's use of the interrogative, not declarative, statement shows uncertainty and therefore is not at all declarative.
My current Research Gate Question, which I posted moments ago, points toward the possibility suggested in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, I believe, that the cosmos of the Solar System actually exists, only apparently autonomously and independently as an inertial system, within a larger system.
LINK: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_a_black_hole_fulfill_a_regulatory_purifying_and_regenerative_function_in_the_Milky_Way
Nancy Ann Watanabe I wouldnt worry at all. I actually got a ton of reads and I believe even a reccomendation or two for a response to where this guy was essentially going around being unproductive, angry and honestly pretty insufferable, and completly non-productive to fostering scientific advancement in a professional and respectful way. I got multiple positive message and I believe reads and reccomendations because I had to constructively remind him researchgate is about supporting and sharing with other scientists in a conducive way. Attitudes like his stagnate science and are the bane of any actual scientific advancement. He is in clear violation of the policies of productive and conducive attitudes within Researchgate. He isn't constructive, he's annoying and thinks his comments don't make it immediately noticeable that his nasty nature is clearly some form of subconscious defense mechanism or compensation for either his pitfalls or what he sees as precocious work; maybe it triggers his imposter syndrome and he feels a need to compensate by belittling and showing "superior knowledge". Don't feed the trolls. If he thinks there is something wrong with your statement in a scientific sense he should be productive and tell you. As for this Preston guy: Read the room. If you weren't being a complete unproductive and unprofessional as well as unnecessarily rude here multiple people wouldn't have enjoyed me telling you you were doing so as I have indicated.
PG: However, the celestial frame of reference has the solar system barycenter as the origin, and the Earth doesn't orbit the sun. The sun and all the other masses orbit their barycenter.
Preston Guynn , that is true but if you consider the Sun-Earth system in isolation, the period is a full rotation measured to where the relative position repeats the initial configuration so the period is the same for both cases.
The mass of the Sun is 333 thousand times greater than the earth so the velocity relative to the barycentre differs from that relative to the Sun by only 3 parts per million while the difference between the speed at perihelion and aphelion is 3% (30.29 versus 20.29 km/s).
The effect of the other planets on the Sun versus the barycentre is similarly much less than other variations. Jupiter creates the largest effect but since it is 1000 times less than the Sun, you are then talking of a few parts per billion.
A brief answer to the question
“Spacetime Curvature, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?:
- “Spacetime Curvature” – fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist. Gravity fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), what is, by the scientific definition, the infinite [4+4+1]4D empty container, where everything in Matter exists/interacts/evolves. Nothing in Matter, including any fundamental Nature force, fundamentally cannot impact on the emptiness, and the emptiness fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter;
- “Gravitons” are particles that are radiated if some Gravity charge “gravitational mass” is accelerated [at that all/every particle, and so body, etc. has gravitational mass], quite analogously to as accelerated electric charge radiates particles“photons”, both are with well non-zero probability, as that rigorously scientifically shown in the
Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces , specific transformations of the Forces’ mediators “circular gravitons/photons”, which aren’t particles, and so, at least at statics, don’t contain/carry energy, and so haven’t gravitational charges;
- “Gravitational Waves” – as the EM waves that are coherent flows of photons – are coherent flows of gravitons;
- “Anti-Gravitons” – again as “anti-photons” really don’t exist, in certain sense, though; since both particles are 3D space disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s spacetime above, and so these “particles are own antiparticles”, i.e. interact with other particles practically identically.
More see the link above, to read last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_incompleteness_of_Einsteins_relativistic_theory_of_gravity#view=64b07468c3bc159430086acf/7 it is useful as well.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko, I do not know how to reply. Please excuse me for this statement: I feel that the underlying concept of nature and related matters of what you wrote above is very much Newtonian, although you speak of matters contemporary in physics and the math used. Of course, this is a statement by a person working in the philosophy of physics. A physicist may not take it all as such. I am aware of this. But due to lack of time at present to give a structured and systemic reply to the claims in your intervention, I say, I must think of writing a short but systemic reply to this in the form of another discussion.
I believe you will admit that philosophers of physics are not fools in physics. But the long history of studies and discussions of the concepts of physics puts us in a state of mind to remark in this manner. The pragmatic concepts being used in the practice of physics need not be the foundational notions behind them. This is how I would summarize my intervention at this occasion.
Please do not feel offended of these statements. We will profit out of further occasions to freely and openly bring forth our concepts and arguments, I believe.
Raphael Neelamkavil
“…Sergey Shevchenko, I do not know how to reply. Please excuse me for this statement: …..”, etc.
- this your post looks for me a bit as strange one – the SS posts are mostly related to physics, and so are intended for first of all real physicists
– as the yesterday post is, where for physicists it is physically explained what a few purely physical phenomena/notions [in italic] are. If some non-physicist doesn’t understand what is in the posts, including in the yesterday one, in that there is nothing that would have any necessity in some excuse.
Cheers
Physics can be Newton too. Your background concepts of physics (not physical concepts but concepts on the foundations of physics) seem to be such. This is what I meant. Most of what you wrote a day ago were such in my opinion. There may be others who think differently.
I reiterate: philosophers of physics are not fools in physics. This I say in general. In your opinion I may not know anything in physics. There may be others who do not think so.
Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9thminute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
I have seen a lot of physics and mathematics students mistaking the logical ways in which they experiment and theorize as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics. They even think of these ways as the possession of scientists. Imaginably, in this pride, they are encouraged by their scientific temper. More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophers, are a mere waste of time. (If you want me to cite, I suggest to get into some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking.) The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics.
How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences
How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences
Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...
Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...
PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics
Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
Raphael Neelamkavil "And finally you have admitted that energy exists as particles / wavicles in propagation, transmitted from material particles. I think I am correct. And in this context, what is the problem of admitting the interconvertibility of matter and energy?"
No energy does not at all exist as particles. Many forms of energy are given. Particles are only one appearance of energy among many others forms. Look at mechanical energy "force times pathway", at kinetic energy, or at thermal energy. In those kinds of energy, there are no particles involved.
I think you did not read my reply a few minutes ago on the other intervention by you. Please read that.
Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...
A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text
If matter-energy does not absolutely fill what we call space, the so-called space-time curvature must be due to the intensity or lack of intensity of matter-energy at a certain region / vicinity of other such concentrations. Can any physical quantity be considered here as the criterion to begin with the discussion or discourse?
This is a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...
WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition
Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic