Page 3 of 3

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:56 pm
by Fixed Cross
Physics isn't a word game.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:22 pm
by wuliheron
Fixed Cross wrote:Physics isn't a word game.


Assuming 42 is as good an explanation as any other, that's exactly what physics is, a word game. It would mean all our words and concepts only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts, making physics a pragmatic practice requiring the equivalent of a syntax rather than semantics. My work assumes that energy and information are ultimately indistinguishable, and experiments have demonstrated that the two can be exchanged with one another without expending any energy in the process. Classical physics takes the integral approach, while I am attempting to discern the best ways to take differentials, because what's missing from this picture can sometimes make all the difference in the world.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:57 pm
by Fixed Cross
Yes, thats why I don't assume 42 is an explanation.

There is only one explanation; the right one.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:58 pm
by Fixed Cross
I really think there is only one way to look at physics and resolve its paradoxes. At least I can't imagine there is another way than the one that integrates our entire system of orientation - not merely information, but value hierarchy, which causes drive, control, magnetism, power.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:14 pm
by wuliheron
Fixed Cross wrote:I really think there is only one way to look at physics and resolve its paradoxes. At least I can't imagine there is another way than the one that integrates our entire system of orientation - not merely information, but value hierarchy, which causes drive, control, magnetism, power.


The approach I'm using can describe everything as obeying Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a particle-like model that can also be expressed as a spectrum of desires. Physicists have already played around with the mathematics. If there were only one way to do physics, they would not require philosophers.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:41 pm
by Fixed Cross
Would this mean energy needs to be "safe and warm" before it can be "actualized"?

Please elaborate. Im just reading whats on the pyramid.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:03 am
by wuliheron
Fixed Cross wrote:Would this mean energy needs to be "safe and warm" before it can be "actualized"?

Please elaborate. Im just reading whats on the pyramid.


Fermionic matter can be said to convey more information than energy, with a grain of sand in the depths of space not really doing anything until it interacts with something else. Bosons such as photons convey forces, energy, and information and are instantly emitted and absorbed by electrons with perfect fidelity and efficiency. In other words, photons are neither too hot nor too cold for electrons, but just right, and it is the electrons themselves getting too hot or too cold that can make a difference in how energy is transformed into information and vice versa. For almost pure information to be transformed into raw energy requires extreme contexts such as a fusion reactor converting some of the mass in its fuel into raw energy, or the conscious human mind figuring out how to build a fusion reactor.

However, this expresses a context dependence that doesn't obey simple metaphysical logic. For example, Finnish researchers created the first autonomous Maxwell's Demon that can sort electrons according to their charges without expending any energy in the process. Its not a source of free energy, but the experiment demonstrates how the identity of energy and information is context dependent. Extremes of any kind are excluded because every context requires a significant amount of content to be humanly conceivable, and the two will always transform into one another before becoming inconceivable.

Re: Is the law of conservation of energy right?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:59 pm
by Fixed Cross
I like this.