Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time

From: MikeHelland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 06/17/04 

Date: 17 Jun 2004 15:14:43 -0700

Mark Fergerson wrote:
> MikeHelland wrote:
>
> > Mark Fergerson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>test that wavelength collapse is the cause of the uncertainty
> >>>>>principle?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sigh. Got a counterproposal?
> >>>
> >>>Yep:
> >>>http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Here's the short version:
> >
> > I think that in the universe there is a system of agents that
follow a
> > set of rules to work and interact in a network capable of
computation.
>
> You "think" this is the case? Based on what? Why do you
> not think this is an unnecessary complication of current
> physics?

Because it allows us to think about the uncertainty principle,
wave-particle duality, and quiddity of matter, space, and time in a
more eloquent, less Ptolemeian understanding.

> > I think that our reality (nature) exists as the result of these
> > computations. I think that nature does not exist as matter in space
and
> > time, but instead matter, space, and time all exist in nature.
>
> Why do you find it necessary to push all the important
> questions in current physics a layer deeper than they need
> to be?

Same as above.

> Do you really believe that the existence and properties
> of this "deeper reality" are untestable? If so, why bother
> with it?

Same as above.

<snip>

> For instance, can you demonstrate how it "computes" the
> necessary symmetries (and which ones) that govern
> conservation laws?

Actually, I don't think the symmetries exist because they require
space-time to exist as a vector medium. My ideas ask for a totally
different understanding of space-time. I also don't think the
conservation laws are anything more than mere generalizations that will
fail when pushed to some limit.

I'm sure that suggestion is going to go over splendidly with you :-)

> > I hope that even if this idea is not completely understandable to
you,
>
> I understand it just fine; I simply see it as an
> unnecessary complication.

Does quantum mechanics make sense to you as it stands? Do you have a
good idea of what space and time actually are and how they're related?
How about matter? Why does it act like both a particle and wave?

My suggestion's ability to answer these questions makes it necessary
for my understanding.

<snip>
> My primary questions were about what you thought the
> metaphysical foundations of current physics are, which
> you've consistently sidestepped.

Oh. The foundation is that interactions of matter occur against the
background of space and time.

This is the metaphysical foundation we've assumed as far back as
history remembers, Greeks through Newton and today. I think there are
alternatives that make more sense in understanding quantum mechanics
and relativity, particularlly the metaphysical framework suggested by
Leibniz.

> Science is about proof; which in context means comparing
> the consequences of one's ideas against reality. What
> _testable_ predictions (that don't involve black holes) do
> your ideas make that current physics doesn't address the
> same way?

One consequence is that my ideas can explain special relativity without
a speed limit in the universe. This means we can aim for a quantum
theory of gravity that allows the graviton to move faster than c. If a
successful theory can be found, this would support my hypothesis. While
this can't be tested today, neither can anything string theory has
produced. Not that this will convince you of anything, but its worth
pointing out. 

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Ping Thomas
    ... Early Universe was 'liquid-like' ... Physicists say they have created a new state of hot, dense matter by crashing ... published across a number of papers in the journal Nuclear Physics A. ... but more like a liquid. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.hepatitis)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... >> Is the set of all PCs computationally equivalent to the set of all TMs ... of matter is tied to the physical constraint on memory of a PC. ... Universe could be unchanging. ... I decided to run this musing by you just in case my physics was mistaken and ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... >> Is the set of all PCs computationally equivalent to the set of all TMs ... of matter is tied to the physical constraint on memory of a PC. ... Universe could be unchanging. ... I decided to run this musing by you just in case my physics was mistaken and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Mass and the universe
    ... view the universe to be?'. ... which contains physical matter? ... 'mass' could these particles of 'energy' have 'mass'? ... redefine physics and come up with a better more workable more embracing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... that, for a Creator to have created a consistent universe, that Creator ... More accurately, without God, there is no absolute basis for morality. ... Even in physics, ... imperfect understanding of the Universe. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)