Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By TheBiologista
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: The informational physics

  1. #1 The informational physics 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Hello ALL,

    Here the informational concept in philosophy and physics is suggested for a discussion - see

    http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,

    (also may be useful
    - http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043:
    - V1, sections: 1. "Introduction"; and may be 2. "To the definition of the concept of information";
    - V5, sections: 1. "To the definition of the concept of information"; and "Discussion and conclusion")


    Some comments:
    (A) - the suggested informational approach is rigorously logically grounded. Indeed all that exists are the words. To understand that is necessary to take into account a few rather evident things:
    (1) – to understand, that the information is the objective thing and doesn’t require any "sapiens" to exist;

    (2) – to understand, that the information is unique thing which exists when there is no anything – that’s simply the cyclic statement "there is no anything besides the information that there is no anything besides..." - so the information is "storage device" for the information and so there isn’t any necessity for something else to exist.
    On another word – the information is unique thing that isn’t capable to be non-existent.

    (3) – to understand that all above is not a trick or next "information paradox" – though the information is very paradoxical thing indeed – but it is the ultimate reality and only requires to get used to such a conclusion.

    ( But, besides, it seems it is highly desirable also for somebody "to be ready" to apprehend the concept, for that – it is desirable to put and to attempt to answer on a number of the questions, such as:
    (1) – what is our external World ? (though the question "what is the (my) consciousness?" is interesting also);
    (2) - from where, including – "from what material" the World was originated?
    (3) – human's experience says that the World is some logically consistent system – in the World some system of "Nature laws" works – Why it is so? Why the consciousness’ languages, including – mathematical – are totally adequate to the material World? (and what is "material"? – that’s good question also);
    - etc;
    (4) - it is rather useful to remember, that in a number of thousands of years already there were many attempts in the science to answer on these questions, but all attempts turned out to be in vain – eventually always corresponding considerations reduced to some beliefs in framework of two main concepts –of Materialism and Idealism - and so this discussion turns out to be endless – why?

    Additionally it is useful to remember, that there are a number of the "information theories" , as well as of the "set theories", when at that - the notions "the information" and "the set" aren’t defined (!) – so why did such a funny situations happen and why it remains unresolved till now?

    But at that - these theories are well adequate when solving specific problems relating to specific properties of some sets (or "ensembles", "manifolds", etc.) as well as of an "information" as it is considered as, e.g., a "measure of uncertainty", "complexity", etc.
    —-
    After somebody will become "ready" – this informational concept becomes rather understandable when it makes essentially more clear many problems in philosophy, mathematics, physics, etc. As an example – it turns out to be that in reality the notions "the set" and "the information" are utmost fundamental and so can not be defined through something more fundamental/common notions, when both notions are "the same" in some sense – the set is "the mode of existence" of the information, when for the set the better name is a "manifold" in sense "diversity".

    In philosophy for Idealism it becomes clear that there is no necessity for a Creator to be omnipotent (and so – transcendent, one of the main problems in Idealism) to "create the Universe from nothing" – all possible scenarios of the creations "were/are ready far before creation" and only one thing remains – how can a scenario be activated? For Materialism – a possibility of some "accidental" activation appears, when – since it seems that, e.g., our Universe is rather simple logical system – the probability of such a creation can be not too large;
    it seems possible to develop rather plausible physics model for gravity and electricity, etc.;

    - details – see the arXiv links in the posts above.

    Cheers.

    And – sorry - relating to the link http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,

    erratum:

    (1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta)

    (2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d)
    There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

    There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux in a bunch - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

    (3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3; besides - it contains unnecessary fator - reuced Planck's constant (it is already in the equation for scalar potential earlier in the text)


    Cheers again


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Because of absence of comments in this forum I quote here
    A comment/ answer in some another one:

    [Comment]"I accept with information: Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language which can be - is language build on primes, which is capable to cary tha maximum information in any possible sequence of symbols. It contains no redundancy to exactly formulate the thoughts and also works as universal translator, any finite language is it's subset - that means every todays human or programming language and also formal language of mathematics can be described by primes."

