[General] new member?

Andrew Meulenberg mules333 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 21:20:46 PST 2016


Richard,

If you follow his math, it might be better for you to invite him. I have
not had time to read his work adequately.

Thx,

Andrew

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
>    I would advise inviting Kevin to our discussions. He has done his
> homework on the zitterbewegung of the electron and apparently takes it and
> its implications seriously.
>           Richard
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I have appended an email (with his association) from someone who has a new
> view of the electron. While I am sympathetic to his approach, I don't feel
> that I will gain a lot from his model (too mathematical for me); however,
> if anyone thinks that it is worth inviting him to join the discussion,
> please do so.
>
> Andrew
>
> *From:* Online_Sadhu_Sanga at googlegroups.com [
> mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga at googlegroups.com
> <Online_Sadhu_Sanga at googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Knuth
>
>
> *Departments of Physics and InformaticsUniversity at Albany, Albany NY USA*
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 18 February 2016 5:54 PM
> *To:* Online_Sadhu_Sanga at googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Define natural selection
>
>
> Dear Stephen,
> I enjoyed your discussion about how mainstream science complicates things!
> I am a physicist, and I marvel at how the concepts we employ (mass,
> energy, time) have been taken as fundamental and foundational.  Our current
> theories simply assume these concepts and their relations and then try to
> go further.  But they can't - they are stuck.  The reason is that by
> assuming such concepts, one cannot learn about them.
> I have been in recent conversations with fellow physicists and astronomers
> regarding the nature of space-time.  This is especially timely given the
> LIGO results.  Geraint Lewis recently tweeted regarding LIGO, "This does
> not mean that space-time is a thing!"  You might enjoy his paper "Expanding
> Space: The Root of All Evil?"
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380
> As you may have guessed, I too have problems with the concept of space as
> a thing.
> As I see it modern physics faces two problems.  First, it has come to
> assume that discoveries can be made using Math. From what I see, it seems
> that this arose out of all of the consequences to quantum mechanics that
> were rooted out by applying mathematics to the theory.  To this I owe the
> computer I am typing on among many many other things.  Physics is broken,
> but not horribly broken.  Its clearly doing some things right.
>
> Math plays two roles in Physics:  First, Math describes symmetries.
> Second: Math provides equations that quantify relationships.  I have an
> essay (that I assume some people think is nice, since it received a 3rd
> place prize in the FQXi essay contest) called "The Deeper Roles of
> Mathematics in Physical Laws":
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06686
> What people have seem to have forgotten is that in physics Math is a very
> precise language used to describe a model.
> The MODEL is what is important.  And that is all it is, a model.  It isn't
> TRUTH because as my friend John Skilling says "You wouldn't know the Truth
> if I told it to you!".  It is simply a model.
> And not just any sort of model... it is a PREDICTIVE MODEL.  This is
> important since it allows one to test it by comparing it to some aspect of
> reality.
> So what about the continuous 3+1 manifold we call space-time?  Hmmm... Its
> mighty hard to test continuity.  So the whole continuous manifold aspect is
> in serious question.
> Strings?  Yeah the math has nice symmetries, but that doesn't mean that
> string theory conforms to reality.  It is not yet a sufficiently predictive
> model.  Keep working???  Perhaps.  These people people are geniuses, they
> know what they are doing as they have been working on this for decades...
> except that they have not been solving the problem for decades.
> Dark matter?  Hmmm...gravity isn't working at the galactic scale.  So
> let's add stuff.  Sounds like over-fitting to me.  Maybe the theory is not
> quite right.
> At this point I am just complaining.
> But seriously, given your dissatisfaction with modern physics, perhaps I
> could ask you to take a peak at the work of a dissatisfied physicist.
> I have two papers that you might find interesting.  Please do take a
> peak.  If you don't like what you see in the first paragraph then don't
> bother.
> These two papers outline a new attempt at foundational physics that we
> have been undertaking where a simple model consisting of objects
> influencing one another is employed.  So far, some physicists really like
> it, others find it curious, and many don't seem to like it because its too
> simple (God forbid that someone finds a simple way to do what they have
> been doing, but that would make smart people look stupid and they don't
> like that!).
>
> Here is the first:
>
> Understanding the Electron
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07766
>
>
> The physics arxiv classified "Understanding the Electron" as Philosophy of
> Physics, which upset me because it really is a new foundational theory that
> leads to relativity and quantum mechanics in a new context. Clearly the
> moderators didn't get it.  Moreover, this means that physicists won't read
> it.  But maybe some philosophers will.
> The second is similar.
>
> Information-Based Physics and the Influence Network
> http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Knuth_fqxi13knuthessayfinal.pdf
> This essay also won 3rd place in an FQXi essay contest (so someone liked
> it).  I do have journal papers with details and proofs and such that
> effectively bury the ideas in mounds of math.
> Please do take a peak.  And if you decide to delve further and read them,
> I would sincerely appreciate your thoughts.
> Kevin Knuth
>
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160225/24ec7c13/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list