# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?  (Read 885 times)

#### Mark Childe

• First timers
• Posts: 3
##### Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« on: 14/02/2016 06:00:58 »
I am aware that most current theories of the expansion of our Spacetime are far more complex than the simple ideas I put below. While they seem to work out perfectly to me, Velikovsky thought planets colliding to form our solar system made sense too. I would not call what I came up with a theory, so much as an example of how arranging data in a different way and looking at it with a different type of logic can produce new ideas.

P is for process.
When I first asked my philosophy professor how to make a process statement, he said I would have to invent it because it had never been done.

After I worked on it a while I realized he was wrong, like most things the Ancient Greeks did it first, around 1 AD. A similar system has been popular since the Byzantine Empire. It is a powerful system most people understand, and I am surprised it has never been applied to anything but music. Yes musical notation is a process statement.. A process system must contain three things, Time, Events, and Components. A time scale and notes are time and events, the components are the instruments.
Applying process to physics is like writing the symphony of our Spacetime. A complete statement would be all of Spacetime in Yetoseconds mapping every quanta of mass/energy in minute detail. An unimaginable task. A part of a statement can be made, and maybe added to other parts or integrated into other forms of math. I decided to make it as simple as possible by describing the Big Bang and found it to be impossible. In Process logic there has to be an event which causes the Singularity to change before the universe can expand. T=0 is a null statement in Process logic.

T-1={_S_+VM/h}

T-1 is in Yetoseconds. 1 YS= h. The shortest interval.
It means one Yetosecond before our Spacetime existed. That implies that the void our Spacetime is expanding into is not featureless but at the least contains some form of time.
_S_ is the event "Separation". In my system there are two others, "Motion" _M_ and "Collision" _C_. I have yet to come up with another event the other three cannot combine into.
VM is visible mass. To include all the visible mass of our Spacetime, including Black Holes, but to exclude "Dark" mass/energy.
h is the Planck Constant, the smallest quanta that can exist in our Spacetime.
So one Yetosecond before our Spacetime started our Singularity separated into VM/h individual "Yetoblocks", each exactly the Plank Constant.
The reason h is at the energy level it exists at is because the mass of the Singularity was divided into the number that yielded pieces that size. It caused the expansion of the Singularity, now many Yetoblocks.

That leads to the next statement.
(T1)= {_M_+VM/h.C}
As the first Yetosecond occurred all the many objects attempting to occupy the same first instant of Spacetime were ejected, or moved, at the speed of light.
Because no two or more objects can exist in the same space at the same time the mass had to expand.
Because it was divided into many small parts the gravitational attraction could not cause it to simply reassemble into another Singularity.

(T2)={_C_+VM/h.C}

In the next Yetosecond the entire mass of particles collide with each other at the speed of light. After that the entire mess does an intricate melody of motion, collision and separation passing through many different patterns until we arrive at the situation we experience today, where the Yetoblocks are all tied up into processes and cannot be separated out as individuals.
And so there are a short Prelude and the first two notes of our Spacetime Symphony.
As our Spacetime expanded into the void it intersected other Spacetimes. These other Spacetimes might interact with ours in limited ways depending on the details of the "frequency"of the intersecting Spacetimes. The Spacetimes will have different ages, as well as different energy levels depending on the mass and number of Yetoblocks each Singularity separated into. So the level of energy in each quantum combined with age sets the "frequency" of a Spacetime.( I have no idea if the classic definition of the word frequency applies, or what other word might be more suitable)
The "Dark" mass/energy gravity perturbations that are seen in our Spacetime are possibly caused by interactions with other Spacetimes. Other anomalies like quantum tunneling may be explained this way as well.

Now I have made a process system and applied it to physics. Just making the system led to a series of revelations about the nature of our Spacetime and the greater universe it is expanding into. Even if it turns out ( as I expect) I am wrong about everything, I believe this demonstrates the power of process. In the hands of an actual scientist I believe such systems could greatly benefit science.
My simple system has one type of component and only three events.
A complex process statement would contain defined variables for some measure of time, specific events and the components the events would act upon. Each component would be another process.Those details that are not part of the intent of the statement can be undefined variables. For instance, a process statement that describes a proton may contain variables for the quarks it is composed of. If there is no need to define the specific process that the quarks are composed of they can simply be defined as a quark. If there is a need, the exact process for the quarks can be defined for the variable. In this way processes can be nestled within processes and defined or left undefined as needed.
I think there could be many uses for Process systems in virtually all fields of science.
What do you think?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #1 on: 14/02/2016 12:17:16 »
If you are going to talk about physics, it's a good idea to use the same language as physicists.

I guess you are talking about yottoseconds: 1 ys = 10-24 second. Not the shortest interval of time: as far as we know, time is continuous, and the frequency of cosmic gamma radiation can exceed 1ys-1.

Planck's constant h is not a measure of time (T) but of action (L2MT-1).

Since time is the interval between successive events, you can't define a time before the first event, so your synthesis depends on there being a universe before the Big Bang, which requires some form of cyclic universe. Nothing new about that concept.

But don't be discouraged! There must be a use for philosophy somewhere.

