Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

uwot wrote:It's a nice enough story, Cerveny, what evidence do you think supports it, and only it?

Cerveny wrote:It's the most logical explanation (only super-Darwinism remains)

Well, to paraphrase Tom Clancy (it's in another thread), reality doesn't have to be logical. What evidence is there that commends your model rather than any other; say, Greylorn Ell's since this is his thread?

This model eliminates most of the problems of existing interpretations of reality:

- Singularity replaces by a phase transition
- Explains the relationship of vacuum and elementary particles
- Eliminates determinism
- Explains the lack of antimatter
- Explains the nature of time
- Clarifies the relationship of quantum interactions and macro world
- Clarifies the speed limit of "c"
- Explains the duality of elementary particles
- Assumes a new type of field - "gravitational magnetism"
...
Exact calculation but requires, a new mathematical apparatus "perturbation calculus of 4D discrete structures" (algebra of disorders) that will be able to predict zoo of elementary particles. But who give it? The right time for calculation has not come yet (:
Most of reasoning can be found in my posts (e.g.: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654) but I am to answer specific questions :)

Cerveny wrote:This model eliminates most of the problems of existing interpretations of reality:

- Singularity replaces by a phase transition

Well, let's start at the beginning. Do you mean the hypothetical singularity at t=0? What is the origin of the universe in your model?

Yes, I have meant the beginning of (our) time, but every physical singularity is nonsense. As I have already written beginning of the time is a (cold) emergence of the first grain of physical space. See "crystallization". Defects in regular structure of (physical) space are elementary particles. See "intergrowth", "crystal defects" e.g. vacancy, screw dislocation. Significant problem is, that such crystal, physical space, aether has 4 dimensions... there is no elaborated theory...

Cerveny wrote:Defects in regular structure of (physical) space are elementary particles.

I get the defects bit; I don't understand what you mean by '(physical) space'.

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Defects in regular structure of (physical) space are elementary particles.

I get the defects bit; I don't understand what you mean by '(physical) space'.

It's the real empty space, a substrate, a base of the matter, a base of knowable existence ... sometimes they say "aether"

Cerveny wrote:It's the real empty space, a substrate, a base of the matter, a base of knowable existence ... sometimes they say "aether"

You seem to be hedging your bets; is it real empty space, or an aether? If it's empty space, then I guess what you are saying is something like Lawrence Krauss; that 'nothing' can be split into its constituent positive and negative parts. I notice that you say your theory "Explains the lack of antimatter." Does it also explain the existence of it?
If instead it's an aether, is there any explanation for where that comes from?

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:It's the real empty space, a substrate, a base of the matter, a base of knowable existence ... sometimes they say "aether"

You seem to be hedging your bets; is it real empty space, or an aether? If it's empty space, then I guess what you are saying is something like Lawrence Krauss; that 'nothing' can be split into its constituent positive and negative parts. I notice that you say your theory "Explains the lack of antimatter." Does it also explain the existence of it?
If instead it's an aether, is there any explanation for where that comes from?

Empty (physical = real) space = aether. Empty (in the mathematical sense) can be only a set. Physical, real, "nothing" as well as physical "singularity" is, please, nonsense. If the physical space is (elastically, locally) deformed, if there is some tension, then it is manifested as a physical field. If such space is somehow (discretely) disturbed, defected, then it is manifested as elementary particle, as a matter. Strong field, stress can cause structural damage, thus (in physical space) generation of elementary particles. Conversely, in the vicinity of each defect arises certain tension. The closer the defect is, the greater the tension ...
A pure disorder can not arise alone in perfect structure (e.g. in empty physical space), there is a complementary disorder too. Simplest, but probably not the best, example is Shottky defects (vacation and interstitial element): (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResourc ... efects.jpg). It is difficult to imagine that the different types of defects cause the same types of stresses. So, for example antiparticles and particles gravitationally repel. Alternatively, antiparticles attract each other and they are inert to common particle. Implications are obvious: Antimatter may be crowding somewhere else and or may be directly repelled by matter. Seems logical to me ...
Aether, the physical space, arises similarly as ice in water (by condensation) from a different (odd ordered, odd caused) phase, let us say from the "future" ...

Cerveny wrote:Empty (physical = real) space = aether. Empty (in the mathematical sense) can be only a set. Physical, real, "nothing" as well as physical "singularity" is, please, nonsense.

There clearly isn't "nothing", we wouldn't be here if there were. Is your dismissal of nothing contingent or absolute? Does your theory start from the point that there is something, so this is how it works, or does it explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Cerveny wrote:If the physical space is (elastically, locally) deformed, if there is some tension, then it is manifested as a physical field. If such space is somehow (discretely) disturbed, defected, then it is manifested as elementary particle, as a matter. Strong field, stress can cause structural damage, thus (in physical space) generation of elementary particles. Conversely, in the vicinity of each defect arises certain tension. The closer the defect is, the greater the tension ...

If I understand you correctly, that's pretty much what Einstein said about gravity, it is also the idea behind various forms of quantum field theory. In General Relativity, spacetime is compared to a rubber sheet; 'gravity' is caused by a weight on that sheet, which stretches it; as in your model, the closer to the weight, the greater the stretching. In quantum field theory, a particle is more like a pinch, a twist or even just a ripple in that sheet.

Cerveny wrote:A pure disorder can not arise alone in perfect structure (e.g. in empty physical space), there is a complementary disorder too. Simplest, but probably not the best, example is Shottky defects (vacation and interstitial element): (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResourc ... efects.jpg).

I don't get the analogy. From the image it looks as if you think space/aether is 'atomised' or perhaps digitised to use Greylorn Ell's language. Is empty space 'grainy' in your model?

