What IS is what is most important. The LHC has just been switched on again and it's a new enhanced machine (Yea!) so let's see what it finds. Perhaps all a particle is IS a motion/ripple/disturbance in a bit of spacetime. Just like a disturbance/wave in a liquid such as water. — universeness

Ill telya what they find. Lepton or quark substructure! Yeehaa! :grin: They should smash electrons!

Well, you are an unconvincing polytheist in my opinion, and it's that degree of freedom that allows your brain to do scientific thinking as well. You reject dogmatic restrictions such as you cannot know the mind of god. You have even stated that your gods don't satisfy the omni's — universeness

It's not my intention to convince. Rather to counter new atheist. Which is based on science. Gods are indeed no God of Xenophanes. Luckily.

YOUR gods find this hard to do and that hard to do. YOUR god descriptions suggest they are as flawed as we are and not much more powerful. YOUR gods are kinda wimps actually. I think future transhumans could kick their ass out of the Universe. Just as well they don't exist! — universeness

In fact(!) heaven is the almost the same as the universe. All life in the universe has a counterpart up there. The transhumans have no counterpart in heaven. They can kick what they want... In vain! :starstruck:

hink human imagination is a very powerful and useful force but I never consider its simulations as having much in common with reality. — universeness

How can that be the case. The simulations in a sense create the world. Not it's material, but our perception.

I assume you consider your own thoughts to be based on logic. — universeness

That's the wrong assumption. Why should it be based on logic? Why should it be based on logic in a world that's not logic, except in isolated pockets?

You have labeled your brain a simulator. I take it that you consider its simulations logical — universeness

Again, wrong take.

If you don't then you must be suggesting that the simulator function of your brain is only for your night or day dreaming and has nothing to do with the REAL physical world around you. It's commonly called your imagination. — universeness

Again, wrong conclusion. I don't suggest that at all and might even consider my dreams as the most logical simulation. If I dream about gods it can be a logical dream, a logical means. Imagination is, well, imagination.

I am sure you agree it's important to adequately distinguish between imagination/simulation and reality. If you are suggesting that YOUR brain simulations directly relate to YOUR conception of the real world then that is a whole different ball game — universeness

I agree. You gotta know what's real or not. I had a psychosis once. I wanted to drink water from exhaust pipes of cars...

My brain simulations directly relate to my conception of the real world indeed. What's a different ball game then?

Quantum field theory marries the ideas of other quantum theories to depict all particles as “excitations” that arise in underlying fields. — universeness

Yes. A particle is considered an excitation of a field. And a field is an operator valued distribution, the operators being creation and annihilation operators in Fock space (for a pleasant stay...). But what is described in Fock space? It's a direct product of one particle free wavefunctions in a Hilbert space. The wavefunctions describe a particle. That's what real. The particles, virtual or real, are the reality. Not the formal system of math.

From the macro to the sub-atomic. Galaxies,stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons. — universeness

Ah! I misunderstood. I though you meant quanta as in quantum fields.

All good scientists do that all the (space)time. It's mostly theists who restrict their own thinking. — universeness

How do you know that? Im a theist and have given it a fair amount of thought.

Immaterial space in the
pre-universe had a capacity for becoming actual space since immaterial space would have been potential since it is now actual. Potential immaterial space became actual space liberating the energy of the big bang and that is what originated the universe. Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers. — val p miranda

You're close...

Your typings here seem to indicate a lack of conviction on your part. — universeness

Well, you said I talk about a logical simulation. But the simulation is about the world. Not about logic. What you mean by a logical simulation?

Is your brain offering you illogical simulations then?
Shall we now drop the unhelpful use of the word simulation? and I can then ask:
Is your brain generating illogical thoughts/dreams when it comes to gods? — universeness

My brain offers me simulations about all there is in the world. That can be logic or gods, fantasies for you, with no counterpart in the world.

I think the fundamental is movement. Spacetime is motion. Not moving is relative. — universeness

Two threads in one! One in your domain, one in mine. Spacetime is spacetime. Motion is motion.

