The instinct of reality is distorted by current physics

[wei guo]

A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one.

 

Quote

Today, the scientific community comprehensively accepts adding many extra unverifiable things into reality, e.g. extra mass: dark matter, extra energy: dark energy, extra position: superposition, extra dimensions, or even extra parallel reality. Considering reality is not understood completely, adding something into reality's unknown part is indeed a shortcut for explaining inherent measured discrepancy, but such behaviors are likely to distort the instinct of reality. Here, we aim to explain all measured discrepancies without distorting reality. We report any inherent measured discrepancy involving an indirect measure method that relies on an artificially-defined equivalence, e.g. inertia mass indirectly measures mass via an equivalence between mass and force/acceleration. Time measure relies on an equivalence between time and some phenomena for reference, e.g. the swing of a pendulum, the fall of sands or electron jumping between two states. Since Galileo, mathematical equal sign is introduced so naturally between different physical properties. We argue that any such equivalence only holds true within a limited phenomena range. Although we summarized some method's application range, e.g. inertia mass can only apply to phenomena meeting 'macro, low-speed, inertia-system', we state such scattered descriptions collected from experience are not rigorous. Instead, we deduct a rigorous application range from principle and hence any inherent measured discrepancy results from the measured phenomena exceeding the method's application range, e.g. remote objects actually exceed the Doppler effect's application range. By ignoring this, large-scale red shift inevitably misleads us to the universe's accelerating expansion and the dark energy's existing necessity. Similarly, dark matter only logically exists to expand the dynamical mass' application range to cover the phenomena of most galaxies.

 

Wei Guo, "Uncovering the rigorous application range of any mathematical equivalence between different physical properties to avoid adding extra unverifiable things into reality for explaining inherent discrepancy in phenomena measure" https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23299703 (June 5, 2023).

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, wei guo said:

A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one.

 

 

Wei Guo, "Uncovering the rigorous application range of any mathematical equivalence between different physical properties to avoid adding extra unverifiable things into reality for explaining inherent discrepancy in phenomena measure" https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23299703 (June 5, 2023).

What is this paper and in what reputable journal has it been published? 

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

You need to post excerpts of your idea here. Nobody wants to leave the site or open documents they don't trust.

Please support your ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. Try to avoid pitching this as "the real nature of reality". Science observes nature; "reality" is more of a philosophical concept. I'll let this stay in a mainstream section as long as you can use mainstream explanations, otherwise this will need to be moved to Speculations. 

 

[swansont]

Quote

extra position: superposition

LOL, that’s not what superposition means.

 

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, wei guo said:

A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science.

Are you aware that dark matter is named that way mostly because it doesn't absorb, emit, or reflect electromagnetic radiation? It doesn't just mean "unknown".

[Boltzmannbrain]

The poster is also the author of the paper.

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

The poster is also the author of the paper.

Is this an objection? On what basis?

[Boltzmannbrain]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Is this an objection? On what basis?

It's not an objection, but it may help people know what they are getting into. 

[wei guo]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you aware that dark matter is named that way mostly because it doesn't absorb, emit, or reflect electromagnetic radiation? It doesn't just mean "unknown".

definitely, after you read the paper, you know the reason why the current scientist define dark matter as something that cannot interact with electromagnetic radiation is due to the logical need to keep some old theory to stand rather than reality has 'that thing'.

[Genady]

Why is this thread in the mainstream forum?

[wei guo]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

LOL, that’s not what superposition means.

 

If you do not try to cover some 'mathematical' coat on the superposition but discuss its real nature, it is indeed trying to add 'extra position' to explain the uncertain measurement of micro phenomenon. 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, wei guo said:

If you do not try to cover some 'mathematical' coat on the superposition but discuss its real nature, it is indeed trying to add 'extra position' to explain the uncertain measurement of micro phenomenon. 

In QM superposition is in regard to the state of the particle, not its position. You can describe such a system with one state if you change the basis.

In classical physics it’s about the addition of wave amplitudes in e.g. interference. “Super” simply means “on top of” in this context, as in the word “superimpose”

It’s probably a mistake to read too much into the verbiage used; the equations are the proper description. A superposition of two states is a|1> + b|2>

[wei guo]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to post excerpts of your idea here. Nobody wants to leave the site or open documents they don't trust.

Please support your ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. Try to avoid pitching this as "the real nature of reality". Science observes nature; "reality" is more of a philosophical concept. I'll let this stay in a mainstream section as long as you can use mainstream explanations, otherwise this will need to be moved to Speculations. 

 

mainstream explanation is controlled by describing reality by treating 'mathematical equivalence' as the principle for expressing the law of nature for hundreds years but ignore a more fundamental principle behind why mathematics can describe the law of nature.  Evidence and sound reasoning is stated in the paper. Not permitting a way that is different from mainstream explanation is no different from excluding any viewpoint regarding the earth is not the centre of the solar system in the 16th century

Edited June 14, 2023 by wei guo
spell

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Evidence and sound reasoning is stated in the paper.

And you were told that it needs to be posted here. People have to be able to participate without clicking on links, per the rules.

[wei guo]

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why is this thread in the mainstream forum?

Because the real mainstream forum permits another voice to make science to develop healthier rather than block itself to a wrong path

[Mordred]

No the mainstream sections is specifically for mainstream sciences as taught in textbooks and professional peer reviewed literature. It is not the place to examine personal theories. That belongs in our Speculation forum.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

It’s been moved to Speculations, wei guo, you need to follow our rules - post your material here, and provide evidence to support your claims

 

[joigus]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

LOL, that’s not what superposition means.

So easily confused with extra position [?]= bilocation = "the supposed phenomenon of being in two places simultaneously"

[wei guo]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

It’s been moved to Speculations, wei guo, you need to follow our rules - post your material here, and provide evidence to support your claims

 

Because this forum rules one day can only send 5 replies.  before I provide evidence, it is transferred to here

On 6/14/2023 at 1:55 AM, swansont said:

LOL, that’s not what superposition means.

 

 

22 hours ago, swansont said:

In QM superposition is in regard to the state of the particle, not its position. You can describe such a system with one state if you change the basis.

In classical physics it’s about the addition of wave amplitudes in e.g. interference. “Super” simply means “on top of” in this context, as in the word “superimpose”

It’s probably a mistake to read too much into the verbiage used; the equations are the proper description. A superposition of two states is a|1> + b|2>

position and momentum is the first pair of conjugate properties that show the uncertainty when we try to measure them at the same time. You can say that is either superstate or superposition. That does not matter.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

Because this forum rules one day can only send 5 replies.  before I provide evidence, it is transferred to here

That applies to the first day only, as an anti-spam measure.

Quote

position and momentum is the first pair of conjugate properties that show the uncertainty when we try to measure them at the same time. You can say that is either superstate or superposition. That does not matter.

You can say this, but you would be incorrect. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not superposition or superstate (whatever that is)

[Mordred]

So far what the OP has presented sounds like a mangled word salad gone through a high RPM blender.  There isn't even sufficient material to examine to see if that statement holds true or not. Judging from the errors mentioned so far.  I won't hold any hopes for significant improvement. 

Sounds more like another "Let's rewrite physics without understanding the physics being rewritten"

Edited June 15, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That applies to the first day only, as an anti-spam measure.

You can say this, but you would be incorrect. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not superposition or superstate (whatever that is)

The Heisenberg uncertainty relation is more original than superposition or superstate and MWI, which are just two mainstream explanations for why the Heisenberg uncertainty relation exists. But the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is not the very beginning point, which is just an explanation for a measuring difficulty when we try to measure the micro phenomenon at the same time. The key is this very beginning measuring issue, which is not caused by the nature of reality but by the principle about how the observers measure the world.

5 minutes ago, wei guo said:

The Heisenberg uncertainty relation is more original than superposition or superstate and MWI, which are just two mainstream explanations for why the Heisenberg uncertainty relation exists. But the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is not the very beginning point, which is just an explanation for a measuring difficulty when we try to measure the micro phenomenon at the same time. The key is this very beginning measuring issue, which is not caused by the nature of reality but by the principle about how the observers measure the world.

The aim is to notice the rigorous application range of describing the law of nature by any mathematical equivalence. In this way, we can continue keep the old physics building stand without inserting anything extra into reality.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

So far what the OP has presented sounds like a mangled word salad gone through a high RPM blender.  There isn't even sufficient material to examine to see if that statement holds true or not. Judging from the errors mentioned so far.  I won't hold any hopes for significant improvement. 

Sounds more like another "Let's rewrite physics without understanding the physics being rewritten"

The aim is to notice the rigorous application range of describing the law of nature by any mathematical equivalence. In this way, we can continue keep the old physics building stand without inserting anything extra into reality.

[Mordred]

I seriously hope your not replying by copy pasting directly from your article. What you replied with did absolutely nothing to demonstrate what you are claiming.

 It doesn't give me anything worthwhile to examine for consistency with known physics.

Your understanding of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is definitely erroneous. It also demonstrates a very skewed understanding of the actual mathematics involving inherent uncertainties in any Fourier transformation used extensively in QM.

Your understanding of the definition of superposition is also incorrect.

Not a good start.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

I seriously hope your not replying by copy pasting directly from your article. What you replied with did absolutely nothing to demonstrate what you are claiming.

 It doesn't give me anything worthwhile to examine for consistency with known physics.

This is not from article. From childhood, you are taught that math is the best tool to express the law of nature. So it is natural that the viewpoint of 'math has the applied limitation' cannot be acceptable. 

[Mordred]

Word salad. The language of physics is mathematics. Every physics definition has an underlying mathematical proof. If your not applying the correct definitions for its terminology you are not doing physics . Rather you are doing some home spun imagination