[Has there been any New Kind of Physics yet?] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

Pages:1


Has there been any New Kind of Physics yet?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: MikeHelland

Just wondering.

I have discussions with physicists, and I find them not being at all familiar with the notion of physics being doing with something other than equations.


Posted by: MikeHelland

It seems to me, that if there are no NKS style physics out there, that Wolfram Research would be interested in the all the potential candidates that they come across.


Posted by: MikeHelland

Hello,

I've done quite a bit of work on my paper, and wouldn't mind some feedback or criticisms.

A Monadic Framework for Quantum and Relativistic Phenomena

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” -Max Planck

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” -Arthur Schopenhauer

abstract:
The observation of Hubble redshift has been taken to indicate a new physical property of space: that it expands. With the proposal of expanding space, Hubble redshift seems to fit nicely in with the rest of physics: the range of the electromagnetic force is infinite and the speed of light is constant across all infinity. This paper begins to examine a novel interpretation of Hubble redshift that is simply taboo in the context of established physics. The new interpretation places limits on the range of the EM force, the distance light can travel at constant c, and the conservation of energy. While this new interpretation of Hubble redshift leaves out the expansion of space, it preserves an increase in the duration of a photon's journey across cosmological distances, and therefore should make the same predictions as expansion cosmology if duration, rather than distance were calculated from luminosity. The broader consequences of this new cosmology are proposed to be an elegant method of understanding and modeling quantum and relativistic phenomena, a single model that supersedes both quantum mechanics and general relativity, and a resolution to the hard problem of consciousness.

References

* Newton, I. (1687) Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
* Einstein, A. (1920) Relativity: The Special and General Theory
* Heisenberg (1972) Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations Harper Torchbooks, p. 63
* Leibniz, G. W. (1714) Monadology
* Nakagomi, T. (1992). Quantum monadology: a world model to interpret quantum mechanics and relativity. Open Syst. Inform. Dync. I, 355-378
* Smolin, L. and Barbour, J. B. (1992) Extremal variety as the foundation of a cosmological quantum theory
* Cahill, R. T. (2003) Process Physics
* Smythies, J. (2003) Space, Time and Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies (Vol.10, No.3)
* Lanza, R. (2007) "A New Theory of the Universe", Spring 2007 The American Scholar


http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm


Posted by: Martijn

Hi,

Thanks for the draft!
I have probably not yet given you writing the time it deserves, as there are still some parts I do not understand.

As a "Gedankenexperimen";
If I understood correctly your photons can only travel a finite distance, because they lose energy over distance/time. Than what would we expect the CMB to look like? If I understood correctly than I think such a system should produce a continues distribution. The CMB I believe is relatively narrow banded 3-4Kelvin.

Perhaps, I don not understand.




Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings