Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Zephir

Bible explanations have no logics, neither predictability, testable one the less.

The same is possible to say about one Physics theory ' without formulas .

=============

.
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
G
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
G
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
Unity? That's news. But physics keeps striving to reduce the number
of equations necessary to describe everything -- so called unification.

It began when Newton unified gravity on earth with gravity in space.
1 equation.

Unification continued when Maxwell reduced all the experiments
on electricity and magnetism to just 4 equations.

It continued with Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations. You might say
it unifies space and time. General relativity unifies gravitational
mass with inertial mass.

Then equations of motion for atoms were described by quantum
mechanics -- such as Schroedinger Equation & later Dirac Equation.
These form the common unification of chemistry.

Then quantum electrodynamics was discovered, which unified
electromagnetism with the quantum theory. Some of theory's
predictions (such as the fine structure constant) have been
experimentally verified to something like 10 or 12 decimal places,
a huge measure of success for any physical theory.

Meanwhile the strong & weak nuclear forces were partly
de-mystified: The weak force was found to be unified with
electromagnetism (electro-weak force), while the strong nuclear
force involves quarks of various kinds, with specific rules of
interaction best described by group theory.

And so it goes. The 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation,
sometimes called "God's Equation" -- the ultimate unification.

" Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
/ --Albert Einstein /
/ by xprofessor /



Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 08/12/09 11:07 PM. Reason: Spamming
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: socratus
The same is possible to say about one Physics theory ' without formulas

Logics of theory isn't dependent of formulas - on the contrary. To derive formulas, you should have working logic of theory first. Without it you haven't theory, but a regression of reality. This is a problem of string theory for example. It has a lotta formulas, but it contains logical flaws behind it - so it leads to vague landscapes of 10E+500 possible solutions and it has no predictability and therefore falsifiability.

Anyway, every violation of logics ruins the theory, no matter how many brilliant equation it contains. Remember the nice Ptolemy epicycles theory, which enabled to compute solar eclipses or planetary conjunctions - but it failed in trivial logics of Venus phases.

Logics is superior to math, because math itself is built upon logics. This is why I'm thinking about logics of theory first, just after then about its math. If math is based on predicate logics, why not physics?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Give
..the 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation...
Such grail is nonsense, until you cannot reduce the interactions of five or six particles into single equation, it has no meaning to pay physicists for unification of all interactions in universe.

In AWT such system can be modeled in computer only via particle collision simulations with precision, which is limited by computational power only.

S
shweta02
Unregistered
shweta02
Unregistered
S
Comments.
1.
The LAWS must unify, or we are describing things that don't actually exist.
/ Allen Francom /.
2.
Aether is unity. The design of the universe is one.



Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 08/24/09 08:41 AM.
K
khareneha20
Unregistered
khareneha20
Unregistered
K
All our experiments are limited to interactions with electrons
as the measuring probes. This is the limit of our experiments.
Thus we cannot readily see beyond our measuring instruments


Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 08/24/09 08:42 AM.
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
P
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.

Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. Nor should 'physical law' be confused with 'law of physics' - the term 'physical law' usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well.


Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 08/24/09 08:42 AM.
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
Yes, because manifestations of nature are effects of saomething else including the basics in physical theory. We detect, measure , and quantfy, all we observe and find they are not only effects but aggregates. Aggregates of what is not yet known but it will be determined all gross energy is an aggregate of the aether. Though this has been advanced before it has pretty much been dismissed. Now that dark energy has surfaced in a serious way it will be found to be the source of all aggregate energy. This has huge implications and its up to you to determine what those implications might be.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
There is no unity anywhere in physical theory. The reason for this is that our description of nature rendered into infinite parts does not have an underlying foundation as an absolute frame of reference. Please don't think the standard model of the atom or quantum mechanics has any answers for final unity. As such they are just aspects of energy with no foundation of support. We don't know what energy is and until we know its absolute source all theory will either be incomplete or wrong. For instance, Einstein's general theory is incomplete because it doesn't contain a cause, and the big bang is wrong because it is based on an incomplete gravitational theory. When completed it will show there could never be a big bang, at least in the manner it is now contemplated. Beyond that it gets extremely interesting.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
There is no unity anywhere in physical theory. The reason for this is that our description of nature rendered into infinite parts does not have an underlying foundation as an absolute frame of reference
Physical theories doesn't require absolute frame of reference to remain predictable. For example Aether Wave Theory extrapolates observable reality by dense gas of nested fluctuations of dense gas of nested fluctuations of dense gas... recursively. We aren't require to know about our exact location in this hierarchy - we can just expect, there's infinite number of members both at higher, both lower level of density fluctuations of Aether gas.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
I understand your arguments. My thesis has nothing to do with predictability. Further, Aether Wave Theory is an attempt to place our idea of reality onto something that has no resembalance to anything we have attached thus far to energy. Gas is a form of energy whose potential has to satisfy a solution for something that has been termed as exotic, dark energy, which has the potential, but it is telling the inquiry its substance is nothing like anything we have labeled as energy.
It is also suggesting if the same track which has led to a dead-end continues the certainty many think is impossible will never surface as fact. And it can if our solution of dark energy is done right. Does this help you understand why I offered an opinion on unity? Dark energy has the potential to finally establish that absolute frame of reference for energy, and everything else.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
..Aether Wave Theory is an attempt to place our idea of reality onto something that has no resemblance to anything we have attached thus far to energy..
What?!? AWT isn't based on some mysticism at all - on the contrary. AWT is based on Boltzmann gas model - it's a basic system for definition of thermodynamical energy, instead. Furthermore, this model isn't ad-hoce at all. It's based on the understanding, from sufficiently distant perspective every object appears like pin-point particle. And every complex interactions in such system can be modeled by system of colliding particles. For example, people are complex objects, but if we would observe them from sufficient altitude, they would appear and behave like chaotic 2D gas composed of colliding particles. It's natural reduction of virtually every physical system.



Despite of its conceptual simplicity, this system becomes irreducibly complex with increasing of particle density, because it forms fractaly nested density fluctuations composed of density fluctuations. Such behavior can be both simulated by computers, both modeled by dense gas condensation (supercritical fluid at the right picture) and the resulting complexity is limited just by computational power. Which means, AWT principle enables to model systems of arbitrary complexity just by recursive application of trivial mechanism. If nothing else, we should consider this model because of its simplicity and the fact, nobody did propose it for modeling of observable reality, yet.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
and has no"resembalanceZephir, I considered dense gas as macro phenonmena and by inference an aggregate of energy and all the rules of uncertainty apply. This would make it an "effect" of something else. I also believe this something else is the key to unity, and the inquiry remains at the quantum level (surface) which wave theory is also. A level beneath particle, wave, and/or quantum phenomena, is suggested by dark energy which pervades space. To this day theorist's are trying to attach a "particle" composition to it and that keeps them bogged down down in a cul-de-sac. The clues for dark energy is being considered as something exotic, and it is. This should be telling them something but I'm afraid they are going to miss the boat. The path to this dead-end really began in the ninetenth century with a series of misunderstandings and it is difficult to overcome.

I liked most of your final comments and perhaps it is applicable to many states at the macro level, but it seems to me that is the best it can do for unity. Unity requires a melding of the four forces of nature; gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, and relativity. By the way, relativity is an absolute regardless of what the public thinks it is.

I should add that what I said about "attaching" reality and has no "resembalance" to anything was merely the attempt to apply AWT to unity. What I was saying is that AWT is an attempt to attach a "cause" on something (dark energy) when in fact no concept of energy has ever been forthcoming; and particles don't qualify as acomposition of space. Which is what I'm talking about and gas is a collection of particles, and the radiation is an effect. How would AWT fit into dark energy? I hope this helps to understand me.

Last edited by exnihilo; 09/19/09 03:40 AM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
I considered dense gas as macro phenomena
OK but why? The observability phenomena is always dependent to gradient of density of underlying states. Aether Wave Theory just considers, every thing is composed of density fluctuations of many smaller things, recursively. The dimensional scale plays no role in this gradient model.
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
How would AWT fit into dark energy? I hope this helps to understand me

Splash ripples are changing frequency with distance from observer, which can be considered as an omnidirectional expansion of Universe from perspective of that observer. But it's evident, the change in ripple frequency is not proportional to distance from observer - it's nonlinear, which makes an illusion of accelerated expansion of Universe.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
The density fluctuation is correct, but I offered my observation because I believe there is a provable level of energy beneath AW's and that would make them aggregates of a different state of energy. The same energy but in a different state, which signals the linear plane is "flat". For this reason and many others anything above a flat plane is an aggregate of whatever space is. The energy of space can't be detected in any normal way because it isn't opaque enough and density is needed to move a clicker. Your splash ripple observation is the result of an exchange of energy with the cause of the splash and the water, adding energy to an existing state of energy. That energy spreads in the manner described leaving the ripple effect. The nature of the motion at the atomic level, sinusoidally, is transposed onto a pool of water as an example, reflected as peaks and troughs in the water. Same with a particle in space. An exchange of energy occurs with space (dark energy) and it perpetuates the sinusoidal linear motion of a particle leaving a ripple effect on the surrounding space intiated by the exchange. I suggest the ripples are one-half cycle out of phase due to the energy exchange. This only scratches the surface. Basically, that is why I sonsider everthing we look at now is an aggregate, not a source. You can play with the implications.

This should give you a little different perspective about the aether and your comment of 7/01. Inherent in the above lies the reason why Michelson/Morley failed to show what was looked for.

Last edited by exnihilo; 09/20/09 05:37 AM.
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
I made a huge typo_relatively was typed instead of electromagnetism. Sorry for that. In relation to that Steven Weinberg forged the electroweak theory to bring the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism into unity, but he used a mathematical trick to make the numbers come out right. He received quite a bit of criticism for that but still received the Nobel for the work. Just another thing to evoke skepticism among many.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 48
Indeed, it doesn't require an absolute to predict a "probability", but it seems that to predict anything like final unity an absolute underpinning is required. Probability is a cul-de-sac right now, which can lead to false assumptions. Could there be just too many of those?

S
sallur
Unregistered
sallur
Unregistered
S
The longer we persist in religiously putting our faith in our man made "laws" of physics, and ignoring the "laws" of nature or the Universe, we will continue to flounder in a sea of uncertainty.

If we dismiss the notion that there is a high energy source
in the center or core of the Sun and then, look again at the corona, it will then become clear where the Sun's energy is being sourced.

The potential energy of the Universe is to be found in the Vacuum of space, perfectly stable and ready to be extracted
on demand.

Waro

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Give
Unity? That's news. But physics keeps striving to reduce the number
of equations necessary to describe everything -- so called unification.

It began when Newton unified gravity on earth with gravity in space.
1 equation.

Unification continued when Maxwell reduced all the experiments
on electricity and magnetism to just 4 equations.

It continued with Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations. You might say
it unifies space and time. General relativity unifies gravitational
mass with inertial mass.

Then equations of motion for atoms were described by quantum
mechanics -- such as Schroedinger Equation & later Dirac Equation.
These form the common unification of chemistry.

Then quantum electrodynamics was discovered, which unified
electromagnetism with the quantum theory. Some of theory's
predictions (such as the fine structure constant) have been
experimentally verified to something like 10 or 12 decimal places,
a huge measure of success for any physical theory.

Meanwhile the strong & weak nuclear forces were partly
de-mystified: The weak force was found to be unified with
electromagnetism (electro-weak force), while the strong nuclear
force involves quarks of various kinds, with specific rules of
interaction best described by group theory.

And so it goes. The 'holy grail' of physics is to reduce all
of existence (all interactions of all particles) into a single equation,
sometimes called "God's Equation" -- the ultimate unification.

" Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
/ --Albert Einstein /
/ by xprofessor /
====================================================
Mr. Give, I like your point of view.
#
1.
Newton unified gravity on earth with
gravity in space. 1 equation.
Correct.
2.
Maxwell reduced all the experiments on electricity
and magnetism to just 4 equations.
Correct.
3.
Einstein's special relativity, which amounts
to the Lorentz transformation. 4 equations.
Correct.
4.
Then equations -- such as Schroedinger Equation &
later Dirac Equation
Correct.
5.
Then . . . . .Some of theory's predictions
(such as the fine structure constant)
!!!
???
Stop. a - ( fine structure constant )
!?
The existence of this extremely important fundamental
dimensionless constant remained unexplained till now.
And this quantity determines a condition of an electron
It means, that diverse physical and chemical properties
of substances in many respects are determined by this quantity.
This constant remained unknown in modern physics and
on Feynmans expression , which he said with humour
that this quantity is
by the god given damnation to all physicists .
===============.
If we dont know what is the fine structure constant
( it means electron too) how can we describe everything
- so called unification. ?
====================.
P.S.
Good God.
How easy to lose the way.
===========.







Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: exnihilo
Yes, because manifestations of nature are effects of saomething else including the basics in physical theory. We detect, measure , and quantfy, all we observe and find they are not only effects but aggregates. Aggregates of what is not yet known but it will be determined all gross energy is an aggregate of the aether. Though this has been advanced before it has pretty much been dismissed.

Now that dark energy has surfaced in a serious way
it will be found to be the source of all aggregate energy.
This has huge implications and its up to you to determine
what those implications might be.

#
Dark energy may be vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
==========================================

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5