A particle is a disturbance/movement of a field/bit of spacetime.
Time is duration of motion and is relative — universeness

No. A particle is not a movement of a field or bit of spacetime.

No universal quanta is motionless — universeness

What's a universal quanta?

That's how I currently conceive spacetime anyway. — universeness

Rethink spacetime.

I also remain most convinced by the theory that the fundamental is some form of interdimensional vibrating string. — universeness

While it solves some problems, it still uses renormalization. Indicating the string view is wrong and has to be replaced by a more fundamental unit.

The logic that YOU claim YOUR brain simulator, simulates! — universeness

But its no LOGICAL simulation, as you claim I said.

The logic that YOU claim YOUR brain simulator, simulates! — universeness

Ain't that so then? Is my claim false?

So YOU are real but YOUR world is a simulation? — universeness

Yes. I am real. What you mean by "YOUR" world?

So YOUR gods are real and simulated? — universeness

Yes. They are simulated in my brain. For YOU, they are fantasies, simulations of nothing.

If human brains can only produce simulations then human experience is a logical simulation, according to your logic. — universeness

Now you project a logic onto me I didn't use. Why should life be a logical simulation? What's my logic used to conclude that?

So is your life a simulation? — universeness

No. That's the wrong conclusion. My life is not a simulation. The brain simulates the world.

The simulation of the gods refer to real gods.

And look what we can learn! Sports (I like speed crawl!), playing music, fighting, making love in zillion ways, reading, talking, philosophizing, painting, sculpture, making computers, etc. etc.

Look what we made. A device with a face programmed to act as if...

You have not demonstrated such detailed knowledge so far. You just called the human brain a 'life simulator.' Is your brain a simulator? is it an emulator? Or is it real? — universeness

The brain is a simulator. Every moment of your waking life, from the moment in the embryo (whose particles directly stem from the big bang, contrary to the particles of a computer) to now, the world is projected in it. By your body moving. At the same time that massively parallel projection is given shape by massively parallel free streams of patterned spike potentials (ion currents flowing from the outside of the axon inwardly and propagating (unlike the potentials in computers letting electrons flow through wires, i.e., pulling or pushing). The brain streams never stop. In your sleep they cause dreams. There are constant feedbacks between the outside, inside, and the body, the actual you. Memory, i.e., learning, is engraved by strengthening connections (widening gaps).

Your negativity regarding science and the future of our species. Don't stagnate within your polytheist fantasies. Either you pass responsibility for your own life to gods or you claim it as your own and stop scapegoating them. What happens in your life is under natural controls not supernatural controls.
Be all you can be! Stop walking back towards the caves. — universeness

Negativity towards science? I lovit! I even consider it art. Back to the caves? Why should we?

So have every member of this Forum I reckon. — universeness

Don't think so. I have rather detailed knowledge of the workings of the brain. It's a huge analogue, life simulator of the world, capable of grabbing every part of it and actively constructing reality.

Enjoy your fantasies! Thanks for the exchange!
— Haglund
Try to combat your negativity. — universeness

What negativity? I told you to enjoy your fantasies! Ain't that positive?

The problem: why should preons and antipreons arrange in protons, neutrons, electrons, and neutrinos only? Here chirality must kick in.

Is it actually a point or also a region of excitation? — apokrisis

It's the lowest energy state of three -1/3 charged preons. If true...

And either way, that gets us into the issue of how you can pack three degrees of freedom into such a small space and not arrive at a triad of 200 GeV particles due to momentum uncertainty. — apokrisis

That's the mass paradox. This is only the case for massive particles. This was given as a counter. But massless particles don't have momentum. Only pure kinetic energy. Explaining the relation between energy and mass.

In a proton, a neutron, electron, and neutrino, there are equal amounts of preons and anti preons. 12 of each. No asymmetry. Only the combination. If there is a mirror universe "on the other side" it can be righthanded. Symmetry again!

In the superstrong field that binds them, the energy is lowered.

There couldn't have existed a world in which the airplane above the city flew on a different line, while everything else is the same. Such a world can't come to be after a next big bang. Out of the question, I might humbly add.

What about them? Can't monads exist in many worlds? Nomads travel between them. Monads stay in one.
— Haglund

Nomads? — Jackson

Nomads travel from world to world, like the Roma on that beautiful painting of van Gogh. What color, light and atmosphere! Monads, on the other hand, are stuck in a category, in one world. If there are many parallel worlds, like in the MWI, what determines you find yourself in this particular one? Which is only particular in the context of the others. How can we ever know there are other worlds?

Well, the exact calculations I don't have. You need to calculate the bound state of three massless preons interacting by a color gauge. For 3 bound quarks thats only done approximately. On discrete space. But you can basically use the Lagrangian of QCD, with modifications. The muon just has a larger spatial extent, because it's an excitation. The electron is on that scale still point like.

Not sure still what you mean by an anti-positron. If an electron meets an anti positron, doesn't it meet an electron? How is helicity involved here?

If you call the mainstream trend of thought a fantasy, then they are right to treat you like a crackpot — apokrisis

Yes. But then who's the crackpot? They do use an unobserved mechanism. A fantasy. There does exist such a spontaneous symmetry breaking in condensed matter, and from there Higgs took the idea. But for that he had to introduce some weird unexplained vacuum energy. The preon model also predicts mass of particles from massles constitutes and also a Higgs particle, which is just a state of 6 preons, as are the W and the Z. They couldn't offer true counters, except irrational response.

If you made a well motivated case for why it is a blind alley, that would be a different matter. — apokrisis

I mentioned the advantages. Symmetry between particles and anti particles is one of them.

Sure. They are all roped together like nervous mountaineers on an unclimbed summit. You think the prize belongs to the solo athlete with grit and flair. — apokrisis

I don't want no prize but it should belong to the true theory. There is clinging to the standard (quarks and leptons being elementary).

The muon g2 result is explained by considering the muon a triplet of three massless Weyl particles. Each with charge -1/3.

Coming to think about it... How big is that prize? :grin:

All elementary particles are composite in some sense even in the Standard Model view. Quarks mix like neutrinos. Photons are effective mixes of Bs and W3s. The electron mixes with the anti-positron. We are back to Chew’s S-matrix bootstrap as far as I can see. — apokrisis

Yes, different neutrinos mix like different quarks can do. But the effect in quarks is much smaller due to their masses. Neutrinos from different generations mix. Quarks from different generations don't. Don't know what you mean by electrons mixing with anti-positrons. Anti positrons are just electrons. In the preon model there are no W3 pre symmetry breaking gauge fields. So the photon is just the photon. The non broken gauge state has never been observed. It's a fantasy to fit the facts, like the value of the VEV, of which the origin is unknown, which is because it's just posited on purpose. The same, but real mechanism is to be seen in condensed matter. Chew's bootstrap applies partially.

So I don’t think preons are the answer. Or at least understood as a new deeper level of concrete particles - rather than gauge degrees of freedom - would be just to recreate the old atomistic paradox of why there would be any fundamental grain of matter at all. — apokrisis

I think the model has only advantages, like I outlined. It explains quark and lepton generations, mass, matter antimatter asymmetry (namely that there is none), etc. And it explains muon g2.

But the standard rules. I guess it has to wait until:smile: higher energies will reveal it. There is still a lot of space between 10exp-22 and 10exp-35. Although tiny. But in comparison with a particle size, 10exp-35, it's a vast distance. Enough for three to form triplets. :wink:

But there does seem to be now broad acceptance in particle physics that all fundamental particles are composite in the fashion of a soliton or other examples of topological order in condensed matter physics. — apokrisis

No solitons or gauge degrees of freedom involved in the preon model. There is no broad acceptance, that's the point. Everyone fears to say they don't believe in the standard. Their careers... :sad:

The original preons were considered massive. I asked Harari by email and he was kind enough to answer. Massless preons could do the trick. He wrote me not to follow the "preon path". Dunno. Seems so clear. Like quarks before their discovery. I had a long conversation on physics stack exchange with a defender of the standard but in the end he couldn't offer substantial counters. The best he was left with was asking for the field Lagrangians. Well, yes... eeeh... Anyhow, good to know there is at least one person! :grin:

Do they agree with me on preons?

Bear in mind that the Cosmos exists to serve the second law and thus its aim is to maximise entropy — apokrisis

You got it the wrong way round. The cosmos has no aim. A gas doesn't expand in a vacuum because it has an aim, an effect to be caused. You conflate aim with effect. The cosmos doesn't exist to serve the second law. The second law exists to serve the cosmos. To serve us! Living creatures, as part of the cosmos, have aim.

So even without the inherent quantum uncertainty, the Cosmos is committed to the production of uncertainty at every turn.
13mOptions — apokrisis

Again, the cosmos is not committed to anything, let alone production of uncertainty. Unpredictable processes are just part of it. But not because of commitment.

My view of this issue these days is very superficial: the difference between an ant crawling across the surface of a large sphere and recognizing another dimension above, and an ant somehow embedded and crawling in the same surface and finding it 2-dimensional — jgill

In my humble view, the space of an ant walking on a 3d sphere is flat. Ants walking in the shallow domain of a 2s shell will, if they start moving parallel, cross each other's paths.

Just measure angles of triangles. Or the circumference of a circle and it's radius. If you're on a 2d spherical shell, the ratio is less than 2pi because the radius is larger. The difference between the two is a measure of curvature. If the sum of angles is less than pi than curvature is negative, and masses fly apart, repulsive gravity, dark energy. :cool:

A 2d torus has negative Gaussian curvature on the inside, positive on the outside, and zero in between. Because its embedding in 3d. But in 4d it has zero curvature, like a 2d cylinder.

Yes. The Big Bang theory caused cosmologists, such as Einstein, to reconsider their presumption that the physical world was eternal, hence unconditional. So some, including Krauss, began to look beyond the BB -- pre-phenomenal domain -- for a First & Final Cause of our contingent universe. But most of those pre-BB causes -- Many Worlds ; Multiverses ; Inflation -- are still assumed to obey the same physical laws as our Real world. So, the question of the (noumenal??) Lawmaker is still open — Gnomon

There is the possibility that there inflate two spatially 3d universes into existence around the mouth of a spatially 4d wormhole. If matter is confined to 3d and gravity spreads in full 4d, the two universes, once accelerated to infinity, can cause two new universes (one with lefhanded matter, the other with righthanded antimatter) to inflate from the virtuality into existence again. After which the cycle repeats. Dark energy solved!

Yet no one would ever have suggested that it must be correct regardless of any process of empirical verification. Such a process of verification lies at the heart of the scientific method. Theories are not self-verifying but always remain hypothetical constructs, subject to the next round of possible verification or falsification from the data. — Neil Ormerod

The standard Model is low energy approximation. I think it's pretty obvious that the basis particles are not basic at all. I asked the question about preons on several physics forums and even a philosophy part of a forum. I asked the question why the model is not more popular. But the questions were deleted and one banned me. It was against the standard. Quarks and leptons ARE fundamental. The preon theory has a different mass mechanism, but still predicts the Higgs particle. But not a Higgs VEV and associated Mexican hat. The weak interaction is not fundamental in the preon model. There's simply to much at stake for the defenders of the status quo. And its runners along. ‍♂️ There were no rational arguments against the model given, except the fact that no preons are observed. Which is a ridiculous argument since the collision energies are simply not high enough yet. But dont tellem that... There was another argument to be honest. The mass paradox, which can easily be solved by assuming the preons to be massless, giving massive triplets! So, only advantages. No matter antimatter asymmetry, explanation of particle families and explanation of mass, and only two basic fields! And an explanation of the muon g2 experiment. No preons used to explain that one.

