Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be anything simpler? John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, epistemology). It seems at first glance that a 0 particle + 0 force + a Turing Machine is vastly more complicated than 1 particle and 1 force. I agree with you, but actually I don't take "0 particle + 0 force + a Turing Machine" but "0 particle + 0 force + *all* (Turing) machine *computations*, and this is equivalent with just arithmetical realism. Thanks to the Universal Dovetailer (UD) this can be shown to equate the effective part of arithmetic. I showed that from the machine point of view (described, assuming comp, by atemporal relations between numbers) this appears as a dynamical non boolean gigantic (truly unameable) plenitude. I can put "Turing" in parentheses thanks to Church thesis. However, John makes many other assumptions regarding space, time and how the particle and the force operate. The Turing machine model does not use a "real Turing Machine." Instead it employs a "fictitious" one so in the end it may be simpler. Indeed. As I understand it, a fictitious conscious Turing machine emerges out of the Plenitude as an image emerges out of a Rorschach image when observed by a conscious observer. In the case of the Turing machine, the conscious observer is the conscious Turing machine itself which pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. The Turing Machine does not "really" (objectively) exist. It only exists in the mind of the Turing machine. Here is a self referential situation in line with the thread "Re: MWI and Topos theory." All existence become subjective and has a first person perspective. The advantage of this approach is that it tackles the Mind-Body problem up-front. The ingredients do not include any particle, force, space or time. These can be derived later. Even the Turing Machine is fictitious: it only has a subjective existence but must be conscious. The "only" real requirement is the Plenitude. "Ay, there's the rub," as Hamlet said. What is the Plenitude? The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite) proofs of the Sigma_1 sentences, etc. The 1-plenitudes are then so big (provably) that they are not nameable. Approximations can be named though, and their logics can be assessed, and tested. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be anything simpler? 0 particles and 0 forces, no time nor spaces but a web a overlapping turing machines' dreams emerging from addition and multiplication ... John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, epistemology). It seems at first glance that a 0 particle + 0 force + a Turing Machine is vastly more complicated than 1 particle and 1 force. However, John makes many other assumptions regarding space, time and how the particle and the force operate. The Turing machine model does not use a "real Turing Machine." Instead it employs a "fictitious" one so in the end it may be simpler. As I understand it, a fictitious conscious Turing machine emerges out of the Plenitude as an image emerges out of a Rorschach image when observed by a conscious observer. In the case of the Turing machine, the conscious observer is the conscious Turing machine itself which pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. The Turing Machine does not "really" (objectively) exist. It only exists in the mind of the Turing machine. Here is a self referential situation in line with the thread "Re: MWI and Topos theory." All existence become subjective and has a first person perspective. The advantage of this approach is that it tackles the Mind-Body problem up-front. The ingredients do not include any particle, force, space or time. These can be derived later. Even the Turing Machine is fictitious: it only has a subjective existence but must be conscious. The "only" real requirement is the Plenitude. "Ay, there's the rub," as Hamlet said. What is the Plenitude? George Levy
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Einstein's theories are mind bending and they ARE difficult for almost 100 percent of the population but maybe not you. I don't understand how you can say there is no way to calculate anything with my theory. In my application I have included many calculations. People mathematically inclined should be able to calculate everything from my theory. I suspect you (and your buddies) have not bothered to read my application. My theory is described in 17 pages of fine print in US Patent Application Serial No. 11/108,938 and Publication No. 20050182607. You can view and down load the application from www.uspto.gov . -Original Message- From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:02 PM To: John Ross Cc: 'Saibal Mitra'; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything You could at least get his name right! Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins. Einstein's theories are not difficult - mind-bending perhaps, but not difficult. The book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is a paragon of explanatory virtue. The problem is that a lot of poorly written textbooks and courses make General Relativity difficult. I suffered through a few of these as an undergraduate. I have not studied string theory, but from what I understand that others have written your charges stick. This is undoutedly due to the newness of the theory - string theory is ca 30 years old, "Gravitation" was written 56 years after Einstein's first paper on GR. On the other hand, you theory looks difficult, because there seems no obvious way to calculate anything with it. Its all descriptive, which is no theory at all! Cheers On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 04:48:01PM -0700, John Ross wrote: > Stephen Hawkins in his book The Theory of Everything complained that > science had become too complicated for philosophers and in conclusion > had this to say: > > "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be > understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few > scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion > of why the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be > the ultimate triumph of human reason. For thin we should know the > mind of God." > > Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as > Hawkins observed. Mine is not. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM > To: John Ross > Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > You clearly forgot to read this: > http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html > > > John Ross: > > ''General Relativity and String Theory > > [0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and > gravity but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, > attempting to explain gravity further complicated physics proposing > for example that gravity produces a curvature of space. Various String > Theories also attempt to explain how the universe functions. > Relatively very few people understand Einstein's General Theory of > Relativity or these string theories. I am one of the many who do not. > Most people are reluctant to say these prior art theories are wrong. > Not me.'' > > If you don't understand these theories, how can you claim they are > wrong? > > > ''Light Speed > > [0014] Photons in a light beam slow down when passing through a > Coulombic reference frame (such as a laboratory where light speed is > being made) moving opposite the beam. And they speed up when the > reference frame is moving in the same direction of the beam. Based on > this preferred model, time does not slow down when you go fast and > things do not get shorter. Simultaneous events are simultaneous in all > reference frames. Time is absolute. When an astronaut returns to earth > he and his twin brother can have their next birthday party together at > the same time.'' > > There are journals devoted to quacky theories (e.g. physics essays), > but I think that even these journals will reject your work. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 07:34 PM > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
You could at least get his name right! Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins. Einstein's theories are not difficult - mind-bending perhaps, but not difficult. The book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is a paragon of explanatory virtue. The problem is that a lot of poorly written textbooks and courses make General Relativity difficult. I suffered through a few of these as an undergraduate. I have not studied string theory, but from what I understand that others have written your charges stick. This is undoutedly due to the newness of the theory - string theory is ca 30 years old, "Gravitation" was written 56 years after Einstein's first paper on GR. On the other hand, you theory looks difficult, because there seems no obvious way to calculate anything with it. Its all descriptive, which is no theory at all! Cheers On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 04:48:01PM -0700, John Ross wrote: > Stephen Hawkins in his book The Theory of Everything complained that > science had become too complicated for philosophers and in conclusion > had this to say: > > "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be > understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few > scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of > why the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the > ultimate triumph of human reason. For thin we should know the mind of > God." > > Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as > Hawkins observed. Mine is not. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM > To: John Ross > Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > You clearly forgot to read this: > http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html > > > John Ross: > > ''General Relativity and String Theory > > [0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and > gravity but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, > attempting to explain gravity further complicated physics proposing for > example that gravity produces a curvature of space. Various String > Theories also attempt to explain how the universe functions. Relatively > very few people understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or > these string theories. I am one of the many who do not. Most people are > reluctant to say these prior art theories are wrong. Not me.'' > > If you don't understand these theories, how can you claim they are > wrong? > > > ''Light Speed > > [0014] Photons in a light beam slow down when passing through a > Coulombic reference frame (such as a laboratory where light speed is > being made) moving opposite the beam. And they speed up when the > reference frame is moving in the same direction of the beam. Based on > this preferred model, time does not slow down when you go fast and > things do not get shorter. Simultaneous events are simultaneous in all > reference frames. Time is absolute. When an astronaut returns to earth > he and his twin brother can have their next birthday party together at > the same time.'' > > There are journals devoted to quacky theories (e.g. physics essays), but > I think that even these journals will reject your work. > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 07:34 PM > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Have you read my patent application? It has plenty of details (17 > > pages of fine print). Take a look at it on www.uspto.gov search under > > > patent applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial No. > > 11/108,938. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM > > To: John Ross > > Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; everything-list@eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > > Everything > > > > > > > > Le 11-oct.-05, ? 01:46, John Ross a ?crit : > > > > > Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one > > > force from which the entire universe is built.
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
There is also the "Crackpot Index" by physicist John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Stephen Hawkins in his book The Theory of Everything complained that science had become too complicated for philosophers and in conclusion had this to say: from the index: "8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann"." "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For thin we should know the mind of God." Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as Hawkins observed. Mine is not. "29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)" (Hawking is, of course, not an opponent of Einstein's theories--most of his work is in General Relativity, and the overlap of that theory with quantum physics. The quote does not say that theories of physics should be rejected for being 'too complicated', it simply says that once we have a unified theory it can be explained in simplified terms to nonspecialists, just as his book tries to do with relativity and quantum physics.) I understand it took four years before people began to accept Einstein's theories. If you guys had been around a hundred years ago, you would probably have sent this link to him! "18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). " (Actually Einstein's ideas were accepted pretty quickly, and even those who disagreed with them did not accuse him of failing to understand existing physics or of being a crackpot) Jesse
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
I understand it took four years before people began to accept Einstein's
theories. If you guys had been around a hundred years ago, you would
probably have sent this link to him!
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:15 PM
To: Saibal Mitra
Cc: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
Very good! If we ever get around to making a FAQ for this group, this
link should be right up front.
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:18:19AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> You clearly forgot to read this:
> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Stephen Hawkins in his book The Theory of Everything complained that science had become too complicated for philosophers and in conclusion had this to say: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For thin we should know the mind of God." Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as Hawkins observed. Mine is not. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM To: John Ross Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything You clearly forgot to read this: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html John Ross: ''General Relativity and String Theory [0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and gravity but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, attempting to explain gravity further complicated physics proposing for example that gravity produces a curvature of space. Various String Theories also attempt to explain how the universe functions. Relatively very few people understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or these string theories. I am one of the many who do not. Most people are reluctant to say these prior art theories are wrong. Not me.'' If you don't understand these theories, how can you claim they are wrong? ''Light Speed [0014] Photons in a light beam slow down when passing through a Coulombic reference frame (such as a laboratory where light speed is being made) moving opposite the beam. And they speed up when the reference frame is moving in the same direction of the beam. Based on this preferred model, time does not slow down when you go fast and things do not get shorter. Simultaneous events are simultaneous in all reference frames. Time is absolute. When an astronaut returns to earth he and his twin brother can have their next birthday party together at the same time.'' There are journals devoted to quacky theories (e.g. physics essays), but I think that even these journals will reject your work. - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 07:34 PM Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything > Have you read my patent application? It has plenty of details (17 > pages of fine print). Take a look at it on www.uspto.gov search under > patent applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial No. > 11/108,938. > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM > To: John Ross > Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : > > > Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one > > force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be > > anything simpler? > > > 0 particles and 0 forces, no time nor spaces but a web a overlapping > turing machines' dreams emerging from addition and multiplication ... > > John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the > mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, > epistemology). > > Now to be honest I have no idea how neutrinos could be photons. If you > thrust your idea try (at least) to write a paper with some details. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/= > >
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Russell Standish wrote: Very good! If we ever get around to making a FAQ for this group, this link should be right up front. Cheers On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:18:19AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: > You clearly forgot to read this: > http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html "How to Become a Bad Theoretical Physicist", by Nobel prize-winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft, is also pretty good: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html (It's a followup to his page 'How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist' at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html ) Some quotes from 't Hooft: "Here is how to become a bad theorist: take your own immature theory, stop checking it for mistakes, don't listen to colleagues who do spot weaknesses, and start admiring your own infallible intelligence. Try to overshout all your critics, and have your work published anyway. If the well-established science media refuse to publish your work, start your own publishing company and edit your own books. Accuse all your critics of the short-sightedness that you actually suffer too much from yourself. It is easy and pleasant, it does not require the hard work of checking and re-checking your results, and if you are sufficiently eloquent, you might even gather some admirers." "The impudence to attach your own name to whatever you claim to have discovered is considered improper in science, and in practice it betrays amateurism and incompetence."
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Very good! If we ever get around to making a FAQ for this group, this
link should be right up front.
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:18:19AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> You clearly forgot to read this:
> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpexEDhwSlrL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
You clearly forgot to read this: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html John Ross: ''General Relativity and String Theory [0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and gravity but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, attempting to explain gravity further complicated physics proposing for example that gravity produces a curvature of space. Various String Theories also attempt to explain how the universe functions. Relatively very few people understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or these string theories. I am one of the many who do not. Most people are reluctant to say these prior art theories are wrong. Not me.'' If you don't understand these theories, how can you claim they are wrong? ''Light Speed [0014] Photons in a light beam slow down when passing through a Coulombic reference frame (such as a laboratory where light speed is being made) moving opposite the beam. And they speed up when the reference frame is moving in the same direction of the beam. Based on this preferred model, time does not slow down when you go fast and things do not get shorter. Simultaneous events are simultaneous in all reference frames. Time is absolute. When an astronaut returns to earth he and his twin brother can have their next birthday party together at the same time.'' There are journals devoted to quacky theories (e.g. physics essays), but I think that even these journals will reject your work. - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 07:34 PM Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything > Have you read my patent application? It has plenty of details (17 pages > of fine print). Take a look at it on www.uspto.gov search under patent > applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial No. > 11/108,938. > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM > To: John Ross > Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : > > > Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one > > force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be > > anything simpler? > > > 0 particles and 0 forces, no time nor spaces but a web a overlapping > turing machines' dreams emerging from addition and multiplication ... > > John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the > mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, > epistemology). > > Now to be honest I have no idea how neutrinos could be photons. If you > thrust your idea try (at least) to write a paper with some details. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/= > >
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Have you read my patent application? It has plenty of details (17 pages of fine print). Take a look at it on www.uspto.gov search under patent applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial No. 11/108,938. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM To: John Ross Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : > Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one > force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be > anything simpler? 0 particles and 0 forces, no time nor spaces but a web a overlapping turing machines' dreams emerging from addition and multiplication ... John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, epistemology). Now to be honest I have no idea how neutrinos could be photons. If you thrust your idea try (at least) to write a paper with some details. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/=
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be anything simpler? 0 particles and 0 forces, no time nor spaces but a web a overlapping turing machines' dreams emerging from addition and multiplication ... John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, epistemology). Now to be honest I have no idea how neutrinos could be photons. If you thrust your idea try (at least) to write a paper with some details. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Hi Jesse: At 10:51 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Jesse: In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two adjacent regions is always the same. Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model allows motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no motion while a universe is in a particular state and there is no continuous transition to the next state but rather a wink out and a wink in. The postulates of special relativity: "Postulate 1: (Principle of Relativity) The laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames. Postulate 2: (Constancy of the Velocity of Light) The speed of light in empty space is an absolute constant of nature and is independent of the motion of the emitting body. are satisfied if there is no motion so the model would have Lorentz-symmetry. First let me say that discussion of such "local" theories relevant to a particular universe is not my goal on this list. That said such discussions can from time to time help reveal issues with efforts to model more basic levels. That said: How can you have different "reference frames" if you dismiss motion entirely? Are you saying there would only be a single reference frame in this theory? I think that applies to all lower level theories that have discrete states for universes and I believe that that is the correct view. That definitely isn't an acceptable solution, any fundamental underlying theory has to reduce to SR in the limit of large distances and times, so it doesn't make sense to just say something like "since there is no motion, you don't have multiple reference frames". The issue you are talking about is IMO an aspect of "observation" and then only the "observation" needs to support SR at least in our universe. I think that a correct view of "observation" [a TBD?] will allow for the appearance of SR at large distances and times for our universe based on a low level single frame of reference approach. Notice that my model is a distortion of space. Time dilation is also supported. Anyway, it seems to me it wouldn't be very hard to generalize the concept of different frames to a universe where change is discontinuous rather than continuous--just have the origin of the coordinate system jump discontinuously too, by regular increments--and a regular lattice means the laws of physics won't work the same in different frames defined in such a way. It's possible that a more random lattice might avoid such problems, I'm not sure... In my model the laws of physics are determined at the level of the grid which in any event does not relocate and further the laws are determined at the level of a region and its 12 nearest neighbors which surely do not relocate. Any relocation of a large dance [large coordinated collections of point relocation - like observers] will not disturb the "Laws of Physics". Its been about three years since I played with these ideas so I may make more than the usual number of mistakes and ramble about a bit while I get the juices flowing. Hal Ruhl
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Jesse: In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two adjacent regions is always the same. Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model allows motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no motion while a universe is in a particular state and there is no continuous transition to the next state but rather a wink out and a wink in. The postulates of special relativity: "Postulate 1: (Principle of Relativity) The laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames. Postulate 2: (Constancy of the Velocity of Light) The speed of light in empty space is an absolute constant of nature and is independent of the motion of the emitting body. are satisfied if there is no motion so the model would have Lorentz-symmetry. How can you have different "reference frames" if you dismiss motion entirely? Are you saying there would only be a single reference frame in this theory? That definitely isn't an acceptable solution, any fundamental underlying theory has to reduce to SR in the limit of large distances and times, so it doesn't make sense to just say something like "since there is no motion, you don't have multiple reference frames". Anyway, it seems to me it wouldn't be very hard to generalize the concept of different frames to a universe where change is discontinuous rather than continuous--just have the origin of the coordinate system jump discontinuously too, by regular increments--and a regular lattice means the laws of physics won't work the same in different frames defined in such a way. It's possible that a more random lattice might avoid such problems, I'm not sure... Jesse
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Hi Jesse: In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two adjacent regions is always the same. Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model allows motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no motion while a universe is in a particular state and there is no continuous transition to the next state but rather a wink out and a wink in. The postulates of special relativity: "Postulate 1: (Principle of Relativity) The laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames. Postulate 2: (Constancy of the Velocity of Light) The speed of light in empty space is an absolute constant of nature and is independent of the motion of the emitting body. are satisfied if there is no motion so the model would have Lorentz-symmetry. Hal Ruhl At 08:51 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: A discrete lattice structure would also violate Lorentz-symmetry, since the mimimum distance would look different in different reference frames, and there would be one preferred frame where the distance was maximized. Jesse
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Hi Russell: Because there is only one primitive - an isolated point and one source of "meaning" its position in its region. If the region has only discrete locations then one can encode a state of this type of universe directly as a string of 0's and 1's. 1's mark the position occupied by the point in its region and 0's mark the empty positions in its region. Each region has its own sub string consisting of 0's and a single 1. [quite compressible] Once you have a particular Huge Lookup Table [HLT] you have how a particular universe will evolve from this state. Attach the HLT as a prefix to the string. The computational resources required are a large memory as with any model of a universe such as ours but a simple processor. Generally I think each region can be updated asynchronously and entanglement may be where you do it synchronously for selected regions. You can "expand" such a universe by just adding regions. Of course in the real universe the HLT is immediately presented to the point via the local "curvature" [shape] of the grid and "observations" by large dances [observers] is just an interpretation of the large scale shape of the grid. Any model keeping track of the particulars of an ocean of particles [or strings] and determining the next state with a bunch of force etc formulas over a continuous 3 space plus continuous time seems far more complicated to me even when you get rid of the computer. Hal Ruhl At 06:06 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Hi Russell: At 06:56 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: But look at your assumptions. * 3 dimensions Actually there are more space dimensions. The FCC ABC layering provides in general six additional local dimensions from the point of view of the central region. * a discrete lattice structure: what sets the unit cell size This would be Plank length stuff. * face centre cubic - why this layout, and not one of the other possible crystalline types Because of the unique geometry and its extra dimensions and resulting fundamental oscillations. * what are these higher energy dances? It seems if you add energy to a FCC crystal, you just melt the crystal. Where do these additional states come from? That was just a way of allowing excited versions all the way up to a point "gas" which may have use in looking at "Big Bang" issues such as quark gas. Hal Ruhl
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Hi Russell: I forgot to mention that for the asynchronously updated regions [no entanglement with other regions] each individual region update is a new state of that universe so computing new states is very easy. The fact that it takes many updates to produce a large scale change in the grid is transparent to an observer. Hal Ruhl At 06:06 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
A discrete lattice structure would also violate Lorentz-symmetry, since the
mimimum distance would look different in different reference frames, and
there would be one preferred frame where the distance was maximized.
Jesse
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:56:23 +1000
But look at your assumptions.
* 3 dimensions
* a discrete lattice structure: what sets the unit cell size
* face centre cubic - why this layout, and not one of the other
possible crystalline types
* what are these higher energy dances? It seems if you add energy to a
FCC crystal, you just melt the crystal. Where do these additional
states come from?
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:46:19PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one
> force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be
> anything simpler?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:06 PM
> To: Hal Ruhl
> Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> Everything
>
>
> Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
> > mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
> > is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to
> > regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are
> > just dances of these points. It is like 3D cellular automaton where
> > each point independently polls its 12 nearest neighbors and then
> > updates its position in its region based on the outcome and a Huge
> > Look Up Table.
> >
> > The face centered cubic arrangement of regions where the 12 nearest
> > neighbors are arranged so that there are six inline triples and the
> > central or 13th region is the middle region in each triple seems to
> > have low level oscillations that support the types and family size of
> > known particles. This is considered the low energy arrangement of
> > regions and does not prevent higher energy arrangements and thus
> > higher energy dances "particles" Large objects are just huge
> > coordinated dances. Dances can move through the grid but the points
> can
> > not.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
> It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
> ignore this attachment.
>
>
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Australia
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
<< attach3 >>
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
But look at your assumptions.
* 3 dimensions
* a discrete lattice structure: what sets the unit cell size
* face centre cubic - why this layout, and not one of the other
possible crystalline types
* what are these higher energy dances? It seems if you add energy to a
FCC crystal, you just melt the crystal. Where do these additional
states come from?
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:46:19PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one
> force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be
> anything simpler?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:06 PM
> To: Hal Ruhl
> Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> Everything
>
>
> Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
> > mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
> > is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to
> > regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are
> > just dances of these points. It is like 3D cellular automaton where
> > each point independently polls its 12 nearest neighbors and then
> > updates its position in its region based on the outcome and a Huge
> > Look Up Table.
> >
> > The face centered cubic arrangement of regions where the 12 nearest
> > neighbors are arranged so that there are six inline triples and the
> > central or 13th region is the middle region in each triple seems to
> > have low level oscillations that support the types and family size of
> > known particles. This is considered the low energy arrangement of
> > regions and does not prevent higher energy arrangements and thus
> > higher energy dances "particles" Large objects are just huge
> > coordinated dances. Dances can move through the grid but the points
> can
> > not.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
> It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
> ignore this attachment.
>
>
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Australia
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpvaDNl68qMX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one
force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be
anything simpler?
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:06 PM
To: Hal Ruhl
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
> mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
> is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to
> regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are
> just dances of these points. It is like 3D cellular automaton where
> each point independently polls its 12 nearest neighbors and then
> updates its position in its region based on the outcome and a Huge
> Look Up Table.
>
> The face centered cubic arrangement of regions where the 12 nearest
> neighbors are arranged so that there are six inline triples and the
> central or 13th region is the middle region in each triple seems to
> have low level oscillations that support the types and family size of
> known particles. This is considered the low energy arrangement of
> regions and does not prevent higher energy arrangements and thus
> higher energy dances "particles" Large objects are just huge
> coordinated dances. Dances can move through the grid but the points
can
> not.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
> mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
> is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to
> regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are
> just dances of these points. It is like 3D cellular automaton where
> each point independently polls its 12 nearest neighbors and then
> updates its position in its region based on the outcome and a Huge
> Look Up Table.
>
> The face centered cubic arrangement of regions where the 12 nearest
> neighbors are arranged so that there are six inline triples and the
> central or 13th region is the middle region in each triple seems to
> have low level oscillations that support the types and family size of
> known particles. This is considered the low energy arrangement of
> regions and does not prevent higher energy arrangements and thus
> higher energy dances "particles" Large objects are just huge
> coordinated dances. Dances can move through the grid but the points can
> not.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpcxJ8paV6r2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are just dances of these points. It is like 3D cellular automaton where each point independently polls its 12 nearest neighbors and then updates its position in its region based on the outcome and a Huge Look Up Table. The face centered cubic arrangement of regions where the 12 nearest neighbors are arranged so that there are six inline triples and the central or 13th region is the middle region in each triple seems to have low level oscillations that support the types and family size of known particles. This is considered the low energy arrangement of regions and does not prevent higher energy arrangements and thus higher energy dances "particles" Large objects are just huge coordinated dances. Dances can move through the grid but the points can not. Hal Ruhl
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything John Ross wrote: > Neutrinos and Gravity > > [0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino comprises a > high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons, > travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its > entron circling within the photon in circles having a diameter of > .lambda./2 where .lambda. is the neutrino's wavelength. Most neutrinos > illuminating the earth pass right through it. Neutrinos can pass right > through the nuclei of atoms and even protons. Gravity results from the > Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at > the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel > rearward and sideways along the trail of neutrinos. The sideways > components cancel, but the rearward components add pushing the matter > through which they are passing back toward the source of the neutrinos. > Thus, neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth (about > 100,000,000 per square centimeter per second) provide the "gravity" > holding the earth in its orbit around the sun. Neutrinos from the black > hole in the center of the Milky Way hold all the stars of the Milky Way > (including our sun) and us in our positions in our galaxy. Neutrinos > captured in the earth and later released provide the earth its gravity. Does this imply that an "anti-gravity" vehicle could be built if we could somehow build a neutrino shield and put it under the vehicle? Tom
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
George Levy wrote: Jesse wrote Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in everyday life, such as the fact that negative-mass objects would be gravitationally repelled by positive-mass objects, rather than attracted to them. Jesse you are too quick. If you actually plug the right signs in Newton's equations: F=ma and F=Gmm'/r2 you'll discover that positive mass attracts everything including negative mass, and that negative mass repels everything including negative mass. You're right, I got it backwards, I was just going from memory there. The negative-mass object will be attracted to the positive-mass one, while the positive-mass object will be repelled by the negative-mass one. So if you have two masses of equal and opposite magnitude, they'll accelerate continuously in the direction of the positive-mass object, with the distance between them never changing (at least according to Newtonian mechanics, it might not work quite the same way in GR). Jesse
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
I'm not really confusing the two, but the idea is so imprecisely put
it probably seems as though I do. The Dirac equation has both positive
and negative energy solutions. The Dirac solution to the negative
energy solutions was that they are all present as an unobservable
"Dirac sea". If you pop a particle out of the sea, the resulting hole
has positive mass, and opposite charge - what we conventionally call
antimatter. The problem is that this idea only works for fermions,
obeying the Pauli exclusion principle. Feynman's solution goes one
better, and talks about particles travelling backwards in time, which
also works for bosons.
What I was speculating was what impact embedding the Dirac equation
into a curved spacetime might have. Might it lead to a net imbalance
between matter and antimatter, or even just an imbalance between
positive and negative energy solutions. I don't know - I haven't done
the maths. It also wouldn't surprise me if someone has done the maths in
the 75 years since the Dirac equation was written down, and found it
doesn't work.
Cheers
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:11:16PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
>
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > Incidently, here's my own theory on the origin of matter. (Special)
> > relativistic quantum mechanics delivers the prediction of matter
> > being in perfect balance with antimatter - this is well known from
> > Dirac's work in the 1930s. However, if spacetime had a nonzero
> > curvature, is this not likely to bias the balance between matter
> > and antimatter, giving rise to the net presence of matter in our
> > universe. It strikes me that "mass curves spacetime" is the wrong
> > way of looking at General Relativity - causation should be seen the
> > other way - curved spacetime generates mass. As I mentioned above,
> > it is not surprising that spacetime is curved, what is surpising is
> > that it is so nearly flat.
> >
> >
>
> Russell, you are confusing antimatter with negative matter/energy.
> According to convention antimatter has inverted electrical charge and
> therefore when the amount of matter and antimatter are in equal amount,
> the net charge is zero. Antimatter, however, has positive mass
> corresponding to positive energy in the sense of E=mc^2 . Consequently,
> antimatter as well as matter give space a positive curvature.
>
> Negative matter/energy however are different. If negative matter/energy
> could exist they would give space a negative curvature. Negative
> matter/energy may be identical to dark energy.
>
> George Levy
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgp6N05gRyCfC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
--- Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John M wrote: > > > > > > >Jesse and George: SNIP > JeMa: > Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however > you like, of course--but > this is not how physicists would use the term. When > you plug negative values > of mass or energy into various physics equations it > leads to weird > consequences that we don't see in everyday life, > such as the fact that > negative-mass objects would be gravitationally > repelled by positive-mass > objects, rather than attracted to them. Likewise, in > general relativity only > negative mass/energy would be able to hold open a > wormhole, there'd be no > way to arrange positive mass/energy to do that. > > Jesse > JohnMi: There is a 'physicist-invented' system (a miraculous edifice) of the model "physics", the explanatory ever modified quantitative treatment of the ever increasing knowledge (epistemically enriching cognitive inventory continually further-discovered) going through systems, all with equations including still holding and duly modified expressions (eg. entropy). (It is incredibly successful and productive to originate our technology.) The entire setup is based on "positive" mass (matter?) and energy. It is a balanced entity. Put a new patern into it and the whole order goes berzerk. The difficulty is the modelwise-reduced values and the "APPLICATION" of the results of math onto them. The "beyond the model boundaries" effects are disregarded. We have a balanced complexity and if we try to alter one segment the thing falls apart. We must not include e.g. negative mass into a complexity built on positive mass only. It has no provisions for a different vision. (Heliocentric constant orbiting could not fit into the planatary geocentric retrogradational image, it was deemed "false". Maybe paradoxical. Astronomy had to be rewritten for the new concepts, it did not fit into the (then) Ptolemaic order. Heliocentric was wrong.) We are skewed by the past 26 centuries into seeing only the positive side of matter and energy. All the math equations are built on that. Of course they reject another view. Gravitation - or whatever we DON'T know about it - is no proof for rejecting a new idea which is outside of the existing ignorance about it. Equations or not. The fantasy of a wormhole ditto. Phlogiston neither(haha). Equational 'matching' within the same system and its values is not too impressive. The values are captive to the present (and past??) instrumentation and their calculative evaluation. If something does not match: it is wrong a priori. Alter the experimental conditions! Observations are rejected because some theory prohibits them. (Of course the 'observations' are also interpreted). I am not advocating the negative mass and energy idea, just fight the 'methods for their rejection' before we look into a possibility to use them right. Nobody took a second explanation for the redshift seriously, because Hubble's ingenious idea was so impressive. And today, after millions of so slanted experiments, we all expand. Irrevocably. And selectively only. Thanks for a serious reply. I did not intend to go that deeply into it. John M
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Jesse wrote Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in everyday life, such as the fact that negative-mass objects would be gravitationally repelled by positive-mass objects, rather than attracted to them. Jesse you are too quick. If you actually plug the right signs in Newton's equations: F=ma and F=Gmm'/r2 you'll discover that positive mass attracts everything including negative mass, and that negative mass repels everything including negative mass. The behavior is markedly different from that of matter and antimatter. So negative mass could never gravitationally form planets but could only exist in a gaseous or distributed form in the Universe and appear to cancel long range gravitational force (possibly what we are seeing with the Pioneer spacecrafts?) George Levy
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 08:08:13PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > This idea looks like it's pretty similar to LeSage's "pushing gravity" > theory--there's an article on it at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity which points out fatal flaws in > the the idea. It's also discussed in the second chapter of Richard > Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law", I'll quote the relevant section > here: ... Very interesting. I had heard of this theory a couple of decades ago, but never new who originated it. Interestingly, something similar is being revived by Rueda and Haisch. see arXiv:gr-qc/0504061. I quote a recent New Scientist article on the topic: "WHERE mass comes from is one of the deepest mysteries of nature. Now a controversial theory suggests that mass comes from the interaction of matter with the quantum vacuum that pervades the universe. "The theory was previously used to explain inertial mass - the property of matter that resists acceleration - but it has been extended to gravitational mass, which is the property of matter that feels the tug of gravity. "For decades, mainstream opinion has held that something called the Higgs field gives matter its mass, mediated by a particle called the Higgs boson. But no one has yet seen the Higgs boson, despite considerable time and money spent looking for it in particle accelerators. "In the 1990s, Alfonso Rueda of California State University in Long Beach and Bernard Haisch, who was then at the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Scotts Valley and is now with ManyOne Networks, suggested that a very different kind of field known as the quantum vacuum might be responsible for mass. This field, which is predicted by quantum theory, is the lowest energy state of space-time and is made of residual electromagnetic vibrations at every point in the universe. It is also called a zero-point field and is thought to manifest itself as a sea of virtual photons that continually pop into and out of existence. ?If particles are at rest, then the net effect of this jiggling is zero, but an accelerating particle would experience a net force? "Rueda and Haisch argued that charged matter particles such as electrons and quarks are unceasingly jiggled around by the zero-point field. If they are at rest, or travelling at a constant speed with respect to the field, then the net effect of all this jiggling is zero: there is no force acting on the particle. But if a particle is accelerating, their calculations in 1994 showed that it would encounter more photons from the quantum vacuum in front than behind it (see Diagram). This would result in a net force pushing against the particle, giving rise to its inertial mass (Physical Review A, vol 49, p 678). But this work only explained one type of mass. Now the researchers say that the same process can explain gravitational mass. Imagine a massive body that warps the fabric of space-time around it. The object would also warp the zero-point field such that a particle in its vicinity would encounter more photons on the side away from the object than on the nearer side. This would result in a net force towards the massive object, so the particle would feel the tug of gravity. This would be its gravitational mass, or weight (Annalen der Physik, vol 14, p 479). ?If they could come up with a prediction, people would take notice. We're all looking for something we can measure? "Rueda and Haisch say this demonstrates the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass - something that Einstein argued for in his theory of general relativity. "In place of having the particle accelerate through the zero-point field, you have the zero-point field accelerating past the particle," says Haisch. "So the generation of weight is the same as the generation of inertial mass." "The idea is far from winning wide acceptance. To begin with, there's a conundrum about the zero-point field that needs to be solved. The total energy contained in the field is staggeringly large - enough to warp space-time and make the universe collapse in a heartbeat. Obviously this is not happening. Also, the pair's work can only account for the mass of charged particles. "Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow of Boston University is dismissive. "This stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong," he says. But physicist Paul Wesson of Stanford University in California says Rueda and Haisch's unorthodox approach shows promise, though he adds that the theory needs to be backed up by experimental evidence. "If Haisch [and Rueda] could come up with a concrete prediction, then that would make people sit up and take notice," he says. "We're all looking for something we can measure." Journal reference: Annalen der Physik (vol 14, p 479) -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this emai
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
daddycaylor wrote: John Ross wrote: Neutrinos and Gravity [0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino comprises a high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons, travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its entron circling within the photon in circles having a diameter of .lambda./2 where .lambda. is the neutrino's wavelength. Most neutrinos illuminating the earth pass right through it. Neutrinos can pass right through the nuclei of atoms and even protons. Gravity results from the Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel rearward and sideways along the trail of neutrinos. The sideways components cancel, but the rearward components add pushing the matter through which they are passing back toward the source of the neutrinos. Thus, neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth (about 100,000,000 per square centimeter per second) provide the "gravity" holding the earth in its orbit around the sun. Neutrinos from the black hole in the center of the Milky Way hold all the stars of the Milky Way (including our sun) and us in our positions in our galaxy. Neutrinos captured in the earth and later released provide the earth its gravity. Does this imply that an "anti-gravity" vehicle could be built if we could somehow build a neutrino shield and put it under the vehicle? Tom This idea looks like it's pretty similar to LeSage's "pushing gravity" theory--there's an article on it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity which points out fatal flaws in the the idea. It's also discussed in the second chapter of Richard Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law", I'll quote the relevant section here: On the other hand, take Newton's law for gravitation, which has the aspects I discussed last time. I gave you the equation: F=Gmm'/r^2 just to impress you with the speed with which mathematical symbols can convey information. I said that the force was proportional to the product of the masses of two objects, and inversely as the square of the distance between them, and also that bodies react to forces by changing their speeds, or changing their motions, in the direction of the force by amounts proportional to the force and inversely proportional to their masses. Those are words all right, and I did not necessarily have to write the equation. Nevertheless it is kind of mathematical, and we wonder how this can be a fundamental law. What does the planet do? Does it look at the sun, see how far away it is, and decide to calculate on its internal adding machine the inverse of the square of the distance, which tells it how much to move? This is certainly no explanation of the machinery of gravitation! You might want to look further, and various people have tried to look further. Newton was originally asked about his theory--'But it doesn't mean anything--it doesn't tell us anything'. He said, 'It tells you how it moves. That should be enough. I have told you how it moves, not why.' But people are often unsatisfied without a mechanism, and I would like to describe one theory which has been invented, among others, of the type you migh want. This theory suggests that this effect is the result of large numbers of actions, which would explain why it is mathematical. Suppose that in the world everywhere there are a lot of particles, flying through us at very high speed. They come equally in all directions--just shooting by--and once in a while they hit us in a bombardment. We, and the sun, are practically transparent for them, practically but not completely, and some of them hit. ... If the sun were not there, particles would be bombarding the earth from all sides, giving little impuleses by the rattle, bang, bang of the few that hit. This will not shake the earth in any particular direction, because there are as many coming from one side as from the other, from top as from bottom. However, when the sun is there the particles which are coming from that direction are partially absorbed by the sun, because some of them hit the sun and do not go through. Therefore the number coming from the sun's direction towards the earth is less than the number coming from the other sides, because they meet an obstacle, the sun. It is easy to see that the farther the sun is away, of all the possible directions in which particles can come, a smaller proportion of the particles are being taken out. The sun will appear smaller--in fact inversely as the square of the distance. Therefore there will be an impulse on the earth towards the sun that varies inversely as the square of the distance. And this will be the result of a large number of very simple operations, just hits, one after the other, from all directions. Therefore the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced, because the fundamental
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
John Ross wrote: Neutrinos and Gravity [0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino comprises a high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons, travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its entron circling within the photon in circles having a diameter of .lambda./2 where .lambda. is the neutrino's wavelength. Most neutrinos illuminating the earth pass right through it. Neutrinos can pass right through the nuclei of atoms and even protons. Gravity results from the Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel rearward and sideways along the trail of neutrinos. The sideways components cancel, but the rearward components add pushing the matter through which they are passing back toward the source of the neutrinos. Thus, neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth (about 100,000,000 per square centimeter per second) provide the "gravity" holding the earth in its orbit around the sun. Neutrinos from the black hole in the center of the Milky Way hold all the stars of the Milky Way (including our sun) and us in our positions in our galaxy. Neutrinos captured in the earth and later released provide the earth its gravity. Does this imply that an "anti-gravity" vehicle could be built if we could somehow build a neutrino shield and put it under the vehicle? Tom
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
