Comments and links to reports on science, and its applications.
Monday, January 25, 2010
A New Way of Doing Physics
I just started following Erik Verlinde in Twitter. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the guy reads my mind. I was wondering what this ideal chain was. I had a vague idea, but zoom; there it is. Now I know. He just posted it:
This brings to mind the Noosphere idea. We are building a collective mind. A network of concept maps we can all share. I don't have to be in Amsterdam, and he doesn't need to be in Chilpancingo.
Neat.
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
You've given me a whole bunch of very technical ideas to digest, but I don't much cotton to strings and loops or anything beyond Einstein until somebody adheres to the scientific method as it applies to Einstein's model, because this physics has precedence over anything that has been done since then, given the new light that has been shed on it by me, and I refuse to be bullied past that hard fact by the lame rationale of the cutting edge.
I believe that the Universe builds itself, it doesn't have a purpose: purpose is emergent in my view. In the beginning it didn't have a purpose, as complexity appeared, then autopoietic principles started to operate.
In what beginning? Even Maturana said that he would never use the notion of self-organization, because it cannot be the case...it is impossible. That is, if the organization of a thing changes, the thing changes.
Moreover, an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole. Autopoietic systems are 'structurally coupled' with their medium, embedded in a dynamic of changes that can be recalled as sensory-motor coupling. This continuous dynamic is considered as at least a rudimentary form of knowledge or cognition and can be observed throughout life-forms.
Think of what happens if we have a big bang right now... pre-existing thermodynamic principles are cast forth in the form of a "footprint" of "information" that is cast into the matter field that gets laid down by the event.
Consequently, the "entropic force" is then constrained to disseminate energy with maximum efficiency that is geared toward maximizing the available energy via a spherical flat three dimensional object that expands as uniformly as is possible in perfect accordance the second law of thermodynamics.
island I can't even bully my son. He is pursuing an Art career and I wish him well. I'll help as much as I can.
Take my "nothing in the beginning" as an application of Occams's razor.
If I can get away with it, I will.
What is bugging me right now, is the idea that Information creates space. I don't get it. I am just coming to connect my half baked ideas on Information to Verlinde's entropic force.
Maybe autopoietic is a bad name, what I want to see are evolving programs. They evolve because they have to be physically contained in holographic screen, or whatever. I do not believe in ten commandments given to us by the Gods. I want a theory that produces its own rules of the game.
I know, Eduardo. I didn't mean that you were bullying me. You are much too kind for that and I appreciate your gentle hand.
I only meant that scientists didn't play by the rules of the scientific method when I pointed out that something had been missed that seems to fix all the problems. I feel very let down.
Not very many people can write down the Dirac Equation in this background, but I had hoped that we could somehow do this together anyway, but I can't change the physics to make it fit something that it isn't, because there is only one ToE.
I hope that you'll help submit whatever it is that I do manage to produce, and good luck to you too, but I don't see how we can make this into two different theories together.
Okay, but the only thing that I know to do is to say more in an effort to explain myself, and you don't make it easy for me to know where, what, or how.
It's in the history:
1) Einstein finished GR and then extended it to the universe to derive it's most natural and most powerful application.
See the following on how Friedmann took it away from him, while putting infinities and the possibility for uncertainty into physics, and then realize that he couldn't have done that had Einstein known about the particle potential of the quantum vacuum, because there is no instability in Einsteins model when you make matter from his "quasi"-static vacuum.
This is a great link:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
Read what Einstein said about the universe. Read what Misner, Thorne and John Wheeler said about the strength and certainty that the most natural extension of GR dictates.
2) People were WAY too anxious to abandon GR as a unified field theory, for QM, and they took the WRONG cosmological model with them when they went, and this screws everything up to one degree or another, and that's where ALL of the incomplete and weird physics came from that physicists currently face.
Because you can't extend a flawed theory without manifesting the flaw by orders of magnitude as you get further from the point where the mistake got made. Right?
Then Dirac came along and out popped a bunch of -e=mc^2 solutions to the Dirac Equation that *wouldn't* have been interpreted as negative mass solutions had Einstein's finite cosmology not been abandoned, because Einstein's negative pressure vacuum is comprised of ordinary mass that is acting to counterbalance the effect of gravity.
If Dirac hadn't misinterpreted the solution to his equation, then we never would have had the re-interpretation of the negative energy solutions that quantum theorist currently worship, and Dirac's hole theory would work just fine.
That's good. I am convinced that this is really all that we need to talk about for now to make the point, although it needs work. The title alone will wreck havoc. Just as I am convinced that we should stay away from the AP and bio-oriented energy conservation laws, until people are more able to overcome the prejudices that most carry against any form of the principle. I think that it is a mistake to bring it up, as much as I'd love to, it will have to wait.
Posts
10 comments:
You've given me a whole bunch of very technical ideas to digest, but I don't much cotton to strings and loops or anything beyond Einstein until somebody adheres to the scientific method as it applies to Einstein's model, because this physics has precedence over anything that has been done since then, given the new light that has been shed on it by me, and I refuse to be bullied past that hard fact by the lame rationale of the cutting edge.
I believe that the Universe builds itself, it doesn't have a purpose: purpose is emergent in my view. In the beginning it didn't have a purpose, as complexity appeared, then autopoietic principles started to operate.
In what beginning? Even Maturana said that he would never use the notion of self-organization, because it cannot be the case...it is impossible. That is, if the organization of a thing changes, the thing changes.
Moreover, an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole. Autopoietic systems are 'structurally coupled' with their medium, embedded in a dynamic of changes that can be recalled as sensory-motor coupling. This continuous dynamic is considered as at least a rudimentary form of knowledge or cognition and can be observed throughout life-forms.
Think of what happens if we have a big bang right now... pre-existing thermodynamic principles are cast forth in the form of a "footprint" of "information" that is cast into the matter field that gets laid down by the event.
Consequently, the "entropic force" is then constrained to disseminate energy with maximum efficiency that is geared toward maximizing the available energy via a spherical flat three dimensional object that expands as uniformly as is possible in perfect accordance the second law of thermodynamics.
island
I can't even bully my son. He is pursuing an Art career and I wish him well. I'll help as much as I can.
Take my "nothing in the beginning" as an application of Occams's razor.
If I can get away with it, I will.
What is bugging me right now, is the idea that Information creates space. I don't get it. I am just coming to connect my half baked ideas on Information to Verlinde's entropic force.
Maybe autopoietic is a bad name, what I want to see are evolving programs. They evolve because they have to be physically contained in holographic screen, or whatever. I do not believe in ten commandments given to us by the Gods. I want a theory that produces its own rules of the game.
I know, Eduardo. I didn't mean that you were bullying me. You are much too kind for that and I appreciate your gentle hand.
I only meant that scientists didn't play by the rules of the scientific method when I pointed out that something had been missed that seems to fix all the problems. I feel very let down.
Not very many people can write down the Dirac Equation in this background, but I had hoped that we could somehow do this together anyway, but I can't change the physics to make it fit something that it isn't, because there is only one ToE.
I hope that you'll help submit whatever it is that I do manage to produce, and good luck to you too, but I don't see how we can make this into two different theories together.
Island
If we can get one Theory we'll be lucky. I really appreciate your dedication.
I've seen many of these fads come and go. I remember when Louis de Brogle came up with the idea that the photon had a mass.
De Broglie, L., and Vigier, J.P., Phys.Rev.Lett., 28, 1972, 1001-1004.
As far as I know, nothing came out of that, I was a student, and got very excited.
Now I am not a student, but Verlinde's ideas are simple, and I am just chewing on them. Maybe now something real will come out. I really don't know.
By the same token, I am trying to understand what you want to say.
Besides I see some similarities with this entropic force proposal, and your ideas. I don't quit.
Maybe we should work together to improve on what I've already submitted to you and see what comes of that?
This is a complete theory of everything, and I didn't invent it, rationalize it, or develop it... it just is what it is.
I have your paper.
That statement:
"This is a complete theory of everything, and I didn't invent it, rationalize it, or develop it... it just is what it is."
Is impressive. My simple mind hasn't gotten that far yet.
I should think harder on what you are saying. I really don't see why that is the way the world is.
Be patient with me.
Okay, but the only thing that I know to do is to say more in an effort to explain myself, and you don't make it easy for me to know where, what, or how.
It's in the history:
1) Einstein finished GR and then extended it to the universe to derive it's most natural and most powerful application.
See the following on how Friedmann took it away from him, while putting infinities and the possibility for uncertainty into physics, and then realize that he couldn't have done that had Einstein known about the particle potential of the quantum vacuum, because there is no instability in Einsteins model when you make matter from his "quasi"-static vacuum.
This is a great link:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
Read what Einstein said about the universe. Read what Misner, Thorne and John Wheeler said about the strength and certainty that the most natural extension of GR dictates.
2) People were WAY too anxious to abandon GR as a unified field theory, for QM, and they took the WRONG cosmological model with them when they went, and this screws everything up to one degree or another, and that's where ALL of the incomplete and weird physics came from that physicists currently face.
Because you can't extend a flawed theory without manifesting the flaw by orders of magnitude as you get further from the point where the mistake got made. Right?
Then Dirac came along and out popped a bunch of -e=mc^2 solutions to the Dirac Equation that *wouldn't* have been interpreted as negative mass solutions had Einstein's finite cosmology not been abandoned, because Einstein's negative pressure vacuum is comprised of ordinary mass that is acting to counterbalance the effect of gravity.
If Dirac hadn't misinterpreted the solution to his equation, then we never would have had the re-interpretation of the negative energy solutions that quantum theorist currently worship, and Dirac's hole theory would work just fine.
It's all layed out when you fix the boo boo.
I will read more carefully what you already posted online.
That's good. I am convinced that this is really all that we need to talk about for now to make the point, although it needs work. The title alone will wreck havoc. Just as I am convinced that we should stay away from the AP and bio-oriented energy conservation laws, until people are more able to overcome the prejudices that most carry against any form of the principle. I think that it is a mistake to bring it up, as much as I'd love to, it will have to wait.
OK
Post a Comment