Strange Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 This is a possible opinion, not a motiviated evaluation. It is a perfectly realistic assessment. As your informatons are not detectable (and therefore have no reality) you could just as well replace them with non-interacting-hyper-neutrinos, or invisible nano-unicorns. Or magic. Postulating things for which there is no evidence, and which cannot be detected and are therefore not falsifiable, is by definition not science.
swansont Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 This is a possible opinion, not a motiviated evaluation. It is not testable, by your own tacit admission. It's also classical, which means you aren't even skating to where the puck is, much less where it's going to be. You're skating to where the puck was a little while ago. You have a model that's less useful than the one we already have for E&M, which makes testable predictions, and explains phenomena that classical physics doesn't.
ernst39 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 It is not testable, by your own tacit admission. When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116) You have a model that's less useful than the one we already have for E&M, which makes testable predictions, and explains phenomena that classical physics doesn't. The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't.
imatfaal Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116) How is it differentiable from current theories?
swansont Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116) Then how does one test your idea? The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't. But we have theories that do explain these things. GR explains gravity, for example. Why do we need an explanation for Newtonian gravity, which is known to be wrong?
Strange Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't. And GEM does not need magic informatons.
ernst39 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 How is it differentiable from current theories? My approach doesn't start from GRT to explain GEM, but from the hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of the gravitational field.
swansont Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 My approach doesn't start from GRT to explain GEM, but from the hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of the gravitational field. How is it testable?
Mordred Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 GEM itself is testable, your informatons isn't. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism there is a section on various tests Here is one paper http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism The problem with your informaton is it has zero measurable properties. No energy, momentum etc.
ernst39 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 Then how does one test your idea? My theory leads to the formalism of GEM and this is at the moment the object of numerous tests. GEM itself is testable, your informatons isn't. I agree, but I repeat what I said in post # 128: there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, but that applies to all physical theories.
swansont Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 My theory leads to the formalism of GEM and this is at the moment the object of numerous tests. I agree, but I repeat what I said in post # 128: there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, but that applies to all physical theories. Does GEM work without informatons?
ernst39 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 Does GEM work without informatons? If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection.
swansont Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection. But you don't have a theory, since your idea is not testable.
Strange Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection. And Occam's razor says not to introduce unnecessary entities. So your magic particles can be rejected because they are unnecessary: GEM works without them.
ernst39 Posted March 27, 2015 Author Posted March 27, 2015 But you don't have a theory, since your idea is not testable. Does the insight that there is no evidence of the foundations of any (phsical) theory only apply for not-mainstream theories? And Occam's razor says not to introduce unnecessary entities. So your magic particles can be rejected because they are unnecessary: GEM works without them. Another formulation of Occam's principle: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better".
Strange Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Another formulation of Occam's principle: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better". You could put it that way. So which of the two indistinguishable theories is simpler: 1. GEM with added magic particles that don't make any difference and are undetectable 2. GEM Clue: the one without unnecessary additions. 1
swansont Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Does the insight that there is no evidence of the foundations of any (phsical) theory only apply for not-mainstream theories? False insight doesn't matter. You've made a claim without providing evidence.
ernst39 Posted March 27, 2015 Author Posted March 27, 2015 You could put it that way. So which of the two indistinguishable theories is simpler: 1. GEM with added magic particles that don't make any difference and are undetectable 2. GEM Clue: the one without unnecessary additions. 1 = explanation of GEM with informatons should be compared to other explanations or deductions of GEM 2 = description of GEM
swansont Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 1 = explanation of GEM with informatons should be compared to other explanations or deductions of GEM 2 = description of GEM But if GEM doesn't rely on informatons to work (or fail), how can you make a comparison?
ernst39 Posted March 27, 2015 Author Posted March 27, 2015 But if GEM doesn't rely on informatons to work (or fail), how can you make a comparison? In my article (post #41), I show that the GEM-description of gravitation (including the mathematical formulation of GEM) can be deduced from the (only) hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of gravitational fields. In the case of Occam's razor one must compare my method to other deductions who lead to the same result (explanation of GEM).
Mordred Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Your not understanding, the problem with your inflatons. In order to have any influence you must have some form of energy. The influence must be measurable. Current QEM already describes its influences without introducing your inflatons. QEM also uses the Poynting vector and has a full equivelence to the Einstein field equations, as well as account for the spin characteristics in particle interactions. So it covers both the quantum and macroscopic measurements. In other words it's far more accurate with less interactions to keep track of
Strange Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) In my article (post #41), I show that the GEM-description of gravitation (including the mathematical formulation of GEM) can be deduced from the (only) hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of gravitational fields. That is not your only hypothesis. You invent five arbitrary rules A1-A3 and B1-B2 that your "informatons" follow. These rules appear, at first glance, to be entirely ad-hoc but are clearly generated from the theory (GEM) that you are attempting to show can be derived from first principles. So your argument is entirely circular: derive properties of magic particles from GEM. Use magic particles to derive GEM. I assume you are here because this "paper" has been rejected by all reputable journals. Edited March 27, 2015 by Strange
ernst39 Posted March 28, 2015 Author Posted March 28, 2015 That is not your only hypothesis. You invent five arbitrary rules A1-A3 and B1-B2 that your "informatons" follow. These rules appear, at first glance, to be entirely ad-hoc but are clearly generated from the theory (GEM) that you are attempting to show can be derived from first principles. So your argument is entirely circular: derive properties of magic particles from GEM. Use magic particles to derive GEM. The hypothesis is (attachment 2): A point mass m0 at rest at the origin of an inertial reference frame is emitting informatons at a rate K.m0 (with K = c2/h); an informaton carries an elementary quantity of g-information characterized by its g-index sg = (1/(K.eta0).er , where eta0 = 1/(4.pi.G) [with G the gravitational constant]. In the article (post #41) I formulate (for clarity) that hypothesis in what you call "five arbitraty rules". To understand where the idea is coming from: see §4.1 and §4.2 I assume you are here because this "paper" has been rejected by all reputable journals. This is an unfounded and biased "assumption". It shows little respect for those who post here on "Speculations". attachment 2.pdfI forgot the attachment to the previous post. You find it here.
Strange Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 This is an unfounded and biased "assumption". It shows little respect for those who post here on "Speculations". Congratulations. Where was it published?
Mordred Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 You still don't understand, in order for informatons to have any influence you need some form of energy. Your information is NOT a measurable entity. It has zero substance, zero wavefunction,zero momentum,zero mass, zero charge etc etc. In other words it's absolutely nothing zero zip. Without measurable properties it CANNOT influence anything. This is basic physics that any first year student understands. The other problem you fail to acknowledge is your rest frame to inertial frame transformation is simply incomplete. Your not showing the Lorentz factors in the length contraction or time dilation. So your coordinates will be wrong, to observational evidence we have today. At relativistic speeds. GR is extremely well tested. Why do you think GEM includes a compatible tensor to the Einstein field equations?
Recommended Posts