Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 4/10/17 at 12:59pm UTC, wrote Daer Giovanni, A canoe is a small narow boat. Canoeing is a sport. Canute...

Giovanni Prisinzano: on 4/9/17 at 15:02pm UTC, wrote Eckard, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the thread on Dedekind's axiom: the...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/7/17 at 15:13pm UTC, wrote Eckard, I agree that: “World’s population must be stabilized without...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/6/17 at 12:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein, Great said about the static monism of Einstein and...

Akinbo Ojo: on 4/6/17 at 9:21am UTC, wrote Hi Eckard, I just read your nice essay. Like you I see Ockham’s razor a...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/6/17 at 3:02am UTC, wrote Eckard, you made a comment to George Simpson that perhaps should have been...

George Kirakosyan: on 4/5/17 at 13:11pm UTC, wrote // I intend encouraging those who feel obliged to resist even if they swim...

Eckard Blumschein: on 4/4/17 at 15:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Giovanni, Your hint to canute's style of discussion was one of the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "happy to see you, but where were you Tom ? :)" in Manipulating the Quantum...

Thomas Ray: "Peter, Bravo!" in Manipulating the Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Dearn Steve, There am no such a thing as a humanly contrived abstract..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Agnew: "Please understand that an infinite anything is unknowable and unmeasurable..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi FORUM
June 26, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Towards More Reasonable Evolution by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

Scientific curiosity as a human strategy for survival includes the intention to cope with discrepancies between mutually excluding views. Common sense distinguishes past cause from future effect and a point in between while dynamic laws of nature are shift-invariant. Why? The laws are formulated in terms of an unlimited to both sides time that lost its reference to reality. Models that are based on that notion require an arbitrarily chosen reference instead. Necessarily they are redundant and suffer from being closed systems. This affects any belonging method, even alternative ones like least action, path integrals, and BEM. In contrast, my essay admits reality to be an open system seamlessly including everything from elementary fields and particles up to memories, aims, intentions, and beyond. Reality is not fully predictable because there are unseen external influences or just too many internal combinations the mix of which is considered responsible for its progressing evolution. My essay suggests taking under scrutiny some gaps in mathematics, physics, and ethics. Non-arbitrary reasoning is my goal as well as my key criterion, a logical underpinning of Ockham’s razor.

Author Bio

See http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/topic/369

Download Essay PDF File




John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 12:12 GMT
Dr. Blumschein:

Your essay has really thought provoking points. I am seeking to learn.

Your discussion on the "arrow of time" seems to only observation rather than a derivation from some universe principle. Is the "arrow of time" a universe Principle (it should be a derivation I think)? Did I miss something?

Concepts of singularities and infinity are unreal physically, yes?...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear John Hodge,

Thank you for supporting my opinion that ethics needs correction.

I even consider China's one-child politics a sucess from which their economy and the world's ecology benefits a lot.

What about the relation between model and reality, we may be pretty close to each other.

Being an engineer, I too feel as an outsider with respect to the use of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. I recammend my reference [1]. The more I dealt with mistakes concerning the imaginary unit.

Regards,

Eckard




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Mr. Blumschein

Your essay is a retrospective of all important in science been achieved until nowadays. It is written with the understanding, correctly and clear. So that's my assessment, brilliant. However, I would not support an attempt of the definition of the speed of light.

„c equals to the distance between positions of target at the moment of arrival and of emitter at the moment of emission divided by the time of fligh.“

Imagine aliens more advanced than we are, and that they somehow know our whole numbers.

Then you tell them, we know the importance of the number 6.283821 ...Tthey will say: We know that number.

Then you offer them your light speed obtained in a way that you suggested. They concluded that it would be the first to explain to them the unit of time and that you still have 4 sources of measurement errors, and as they know errors are added. Also, they would probably have said that they need only one measurement of physical constants that equals approximately 137.035999 .... because they can not determine it exactly.

However, there is way to accurately determine the units of measurement, as well as the speed of light with a minimum number of measurements.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
My definition describes how to measure c in case of relative motion between emitter and target. Without such movement, Poincaré's two-way measurement is as correct as is one-way measurement.

Regards




John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
The Shapiro delay can be explained by a varying speed of light.

report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 20:34 GMT
Aw far as I know, the Shapiro delay is a delay similar to refraction within a plasma. Except for its prediction by Shaporo from Schwarzschild solution, it has perhaps nothing to do with the much larger Relativistic length contraction according to SR. Nobody questions that the speed of light outside a vacuum can get smaller than c.

My point is, c only depends on the differene between the positions of emitter at the moment of emission and of target at the moment of arrival. It doesn't depend on a speed.



John C Hodge replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 00:31 GMT
What do you think of stating the speed of light is the highest that matter can travel in any environment? Shapiro may be because of gravitational field density.

There is always a gravitational field. Therefore, the idea of a vacuum is not measurable.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 02:03 GMT
Indeed, an ideal vacuum is certainly just a reasonable fiction as is the limit value c too.

Incidentally, I don't think that matter can travel as fast as light may do.

When you read my essay you should have noticed I often used the expression "as if" which reminds of Vaihinger and the "Freunde des als ob" in Halle.

My University of Magdeburg is named after Otto de Guericke who in the 17th century didn't just convincingly demonstrate an almost evacuated space but nonetheless also an electrostatic force across vacuum as a model of forces between the sun and planets.

The magnetic field around a conductor is calculated as extending endlessly as does the gravitational field too. Strictly thought, it completely vanishes only at r=0 where naive theory could expect it to approach the singularity infinity.

Mathematicians dislike my clear distinction between Galileo's logical quality of being infinite and Leibniz/Bernoulli's mathematical quantity of (relative) infinity.



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Dr. Blumschein,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about any...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 21:12 GMT
Eckard

Very nice essay. Nicely written and I also agree with most therein, certainly including Darwin. I've just speed read most for now but I'll read again slower and make notes.

I also agree your response to JOHN ref the SHAPIRO effect. Venus express found more than enough gas atmosphere for the delays found. Shame such clear refutations don't spread.

But I still see flaws in your simple sounding 'c';

1st; Who can properly determine 'Time of Flight'? The answer is nobody! Choose an observer and I'll show you his problem.

2nd; Take a scenario with an emitter near Mars heading for Earth, which is heading towards it, then an intermediate probe in Earth's ionosphere (sending 'check' signals to Earth & back). We know the signal travels at c wrt the sol rest frame. It's recorded by the probe on passing it, then again on Earth. Your description will fail because either it does the last bit from the probe to Earth at a DIFFERENT SPEED to the probes signals, OR it changes speed on passing the probe so falsifying your description.

Of course it does the latter (as at Venus) but also then does c in the LOCAL rest frame. (as ALL physics is local). It therefore does TWO speed changes on interaction with fermions & gas, to the refractive index PLUS to the rest frame of the fermions it's been re-emitted by. You should find that matches all observation flawlessly. Remember fermions live in all space.

Of course SR is wrong, but you really need to impartially review your alternative as we'll need a flawless one if it's to stand any chance of replacing SR!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 22:08 GMT
Peter,

My one-way definition of the speed of light in empty space is apparently too simple and irrefutable as to be accepted by you. What is the obstacle?

Everybody is used to refer speed to something. You mentioned "the rest frame of the fermions" and "the sol rest frame". Persson's essay (A Tragedy in Physics) mentions "boundary conditions that are relevant in relation to the wave motion".

In contrast, I agree with Einstein on that there is no naturally preferred point of reference, no rest frame in space. Because my definition is restricted to empty space, it does perhaps not collide with your focus on reemission by fermions. I wonder if I am the first one who claims that the far field of light waves in empty space simply propagate with no direct reference to a frame of emitter, reemitter, medium, or receiver. Only the distance matters, not an arbitrarily chosen point of reference. Did nobody else already distinguish between empty space as a medium as Maxwell imagined it and empty space as mere mutual distances?

