Closer To Truth: Some Things About Physics

There is an ongoing PBS TV series [also some books and websites] called “near the truth”. Hosted by neuroscientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He was featured in one-on-one interviews and panel discussions on all the big questions surrounding today's trilogy, including today's cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, theologians, and psychologists. Broad topic-cosmos. Consciousness; meaning. The trilogy collects reality, space and time, mind and consciousness, aliens, and theology. Here are some of my comments about physics, one of the general topics.

What is the truth?

In a practical sense, the truth is what most people say, especially those in power. Once upon a time, it was true that the sun circled the earth. The earth was flat. Life universe and everything was created "first". Zeus ruled the roost of Mount Olympus. And there was a dragon. & # 39; True & # 39; will help you survive in that culture according to your culture. If the Spanish Inquisition tells you that 2 + 2 is 5 [2 + 2 = 5], it is better to believe it! In reality, it doesn't matter whether the sun moves around the earth or the earth rotates about its axis. In any case, you can see the sunrise and dawn. Sunset and dusk. Is it really important whether your car is moving on a stationary road or is driving behind and below a stationary car as long as you work on time? Of course, there is truth beyond reasonable doubt. Every time you see enough apples falling from the apple tree, you can see the apples falling towards the ground. However, it will be absolute truth only if you witness all the apples from the apple tree removed from itself and fall off all the apple trees until the apples are removed from the apple tree . And still, don't neglect the possibility that the next apple will not go down to the ground, but instead take the course towards the moon. Therefore, there is a truth defined by others. There is a relative truth. There is truth beyond reasonable doubt. But perhaps there is no absolute truth. You may think that you cannot draw multiple straight lines between two points on flat paper, but you don't have to keep drawing a line between two points on flat paper Eternity to prove?

What is the real thing?

Things composed of material and energy [both sides of the same coin] are real. Since the body and brain are made up of material and energy, the body and brain [the heart contained in it] are real. What is not is a concept, which is not realistic because it has no structure or material. Some concepts can be converted into reality or realized even if the concept itself still holds nothing. Even if there is a house in a quarter acre block, the concept of a house in a quarter acre block remains the same. An example of a concept that can turn into reality may be a holiday. There are no vacation plans. Vacation is not yet realistic. Actually taking a vacation is a thing. The place you are in is a physical place, so when you go on vacation, the vacation assumes real reality. The concept of writing a novel is one thing, and it is another thing that you can actually translate the concept into an actual book and have it in your hand. Some concepts like Wednesday cannot be turned into reality. There is no structure or content on Wednesday. Wednesday is not composed of material and energy. Since the concept of Pi has no structure or substance, it remains a concept forever. Some concepts may change to reality one day, but have not yet been realized. Moving faster than the speed of light, commuting through wormholes, all home quantum PCs, and jet backpacks remains a concept. These concepts may or may not achieve real status. So ideas don't really exist until the idea turns into something composed of material and energy. Those composed of materials and energy have already achieved a genuine status.

What is Ultimate Reality?

The ultimate reality is the “Twilight Zone”! In the final reality we have to conclude that we are between the rocks of the “Twilight Zone” and the harsh location of the “Twilight Zone”. & # 39; rock & # 39; When trying to accept the strangeness of quantum physics, based on experimental and observational evidence, elementary particles that are fundamental components of the universe show recognition or consciousness By having to admit, it exercises a limited range of free will that is pushed into the corners of kicks and shouts. If you examine only the famous [or notorious] double slit experiment in detail, you can verify it alone. & # 39; Hard place & # 39; is an explanation and is the only explanation that makes sense in all of the weirdness of quantum, that we exist in a simulated [virtual reality] universe That is. The whole quantum phenomenon is just one of [many] software programs. In this case, it is a software program that executes the micro area. There is another software program that runs the macro domain, which is why quantum physics and classical physics cannot be integrated. All theories do not exist and cannot exist. Therefore, when rejecting the simulation hypothesis, for example, it is necessary to confront the ultimate reality that electrons are more or less alive. If you refuse it, you must accept the idea that ultimate reality is contained in a simulated [virtual reality] universe. This is the need for virtual reality software to account for the apparent “survival” of electrons. . As I said, you just crossed into the “Twilight Zone”!

Can science provide the ultimate answer?

It all depends on the final question. Science can provide answers to some of the ultimate questions, just like us in space. Is there a multi-dimensional universe? Do we really exist as virtual reality, not real reality? What came before the Big Bang; how does consciousness work? How does memory work? Do you have free will? There is a hidden variable that explains the strangeness of quantum; does the Loch Ness monster actually exist? What is on the next hill; and maybe what is something rather than what? Science cannot answer the ultimate questions including purpose and meaning. Beauty and elegance. What are the 10 best movies? Gray shades of moral and ethical questions; what is the ultimate value of Pi? Value and judgment system. In fact, anything that can't actually be sliced ​​is scrutinized and scrutinized in a lab slab, and finally everyone agrees on everything with everyone else. Science is observation and measurement, logic, certainty and predictability. Non-science is intuition and intuition, unpredictability and uncertainty, and disagreement. Science is Mr. Spock. Non-science is equivalent to Leonard “Bones” McCoy, Yin Yang Star Trek.

What is the ultimate question of all reality?

The ultimate question that can be asked about at least all reality is which of the at least three reality scenarios is the right one. The first of the real-world scenarios is the reality of Mother Nature and the various laws, relationships, and principles we have discovered that we will continue to discover in science, especially physical science. This is probably the reality most of us have in our daily lives. The second possible reality is a supernatural reality where certain gods can invalidate their scientific laws, relationships and principles at any time. In other words, miracles can occur. This supernatural reality includes all sorts of things that physics rejects. For example, many of the events related to the Bible such as the sun and moon that are still in the sky at HQ. Many people use this form of reality as a legitimate reality scenario. Finally, reality scenario 3 incorporates the idea that reality is just software programming and we are a virtual being in a simulated [virtual reality] universe. The software provides those scientific laws, principles, and relationships, but you can tweak the software to throw a monkey wrench into the work [is the physical constant always constant], and programmers can You can make mistakes and cause various anomalies [such as the accelerating universe]. Then the software can do everything it can imagine, so it can easily explain all sorts of paranormal phenomena, like a circle of mystery that really rejects rational explanations. There are two variations of the simulation hypothesis. One is the standard software version. The second option is the wet wear version. All reality is in the heart. Reality is a dream. You are imagining or dreaming of this life, the universe and everything, someone is imagining or dreaming, you are only part of their imaginary life, the universe and everything. Therefore, they are a useful option to determine what is actually the reality, and answering that question can isolate the scenario and reveal the deeper levels inherent in that real version. I can do it.

Why appearance is important

Why is appearance important? When atoms do not emerge from elementary particles; when simple molecules do not emerge from those atoms; when very complex molecules, organic molecules, or biochemical molecules do not emerge from simple molecules. If unicellular organisms do not emerge from very complex molecular soups; if multicellular organisms do not emerge from those unicellular organisms; if human and human mind do not emerge from multicellular organisms; appearance is important Will not come here to discuss why is that! The fact that we came out of those isolated elementary particles is important unless we are here and we have no reason to consider ourselves important.

Can the emergence explain the reality?

Can the emergence explain the reality? Isn't it the opposite? Reality explains the emergence. The reality is electrons and quarks. Neutrons and protons are generated from quarks. Atoms emerge from electrons, neutrons, and protons. Molecules emerge from atoms and continue like a chain. If you want to start by calling a molecule a reality, then the appearance explains the reality, but I think the reality starts at the most basic level, not somewhere in the chain.

What is the basics of cosmos?

Obviously the most basic is the building block that creates the structure that is ultimately part of the universe. Basic means something that cannot be broken down into more fundamental ones. The base is where the back stops. Given the current understanding of things, the back stops with electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons and some other pieces. In another context, bricks can exist without brick walls, but bricks are more basic than brick walls because brick walls cannot exist without bricks. The same applies to Lego blocks. Oxygen and hydrogen can exist independently of water, but hydrogen and oxygen are more basic than water because water cannot exist without hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen atoms cannot exist without neutrons, protons, and electrons, but neutrons, protons, and electrons can survive and thrive without producing oxygen. Finally, unless you have a quark, you cannot make a proton a proton. The problem is until it turns out that quarks, electrons, neutrinos, photons, etc. are composed of more basic ones. Do you know? But until that day comes, basic investment ends with these building blocks.

Why is "something" instead of "nothing"?

Having something, not why nothing is one of the big questions that can be pondered and discussed until the cows come home. I would like to consider this question in the context of being one of the fine-tuning parameters that make life-friendly or Gordilox universes possible. If there is nothing else, we will not be here to ponder the problem. This doesn't provide the ultimate answer, but I depend on the simulation hypothesis. We & # 39; live & # 39; simulated [virtual reality] universe. We are software. We are bits and bytes. We are mathematics. Software is more ambiguous than electronic or quark, but it allows us to exist.

Is there anything that is not material

Is there anything that is not material? of course. There are things like materials and energy. Some tend to call us concepts. What is not there is mathematics, architecture, philosophy. What is not is Wednesday or beauty or dimension. What is not is a unit of measurement. The wheel itself is a thing, whereas the non-thing is a wheel concept. While Apollo 11 was a thing, "no" is the concept of landing on the moon. Space and time are nothing else. The past and future are not things. In fact, there will probably be more things that aren't, spiritual, possible abstractions, concepts, etc. exist. Perhaps there are more concepts that cannot be converted into things than those that can be converted into things. Recall how the White Queen believed in six impossible things before breakfast.

Was mathematics invented or discovered?

IMHO, mathematics is the invention of the human mind, not abstract but abstract. There is no property in mathematics that we associate with things. You can discover things. The concept was invented. 1 + 2 = 3 [1 + 2 = 3] is not a problem. Pies are not things. Quadratic equations are not a problem. Mathematical theorem is not a thing. Mathematics cannot be detected by any of the five senses. In addition, even instruments that extend sensory capabilities beyond the capabilities of sensory devices cannot be detected. Of course mathematics is a useful tool, but many of the possible mathematics are not. We observe and look for mathematics types that fit the useful ones and chuck those that don't fit in the trash. Therefore, gravity can be explained by the inverse square method, but it cannot be explained by the inverted method, so the inverted cubic relationship is put in the trash can. I then question the beauty and elegance of the inverse square method, which explains how gravity acts over distance, and forget about the unbeauty and elegance of the inverse cubic rule. As an aside, beauty and elegance are neither legitimate scientific nor mathematical terms. Scientists and mathematicians follow many interviews on "close to truth" and no matter how often they are used by scientists or mathematicians, they will not find them in a scientific or mathematical dictionary.

Are the laws of nature always constant?

Since humans measure the laws of nature only for a very short period of time compared to the age of the universe, it should always be followed, however, that the laws of nature are always constant. As long as we measure them, they appear to be constant, but some cracks are clearly visible. Theoretically, it makes no sense that what was a physics law, principle, or relationship a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang is the same law, principle, or relationship that we observe today. Seems like. Theoretically. However, rather than agreeing with the idea that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating due to a strange anti-gravity called “dark energy”, I immediately believe that the speed of light was not constant over the time of the universe. “The“ dark energy ”and the accelerating universe violates another law that is expected to remain constant-the conservation law that energy cannot be made from pure nothing. Non-constant constants have a solution but are not accepted by the majority. I am confident that all viewers are receiving software upgrades on their PCs. These adjustments will subtly change some of the previous laws, principles, and relationships in which the PC worked. Now the question arises as to what happens if we are “living” virtual people. In a simulated [virtual reality] universe? We and the cosmic landscape we are in are really just a part of programmed computer software. Well, sometimes, the best programmer [not God], a bloody video gamer or video game creator may find that his software needs a little adjustment, that is, an upgrade. For our virtual self, such fine-tuning may appear as a change in the laws, principles, and relationships of physics, or in other words, a change of what we assumed to be constant.

Why black holes are amazing

Who said the black hole was amazing? Is the moon amazing? Now, the moon has mass, gravity, and escape speed. Because the mass of the earth is large, gravity is large, so the escape speed is also large. The sun is even more so. The ante is up with a white d star and thus up again with a neutron star. Finally, it is surprising that even such a photon [only one of these elementary particles] cannot escape, reaching such mass with such gravity, such escape rate, finite escape rate There is none. So far, everything is just a variation of the exact same theme. Making a black hole means that we can't see it or see its interior, compared to the mysterious and unprecedented mass of a neutron star. And because we can't see the inside, we invent an important scenario about the state of the materials that make up the inside of the black hole we can't see. Let's look at the neutron stars wobbling at the brink of the black hole. You can see the neutron star. Add a pinch of salt to the neutron star, or perhaps two or three, and send it to the edge, making it big enough to become a black hole. Suddenly, there was a dramatic change in the basic material and structure of the object, and a new black hole was created? Perhaps lurking in is the same old kind of thing we know and love and is only a little more dense than most of what we know and love. I hear a lot of ridiculous things from people who should really know what's inside the black hole. Refers to the concept of singularities. This is often described as an infinite density that exists in a zero volume where the laws of physics fail. How good is it? Infinite density cannot be placed in the zero volume. It's ridiculous. A finite density can exist in a finite volume, but that volume does not have to be in the quantum domain. If the density is finite, it means that the density has an upper limit. Density cannot continue to increase indefinitely. Now, when you reach that maximum density, you will inevitably have to increase the volume as you continue to add more. Eventually, we reach a volume that is not considered to exist in the Quantum realm [and this argument applies equally to the Big Bang event, and why wasn't a quantum-size event]. So what is inside the black hole? A very dense mass of things in the volume, perhaps not much smaller than that of a typical neutron star. Black holes really do not deserve the mysterious aura given.

Is time real?

Is time real? Are bricks real? Brick has structure and material, mass and energy, and when they are combined to form a brick wall or house, there are characteristics that appear. You can see the bricks, touch the bricks, perhaps smell and smell the bricks, and even hear the bricks if they vibrate at audible frequencies. Bricks are things. Time is not an issue. There is no structure, matter, mass, energy in time, and there is no nature to appear. Time can't prank you. You can't spend time on your toes. You cannot see, touch, taste time, sniff time, or listen to time. So what does it do time? Time is a concept. Many animals are soaked with the concept of time, so time is not only the human mind, but the spiritual component of the mind. Time is abstract and there are all the realities of other concepts such as Wednesday and elegance. Time is a measurement, and like other units of measurement such as inches and pints, time is an invention. What does time measure? Time measures change or rate of change. If the concept of time has not changed at all, it has no meaning. But measuring time, changing, or rate of change is not an illusion in itself, so you may be a step ahead of calling time an illusion.

Is time basic?

Is time basic? No, time is not fundamental because time is not an issue. There is no structure or substance in time. Time is a concept, an abstract invention of the mind that has meaning and significance only when the mind [not just the human mind] appears in the universe. The mind or consciousness or consciousness feels that things [things of matter and energy] change. Invent the concept of time to help you understand the meaning of change. Time is our way of measuring the rate of change, and all units of measurement are mind abstraction and invention. Another reason why time isn't fundamental is that, unlike bricks and Lego blocks, time doesn't hold by itself and is more complicated. There is nothing that comes out of time. To give meaning to time, matter and energy had to exist at least at the same time. Without materials and energy, there is nothing that can change. Without change, it makes no sense to talk about the concept of time. Material and energy-no time.

Is the information basic?

If the cosmos is just a bit and a part-time job and it has been true since the Big Bang event, I think it is true. Well, it actually sounds like a 20-question game where you can identify everything in the cosmos with less than 20 “yes” and “no” [binary] answers. Or cosmos is just more suggestive evidence that it exists as software programmed as a simulated [virtual reality] universe, including ourselves as part of that cosmos. However, one important point is that information is useless unless you are conscious of absorbing, assimilating, digesting, contemplating, and ultimately understanding and using it. Of course, it suggests that life had to be born from those bits and bytes, and perhaps the mind [us, animals, or ET] to understand those bits and bytes Suggests that they are bit and byte methods and what they mean in the sense that they are useful information. Or do you need a biological mind to accept information? For example, there are situations where two electrons cannot occupy the same “orbit”. If both electrons have exactly the same quantum properties, around the nucleus. One electron needs to spin up and the other electron needs to spin down. In either state, it is information. Therefore, when one electron is in a spin-up state in orbit, it appears that the electron recognizes the spin state of another electron. & # 39; orbit & # 39 ;. It absorbs, assimilates, digests, contemplates, and ultimately makes sense of the information contained in its rival electronic state. If the rival electron contains information that it is in a spin-up state, a packing is sent. If the electron contains information that it is in a spin-down state, a welcome mat is issued. Thus, if the universe is information, and the information is fundamental, the electrons [and other elementary particles as well] have recognition, & # 39; the mind & # 39; it is contained in the surrounding universe Matches information.

What is pan psychology?

You don't have to read too many amateur introductory books on quantum physics before you encounter phrases such as "Electron knows" or "Electron decides".多くのプロの物理学者は基本的な粒子が明らかな認識を持っていることを知っているだけでなく、それを示すことができると確信しているが、著者は彼らが言っていることの意味を通常も認識していないと確信している自由意志の制限または制限された範囲。もちろん、プロの物理学者は、明白な理由でこれについて話すことを望まない。ただし、自宅で行うことができるものを含め、実際の実験または観察により、この量子異常を検証します。たとえば、有名なまたは悪名高いダブルスリット実験では、粒子は、スリットが1つだけ開いているのか、両方のスリットが開いているのかを事前にどのようにして知るのでしょうか？ 1つのスリットが開いている場合、粒子であると判断されます。両方のスリットが開いている場合、それは波です。見知らぬ人も、粒子がすでに両方のスリットを通過して見かけの波として通過し、その後粒子に戻った後、粒子が心を変えることができる遅延二重スリット実験です。別の例：光子を吸収し、原子核の周りのより高いエネルギーレベルにジャンプする電子について奇妙なことは何もありません。しかし、電子はその後、光子を取り除き、より低いエネルギー状態に戻ることをどのように決定するのでしょうか？それから、放射性崩壊の謎があります。不安定な（放射性）核は、まったく理由もなく完全にランダムに崩壊します。因果関係はありません。しかし、集合的に、これらの不安定な原子核の束は、すべてランダムなタイミングでだまされます（1つの原子核がいつ崩壊するかを事前に予測することはできません）、まったく理由もなく、半減期と呼ばれる減衰の正確な数学的な関係を生成します生活。問題は、動作中の外部因果関係や動作中の完全なランダム性なしに、不安定な核は、その半減期関係を維持するために、どのようにしてパニックに陥るのか、そしてパパに移行することを決定するのか？最後に、自宅でできる観察。あなたは1つの光源を持っている、それは太陽だと言う。ガラスの透明なペインが1つあります。日光、光子、ガラスに近づきます。光子の一部はガラスを通過します。一部の光子はガラスから反射します。外を覗き込んでいる場合、ガラスの反射を見ることができ、同時に内部を見ることができます。または、内側にいる場合は、外側をはっきりと見ることができますが、あなたと内側にある他のオブジェクトの内部反射も見ることができます。したがって、異常は、1つの光源、1つのガラス板、2つの異なる結果です。個々の光子は、ガラスを通過するか、ガラスから反射するかをどのように決定または知るのですか？どこかに気味悪いものがあります！

余分な寸法はありますか？

余分な次元が存在するだけでなく、現実の概念で明白に与えられていると私たちが当たり前と考えている3つの従来の空間次元さえありません。基本的な理由は、次元は概念であり、物ではないということです。もちろん、スペースまたはボリュームがあります。両方とも概念であり、そのスペースまたはボリューム内に構造と物質を含む実際のものが存在しない限り、意味がありません。物がない場合、スペースはありません。 3つの空間的次元があるという概念に関しては、直角について何がそんなに不思議なのかを問わなければなりませんか？別の空間次元に取り組むたびに、コースを90度変更する必要があります。方向を89度変更しても、そこに到達することはありません。繰り返しますが、次元は概念であり、精神的な抽象化です。ゼロ次元のポイントを想像できますが、作成することはできません。ペンから紙に触れてポイントを作成すると、3Dボリュームがで​​きます。 1次元の線を想像できますが、線を描くと、再び3次元構造になります。領域の概念を想像することも同じです。メンタルコンセプトは問題ありませんが、2次元領域を構築することはできません。デフォルトは3次元ですが、3次元の概念と呼ぶ代わりに、単に空間またはボリュームの概念と呼びます。これは、実際に何か物理的なものがない限り、実際には数学的概念または抽象的な精神構造です。余分な次元に関する限り、これもストリング理論の抽象的な数学に完全に包まれた概念です。ストリング理論家がボード上で1回も実験を実行できれば、余分な次元の存在だけでなく、余分な次元の抽象的な概念でさえも自信があります。しかし、10年ごとに10年もの間、弦理論家は話をするだけでありながら、歩き回ることができず、私たちに彼らの弦のプリンのいくつかの実際の証拠さえも証明しているようには見えません。