Forum Replies Created
+360 degrees for unstable neutrons,
-360 degrees for unstable anti-neutrons
1) +270 degrees for the Proton (P)
2) -270 degrees for the anti-Proton (E)
3) +90 degrees for the electron (e)
4) -90 degrees for the anti-electron (p)
And charge and gravity are conjugates of
Which reflect into 8 properties.
But I am only about one man-hour into this
speculation… so I might be wrong. 🙁
I’m considering the possibility that the particles
that make-up matter are somehow merely space-time
phase shifts… no need for any deity, only a
physical reason for space-time to get “out-of-phase”,
in the opposite of the way delivered power is related
to the phase of voltage and current.
Given enough TIME, that is.
Yes, I am able to consider that Einstein’s SR and GR, are
only elaborate catalogs of physical reality which appear
to actually “break-down” at the extremes. IE, is a photon
and a graviton “particle extremes” needed to be the sub-structures of electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic waves? Or are those hypothetical particles merely erroneous parts
of mathematical models that are really catalogs that ignore
And if the conventional efforts are merely catalogs, do
they also predict the extreme of Many-Parallel-Worlds,
Yes, I’m thinking that the prediction of MPW should also
be on your lists of “things-not-needed” and/or “things that
cannot exist” and/or “things that could not happen”.
That MPW only exists in popular literature, and nowhere
else, is refreshing because of its overwhelming influence
on both the fields of entertainment and cosmology.
I am probably insufficient and sophomoric in my interpretation
of all the theories that seem to predict the Many-Parallel-
But here is the assumption that I believe causes theories
to predict MPW (MPW is not a theory, it is a prediction of
“Any thing that CAN happen, DOES happen.”
A particle aimed at a double-slit can miss both slits, or
go through one slit, or the other slit. And when we detect
an interference pattern, it simply MUST have gone through
BOTH slits; a classically impossible thing to do, but must
nevertheless be physically what happens.
Another of my favorite physicists is Max Tegmark. He has
postulated (from Wikipedia) that:
“Tegmark has also formulated the “Ultimate Ensemble theory of everything”, whose only postulate is that “all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically”. This simple theory, with no free parameters at all, suggests that in those structures complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically “real” world. This idea is formalized as the mathematical universe hypothesis, described in his book Our Mathematical Universe.”
I think Tegmark would agree that your Universe MUST exist
physically. So I am even more displeased that your German
colleagues ignore your effort. But I also think that
Tegmark would wish that your effort would have a “parallel
worlds” prediction for the probability part.
Thanks so much for your gracious offer of a visit to
your home in Germany. But unfortunately I am not well
enough to travel.
On 6 May, I was admitted to the Malcolm Randel VA
Medical Center with chest pain. On 8 May I suffered
an MI in hospital and on 9 May I received a stent to
deliver blood to my left ventricle. I feel much better
than I have felt in a long time, but am tied to the
hospital for weekly blood tests to make sure that no
problems should occur because of my “thick” blood.
The same offer goes to you though, should you find
yourself in sunny Florida USA.
YES, most indubitably yes; God most certainly works
with the most simple of laws. And your theory is
what I believe to have the closest connection with
what God has to work with.
There is a line separating what God is responsible
for and for what intelligent creatures like ourselves
are responsible for; exactly where that line lies is
still a mystery to us, but it is most certainly there,
The worst problem is when our superstitious elements
attribute(blame) everything to a deity. Personally,
I do not even give credit to a deity for creating
DNA; DNA is more likely the creation of intelligent
creatures. The superstitious folks give deities the
credit for both happiness AND sadness; they praise a
deity(s) when the enemy is vanquished and scream bloody
murder when the enemy vanquishes us.
These types of reasonings are the creations of ourselves,
not the creations of a “father” in heaven. God does not
allow bad and good things to happen; both good and bad
happen because of ourselves; God is not responsible for either.
We are responsible for what we sow, and we reap what we
You have become a dear friend, and I have grown by your
tutelage; and I sincerely hope that I’ve said nothing to
So be it, to infinity,
and from infinity.
World without beginning
nor end. — Amen
I think we are on the verge of needing to consider
that a deity placed your elementary particles (e,P,p,E)
in our previously vacant universe and I do not like
that circumstance at all. 🙁
Dr. Szasz said:
“The entropy connects somehow the average quantities of macrostates with the microstates properties.
YES; we may say something like, “the sum of the entropy
of the microstates is nearly conserved in the macrostate.”
E.G., the entropy of a container of water has nearly the
same entropy as the sum of the partial entropies of the
water’s microstates. This, I suggest, substantiates ALL
atomistic type theories.
I haven’t a clue as to what the entropy of radiation is,
but only that it is accompanied by an increase of the sum
of the entropies of the microstates; part or all of the
entropy qualified by the second law of thermodynamics….
But I see good reason to believe that the opposite
happens; that radiations decrease the total entropy; but
it can’t be both ways, can it? So I am rightly confused
and torn between two extremes on this radiation matter.
The connection is therefore “conservation”, a symmetry,
- This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Bill Eshleman. Reason: symmetries give rise to conservation laws
It is true that entropy was born in thermodynamics, but
it is now far more general. I would even go so far as to
say that it governs the entire field of Information theory
as well as any trivial mixture problem.
I sincerely consider that I have grown by the understanding of your magnificent effort, but I also consider that we all
need to grow; and that growth is far more important than
ANY theory; including the also magnificent effort of Einstein.
It is truly unfortunate that your reviewers have obviously
Yes, it is clear to me now. I’ve read all of your
book at this point and my only objection is that you
include entropy in the list of things that I also do
not consider to be realistic, like the big-bang, black-
holes and other preposterous degenerate extremes. So
I am not satisfied that entropy should be included on
that list. Why?
Why was it that you ended up using Lagrange Mechanics
instead of Hamiltonian Mechanics? It would seem that
both are quantizable the way you want, and H seems to be
more fundamental or even more general.
“We have to use the spinors because neither the positions, nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known.”
I can’t help but notice that Cedric uses Entropy when “neither the positions nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known.”
To me, this is compelling, whether there is a connection or not. That is, while I don’t see much use for Entropy for
small numbers of particles, I do see a connection for large
numbers of particles… fluid dynamics… optimal transport.
And a lot of other things too.
So I think maybe the connection is the mathematics.
I apologize in advance for bringing this up again.
I have downloaded the English version of your textbook.
Chapters 9 and 10 seem to be missing.
As I come to parts that I do not understand, I will post
to get clarity.
I am hoping that thoughts of Entropy will not surface, but
please be patient with my “candy-store” approach to
Information Theory and numerical simulation in general.
Thanks for your effort and time, I sincerely have appreciated the experience and look forward to your help in
the future when “mental-blocks” stand in my way.