Null Physics anyone?

[Paul]

I think this quote from Terry's website explains a lot about his theory, although not why he thought hit and run advertising for his book would work here:

At long last, a theory has emerged that addresses the foundation of reality logically, rationally, empirically, and completely - Null Physics. The universe it reveals doesn't rely on unknowable precursors in the ancient, untestable past. The universe it reveals won't collapse, or grow old and die. Null Physics tells us why the universe exists, how the universe exists, and why it is the way it is. The mystery of our existence has beaten scientists and philosophers for so long that they are utterly convinced that reality's underpinnings are beyond human comprehension. They are wrong. Anyone with a basic familiarity with high-school physics can, by reading this volume, understand the universe with a greater depth and clarity than is currently believed possible. Welcome to 21st century physics.

 

[Taffer]

I think this quote from Terry's website explains a lot about his theory, although not why he thought hit and run advertising for his book would work here:

So, in short, he has found a Theory of Everything which is explanable using high-school level phyiscs?

Why is it that I find that so hard to believe?

 

[Paul]

Why is it that I find that so hard to believe?

You have a working brain in your head.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, in short, he has found a Theory of Everything which is explanable using high-school level phyiscs?

Why is it that I find that so hard to believe?

Trust me, it wasn't high school level. I did pretty well in high school and I have no idea what any of you were talking about.

 

[ben m]

So, in short, he has found a Theory of Everything which is explanable using high-school level phyiscs?

I don't doubt that he has a theory of something; the question is, of what? It may be a theory of some possible Universe, but it certainly isn't the theory of ours.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think Complexity makes an excellent point in post 56.
Outside what we know is a huge cloud of what we partly know.
It requires a certain humility to accept that there are limits to what we can know.

Last night , someone told me that sound and light are the same thing and it's all a matter of frequency and vibrations.

Which I guess sums it all up.

Time for a strong coffee , I think.

 

[quarky]

testing

my second attempt to reply here:
i actually have the book (my girlfriend bought it for me; i started reading it; had to do a quick google; landed here)

i'm brand new here, and may not comprehend the rules just yet. if this post flies, i'll be back.

 

[quarky]

probably not cool to reply to one's own post, eh?
pity that terrence witt has left the arena already.
this is the most expensive book i've ever owned!

(i'm sorta obligated to read the whole thing; grumble moan bitch)

anyway, i hatched out a similar hypothesis about 10 years ago, on a popular website that no longer exists. mine is math-free; pure philosophy..but good philosophy.
is there a good spot to spew it out here?

it has a bit of avalanche theory; some nuero-transmitter chemistry; a touch of layman's quantum mechanics...pretty happy stuff, mostly.

perhaps 1000 people have already read it, years ago.
(i'm not saying that witt was one of them)

 

[Soapy Sam]

Dump a synopsis in the philosophy or science areas. If the mods feel it needs moved, they'll move it.

 

[Schneibster]

Yeah, no stress, they leave a link where it came from, too. I'd suggest science, even though it's a little hinky.

I commented above I wouldn't buy it, but if given it as a gift, I can understand why you'd read it. Beware, however, there are people here (and I am one) who know enough about how physics actually works that you want to be careful how you present things. I'm tolerably certain we're not looking at anything that's actually going to supplant real physics, but you might get some good ideas from it, and I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear them.

 

[quarky]

cool.

here's the notion:

a single subatomic particle is all that exists; it violates C in the extreme; yet it pre-exists its permutations. it assembles all the larger systems, really fast. if it was a quark, it would move into 6 positions; change spin as needed to behave like the apparent variations. the percievors of the phenomenae don't notice the speed of this particle; hence, we don't suspect seperate, sequential realities being assembled before our eyes, by a very zippy particle.

if such a scenario is possible, then we are formed by its motions, and ultimately exist as the same minute particle that is speeding about, creating all necesary larger configurations to accomodate our perceptual commands and desires.

we interface with this single subatomic particle at the synapse of a a pair of nuerons.

enough of that.
i shall look for the correct forum.

 

[Paul]

we interface with this single subatomic particle at the synapse of a a pair of nuerons.

Except we couldn't, because if you were correct, nothing but that single particle would exist, not the synapse or the neurons or the necessary equipment to process the signals etc, etc...

One particle, moving very quickly and pretending to be other things, is still only one particle.

If you're going to claim that it's so fast it's practically indistinguishable from multiple particles then you have another of the 'what's the difference if you're right' ideas (like 'we're all just part of god's dream'); whatever the truth the universe will behave the same way, so why try to produce a theory with no benefits and countless drawbacks over the current ones.

 

[Schneibster]

a single subatomic particle is all that exists; it violates C in the extreme; yet it pre-exists its permutations. it assembles all the larger systems, really fast. if it was a quark, it would move into 6 positions; change spin as needed to behave like the apparent variations. the percievors of the phenomenae don't notice the speed of this particle; hence, we don't suspect seperate, sequential realities being assembled before our eyes, by a very zippy particle.

