BarCamp Boston IV Talk on New Physics, New Math, and New Programming

The topics were examined: physics, math, and programming. I look at problems, new approaches, and new contributions in these three areas. The first problem in physics is that our theory for gravity does not get along with quantum mechanics. We don't understand mass at any scale. In math, we have the real and complex numbers, but what numbers will work out-of-the-box for 4D spacetime? It is not clear visually what the difference is between real and complex numbers. In programming, there is not a universal, open source video format. New physics is possible by upgrading from tensors to division algebras. There is also may be a new constant velocity solutions involving gravity. New math appears by developing a 2 limit definition of a quaternion derivative. Animations of complex numbers makes images where real reflections look different from imaginary reflections. The new programming is the software and web site devoted to creating animations from equations. How that software is used is demonstrated. This new physics/math/programming is applied to visualizing the delayed choice experiment in quantum mechanics. The video ends with a few datapoints about Doug Sweetser.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Barcamp
• Gravity
• Electromagnetism
• Unified
• field
• theory
• quaternions
• complex
• numbers

[jogayot]

ever looked at process physics? or is cahill yet another theoretical physics zombie of luminous aether?

[sweetser]

Hello:

I had not heard of process physics before your comment. I am not a fan of aether, aether everywhere getting stuff done. Time messing with space is both simple and confusing, so I will keep on my course.

[nindi54]

hello there dear sir im her to ask u question ?Can i make a simple C++ program using complex numbers,i mean the power of imaginary units >example ;i to the power of square u know please if u have any ideas respond to my youtube channel im waiting u soon bye thanks....

[wresing]

SAGE ROCKS!!

[jogayot]

lorentzian transformation is correctly describing some phenomenon, but physical effect must be hidden locally at each point of meson's travel where its time happens in its own reference frame, not in non-local contraction of our atmosphere. i.e. there must be one absolute physical "version" of space where atmosphere traversed by meson happens to be becoming. anyway. if you chance to have a free moment of boredom, give him a try. fwiw, he may be fringey but he is trained scientist after all.

[jogayot]

i mentioned "aether zombie" on the one hand because you showed slams page on your site and on the other hand because cahill feels very strongly about absolute ("only" 3D) space being physical entity. even your own course points to the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with spacializing time... if at all process physics could be put into the quantum foam/digital physics compartment. after all when meson travels through our atmosphere it stays the same "depth" for us. (cont.)