Incidentally, what is your opinion concerning the conflict between limitless growth of world population and protection of nature, etc.? I guess, I understand the voters for Brexit and Trump to some extent. Germany's future president often says the world is out of joint. I see a necessity for correcting ethics.

Eckard



Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 12:57 GMT
Eckard,

On humans v nature I broadly agree with you as my essay on that. But I also identify the

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 13:24 GMT
Eckard,

On your 'c' description. The basic issue I have is that it doesn't meet the essential test of hypotheses; correspondence to findings. As an astronomer I've focussed on that subject for decades and it's indisputable. What will please you is that the current SR interpretation similarly fails. Einstein conveniently 'forgot' the odd issue (actually he didn't as he well recognised even...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 09:37 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

It is a nice and thought provoking essay. Thank you for sharing such nice thoughts. I am writing below some points from your essay………..

Real good points from your essay are….

1. Lagrangian [1], Hamiltonian, path integral, and boundary element method don’t make real time useless. The words wandering, towards, and goal in the topic correspond...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

I guess you are a believer with sound common sense who after employment in a steel company dealt with galaxies. Therefore, I hope you may read my essay entirely as to point out where you don't agree. My goal and criterium is non-arbitrariness.

Having just mentioned Kant's role together with Laplace as founders of cosmogenity, I should add of the scientific one. Their reasoning was devoted to the possible evolution of cosmos, NOT to speculations about something like Adam and Eve or a Big Bang out of nothing. Kant predicted the existence of what we now are calling galaxies. At least the idea of first men does even contradict to the meanwhile good substantiated idea of beginningless gradual evolution.



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I will go through once again and tell few more points if any, meanwhile....

………………… I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay

……………and where reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:18 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Not by chance, I agree with many of your heretical views. I will try and comment on your essay accordingly.

Sadly, you and perhaps many others who were worried by my essay shied back from addressing what I consider a most important consequence: growing responsibility for our evolution.

Let me bluntly call a spade a spade: As the huge variety of essay demonstrates, rambling towards something that unites more or less derailed science with traditional believe is not reasonable. Wudu is wrong but not irrelevant.

My essay takes the position of mankind as a whole and corresponding human obligations. I know that women in India were urged to have four children as to maintain balance with the muslims. The (sunnite) leader Chomenei of Iran urged women to provide 150 millions of Iranians. Hitler gave a so called Mutterkreuz to Germans with four children. Erdogan of Turky urged the already four millons of Muslims in Germany to have five children. I see this as worst crime against humanity. Europe and Northern America are in the happy situation to largely offer a slum-free perspective to the young generation. Evolution is in our hand.




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 14:34 GMT
Eckard,

Your essay is a very good recounting of the historical evolution of mathematics and philosophy over the past few thousand years. It could just as easily have been presented as an entry in the last essay contest. The emphasis upon the evolution of natural systems is a key point I think.

When speaking of infinite series, you note that an infinite series cannot be complete. Would you make a similar comparison between evolution and "emergence"?

BTW, although an infinite series can not be computed in finite time, a partial sum and a residual can be added together to give the correct result if the residual coincidentally has the correct value.

I agree with your definition for light speed. My only question is how to measure the transit time ....

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 21:36 GMT
Gary,

Thank you for agreeing on my definition for the speed of light in vacuum. There is nonetheless a paper of NIST in nature 2010 that allegedly proofs time dilution. I see my definition an alternative. While exact one-way measurement of time is indeed a challenging task, I rather trust in logical scrutiny. My essay focuses on checking non-arbitrariness.

As did already Leibniz, I tend to question any perfect symmetries in nature.

To me, frequently occurring striking mirror symmetry rather indicates a mathematical artifact. In general, I see mathematical items like the line, the circle, and infinity merely ideal and therefore strictly speaking unphysical simplifications of reality.

If we are speaking of an infinite series, we have convergent ones in mind. The alternating series 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, ... does not converge.

Entities may suddenly emerge in any part of reality including physics, live, history, politics, science, feelings, ideas, plans, art, etc.; I see them as always just distinguished levels of an evolution that is pretty continuous and traceable back to multiple causes. A foetus evolves and gets a baby with its emergence by birth.

I don't see the primary goal for menkind in equality and freedom but in survival by means of responsible self-control. Leaving a poisoned earth is a dangerous illusion.

With your theory you will need good look, too. I don't expect much recognition of my often unwelcome reasoning in this contest. I merely hope my grandchildren will see me active on the right side from the perspective of responsible human evolution.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 18:17 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Congratulations for your essay,objective, rational and respecting our postulates.Relevant like always to read your developments.

All the best and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 22:00 GMT
I feel in debt to FQXi for guiding me to develop hopefully useful while admittedly uncommon conclusions.



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 14:50 GMT
:) always surprising and intersting to read you in all case.

Friendly

report post as inappropriate


Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumenschein

it is an interesting comprehensive essay, where I in particular agree about the block universe, the significance of evolution, and the importance of values for the future of humanity. I believe that the key feature you focus on, Non-arbitrary reasoning, is possible because logic choices can emerge from physics via biomolecules at the micro level, as I explain in my essay, which are then incorporated in physiological structures (brains) at the macro level which enable the micro logic to be built up to underpin macro logic, as also occurs in the case of digital computers.

It is good to argue with breadth and historical depth, as you have.

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear George Ellis,

Feeling my essay very good understood, I am not sure whether or not ion channels should always be described as just performing yes-no decisions. Nonetheless they are certainly a key. Progress in physiology and development of digital computing mutually benefit from each other.

I am convinced that the issue of ethics is most important, presently more important than basics miracles of physics.

In order to not deter those who feel responsible for the sake of all, I should perhaps hide other views of mine. Shouldn't I?

Because I know you are a relativist, I hesitated to reveal that I have no doubt: Poincaré synchronization must not be applied in case of relative motion between emitter and receiver.

Sincerely,

Eckard Blumschein




Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
Eckard,

In many ways I agree the world has an open nature to it, which in part is what you appear to argue for. I also think that a part of what you are thinking of with QM is similar to the Heisenberg algebra. The matrices are upper right triangular as generators of Borel groups.

I am a bit unsure how the part at the end with population fit in. However, you paper seems to deserve a higher score than where it is at.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 13:46 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

As to demonstrate my lacking command of the language of modern mathematics, I tell you how I understand the notion "open": The condition m_ij = ∞ for a Coxeter group means no relation of the form (r_i r_j)^m should be imposed.

Thank you for hinting to upper right triangles in Heisenberg and Borel groups. I have to admit, my common sense approach does already fundamentally differ from Sophus Lee's one. I see selected and restricted mathematics as more or less appropriate tools.

Well, IR+ can be interpreted as special case of IR. However, I agree with my former boss who called my suggestion, seeing it from human perspective the other way round, utterly fundamental.

I dared to write about responsibility for coping with population growth because I see it logically a most important part of any comprehensive view on evolution of science. Wudus must not be ignored.

Cheers, Eckard



Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 16:23 GMT
The approach with Borel groups is connected with Kleinian coset models. This is something of particular interest to me.

Mathematically open sets are those with topology, or where there is some epsilon disk or region around any point. My point with openness is with quantum information and cohomological groups describing entanglement symmetries that are closed and not exist (without boundary).

My feelings about human population is that at this point trying to address that issue is like closing the barn door after the horses have run away. To be honest we have already blown it.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 09:44 GMT
To begin with your pessimism concerning evolution, I see the future open. As Shannon said, it is unknown but we may influence it.

While I highly appreciate your profound knowledge of group theory, I got aware of deliberate neglect of logics not just in the application of mathematics but perhaps already in its very basics. You mentioned topology and a region around a point. Someone mocked, topology cannot even act like a child and perform a symmetrical cut. Why? Because a real number is a number. Is a number really a number? Hausdorff's surrounding of a point and the picture of how to imagine the Dirac impulse as an infinitely narrow bell-shape don't fit to what Terhardt revealed and also not to my intention for strictly dividing between positive and negative or past and future.

