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.

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.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**larens imanyuel**: *on* 12/2/14 at 7:08am UTC, wrote Erratum - Testing for an Isomorphism between Mathematics and the...

**larens imanyuel**: *on* 11/30/14 at 0:28am UTC, wrote Matching numbers to shapes is what mathematicians do, though they may...

**Georgina Woodward**: *on* 11/29/14 at 23:09pm UTC, wrote Thank you again. I now understand what you mean by privileged numbers,...

**larens imanyuel**: *on* 11/29/14 at 22:15pm UTC, wrote I should have said "mathematicians" instead of "people". I was at an event...

**Georgina Woodward**: *on* 11/29/14 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote "the rules come from the broader concept of "privileged" numbers and...

**larens imanyuel**: *on* 11/29/14 at 18:14pm UTC, wrote Georgina, the rules come from the broader concept of "privileged" numbers...

**Georgina Woodward**: *on* 11/29/14 at 9:08am UTC, wrote "Some rules are: 1) Map simpler constructions into lower dimensional...

**larens imanyuel**: *on* 11/29/14 at 6:27am UTC, wrote I need to replace the mention of quantum mechanics in my last post with...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

**Steve Agnew**: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Agnew**: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..."
*in* The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi BLOGS

May 20, 2019

Quantum physics can make rocket science look like kindergarten circle time. Even experts find it daunting. So imagine the challenges that science writers face, both in understand the physics and conveying it to a general readership. To try to help, Sabine Hosenfelder and I organized a workshop on quantum physics for science journalists, held at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stockholm this past August. Sabine and I got the idea a couple of years ago at a Nordita social event, where the open bar made us so rash as to commit ourselves to doing it.

The workshop gave writers a chance to extricate themselves from the hurly-burly of publishing for a few days, recharge their intellectual batteries, and learn about what's going on in all sorts of important and fun areas, from quantum optics to topological insulators. Some 25 of them came from across Europe to hear seven physicists, including FQXi members Raymond Laflamme, Lárus Thorlacius, and Silke Weinfurtner, as well as Eddy Ardonne, Marie Ericsson, Rainer Kaltenbaek, and Chad Orzel.

The event was modeled on the journalist "bootcamps" held routinely in the U.S., but less commonly in Europe. It amounted to a series of seminars along with evening social events and rambles through historic Stockholm so that people could get to know one another and ask the questions they'd been wondering about for years, but never had the chance or gumption to pose. The speakers enjoyed having an appreciative audience, with no one asking what they needed to know for the exam.

One afternoon, Mohamed Bourennane brought us into his lab at Stockholm University to witness quantum weirdness for ourselves. Afterwards, we had a good discussion about whether physicists and journalists overuse terms such as "quantum weirdness." Does this language help or hinder public understanding of the subject? Sabine has started a discussion about this on her blog.

The presentations are a great resource even for those who weren't able to attend, and we'll also post videos of the lectures on YouTube as we get them ready.

report post as inappropriate

The workshop gave writers a chance to extricate themselves from the hurly-burly of publishing for a few days, recharge their intellectual batteries, and learn about what's going on in all sorts of important and fun areas, from quantum optics to topological insulators. Some 25 of them came from across Europe to hear seven physicists, including FQXi members Raymond Laflamme, Lárus Thorlacius, and Silke Weinfurtner, as well as Eddy Ardonne, Marie Ericsson, Rainer Kaltenbaek, and Chad Orzel.

The event was modeled on the journalist "bootcamps" held routinely in the U.S., but less commonly in Europe. It amounted to a series of seminars along with evening social events and rambles through historic Stockholm so that people could get to know one another and ask the questions they'd been wondering about for years, but never had the chance or gumption to pose. The speakers enjoyed having an appreciative audience, with no one asking what they needed to know for the exam.

One afternoon, Mohamed Bourennane brought us into his lab at Stockholm University to witness quantum weirdness for ourselves. Afterwards, we had a good discussion about whether physicists and journalists overuse terms such as "quantum weirdness." Does this language help or hinder public understanding of the subject? Sabine has started a discussion about this on her blog.

The presentations are a great resource even for those who weren't able to attend, and we'll also post videos of the lectures on YouTube as we get them ready.

report post as inappropriate

George,

Many of the participants here are generally aware of where mainstream physics has been and like to raise questions and issues about where it is going. While strings and super symmetry seem to have developed far more as mathematical formalisms, than the physical evidence supports, there are other concepts out there, black hole singularities, blocktme, inflation, dark energy, multiverses, to name a few, which seem to emerge from the math and the models, but without much in the way of physical evidence to support them.

So the issue might also be when does the broader credibility curve start to become a problem, when does the need for a reset become public and when does the science media start looking in the shadows, for all those raising alternative ideas, rather than just riding the current bandwagon?

If you want to engage in broader conversations, I'm sure a number of commentators here would be happy to oblige.

Regards,

John Merryman

report post as inappropriate

Many of the participants here are generally aware of where mainstream physics has been and like to raise questions and issues about where it is going. While strings and super symmetry seem to have developed far more as mathematical formalisms, than the physical evidence supports, there are other concepts out there, black hole singularities, blocktme, inflation, dark energy, multiverses, to name a few, which seem to emerge from the math and the models, but without much in the way of physical evidence to support them.

So the issue might also be when does the broader credibility curve start to become a problem, when does the need for a reset become public and when does the science media start looking in the shadows, for all those raising alternative ideas, rather than just riding the current bandwagon?

If you want to engage in broader conversations, I'm sure a number of commentators here would be happy to oblige.

Regards,

John Merryman

report post as inappropriate

"Many of the participants here are generally aware of where mainstream physics has been ..."

I don't find that to be true.

" ... and like to raise questions and issues about where it is going."

That, I do find to be true.

report post as inappropriate

I don't find that to be true.

" ... and like to raise questions and issues about where it is going."

That, I do find to be true.

report post as inappropriate

I think a lot of the problem with "quantum weirdness" is that many of the definitions in quantum theory aren't really definitions; they are explanations for empirical phenomena concocted after the fact. A prime example is this, from Sabine's blog:

"How is time-dilatation in a gravitational field less strange than entanglement?"

Time dilation is** much **** ** less "strange" because it follows from a mathematically complete theory that predicts the phenomenon.

report post as inappropriate

"How is time-dilatation in a gravitational field less strange than entanglement?"

Time dilation is

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

"Time dilation ... follows from a mathematically complete theory that predicts the phenomenon." Each time you reiterated this statement, you ignored both the unnecessary dilation hypothesis by Lorentz and Einstein's asymmetrical ABA synchronization.

If Lorentz invariance was useful, this would not justify an illogical basis.

I guess, John M's doubts are largely justified.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

"Time dilation ... follows from a mathematically complete theory that predicts the phenomenon." Each time you reiterated this statement, you ignored both the unnecessary dilation hypothesis by Lorentz and Einstein's asymmetrical ABA synchronization.

If Lorentz invariance was useful, this would not justify an illogical basis.

I guess, John M's doubts are largely justified.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

The idea that there is "quantum weirdness" is unhelpful insofar as it's clear that more-or-less classical models of various kinds are *possible*. One doesn't have to commit to or believe any particular classical model, or construct a new category of models (better than we have seen so far would be helpful, something that doesn't swoon at the sight of Occam's razor), for it to be clear that there *could* be no weirdness, except insofar as classical (statistical, contextual, incoherently perhaps-faster-than-light-but-no-FTL-messaging-at-current-ex

perimental-scales) models might be counterintuitive (edit: might have counterintuitive consequences).

