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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Fwd: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
Note: forwarded message attached. ---BeginMessage--- 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
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 email came from me if you have PGP
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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: everything-list@eskimo.com 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
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
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: everything-list@eskimo.com 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
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
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
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 known from
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
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.
