Difference between revisions of "Notes in general"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
In science, especially with regard to fundamental principles and theories, it is very difficult to arrive at a certainty of "truth". Principles, theories, models, are hypotheses or systems of hypotheses that can hardly be proven true in their entirety. If it is not possible to prove their truth, in order to be temporarily assumed as hypothetical descriptions of Physical Reality or part of it, and to be used as a basis and guide for further theoretical developments and experimental research, they must be sufficiently "plausible", that is, they must be reasonably in agreement with the available observational and experimental evidence and must not contradict a "sound principle of reality". The concept of "action at a distance" is a clear example of a contradiction of the sense of reality, and of an implausible description of natural phenomena, and therefore must be rejected. It cannot and must not be used as a basis and guide for scientific research. Another example, closely related to the previous one, is the concept of non-locality. Here too, we are faced with a description that lacks plausibility. Principles, theories, models, can be expressed in mathematical formulations that produce exact predictions of the results of observations / experiments, but they can be accompanied by implausible descriptions, not compatible with healthy principles of reality. In this case, mathematical formulations can and must be used, but it must be clear that the descriptions that seem to emerge from the equations must not be accepted if they are not plausible. Implausible descriptions, in order to be accepted, considered true, even until proven otherwise, must be investigated and demonstrated absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt. And in any case, it must always be clear that these are hypotheses, and hypotheses must remain. Implausibility condemns a description of natural phenomena to a status of "perennial doubt", to a condition of "eternal suspicion". On it, nothing can and must be built as on a certain foundation. We are not referring here to the concept of "realism", as generally invoked in the context of relativistic theories: no "uncertainty" ("God does not play dice") and no "non-locality" (Spooky action at a distance). Uncertainty is a property of Physical Reality observable in many phenomena. Its description or the description of phenomena where uncertainty appears are entirely plausible. Physical action at a distance and physical non-locality (which imply the violation of the principle of causality, the propagation of action, energy, information at speeds greater than the limiting speed), on the other hand, are not plausible concepts. What is observed, for example in entanglement phenomena, is a "logical" non-locality, which manifests itself in the space of correlations between quantum information, and not in the space of action, energy, physical information. | In science, especially with regard to fundamental principles and theories, it is very difficult to arrive at a certainty of "truth". Principles, theories, models, are hypotheses or systems of hypotheses that can hardly be proven true in their entirety. If it is not possible to prove their truth, in order to be temporarily assumed as hypothetical descriptions of Physical Reality or part of it, and to be used as a basis and guide for further theoretical developments and experimental research, they must be sufficiently "plausible", that is, they must be reasonably in agreement with the available observational and experimental evidence and must not contradict a "sound principle of reality". The concept of "action at a distance" is a clear example of a contradiction of the sense of reality, and of an implausible description of natural phenomena, and therefore must be rejected. It cannot and must not be used as a basis and guide for scientific research. Another example, closely related to the previous one, is the concept of non-locality. Here too, we are faced with a description that lacks plausibility. Principles, theories, models, can be expressed in mathematical formulations that produce exact predictions of the results of observations / experiments, but they can be accompanied by implausible descriptions, not compatible with healthy principles of reality. In this case, mathematical formulations can and must be used, but it must be clear that the descriptions that seem to emerge from the equations must not be accepted if they are not plausible. Implausible descriptions, in order to be accepted, considered true, even until proven otherwise, must be investigated and demonstrated absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt. And in any case, it must always be clear that these are hypotheses, and hypotheses must remain. Implausibility condemns a description of natural phenomena to a status of "perennial doubt", to a condition of "eternal suspicion". On it, nothing can and must be built as on a certain foundation. We are not referring here to the concept of "realism", as generally invoked in the context of relativistic theories: no "uncertainty" ("God does not play dice") and no "non-locality" (Spooky action at a distance). Uncertainty is a property of Physical Reality observable in many phenomena. Its description or the description of phenomena where uncertainty appears are entirely plausible. Physical action at a distance and physical non-locality (which imply the violation of the principle of causality, the propagation of action, energy, information at speeds greater than the limiting speed), on the other hand, are not plausible concepts. What is observed, for example in entanglement phenomena, is a "logical" non-locality, which manifests itself in the space of correlations between quantum information, and not in the space of action, energy, physical information. | ||
| + | |||
'''Restarting Physics''' | '''Restarting Physics''' | ||
| − | Quantum vacuum | + | *Quantum vacuum |
| − | Precise definitions of Nothingness, Emptiness; Somethingness, Wholeness, Vacuum (absolute and relative), Void, ecc. | + | *Precise definitions of Nothingness, Emptiness; Somethingness, Wholeness, Vacuum (absolute and relative), Void, ecc. |
| − | Vector analysis: grad, div, curl | + | *Vector analysis: grad, div, curl |
| − | Continuity -> Structures -> Waves | + | *Continuity -> Structures -> Waves |
| − | Discreteness -> Structures -> Particles | + | *Discreteness -> Structures -> Particles |
| − | Quantum | + | *Quantum |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Restarting Cosmology''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Reject BB / inflation / other derived models | ||
| + | *CMB no BB relic | ||
| + | *No space expansion, alternative explanations, local expansion effects | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''E.M. Waves''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | They are emitted by any (accelerating) / decelerating Vortex Structures having linear and angular momentum (-> direction of propagation and polarization). | ||
Latest revision as of 19:00, 4 November 2024
Science today and tomorrow
Many statements and interpretations provided by science (we are talking here above all about physics and cosmology) are inaccurate or completely wrong, and in any case misleading. They create a fragmented and improbable general vision, which seriously conditions the development of new (and more correct) science, the approach of ordinary people who have an interest in understanding how the world we live in is made and how it works, the development of a vision global and unitary reality that favors a more harmonious relationship between Humanity and Nature, a more profitable balance between reason and emotion, a more spiritual vision of Life and our role in the Universe.
Plausibility / implausibility
In science, especially with regard to fundamental principles and theories, it is very difficult to arrive at a certainty of "truth". Principles, theories, models, are hypotheses or systems of hypotheses that can hardly be proven true in their entirety. If it is not possible to prove their truth, in order to be temporarily assumed as hypothetical descriptions of Physical Reality or part of it, and to be used as a basis and guide for further theoretical developments and experimental research, they must be sufficiently "plausible", that is, they must be reasonably in agreement with the available observational and experimental evidence and must not contradict a "sound principle of reality". The concept of "action at a distance" is a clear example of a contradiction of the sense of reality, and of an implausible description of natural phenomena, and therefore must be rejected. It cannot and must not be used as a basis and guide for scientific research. Another example, closely related to the previous one, is the concept of non-locality. Here too, we are faced with a description that lacks plausibility. Principles, theories, models, can be expressed in mathematical formulations that produce exact predictions of the results of observations / experiments, but they can be accompanied by implausible descriptions, not compatible with healthy principles of reality. In this case, mathematical formulations can and must be used, but it must be clear that the descriptions that seem to emerge from the equations must not be accepted if they are not plausible. Implausible descriptions, in order to be accepted, considered true, even until proven otherwise, must be investigated and demonstrated absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt. And in any case, it must always be clear that these are hypotheses, and hypotheses must remain. Implausibility condemns a description of natural phenomena to a status of "perennial doubt", to a condition of "eternal suspicion". On it, nothing can and must be built as on a certain foundation. We are not referring here to the concept of "realism", as generally invoked in the context of relativistic theories: no "uncertainty" ("God does not play dice") and no "non-locality" (Spooky action at a distance). Uncertainty is a property of Physical Reality observable in many phenomena. Its description or the description of phenomena where uncertainty appears are entirely plausible. Physical action at a distance and physical non-locality (which imply the violation of the principle of causality, the propagation of action, energy, information at speeds greater than the limiting speed), on the other hand, are not plausible concepts. What is observed, for example in entanglement phenomena, is a "logical" non-locality, which manifests itself in the space of correlations between quantum information, and not in the space of action, energy, physical information.
Restarting Physics
- Quantum vacuum
- Precise definitions of Nothingness, Emptiness; Somethingness, Wholeness, Vacuum (absolute and relative), Void, ecc.
- Vector analysis: grad, div, curl
- Continuity -> Structures -> Waves
- Discreteness -> Structures -> Particles
- Quantum
Restarting Cosmology
- Reject BB / inflation / other derived models
- CMB no BB relic
- No space expansion, alternative explanations, local expansion effects
E.M. Waves
They are emitted by any (accelerating) / decelerating Vortex Structures having linear and angular momentum (-> direction of propagation and polarization).
