For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You keep telling me I didn't read it. I did but found it full of statements like those debated between us in this thread and for which I can make no sense....Obvious Leo wrote:In general it is considered ungentlemanly in philosophy to reject a person's argument without first reading it.
You are not an honest debater nix because you left off the one crucial word which makes this statement meaningful.nix wrote: "in a spaceless universe, time and gravity can be quantized...
I never made this statement and I defy you to show me where I did because I refute it utterly.nix wrote:"the universe creates meaning at the speed of light..
Naturally you are free to conclude what you wish but you are not free to misrepresent my words.nix wrote:I can only conclude that you do not understand the physics you have been reading.
Apologies for paraphrasing; the above is what you wrote.Obvious Leo wrote:"In a spaceless model the continuum of time and space is replaced by a continuum of time and gravity which means time and gravity can be quantised equivalently in a single fundamental unit of reality."....The universe is simply defined as that which is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light so my model is specifically an information theory which defines the universe as a reality MAKER.
I'm so in opposition with you here, especially with regards your exceptions to allow intoleration against certain past views and to rely on the latest evolution of credibility given to professorships within educational institutions. All social structures based upon such expedient measures evolve to become a future's churches no matter how well the endeavor intentionally began. We need to question old theories if only to how I notice you yourself seem to ignorantly presume upon those questioning certain ideas.nix wrote:You seem to be saying that the modification required to get a unified theory cannot assume that planck's constant is non zero in the unified theory.
What I assert is that the unified theory will be a mathematical structure that gives us back standard QM in the approximation of distances comparable to atomic sizes and masses comparable to atomic masses, and will give us back GR in the approximation of macroscopic length scales and masses comparable to planetary masses.
This is how the mathematical structure of physical models change: The mathematical structure of GR gives us back the mathematical structure of Newtonian gravity when we have the approximation of weak gravity and small velocities. the mathematical structure of QM gives us back Newtonian mechanics as an approximation when planck's constant is zero, large distance and momentum.
If this were not the case, then the predictions of the unified theory, would not agree with the predictions of GR or of QM in those physical situations where GR and QM currently give accurate predictions. What the unified theory will do is give us the almost negligible corrections in these situations, and allow us to make predictions where current theory breaks down.
That is why the founders of quantum mechanics were able to use concepts from classical mechanics (cf Bohr's use of the correspondence principle, Dirac and Schroedinger's use of Hamiltonian dynamics) in the construction of Quantum Dynamics.
That is not to say that quantum dynamics is just Newtonian mechanics in a new dress! It isn't. New concepts were invented by these pioneers, guided by both experimental results that didn't fit classical expectations and theoretical insight (inspiration) and opportunistic tinkering with equations until something emerged that gave sensible predictions; but the ultimate criterion of whether they are acceptable or not is whether the theory gives predictions which agree with empirical measurement. If it doesn't then it has to go, (but see below for exceptions) if it does then it might be ok; we continue testing its predictions about different phenomena until such time as it fails. So it is provisionally ok. That is all we are entitled to claim. However:-
Some theories have passed so many tests that we gain confidence that they accurately reflect how nature behaves. Logically it is always possible to doubt and say that no test will determine if" the map represents the territory accurately" for there always exists the logical possibility of a failure. But pragmatically confidence grows in the theory,with the number of tests passed. If nature is a logically self consistent , law abiding thing, then we would expect that our approach would eventually give us a faithfull image. (However it is logically possible to doubt even that nature has these self consistent properties. If you are that skeptical, your project to understand nature cannot even start! and it will be difficult to account for the success of science in such a universe).
Certain concepts have been tested so many ways that we are confident that "nature behaves that way". Conservation of energy is one such. At the present time this is so well established that experiments which suggest it is not conserved will be doubted before we conclude that the idea is wrong. The experiment will come under extreme scrutiny for all possible causes of error and in all cases of the claim so far, errors have been found. This is not because some priesthood of true believers are defending their turf (nobel prize to any physicist who can definitively show a process in which energy is not conserved) but because we can have confidence in this "scientific method" to approach nature. Our confidence can even get to the point where if energy is not conserved in some process involving observed particles then hypothetical unobserved particles may be invented to account for the missing energy (beta emission and Pauli's explanation in terms of missing energy carried off by hypothetical nutrinos, much later shown to be correct).
Physics has built up a whole structure of such tested concepts, so any account of new physics has to be self consistent with the already existing structure, unless there is some very good reason to question a part of it (extraordinary evidence needed for extraordinary claims to be taken seriously). It is more than just a tautology to say new physical ideas are invalid if they violate well established physical principles.
One such well founded concept is that the motion of every physical entity in the universe with mass will causally affect the motion of every other physical entity in the universe with mass. This principle applies as much to Einstein's model for gravity as it does to Newton's and to my knowledge is still accepted as mainstream science.nix wrote:But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.
Well, to give you an example of this, one thing I believe in is a type of Steady State universe such that expansion of space itself acts as the cause to derive what will become matter and energy. This view was and still is resisted precisely on what you mentioned regarding conservation. It is presumed that this could not be without violating conservation. Yet I don't see it this way. As expansion adds new information into reality, conservation holds with respect to including that addition all the time.nix wrote:I am all for questioning past and present presuppositions; but one does need a way of proceeding which accounts for past successes and identifies current failures ...
I only advocate "closing down" views which have already been shown to lead to predictions which disagree with empirical fact. Often many apparently new, off the cuff proposals for new ways of seeing things, were discussed fully long ago by the founders of the current view and experiments were designed and performed to test the view and conclusions come to. This is the point: there are some scientific principles (like energy conservation , the existence of atoms, etc) which act as foundations. It is not confirmation bias to doubt any claim that violates these principles. It just means any such claim is subject to great skepticism and will be tested with great rigour.
This doesn't stop people investigating possible failure of these foundations, but success there is expected to be very rare. (Eg quark confinement, no free quarks exist, is one such theoretical principle: this doesn't stop respected physicists looking in funded experiments in universities (so far with no success at all after 25 years). )
Scientific advance (in the physical sciences at least) is not just a con trick by university professors and academic elites done on the poor benighted rest of us...
It is in the university physical science research departments that the attempts to question the current orthodoxy is at its most intense. But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.
A good example of my point:Scott Mayers wrote:Well, to give you an example of this, one thing I believe in is a type of Steady State universe such that expansion of space itself acts as the cause to derive what will become matter and energy. This view was and still is resisted precisely on what you mentioned regarding conservation. It is presumed that this could not be without violating conservation. Yet I don't see it this way. As expansion adds new information into reality, conservation holds with respect to including that addition all the time..
That is to misunderstand the BB model. The BB model is understood using known physics back to about a time of a fraction of a second BUT between that time and time "zero" we get into physics at the planck scale where quantum-gravity principles are essential to understand what occurred. We do not have this unified theory yet so can only speculate about causes of the origin of the BB, and give plausible arguments in terms of physics we know.Scott Mayers wrote:[
To me, the traditional BB explanation only presumes a magical original fixed quantity of energy that just appears and then 'decides' to stick with that quantity for equally no justification. It's a God-favoring belief that's been used to frame how science will politically act to preserve them along-side a secular interpretation.
And that is OK for the standard model of particle physics because at the scales of mass, energy, length encountered in particle physics, at any energies we will ever be able to achieve in accelerators on earth and even in the highest observed cosmic radiation observations, the gravitational interaction is thirty orders of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic interactions and even smaller than that for the strong nuclear interactions. We only need to take gravity into account in particle physics at the planck scale.Obvious Leo wrote:One such well founded concept is that the motion of every physical entity in the universe with mass will causally affect the motion of every other physical entity in the universe with mass. This principle applies as much to Einstein's model for gravity as it does to Newton's and to my knowledge is still accepted as mainstream science.nix wrote:But the questioning occurs within a framework of well founded concepts.
Q. Why is this foundational principle of physics being ignored in the Standard Model?
A. Because it is ignored in SR, on which the Standard Model is predicated.
The point I'm making is that the Standard Model ignores gravity altogether. If you've got a suite of particles with mass whizzing around inside the atom at close to the speed of light then the motion of each of these particles will be gravitationally affected by the motion of all the others. This is an unassailable FACT. What you're doing is getting cause and effect back to front because electromagnetism is not a cause but an effect of this sub-atomic process and the same logic can be applied to the strong and weak nuclear "forces". These so-called "forces" are EMERGENT.nix wrote: We only need to take gravity into account in particle physics at the planck scale.
Fred Hoyles' own contingent claims may appear to be dislodged but the nature of he interpreted what follows Steady State too may have been simply the error. My own 'Steady State' type of theory fits with the present observations using different interpretations of them. But just to defend what I DO understand of SS, I know that it does NOT logically break any rule of conservation with respect to the evident expansion of the universe! The expansion of space itself breaks the rule of conservation with respect to BB, however. This is because they propose this 'expansion' of space while simultaneously denying its existence. This is merely clever language to dismiss what they don't see as being conserved by declaring it unreal!!?? By contrast, although new sources of energy enter indirectly through expansion, it doesn't require that this originates as functional energy at first.nix wrote:A good example of my point:Scott Mayers wrote:Well, to give you an example of this, one thing I believe in is a type of Steady State universe such that expansion of space itself acts as the cause to derive what will become matter and energy. This view was and still is resisted precisely on what you mentioned regarding conservation. It is presumed that this could not be without violating conservation. Yet I don't see it this way. As expansion adds new information into reality, conservation holds with respect to including that addition all the time..
Fred Hoyle was all for this steady state universe as i'm sure you know. He created a consistent theoretical model of it within the framework of GR. It was a plausible scientific theory which made a number of predictions. (Though energy conservation was always a problem). One of these predictions was about the numbers and types of galaxies which should be observed in any survey of the sky. The failure of the steady state model was not just the result of one consideration about energy conservation. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, and its explanation in terms of radiation from a hot BB (actually 300,000 yr after the BB when plasma and radiation decouple), and the quantitative agreement between what radiation from such a BB will look like and what is actually observed ended the steady state model as a serious contender. The galaxy survey also does not agree with a steady state model but is consistent with a hot BB model. So several lines of independent evidence contribute to the confidence in the BB model.
Obvious Leo wrote:The point I'm making is that the Standard Model ignores gravity altogether. If you've got a suite of particles with mass whizzing around inside the atom at close to the speed of light then the motion of each of these particles will be gravitationally affected by the motion of all the others. This is an unassailable FACT. What you're doing is getting cause and effect back to front because electromagnetism is not a cause but an effect of this sub-atomic process and the same logic can be applied to the strong and weak nuclear "forces". These so-called "forces" are EMERGENT.nix wrote: We only need to take gravity into account in particle physics at the planck scale.