David Joyce confirmed my ideas as interesting when I criticized pebbles instead of Euclidean points.

Katz made me aware of the fact that the logical notion infinity as used by Galileo is different from the mathematical (relative) infinity by Leibniz/Bernoulli.

In all, I have to make homework as to go through what I feel with Weyl a shaking ground and holpefully falsify my suspitions concerning Pauli's opinion. I don't see myself biased by lacking qualification. My professional work was to a large extent teaching and application of complex calculus.

Cheers, Eckard




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear readers,

Please find my comment concerning Lee and symmetry at Yanowsky's essay.




James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:08 GMT
Eckard,

Your criteria for non-arbitrary decisions, "Reality cannot be shifted, reversed, or otherwise changed. It does not exhibit much genuine redundancy, in particular no absolutely exact symmetries," is certainly reasonable though agendas of various kinds tend to interfere as you mention -- creationism,self-interest, etc. Logical choices, even choices augmenting long-term survival, are obviously not automatic. Mindless laws, like entropy might offer direction, but real steerage comes from humans. How do we assure non-arbitrary decisions? I'm not sure my essay makes any headway in answering that question.

Interesting read.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:14 GMT
Jim Hoover,

I see only your eye-catcher entropy a bit related to my essay. My credo is causality. It implies irreversible time, evolution, and human responsibility. Entropy is a concept of closed thermodynamics systems. I prefer seeing the world open except for non-arbitrary reasoning.

"How do we assure non-arbitrary decisions?" Well, your dreamed TOE should be non-arbitrary, it is, self-consistent. I see awareness of discrepancies between mutually excluding views better guides than lazy reiterating overly advertised more or less speculative tenets including SR.

Common sense is sufficient as to understand the most important duties of science. For instance, there is no denial, the usual time scale requires an arbitrarily chosen reference. There is also no denial, uncontrolled rapid growth of population destroys the earth which contradicts to genuine humanity.



James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 04:41 GMT
Eckard,

Since it nears the end, I have been returning to essays I have read to see if I've rated them and discovered I rated it on March 3rd.

Hope you have enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I have.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein

The excellent essay with a deep analysis of the mistakes of science.

Being an engineer, I too believe that «the laws of nature lost their immediate connection with concrete causal structures of reality when their variables were abstracted from it and generalized at higher logical level». «my essay admits reality to be an open system seamlessly including everything from elementary fields and particles up to memories, aims, intentions, and beyond».

In My essay it is shown that the using of mathematical abstractions and ideal properties of matter and fields in the description of physical reality leads to a lack of reasons for the ongoing processes, lead to the abstract particles, to pointless research of collapses, of infinities, of normalization, of calibrations, of clouds of probability and so on. The phenomenological laws and their abstract coefficients spread on everything systems unreasonably and are elevated to the rank of absolutes.

This led me to the conclusion that the reason of self-organization systems of matter is quantum-parametric resonance and the formation of solitons.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:43 GMT
Vladimir Nikolaevich,

Maybe you felt attracted by my not just fundamental but hopefully also compelling criticism because you are offering own unusual ideas.

In order to be helpful, you should specify the criticism you are just mentioning.

Kind regards,

Eckard




Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein

I think that the most important thing for the theme of the contest is to solve the problem of causality in quantum mechanics and in the processes of self-organization of matter systems. You a lot of space in an essay devote to this issue.

«This reason-oriented principle proved utterly fertile in all branches of science, not just of biology but also far beyond, including cosmology and social sciences».

However, in your essay, I did not see the solution to this problem in the form of a quantum physical process, only the declarations and possible ways of solving by mathematical methods.

«Isn’t two-way (Poincaré-) synchronization just conventional? Despite of being accepted, it is at odds with the old tenet of just one ubiquitously valid absolute time and also with causality. On the other hand, abundant lectures [7] tell that two-way synchronization and therefore Lorentzian length contraction etc. must be right. Maybe possible loopholes can be found».

The desire is there, but there is no solution.

