No explanation of consciousness. A Standard Model cannot really be complete without it.

Dear Karl Sipfle,

In fact, we are not specifically speaking about the Standard Model, but about the statistical calculations in any system and the notion of causation held as sacrosanct by statistical physicists in general.

Are they speaking about the real state of affairs in things, or about our ability to measure them, or about the involvement of consciousness in the wavicles or things being discussed?

It has been a fashion to say that the mind is involved there. The mind is involved in the use of the instruments of measurement. Clear. And beyond that?

Confusions at the Borderline between Cosmology, Quantum Physics, and Modal Worlds: In contemporary cosmology and quantum physics, many quantum-cosmological worlds tend to be denotatively concatenated theoretical constructs without processual, Extension-Change kind, real internal constitution, which otherwise would have been capable of being conglomerations of existent processes. The best example is that of quantum-vacuum worlds supposedly creating an infinite or finite number (which naturally is absolutely uncertain) of other worlds. The non-existent quantum-cosmological worlds can be termed similar to counterfactual worlds, except in their mode of conceptual origin. But this does not matter much, if both the kinds of non-existent worlds are being spoken of as if they were existent.

To conclude, I suggest that the whole problem of non-differentiation between statistical reasoning in thought and science on the one side, and Causality as something out there in Reality-in-total that makes us apply ways of reasoning, are in muddles in today’s sciences and philosophies, because many scientists and philosophers do not make enough effort to differentiate between reason and cause in whatever they do using the logic available in mathematics and language.

Karl Sipfle, could you please tell me how the Standard Model will be complete with an explanation of consciousness?

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 THAT CAUSALITY IS ONE OF THE INSECURITIES OF STATISTUCAL PHYSICS.

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.

If any of you finds time, please take a look at the discussion between me and Jean-Louis Boucon in Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/s/084b0465db?source=work

It is not good to cite the whole conversation here. Too long!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_a_reconciliation_of_Causation_and_Freedom_unify_and_axiomatize_the_Physical_Natural_and_Social_Sciences

In my opinion, an insecurity could be the problematic data.

Theodore John Drizis, kindly tell me what you mean. Please explain.

• As problematic data, it could be false results by the use of false use of parameters.

• As problematic data, it could be false results by the use of false use of parameters.

MATHEMATICAL CONTINUITY IN NATURE Vs. CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN (PARTIALLY) DISCRETE "PROCESSUAL" OBJECTS. (Have patience to read till the end.)

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our idealization. This is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences as long as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes.

But mathematically following nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a different procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities). This theoretical attitude accepts the existence of processual entities as what they are.

This theoretical attitude accepts in a highly generalized manner that

(1) mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of physical theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because the necessity of mathematical approval in such a cosmology falls short miserably,

(2) absolute discreteness (even QM type, based on the Planck constant) in the physical cosmos (not in non-quantifiable “possible worlds”) and its parts is a mere commonsense compartmentalization (from the "epistemology of box-type thinking" -- Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn): 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

(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 CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos mathematically either continuous or defectively discrete or statistically oriented to epistemically logical decisions and determinations. Can anyone suggest here the existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today? A topology and mereology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory and functional analysis, is yet to be born. Hence, causality in its deep roots in the very concept of To Be is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST ONTOLOGY are (1) overly discrete about “entities” without clearly reconciling the geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the logical demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects being irreducibly in EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) unable to get at the causally continuous nature of the 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 its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in the only physically existent objects, namely processually discrete objects, in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the 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 knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

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 CASE OF STATISTICAL CAUSALITY:

As a way to relativize or to reduce to non-consummative the substitution of causation by statistical recognition and interpretation of causation, I would subscribe to Phil Dowe’s announcement about his work in causation: “[…] the whole approach of using statistical relations to analyse causal mechanisms will be challenged. It will be argued: (1) that causal production cannot be analysed in terms of statistical relations, and (2) that causal interactions cannot be analysed in terms of statistical relations.” [Phil Dowe 2000: 79]

What is the import of this claim?

Does he really question statistical interpretations?

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

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.

To help obtain some more clarity on what we discuss here, I think the following discussion will be of use -- especially the question by Richard Marker and my reply:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

Richard Marker: One more point:

So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.

HAVE PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY SO FAR HAD SUCH CONVINCING FUNDAMENTAL CATEGORIES?

Read a conversation between Willy Verhiest and me, in:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology/3

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I don't claim anything but observe.

For an observer on earth with gravity G c is always constant in vacuo but c is infinite at zero G at very long distances from the observer. You can call that the limit of the universe as observable from the earth which is not equal to the total universe. If the earth had double mass with a double G the observable universe would be double.

Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c. For a photon the observer is nearing it at -c so total time is zero = meaningless. It is impossible from the local observation of photons or other EM waves to determine a beginning or an extension or limit of the total universe. Stop searching celestial mirrors. There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth.

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

1 minute ago

Willy Verhiest,

In the observations you have made above, notice how overstretching the relativistic paradigm confounds the observer and theoretician. If the gravity of the earth is G, then c is constant in vacuo. But c increases relativistically to infinity at 0 G at very long distances from the observer. (Or, at the centre of the earth?) Now, you say, if the earth had double the mass, it has 2G. The the observable universe will be at double the distance in almost a spherical manner everywhere.

Should we then say that our observationally relativistic measurements must be the same as what an earth at one spot at the periphery of the universe (not merely of the observable limits of the universe) would notice?

If observationally the reach of observation from an earth of G is a certain A, then should c be zero at the observational limits you spoke of, or at some other? How do you insist that G will be zero there? Observationally from the Relativity standpoint of observation from the earth, or from yet another specific Relativity standpoint of observation?

Will the same c be observable or experienceable for an earth at the peripheries of a finite-content universe? Or, will it be something different? Of course, relativistically it should differ widely for the stipulated earth (observational starting point). But is it merely because I observe / calculate from my earth (of G) some special value for c at that point where the earth at the periphery is situated? Perhaps it will be a certain value close to infinity or really infinity?

But asymptotic approach math does not permit that! No zero or infinity is ever reached!

Hence, the c will be near infinity! Will this be real? Relativistically from our earth, of course real. But real also for an earth there, where the value is supposed to be a certain near-infinie value for our earth?

Now you may again use relativity theory and assert it to be so. Bu the earth at the periphery will not observe it so!

Now you may say that we have a universe with an infinite-periphery (strictly, non-finite or potentially infinite periphery) universe with a finite volume and content! Of course, you can choose such a math, just as Einstein chose the Riemannian geometry for the finite-content universe, without mentioning the possibility of a different Generalized General Theory of Relativity (GGTR) for an infinite-content cosmos!

Now you see how misleading it will be, if you assume for a spot at the periphery of the universe the same relativistic spatial and temporal measurements, the same measuremental differentiation at velocity (also density, mass, etc.) as measured from the earth?

In short, to deal with the whole of the cosmos -- if it is of infinite content -- we need a highly generalized GTR. Now, if you ask me what that GGTR is, I cannot give it to you, because I have not formulated it. (I am sure that you will not ask me to shut up in that case, because we both are finite-brained creatures!)

And if we have only a finite-content universe, the relativistic measuremental variation from one region to the other with respect to our earth should also mislead the earth at the periphery of such a universe. THIS IS THE CASE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF.

And so on....

In the cases where the values are infinity, zero, etc. that I mentioned above, there may be further confusions. What I mean is: Please accept that there will be confusions in what I mentioned above, in all the specific values that I mentioned above. These are due to human errors. I am happy to accept corrections and suggestions.

Let me make a general suggestion: GTR is to be taken as already very erroneous if we tend to consider other universes as existent and apply the same measuremental criteria from any two universes relatively simultaneously. Of course, the meaning of time will be different for both the universes. Not of time, but of the measurements of time, because the reference frames will differ. Moreover, there is no simultaneity of any absolute kind in the universe between any two different points of spacetime.

Please note also that this statement above already presupposes a standpoint of view or measurement that considers the relativistic measurements from one spot in the universe as non-absolute from another spot.

Now you see how well one can make erroneous statements by assuming universality to Relativity: You said, "Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c." And you said: "There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth." Both these are very bad statements in my opinion. Why? Not that time will have no meaning, but specific temporal measurements will differ for a photon if measured from various frameworks. Similarly, not that there are only local time and local space, but there are only local temporal and spatial measurements with respect to respective frameworks. Naturally!

And the final advise is difficult to grasp: "Stop searching (for) celestial mirrors." I did not search for celestial mirrors. I asked whether a celestial body at the periphery of an individual universe will have gravitational effect to all its sides, or only to the sides other than the direction to the outer periphery of that one universe. And I suggested that if that celestial body is not able to exercise gravitation to the outer aspect of the universe, then there must be a mirror or mirrors there to reflect all the gravitation and EM being propagated off. That was not meant to assert that there are mirrors there, you know!

Now, insisting that all that happens everywhere in our local universe or in a neighbouring universe should be according to the measuremental values assigned to space, time, c, G, etc. from the criterial viewpoint of observation from the earth or from the centre of the universe, or any other point.... This is a nonsense in my opinion. This is a very misleading system of physical criteria wrought in by misinterpretations and stretching of the Relativistic viewpoint.

Another observation: Absolutizing the Relativitiy Theory for all observational points of "space" is in my opinion physically fallacious.

A suggestion to ponder: Have you noticed how, in the Lorentz factor in STR, the velocity of an object is compared with the velocity c? This means that we stipulate c to be the criterial velocity in our case, because we observe anything at luminal velocity. But then, if v is increased to approach c, then we get paradoxes in any equation. Does this mean that experimentally fixed velocity of light should be absolute? Or, does it mean that the paradoxes result because we have compared (in the Lorentz factor) v with c? And should we at all pronounce that c is the only criterial velocity in the universe?

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.

What about this conversation?

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

22 minutes ago

Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitational waves are..."

Gravitational waves are oscillations of a cosmic medium of gravitational nature. This medium overcompensates the negative energy density E of gravitiational fields. (E= -g²/(8πG)). It is omnipresent with a pressure, which equals E and a mass density which equals E/c². According to wave theory this medium supports compressional waves with a propagation velocity c.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

4 minutes ago

The negative energy you speak of in theory is not an energy that has a negative effect on matter-energy. It is negative due to the math involved. The notion of omnipresence should now be clarified and the reason for gravitation being an omnipresent God should be given. If not so omnipresent, but here less and there more, then the reason should not be just a theoretical need, but instead, a real existence of gravitation (as gravitons) here less and there more!

I feel that you are trying to cover up the non-commitment to gravitation's extra-theoretical and existence. Covering it up perhaps in the theoretical necessities in the form of a negative substitute for some missing form of energy?

Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_and_Gravitational_Quanta_EM_Quanta_and_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within

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).

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.

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.

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

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

In view of clarifying the need of causality in "singularities" and thus reducing them from mathematical singularities to physically thick existents, and thus to address one of the insecurities of physics and cosmology, I propose the following questions:

Can electromagnetic and gravitational "quanta" form an ether-like background for the material part of the cosmos? Can there be interaction between the ether and the cosmos? If there is interaction between them, then every parts of them should interact, since the material part of the cosmos is within the so-called ether part. Then:

Are there consistent physical theories which exclude causality completely from the cosmos? Or, do they exclude causality from some portions of the cosmos and permit it in some other portions of it? In that case, how do they permit any realistic physical connection between the causal portions and non-causal portions of the cosmos?

Now, can the electromagnetic and gravitational "ether" be considered as a mere information, virtual information, etc.? Or, are these really existent energy which, of course, carry information for and from the causal formation of all that they causally affect?

That is, a mere infinitely dense stuff in the name of a black hole is a mathematical fiction. If this situation can be normalized in physics and cosmology, we have a normal universe wherein the Universal Law of Causality is applicable everywhere!

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I

Preprint GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (22 pp.) Part II