Amusing, but definitely more philosophy than science; even if it's true, it's a distinction without a difference. There's no way to prove it.

Feynman once proposed (I'm not sure whether in jest or not) that because positrons can be interpreted as electrons moving backward in time, there is only one electron, zipping back and forth and creating all the timelines of all the electrons we think we see everywhere in the universe. But again, it's a distinction without a difference, and there is no way to prove it.

 

[quarky]

true, its not proveable, and is rathar reverse engineered. it begins from an assumption of unified fields. i find the urge to unify the fields disturbing in some ways, even though i'm guilty of it too. what if they simply don't unify? we seldom approach the matter that way.

to paul, i would suggest that there are benifits in the single quark hypothesis, which i should attempt to point out in another forum. if nothing else, it deals with our individual quantum 'influence' on reality. "we", whatever 'we' are, have 'command' of a single particle. we direct it at the synapse of a single pathway, at the onset of a flow of brain activity. fairly different from 'god's dream' scenarios. the single particle would need to exist, pre big bang. its the big bang that is the dream.

i'm not particularly attached to any of my bizzare ideas, but i seek to free myself of them anyway. thanks for playing.

 

[Paul]

"we", whatever 'we' are, have 'command' of a single particle. we direct it at the synapse of a single pathway, at the onset of a flow of brain activity.

There seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of 'a single subatomic particle is all that exists', because if we assume this to be true, there is no we, no command, no synapse, no pathway, and no brain to have activity.

fairly different from 'god's dream' scenarios. the single particle would need to exist, pre big bang. its the big bang that is the dream.

Again, some confusion I think. In the god's dream scenario everything, from the vastness of the universe to subatomic particles, exists solely in the dream of some other being; there is no big bang, only the dream that we have the concept of the big bang.

Your scenario would also seem to not need a big bang; if the particle can appear to be everywhere, why would it also appear to be an expanding universe?

i'm not particularly attached to any of my bizzare ideas, but i seek to free myself of them anyway. thanks for playing.

What's the point of posting an idea you have been hanging onto for ten years, saying it's bizarre and you want to get rid of it, and then claim to be playing games?

 

[quarky]

the single particle arranges a universe to accomodate our perceptual bias. natch, we are the single particle, ultimately...as are the pathways, etc.

it was terrence witts book that re-opened this notion for me.
expressing ideas is a way of cleaning the mind. doesn't mean its junk being thrown out. bizarre is good. play is good. everything begins with thought. (i think)

 

[Paul]

the single particle arranges a universe to accomodate our perceptual bias.

You're still separating us from the universe, the single particle does not allow for this.

natch, we are the single particle, ultimately...as are the pathways, etc.

So everything is one and nothing but the particle really exists, however, it all appears as if it were real and for all practical purposes it is; there is no benefit in treating the universe in any other way than it experimentally appears to function, that way lies pain and suffering and arrest for tax evasion.

 

[quarky]

You're still separating us from the universe, the single particle does not allow for this.

So everything is one and nothing but the particle really exists, however, it all appears as if it were real and for all practical purposes it is; there is no benefit in treating the universe in any other way than it experimentally appears to function, that way lies pain and suffering and arrest for tax evasion.

The single particle allows for time, which is how we are able to appear to be seperate from it. Is it not likely that this universe appeared from a singularity?
Before time (and distance) happened, somewhat mysteriously, at the big bang?

If time was to collapse, there would only be that singularity. At that juncture, we would surely "be" that singularity, if we were to "be" at all.

not so unlikely.

 

[Paul]

The single particle allows for time, which is how we are able to appear to be seperate from it.

That seems a little odd; to allow the appearance of separation the particle must be so fast as to appear to be billions of billions of billions of individual particles.

Time, subjective or objective, either flows or appears to flow and is quantified by us; why should the particle be the cause of time, why not time allows for the particle?

Is it not likely that this universe appeared from a singularity?

Is your singularity composed of only one particle?

Before time (and distance) happened, somewhat mysteriously, at the big bang?

Why a big bang? Why would the single particle, that is capable of appearing to be the entire universe, need to start small and to fake expansion and increased complexity?

If time was to collapse, there would only be that singularity. At that juncture, we would surely "be" that singularity, if we were to "be" at all.

That depends on the real nature of time; if the particle were to cease changing patterns, time would effectively stop but there would still appear to be an entire universe. Conversely, if the particle stopped moving, there would appear to be no universe but there could still be time.

 

[Apathia]

Feynman once proposed (I'm not sure whether in jest or not) that because positrons can be interpreted as electrons moving backward in time, there is only one electron, zipping back and forth and creating all the timelines of all the electrons we think we see everywhere in the universe.

Surely, he was joking!