    [Answer]:

    - that’s something adequate, to some extent, to the informational conception; but not (of course) completely. In particular – when you use the term "God" – it should be defined previously. If It is some self- organized Essence (having a self- identification, some aims, etc.) then It is some subsystem in the Set "Information" which appeared to be under some reason or because of that a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information.
    On another hand, if a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information, then the Set Itself can indeed be classified as the "Prime Creator", Deo, - as, e.g., G. Cantor said (see Wiki) "…The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute…"

    But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe, It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning…

    Cheers


     

  4. #3 Re: The informational physics 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    Hello ALL,

    Here the informational concept in philosophy and physics is suggested for a discussion - see

    http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,

    (also may be useful
    - http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043:
    - V1, sections: 1. "Introduction"; and may be 2. "To the definition of the concept of information";
    - V5, sections: 1. "To the definition of the concept of information"; and "Discussion and conclusion")


    Some comments:
    (A) - the suggested informational approach is rigorously logically grounded. Indeed all that exists are the words. To understand that is necessary to take into account a few rather evident things:
    (1) – to understand, that the information is the objective thing and doesn’t require any "sapiens" to exist;

    (2) – to understand, that the information is unique thing which exists when there is no anything – that’s simply the cyclic statement "there is no anything besides the information that there is no anything besides..." - so the information is "storage device" for the information and so there isn’t any necessity for something else to exist.
    On another word – the information is unique thing that isn’t capable to be non-existent.

    (3) – to understand that all above is not a trick or next "information paradox" – though the information is very paradoxical thing indeed – but it is the ultimate reality and only requires to get used to such a conclusion.

    ( But, besides, it seems it is highly desirable also for somebody "to be ready" to apprehend the concept, for that – it is desirable to put and to attempt to answer on a number of the questions, such as:
    (1) – what is our external World ? (though the question "what is the (my) consciousness?" is interesting also);
    (2) - from where, including – "from what material" the World was originated?
    (3) – human's experience says that the World is some logically consistent system – in the World some system of "Nature laws" works – Why it is so? Why the consciousness’ languages, including – mathematical – are totally adequate to the material World? (and what is "material"? – that’s good question also);
    - etc;
    (4) - it is rather useful to remember, that in a number of thousands of years already there were many attempts in the science to answer on these questions, but all attempts turned out to be in vain – eventually always corresponding considerations reduced to some beliefs in framework of two main concepts –of Materialism and Idealism - and so this discussion turns out to be endless – why?

    Additionally it is useful to remember, that there are a number of the "information theories" , as well as of the "set theories", when at that - the notions "the information" and "the set" aren’t defined (!) – so why did such a funny situations happen and why it remains unresolved till now?

    But at that - these theories are well adequate when solving specific problems relating to specific properties of some sets (or "ensembles", "manifolds", etc.) as well as of an "information" as it is considered as, e.g., a "measure of uncertainty", "complexity", etc.
    —-
    After somebody will become "ready" – this informational concept becomes rather understandable when it makes essentially more clear many problems in philosophy, mathematics, physics, etc. As an example – it turns out to be that in reality the notions "the set" and "the information" are utmost fundamental and so can not be defined through something more fundamental/common notions, when both notions are "the same" in some sense – the set is "the mode of existence" of the information, when for the set the better name is a "manifold" in sense "diversity".

    In philosophy for Idealism it becomes clear that there is no necessity for a Creator to be omnipotent (and so – transcendent, one of the main problems in Idealism) to "create the Universe from nothing" – all possible scenarios of the creations "were/are ready far before creation" and only one thing remains – how can a scenario be activated? For Materialism – a possibility of some "accidental" activation appears, when – since it seems that, e.g., our Universe is rather simple logical system – the probability of such a creation can be not too large;
    it seems possible to develop rather plausible physics model for gravity and electricity, etc.;

    - details – see the arXiv links in the posts above.

    Cheers.