What surprises me every time is why a point is called an event.

Is causality more fundamental than time? If time is reversed effect becomes cause and cause effect. Instead of acting from the inside we seem to be acted upon from outside. We would feel like a clockwork unwinding.

The video doesn't answer the question.

Ah! In this one the gradient of time ain't discussed. There is another one with the same guy.

Ha! I have been watching this funny video recently. About the gradient of time and the squirl falling. On top of the squirk time moves faster than below. This makes the squirl fall. But what if the squirl is contracted to a point? Well, a point also falls as the gravity field is the same as in a rocket accelerating in empty space so everything seems accelerating towards you. What are the problems with time? I cannot see any.

Did you invent those contours eating each other? The zn and ksi n? And the eta connecting them?

:up:

Tried an analytical solution once of a particle falling in a non-uniform gravitational field, with varying g. It got larger and larger... The 32x32 supermagic Franklin square was fun to do! Started from scratch, but it gave me good understanding. :nerd:

Subjectivity is truth." Discuss. — Hanover

In sincere humbleness I can do no other than agree. If we truly love the human being and want to fully explore our humanity we have to admit that all objective truths, and I mean all of them, are basically subjective stories. Which doesn't mean denying the absolute truth as independent of us, an idea initiated in ancient Greece (Xenophanes) which propagated in history to find a climax in the world of science, trying to land on this independent true reality but without actually touching it. An idea embraced by oldies like Plato (the mathematical realm, approximated by mathematical expressions) or youngsters like Sir Karl PimplePopper, claiming indeed we never will actually touch upon reality as we should always nervously try to falsify.

No. We don't have to deny that idea. But what we do have to deny, is that, self-contradictory (paradoxically) as it might sound, the uniqueness of that absolute objective reality. It depends on who, or which cultural ensemble, or even which creature existing besides of us (which are created by the gods just as us) it's asked. They all have their objective stories. None of these stories should be given an advantage over the others. If we want to be truly human we have to admit that and let them all be part of humanity. For the benefit of all.

It's the subjective truth!

So, while I think gods exists independently of us, for all people and creatures, the atheist's objective reality is one of matter only. Or whatever other image. A tesseract reality maybe. Or a mathematical. Or a dreamtime reality. Take your pick. Why is so hard to concede? Because of that old Greek initiative still echoing today? And pretty strongly, I might add...

From the think big article:

"Quantum steampunk is a blend of quantum information and thermodynamics. It promises to revolutionize our understanding of machines and the future of technology. As a bonus, it may provide new insights into some of the hardest questions in physics, such as the arrow of time, or why we can’t remember the future. Below is a summary of our conversation."

Revolutionizing our understanding of machines and the future of technology? Is this Nietzsche's understanding of the übermensch? Scary!
And then"hardest questions in physics, such as the arrow of time, or why we can’t remember the future." Mind you, but what kind of problem is that? Why we can't remember the future? Because time flows forward. Could have been backwards though. Then our memories would disappear from our minds. So why it doesn't flow backwards then? The present universe could have begun at infinity... But it didn't. Why not?

A physicist writing about Quantum Theory, clarified her use of the word "information" : — Gnomon

In deep humbleness I dare to give a definition: information is matter being in formation. A gas has no particles in formation. The information content, the entropy, is maximal. If the particles form a rigid solid, they are in tight formation. The information content, the entropy, is minimal. The interesting in formation is in between.

So:
Gas----> 0 in formation ----> max entropy-information
Solid--> max in formation ----> 0 entropy-information

Intermedium state ---->
Interesting, medium in formation---->
Medium entropy-information

It's the intermediate state for which entropy-information equals interesting, medium in formation

L

Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool? — Harry Hindu

Here you apply a dogma. It's a dogma, an unproven conjecture, that evolution progresses by accidental mutations of the genes. There is zero evidence that this is generally the case and as such on the same level as the gods conjecture.