John M wrote: Jesse and George: the cobbler apprentice speaketh: you, mathematically high-minded savants look for a primitive realization of 'negative mass' etc, while you find it natural to use negative numbers. If I was 185lb last week and now 180 lb, then I have 5 lb in negative. Of course I cannot physically identify the 'missing mass', but mathematically it exists and I can calculate with it, speak about it, think about it: it 'exists'. Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in everyday life, such as the fact that negative-mass objects would be gravitationally repelled by positive-mass objects, rather than attracted to them. Likewise, in general relativity only negative mass/energy would be able to hold open a wormhole, there'd be no way to arrange positive mass/energy to do that. Jesse
Fwd: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Note: forwarded message attached. --- Begin Message --- Jesse and George: the cobbler apprentice speaketh: you, mathematically high-minded savants look for a primitive realization of 'negative mass' etc, while you find it natural to use negative numbers. If I was 185lb last week and now 180 lb, then I have 5 lb in negative. Of course I cannot physically identify the 'missing mass', but mathematically it exists and I can calculate with it, speak about it, think about it: it 'exists'. Not " a piece of negaitive mass", of course. You got used to "how much is minus 2" as a POSITIVE value, it is a matter of habit-speak, it means: missing from the rest. "As compared to..." washed away in routine talk. I wouldn't look for something positive in negative. What you are missing is the language to fit it into any theory made up for poitive items. Imagine the confusion when the zero was invented. Does zero exist? (Ask Hal) Have a good day John Mikes --- Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George Levy wrote: > > > >Negative matter/energy however are different. If > negative matter/energy > >could exist they would give space a negative > curvature. > > The issue of negative curvature is somewhat separate > from negative mass, > though--if the density of matter/energy in our > universe was below the > critical density Omega, the universe would have > negative curvature, no need > for negative mass (see http://tinyurl.com/9ox67 ). > It might be true that > adding a certain density of negative mass/energy > would have the same effect > on spacetime curvature as subtracting the same > amount from the density of > positive mass/energy though, I'm not sure. > > >Negative matter/energy may be identical to dark > energy. > > I think dark energy has negative pressure (tension, > basically), but not > negative energy--see section 6 of the article at > http://tinyurl.com/8kepb , > the one titled "Negative Pressure". But the "Casimir > effect" that pulls two > parallel plates together (see > http://tinyurl.com/anoky ) might qualify as > negative energy--at least, the energy density > between the plates is lower > than the energy of the ground state of the quantum > vacuum, but whether this > would actually have the same effect as "negative > energy" in GR is probably > something physicists can't be sure of without a > theory of quantum gravity. > > Here's an article on negative mass/energy, and its > relevance to keeping > wormholes open in GR: > > http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html > > Jesse > > > --- End Message ---
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
George Levy wrote: Negative matter/energy however are different. If negative matter/energy could exist they would give space a negative curvature. The issue of negative curvature is somewhat separate from negative mass, though--if the density of matter/energy in our universe was below the critical density Omega, the universe would have negative curvature, no need for negative mass (see http://tinyurl.com/9ox67 ). It might be true that adding a certain density of negative mass/energy would have the same effect on spacetime curvature as subtracting the same amount from the density of positive mass/energy though, I'm not sure. Negative matter/energy may be identical to dark energy. I think dark energy has negative pressure (tension, basically), but not negative energy--see section 6 of the article at http://tinyurl.com/8kepb , the one titled "Negative Pressure". But the "Casimir effect" that pulls two parallel plates together (see http://tinyurl.com/anoky ) might qualify as negative energy--at least, the energy density between the plates is lower than the energy of the ground state of the quantum vacuum, but whether this would actually have the same effect as "negative energy" in GR is probably something physicists can't be sure of without a theory of quantum gravity. Here's an article on negative mass/energy, and its relevance to keeping wormholes open in GR: http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html Jesse
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Russell Standish wrote: Incidently, here's my own theory on the origin of matter. (Special) relativistic quantum mechanics delivers the prediction of matter being in perfect balance with antimatter - this is well known from Dirac's work in the 1930s. However, if spacetime had a nonzero curvature, is this not likely to bias the balance between matter and antimatter, giving rise to the net presence of matter in our universe. It strikes me that "mass curves spacetime" is the wrong way of looking at General Relativity - causation should be seen the other way - curved spacetime generates mass. As I mentioned above, it is not surprising that spacetime is curved, what is surpising is that it is so nearly flat. Russell, you are confusing antimatter with negative matter/energy. According to convention antimatter has inverted electrical charge and therefore when the amount of matter and antimatter are in equal amount, the net charge is zero. Antimatter, however, has positive mass corresponding to positive energy in the sense of E=mc^2 . Consequently, antimatter as well as matter give space a positive curvature. Negative matter/energy however are different. If negative matter/energy could exist they would give space a negative curvature. Negative matter/energy may be identical to dark energy. George Levy
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:55:47 -0700 John Ross wrote > The problem is I do not know for sure whether or not my theory is > correct. I have tried without success to get my theory published in two > very respected scientific journals and have been rejected out of hand. > I have given descriptions of my theory to almost all of the scientist I > know (and I know a bunch of them). No one has pointed out any basic > flaw in my theory. I have submitted descriptions of my theory to this > group (which is suppose to be especially interested in Theories of > Everything) and have received no response on the merits, just criticism > or skepticism for my bothering the patent office with my theory. I and > others have found many minor flaws and I have in each case modified my > theory to correct the minor flaws. In the process I have filed seven > separate patent applications over a five year period covering the theory > as it matured. If any of you are interested in the development of my > theory, they can view my earlier patent applications on the PTO web > site. A few comments: 1) This list was originally established to discuss what might be called ensemble theories of everything, inspired by Max Tegmark's Annals of Physics paper. This is a very different subject to the unification of fundamental forces and particles theories that most physcists understand by "theory of everything". Whilst there are no restrictions about what can be posted on this list (aside from usual netiquette), it would explain why you have experienced little interest in your theories from this list. 2) Giving up after trying Science and Sci. Am. is, to put it bluntly, pathetic. Science rejects more than 50% of submissions without review. Nature does much the same. I would not be surprised if Sci. Am. or New Scientist were similar - although these latter jouurnals are not research journals, but popular science magazines. 3) The field of grand unified theories (to distinguish these physics theories from the sort of theory usually discussed on this list) has more than its fair share of cranks (I'm not implying your theory is a crank by this statement), so it is not surprising that the more highly esteemed journals will reject submissions on these topics out of hand. Phys. Rev. will probably tell you this up front. 4) I am horrified at the patent office being used to establish priority on scientific ideas. It is an abuse of the system, which is designed to protect inventors with an idea having commercial application. It also would set dangerous precedents that would further Balkanise our already fractured knowledge base. So what should a heretic (and I wear this badge with prde) do to get his or her ideas out there on the record, when no scientific journal will publish the work. Even arXiv is a little more selective about what gets into the archive, as we found out with Colin Hales recently. However, you say you already published a book. Presumably you got an ISBN with your book. In our country, an ISBN mandates that you must deposit a copy of your book into certain libraries, including the Australian National Library. Presto, your idea is on the record. The legal copy of your book testifies to when you had your idea, so you can use it to claim priority. You can self publish a book these days for as little USD 100 - this is vastly less expensive than obtaining a patent, which can run into thousands of dollars, even before paying patent lawyers to do the job properly. Of course people will ignore your book, just as they will ignore your paper (assuming you do get it past journal referees). Science these days is a very crowded kitchen. To gain influence, you need to market, market, market on top of having a sound scientific idea that is well expressed. Stories like Einstein's are the very rare exception. If it weren't for the influence of Max Planck, Einstein would have remained an unknown patent clerk. He got lucky (on top of being brilliant, of course). 5) Having a brief look at your post of the 4th of October, I can only comment that your theory looks a little skimpy. It does not predispose me to buying your book. For example, how do you explain the very different properties of bosons and fermions? Where does mass come from? How does your theory compare with the incumbent (which would be string theory I suspect)? What are the compelling advantages of your theory? That you predict space to be Euclidean seems to be a decided disadvantage to me - curved manifolds are a more general mathematical structure than flat Euclidean ones, so if space is flat, there has to be a good reason. Incidently, here's my own theory on the origin of matter. (Special) relativistic quantum mechanics delivers the prediction of matter being in perfect balance with antimatter - this is well kn
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Mr Forrester - yoohoo!!! You are not playing ther game by YOUR OWN
RULES IN ALLOWING THESE FRIVOLOUS POSTS ABOUT COPYRIGHT. The posters
are clearly and tendentiously ignoring the original poster's theory
by carrying on about this crap.
Time to lean on the "moderator's switch". HIGH TIME
Kim Jones
On 06/10/2005, at 9:22 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
I just checked the Australian patent office website - I meant
"design", not "pattern". I wonder where I got the name "pattern" from
- did it used to be used, or is my fading memory of IP nomenclature?
A design would be what Coca-Cola would register to prevent Pepsi from
selling their coke in the classic Coca-Cola shaped bottles. It is not
a patent, since it is not an invention as such. It more akin to a
trademark, something linked to a particular brand in the minds of the
consumer.
Hope that clarifies.
Cheers
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 07:15:16PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
You're right, I shouldn't say that a copyright is "granted." The
issue in copyrights is establishing that one in fact has the
copyright, i.e., that one is the originator of the work or that
one has obtained rights to it, and that it's something such that
the government should recognize it as being subject to copyright law.
I've never heard of a "pattern" as something akin to a patent or a
copyright, and a quick check of dictionary.com didn't clarify. Is
it a concept used in Britain and/or Australia?
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
--
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://
parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
--
--
email 1: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
email 2: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
I just checked the Australian patent office website - I meant
"design", not "pattern". I wonder where I got the name "pattern" from
- did it used to be used, or is my fading memory of IP nomenclature?
A design would be what Coca-Cola would register to prevent Pepsi from
selling their coke in the classic Coca-Cola shaped bottles. It is not
a patent, since it is not an invention as such. It more akin to a
trademark, something linked to a particular brand in the minds of the
consumer.
Hope that clarifies.
Cheers
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 07:15:16PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> You're right, I shouldn't say that a copyright is "granted." The issue in
> copyrights is establishing that one in fact has the copyright, i.e., that one
> is the originator of the work or that one has obtained rights to it, and that
> it's something such that the government should recognize it as being subject
> to copyright law.
>
> I've never heard of a "pattern" as something akin to a patent or a copyright,
> and a quick check of dictionary.com didn't clarify. Is it a concept used in
> Britain and/or Australia?
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgp45tgwFDuMM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
You're right, I shouldn't say that a copyright is "granted." The issue in
copyrights is establishing that one in fact has the copyright, i.e., that one
is the originator of the work or that one has obtained rights to it, and that
it's something such that the government should recognize it as being subject to
copyright law.
I've never heard of a "pattern" as something akin to a patent or a copyright,
and a quick check of dictionary.com didn't clarify. Is it a concept used in
Britain and/or Australia?
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has
> expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an
> acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody
> for that (they settled out of court).
>
Surely not a copyright. And copyrights are not granted, they're invested in the
work once created. Perhaps you mean a pattern, if not a patent.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has
> expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an
> acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody
> for that (they settled out of court).
>
Surely not a copyright. And copyrights are not granted, they're
invested in the work once created. Perhaps you mean a pattern, if not a patent.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpz5p3vHMGsN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Some years ago a U.S. judge ruled that "business methods" could be patented, perhaps he wanted to create a legacy for himself, anyway then he kicked the bucket. Rulings and case law have proliferated since then. (Testing out a new legal principle on that old "case-by-case" basis, ka-ching, ka-ching.) Congress still hasn't cleaned the mess up. So, if business methods can be patented, then why not "intellectual methods"? That's an even more terrible idea. Maybe I should patent or copyright it in order to prevent anybody from carrying it out. Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody for that (they settled out of court). - Original Message - From: "Johnathan Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:01 PM Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything ohn M wrote: > Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be > granted only if a working model can be produced (this > is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It > may be valid for a TOE as well. The patent process is designed to provide an inventor with certain legal rights regarding the use of his invention by others. To attempt to patent a scientific theory (regardless of its scientific merits or lack thereof) in the guise of a "model process" is both frivolous and bizarre. I am at a loss to understand the motivations of the original poster in doing this. On the other hand, I did not intend to "shut down" discussion of the actual hypotheses presented. -Johnathan
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
The United States Patent Law (35 U.S.C. 101) provides: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." I believe I have discovered a process for modeling photons and everything else in the universe. I believe my process is new and (if it is correct) it certainly will be useful. I believe my theory is basically correct. Therefore, I believe I should be entitled to a patent on my discovery. My attempt to patent my discovery is certainly not frivolous or bizarre. If the patent examiner examining my application determines that my theory is not correct, he may very likely also determine that my process in not useful, therefore, not patentable and I won't get the patent. If any of you or anyone else can convince me that my theory is basically wrong, I will abandon my effort to patent it. The problem is I do not know for sure whether or not my theory is correct. I have tried without success to get my theory published in two very respected scientific journals and have been rejected out of hand. I have given descriptions of my theory to almost all of the scientist I know (and I know a bunch of them). No one has pointed out any basic flaw in my theory. I have submitted descriptions of my theory to this group (which is suppose to be especially interested in Theories of Everything) and have received no response on the merits, just criticism or skepticism for my bothering the patent office with my theory. I and others have found many minor flaws and I have in each case modified my theory to correct the minor flaws. In the process I have filed seven separate patent applications over a five year period covering the theory as it matured. If any of you are interested in the development of my theory, they can view my earlier patent applications on the PTO web site. No one should bother with my theory who doesn't want to. However, I welcome, very much any criticism of my theory. If any of you tell me of a flaw that can be easily fixed, I will modify the theory to fix the flaw. And if you can prove to me that I am basically wrong, I will be very happy abandon the patent applications, get out of the business of trying to discover the secrets or the universe and get on with my life. -Original Message- From: Johnathan Corgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 11:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything John M wrote: > Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be > granted only if a working model can be produced (this > is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It > may be valid for a TOE as well. The patent process is designed to provide an inventor with certain legal rights regarding the use of his invention by others. To attempt to patent a scientific theory (regardless of its scientific merits or lack thereof) in the guise of a "model process" is both frivolous and bizarre. I am at a loss to understand the motivations of the original poster in doing this. On the other hand, I did not intend to "shut down" discussion of the actual hypotheses presented. -Johnathan
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
John M wrote: > Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be > granted only if a working model can be produced (this > is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It > may be valid for a TOE as well. The patent process is designed to provide an inventor with certain legal rights regarding the use of his invention by others. To attempt to patent a scientific theory (regardless of its scientific merits or lack thereof) in the guise of a "model process" is both frivolous and bizarre. I am at a loss to understand the motivations of the original poster in doing this. On the other hand, I did not intend to "shut down" discussion of the actual hypotheses presented. -Johnathan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Jonathan, you brought up old memories... Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be granted only if a working model can be produced (this is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It may be valid for a TOE as well. Less seriously: I worked with the Hungarian Patent Office (right after WWII) which was extremely accurate on the international patent law contracts. An old (and disgusted) boss said to us (infringement hunters): "do a good job, because nobody invents anything, people just don't read the literature". The best applications I ran across: 1. coffin with a window (so the dead person can look out) 2. Space saver nightpot with the handle inside. No infringements found on either. Working model OK. * You might add some from the 'serious' sciences,,, like eg. the bootstrap theory etc. Have a good day John Mikes PS just for the record: there was also a criterion for practicality, but that is beyond the joke. --- Johnathan Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Ross wrote: > > > My April 18, 2005 version of my Theory of > Everything has recently been > > published as a patent application. You can view > it at the United States > > Patent Office web site by going to www.uspto.gov . > Click "search" then > > click "Published Number Search" under Published > Applications. Then type > > in my Patent Application Number: "20050182607". > > Is it April 1st yet? No? How unfortunate--I wonder > how often the USPTO > has to deal with sort of thing. > >
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
John Ross wrote: > My April 18, 2005 version of my Theory of Everything has recently been > published as a patent application. You can view it at the United States > Patent Office web site by going to www.uspto.gov . Click "search" then > click "Published Number Search" under Published Applications. Then type > in my Patent Application Number: "20050182607". Is it April 1st yet? No? How unfortunate--I wonder how often the USPTO has to deal with sort of thing.
Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Any particular reason why you chose to PATENT your theory? And what do propose to use the patent for? Are you going to sue the entire world for patent infringement when it is approved? Has it not occurred to you there might be around 10 billions years of prior art, or doesn't that matter any more. Or are you doing it to show up the US patent office like those recent Aussie wags who managed to get a US patent for the wheel. Cheers On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:13:25PM -0700, John Ross wrote: > My April 18, 2005 version of my Theory of Everything has recently been > published as a patent application. You can view it at the United States > Patent Office web site by going to www.uspto.gov . Click "search" then > click "Published Number Search" under Published Applications. Then type > in my Patent Application Number: "20050182607". I have reproduced below > the "Summary of the Invention" section of my patent application. This > theory as you will see is a work in progress that I have been working on > for 5 years and am still refining. I also have a newer version, not yet > published correcting some of my mistakes in the April 18, 2005 version. > I would appreciate any comments, suggestions or corrections. > > -SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION > > Ross Model of the Universe > > [0008] I have proposed what I believe is the simplest yet model of the > universe. I call my model the "The Ross Model of the Universe". > Processes described and claimed herein can be used to describe and > explain all elements of the universe including photons, electrons, > protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei, heat, temperature, magnetism and > gravity. A preferred embodiment of the invention is a model described > below. > > Tronnies, Entrons and Photons > > [0009] According to this model, the entire universe and everything in > it, from photons to electrons to protons to galaxies, is comprised of > nothing but a single type of elementary charged point particle. I call > these point particles "tronnies". These tronnies also carry the Coulomb > force that is the only force in the universe. A tronnie has no mass and > no volume but it has a charge equal to plus e or minus e. Also, > according to this model the only forces in the universe are Coulomb > forces produced by these tronnies. Each tronnie is repelled by the force > fields of tronnies with like charges and attracted by the force fields > of tronnies with opposite charges. Tronnies repel themselves so they > never travel more slowly than the speed of light. Tronnies tend to pair > up with a plus tronnie and a minus tronnie in relatively stable > configurations that I call "entrons". An entron is a new addition to the > Ross Model. It is comprised of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie > with each tronnie of the entron traveling in circles faster than the > speed of light (typically .pi.c/2, in the entron's reference frame). An > entron is the basic energy quantum in the universe. Entrons may be > integral parts of particles such as protons, atoms, molecules and > high-energy electrons. Entrons trapped in matter represent the matter's > heat energy. Entrons released from matter continue to circle with the > same frequency as when it was trapped; however it also speeds off at the > speed of light. It cannot however travel in a straight line. To do so > while circling at 1.57c would require it to go slower than the speed of > light during part of each cycle. As a consequence it travels in circles > with diameters 160 time larger than its own circle and this double > circling configuration does travel in a straight line at the speed of > light. It is a photon. The circling tronnies provide the energy of the > photon, hc/.lambda., where h is Planck's constant and .lambda. is the > photon's wavelength which is related to the entron's diameter, d', by > .lambda.=320d'. In my preferred photon model each photon is comprised of > one entron that orbits in a circle of diameter .lambda./2 at 1.57c in > the photon's reference frame, with the photon (and its reference frame) > traveling forward at a speed of c. The result is that the entron > oscillates with a frequency of 160 times the frequency of the photon > that the entron inhabits. > > Neutrinos and Gravity > > [0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino comprises a > high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons, > travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its > entron circling within the photon in circles having a diameter of > .lambda./2 where .lambda. is the neutrino's wavelength. Most neutrinos > illuminating the earth pass right through it. Neutrinos can pass right > through the nuclei of atoms and even protons. Gravity results from the > Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at > the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel > rearward and sideways along the trail of neutrinos. The sideways > components
RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
My April 18, 2005 version of my Theory of Everything has recently been published as a patent application. You can view it at the United States Patent Office web site by going to www.uspto.gov . Click "search" then click "Published Number Search" under Published Applications. Then type in my Patent Application Number: "20050182607". I have reproduced below the "Summary of the Invention" section of my patent application. This theory as you will see is a work in progress that I have been working on for 5 years and am still refining. I also have a newer version, not yet published correcting some of my mistakes in the April 18, 2005 version. I would appreciate any comments, suggestions or corrections. -SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Ross Model of the Universe [0008] I have proposed what I believe is the simplest yet model of the universe. I call my model the "The Ross Model of the Universe". Processes described and claimed herein can be used to describe and explain all elements of the universe including photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei, heat, temperature, magnetism and gravity. A preferred embodiment of the invention is a model described below. Tronnies, Entrons and Photons [0009] According to this model, the entire universe and everything in it, from photons to electrons to protons to galaxies, is comprised of nothing but a single type of elementary charged point particle. I call these point particles "tronnies". These tronnies also carry the Coulomb force that is the only force in the universe. A tronnie has no mass and no volume but it has a charge equal to plus e or minus e. Also, according to this model the only forces in the universe are Coulomb forces produced by these tronnies. Each tronnie is repelled by the force fields of tronnies with like charges and attracted by the force fields of tronnies with opposite charges. Tronnies repel themselves so they never travel more slowly than the speed of light. Tronnies tend to pair up with a plus tronnie and a minus tronnie in relatively stable configurations that I call "entrons". An entron is a new addition to the Ross Model. It is comprised of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie with each tronnie of the entron traveling in circles faster than the speed of light (typically .pi.c/2, in the entron's reference frame). An entron is the basic energy quantum in the universe. Entrons may be integral parts of particles such as protons, atoms, molecules and high-energy electrons. Entrons trapped in matter represent the matter's heat energy. Entrons released from matter continue to circle with the same frequency as when it was trapped; however it also speeds off at the speed of light. It cannot however travel in a straight line. To do so while circling at 1.57c would require it to go slower than the speed of light during part of each cycle. As a consequence it travels in circles with diameters 160 time larger than its own circle and this double circling configuration does travel in a straight line at the speed of light. It is a photon. The circling tronnies provide the energy of the photon, hc/.lambda., where h is Planck's constant and .lambda. is the photon's wavelength which is related to the entron's diameter, d', by .lambda.=320d'. In my preferred photon model each photon is comprised of one entron that orbits in a circle of diameter .lambda./2 at 1.57c in the photon's reference frame, with the photon (and its reference frame) traveling forward at a speed of c. The result is that the entron oscillates with a frequency of 160 times the frequency of the photon that the entron inhabits. Neutrinos and Gravity [0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino comprises a high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons, travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its entron circling within the photon in circles having a diameter of .lambda./2 where .lambda. is the neutrino's wavelength. Most neutrinos illuminating the earth pass right through it. Neutrinos can pass right through the nuclei of atoms and even protons. Gravity results from the Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel rearward and sideways along the trail of neutrinos. The sideways components cancel, but the rearward components add pushing the matter through which they are passing back toward the source of the neutrinos. Thus, neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth (about 100,000,000 per square centimeter per second) provide the "gravity" holding the earth in its orbit around the sun. Neutrinos from the black hole in the center of the Milky Way hold all the stars of the Milky Way (including our sun) and us in our positions in our galaxy. Neutrinos captured in the earth and later released provide the earth its gravity. Electrons [0011] Three entrons (together comprised of a total of three plus tronnies and thre
