Reality is an Information System—And Physics Has Been Lying to You
You must log in or # to comment.
A poorly written nothing burger. Additionally, the OP is the writer and site owner so add on the self promotion tag and it’s a trifecta of time wasted.
Lots of things emit photons. I emit photons.
This is just Time Cube or the Carnicom Chemtrails site rehashed. Buncha bullshit. Sure, the author (found a name. Rowan Brad Quni) is discussing some actual physics concepts, but none of this is new or even controversial. Acting like information theory is some sort of conspiracy against reality is just not going to move any subject forward.
Don’t bother trying to interpret their point.
Here. Some actual info.Vijay Balasubramanian Space-Time: The Biggest Problem in Physics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIqVnFtOSr4
David Tong The Standard Model of Particle Physics: A Triumph of Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unl1jXFnzgo
Or a younger David Tong doing what this unfortunate lunatic Quni was trying to do, breaking down your notion of reality and building it back up from fields. Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
It’s an honor to be called a “lunatic,” better than being ignored 🤣
Perhaps you could put your thoughts in your own words rather than link to others as your rebuttal. If you’re going to lean on the standard model while ignoring its numerous failings, it seems equal lunacy to argue with a fellow crazy.
Oh hey, aren’t you that one who misunderstands physics too?
Ya, he’s been flooding. I’m pretty sure mods nuked his last post.
Ur a nut.
You should watch the second David Tong video. Notice how he makes his points. Nobody thinks he’s nutty. See that?
Emulate it.
Call me a nut, but I am most certainly a nut with a 🧠. And I may be wrong often, but mark my words: so too are general relativity and the Big Bang incomplete; and “dark matter” and “antimatter” are such mathematical folly I’d delight in being mocked here today so history will show who the true fools are (hint: I’ve actually thought about this more than most of you have).
Thanks for the tip about David Tong though. My latest strategy is to co-opt existing physics paradigms by showing how an information theoretic can describe them better than they can describe themselves rather than waste time attempting Pyrrhic rhetorical victories.
Ya. Well bud, try making sense. That helps a lot.
Notice in that video that despite the fact that Tong showed up to his Royal Society lecture to rock their world, and in fact the title of his lecture advertised as such, he wait until minute 30 of his hour-long lecture to abruptly tell them all that reality is a lie.
Tong made this declaration, in this sacred room, in front of Micheal Faraday’s desk, to the Royal Fuking Society. Ya get it? He wrapped himself in the flag of standard physics, and when he had them all buttered up, he ripped off the veil.
One must establish some level of consistency and reliability before one can make outrageous claims and get any sort of positive attention. If you are not credible, well ya. You are “wasting time”.
I have some really bad news about the sun, my guy
And more bad news about camp fire.
That’s why I put masking tape on the blinking lights. Much better.
They have played us for absolute fools.
It’s not a horrible write-up but it doesn’t do much to simplify things. If I had to explain these concepts as close to an ELI5 as I could, I would use less words.
Photons have characteristics of both a wave and a particle. In many ways, it’s easier to think of a photon as an interaction point. As a wave propagates, any collision point could be thought of as a photon. You shake some electrons in one antenna, they create a wave through the air, the wave propagates until it hits another antenna and the photons are where that wave starts to shake another bunch of electrons.
I am not quite sure what they were trying to explain about waveform collapse, TBH. There is just a probability curve about where a photon will “exist” at a specific time. You can’t predict the location of a photon, but you can observe it. There isn’t really a physical “collapse” of anything. The probability curve “collapses” into a single point once observed. There is no probability once something is observed. It’s there or it isn’t, so the math function has “collapsed”: There isn’t a need to calculate probability at that time.
This is far from perfect, but it’s probably easier to digest. I don’t even want to know how much physics I broke with my descriptions, but I do know it’s easier to visualize.