It doesn't matter much whether QM is weird or not, however, whether there are "simple" classical models or not, because the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is as good as or better than any classical statistical model is likely to be for practically useful engineering at low energy. A lot of current journalism about condensed matter physics and engineering runs with the simple usefulness of QM very nicely, without getting hung up on weirdness.

OTOH, the kind-of-weird thing about QM is how long it's taking us to understand physics at QFT and higher energy scales.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

perimental-scales) models might be counterintuitive (edit: might have counterintuitive consequences).

It doesn't matter much whether QM is weird or not, however, whether there are "simple" classical models or not, because the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is as good as or better than any classical statistical model is likely to be for practically useful engineering at low energy. A lot of current journalism about condensed matter physics and engineering runs with the simple usefulness of QM very nicely, without getting hung up on weirdness.

OTOH, the kind-of-weird thing about QM is how long it's taking us to understand physics at QFT and higher energy scales.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

That's a nice assessment, Peter. My opinion is that the assumptions of conventional quantum theory -- such as quantum entanglement -- are what largely retard progress in quantum field theory, as well as every other field theory.

One simply cannot get smoothly to a continuum theory from an assumption of discrete, a priori, quantization. The converse, however, does not apply.

report post as inappropriate

One simply cannot get smoothly to a continuum theory from an assumption of discrete, a priori, quantization. The converse, however, does not apply.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the kind words, THR. Mistaken though I may be, I don't find quantum entanglement specially confusing; I'm more inclined towards thinking that the need for regularization and renormalization in QFT reflects a misunderstanding that could be cleared up by a different approach to the use of distributions (which isn't a novel idea, of course, but details, details, details).

Though I'm a continuum models kinda guy (just because I can't get away from thinking there must be something*between* or *within* the parts of whatever finite model we might construct), still I wouldn't want to say that only continuum models could be the one and only. I don't worry about "smoothly" in the sense I take from your comment. I'd be more inclined to make a similar but different point to yours, which I take to be slightly more empirically motivated: a finite set of finite precision data underdetermines theories in which the continuum plays any part.

report post as inappropriate

Though I'm a continuum models kinda guy (just because I can't get away from thinking there must be something

report post as inappropriate

I think to a certain extent the problem is normalcy bias. As in that which is "normal" isn't necessarily set in stone and is different for different people.

Possibly the history of physics is partially responsible, in that there is a professional tendency to emphasize the leaps in knowledge, rather than maintain the necessary connections.

For instance, it seems "particles" covers a variety of entities and activities, from quantizations to inflection points, to wave peaks, yet the institutional imperative likes discrete concepts over fuzzy ones and so we now are lead to believe nature is fundamentally discrete and the weirdness arises from the fact that what we actually observe isn't.

This post is a bit fuzzy, but I'm going to leave it at that and let others draw their own interpretations.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Possibly the history of physics is partially responsible, in that there is a professional tendency to emphasize the leaps in knowledge, rather than maintain the necessary connections.

For instance, it seems "particles" covers a variety of entities and activities, from quantizations to inflection points, to wave peaks, yet the institutional imperative likes discrete concepts over fuzzy ones and so we now are lead to believe nature is fundamentally discrete and the weirdness arises from the fact that what we actually observe isn't.

This post is a bit fuzzy, but I'm going to leave it at that and let others draw their own interpretations.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Event horizons of black holes do not exist. Why did it take so many decades for mathematical physicists to realize this? It is more obvious if you think about what the physics is really saying.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Those presentations are all very good. Thanks.

Note that the last link in the presentation list does not work right.

It was all pretty standard stuff, except no multiverse stuff a la Carroll. I am not big on stringy things or on multiverse things, so that is a never no mind for me anyway. If those poor press people were not confused about QM going into this meeting, I am sure they were plenty perplexed coming out. What a crazy state physics is in today.

However, The Orzel2 talk did hit home for me...the variation of the fine structure constant in time. One of my favorite topics in the decay that is the collapsing universe.

I did not realize that so much good work had been done and the NIST alpha change is = -6.2(+/-)6.5 e-17 / yr, about 4.3e6 less than my alpha change. But of course, they have not calculated the consequences of h and c changing along with alpha, constants that all change together with the fine structure constant. The transition energy changes along with alpha and so what they measure is really the difference between changes in transition energy and changes in alpha, not just changes in alpha over time.

Now I have to do some more work to show if this fits with matter time. Since h and c change along with alpha, the simple relation that they use no longer works. But these high order effects should show that the universe is really collapsing after all. I really like it when there is hard date...

report post as inappropriate

Note that the last link in the presentation list does not work right.

It was all pretty standard stuff, except no multiverse stuff a la Carroll. I am not big on stringy things or on multiverse things, so that is a never no mind for me anyway. If those poor press people were not confused about QM going into this meeting, I am sure they were plenty perplexed coming out. What a crazy state physics is in today.

However, The Orzel2 talk did hit home for me...the variation of the fine structure constant in time. One of my favorite topics in the decay that is the collapsing universe.

I did not realize that so much good work had been done and the NIST alpha change is = -6.2(+/-)6.5 e-17 / yr, about 4.3e6 less than my alpha change. But of course, they have not calculated the consequences of h and c changing along with alpha, constants that all change together with the fine structure constant. The transition energy changes along with alpha and so what they measure is really the difference between changes in transition energy and changes in alpha, not just changes in alpha over time.

Now I have to do some more work to show if this fits with matter time. Since h and c change along with alpha, the simple relation that they use no longer works. But these high order effects should show that the universe is really collapsing after all. I really like it when there is hard date...

report post as inappropriate

Okay, now we are into rabbits for sure!

"If you are in a room with all the doors and windows locked and there is a rabbit in the centre of the room. Then, you close your eyes for a second and open it again and no more rabbit. Has the rabbit moved? Note that Steve's formula,

"...about a displacement, find dtau and multiply it by c and that is your motion"

appears useless in...

view entire post

"If you are in a room with all the doors and windows locked and there is a rabbit in the centre of the room. Then, you close your eyes for a second and open it again and no more rabbit. Has the rabbit moved? Note that Steve's formula,

"...about a displacement, find dtau and multiply it by c and that is your motion"

appears useless in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

First of all, what we predict is action and action is the path integral of matter over time. The time differential is proper or dtau, which is the norm of time between a moving and rest frame.

*"How do you characterize the "motion" of the electron in the hydrogen atom. AND when it goes to higher energy state how did it jump to there. Also I am sorry I could not get the c dtau, can you please elaborate if possible, like from which equations it came."*

It is probably easier to start with the very simple notion of electricity conducting in a wire. This is a thoroughly quantum effect, but still has its classical view as well. Do electrons move in a wire? I would say yes and that it is hardly even worthy of much discussion.

The fact that you can construct a whole series of creation/annihilation matrix elements to transfer electrons within the states of the metal conduction band is very good physics. We also can use ohms law and get to the same point. Do the electrons move through the metal?

When we examine the location of each electron at the atomic level, we find of course a lot of necessary complexity. We have to consider exchange and tunneling and the fuzzy nature of the electron. In all of the, we can always (or mostly) calculate the expectation value of the electron position.

Electrons are bound with photons to nuclei in an exchange that represents charge force. An excited state is simply a different photon exchange than the ground state. That happens with a coupling to the vacuum field which has photons to give.

The proper time differential, dtau, is what determines the path integral in GR. Different frames have different times and in certain frames, dtau = 0. However, in QM, proper time does not yet have quite the same meaning as GR and dtau=0 can never happen in QM. The patchwork of the Klein-Gordon equation is what holds QFD together right now and it actually works really well...for everything except gravity that is.

report post as inappropriate

It is probably easier to start with the very simple notion of electricity conducting in a wire. This is a thoroughly quantum effect, but still has its classical view as well. Do electrons move in a wire? I would say yes and that it is hardly even worthy of much discussion.

The fact that you can construct a whole series of creation/annihilation matrix elements to transfer electrons within the states of the metal conduction band is very good physics. We also can use ohms law and get to the same point. Do the electrons move through the metal?

When we examine the location of each electron at the atomic level, we find of course a lot of necessary complexity. We have to consider exchange and tunneling and the fuzzy nature of the electron. In all of the, we can always (or mostly) calculate the expectation value of the electron position.

Electrons are bound with photons to nuclei in an exchange that represents charge force. An excited state is simply a different photon exchange than the ground state. That happens with a coupling to the vacuum field which has photons to give.

The proper time differential, dtau, is what determines the path integral in GR. Different frames have different times and in certain frames, dtau = 0. However, in QM, proper time does not yet have quite the same meaning as GR and dtau=0 can never happen in QM. The patchwork of the Klein-Gordon equation is what holds QFD together right now and it actually works really well...for everything except gravity that is.

report post as inappropriate

Later thought on creation/annihilation operators and motion...

I neglected to mention that as well as the electron current loop, the wire will be moving in the opposite direction as the electron current. In QM, electron motion in a wire is an excitation of two complementary matter waves with two different clocks; the current goes one way the the wire goes the other way. Such motion is indeed due to the action of creation/annihilation operators and results in the many possible futures of QM.

In fact, all motion in quantum gravity is due to a similar complementary quantum jump. In GR, though, motion is continuous between moving and rest frames and due to a deterministic and continuous distortion of space. There are no quantum jumps in GR, but there are still two clocks.

Thus, GR and QM agree that things move and that a moving clock is different from a rest clock. Where GR and QM disagree is how the rest and moving clocks of the past become the proper time and matter of the present moment.

report post as inappropriate

I neglected to mention that as well as the electron current loop, the wire will be moving in the opposite direction as the electron current. In QM, electron motion in a wire is an excitation of two complementary matter waves with two different clocks; the current goes one way the the wire goes the other way. Such motion is indeed due to the action of creation/annihilation operators and results in the many possible futures of QM.

In fact, all motion in quantum gravity is due to a similar complementary quantum jump. In GR, though, motion is continuous between moving and rest frames and due to a deterministic and continuous distortion of space. There are no quantum jumps in GR, but there are still two clocks.

Thus, GR and QM agree that things move and that a moving clock is different from a rest clock. Where GR and QM disagree is how the rest and moving clocks of the past become the proper time and matter of the present moment.

report post as inappropriate

Did I forget to mention how much distaste that I have for simulated universes? It is right next to multiverses and supersymmetry and loop quantum gravities in my list of I-don't-cares.

Anybody can come up with any number of supernatural agents and multiverses and supersymmetries to accomplish any number of roles in the making of the universe. There are an infinite number of such supernatural agents out there waiting to lead us to our destiny.

Why do we prefer the agents that we imagine in lieu of the agents that simply are; matter, time, and action? We have the universe that we have...all we can do is try to understand it better.

report post as inappropriate

Anybody can come up with any number of supernatural agents and multiverses and supersymmetries to accomplish any number of roles in the making of the universe. There are an infinite number of such supernatural agents out there waiting to lead us to our destiny.

Why do we prefer the agents that we imagine in lieu of the agents that simply are; matter, time, and action? We have the universe that we have...all we can do is try to understand it better.

report post as inappropriate

But you *are* experiencing a simulated universe generated by your own sensory system.

Also the object universe contains the EM data to produce many different experienced realities, that data pool might be regarded as a multiverse of potential experienced realities. Also data could theoretically be received from various different locations within the Object universe giving many different versions of visible uiverses, not just the one we observe from Earth. That's two kinds of perfectly sensible multiverse.