    And – sorry - relating to the link http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,

    erratum:

    (1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta)

    (2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d)
    There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

    There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux in a bunch - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

    (3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3; besides - it contains unnecessary fator - reuced Planck's constant (it is already in the equation for scalar potential earlier in the text)


    Cheers again
    "The linked ArXiv paper has several revisions and no record of submittal to a refereed journal. Me thinks there be a reason/

    This is not physics. It belongs in "New Hypotheses" or "Pseudoscience".
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    To: All

    -last information relating to the informational conception in physics – see posts SSDZ of Dec 09 and Dec 28.

    To: DrRocket
    - "The linked ArXiv paper has several revisions" - that isn’t so,
    correct is: "The linked ArXiv paper has several iterations", next iteration simply contains something new to previous version.

    To: All.

    If somebody is going to post in this thread, would you be kind to use some logically consistent arguments or true experimental data; don’t use something like "This is not physics", "It belongs in "New Hypotheses", "Pseudoscience", etc.
    -?

    Happy New Year!
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    I agree with Dr. Rocket. In all seriousness, this really is rubbish.
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    To: All

    In this thread the informational conception in physics is presented – see posts SSDZ of Dec 09 and Dec 28, 2009.

    The conception is rather simple and rigorously logically grounded (so it seems non-understandable – why the thread was moved from the section "Physics" to this section of this forum?), but is also rather new and non-standard. The last requires some work and, for somebody – additionally to bend the convolutions of the brain a little, in order to understand the concept.

    Though there exist some people that cannot bend the convolutions. Regrettably such a people are also often rather categorical and active; sometimes – too active; and, when they take part in a discussion, in the discussion some troubles appear. So it would be rather useful the absence of such a
    people’s posts in this thread.

    To: Waveman28

    From yours "I agree with Dr. Rocket. In all seriousness, this really is rubbish.",
    as it seems, follows that you didn’t understand SSDZ post of Dec 29, 2009 and I should to clarify it for you to some extent. So

    - it is as "If somebody is going to post in this thread, would you be kind to use some logically consistent arguments or true experimental data; don’t use something like "This is not physics", "It belongs in "New Hypotheses", "Pseudoscience", etc."

    - In this sentence the "etc." includes also "I agree with ...[somebody]", "rubbish", ….

    Happy New Year coming,
    Cheers.
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    The discussion on a number of forums of the informational conception showed that some difficulties in the understanding of the conception sometimes take place.

    So a separate article for the conception was made - some extended compilation of corresponding sections of the papers "The information and the matter" and "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"

    - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

    Cheers
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    hmmm.... No, no, it's not that it isn't understood. It's pure BS. simple as that, and even I can see this truth.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Indeed that is true.

    But the thread was moved from the section "Physics" into this section of the forum and remains here till now. It seems rather interesting – Why?
    ____

    Now extended and more systematic version of the informational model in physics appeared see

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V5; though it remains be rater desirable
    to have read the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 before/ also.

    As it seems the SR theory becomes more understandable.

    Cheers
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    The really funny part is, your "citation" site doesn't include any information of any value at all whatsoever. There is nothing to gain by reading it, and no point in reading it. It's drivel. Cite the actual paper, instead of the update page.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    To: All.

    - see SSDZ post of Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:01 am.

    To: Arcane_Mathematician

    - be quiet, all is very simple. You should to click on the link and further to click on "pdf only" in upper right corner. Then next iteration of the informational model will appear.
    Since arXiv doesn’t greet the updating after V5, in this version the model is presented more systematically and, besides, more attention is paid to special relativity.

    Cheers
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    done. you should link the pdf directly, not just the update page. Again.... Why must I reiterate that?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post "relating to well known "Many World" concept". That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:

    Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the arXiv links above (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ) – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.

    But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [Shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.

    At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/v...127325#p127325
    in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.

    Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].

    There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds.
    And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.

    Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…

    Cheers
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v2.

    More - see this forum, Phisics section, the thread "What’s so special about light?"
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3.

    Cheers

    Besides it seems that I should repeat my post of Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:15 am.
    That is rather pertinacious mraz'...

    Cheers again
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    It turns out that, besides those non-virtual people (see previous SSDZ post),

    in the Net a sensation appeared, e.g.:
    http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-...math-proves-it

    The novelty resembles in certain sense the informational conception.
    Though it is a full rubbish, in one month (May) the "novelty" was widely spread; Google shows more then 100 000 links answering on

    "You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" ...

    Cheers
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted already a posting from some other forums. Now it seems a sense to continue such a practice. So:

    DrRocket, on 8 June 2011 - 01:59 AM, said: [that is DrRocket's remark on my first post in this [i.e. o other] forum, #1 7 July 2008 - 11:57 AM ]

    "In case no one noticed that "paper" [i.e. http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043] in the archives has a long list of revisions and no history of submission to any peer-reviewed journal. That, combined with the incomprehensibility of the text itself, is a big hint."

    My answer:
    Indeed, this paper, as well as others arXiv ones - http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (The Information as Absolute), http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 (The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature) and http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 (The informational physics – possible tests) aren’t published in any “peer-reviewed” journal. Though were submitted – "The Information as Absolute" was rejected by 5 philosophical journals, "The informational physics – possible tests" by two; "The informational conception and basic physics" (a shortened version of http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819) – by two.

    Last case – "The informational conception…" was submitted in the EJTP journal (chief editors Ignazio Licata and Ammar Sakkaj) 07 of September 2010. After two months on our question – where are the Reviewers’ remarks? – the editors answered – that two months is normal and all OK. But the remarks didn’t appear till now when the editors ceased to answer after 22 of November 2010. The last EJTP issue appeared this May without our paper.

    At that some similar, in certain sense, papers of Tegmark, Floridi, Bostrom, etc. were published in the same journals, though are evidently speculative and in fact don’t add something new to that was in Pythagorean "all from numbers" and in a couple of first strings in the Bible’s Geneses.

    And if somebody will count the "peer-reviewed" papers relating to "Many worlds", "Many minds" , "Anthropic principle" and other trash – the papers’ number will be pretty large.

    So why the arXiv papers above weren’t published? – the answer directly follows from this DrRocet’s comment. The comment doesn’t contain any reasonable objections – that is impossible, the infoconception is rigorously proven. So the comment is in fact senseless – but negative. And since, as it is very seems, the editors in "peer- reviewed" journals are some DrRocets also, the odds for the papers to be published are , it seems, near zero. So the submittings for us now is a game – when the paper will be rejected?

    Though – God bless – arXiv exists. But the arXiv is very large box, so I'm forced to walk through the scientific forums to info people about the conception. On another hand – here is some positive thing – when "those people" appear, I write the post "relating to the Many world conception" in a number of forums. After the post appears, the activity of "those people" becomes be lesser, in 2010 they disappeared in a week after posting. But now the process goes two months already, and doesn’t stop. It seems too much money were spent…

    Cheers
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore Alex-The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in my house , in front of my pc
    Posts
    195
    It seems that nobody is really interested in your thread...........hmmmmmmmmmm.......
    "Universe is not as weird as you think it is weirder than you can ever,ever think"- Ophiolite(My Grandpa)
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
    - Prof. Stephen W. Hawking
     

  20. #19  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Getting the mmessage yet?
     

  21. #20 Re: The informational physics 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,782
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ
    (1) – what is our external World ? (though the question "what is the (my) consciousness?" is interesting also);
    (2) - from where, including – "from what material" the World was originated?
    (3) – human's experience says that the World is some logically consistent system – in the World some system of "Nature laws" works – Why it is so? Why the consciousness’ languages, including – mathematical – are totally adequate to the material World? (and what is "material"? – that’s good question also);
    - etc;

    I can't tell if you are trying to imply that this is the result of some flaw in the human mind. Remember that mind evolved in the natural world, and functions well in it, because it is an adaption.

    If you're asking why does the universe conform to logic instead of defying logic..... all I can suggest is that a totally illogical universe wouldn't really have any definition, and it's kind of hard to say something exists if it can't be defined.



    (4) - it is rather useful to remember, that in a number of thousands of years already there were many attempts in the science to answer on these questions, but all attempts turned out to be in vain – eventually always corresponding considerations reduced to some beliefs in framework of two main concepts –of Materialism and Idealism - and so this discussion turns out to be endless – why?
    That's because there is no end to "why?" At the beginning of every chain of reasons, there must always be a brute fact, unless the chain is circular, in which case it can just keep going around and around.





    In philosophy for Idealism it becomes clear that there is no necessity for a Creator to be omnipotent (and so – transcendent, one of the main problems in Idealism) to "create the Universe from nothing" – all possible scenarios of the creations "were/are ready far before creation" and only one thing remains – how can a scenario be activated? For Materialism – a possibility of some "accidental" activation appears, when – since it seems that, e.g., our Universe is rather simple logical system – the probability of such a creation can be not too large;
    it seems possible to develop rather plausible physics model for gravity and electricity, etc.;

    - details – see the arXiv links in the posts above.

    Cheers.

    And – sorry - relating to the link http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,
    Is creationism what you were ultimately driving at?

    The universe makes sense because someone who makes sense created it? Never mind the question of how that guy came to exist, right? Why is it that all powerful deities are exempted from the same rules the universe itself is required to follow?
    If you wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight,.... then what is the use in bringing a gun to a nuclear war?
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex-The Great
    It seems that nobody is really interested in your thread...........hmmmmmmmmmm.......
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Getting the mmessage yet?
    There's no need for this. If a thread is unpopular, let it die. If a user is bumping a thread too much, that's my problem to deal with. Sneering at another user is not helpful. Please don't do it.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex-The Great
    It seems that nobody is really interested in your thread...........hmmmmmmmmmm.......
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Getting the mmessage yet?
    There's no need for this. If a thread is unpopular, let it die. If a user is bumping a thread too much, that's my problem to deal with. Sneering at another user is not helpful. Please don't do it.
    Doesn't "sneering at another user" happen fairly often?
    In a situation where forum members are able to show, clearly, that other posts are wrong or even when there is genuine debate, over some scientific issue, threads often contain overt or veiled personal comments/ insults.
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex-The Great
    It seems that nobody is really interested in your thread...........hmmmmmmmmmm.......
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Getting the mmessage yet?
    There's no need for this. If a thread is unpopular, let it die. If a user is bumping a thread too much, that's my problem to deal with. Sneering at another user is not helpful. Please don't do it.
    Doesn't "sneering at another user" happen fairly often?
    In a situation where forum members are able to show, clearly, that other posts are wrong or even when there is genuine debate, over some scientific issue, threads often contain overt or veiled personal comments/ insults.
    Where I see clear personal attacks, I try to remind users that this is not okay. This happens more often when those are made in the absence of any other discussion, as they were above. If you feel I am missing some cases, please do feel free to notify me of them. If you would like to discuss this further, please take the issue to the Site Feedback subforum or alternatively PM either me or an Admin. No point in derailing this thread further.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore Alex-The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in my house , in front of my pc
    Posts
    195
    Okay okay don't chillax biologista.............
    "Universe is not as weird as you think it is weirder than you can ever,ever think"- Ophiolite(My Grandpa)
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
    - Prof. Stephen W. Hawking
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex-The Great
    Okay okay don't chillax biologista.............
    If you have something to say about my moderating, do it here please:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Sneer...ble-31280t.php

    Any further posts you make here should be on-topic.
     

  27. #26 Re: The informational physics 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    kojax wrote:

    ...I can't tell if you are trying to imply that this is the result of some flaw in the human mind. Remember that mind evolved in the natural world, and functions well in it, because it is an adaption.

    ....If you're asking why does the universe conform to logic instead of defying logic..... all I can suggest is that a totally illogical universe wouldn't really have any definition, and it's kind of hard to say something exists if it can't be defined.

    ....That's because there is no end to "why?" At the beginning of every chain of reasons, there must always be a brute fact, unless the chain is circular, in which case it can just keep going around and around.

    .....Is creationism what you were ultimately driving at?

    The universe makes sense because someone who makes sense created it? Never mind the question of how that guy came to exist, right? Why is it that all powerful deities are exempted from the same rules the universe itself is required to follow?
    Too much of too common comments. So it would be useful for you to have read http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (The Information as Absolute).
    Besides - there are some - maybe useful - comments to the informational conception somewhere; see, e.g.:

    - this forum (Physics section), thread "1/0" http://www.thescienceforum.com/1-0-25473t.php ; posting SSDZ – Guitarist, and

    - http://personalitycafe.com/science-t...th-proves.html
    (my login SSDZ there)

    Cheers
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Since here aren’t new comments/ remarks for a time, I info, that some discussion (relating to the relativity theory) appeared in other forum, see
    More Relativity Questions - Science Forums

    Cheers
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Now a special paper relating to Space-Time problem appeared in arXiv: [1110.0003] Space and Time

    As to SSDZ posts above

    Possibly the version of an experiment in [Conclusion of] [0706.3979] The informational model - possible tests is non-clear a little. So the same but simpler to understand (but possibly not simpler as the technique) version is as:

    Let one satellite with two clocks moves through an orbit with [orbital] speed V. By using a rigid rod one of the clocks (clock-2) is transferred on the rod’s length L along the speed vector. Since we have a rigid system, clock-2 obtains the time decrement [-VL/c^2] relating to clock-1. If one returns the rod slowly to the clock-1, both clocks will show equal times. But if clock-2 is disjointed after the transference and it returns by using, say, due to own engine, the decrement will be the same as after separation – though in standard special relativity both [at returning] paths are slow clock transports and in both cases the times of both clocks after the return must be equal.

    Such an experiment indeed tests special relativity, in contrast to a multitude of that were made till now – all those experiments were made in the rigid systems and so nothing essential were tested…

    Cheers
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Philosophically speaking ,Yes , it is . SSDZ hit the nail of the universe . Information is essence of everything in the universe , so is the universe itself.
    Speaking in physics , that informaion interacts with vacuum generates universal event which subsequently and instantaneously condense into all kinds of physical quantities .

    No precise understanding about information in physics , no hope to get crystal picture of the unvierse in physics either

    Contact me for exchange at : dlxinzhigao@163.com
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang View Post
    Philosophically speaking ,Yes , it is . SSDZ hit the nail of the universe . Information is essence of everything in the universe , so is the universe itself.
    Speaking in physics , that informaion interacts with vacuum generates universal event which subsequently and instantaneously condense into all kinds of physical quantities .

    No precise understanding about information in physics , no hope to get crystal picture of the unvierse in physics either

    Contact me for exchange at : dlxinzhigao@163.com
    Thanks for the positive remark. Though as to “No precise understanding about information in physics , no hope to get crystal picture of the unvierse in physics either” it seems that isn’t so – just the informational conception allows to clear a number of physical problems – see (besides [1110.0003] Space and Time), e.g., [0812.2819] The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature? and [0706.3979] The informational model - possible tests . Including - follows to solve the problem – who is correct: Voigt- FitzGerald – Lorentz or Einstein- Minkovski?

    Besides you pointed (seems yours) E- mail address – you want to pay for an experiment with a couple of clocks in a satellite (e.g. – in the international space station) to test the problem above???


    That is a joke, of course. But one can find a lot of money for any experiment that confirms the Einstein’s relativity theory, but cannot find to test it really…

    Cheers


    To moderators:
    This thread was moved from "Physics" section to the "Pseudoscience" section after some users' [non- correct] claims that the topic "is not physics". That isn't so; so would you be kind to move the thread at least to New Hypotheses and Ideas section?

    Cheers again
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Information is sort of physical existence or phsical reality so called non-substantiated existence. It can be proven by verification to conclusions drawn from new theory in physics , all of which are fully in line with experimental results in physics and observation datum in astronomy up to now.

    I leave my email address here for purpose to communicate with someone who has interest in exchange in opinion about information that govern everything in the universe and the universe as a whole .
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Now - relating to the OPERA experiment. Observed exceeding of the neutrinos’ speed comparing to the speed of light (SL) contradicts with the informational model (e.g., [1110.0003] Space and Time) by at least two reasons.

    First – any known other material particle doesn’t have the speed more then the SL and there are no reasons to think that neutrinos are some exclusion.

    And two – if some particle has the speed that exceeds the SL, then it can be detected only if it was born on some distance from the detector at a time moment that was in absolute time earlier then corresponding "material" (i.e., of the detector state) absolute time moment. It is practically impossible in this case – the neutrinos were born in material target. So if they had speed more then SL, then they should go out the present absolute time – and impossible be detected by "present time detectors – immediately after the birth.

    It seems they have an artifact...

    Cheers
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    If someone tried to propose a theory in physics by which the universe can be well-explained in an unified way in terms of its physical properties , he or she would at first have gotten precise understanding in physics about information . Otherwise he or she can only partially recognize the universe , and can never get fully understanding about it in physics.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Since there aren't new posts in the thread I again post here a post from an other forum...

    Bart, on 12 November 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
    Interesting explanations with the surprising conclusions regarding the interpretation of the SR theory, are shown in the link:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/Tra...cySRtheory.pdf

    Has anyone already seen it? What can be think about the explanations presented there? Can they be true?
    - No. But, as it seems, as well as the SR theory:

    Historically some theory that explains the effects appearing at high speeds, i.e. – Michelson–Morley experiment and non-invariance of Maxwell equations at Galilean relativity principle – was created by Voigt, FitzGerald and Lorentz (mainly, there were a number of other contributors) - in 1887 – 1905 (further – "VFL –T"(heory)). In 1905 A. Einstein created some version of the theory that was called "special relativity theory" (SRT). In contrast to the VFL-T, though both were rather similar since were based on the same "Lorentz transformations" (LT), the SRT, as that was declared, is based on two postulates: P1 – relativity principle and P2 – that speed of light is constant in any reference frame. (The postulates weren’t new and implicitly were used at developing of the VFL-T).

    But the declaration above isn’t complete – in reality – and what indeed differs the SRT from the VFL-T – the SRT is based on two additional postulates: P3 – the SRT is a global theory, i.e. the LT are true for special and temporal coordinates x, y,z,t from 0 to +/- infinity, and P4 - there is no absolute reference frame in Universe, all reference frames are absolutely equivalent.

    Just the last two postulates allowed Minkowski to declare:
    …“We should then have in the world no longer space, but an infinite number of spaces, analogously as there are in three-dimensional space an infinite number of planes. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics. Now you know why I said at the outset that space and time are to fade away into shadows, and only a world in itself will subsist".

    From what follows, e.g., that at movement some body/ particle the full space is transformed (4D space time is rotated).

    At that neither P3 nor P4 cannot be proven or experimentally tested – as well as by no ways one can detect "spacetime transformations" and there aren’t any conceivable methods in the SRT – how the spacetime can be affected.

    Besides – given P3 and P4 are true, the SRT became self-contradictory - e.g. – got the twin paradox; from the P4 immediately follows that if there are in spacetime a number of RFs that move with different speeds, then Matter in our Universe has a number of corresponding masses – when it seems evident that there is only unique one, etc.

    The VFL-T is local theory and so hasn’t these contradictions and so is more correct then the SRT. But under unknown reasons just the SRT is used in physics (and in this forum) as standard theory till now.

    See, also, e.g. . http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58770-more-relativity-questions/ and arXiv links in this thread…

    Cheers
    Last edited by SSDZ; December 14th, 2011 at 08:17 AM.
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Since there aren't new posts in the thread I again post here a post from an other forum...

    ....Besides - to SSDZ June 10th, 2011 an addition appeared in the last couple of weeks. The paper "Space and Time" ([1110.0003] Space and Time) was rejected by two philosophical journals: "METAPHYSICA" (Germany) and "THEORIA" (Spain). Both – without any concrete remarks (in Metaphysica - after 3 week peer review), though the paper is evidently new, actual, reasonable and philosophical.