Cerveny wrote:It is difficult to imagine that the different types of defects cause the same types of stresses. So, for example antiparticles and particles gravitationally repel. Alternatively, antiparticles attract each other and they are inert to common particle.

Why don't common particles attach and inert (convert?) into antiparticles?

Cerveny wrote:Implications are obvious: Antimatter may be crowding somewhere else and or may be directly repelled by matter. Seems logical to me ...

To me it seems ad hoc. You won't persuade many people with 'may be'. You also need to do a bit of research on antimatter; among its known qualities is that it is just like ordinary matter, except with the opposite charge. Particles and their antiparticle actually attract, a fact which is routinely exploited in Positron Emission Tomography.

Cerveny wrote:Aether, the physical space, arises similarly as ice in water (by condensation) from a different (odd ordered, odd caused) phase, let us say from the "future" ...

If 'aether' is ice, what is the water?

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Empty (physical = real) space = aether. Empty (in the mathematical sense) can be only a set. Physical, real, "nothing" as well as physical "singularity" is, please, nonsense.

There clearly isn't "nothing", we wouldn't be here if there were. Is your dismissal of nothing contingent or absolute? Does your theory start from the point that there is something, so this is how it works, or does it explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Naturally, nothing is nothing. It is math, abstract category. Real empty physical space (physical nothing) is perfect growing "crystal" - regular structure of some (4-D) "stem" particles. This structure may be corrupted (mass) or a elastically deformed (field)

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:If the physical space is (elastically, locally) deformed, if there is some tension, then it is manifested as a physical field. If such space is somehow (discretely) disturbed, defected, then it is manifested as elementary particle, as a matter. Strong field, stress can cause structural damage, thus (in physical space) generation of elementary particles. Conversely, in the vicinity of each defect arises certain tension. The closer the defect is, the greater the tension ...

If I understand you correctly, that's pretty much what Einstein said about gravity, it is also the idea behind various forms of quantum field theory. In General Relativity, spacetime is compared to a rubber sheet; 'gravity' is caused by a weight on that sheet, which stretches it; as in your model, the closer to the weight, the greater the stretching. In quantum field theory, a particle is more like a pinch, a twist or even just a ripple in that sheet.

It's similar, but "space" can be deformed even by others (eg. Electrostatic) resources too (not only by a matter)

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:A pure disorder can not arise alone in perfect structure (e.g. in empty physical space), there is a complementary disorder too. Simplest, but probably not the best, example is Shottky defects (vacation and interstitial element): (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResourc ... efects.jpg).

I don't get the analogy. From the image it looks as if you think space/aether is 'atomised' or perhaps digitised to use Greylorn Ell's language. Is empty space 'grainy' in your model?

Naturally, like crystal ... Space must be granular, infinitely subtle physical (real) substance is, please, nonsense ...

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:It is difficult to imagine that the different types of defects cause the same types of stresses. So, for example antiparticles and particles gravitationally repel. Alternatively, antiparticles attract each other and they are inert to common particle.

Why don't common particles attach and inert (convert?) into antiparticles?

Dynamics? Energy?

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Implications are obvious: Antimatter may be crowding somewhere else and or may be directly repelled by matter. Seems logical to me ...

To me it seems ad hoc. You won't persuade many people with 'may be'. You also need to do a bit of research on antimatter; among its known qualities is that it is just like ordinary matter, except with the opposite charge. Particles and their antiparticle actually attract, a fact which is routinely exploited in Positron Emission Tomography.

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-Antimatter ... nsion.html

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Aether, the physical space, arises similarly as ice in water (by condensation) from a different (odd ordered, odd caused) phase, let us say from the "future" ...

If 'aether' is ice, what is the water?

"Water" is timeless... differently ordered/arranged, odd phase of reality, fits the name "Future"...

Every thread greyhorn is on whether he started it or not is his thread, the universe revolves around him.

In all seriousness, if he posts on a thread you can be sure sooner or later it's all going to become about him. It's dull and I would prefer it was not the case, but he does like to interject his pet hypotheses into every nook and cranny no matter how unrelated it is to a thread. I suggest hence you should not be troubled about derailing his threads, as he is the master of it, and quid pro quo.

Cerveny wrote:Naturally, nothing is nothing. It is math, abstract category. Real empty physical space (physical nothing) is perfect growing "crystal" - regular structure of some (4-D) "stem" particles. This structure may be corrupted (mass) or a elastically deformed (field)

uwot wrote:If I understand you correctly, that's pretty much what Einstein said about gravity, it is also the idea behind various forms of quantum field theory. In General Relativity, spacetime is compared to a rubber sheet; 'gravity' is caused by a weight on that sheet, which stretches it; as in your model, the closer to the weight, the greater the stretching. In quantum field theory, a particle is more like a pinch, a twist or even just a ripple in that sheet.

Cerveny wrote:It's similar, but "space" can be deformed even by others (eg. Electrostatic) resources too (not only by a matter)

According to some versions of quantum field theory, matter is deformations; like I said, a pinch, a twist or perhaps a standing wave. Some are stable in isolation, like electrons, while others are only stable in groups, like quarks. Virtual, or force particles are waves in the same field. I think the advantage of looking at it that way is that it is easier to imagine how energy converts into matter and vice versa. I don't know how literally you mean 'crystallization', but it sounds a lot more permanent.

Cerveny wrote:Naturally, like crystal ... Space must be granular, infinitely subtle physical (real) substance is, please, nonsense ...

Infinitely subtle is precisely what a field is. If you granulated the universe, regardless of how finely, you are left with the problem of action at a distance or you are committed to all interactions being based on impact.