So I gave my very simple decision in the form of a classic causal quantum-parametric resonance process and the formation of solitons, in which the natural physical process implemented in accordance with the principle of minimum extreme action.

I do not deny that I want to draw your attention to my work, because your opinion is very important to me.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 14:00 GMT
Kadin is correct: "what is courageous to some may be foolish to others." I am fully aware that a majority doesn't like to be made aware of possible mistakes. Nonetheless, disillusionment is often necessary as to find correct solutions.

I feel not competent to comment on your quantum-parametric resonance and solitons. The "reason-oriented principle" you are referring to is evolution. I guess, it is even useful in case of those fields of science you are focusing on where there is definitely no human intention behind the reality. As Kadin wrote: There is no gost in the machine. Fellows of Faihinger called themselves friends of the "as if". The reason for the success of thinking as if there was a creator is the attribution of causality to Him.

Of course, some quantum phenomena seem to contradict causality. I don't see there a serious problem because I consider causality indispensable. Instead, I found indications for possible conceptional mistakes the revelation of which might be of little value.

In case of two-way synchronization, I avoided revealing some far reaching consequences. I selected [7] because it shows to a critical reader a lot between the lines. Although sci.physics.relativity is dominated by cranks, outsiders like aetherist Ken H. Seto, and defenders of relativity like J. Roberts, I dared to suggest there a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum. The discussion is going on.

You are right, my solution requires that the putative evidence for time dilution is wrong while mass increase can be explained otherwise.




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Thank you for seeing my essay and giving a comment there, I am just repeating my answer here

Thank you for nice comments and spending time on my essay......

Your words……….

…………………….My humble intent to appeal on responsibility for the evolution of mankind forbids ignoring your rich work, although I have no knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology. …………..Reply……………….

Thank you for such nice words and Blessings

…………… Your words……….

…………………….I learned from you that the Big Bang is based on SR. Having dealt with oddities of Poincarè synchronization, I am not persuaded that relativity of time is correct. …………..Reply……………….

Bigbang is from GR the General relativity. Dynamic Universe Model is a solution of N-body problem, which Poincare also tried long back. Thank you for saying about time, time has one direction only. Time will never go back….

…………… Your words……….

……………………. I merely accept what is evident from experiments with accelerators: electromagnetic mass increase. …………..Reply……………….

Sir, Mass increase is a proposal from Dynamic Universe Model, experiments were not done yet. Probably you may please initiate one such experiment….

I work on theoretical side only….

Kind regards,

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

"Time will never go back…." Yes. I see causality and evolution contradicting to CPT and Lorentz symmetry.

Maybe, you mistook my sentence: "I merely accept what is evident from experiments with accelerators: electromagnetic mass increase."

I felt urged to go through 40 pages of links and comments in

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experime
nts...

as to find out what might be wrong with either my one-way definition or SR.

There I found "6.Test of Relativistic Kinematics": - - -Relativistic Mass Variations: electron, proton

While important authors like Thomson and Abraham are not mentioned, p. 22 lists Kaufmann 1905, 1906, 1915, Bucherer 1908, 1909, Hupka 1910, G. Neumann 1913, 1914, Guye 1915, Zahn 1938, Rogers 1940, Meyer 1963, Bertozzi 1964, Geller 1972.

Maybe, those who preferred the Lorentz/Einstein theory were not aware of the logical inconsistence of Einstein's use of two-way synchronization and his denial of causality and direction of evolution. I don't share Abraham's and the other ones speculations about the shape of an electron.

Kind regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Eckart

I have read your essay endorsing causality and common sense in the evolution of the Universe. Your conclusions that by evolving the Universe leads to us who understand moral values are interesting. Do not mind me I am putting words into your mouth, but apart from my disagreeing about the fundamental nature of time - for me time does not exist as a dimension but emerges from sentient memory - it seems to me this is what you are saying and you have answered the essay question very well.

Good luck and best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I learned from you the word "sentient". My dictionary tells me: "Something that is sentient is capable of experiencing sensations through the physical senses". In my understanding, feeling belongs to a single individual, not directly to a group of individuals and also not to the non-animal items of chemistry and physics from elementary particles up to cosmos.

