Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 22nd 2017, 08:05 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Calgary, AB CANADA
Posts: 1
Is Planck's constant & light speed the "boundary" of the cosmos?

Hullo--

I read this book by Christopher Bek (Philosophymagazine), The Theory of One: realizing the dream of a final theory (2015). It's core, which the author says he deliberately Occam-ized it to the maximum (leaving the mathematics for later), is this:

P1: There is no causality outside the cosmos because there's no time outside the cosmos. Outside the cosmos means no spacetime, and no spacetime means no causality.

P2: According to quantum theory of the atom, causality breaks down at Planck's constant--causality fails inside the atom that is bounded at Planck's constant. Planck's constant is a boundary of the atom. Beyond it there is no causality, and so what is beyond must be outside the cosmos. (If causality breaks down, then it means no time, which means one is outside the cosmos).

P3: According to the Pythagorean Form, a body that accelerates to light speed shrinks to zero height. Light speed is then a boundary of spacetime. What is beyond this boundary must be outside the cosmos.

C: Therefore, light speed and Planck’s constant are the same boundary of the universe.

What do you folks think of this? Is light speed a "boundary"? Is Planck's constant a "boundary"? Are they the same? Does he have some-thing here?

--Thanks,
Erico.
Calgary, AB CANADA.
Erico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24th 2017, 05:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 321
Frankly, I can't understand most of this. Here are some comments.

Originally Posted by Erico View Post
Hullo--

I read this book by Christopher Bek (Philosophymagazine), The Theory of One: realizing the dream of a final theory (2015). It's core, which the author says he deliberately Occam-ized it to the maximum (leaving the mathematics for later), is this:

P1: There is no causality outside the cosmos because there's no time outside the cosmos. Outside the cosmos means no spacetime, and no spacetime means no causality.
This contains the hidden assumption that there is an "outside the cosmos".

P2: According to quantum theory of the atom, causality breaks down at Planck's constant--causality fails inside the atom that is bounded at Planck's constant. Planck's constant is a boundary of the atom. Beyond it there is no causality, and so what is beyond must be outside the cosmos. (If causality breaks down, then it means no time, which means one is outside the cosmos).
Planck's constant is a number. In what sense is a number a "boundary"? There is also a logic error. Having said that "outside the cosmos there is no causality", he concludes that "because there is no causality this is outside the cosmos". He is effectively assuming that "A implies B" is equivalent to "B implies A" and that is not true.

P3: According to the Pythagorean Form, a body that accelerates to light speed shrinks to zero height. Light speed is then a boundary of spacetime. What is beyond this boundary must be outside the cosmos.
What?? The Pythagorean theorem says nothing about speed at all. There are erroneous arguments that the theory of relativity says that if a body accelerates to light speed then its length becomes 0. That is erroneous because what the theory of relativity says is a body can't "accelerate to light speed. And, again, the speed of light is a number. In what sense can a number be a "boundary"?

C: Therefore, light speed and Planck’s constant are the same boundary of the universe.

What do you folks think of this? Is light speed a "boundary"? Is Planck's constant a "boundary"? Are they the same? Does he have some-thing here?

--Thanks,
Erico.
Calgary, AB CANADA.
I think it's nonsense! It looks to me like this author is trying to combine very separate things that he doesn't understand to begin with! And if he really referred to the "Pythagorean theorem" as you say, he needs to take high school math again!

(Looking at the url you provide, it appears that this "philosophy magazine" is created by Christopher Bek himself, to advertise his (self published) books and all "reviews" of his books are written by himself.)

Last edited by HallsofIvy; Jul 24th 2017 at 06:08 AM.
HallsofIvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
boundary, constant, cosmos, light, light speed, planck, speed



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought experiment "small box and only one body inside the universe " tesla2 Theoretical Physics 2 Jun 11th 2013 06:52 AM
Can someone explain the concept of "change in electric or magnetic flux"? khamaar Electricity and Magnetism 1 Mar 4th 2011 03:14 PM
Is all light that we see comes from electron "falling"? Hbar Light and Optics 11 Feb 13th 2010 10:30 AM
Does "attitude" mean "orientation"? s3a Light and Optics 1 May 30th 2009 11:27 PM
"The Music" (angles, focal length, lenses, etc.) URGENT InspiRaTioN Light and Optics 0 Nov 14th 2008 10:08 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed