Profile

Cover photo
John Valentine
56 followers|4,318 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

 
re: versioning Linux

Perhaps think about what people use a version number for.

If it's just an ID, for non-critical bug-fixes or optimizations, or features that 99% of users/bundlers wouldn't notice, then x.x.++ should be fine.

If it's something you want maintainer-users to install or update, then x.++.x should be fine.

For newsworthy releases, to get people on board with completely new features, then simple numbers are great, e.g. "For ext-5 support, you'll need version 4.0 or later". So, if there's a new, big, stable (production quality) feature, of the kind that happens once every four years, then version ++.0.0.

But the most important thing, is not so much what you call it, but what good quality features you put into it. Avoid loose ends in the background, or half-implemented features have no prospect of achieving usefulness. [said sincerely, without knowledge of anything specific - just a project management perspective]
 
So, I made noises some time ago about how I don't want another 2.6.39 where the numbers are big enough that you can't really distinguish them.

We're slowly getting up there again, with 3.20 being imminent, and I'm once more close to running out of fingers and toes.

I was making noises about just moving to 4.0 some time ago. But let's see what people think.

So - continue with v3.20, because bigger numbers are sexy, or just move to v4.0 and reset the numbers to something smaller?
30,652 votes
I like big versions, and I cannot lie
44%
v4.0, 'cause I get confused easily
56%
500 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
In between bits of life, we've done some severe editing, and posted my paper. A web preprint of the "...Cosmology" paper is listed here: http://johnvalentine.co.uk/po8.php?art=papers

The paper is aimed at a postgrad/postdoc level, mostly because of the subjects it covers, but the content of the paper should be accessible to anyone about to start a degree course in maths or physics.

This one was particularly tricky, because it was a re-explanation of the foundations, along with three sections, each dealing with an interesting aspect of cosmology. The part we found most difficult was not the physics (nor its maths), but bringing the three works into a coherent single work, removing any redundant repetition, while maintaining the flow of each section.

A paper is not the right medium for 'explaining' in any great detail; papers must present the minimum necessary to communicate the ideas and their maths. Despite this paper being 'done', I think there can be some good follow-up articles, which are best done online or interactively. I'd like to explain and show how normal matter prevails over anti-matter, how gravity works without a dedicated field, and the many concurrent explanations for cosmological redshift (including one more), and how they interplay to become the observed redshift.

There's a tremendous amount of work to be done on black holes, to add to the work we've published here: it's an ideal time to get predictions published, before the relevant science data rolls in.

Unusually, there are usually no consequences of having the paper published; it's a long silence. If we're lucky, someone will cite it (sometimes they ask first!). I'd ideally like people to ask questions, or offer comment on why it might be wrong. In fact, the latter is the most useful criticism one can receive. But so often, these works disappear into university archives, almost forgotten; there are not enough readers, and seemingly too many writers :o) The conference is on this week, so hopefully some questions will arise there.

The image here shows a quantum interpretation of a black hole. There's nothing too complicated, and there's nothing special about the surface. Better still, we can do the quantum stuff using simpler foundations.

Next, I'll write some articles... (any requests?)
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
Lunchbreak suggestion: briefly escape reality: read short stories … NEW: "For the Last Time" … Meet Jen: nurtured, refined and dangerously gifted (7 min read; others here up to 20 minutes).
Stories that Discover. My writing usually paints a picture gradually, so you can enjoy making the journey of discovery with the protagonist. I like immersing the reader in elegant idea in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. Blog: Introduction · Blog: Writing Style. My favourite is InfoSpace, ...
1
John Valentine's profile photoPhilip Storry's profile photo
2 comments
 
I don't have access to Twitter, G+ or FB from work except via my phone. So unless it's a notification, it doesn't happen in my world for 10+ hours of the day...
And I never usually get much of an uptick from my own posts here either. But that's not why I don't do them anymore - there's no updates on my website either. That's a time availability thing!
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
I've pushed a paper up to academia.edu. I don't think it is journal quality, but my objective at the moment is to float the idea, rather than provide rigorous proof that would satisfy a cosmologist.
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is what I think a black hole should look like, after it has accreted lots of matter. More at http://johnvalentine.co.uk/po8.php?art=papers
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
The January Black Hole paper is available as a draft preprint here: http://johnvalentine.co.uk/po8.php?art=papers
Just for fun, here's the whole thing in a tiny picture (it doesn't magnify). For 330KB more, you can get the PDF.
1
Add a comment...
In his circles
60 people
Have him in circles
56 people
Kath McCarron Humphrey's profile photo
maria tzamtzi's profile photo
Rina Noerhazanah's profile photo
Bob Rayner's profile photo
Gemma Robinson-Wilson's profile photo
Susan Witterick's profile photo
John Bluck's profile photo
Gavin Parker's profile photo
Susan Beard's profile photo

Communities

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
What is a title? : some futuregazing.

You see someone's title: "Mr", "Mrs", "Dr"... what does it mean to us? To me, it creates expectations.

What does "Mrs" do? It tells us a female is no longer available to partner (echoing the function of a wedding ring). It tells us that the person is female, which sets up a lot of other expectations, perhaps prejudices.

The public like to see indications that a person is competent, so "Dr." appears where the person is academically qualified to practice, particularly in medical circles. However, If you look at academic papers, you'll likely not see "Dr." nor "Professor" appear before an author's name. Instead, such titles are 'marketing'.

Let's try to look into the future, to guess how titles will be used in, say 100 years' time. Here's my guess:

1. "Dr" will only be used in public-facing medical situations.

2. Prefix titles will be replaced by professional merit-based postfix titles, like we now see in professional services.

3. People will acquire voluntarily-applied postfix tags, reflecting a their interests and qualifications. These are worn like badges, where appropriate.

4. We won't see any reference to the gender of a person, and indeed forenames will merge to hide the difference. This will be reinforced by the increased practice of blurring the gender boundaries.

5. We can look forward to a time when we don't form prejudiced expectations when we see a name, and before we've interacted with a person.
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
We're almost done writing a new paper, which essentially covers the basic rules and explores some cutting-edge applications, distilling what we did Q1 2014 (follow the link for preprints).

The strength of this work is that we have a mechanism for creating and destroying matter, in a completely conserved way, which includes the things we know in the Standard Model, has gravitation for free, and can be applied to black holes just as well as it can describe ordinary matter.

In the paper: we propose it as a possible model for black holes, and make a few predictions. There's a tentative look at how redshift can be observed without needing a cosmological constant (it needs a lot of TLC in future, and might be scrapped, because I'm sure I'm missing something obvious!). Finally, we address the matter/anti-matter imbalance, and find it emerges from those simple rules we defined in the foundations.

You're probably wondering how it was done, so I'll try to give an overview here. Rather than wiping the slate clean and declaring all physics to be wrong (we don't!), we work with accepted theories, to see if we can reproduce their effects in the domains they are proven to work.

This is a tall order, but we tackle it by attempting to define the simplest set of fundamental rules (just six, when we counted them), which when applied, generates physicality: what matter is, how it works, how it changes and moves, the forms it takes, and how it is observed.

We work with instances that are more fundamental than fermions. The right conditions allow waves (as bound pairs: bosons) to collapse into a localized fermion. Using these waves, we find that fermions exist only instantaneously as points, radiate leaving nothing behind, and re-collapse when bosons combine at the required phase at a unique spatial position.

Simulating bigger systems, we find out what 'vacuum energy' is, and how mass-energy helps localize massive particles. Better still, we find that fermions, bosons, and the fields that represent forces, are all the same simple stuff. Their observable effects can be extracted from their context in the simple physical model, so for example, the fields of QFT are statistics of this, as are the parameters of the field equations of general relativity (though we diverge on the emergent physical significance of their terms).

Gravitation also emerges from the mechanism. But don't get too excited; it's not a 'unified field' on the same terms as gauge fields. Instead, we have to be satisfied with a mechanism that is common to all these things that we're trying to unify. So rather than being a unification that is the holy grail of physics, we instead have a trivial unified description, from which the desired fields are emergent.

We think it's very elegant: from only six rules, we get all this physics.

It's going to take a lot of work to find proofs in all the relevant areas. I consider myself grossly under-qualified to do this, simply because it covers so many specialisms, but I keep challenging the mechanism with any observations and articles that I come across, in the hope of finding disproof, or a scenario that the ideas cannot explain (none so far, but I might be unwittingly shielding myself from finding failure).

It's difficult for another reason: there is lots of emergent behaviour to be sifted through. Our aim is to have all the standard stuff accounted for, and ensure that it adds up to '1' in our picture. If not, then we look harder, to discover why not. It might be completely wrong. It might reveal something new, or offer answers to cutting-edge questions. It's exciting to explore, and in the coming months, we'll let you know what we find.

[note to self: I should really get around to making some prettier pictures for this blog]
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
We're writing a new paper, looking at the anti-matter problem and particle genesis, which we hope to make available soon. Here I've included one of the diagrams, and some of the introduction (I've edited out the technical stuff).

ABSTRACT: "We expand on previous work, applying our deterministic physicality mechanism to find an inherent polarizing effect from exclusion in the wavefunction, leading to a prevalence of one sign of Dirac image (matter or anti-matter) as the matter state for the observable universe. This effect dissipates outside the respective radii of weak interaction of fermions, and we offer perspectives for current cosmological hypotheses of particle genesis."

INTRODUCTION: In standard literature, we accept that in creating a charge-carrying particle of the standard model from vacuum, we also create its corresponding anti-particle in the same event. Likewise for destroying a particle: both it and its anti-particle are converted to radiation.

We identify these particle pairs as corresponding to the dualled Dirac images that are present in the constitution of a fermion; for each fermion, only one image is accepted as ‘reality’ for the propagation of the fermion’s matter state [3].

[-- some group/algebra history omitted --]

Our method is to use instances solely on the extra C_2 basis (“b” value) to apply determinism where quantum mechanics cannot. The extra C_2 duality  interpolates dual Cl(3,1) spaces, as an oscillation of fundamental waves between ‘vacuum’ and ‘the condition for the fermionic matter state’, for a deterministic mechanism for the physicality of matter [5]. Indeed, it is possible to derive new statistics, and we are working towards implicitly generating the free parameters of the Standard Model from the application of geometric principles.
In this work, we show how exclusion applies to the waves leaving a fermion event, creating an imbalance in the probability of interaction for each of the Dirac images. Given any two matter-state waves, which are excluded from the first interaction (fig.4), one of their anti-images will partake in the first collapse event, coupling with waves external to the fermion. For a conserved fermion, this also needs to happen to the remaining wave, making two de-localised collapsing anti-images (usually interacting with vacuum, or they may be confined in a composite structure). This process repeats, such that on their next interaction, we return to the original states interacting with the original constitution (anti-anti-states, which gets us the original fermion).

Taken over the total history of the waves, collapse favours the non-excluded waves, and the sharing of vacuum waves further propagates any locally-dominating tendency towards one sign of Dirac state as the matter state. In our locality, we have matter (conserved localized fermions) and anti-matter as (nonconserved states, as de-localized anti-images).

So in answering the question "where has all the anti-matter gone", we can say that de-localized anti-matter immediately surrounds us, at the level of the weak interaction. There might also be lots of energy as a result of fermions failing to re-constitute, and the remnants of that are what we call vacuum energy.

http://johnvalentine.co.uk/po8.php?art=papers
1
John Valentine's profile photo
 
In case you're wondering, the "intermediate" grey blobs are just as much "fermion" as the black or white blobs. We show them differently here, because we're looking how the waves from any given a fermion (say D), interact with vacuum and return (to make F): the grey fermions each contain a half of the exact same waves that were present at the (black) fermion source.
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
This one worth a read if you're slightly interested in black holes, and the recent research papers out there: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/df0a131d7b95
Do black holes exist? The world’s most famous scientist vs. the actual science.
1
Add a comment...

John Valentine

Shared publicly  - 
 
What next after this Black Hole paper? Look further into the same subject, or try applying it to something else that's tricky? How about the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe? I only looked at this very briefly a few years ago, and found an explanation, but it was too ridiculous to put into print. Shall I confront it, or do something else? That's three options. The fourth is to do nothing at all, which doesn't appeal.
1
Add a comment...
 
[re our previous post] We'll be writing a follow-up paper, to compare and contrast respective ideas [#StephenHawking], while public interest is current. To be clear, I was not making first claim on this; more pointing out for validation of my ideas. However, if extensive research shows any claims I can make, I'll be sure to point them out in the paper. [Keywords:  #paper   #evaporation   #deterministic   #chaos  ]
1
John Valentine's profile photo
People
In his circles
60 people
Have him in circles
56 people
Kath McCarron Humphrey's profile photo
maria tzamtzi's profile photo
Rina Noerhazanah's profile photo
Bob Rayner's profile photo
Gemma Robinson-Wilson's profile photo
Susan Witterick's profile photo
John Bluck's profile photo
Gavin Parker's profile photo
Susan Beard's profile photo
Communities
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Links
Other profiles
Contributor to