friend wrote:Foundational questions about logic, math, and physics seems to be an ongoing debate to the present by experts.
Specifically, we don't yet have an agreed upon interpretation of quantum physics. Sure, professors will teach quantum physics to students starting with some basic principle of QM. But when they start calling these basic principles axioms, I hear students moan because axioms are supposed to be intuitively obvious which QM is not........ yet.
"the meaning of logic", you ask of me? Logic is supposed to be self-contained and self-explanatory. How could I possibly add to it. What you want is metalogic, not logic. And it is probably a matter of subjective importance to each individual.
Are we trying to pick apart and prove that everything in the universe is necessarily logical in every realm in all details? It is inherently impossible to actually observe and measure all things in order to prove this. So how could we prove or disprove that it is so? We can't. So it must remain an assumption. For there simply does not seem to be any rational alternative except to assume that everything in the universe is rational. My claim is that the ultimate theory of physics must be derived from logic. The only alternative is to suggest that the foundations of reality are irrational. Is that what you're implying? Or are you agreeing that science makes this assumption?
minkwe wrote:Logic is the scientific study of the processes of sound thinking and reasoning. Reason and thinking are epistemological processes that take place in the human mind. Therefore by definition, logic is limited to the human mind.
Are you trying to suggest that physical reality is not necessarily logical because it is not of the mind? Or are you saying that there must be a supernatural mind out there to ensure that reality remains logical? Or are you saying that we cannot possibly know if all facts are logically consistent with other facts? Granted, that we cannot measure all the facts.
But doesn't science always assume that all of physical reality is reasonable, and hence logical?
friend wrote:minkwe wrote:But you fail to understand basic facts.
What qualifies you to grade me?
minkwe wrote:You are not getting it at all. Is the universe sad, happy, angry? Is the universe deceitful, truthful? Don't you understand that certain concepts are only meaningful in the context of human thought? When you say the universe is logical independently of human reasoning/thought, that is goobledygook.
friend wrote:minkwe wrote:You are not getting it at all. Is the universe sad, happy, angry? Is the universe deceitful, truthful? Don't you understand that certain concepts are only meaningful in the context of human thought? When you say the universe is logical independently of human reasoning/thought, that is goobledygook.
All you seem to be concerned with are secondary issues. None of your objections so far address the steps I take in my derivation. I have gone into great detail to explain with mathematical precision just exactly how I derive physics from logic. The ball is in your court to show me where I may have made a mistake in the math. The website is at: logictophysics.com
Austin Fearnley wrote:Its a while since I read about your ideas. I remember that an implication seemed interestingly like wavefunction collapse of many points in a set to a single point or implication. (Though QM does not use sets.)
Austin Fearnley wrote:Does a wavefunction exist in spacetime?
Austin Fearnley wrote:If it does, then do you have to have every point in the set for an electron wavefunction avoiding every point in the set for a positron? Or is it only the (final) implication that is actually in spacetime and needs its own space (as in Pauli's Exclusion principle).
friend wrote:
Is it possible to specify a metric without specifying the dimensionality?
friend wrote:
An implication looks exactly like the propogator (wavefunction) of a particle; the reverse implication is the complex conjugate that then looks like the antiparticle. Both seem to be traveling from the same start and end points at the same time, and since they start from nothing they end in nothing; they cancel each other out.
Austin Fearnley wrote:Won't an electron (or rather its successor electron after interaction) need a reverse implication immediately after its implication, so it can start a new wave function? And how do you distinguish implications and reverse implications between electrons and positrons?
Austin Fearnley wrote:I suspect that you did not mean literally 'nothing'. The vacuum is not nothing and in my model the fields in the vacuum are involved in the creation and annihilation events. Nothing is actually created other than in a changing of form. At least not in my preon model. Count the preons in to an interaction and count them all out again afterwards. Preons are preserved in all interactions but combinations of them will vary.
friend wrote:
This is how I define energy. A particle is an unannihilated particle that has lost contact with its original virtual pair partner. It then annihilates with the antiparticle of some other pair, leaving behind the particle of that pair. And this in turn annihilates with yet another antiparticle of some other pair, leaving yet another particle of that pair to do the same. So the unmatched particle seems to propagate as it is being traded with the antiparticle of various pairs. It then appears to move through space in a random walk. Energy so happens to be the rate of this virtual particle trading.
Austin Fearnley wrote:My view is more along the lines here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
Electron annihilates (=interacts, IMO) with a positron and converts to two photons.
e− + e+ → γ + γ
I have read about creation from nothing but I do not go along with it.
Austin Fearnley wrote:I am still unsure how you keep tabs, in your model, on which particle is an electron and which is the positron after the creation event. Don't you need to use an index?
Austin Fearnley wrote:However, my preon model has a dark matter field and if that field could spontaneously decay (I do not like spontaneous decays) then it would look like particle-antiparticle creation. And likewise the particles could return a dark matter field back to the vacuum.
friend wrote:
Instead, (correct me if I'm wrong) the Preon model only uses the assumed, presupposed validity of quantum mechanics on the more basic particles known as preons in an attempt to show the underlying structure of leptons and quarks.
friend wrote:
...we have electrons and positrons which only have electric charge, but we have Weak W and Z bosons which have both electric charge and Weak Isospin charge, and we have quarks which have electric charge, Weak Isospin charge and color charge. So we might look for some means of incorporating electrons and positrons into the W and Z bosons.
friend wrote:
... as I recall, quantum field theory proposes that there are various fields imposed on top of spacetime, that these fields are functions of spacetime presupposed to exist in order to accommodate these fields. And so QFT has trouble describing and incorporating spacetime itself into the quantum world.
Austin Fearnley wrote:I only need to see the appropriate preons in all particles without the need to see electrons et al inside other particles.
Austin Fearnley wrote:Also, IMO there is no need of proofs of how many particles or generations of particles exist. The E8xE8 model of Lisi Garrett nicely tries to predict all the particles and their properties in a Lie Group, so there may perhaps be something in that approach.
Austin Fearnley wrote:In my preon model the dimensions are always contained in the preons, and the preons continue to exist at the CCC nodes.
Austin Fearnley wrote:Preons are always conserved and there is no such thing as annihilation to 'nothing'.
friend wrote:
How can a particle that travels through (the dimensions of) space contain the dimensions they travel through inside themselves? I thought particles were something that traveled through the dimensions of space. So how can they contain the dimensions they travel through?
friend wrote:
If there are preons inside electrons, and preons inside Weak bosons, and preons inside quarks, then is the same configuration of preons inside electrons a subset of the configuration of preons inside Weak bosons, etc?
friend wrote:
Let's try not to get too hung up on the word 'nothing'.
Austin Fearnley wrote:In my preon model the fundamental particle properties indicate multiple dimensions: electric charge, spin, weak isospin and red, green and blue colour charges. This ignores gravitation.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests