Spacetime, again

I dislike repeating myself. However, the contradictions at the heart of modern physics annoy me even more.  I despise all the self propagating woo-hoo and lack of thought.

The basic principles of spacetime: 

1) There is no such thing as negative (anti) energy. Some forms of energy are opposites, but all are energy.

2) Proper time is potential energy. (This is well modeled in particles as imaginary spin. Anti-particles have the opposite spin.) 

3) The energy density at every point is a constant. (upper limit = Planck, lower limit = 0) 

4) Spacetime is the field governing motion. (Particle motion is a perpetual, localized wave. This creates blue and red shift all by itself.) Note that none of these simple principles violate observations. 

There are no contradictions, no infinities, no singularities. Black holes are not singularities, they are hollow shells of maximal (Planck) energy density surrounding an area of zero potential energy.  Space is flat (Euclidean), (proper) time is imaginary, spacetime is hyperbolic (because when you square an imaginary number, you get a negative real number).

The contradictions at the heart of physics

Modern physics is broken because physicists have been carefully taught to not think.  I mean this quite literally.  "Shut up and calculate" is the prevailing model of the universe!

Let us take something simple - the uncertainty of knowledge.  Okay, maybe it's not that simple.  But it should be.  Quantum physics states quite plainly that all information is locally hidden until a measurement is made.  It actually goes further to say the information doesn't exist until the measurement is made, but that's a separate idiocy for another time.  Quantum physics also states that, due to Bell's inequality, local hidden information is impossible.  The vast majority of physicists take both of these propositions to heart without any critical reflection whatsoever.  Thus, they internalize contradictions as part of their formal training.

Please forgive my repeated rant here against Bell's inequality.  In his papers, Bell carefully sets up a straw man argument, then knocks it down.  Thus, using his paper as proof, you can make the most outlandish claims - that entangled particle pairs cannot contain hidden information (even as the information must be hidden due to the probabilistic nature of the quantum wavefront), that the particle pairs communicate instantaneously over great distances when you finally do measure them, and that there is no such thing as local realism.  These claims are only possible due to the nonsensical nature of Bell's inequality.

What is the problem with bell's paper and its famous inequality?  What is the inequality?  In summary, Bell showed that sawtooth waves are not identical to sine waves.  Shocking, I know.  Where do the sawtooth waves come from?  He made them up with mathematical sleight of hand.  There has never been the slightest indication that any particle acts in any way like a sawtooth wave.  And yet that's what Bell uses to claim that entangled particles must communicate instantaneously, and that there is no such thing as local realism.  I'm quite serious.  Go read the paper yourself, and marvel at the hubris used to create the straw man sawtooth particle.  Then cry that it has been taken very, very seriously indeed by generations of scientists.

Bell's original paper (pdf)

By the way, I'm not the first to notice this.  Some scientists have complained about it since just a few years after the paper was published.  However, these men seem to share similar fates in having their funding mysteriously cut off after announcing that the emperor has no clothes.  And those who spend tens of millions of dollars proving the tautology (waves act like waves) win Nobel prizes, thus reinforcing the power of "woo-hoo" politics in modern physics.  Shut up and calculate!

Closures

In programming, a closure seems to be this mystical thing.  There are endless reams of research and obscurely technical explanations of what a closure is and how they work.  I hate, loathe and despise needless complexity.

A closure is a function to be used later, which uses some of the data currently available, packaged together.  Enclosed, if you will.

So, in Listack terms, if you have a data stack, and a function to be used later that depends on the current state of some of the data, you package together the data with the function for later use.  This is a closure of the function over the data.  So, if you have a function that will depend on two data objects, you write:

        rest_of_stack data1 data2 \.func 3 .enlist >block  

which produces:

        {data1 data2 .func}

When the later time finally arrives, you simply invoke the closure.

        rest_of_stack {data1 data2 .func} .eval

We could even make a procedure to create closures.  Note that most of the procedure is purely for error handling.

    def: "make_closure" [Seq, Int]

    {    # will make a closure over n data items and one sequence

        dup < o     # the closure can't contain fewer than no data items

        iff {

            drop drop 

            "Closures may not have a negative number of arguments" .set_err

            exit

        }

        dup > (depth - 3)     # must have enough items on the stack

        iff {

            drop drop 

            "Stack not deep enough for number of closure arguments" .set_err

            exit

        }

        1 .+  .enlist >block        # the actual closure: {d1 d2 d3 ... dn seq}          

    }

    def: "make_closure" [Block, Int]

    {    # could also be:    \.eval swap 1 .+ .make_closure

        swap >seq swap .make_closure

    }    # could have used dip instead

    def: "make_closure" [Word, Int]

    {    # a b \func .dip --> a func b

        \>seq .dip .make_closure

    }    # could have just repeated the original definition, but where's the fun in that?