Well, I don't hide my rationalist position up to most unwelcome consequences. Let me "blame" the topical essay question for letting no chance to me but to

- defend causality against Einstein's relativity of time,

- reveal G. Cantor's more than infinite sets as a logical outgrow of Leibniz' pragmatic relative infiniteness and reveal singularity as outside IR,

- criticize unlimited growth of population as the most dangerous to nature unreasonable evolution of mankind as a whole.

The latter insight requires a very basic correction to ethics up to the condemnation of all those who urge women to have at least 4 or even 5 children as to strengthen the power of a state or religion as recently did Erdogan.

Kind regards,

Eckard




Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I read with great interest and pleasure your essay, full of ideas and of theoretical and historical references, which are for me always grounds for reflection (as well as all your post in FQXi forums, that I always try to read, when I can). Although there are differences between our views, for example on the interpretation of the Cantorian real numbers (which in my opinion can have not only a mathematical meaning, but also a physical one), there are ideas I fully share. One is the interpretation of teleological concepts as tools that we are inclined to use "as if" they were objective phenomena, but whose existence in nature is unprovable. It is a perspective that reminds me of Kant's Kritik der Urteilskraft, and of the work of Hans Vaihinger, a great scholar of Kant, which has condensed his thoughts and his Kant's interpretation in the book Philosophie des Als Ob[i/]. Moreover, I really appreciate your interest and commitment to ethical issues, a commitment that is not always so openly manifest in the scientific community, but of which I think there is really need, especially at a time when shadows are gathering more and more densely at the horizon of history and of the earth.

My very kind regards,

Giovanni

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Giovanni,

I hope you and your mother are fine. Having read about Hans Vaihinger, I got aware that he indeed deserved his 1.000.000 Mark price from the friends of "Als ob".

Meanwhile I got in contact with Prof. Bedürftig in Hannover, who wrote some books mainly in German around the philosophy of mathematics. I have to admit that my position differs from all those who prefer the Leibniz/Bernoulli relative notion of infinity, the so called mathematical one. I prefer the strictly logical rather than pragmatic alternative as formulated by Galileo. Perhaps you are aware of a paper on Stevin numbers by Katz. To me Wikipedia nicely illustrates how much the hyperreal numbers deviate from common sense.

If I recall correctly, you (correctly but in contrast to mandatory tenets) stated that Dedekind's cut is valid for rational rather than real numbers. Dedekind actually wrote R when he meant Q. I see the claimed continuity the decisive question. And I arrived at the conclusion that there are no singularities within the continuum and therefore also not in physics.

Are you aware of Prof. Wolfgang Mückenheim, a dean in Augsburg who recently wrote a source book on Transfinity. Well, the essence of mathematics is its freedom to create nonsense.

What about the ethical issues, we hopefully agree on that praying will not help.

The German Emperor Wilhelm II was three times suggested for the Nobel peace price, the last time on 29. January 1917 from the University of Istanbul. After he had to announce to the people of Berlin the begin of what evolved into WW1 and continued in WW2, he reportedly said to them: We can only go home and pray. He was irresponsibly wrong.

Best regards,

Eckard



Giovanni Prisinzano replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 21:05 GMT
Thanks Eckard, you remember well, my mother has recovered (although not fully) from the accident she had two years ago, she is old, but still alive, I have also changed town to be a little closer to her, for the rest I'm quite well, I can say...

I've already downloaded from arXiv Katz paper on Stevin numbers, it seems interesting and I shall certainly read it. Also the works of Prof. Bedürftig I saw on the web interest me, while I do not know if I will look for the Lehrbuch of Prof. Wolfgang Mückenheim. His ultrafinitistic perspective (as I read on Wikipedia), seems too radical for me.

You remember well also what I wrote about Dedekind in the previous contest. The “cut” is only valid in the field of rational, not of real numbers, and the enunciation of his classic axiom of continuity is misleading.

About that, I found it very interesting this topic on PhysicsForums (by the way, I recognize myself in the remarks of the one who opened the thread):

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/dedekinds-axio
m.83018/

Lastly, regarding praying, I agree with you. If one prays because is a believer, that's okay, it's his choice; but if he says (being not a minister of some cult) “go home and pray”, then he is irresponsible.

Thanks for your kind reply, dear Eckard, and all the best for you!

Giovanni

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Giovanni,

Your hint to canute's style of discussion was one of the few things I learned from this contest. Thank you.

Prof. Mückenheim's Source book, not a Lehrbuch, is available for free on the web.

Let me try and comment as a layman on his definitely very comprehensive attempt to show that there is no actual infinity:

In order to be mathematically correct, M. accepts that any number is a number.

In case of infinity this seems obviously run into canute's trouble.

I rather see Dedekind and G. Cantor having established the impossible: a continuous line that is composed of distinguishable from each other points. Why not?

I see not only futile efforts to nonetheless ensure mathematical rigor. More important for physics might be the following two questions:

- Do descriptions of physical reality need genuine continuity in the sense of infinite divisibility inclusive irrational numbers?

- Can singulare points be exactly addressed within the genuine continuum of belonging genuine real numbers?

Only who knows what he does should calculate "as if".

My common sense tells me: There are no physical singularities and no concrete infinities. I guess, nobody will ever know for sure whether or not space is infinite.

Best regards,

Eckard




George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 05:53 GMT
Hi dear Eckard,

I have read your essay (in known meaning) and I feel that you are one person who are inclined to bitterly criticism. My dear, there is small quantity people who like such persons. (I think for this your position in the rating list looks not so happy!) In my opinion however, any valuable thing impossible to created without serious criticism. But this is the reality. For example, we well understanding what will happen if the critic-wolf will be absent in the forest, - and we continue kill them. So I can be fully with you and even good supporting to you (because me also are somewhat critic!) let me give you one technological advice only - It will better to take one concrete nail and to bit it to end! You can try, for example, to cut whole physics by Occam's razor - to see what remain there after? (I am trying do this in my works) I do not know how will useful my support to you but I am going to do it.

Good wishes to you, in your hard work.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 08:57 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

Bitterly criticism? No. Serious logical reasoning and emotional criticism are not the same. They even often exclude each other. Why do people like themselves and others as good ones who are in position to like and protect wolves? Almost nobody needs wolves everywhere. I hope for more people getting aware of the psychological backgrounds for a majority to love risks and also for some Muslims to commit suicide attacs. A more reasonable evolution is certainly the better option for mankind as a whole.

In Germany, perhaps in other countries too, and also in science, there is already again a widespread fear to reveal own thoughts. I intend encouraging those who feel obliged to resist even if they swim against stupidity and disobey Erdogan's order to have five Islamic children.

Eckard Blumschein



George Kirakosyan replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 13:11 GMT
// I intend encouraging those who feel obliged to resist even if they swim against stupidity ...// I'm with you here, my dear!

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:02 GMT
Eckard,

you made a comment to George Simpson that perhaps should have been addressed to Gary Simpson. (I'm sure George would have been completely mystified!)

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:21 GMT
Hi Eckard,

I just read your nice essay. Like you I see Ockham’s razor a very useful tool to decide what is true in physics.

I hope you do well in the competition.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 12:43 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Great said about the static monism of Einstein and that he had a problem with the sense of reality.

It is necessary to distinguish geometrical space from physical space. It is a different concept. Geometric space does not move, and the physical space is in constant movement, forming the whole world

I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme. I wish not to interrupt our communication

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:13 GMT
Eckard,

I agree that: “World’s population must be stabilized without naturally correcting catastrophes like decimating wars or mass starvation.” There is not enough discussion of this important issue so I’m really glad that you mentioned it in your essay.

However, without genuine free will, ethical goals are useless. If human beings are not able to freely move relative to the “block universe” to navigate towards an imagined ethical goal, then what will be will be. Que sera sera.

Regards,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.