Quantum physics is a highly muddled system of systems. Nevertheless, is it possible to enumerate the major flaws and minor ones in quantum physics, with sufficient justification? It would be good to connect them if one can categorize them into major and minor flaws.
There aren’t any either major, or minor flaws in quantum physics, nor any muddle. It would be a good idea to study the subject.
Stam Nicolis, how fantastic a science should QP be, if it has no flaws! I feel nice about it. If it has no flaws, I need only to trust everything in it and proceed. Thanks.
Raphael Neelamkavil If you take the objective of quantum physics as to accurately predict the results of experiments then it seems to be quite successful.
If you instead want to understand the physical interpretation of quantum physics then you will find there are many opinions:
See comparison table here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Here is an alternative world view:
Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)
Richard
Richard Lewis, thanks. This is why I replied to Stam in the above post: "How fantastic a science should QP be, if it has no flaws! I feel nice about it. If it has no flaws, I need only to trust everything in it and proceed."
Predictions at certain levels are possible even in the ordinary levels of work in engineering science where mostly Newtonian physics is at use. Similarly, quantum physics too have predictions (which they call correct) at its own level. But when some insist that all its predictions are correct, that is for me a matter of surprise. And if they have scores of mutually highly contradictory interpretations, that is a sign for me to say that quantum science (even the most recent developments) are not ok.
This is why I seek works where the flaws of quantum physics are properly discussed. I do not find any that really discuss such matters in a graduated manner.... All want to make some allusions, some side remarks, etc. And no substantial but academically adequate treatment of the defects of quantum physics!
One major theoretical flaw in quantum physics is the "measurement problem." This problem arises from the fact that the behavior of quantum particles seems to change depending on how they are measured or observed. This is known as the observer effect, and it raises questions about the true nature of reality and the role of consciousness in the physical world.
Another major theoretical flaw is the "quantum non-locality" which states that the quantum states of two separate particles can become correlated, or "entangled," such that a change in the state of one particle will instantaneously affect the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. This phenomenon seems to violate Einstein's theory of relativity, which holds that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Another area of concern is the "interpretation problem" of quantum physics, which refers to the fact that there are multiple interpretations of the theory, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation, and pilot-wave theory, and none of them are completely accepted as the final one.
A minor theoretical flaw is the "ultraviolet catastrophe" which was predicted by classical physics, but it was later solved by the quantum physics.
Dear Raphael,
please read the book:
Franco Selleri: "Facetten der Physik, Die Debatte um die Quantentheorie", Vieweg, 1983. This is a very good book discussing the open questions and flaws of quantum theory and showing their historical origin. Franco Selleri was an open-minded physicist who was not intimidated by the established ideas and fixed beliefs.
Grit
Geehrte Grit Kalies, vielen Dank für die Suggerierung! Ich habe schon die 1990 Version dieses Buches gefunden. Schön.
I did my Ph.D. on Quantum Causality, and Dr. phil. (Deutschland) on Cosmogenetic Causality in Astrophysical Cosmology. But the sort of books that I mentioned were difficult to find -- both in India and in Europe. This is the reason for putting up the question in RG.
Sie sind Physikerin und Chemikerin...! Ich bin in der Philosophie der Physik und der Kosmologie geblieben. Würde aber gerne die Mathe und Theoretische Physik studieren.
“…Quantum physics is a highly muddled system of systems. Nevertheless, is it possible to enumerate the major flaws and minor ones in quantum physics, with sufficient justification? It would be good to connect them if one can categorize them into major and minor flaws.….”
Quantum physics really is quite equally muddled system as any other mainstream physics is, including, say “classical physics”,
- since in the mainstream all/every really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in both physics,
– and on really fundamental level, the mainstream so logically inevitably operates with, say, particles and fields, having fundamentally no any understanding – what are “particles” and “fields”. So some “variables” that are assigned to particles and fields in some mathematical equations, applications of which is in many cases for/by some transcendent mystic reason and way is adequate to again for/by some transcendent mystic reason and way observed objective reality.
So, say, the problems with infinities that appear in QED are well like to problems with infinities that appear in classical ED and Gravity theories; including, first of all, in both cases some really mystic particles’ “fields” have some mystic “energy”, which the particles constantly radiate as fundamental Nature forces fields in the classic, and as virtual mediators in quantum, physicses.
As well as in both, mainstream quantum and classical physics the fundamental phenomena/notions/dimensions/variables/observables “space” and “time” really are fundamentally transcendent, and so in both physics to space and time really some transcendent/mystic properties and effects are postulated, including, say, so in QM the observable “time” principally differs from 3D space observables, including it isn’t the QM operator and hasn’t quite natural conjugate momentums operator, etc.
Besides in both physics the notion/physical object “potential energy” is really incorrectly defined, and so corresponding classical and QM Hamiltonian and Lagrangians approaches/operators really are defined erroneously; etc.
Real scientific physics development can be only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions above are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done, only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and essentially basing on the informational physical model, two main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics,
- which is based on the conception. More concretely relating to the existent problems see at least section “Conclusion” in last link, though, of course, to understand what is written in conclusion is necessary to read and to understand what is written in, both whole papers.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko, I do not understand what sort of mystical energies you are speaking about. Is information made of really existent matter particles or energy? And are these mystical, as you find the other, physical, energy definitions in QM and traditional physics? If your definitions are not mystical, in what way? I went through your articles. But I do not find an answer to these questions. Please take me as asking earnest questions. I am not trying to fight....