#### the5thforce

• Full Member
• Posts: 74
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #2 on: 14/02/2016 23:21:12 »
If you are going to talk about physics, it's a good idea to use the same language as physicists.

I guess you are talking about yottoseconds: 1 ys = 10-24 second. Not the shortest interval of time: as far as we know, time is continuous, and the frequency of cosmic gamma radiation can exceed 1ys-1.

Planck's constant h is not a measure of time (T) but of action (L2MT-1).

Since time is the interval between successive events, you can't define a time before the first event, so your synthesis depends on there being a universe before the Big Bang, which requires some form of cyclic universe. Nothing new about that concept.

But don't be discouraged! There must be a use for philosophy somewhere.

time is only as continuous as the absolute minimum measurement of space dictated by the uncertainty principle, time is continuously creating discrete measurements via entropy and time is continuously creating discrete "measurer's" via life, from this we can even conclude that the maximum generator of entropy is itself observation - each moment we are collectively measuring the maximum state of local 'continuum'

#### Mark Childe

• First timers
• Posts: 3
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #3 on: 15/02/2016 02:05:59 »
Okay...I think you may have suffered a misapprehension as to the intent of my post. I am not the one who needs to make the system work. I am old. I am not going back to school to study Physics. I am quite happy making some of the finest Ukuleles in the world. It might seem laughable elsewhere, but being a Luthier who makes Ukuleles is a far more prestigious position than a Professor of Physics, in Hawaii, where I live. Also if you factor in the attraction of the opposite sex it's better to be a Luthier just about everywhere in the developed world.
Seriously though, when I looked up process physics all I found was "Velikovsky Jr.", Cahill and the nodes. He uses the word process but it seems it is only to confuse people who do not understand what process is.   So I made it simple to understand. It is up to real scientists with real data to make use of it. All it takes is some thought and some flexibility of mind.
At this time all the current theories about the first few moments of our time are wrong. They all have known flaws. I never thought of what I put as anything but an example. If you were to compare it to an archery match, the other theories may be wrong, but they are at least in the range, whereas I just killed someone in the bleachers. Happily I never thought what I was doing was valid physics, but just an example.
Besides, I have lived long enough to see most of what people thought was true turn out to be wrong, several times. I'll bet almost everything posted here will be proven wrong eventually as well. It is just a matter of time.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #4 on: 15/02/2016 08:14:00 »
It might seem laughable elsewhere, but being a Luthier who makes Ukuleles is a far more prestigious position than a Professor of Physics, in Hawaii, where I live.
...and here in Cambridge, UK, where professors of physics are a dime a dozen, but getting the bridge of a double bass adjusted seems to be a matter of trial and error - mostly error.

Quote
Also if you factor in the attraction of the opposite sex it's better to be a Luthier just about everywhere in the developed world.
Thanks for the career advice! I'm swapping my oscilloscope for a spokeshave tomorrow. It's never too late!

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1917
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #5 on: 15/02/2016 16:01:39 »
getting the bridge of a double bass adjusted seems to be a matter of trial and error - mostly error.

Pity you are not over here I'd have done it for you. I'm currently making one for my latest project, a double bass sized Viola Da Gamba.

Thanks for the career advice! I'm swapping my oscilloscope for a spokeshave tomorrow. It's never too late!
I would have thought that a bass guitarist would be fighting them off with an axe at most gigs

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #6 on: 15/02/2016 19:19:01 »
True, but the distinguishing feature of uber-scientists and babe-magnet axemen is our extreme modesty. If I'm not turning down Nobels and Fields, it's the bloody Oscars on the phone and unsolicited emails from sperm banks. When Charles Atlas handed me his crown at the Music Awards....but that will have to wait for another day: Nurse says it's time for my medication.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1917
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #7 on: 15/02/2016 23:21:10 »
..... Mine too

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4699
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #8 on: 15/02/2016 23:45:39 »
I'm currently making one for my latest project, a double bass sized Viola Da Gamba.

Quote
During a rehearsal, conductor Sir Thomas Beecham thought that his female soloist was playing less than adequately on her fine Italian cello. He stopped the orchestra and declared: "Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable of giving pleasure to thousands, and all you can do is scratch it!"

A double bass da gamba surely requires thighs beyond the wildest fantasy of man.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1917
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #9 on: 16/02/2016 08:11:18 »
I'm being kind and providing a spike, also lighter build than a std bass and 99cm SL.
Even so, as Terry Pratchet put it "thighs to crack walnuts"

#### Mark Childe

• First timers
• Posts: 3
##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #10 on: 17/02/2016 02:16:51 »
So tell me this, if a God named Murphy was madly masturbating into the void, and accidentally whacked his O'Toole into a singularity and shattered it into pieces the size of a single quanta, would that cause time to begin? Would the singularity collapse back into a point or expand? Is it possible to determine this with your object philosophy based mathematics, or would I have to directly observe it on the "Theological Masturbation" channel on Youporn? I would rather not, that's not really one of the better channels, in my opinion.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Can a process philosophy based system be used in physics?
« Reply #10 on: 17/02/2016 02:16:51 »