    It is interesting – is somewhere a "mainstream" philosophical and/or physical journal where editor board are clever and ethical people?


    --------

    To return to the thread’s topic let some brief comment to the OPERA experiment.

    So, from the informational model follows that all/ anything/ everything in Matter move always uninterruptedly in absolute spacetime with the speed of light, c; at that – because of equal footing in any spacetime direction and in the absolute time direction - all/ anything/ everything in Matter is always in the same absolute time’s point.

    If some particle that is born in Matter obtains a spatial speed that differs from the speed of light – including if exceeds c , then it is rather probable that it change footing in the absolute time also and hence immediately occurs outside Matter and cannot interact with any material particle. As well as any material particles that are produced by such a particle (e.g., electron-positron pairs) will be outside Matter (non-detectable) also.

    So a theory, which considers such a particles, rather probably cannot be verified in an experiment.

    OPERA neutrinos are born at material interactions and are detected in material detector, so it is rather probable that their speed doesn’t exceed c and it is necessary to verify (if the electronics’ delays are estimated correctly) the synchronization (e.g., by transport of a clock from CERN to Italy) and the geodesy…

    Cheers
     

  37. #36  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by SSDZ View Post
    Since there aren't new posts in the thread I again post here a post from an other forum...

    Cheers
    That's possibly an indication that no one is interested...
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,137
    And it is considered rude to continually bump your own thread.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63
    Absence of comments/ remarks/ questions in this thread is, regrettably, natural – the topic requires from users to have a high school physical education.
    This thread was started in Physics section of the forum, but under unknown reason was moved to this section where users (and possibly guests) aren’t professional.

    Again I ask the forum’s administration to return the thread or, at least, to move it to the "New hypotheses and ideas" section.

    And – since there aren’t posts relating to the thread’s topic (except a couple of evident spam above) I again post here a post from an other (physical) forum:

    _____

    (A thread about "twin apradox")


    It seems that 100 years discussion again renewed here – when all, rather probably, is evident – the paradox is in reality a manifestation of inherent self –contradiction of Einstein’s "special relativity theory", which appears since in the theory the globality of Lorentz transformations (LT) and equality of the IRFs are postulated. These postulates mean nothing else that Einstein and Minkowsky equated erroneously two fundamentally different things – fundamental essences "Space" and "Time" (rules that govern processes in Matter) and concrete material – and rigid! - objects, i.e., clocks and scales.

    Again, any material object always moves in absolute spacetime with speed of light in some direction. And just after an acceleration in given IRF, a clock/ scale obtain some momentum and as a result – changes its direction (rotates) in spacetime what an observer in given IRF sees as a slowing down of clock’s reading and FotzGerald- Lorentz contration; when in the standard SRT that is interpreted as “[global, in whole Universe] spacetime rotation”. Though to say, e.g., when a car turns (say to the right) on a crossroad, that in reality at that Earth turns to the left is in fact the same and is equally absurd. However the mathematics is in both cases the same – till the case when two cars occur in the crossroad and turn in different directions – and poor Earth cannot decide – where must She rotate?

    In fact all what Einstein made new to the VFL-theory – that is famous energy/mass equation, though it follows from the LT and was known for EM processes. But when all rest physical society thought that all is possible to reduce to electromagnetism and, seems, start a competition "Who first develops corresponding "Theory of Everything" , Einstein was the first who declared that nature of material objects can be non-EM, but E=mc^2 is true.

    All the rest "novelty" to the Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory is/are a mistake.

    Note besides that there weren’t any experimental tests of the SRT – all experiments that were made ere in reality testing of the VFL-theory. The experiments that really can reveal difference SRT/VFLT are real – e.g. - that is,e.g., the experiment with two clocks in an orbit (see, e.g. paper [0706.3979] The informational model - possible tests and a version somewhere in Net)

    More – see again [1110.0003] Space and Time and section 2 in [0812.2819] The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?

    Cheers
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,182
    Another bump. Argg.

    I'm closing this one.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •