[General] new member?

Fri Feb 26 05:08:02 PST 2016

Richard: Ask for instructions from my student, Michael Ambroselli,  ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu>
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 11:35 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] new member?

Andrew,
  No, I don’t follow his math, which looks more like logic patterns than math. But I have a sense that he could bring something to the conversation. What are the mechanics getting a person added to the Nature of Light and Particles list?
        Richard

On Feb 24, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Knuth
Departments of Physics and Informatics
University at Albany, Albany NY USA

Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2016 5:54 PM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga at googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto: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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160226/60befe23/attachment.htm>