Raphael Neelamkavil, from that
“…I do not understand what sort of mystical energies you are speaking about. Is information made of really existent matter particles or energy? And are these mystical, as you find the other, physical, energy definitions in QM and traditional physics? If your definitions are not mystical, in what way?....”
- it looks that you really “went through your articles. But I do not find an answer to these questions.”,
- since what is written in the SS&VT articles isn’t trivial, and to understand what is written it is necessary to spend some time and to be able to think really logically, rationally, objectively, and non-standardly. So seems if you really want to understand, it would be useful to re-read the articles and to think
Here I only note that in the “The Information as Absolute” conception it is rigorously scientifically proven that absolutely for sure there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists eternally, having no Beginning and no End.
In the conception corresponding really scientific utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental so phenomenon/notion “Information” is given
“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”.
Correspondingly a number of the really transcendent/mystic in the mainstream phenomena/notions become be scientifically defined as well, including:
- Energy, though till now remains in the conception be some mystic phenomenon, in the conception – in fundamental contrast to the mainstream philosophy and sciences, where energy is completely transcendent and mystic, obtains rational scientific sense, which is sufficient at understanding why and how energy acts in observed objects/events/processes:
– that is some “Logos” set element, which is necessary to be spent absolutely obligatorily at any changes, including creation, of any/every informational pattern system;
- how it acts in common sense, and concretely acts in the a rather simple, rigorously logically organized basing on the set of fundamental universal laws/links/constants, where interactions of all elements happen as exchange by only true information, informational system of informational patterns/systems “Matter”.
So, say , the answers to “Is information made of really existent matter particles or energy?” is as: the wording in italic isn’t scientifically correct – really existent matter particles are made from information; and at corresponding actualizations/spending/re-distributions of the Information’s/ “Logos”’s element “Energy”; to
“And are these mystical, as you find the other, physical, energy definitions in QM and traditional physics?” – again, in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including mainstream physics, including QM, eventually everything is mystic. The mainstream fundamentally doesn’t know what it studies, including what studies and why the 2-nd what sometimes studies something adequately to the reality. Say in physics “a particle” is quite mystic something, and when this physics attempt to make some rational suggestions beyond ad hoc fitting a theory to experiment, nothing besides some transcendent/really fantastic “new theories” appear; since in mainstream the phenomena/notions “space”, “time”, really are mystic, the SR/GR, where fantastic/mystic “relativistic properties and effects of spacetime” are postulated, are standard, including in QM, physical theories, etc.; to
“If your definitions are not mystical, in what way?”
- everything in SS&VT conception and scientific models, which are based on the conception, principally isn’t transcendent/mystic [besides, again, partially transcendent Energy] for one simple reason: in the conception, again, it is rigorously proven that everything is made only from one stuff “Information”, whereas Information, which is fundamentally mystic in the mainstream, now, despite its absolute fundamentality isn’t transcendent, and can be quite rationally studied; first of all at application of the “Logos” element “Logical Rules”, at discovering more and more “Logos” elements, rational studying how the Logos elements work together, etc.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
I simply do not understand there is a Logos element behind everything.
“…I simply do not understand there is a Logos element behind everything.….”
- well, when some concrete questions appear, that means that some rational understanding appears.
The answer is – there exist completely logically nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, including Logos elements are some informational patterns/systems as well – including are constructed in accordance with themselves. The phenomenon “Information” is highly paradoxical phenomenon.
To understand that it would be useful to attempt to define “Information” by some other way, though in that there were numerous attempts, see the main paper linked in SS post on page 1. And practically all known Logos elements are, in fact, some general in all languages grammar rules [“Space” and “Time”], Logical rules that make some concrete information having some concrete sense, etc.;
- and only “Energy” that is necessary to change, including to create, some informational pattern/system and “makes some pattern/system in a system be more/lesser convincing”, looks as something beyond Information as data constructed by logics. Nonetheless – again see the paper, logically it follows that, in principle, on first glance possible situation when there exist no informational patterns/system and energy at all – that really is logically impossible – really there exist corresponding endless cyclic informational pattern/data “…there exist nothing besides the information that there exist nothing besides…”
- which really contains absolutely complete and exact information about everything – and so some portion of energy.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko, You said: "The answer is – there exist completely logically nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, including Logos elements are some informational patterns/systems as well – including are constructed in accordance with themselves. The phenomenon “Information” is highly paradoxical phenomenon."
If this is the case, and we cannot rationally understand all these, anyone will start positing many kinds of background entities, e.g., a mystical-looking ether, an ether behind ether, etc....
The major problems:
(1) particles shall not be treated as waves, they are particles. Treating them as waves will not conserve energy and momentum
(2) there is no superposition of eigen wavefunctions, because each wavefunction has a dedicated energy, energy cannot be mixed arbitrarily. They must follow energy conservation.
(3) there is no such thing as Schrodinger cats, the cat is either live or dead, cannot be both. The physical, chemical and biological difference between live and dead cats are so dramatic that cannot take place in an instant when the so-called wavefunction collapses.
There are so many more that I cannot elaborate, but the problems are almost endless.
Hong Du, very good, and thanks.
What about permitting waves / particles to be wavicles, i.e., wave-shape pulse-particles moving in a sinusoidal wavicle path? Of course, there are many more other suggestions. But .....
