fascinated by Information Mechanics

[Brian_D]

How did you find PF?

I googled "physics internet discussion groups."

I am a retired high school and college teacher doing independent study in physics. I am interested in cosmology and information mechanics, a unified theory that derives gravity, quantum mechanics and more from an elegant new conceptual foundation in which the information represented by physical systems is fundamental. See https://bdagostino.com/resources/Analog 1979 IM review.pdf for more on this topic. The link is to a review of Frederick W. Kantor's old but neglected book _Information Mechanics_, published by John Wiley and Sons. A PDF of the book jacket is also attached.

I am a political scientist by training and at this stage of my study in physics I am working my way through parts of Richard Wolfson's and Jay Pasachoff's college textbook, _Physics, Third Edition_. I am using Maple to help with the exercises and Frank Wang's book, _Physics With Maple_. My main reason for joining PhysicsForums is to get help with exercises when I get stuck. I am wondering whether to post my questions in the "Introductory Physics Homework Help" forum or the "Classical Physics" forum.

 

[Nugatory]

How did you find PF?: I googled "physics internet discussion groups."
I am wondering whether to post my questions in the "Introductory Physics Homework Help" forum or the "Classical Physics" forum.

Generally exercises (problems provided by a teacher or in a textbook, the idea being that there's something to be learned by working through them) belong in the Homework forums, general questions of the "I don't understand this concept or how it applies here" belong in Classical or one of the other technical forums such as Relativity, Quantum, or E&M.

And yes, help with exercises is one of the reasons that we're here, so welcome and post away.

However, please do be mindful of the forum mission statement:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

The Kantor book is out of scope here, as are all non-mainstream theories.

 

[Brian_D]

Thank you for the helpful advice. Have you read the book jacket I appended for Kantor's book? Is John Wiley and Sons a publisher of "non-mainstream theories?" I am here to learn, but knowing academia as I do, I am also wary of authoritarianism and dogmatism masquerading as science. If it is not permissible here to discuss ideas published by a peer-reviewed scientific press because they are not currently fashionable in academia, so be it, I'll keep my mouth shut and just ask questions about oscillatory motion and the like.

 

[berkeman]

If it is not permissible here to discuss ideas published by a peer-reviewed scientific press because they are not currently fashionable in academia

What peer-reviewed publication?

From the PF Rules:

Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed in the Thomson/Reuters list (now Clarivate):

https://mjl.clarivate.com/home

 

[Nugatory]

Have you read the book jacket I appended for Kantor's book?

Yes, of course.

Is John Wiley and Sons a publisher of "non-mainstream theories?"

Both mainstream and non-mainstream, they somewhat depend on their customers' self-interest and the free market of ideas to take care of the quality control.

...ideas published by a peer-reviewed scientific press because they are not currently fashionable in so be it, I'll keep my mouth shut and just ask questions.

The Kantor book has not been peer-reviewed and if it hasn't gained any traction after a half-century the problem isn't that it's not currently fashionable, it is that two generations of physicists have considered the ideas in it and found them to be a dead end.

 

[Brian_D]

Yes, of course.Both mainstream and non-mainstream, they somewhat depend on their customers' self-interest and the free market of ideas to take care of the quality control.
The Kantor book has not been peer-reviewed and if it hasn't gained any traction after a half-century the problem isn't that it's not currently fashionable, it is that two generations of physicists have considered the ideas in it and found them to be a dead end.

John Wiley and Sons (now called "Wiley") was a peer reviewed press, so you are mistaken that Kantor's book was not peer reviewed. And the history of ideas is full of seminal work that was overlooked by the academics of a particular time, beginning with Galileo.

In fact, progress in science rarely occurs because proponents of an established but unsatisfactory paradigm are persuaded to accept new ideas. It typically occurs because proponents of the old paradigm die off. For more on this, read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or case studies in the history of science.

Finally, we all agree that it is not obvious how to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, and there is much speculation about this in physics today. At least according to Kantor's peer-reviewed publisher, information mechanics is one way that such reconciliation can be achieved.

But you don't have to agree with that, because according to the rules of this forum, "peer-reviewed scientific literature" is a legitimate topic of discussion, and Information Mechanics is part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. See also: Kantor, F.W. Cosmological Redshift. An Information Mechanics Perspective. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38, 993–996 (1999)

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for peer review...

 

[Nugatory]

After some discussion among the mentors this thread will remain closed.