Elvis Sibilia's Philochrony theory of everything

[river]

No, the symbolic number represents the actual measurable values (properties) of a physical object. The values are a property of the object, the symbolic cyphers are man-made.

The object itself does not have an awareness of it's inherent value(s) of course, but when interacting with other objects the relative values of each object are critical to their interaction.

Witness; gravity and the behavior exhibited by each object dependent on their individual relative masses and momentum.

Go back to post#37 .

Or posts #33 through to #37 .

 

[Write4U]

And nothing more .

And Which is not extended into understanding reality . Because this " measureable mathematical value " has no real physical existence .

Actually a "measurable property" is an indication of physical existence or potential.

A measurable property is a property of a physical system which can be compared against a standard unit of measurement to provide a numerical value defining the quantity of that property.

https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition: Measurable_Property

Measurement is the process of determining the quantity or value of a measurable property.

I showed an example of gravity, where the relative values of the masses mathematically determine their relative interactive behaviors.

This is Tegmarks whole hypothesis. Every object (atomic or geometric pattern) has an intrinsic mathematical value and therefore allows for measurement and potential for doing work.

His "Mathematical Universe" is based on that proposition and would in theory allow for the conceptualization of a universal TOE.

 

[river]

Actually a "measurable property" is an indication of physical existence or potential.
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition: Measurable_Property

Measurement is the process of determining the quantity or value of a measurable property.

I showed an example of gravity, where the relative values of the masses mathematically determine their relative interactive behaviors.

To your last statement

So the Universe is fundamentally based on Physical Real Objects . Not nothing .

 

[Write4U]

To your last statement

So the Universe is fundamentally based on Physical Real Objects .

The expressed (unfolded) Universe is a physically real object with inherent measurable mathematical values. It also has inherent as yet unmeasured (enfolded) potential values. A mountain lake has an enormous enfolded potential for energy. Electricity generated by a dam is the unfolding of measurable energy.

Hydroelectric Power

Reclamation powerplants annually generate more than 42 billion kWh of hydroelectric energy, which is enough to meet the annual residential needs of 14 million people or the energy
equivalent of more than 80 million barrels of crude oil.

https://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf

Human observers are only able to observe a limited range of these unfolded expressed values, such as density of atomic or molecular dispersion.

I have already cited the three different states of physical existence (wetness) of an identical number of H2O molecules.
Compact density = solid (ice). Physical property; hard, dry
Intermediate density = liquid (water). Physical property ; fluid, wet
Highly dispersed density = gaseous (vapor). Physical property ; vaporous, humid

 

[river]

The expressed (unfolded) Universe is a physically real object with inherent measurable mathematical values. It also has inherent as yet unmeasured (enfolded) potential values. A mountain lake has an enormous enfolded potential for energy. Electricity generated by a dam is the unfolding of measurable energy.

Hydroelectric Power https://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf

Human observers are only able to observe a limited range of these unfolded expressed values, such as density of atomic or molecular dispersion.

I have already cited the three different states of physical existence (wetness) of an identical number of H2O molecules.
Compact density = solid (ice). Physical property; hard, dry
Intermediate density = liquid (water). Physical property ; fluid, wet
Highly dispersed density = gaseous (vapor). Physical property ; vaporous, humid

And the ability to burn .

To the highlighted

What the Frig does that even mean !!!!!!??

What unFold's for the Universe to Exist .

 

[Asexperia]

IMO, it does have a real, albeit relative value. This is why we can represent it with a symbolic number.

The actual number we use to represent the value is a human invention. But an intrinsic value does exist.

Yes, value or quantity of the property.

 

[river]

Write4U said: ↑
IMO, it does have a real, albeit relative value. This is why we can represent it with a symbolic number.

The actual number we use to represent the value is a human invention. But an intrinsic value does exist.

Yes, value or quantity of the property.

Define " quantity of the property " highlighted .

 

[Asexperia]

Define " quantity of the property " highlighted .

Weight: Take a book in your hands and lift it.
Length: Look at a pencil.
Time: Do a pause for a moment looking at a clock.

 

[river]

Weight: Take a book in your hands and lift it.
Length: Look at a pencil.
Time: Do a pause for a moment looking at a clock.

To your last statement ; And if I don't look at a clock , all day , week , month ...> ? Then what changes in the things that are going on about me ? To the things themselves .

As opposed to pausing for a look at a clock .

 

[Write4U]

What unFold's for the Universe to Exist

I suspect all quantum fields contain enfolded (unmeasurable) potentials, from which unfolded (measurable) values become expressed.
Note; the emergence of a Higgs boson at the CERN collider, which promptly decayed back into simpler constituents.

Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong

 

[river]

I'm , 9:47 minutes into this video , Write4U , I am not impressed .

At , the field is a fluid , 11:17 , and exists throughout the entire Universe .

 

[river]

Electric and Magnetic fields exist . Of course they do .

The thing is , is that , neither could exist without a physical source .

 

[river]

Wave and Particle have always existed together , always .

If I take either from the other , for example ; could a particle exist without a wave .

 

[Write4U]

Wave and Particle have always existed together , always .

Have they?
AFAIK, the original plasma state existed before fundamental particles formed during cooling.

Plasma Phase of matter

A plasma globe, illustrating some of the more complex plasma phenomena, including filamentation

Plasma is one of the four fundamental states of matter, and was first described by chemist Irving Langmuir in the 1920s. It consists of a gas of ions – atoms which have some of their orbital electrons removed – and free electrons.

If I take either from the other, for example ; could a particle exist without a wave .

Yes, collapse the wave function and the physical particle emerges from the field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

 

[Write4U]

I'm , 9:47 minutes into this video , Write4U , I am not impressed .

Well, he does take you on a little bit of background history. Personally, I like that because it puts his narrative in perspective.

At , the field is a fluid , 11:17 , and exists throughout the entire Universe .

Yes, I see that more as a chaotic energy field having fluid (wavelike) properties. IMO, this is not quite the same as being a liquid.

David Tong is a quantum physicists, speaking at the Royal Institution, in England.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Wave and Particle have always existed together , always .

Have they?
AFAIK, the original plasma state existed before fundamental particles formed during cooling.

Plasma Phase of matter

A plasma globe, illustrating some of the more complex plasma phenomena, including filamentation
Yes, collapse the wave function and the physical particle emerges from the field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Plasma is ionic .

Yes the Plasma State exists and in the Universe it exists . Hence the Cosmic Web or the Fluid theory of whats happening . I like the Idea of a Fluid , just not sure I like the theory .

I still like the Cosmic Web theory as well .

I mentioned to nebel a little while ago on his thread , the idea of currents existing in our Solar System .

Anyway to have measure the physical must exist first .

Write4U , I haven't given you enough credit for mentioning the Plasma Theory well done.

 

[river]

Well, he does take you on a little bit of background history. Personally, I like that because it puts his narrative in perspective. Yes, I see that more as a chaotic energy field having fluid (wavelike) properties. IMO, this is not quite the same as being a liquid.

David Tong is a quantum physicists, speaking at the Royal Institution, in England.

If the Universe is Only made of waves , then the waves never become other than waves and could never build a physical reality . Because the waves could never focus their energy in one place ; example , to produce a Galactic Globular Core . To focus the energy you need a particle , that focuses the energy of the wave .

Waves , in and of themselves can't produce a physical object , and an object in and of its self , can't produce a wave .

 

[Write4U]

If the Universe is Only made of waves , then the waves never become other than waves and could never build a physical reality . Because the waves could never focus their energy in one place ; example , to produce a Galactic Globular Core . To focus the energy you need a particle , that focuses the energy of the wave .

But that 's incorrect. The double slit experiment proves that particles travel as a wave function. IOW, a travelling particle is smeared out and unfocused. The wave function does not created focused trajectories, the particle is not a particle in that atomic pattern. Look at the ocean, a roiling cauldron of water.

Waves , in and of themselves can't produce a physical object , and an object in and of its self , can't produce a wave .

Again, the double slit experiment has proved that waves can and do behave as particles when the wave function is collapsed. Again think of the ocean and the wave breaking on the rocks and a thousand individual droplets are created by the kinetic impact .

Note that the wave function moves on top of the water, but does not carry any water. The water itself moves in vertical rotation not horizontally as the wave. Yet when the wave collapses on the rocks the water breaks into small individual "particles".

It seems to me that a physical particle is no more than a dense pattern of elementary values which acquires mass due to kinetic impact and become expressed as a massive physical object.

Muons are everywhere
Muons have the same negative charge as electrons but 200 times the mass. They are made when high-energy particles called cosmic rays slam into atoms in Earth's atmosphere. Travelling at close to the speed of light, muons shower Earth from all angles.May 24, 2018

Muons: the little-known particles helping to probe the Universe
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05254-2

Isn't it interesting that we experience collision with a photon as light and warmth, but we cannot even experience collision with a muon at all.

How are muons detected?
Muon Detectors. ... Because muons can penetrate several metres of iron without interacting, unlike most particles they are not stopped by any of CMS's calorimeters. Therefore, chambers to detect muons are placed at the very edge of the experiment where they are the only particles likely to register a signal.Nov 23, 2011

http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors

 

[river]

↑

If the Universe is Only made of waves , then the waves never become other than waves and could never build a physical reality . Because the waves could never focus their energy in one place ; example , to produce a Galactic Globular Core . To focus the energy you need a particle , that focuses the energy of the wave .

But that 's incorrect. The double slit experiment proves that particles travel as a wave function. IOW, a travelling particle is smeared out and unfocused. The wave function does not created focused trajectories, the particle is not a particle in that atomic pattern. Look at the ocean, a roiling cauldron of water.

Particles travel within the wave . With density . It is what gives mass to a wave .

 

[Write4U]

↑
Particles travel within the wave . With density . It is what gives mass to a wave .

That's the crux of the problem.....