Raphael Neelamkavil I consider, for example, that the electron has an intrinsic energy that it retains in all situations where it is found even during electronic transitions in atoms. For me, the electron is a carrier of the energies that photons give it. He carries out this "work" with 100% efficiency.
Jamil, that is, the actual carriers of energy in this context are the photons, a few of which are being carried / contained by the electron. But if photons are also existent propagations, we cannot treat them as existent at one time and non-existent at another. They may be treated as observable (somewhat precisely) at one given instance of experimentation and relatively least observable at another occasion. The extent of observability is to be determined statistically. This does not mean that the causation happening due to the photons are "statistical causation"! And the existence of the photons cannot be "statistical existence". QM is riddled with the substitution of the real with the virtual calculations and our identification capacity attained at any epoch in history.
But how does QM create the technological successes? Because for technology only the virtual calculations and the statistical extent of identification are enough!
IS THIS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON THAT QM MUST BE IMPROVED?
In the electron case I specify that for me and this is my idea that the electron is carrier of the energies that give it photons. It carries additional energy received, apart from its proper energy, from one local space to another destination space in the atom. That is, this phenomenon occurs in electronic jumps. Naturally, the electron performs this transport or "work" with 100% efficiency. But the energy received by the electron should be a function of its own energy! A topic of debate in theoretical physics. Is the electron intelligent? Does he know in advance where he should put the extra energy he is likely to carry? Is there a dialogue between matter (electron/energy) and photons?
But measured or measurable energy is not an existent. It is carried by the photons in our case. When photons are sent as a pencil of light, it is the existent photons that carry specific energy pulses. And in that case, the electron as a carrier of energy is as a carrier of energetic photons. Of course, in an altered state within electrons.
Similarly, neutrinos. When they are moving -- of course as they always are in their partially detectable form -- they are the carriers of whatever energy they have. Hence, in their case, the existent energy propagation is the neutrino wavicles. If neutrinos are contained in something (say, when accepted by a chunk of matter), they are not neutrinos, just as photons contained in electrons are not photons.
But the energy in the matter particle (e.g., the electron) belongs to the photons. And if photons are divisible and the divided wavicles are propagated, what would be the case?
In my opinion the electron decides what to do according to what it receives as photon energy. He can decide not to change space as he can decide to go to another space or another destination depending on the energy he receives but it is the electron that makes this choice not the energy it receives, the energy (photons) can not decide! He is the master of situations!
I do not believe in such decisions by electrons. You may continue.
The question of whether the electron determines or the photons determine is like the question whether the hen or the egg is the mother. Let us not spend time on such matters!
I agree, but I am sure that the electron has intrinsic energy and that the transition energies in an atom, especially those in muonic hydrogen and deuterium, are a function of the proper energy of the electron. I have programed to publish the equations soon. Moreover, I am convinced that there will be no great step in physics without adopting quantum gravity.
For the time, there will be no great step in physics without adopting quantum gravity. But this need not mean all the details and all the theoretical interpretations that they give.
I am in conversation with a good number of physicists and cosmologists. Some of them see value in what I say. I do not say that QM is useless. I only claim that some of their theoretical stuff is silly and nonsensical from the very foundations.
I am amazed to see how the results of the experiments of Randolph Pohl's team started in 2010, which are for me a "treasure" in physics, could be explained by such banality by people. People said these measurements determined a more accurate radius for the proton. But reality has nothing to do with what they say. A precise radius of the proton has already been obtained since before 2010. This is the radius 0.8758fm. The small radii 0.8409fm (from muonic hydrogen) and 0.8356fm (from muonic deuterium) show that these experiments vise to reduce artificially the size of the regular proton. if people adopt the Schwarzschild radius to quantum gravity, with two distinct definitions for the mass of a quantum black hole and the mass of a cosmological black hole, muonic hydrogen will have a rest mass less than the rest mass of a regular hydrogen. The attraction and repultion forces on muonic hydrogen will be less strong then the attraction and repultion forces on regular hydrogen. And The attraction and repultion forces on muonic deuterium will be less strong then the attraction and repultion forces on regular deuterium. This phenomenon will have its application in physics since these muonic atoms of hydrogen and deuterium are less solicited by the forces that surround them. You see, we will not get lost if people adopt quantum gravity but many paths will open.
I have nothing against all these. The problems I deal with are very general, theoretical, and belong to the interpretation of what they call realities.
The main flaws in quantum physics, like superposition, entanglement, complementarity, follow from inadequate mathematical structure. An old Einstein’s suggestion was that quantum mechanics is not the root level of reality, but merely hazy glimpse of something even deeper. But another idea may be that quantum mechanics is not of something deeper but should be replaced by something conceptually different. Many details about alternative mathematical structure can be found in "The Geometric Algebra Lift of Qubits and Beyond."
Alexander Soiguine, very good response. Thanks. Although my work has been in the philosophical interpretation and re-deepening of quantum-physical concepts and cosmological concepts, I am able to find the significance of what you said. Kudos!
Alexander Soiguine There are no flaws in quantum mechanics apart from its - name. It is an oxymoron: ther is no such thing as quantum and mechanics at the same time. There is only quantum theory - an information theroy that tells us how much information can one extract from a given system using a given measurement (operator). And all confusion comes from people not understanding that quantum theory primarily tells us that anything possess only a finite information, and in particular that thare there are systems that contain only one qubit. For example, an entangled two-particle state, contains only one qubit of inforation and when suitably measured this quantum information is converted into a single classical bit of information. Therefore we cannot ask "where are particles" because this information isn't there. If you do not believe me, just please do focus on what bras and kets tell you. Do you see x or t there? NO, you don't. Therefore it is crazy to say that entanglement is spooky action at the distance because there is no distance, there is no action and there is even no time. In the entanglement.
Mario Stipčević I address with my work to those who are not brainwashed by N. Bohr and his adepts into thinking that the question of quantum mechanics is solved, and to young brave students not zombied-out yet with Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics and not being afraid to be considered as heretics, pariahs by the physicists’ majority. I do also encourage all of them by saying that physical phenomena are happening in real world not in Hilbert space. It is also good to remember Max Planck’s words: “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
@Alexander Soiguine Thank you for describing me when I was a student! Yes, MY (not exclusively mine) interpretation of quantum theory is the new theory that has no flaws, coincides witl all known measurements and does not contradict itself.
@Raphael Neelamkavil There is no such problem as "realism" or "locality". We know now that both pertain to the "old school" of mechanics and that this school has limitations because it assumes that no matter how small system is, it would still provide for an infinite information storage. But it does not. If it were, then there would not be atoms but sub-atomically small pieces of stone or orange juice. In order to go further, we need to reformulate "Quantum Mechanics" as a theory of quantum information. We should throw out (forget) all mention of meters, seconds and joules, as well as plus, minus, division and multiplication and go to qubits and quantum logic operations only. The same as the computer does not know what is "a plus b" or "a times b", or what is video, music or a novel: just AND, NOT and OR. Everything else is OUR imagination. As are Mechanics, Realism and Locality - the holy trinity of our misundarstanding of the Universe.
Mario Stipčević, there may not be anything called realism and locality. They may belong to the old school. There still are scientists and philosophers of physics who discuss these things. Hence, I write for them. Everything may be quantum information. So, there is nothing wrong in discussing this too. This is what I have been doing. We may throw out all quantitative measurements and indulge in quantum logic and qubits. Very good, kindly continue doing it. If everything like "a plus b" is OUR imagination, then AND, NOT, and OR too are our imagination! Let us forget them and not speak at all! Won't this be the best solution to all the problems of the world? Otherwise, we have no way to ignore the existent universe and the fact that we use language to speak. The existent universe or the phenomenon of thought and language may not be great problems. For some they are problems. They wrote a lot about these problems. So I try to read them and respond. AFTER ALL, I AM JUST A BEGINNER IN THESE THINGS.... Not so much evolved and capacitated as to ignore all and concentrate only on AND, NOT, AND OR along with QUBITS.
It is a difficult subject because it is directly related to our scientific culture. For example the Greek word “atom” (not divisible) was used by ancient philosophers who used the phenomenological point of view. Thus matter has a smallest building block that couldn’t be split into smaller parts. Parmenides and followers (e.g. Zeno) used the same concept to explain that behind phenomenological reality there exists an underlying reality that is build up by “atoms” (small equal volumes with variable properties that cannot be split into smaller units). A bit comparable with the pixels of an LCD screen that can reproduce every image/video.
Therefore it is not about theoretical flaws, there are conflicting interpretations. Moreover there is no quantum theory that envelopes everything. The present interpretations of quantum phenomena (QFT) are incomplete. Even if we can incorporate gravity into QFT it isn’t for sure that we understand the “tangible” reality of quantum field theory (like we don't understand the "tangible" reality of Quantum Mechanics).
One aspect is the use of probability theory (math). The theory originates from experiments (throwing dices) and it is – even after all those years – still a theory that is based on experiments. Probability has no mathematical foundation. That means that we calculate the expected outcome of an experiment (QFT) with the help of an experimentally derived “property” of quantum behavior. That is a bit confusing because it proves that we don’t understand the underlying mechanism behind the changes in the universe at the smallest scale size.
In the past there was a lot to do with high energy particle physics. They claimed that their experiments proved that the used theoretical based calculations were extremely accurate. But probability was part of the calculations and the interpretation of the experiments was done after an enormous amount of the same experiment…
In other words, there are no real flaws, we simply don’t know “what is going on”. Thus the problem is the underlying quantum model we use to clarify everything.
Of course there are a lot of known discrepancies. For example all the changes in the universe are quantized (Planck's constant) but the changes are extremely smooth. So what is the meaning of the local quantized change in relation to the smooth universe as a whole? Etc.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm, you demonstrate a wonderful grasp of the essential problem of QM. Even when some from the academia appears here to belittle your comment, I would tend to defend you.
Sydney Ernest Grimm with respect you stated above ...
"One aspect is the use of probability theory (math). The theory originates from experiments (throwing dices) and it is – even after all those years – still a theory that is based on experiments. Probability has no mathematical foundation. That means that we calculate the expected outcome of an experiment (QFT) with the help of an experimentally derived “property” of quantum behavior. That is a bit confusing because it proves that we don’t understand the underlying mechanism behind the changes in the universe at the smallest scale size."
let me add or update you here, that a recent *single* Neutron experiment conducted double slit experiment clearly showed - hence prooved - there is no direct statistical evidence per entity (Photon, Electron, Neutron) but the single Neutron took both paths at the same time - and for sure.
What does this change in QED/QCD with respect to this question? Probably not much, but we really need to constantly include newest experimental results into our collective mindset on what is - and what is no longer - true (experimentally wise proven).
Christian G. Wolf,
Have the authors of the experiment been able to clearly, experimentally radically well, define the two paths that the same single neutron traveled simultaneously -- i.e., except by any means other than statistical? I think this is the crux of the matter. Could you please give me the PDF or site address?
Raphael Neelamkavil The experiment has even been prominently shown up in a cover story of "Scientific American" (at least by me seen in German version of named "Spektrum der Wissenschaft") some 3 month after I learned from interestingly a RG recommendation (would not have found):
Journal Reference:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220511123554.htm
Article Quantifying the presence of a neutron in the paths of an int...
Dear Christian G. Wolf
I am sorry if my comment was too vague about the reality of quantum theory. Of course there is experimental evidence that the changes within the structure of the electromagnetic field are quantized in relation to other phenomena (inclusive the observer and the measurement instrument).
The first sentences in my previous comment describe that even the ancient Greek philosophers used concepts that are more or less comparable with QM and QFT. However, the topic is about known (conceptual) problems in quantum theory. Thus the focus is on the problems and not on all the achievements.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
I believe I did not misunderstand the main intentions of your post, which are imho very valid from a QED/QCD theory point of view.
My only intent was to inform you (or maybe hint all) to the new experimental result of the proton double slit experiment as referred to in my above post.
Why is that (at least somewhat) important?
Because it shows (which is/was imho not at all clear before) any pure statistical reasoned Copenhagen physical mainstream interpretation of QM can no longer be referred to by any scientist thinking reasonably in this field.
Those are unfortunately only very few anyway imho, as in my personal experience when e.g. discussing new ideas like iSpace theory getting very harsh critics up to militant „you are wrong and we are right„ style replies.
Such behavior is unscientific and will have come to and end.
So to be fully clear on this here:
QM (QED and maybe also QCD) is fully the proper model to describe quantum operations in our universe - however the imho nonsensical math seemingly inseparable from this model is for sure not!
Even Feynman himself told us (them) so on multiple occasions - but generations after no-one seems to be able nor willing to listen and understand what he told:
‚We do not cancel out of sums - but we unfortunate have no better way found so far to get the results needed to run QM‘ (this is not an exact quote, but what he imho basically stated).
Thanks for this very good question, please all stay well.
Christian
Dear Christian G. Wolf
Personally I have the opinion that the attractivity of science is to create a point of view that envelopes “everything” that we experience in daily live. Even if we don’t like some aspects of this all-inclusive point of view (because of our ego). Now what is an all-inclusive point of view?
Somewhere on a book shelve I have the lectures of Richard Feynman. I cannot remember when I read everything because it is so long ago. But a week ago I read an article that disputed Feynman’s path integral in relation to the concept of the least action. I remembered both topics again and my first thought was: “This is 20th century physics”. Because for some decades we know for sure that our dynamical universe is a non-local universe (like Aristotle stated some 2500 years ago: the unmoved mover).
Now what does it mean that our universe is non-local? The only description that fits the underlying experiments (like entanglement) is that everything in the universe influence everything at exactly the same moment. So I thought about both subjects with “new eyes” and suddenly I understood that Feynman’s path integral and the concept of least action are the result of the non-locality of our universe. However, it is impossible to prove it with the help of experiments but at the moment I realised the influence of non-locality for me the concept of least action and Feynman’s path integral were reduced to “really simple physics”.
From the phenomenological point of view these concepts are just crazy complicated. Because within a “point” somewhere within the structure of the electromagnetic field – the dynamical part of our universe – there is a quanta transfer of about 1 x 1024 quanta during 1 second. And the density (metric) of the “points” of the structure is about 0,25 x 10_15 m. The consequence is that calculations cannot “judge” the credibility of a lot of concepts in theoretical physics. So we still need an all-inclusive point of view to understand what is going on. Quantum computers will not do the trick.
With kind regards, Sydney
I will try to explain the necessity of the right point of view to understand complicated issues in physics.
At the moment there is an article in The Guardian (UK newspaper) about 6 galaxies in the early universe (JWST observations). A more detailed description can be find at https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/discovery-massive-early-galaxies-defies-prior-understanding-universe/. The article in Nature is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05786-2
The paper describes 6 galaxies in the early universe and the conclusion is that the existence of these galaxies are questioning the credibility of the big-bang hypothesis. Some of these 6 galaxies are supposed to be giant black holes surrounded by clouds of gas and “lumpy matter”. The observations underscore the existence of giant primordial black holes in the early universe.
In 2016 the BICEP2 Collaboration published a paper about their observations of polarized radiation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The observed polarization was thought to be created by the “condensation” of Hydrogen atoms in the early universe. See the image above and here is the link to the paper:
BICEP2 Collaboration (2016). “Keck ArrayVII: MATRIX BASED E/B SEPARATION APPLIED TO BICEP2 AND THE Keck Array” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05976.pdf
If someone believes in the big-bang hypothesis the observed polarization happened in a relative small volume in space. Just because the universe was expanding from a “singularity” somewhere in the emptiness. But if we don’t believe in singularities and other imaginary unobserved phenomena the volume of the universe cannot expand. Now the size of the polarized regions of electromagnetic waves is enormous. The consequence is that the origin of the polarization must be the existence of primordial black holes in the early universe. In line with the observations of the JWST.
Because of a 2022 RG discussion I started a corresponding blog (The rest frame of the universe). In the post https://restframe.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-condensation-of-hydrogen-plasma.html you can read about the origin of the polarization of the CMBR. The introduction describes why there is a rest frame.
So you only need the right point of view to understand complicated issues.
With kind regards, Sydney
Some (just these days, in RG) say that space is mathematically most fundamental in physics, and time is just an addition. I find that just like time is a matter of measurements, space too is a matter of measurements. For that reason, should we ostracize space from physics, too?
One of these days I read in an RG reply that the cause of source-independence of energy wavicle propagations (like photons) is dark energy. If so, it will have a natural consequence on quantum physics too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Any_new_concept_of_motion_in_physics_beyond_those_of_STR_GTR_QM_and_QM-cosmology#view=642fe35f3f0890b7c306ad87
I THINK QUANTUM PHYSICS HAS ITS ACAUSAL ATTITUDE AS THE MOST IMPROTANT FLAW.
Let me clarify here THE MEANING OF CAUSALITY by citing as such what I replied in Academia to a comment by Jean-Louis Boucon:
Let me begin with the comments you made about levels of the microscopic. First of all, I do not understand how it would lead to a theological Highest level and Lowest level, if we are speaking of the existence of physical levels?
As far as I able to think, there must most probably be further inner structures within anything we call micro, nano, or whatever smaller. This is what physical existence implies, I believe. Let me explain this:
If anything is existent, it is non-vacuous, i.e., it is not nothing. (I think it is mostly at this and similar levels of discussion that we can best apply the fundamental principles of logic and feel almost sure that what we say must be true.)
If an existent is not nothing, it means it is extended in existence, and thus, has parts. Thus, a photon, if existent, must have parts, each of them should have further parts, etc. This is what I call THE CATEGORY OF EXTENSION. This is what I meant by levels of the ever smaller. Do you think this is acceptable? Would you doubt that any highest or lowest level would come into the picture here and block us with theological stuff?
Similar to EXTENSION, we have yet another characteristic of all existents. Every existent has some motion. By motion, each existent must cause impact in others. Not in infinite number of others, but on a finite number of them at any stipulated duration. This is what I call THE CATEGORY OF CHANGE.
Would this incur anything theological? I believe, not. IT IS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH A MANNER OF THINKING THAT POSIT CAUSALITY. A condition: this is possible only if we can admit that Extension and Change are the ultimate Categories of all that exist.
Now, think of anything existent. It is finitely extended, and constantly makes a finite number of impacts. If it has no extension, it cannot make any impact. Hence, Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but what we call CAUSALITY!!
In this sense, if Extension and Change are acceptable absolutely well as the exhaustive Categories of all existents, CAUSATION IS UNIVERSAL!! We have presupposed only the notion of existence and non-existence here.
So long as I am not able to explain these and the derivative concepts infinitely well, I do not have infinitely clear truths here too. And I have only a finite time to explain the meaning of any of these, and hence, they are not absolute truths yet.
But we can have intersubjective agreement that these (or any other such) statements seem to be absolute truths. Only this much is possible for humans. I WRITE THIS WITH THE HOPE THAT PETER JACKSON TOO READS THIS. Now to a part of your first suggestions above: I must explain what is existence. I am unable. I do not think anyone else is able.
While quantum mechanics has proven to be a tremendously successful theory in explaining the behavior of the microscopic world, there are certain aspects of the theory that have generated debate and alternative interpretations. Here are some of the major theoretical issues and questions in quantum mechanics:
When I ask whether any particle at zero rest mass has been detected experimentally, the answer is No, and they give theoretical / mathematical reasons for the EXISTENCE OF REST MASS. Let this be so.
But most physicists start being on the side of directly experimental results when one speaks of supposing the various cases of content of the cosmos: (1) finite and (2) infinite!
And using merely mathematical applications a physicist and cosmologist can create many virtual worlds. But should they all exist?
MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY:
A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION
Raphael Neelamkavil
What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of causality with mathematics and its applications? I suggest that it is the dichotomy between mathematical continuity and discreteness on the one hand and the incompatibility of applying any of them directly on the data collected / collectible from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature. I clearly point at the avoidance, by expressions like ‘from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature’, of the centuries of epistemological foolishness, because this is the point at which phrases and statements involving ‘data from observation’, ‘data from phenomena’, ‘data from nature’ etc. are very gross, without epistemological and ontological astuteness.
If causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects is the case, then the data collected / collectible cannot be the very processual objects or provide all knowledge about the processual objects. But mathematics and all other research methodologies are based on human experience and thought based on experience. Hence, it is important to define the limits of applicability of mathematics to the physics of data is the only way to approximate beyond the data and the methodologically derived conclusions beyond the data.
The same may be said also about logic and language. Logic is the broader rational picture of mathematics. Language is the symbolic manner of application of both logic and its quantitatively qualitative version, namely, mathematics, with respect to specific fields of inquiry. Here I do not explicitly discuss ordinary conversation, literature, etc. We may do well to instantiate logic as the formulated picture of reason. But reason is limited to the procedures of reasoning by brains. What exactly is the reason that existent physical processes undergo? How to get at conclusion based on but beyond data and methods? If we may call the universal reason of Reality-in-total with a name, it is nothing but Universal Causality.
How to demonstrate this as the case? ((To be developed further.))
A caveat is in place here: When I write anything here, you have the right to ask me constantly for further justifications. And if I have the right to anticipate some such questions, I will naturally attempt to be as detailed and as systemic as possible in my formulation. Each sentence is merely a part of the formulation. After reading each sentence you may pose me questions, which certainly cannot all be answered well within the sentences or after the sentences in question.
Hence, I tend to be as systemic as possible in each of the following sentences. Please do not accuse me of being too complex in my expressions. Your (and our) mathematics, physics, and logic can be very complex and prohibitive for some. But would we all accuse these disciplines or the readers if the readers find them all complex and difficult? I do not create such a state of affairs in these few sentences, but there are complexities here too. Hence, I express my helplessness in case any one of you finds these statements complex.
Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our merely epistemic idealization where processes outside are vaguely presented primarily by the processes themselves in a natural manner, represented by the epistemic activity of the brain in a natural manner, and idealized via concepts expressed in words and sentences by the symbolizing human tendency to capture the whole of the object by use of a part of the human body-mind. The symbolizing activity is based on data, but the data are not all we have.
Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature as a natural conclusion by application of mathematics to nature is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences insofar as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes. Logic and its direct quantitatively qualitative expression as found in mathematics are powerful tools. But, as being part of the denotative function of symbolic language, they are tendentially idealizational. By use of the same symbolizing tendency, it is perhaps possible to a certain extent to de-idealize the same symbols in the language, logic, and mathematics being used to symbolically idealize representations.
Merely mathematically following physical nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a debilitating procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities), if this procedure is not de-idealized effectively. If this is possible at least to a small and humble extent, why not do it? Our language, logic, and mathematics too do their functions although they too are equally unable to capture the whole of reality in whatever it is, wholly or in in parts, too far beyond the data and their interpretations!
This theoretical attitude of partially de-symbolizing the effects of human symbolizing activity by use of the same symbolic activity accepts the existence of processual entities as whatever they are. Perhaps such a generalization can give a slightly better concept of reality than is possible by the normally non-self-aware symbolic activity in language, logic, and mathematics!
This theoretical attitude facilitates and accepts in a highly generalized manner the following three points:
(1) Mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of logical, mathematical, physical, biological, social, and linguistic theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because (a) the necessity of mathematical approval of any sort of causality in such a cosmology and by means of its systemic physical ontology falls short miserably in actuality, and (b) logical continuity of any kind does not automatically make symbolized representation activity adequate enough to represent the processual nature of entities as derivate from data.
(2) Absolute discreteness in nature, which, as of today, is ultimately of quantum-mechanical type based on Planck’s constant, continues to be a mathematical and physical misfit in the physical cosmos and its parts (may not of course be so in non-quantifiable “possible worlds” due to their absolute causal disconnection) and is a mere common-sense mathematical compartmentalization: (1) because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and (2) by reason of the “epistemology of box-type thinking” (see Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn) implied by the non-self-aware symbolic activity of body-minds.
(3) Hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of existence in an extended (having parts) and changing (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of others in a finite amount) manner. Existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causation. Thus, every existent is causal. There is no minute measuremental iota of time wherein such causal existing ceases in any existent. this is CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.
The attitude of treating everything as causal my also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or increased or avoided incrementally. This is at the most what may be called freedom. It is fully causal, but causal not in a specific set of manners and causal in some other specific set of manners.
PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos either (1) mathematically presupposedly continuous, or (2) discrete with defectively ideal mathematical status for continuity and with perfectly geometrical ideal status for specific beings, or (3) statistically indeterministic, thus considered partially causal, or even considered non-causal in the interpretation of statistics’ orientation to epistemically logical decisions and determinations based on data. If not, can anyone suggest proofs for an alleged existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today?
A topology and mereological physical ontology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory, geometry, functional analysis, set theory, and logic, are yet to be born. Hence, the fundamentality of Universal Causality in its deep roots in the very concept of the To Be (namely, in the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change) of all physically and non-vacuously existent processes, is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.
LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST CAUSAL ONTOLOGY (1) attribute an overly discrete nature to “entities” without ever attempting to touch the deeply Platonic (better, geometrically atomistic) shades of common-sense Aristotelianism, Thomism, Newtonianism, Modernism, Quantum Physics, etc., and without reconciling the diametrically opposite geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) logically comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the processual demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects irreducibly being in finite EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) hence, unable to get at the CAUSALLY CONTINUOUS (neither mathematically continuous nor geometrically discontinuous) nature of the physical-ontologically “partially discrete” processual objects in the physical world.
PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and due to its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to an extent to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in physically existent, processually discrete, objects in nature.
HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific interpretative aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it as a method. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the said fete.
POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of the human project of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought. The linguistic-analytic philosophy in later Wittgenstein too was no exception to this nature of postmodern philosophies – a matter that many Wittgenstein followers do not notice. Take a look at the first few pages of his Philosophical Investigations, and the matter will be more than clear.
THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of extreme pragmatism in linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY CONCRETE AND PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.
Hence, it is useful for the growth of science, philosophy, and humanities alike to research into the CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE “PROCESSUAL” OBJECTS.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end
The Irretutable Argument for Universal Causality. Any Opposing Position?
Very very short. https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irretutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP
Let me first make a claim and then explain:
If quantum physics were based on the most fundamental notions / Categories of all existents (not merely of thought), it would not have been in the present state.
Extension and Change are the highest Categorial notions / universal qualities in both philosophy and physics. But unluckily the discussions in physics and philosophy are not based on such fundamental notions today.
Now let me explain:
TIME MUST ALWAYS BE THE MEASURE OF MOTION / CHANGE. THIS IS WHAT ARISTOTLE AND THOMAS HAVE HELD. BUT TODAY PHYSICISTS AND COSMOLOGISTS MAKE RATIOCINATIONS USING TIME AND SPACE AS IF THESE WERE SOME EXISTENT STUFF. SOME EVEN SPEAK OF SPACE-TIME CURVATURE, AND NOT OF CURVATURE OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES THAT ARE IN EXTENSION-MOTION:
All impact transfers within and between entities are extended-changing. Impact transfer is nothing but the activity called Causation. Existents are in extended-changing causal process. The relation of one impact transfer process towards the constitution of another is Causality. Hence, everything is in causal process. If anything non-causal exists, it must lose contact with causal processes and cannot be connected with anything else so to result from causal processes or non-causal processes.
That is, Causality is a derivative Category pertaining to all existents. It is derived from putting together Extension and Change. Causality (the relation) and causation (the action / activity) are act-based. In general, without direct reference to the causal aspect, and with direct reference to the entity-aspect, one can say denotatively: everything is an extended-changing process. (“Everything is in process” means adjectivally: “Everything is processual”) In fact, Causation and Processuality are interchangeable; the manner of definition alone differs. But a unit process is a set of cause and effect.
If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.
Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.
Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.
Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?
Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.
In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.
Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.
That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.
This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.
What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.
That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.
Richard Lewis added a reply
6 hours ago
Raphael Neelamkavil This is a very good point about the variable energy of the electron. All electrons will have energy given by E=hf where f is the frequency of the looped wave.
Where it is a free electron the energy is continuously variable. Where it is an electron bound to an atom the energy is restricted to specific energy levels. This is the cause of the quantisation of light.
The energy of the photon is h(f2-f1) when the electron moves from energy level 2 to 1.
Also for all matter particles the energy and frequency increase by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when moving with velocity v relative to the space rest frame.
This paper about the hydrogen bond includes a description of the electron as a looped wave in the medium of space.
Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)
Richard
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
5 hours ago
Richard Lewis, thanks. I will read the article given.
Practically nobody noticed this discussion of mine. So I put it in some other discussions too. But none read it or none responded. They all know much better.
… Read more
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
7 minutes ago
If the case of measurements of values regarding an electron is such, what about the very Planck constant? Is it not a proportionality? If the masses, energies, etc. of each electron should be different from those of all others, will the constant proportionality be constant or relatively constant?
Clearly, the range of values of the proportionality will differ from universe to universe, because of the varying densities of each universe. And we sit here thinking that these are all physical laws applicable to all universes!
I believe that most physical laws are relative to the specific universe or groups of universes. But there must be pre-physical laws. WHICH ARE THEY? ANYONE HAS GUESSES?
Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics
Friends,
Kindly read the following chain-conversation between an earnest scholar with insight into philosophy, the physical sciences, and logic::::
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
2 days ago
Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.
However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.
Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.
These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.
While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
2 days ago
Alessandro Rizzo,
This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.
But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."
Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!
Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).
I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:
COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
and
IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.
Now I must begin searching for a publisher....
Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic_Philosophys_Inconsistencies
Share
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
2 days ago
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,
Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.
You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.
Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.
Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.
Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.
Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.
Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.
1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.
2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.
3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.
4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
2 days ago
Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.
Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.
That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.
Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!
Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!
The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!
We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.
In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.
We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!
That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!
Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.
The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!
But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.
This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.
But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!
Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?
If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!
After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.
The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)
Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!
Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?
Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.
I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).
I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.
I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.
And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.
SET 1:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_basic_insecurities_of_physics_especially_of_statistical_physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Causality_Necessary_in_Physics_Philosophy_and_Other_Sciences_in_Place_of_Statistical_Bayesian_and_Other_Theories_of_Causality
SET 2:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
1 day ago
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,
Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.
You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.
Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.
Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.
Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.
The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.
Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.
Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.
Recommended
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
19 hours ago
Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.
Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.
Share
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
15 hours ago
Dear Raphael,
Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.
The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.
The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.
In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.
Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.
Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.
Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.
Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,
Alessandro
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
15 hours ago
Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.
Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency
Rana Hamza Shakil, very good. Let me address the final statement in your response: "While these flaws have not yet been resolved, they have not prevented quantum mechanics from being one of the most successful theories in physics."
Even Newtonian mechanics has had many successes and continues to be produce successes. This shows that the truth-probability of a theory has to do not merely with the application-level successes but also theoretical generality, depth, and applicability as a theory of the details of everything that comes under its purview.
In this context, kindly read this article that appeared in my mobile just now and give your opinions:
Physicists Conduct The Most Massive Test Ever of The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-conduct-the-most-massive-test-ever-of-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox
Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are
(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and
(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.
An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!
This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?
ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA
If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.
Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.
If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.
Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.
But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.
In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).
Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.
Challenging the Universality of the Speed of Light as a Constant
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Challenging_the_Universality_of_the_Speed_of_Light_as_a_Constant
I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:
FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.
This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.
Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.
A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.
I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.
Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text
Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist
Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist
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
Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.
Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: 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
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
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
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
Here 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
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
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 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
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing