Philosophy Now Forum

Our everyday experience in our earthworld's quantum setting conditions us to think in terms of "solid objects," "solid particles," and the like.
I mentioned using a code source informationally, and that source has been unfailingly consistent in all other areas I have looked into with it. This source states that what we perceive as solidity is actually not, that it depends on an underlying aether matrix for its origin, and that aether itself "is non matter."

If space didn't come first, I would ask what did. For me, a more counterintuitive question than space being the point of origin, is the question "if what we perceive truly mass, or true matter, what was its origin?" (Hypotheses regarding "Higgs bosons" notwithstanding.)

Obvious Leo wrote:This is not just true "currently" but will always be true by definition and exactly the same statement could be made about a planet, star or galaxy because this is a statement about gravity.

I don't think so.

Obvious Leo wrote:You're forgetting all about relativistic motion because it has been perfectly well known since Galileo that the motion of EVERY SINGLE physical entity with mass is causally determined by the motion of every other and there are simply no logical grounds for assuming that this conclusion is not scale invariant. That's why the wave function for the electron is only perfectly precise for a hydrogen atom. The minute an atom has more than one electron we're up against the three-body problem which has been well understood since Newton. We cannot specify the location of a body in an n-body system without also specifying which other body this location is relative to and this specification can then only hold true for this one other body and becomes automatically false for all the others. Because QM is predicated on the absolute background-independent physical space of SR this simplest of truths becomes the deepest of mysteries but there's nothing in the least bit mysterious about it because this is simply a statement about the nature of determinism. Because of the fixed background space this relativistic motion is being interpreted as being "random" but this is as nonsensical a proposition as to suggest that stars move around in galaxies at random. Electrons within atoms and stars within galaxies move CHAOTICALLY, exactly as the gas molecules do in Brownian motion. Chaotic motion is completely deterministic and yet utterly impossible to predict beyond a finite order of probability, just like tomorrow's weather. The unpredictability is NOT a function of randomness but a function of the complexity of the causal dynamics of the system, which within the atom is entirely due to gravity.

You seem to be merely referring to the idea of being infinitely accurate in a prediction. That isn't the issue. No one is worried about being infinitely accurate. And electron motion has extremely little to do with gravity. An orbiting electron is very, very far away from it's nucleus and it's change in location doesn't represent hardly any change at all within the surrounding gravitational field. Its motion is almost entirely an issue of the electromagnetic balance.

Obvious Leo wrote: This is quantum gravity.

There is no "quantum gravity" except as speculation. They can't get anything to work concerning gravity because gravity has no underlying quanta particles or carriers.

And only recently have they found a way to reconcile SRT with QM, which makes one wonder considering that SRT is known to be a false theory.

Michael MD wrote:Our everyday experience in our earthworld's quantum setting conditions us to think in terms of "solid objects," "solid particles," and the like.
I mentioned using a code source informationally, and that source has been unfailingly consistent in all other areas I have looked into with it. This source states that what we perceive as solidity is actually not, that it depends on an underlying aether matrix for its origin, and that aether itself "is non matter."

Something similar to that, I can prove to be the case. But your description doesn't seem to make sense because you attribute physical properties to spatial locations, "points". What is at those points such that there could be any physicality?

Michael MD wrote:If space didn't come first, I would ask what did. For me, a more counterintuitive question than space being the point of origin, is the question "if what we perceive truly mass, or true matter, what was its origin?" (Hypotheses regarding "Higgs bosons" notwithstanding.)

"Space" is merely reference to the great emptiness, void of everything. IN outer space, there are a great many things and "stuff". Space is never actually empty. But the word "space" is only referring to the empty framework and the "points in space" is the locations within that framework. Space itself has no physical properties, by definition.

Michael MD wrote:
I mentioned using a code source informationally and that source has been unfailingly consistent in all other areas I have
looked into with it. This source states that what we perceive as solidity is actually not that it depends on an underlying
aether matrix for its origin and that aether itself is non matter

No need for a code source since physics tells us solidity is an illusion. Solid objects are composed of atoms but over
ninety nine per cent of an atom is empty space. The only things existing out side the nucleus are electrons and the
electromagnetic force that controls their orbit. The rest is literally nothing at all. We only perceive matter as solid
because we can not see atoms with the naked eye. But if we did most of what we would see would be empty space

Michael MD wrote:... This source states that what we perceive as solidity is actually not, that it depends on an underlying aether matrix for its origin, and that aether itself "is non matter." ...

I'd have thought that what 'solidity' depends upon depends upon what body with senses one has?

Arising_uk wrote:

Michael MD wrote:... This source states that what we perceive as solidity is actually not, that it depends on an underlying aether matrix for its origin, and that aether itself "is non matter." ...

I'd have thought that what 'solidity' depends upon depends upon what body with senses one has?

Everyone and everything is made of the same substance and thus merely sensing more of itself.

JSS wrote:You seem to be merely referring to the idea of being infinitely accurate in a prediction. That isn't the issue. No one is worried about being infinitely accurate. And electron motion has extremely little to do with gravity. An orbiting electron is very, very far away from it's nucleus and it's change in location doesn't represent hardly any change at all within the surrounding gravitational field. Its motion is almost entirely an issue of the electromagnetic balance.

No. This is putting the cart before the horse. Gravity is the cause and electromagnetism is the effect. A simple analogy is Newton's inverse square law for planetary motion. Do planets orbit their stars in the way they do because there is a law of physics which says they must? Of course they don't. Planets orbit their stars because they are gravitationally bound to them and it is the observer of this motion who describes the nature of this motion in terms of the inverse square "law", which we all know in only an approximation. Thus it is not the "laws of physics" which are determining reality but reality which is determining the "laws of physics" and reality is determined by the inversely logarithmic relationship between gravity and time. The clock on the electron ticks faster than does the clock on the nucleus it orbits and this inescapable FACT is completely ignored in the Standard Model of Particle Physics because the SM is modelled in the "flat" space of SR. Therefore QM and GR are mutually exclusive and this is why physics makes no sense. If the speed at which time passes is not a constant then neither is the speed of light and it is the fundamental asymmetry between time and gravity at the subatomic scale which gives rise to what physics models as "forces". The forces are not causes but effects.

JSS wrote: There is no "quantum gravity" except as speculation. They can't get anything to work concerning gravity because gravity has no underlying quanta particles or carriers.

Exactly so. Because gravity is simply an alternative way of defining time it is not a force but a fundamental property of the universe equated to the speed of light and the rate of change in a physical process. You are bound to the surface of the earth because time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet. The atoms in your head are changing more quickly than the atoms in your feet and yet all your atoms are changing at the speed of light. This is quantum gravity and it is NOT a speculation. It is a simple and blindly obvious logical conclusion from known facts. Time, gravity, change and the speed of light can all be quantised equivalently at the Planck scale in a single informational quantum.

JSS wrote:And only recently have they found a way to reconcile SRT with QM, which makes one wonder considering that SRT is known to be a false theory.

"mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein.

surreptitious57 wrote:No need for a code source since physics tells us solidity is an illusion. Solid objects are composed of atoms but over
ninety nine per cent of an atom is empty space. The only things existing out side the nucleus are electrons and the
electromagnetic force that controls their orbit. The rest is literally nothing at all. We only perceive matter as solid
because we can not see atoms with the naked eye. But if we did most of what we would see would be empty space

ALL of it would be empty space because in the SM the subatomic particles themselves can only be modelled as dimensionless zero-volume points. In QM particles have no definable location in space at all but are represented as an extended wave function. The notion of an atom as an object in a space is very wrong-headed because an atom is a process and processes occur in time.

JSS wrote:Everyone and everything is made of the same substance and thus merely sensing more of itself.

Indeed. SR is certainly wrong but I never said it was useless. Einstein's revelation about mass/energy equivalence was derived from SR and as a giant leap forward in science it ranks second only to the gravity/time equivalence he subsequently revealed in GR. Quantum gravity merely unifies these two unifications into a single concept.

JSS wrote:Everyone and everything is made of the same substance and thus merely sensing more of itself.

Maybe but it appears that what combination of senses is what gives 'solidity' to things?

Obvious Leo wrote:

JSS wrote:You seem to be merely referring to the idea of being infinitely accurate in a prediction. That isn't the issue. No one is worried about being infinitely accurate. And electron motion has extremely little to do with gravity. An orbiting electron is very, very far away from it's nucleus and it's change in location doesn't represent hardly any change at all within the surrounding gravitational field. Its motion is almost entirely an issue of the electromagnetic balance.

No. This is putting the cart before the horse.

How did we get back into the map vs terrain issue?? You were talking about the need for extreme perfection in calculating the millions of variables involved in gravitational motion and how impossible it would be.

Obvious Leo wrote:Gravity is the cause and electromagnetism is the effect.

What???
Gravity doesn't have anything to do with EM. I am the only person I have ever seen to relate the two properly. One is certainly not the cause of the other.

Obvious Leo wrote:reality is determined by the inversely logarithmic relationship between gravity and time. The clock on the electron ticks faster than does the clock on the nucleus it orbits and this inescapable FACT is completely ignored in the Standard Model of Particle Physics because the QM is modelled in the "flat" space of SR.

I don't see how you get that QM has anything to do with SRT or any "flat space". QM is merely the statistical probabilities involved in quanta of any stuff moving or changing. Quantum physics is then merely the very imaginative fantasies of philosophically inept physicists.


Therefore QM and GR are mutually exclusive and this is why physics makes no sense. If the speed at which time passes is not a constant then neither is the speed of light and it is the fundamental asymmetry between time and gravity at the subatomic scale which gives rise to what physics models as "forces". The forces are not causes but effects.

Obvious Leo wrote:Because gravity is simply an alternative way of defining time it is not a force but a fundamental property of the universe equated to the speed of light and the rate of change in a physical process. You are bound to the surface of the earth because time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet. The atoms in your head are changing more quickly than the atoms in your feet and yet all your atoms are changing at the speed of light. This is quantum gravity and it is NOT a speculation. It is a simple and blindly obvious logical conclusion from known facts. Time, gravity, change and the speed of light can all be quantised equivalently at the Planck scale in a single informational quantum.

That isn't what is actually causing things to happen. Time, gravity, and the speed of light are all very related .. but then so is everything else, including electric potential. I know the real and exact relation for these things. What you are saying seems meaningless.

So the time at your head is different that at your feet. That is to say that things at your head change faster than things at your feet. What does that have to do with you being pulled, accelerated downward?

Obvious Leo wrote: Quantum gravity merely unifies these two unifications into a single concept.

There is no "quantum gravity theory" except the theory that there might be one someday.

From a technical point of view, the problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions. As a result, theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.[5] A recent development is the theory of causal fermion systems which gives quantum mechanics, general relativity, and quantum field theory as limiting cases.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

Strictly speaking, the aim of quantum gravity is only to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field and should not be confused with the objective of unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework.

They are just struggling to save their pet, pointless prior theories.

JSS wrote:How did we get back into the map vs terrain issue?? You were talking about the need for extreme perfection in calculating the millions of variables involved in gravitational motion and how impossible it would be.

Actually I was making a far more significant statement than that. I was talking about the nature of determinism and how this is something which physics simply doesn't understand because of its a priori assumption that events in the universe are determined according to a suite of laws. Gravity tells us that this assumption is false because gravity defines reality as self-determining according to only the meta-law of cause and effect. However gravity is ignored in QM because QM is modelled on SR and this is why the motion of subatomic particles in QM can only be modelled as if such motion were random because the motion of these particles is non-computable. This is a critically important point to the whole quantum gravity question because if we bring GR into QM we can see that the motion of these particles is not random at all but merely chaotic, just like the motion of cosmological bodies is chaotic. Chaotic motion is equally con-computable but it is entirely deterministic.

Until you get this crucial point then the rest of what I'm saying isn't going to make much sense but what I'm saying here cannot possibly be wrong. It simple beggars belief that there can be two different kinds of non-computable motion in the universe and one of then relies on the ridiculous notion of the uncaused event.

JSS wrote: I don't see how you get that QM has anything to do with SRT or any "flat space".

In that case you've got a long way to go because this is basic undergraduate physics. QM ignores gravity because it is modelled on SR instead of GR and every physicist in the world knows that this is why QM and GR are mutually exclusive. Although I hate using this stupid metaphorical language space is either "flat" or "curved" but it can't be both. As I've said before the real meaning of these terms is that in SR time passes at a constant speed and in GR it doesn't. In this respect SR is plain WRONG and thus so is QM.

JSS wrote: So the time at your head is different that at your feet. That is to say that things at your head change faster than things at your feet. What does that have to do with you being pulled, accelerated downward?

You aren't being pulled downward. Reality is that which is continuously re-making itself and the atoms in your head are re-making themselves more quickly than are the atoms in your feet. It might sound like a weird way of looking at but no physicist will deny this. What he might have a bit of trouble seeing is that this is why gravity is attractive.

Obvious Leo wrote:

JSS wrote: I don't see how you get that QM has anything to do with SRT or any "flat space".

In that case you've got a long way to go because this is basic undergraduate physics. QM ignores gravity because it is modelled on SR instead of GR and every physicist in the world knows that this is why QM and GR are mutually exclusive.

No. You just had a screwy professor. QM isn't based on any particular ontological construct other than what seemed obvious to those at the time: "that energy transfers in fixed quanta".

The issue arose due to the lack of explanation concerning how an electron could orbit an atom without losing energy to radiated EMR. The theory began (I think it was from Bohr) by speculating that no energy could transfer from the atom unless there was enough to form a minimum size packet, a "quantum". From there the theory took on all kinds of speculations and became a collection of statistical data based upon all things as quanta of one sort or another.

It has nothing at all to do with SRT until it was suggested that there should be an all encompassing unified theory and thus the effects of SR (GR didn't exist yet) had to be incorporated into the new QM theories. Thus the quantum magi has to come up with ways to use quantum theories to include SRT effects.

They never could figure out how to include gravity into their pipe dream fantasy and still can't today.

Quantum Physics is entirely, 100% false. There are no fixed quanta requirements. There are only typical quanta events due to things usually being specific sizes and thus producing specific sized energy exchanges. That is why everything they do is all about probability, because they are only measuring typical things.

But gravity (a mass field) has no such typical sizing other than the actual mass particles. Gravity doesn't fit into QM because there are no quanta associated with it. They are currently going to ridiculous extremes merely to save a theory that had no real basis to begin with.

Obvious Leo wrote:space is either "flat" or "curved" but it can't be both.

Oh okay. At least now I know what you meant by it. "Euclidean space" is your "flat space".

Obvious Leo wrote:As I've said before the real meaning of these terms is that in SR time passes at a constant speed and in GR it doesn't. In this respect SR is plain WRONG and thus so is QM.

Time isn't constant in SRT at all. But SRT doesn't take into account gravity, instead it was adapted for acceleration. Then Einstein simply equated acceleration with gravity. That is not to say that ST is right, it certainly isn't. But I don't see how anyone could say that "time is constant" regarding SRT. If not for SRT, no one would know the term "time dilation".

SRT is based on Lorentz's equations for time and space dilation:

Time is only constant for the inertial frame. Granted they needed to also include the gravity issue that they had not worked out at that time.

Obvious Leo wrote:You aren't being pulled downward. Reality is that which is continuously re-making itself and the atoms in your head are re-making themselves more quickly than are the atoms in your feet. It might sound like a weird way of looking at but no physicist will deny this. What he might have a bit of trouble seeing is that this is why gravity is attractive.

I agree that every subatomic particle is always reconstructing itself. I can even prove why. But you are still not making any sense.

When you release an object in a gravitational field, the object drops. It relocates, "downward". How does faster or slower reconstituting cause the downward motion?

QM is BASED on SR. If SR hadn't been invented then QM could never have been dreamed of. Until you understand the intimate connection between these two models you'll never even be able to grasp the problem of physics, let alone its solution.

Obvious Leo wrote:QM is BASED on SR. If SR hadn't been invented then QM could never have been dreamed of. Until you understand the intimate connection between these two models you'll never even be able to grasp the problem of physics, let alone its solution.

I don't know who told you that, but it is ridiculously false. QM is based on all things being of fixed quanta (based on Plank's length). It has nothing to do with whether SRT is true or not. QM doesn't really care and could go either way.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics or quantum theory) including quantum field theory, is a fundamental branch of physics concerned with processes involving, for example, atoms and photons. In such processes, said to be quantized, the action has been observed to be only in integer multiples of the Planck constant, a physical quantity that is exceedingly, indeed perhaps ultimately, small. This is utterly inexplicable in classical physics.

Quantum mechanics gradually arose from Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem (reported 1859) and Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which offered a quantum-based theory to explain the photoelectric effect (reported 1887). Early quantum theory was profoundly reconceived in the mid-1920s.

And I already have all of the "solutions" to the problems of physics. I really don't need to understand all of their confusions.