You are also be aware of the simulations generated from data collected by telescopes and probes, rendered into images that might then also undergo artistic interpretation using colour to allow enhanced perception of the information contained. Such as colouring X ray data in one colour, gamma radiation in another and infra red data another. Non of which would be visible to the human eye. Creating a colourful*simulation* representing something that not only no longer exists in space but also could never have been seen by a human observer because the sensory data is made into an image reality that differs significantly from the image reality generated by human sensory systems alone.

"We have the universe that we have..."Steve Agnew.

Matter and action can give passage of time but not the**visible universe**. It is not enough that the EM data exists within the sequence of iterations of Object universe.It is just potential data not past times. It has to be processed into output, which is the space-time output Image reality. Observation creates space-time it, space-time does not exist externally to the observer.

report post as inappropriate

Also the object universe contains the EM data to produce many different experienced realities, that data pool might be regarded as a multiverse of potential experienced realities. Also data could theoretically be received from various different locations within the Object universe giving many different versions of visible uiverses, not just the one we observe from Earth. That's two kinds of perfectly sensible multiverse.

You are also be aware of the simulations generated from data collected by telescopes and probes, rendered into images that might then also undergo artistic interpretation using colour to allow enhanced perception of the information contained. Such as colouring X ray data in one colour, gamma radiation in another and infra red data another. Non of which would be visible to the human eye. Creating a colourful

"We have the universe that we have..."Steve Agnew.

Matter and action can give passage of time but not the

report post as inappropriate

I should have said Matter and action *alone* can give passage of time but not the visible universe. A visible universe requires an observer to fabricate it.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

And importantly, the visible universe is a space-time **simulation**with the Earth as observer at its center. (I'm sorry Copernicus, that's how it is)

By the way, as the majority of the sources of the data to build the simulation appear to be moving away from the Earth isn't it more likely the Earth is moving away from the data origins, rather than being at the center of THE physical universe, a stationary observer of the motion of the rest of that universe expanding.

report post as inappropriate

By the way, as the majority of the sources of the data to build the simulation appear to be moving away from the Earth isn't it more likely the Earth is moving away from the data origins, rather than being at the center of THE physical universe, a stationary observer of the motion of the rest of that universe expanding.

report post as inappropriate

Hi George, thank you for telling us about the QM workshop event and for putting the link to the presentations and lectures. I have only just taken a peek and learned about topological insulators and the puzzle of knots. I look forward to dipping into them again soon as I have lots to learn.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

"And importantly, the visible universe is a space-time simulation with the Earth as observer at its center. (I'm sorry Copernicus, that's how it is.)" should be expanded to say "Earth at the Current Epoch" to reflect the modern statement of the "Copernican Principle".

Think of the simulation as taking place in a planetarium with the radius of the Moon's orbit, so to first order the...

view entire post

Think of the simulation as taking place in a planetarium with the radius of the Moon's orbit, so to first order the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that Earth is not in a central, specially favored position in the universe.[1] More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe....[2] Bondi, Hermann (1952). Cosmology. Cambridge University Press. p. 13.Peacock, John A. (1998). Cosmological Physics. Cambridge University Press. p. 66. ISBN 0-521-42270-1, Wikipedia, Copernican principle.

However Earth is the center of the visible universe, simulated output from the data we receive on Earth. It is the visible universe that is most often referred to as the universe.Observers elsewhere in the Object universe are the center of their visible universes they fabricate from their received data at those different locations. We can not presume to have a privileged position within the material Object universe, that humongous unseen beable. That facet of reality is, I think, rarely considered, except here.Importantly it is necessary to distinguish which facet of reality is being considered, that which exists unseen or that which is observed.

report post as inappropriate

However Earth is the center of the visible universe, simulated output from the data we receive on Earth. It is the visible universe that is most often referred to as the universe.Observers elsewhere in the Object universe are the center of their visible universes they fabricate from their received data at those different locations. We can not presume to have a privileged position within the material Object universe, that humongous unseen beable. That facet of reality is, I think, rarely considered, except here.Importantly it is necessary to distinguish which facet of reality is being considered, that which exists unseen or that which is observed.

report post as inappropriate

First paragraph of previous post should have been in quotation marks, takem from Wikipedia, Copernican principle.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Georgina, we should not assume that something "exists unseen". On the question of "Are we alone in the universe?" the preponderance of evidence is that we are alone as a technological civilization. We have seen no reliable evidence of the effects of another civilization. All highly improbable correlations between mathematics and what we observe from the Earth are evidence that the Copernican Principle is false.

One should start from the simple metaphysics of Cosmic Democracy - everything in the universe causes everything else. This starting symmetry is broken by whatever language we are using. This language evolved from earlier less instrumented circumstances, when we could not measure the parallax of celestial objects. The construction of our cosmology thus starts with a 2-D celestial sphere. My mention of a planetarium simulation was an analogy to this earlier form of cosmology from which our modern ideas have evolved.

report post as inappropriate

One should start from the simple metaphysics of Cosmic Democracy - everything in the universe causes everything else. This starting symmetry is broken by whatever language we are using. This language evolved from earlier less instrumented circumstances, when we could not measure the parallax of celestial objects. The construction of our cosmology thus starts with a 2-D celestial sphere. My mention of a planetarium simulation was an analogy to this earlier form of cosmology from which our modern ideas have evolved.

report post as inappropriate

The idea that "everything in the universe causes everything else" is fully compatible with the "visible universe". The equations of physics, both classical and quantum, may be written with both forward causality and retrocausality. This follows the viewpoint of Wyrd, the ancient Celtic philosophy. When one makes a decision one does not know whether one is exercising free will or ones decision is predetermined by the necessity of being compatible with some future event. European philosophy eventually adopted the empiricism of David Hume and abandoned retrocausality. The ancient word "Wyrd" became the modern word "weird".

Images exist because patterns exist within data. The data exists independently of any particular physical form. Time exists so that the "observer" can have an experience. As Einstein said, "The only reason for time is so that everything does not happen at once."

report post as inappropriate

Images exist because patterns exist within data. The data exists independently of any particular physical form. Time exists so that the "observer" can have an experience. As Einstein said, "The only reason for time is so that everything does not happen at once."

report post as inappropriate

larens,

What do you mean by*everything in the universe* when you have already discounted everything that materially exists and only wish to consider the images that are seen, fabricated from em data, photons. Remember you wrote "we should not assume that something "exists unseen" Where are the atoms and the material objects in that universe? Yes the equations can show forward causality or retro-causality but the arrow of time never goes backwards. To experience that it would be necessary to travel faster than light receiving the em data in the reverse order to its production. As we can not travel faster than light we can not experience that apparent reversal of time and so the idea of retro-causality is nonsense... Unless you allow that there is a material Object reality in which things happen unseen ahead of the observed present, because observation takes time.So the material cause is ahead of the observed present not as it is seen present by present lagging behind occurrence. In that universe we can feel uneasy before we consciously understand a threat because our unconscious mind can process data before awareness of the conscious mind. Which may seem like precognition but is ignoring the difference in data processing time.

report post as inappropriate

What do you mean by

report post as inappropriate

To avoid ambiguity I should have said,the images that are seen; space-time fabricated from input photon data

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Oh baby, you are after my own heart...

*"You cannot prove that "the universe does exist out there in and of itself" by using mathematics, since math itself exists in the mind! You want to get rid of extraneous unobservables, e.g., multiverses, so you should also get rid of physical reality as an unnecessary concept in building mathematical models. Better is to ask what model of reality would a mathematical scientist imagine(who also sees himself in a community of mathematical scientists coming up with the same ideas)."*

Let's be very careful here...math is math...math does not prove anything. Math allows us to predict the actions of objects better than we can predict with intuition and common sense. When we better predict action, we improve our survival.

I do not think that any math will ever perfectly represent the actions of reality. All we can ever hope for is better and more useful predictions of action. Is this proof? You decide, not me. Is it useful? That is the whole game...

report post as inappropriate

Let's be very careful here...math is math...math does not prove anything. Math allows us to predict the actions of objects better than we can predict with intuition and common sense. When we better predict action, we improve our survival.

I do not think that any math will ever perfectly represent the actions of reality. All we can ever hope for is better and more useful predictions of action. Is this proof? You decide, not me. Is it useful? That is the whole game...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

I should make clear that I use Dolph Ulrich's 5-valued equivalence when dealing with "existence". Since contemporary English generally uses Boolean 2-valued equivalence, this may lead to confusion when words, such as, "everything" are used. The question A=B? can be True, False, or semiequivalent, because A and B are the same, except for being of two different types selected from 3 symmetrical possibilities. I normally break the type symmetry to Object, Symbol, and Value. Observation maps Object => Symbol. Volition maps Symbol => object. These are forward causality mappings. Value is associated with retrocausality when there is no apparent reason for a choice. I hope this helps cut through the confusion.

My objection is not to "physical reality",*per se*, but to the phrase "exists unseen". The classes Object, Symbol, and Value are isomorphic, so the physical universe must be what is observable, thus excluding the "unseen".

report post as inappropriate

I should make clear that I use Dolph Ulrich's 5-valued equivalence when dealing with "existence". Since contemporary English generally uses Boolean 2-valued equivalence, this may lead to confusion when words, such as, "everything" are used. The question A=B? can be True, False, or semiequivalent, because A and B are the same, except for being of two different types selected from 3 symmetrical possibilities. I normally break the type symmetry to Object, Symbol, and Value. Observation maps Object => Symbol. Volition maps Symbol => object. These are forward causality mappings. Value is associated with retrocausality when there is no apparent reason for a choice. I hope this helps cut through the confusion.

My objection is not to "physical reality",

report post as inappropriate

When we talk about seeing objects we are not seeing the object itself but the image of the source object, fabricated from the EM radiation received. There is thus, for example, cat(Object, source of em input) that is unseen, Cat(Image, output from EM processing) seen, Cat(representation) All called cat but not the same phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.

Are they equivalent? no. Just because we see image cat and make a representation or symbolic token to represent it, such as CAT, does not mean we must discount the existence of the source of the EM that was processed into the image cat that is observed.

report post as inappropriate

Are they equivalent? no. Just because we see image cat and make a representation or symbolic token to represent it, such as CAT, does not mean we must discount the existence of the source of the EM that was processed into the image cat that is observed.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

You and Steve are both assuming that matter, action, and time exist separately from consciousness. An alternative is a "holographic" universe in which there is just noise until a conscious observer/actor provides the code to turn noise into meaning. Just like the reference beam serves to produce the images in a physical hologram the conscious actor provides the reference framing to provide time, particles, and fields.

This is consistent with both modern science and commonly reported experience. In general relativity the field equations first produce a solution for a curved 4-D timeless space. Only as a second step is time introduced as a foliation of the space. Both Bohr and Wigner's metaphysics for quantum mechanics required there to be conscious actors for there to be physical reality. About 10% of the population report near death experiences in which time and locality seem to be transcended.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

You and Steve are both assuming that matter, action, and time exist separately from consciousness. An alternative is a "holographic" universe in which there is just noise until a conscious observer/actor provides the code to turn noise into meaning. Just like the reference beam serves to produce the images in a physical hologram the conscious actor provides the reference framing to provide time, particles, and fields.

This is consistent with both modern science and commonly reported experience. In general relativity the field equations first produce a solution for a curved 4-D timeless space. Only as a second step is time introduced as a foliation of the space. Both Bohr and Wigner's metaphysics for quantum mechanics required there to be conscious actors for there to be physical reality. About 10% of the population report near death experiences in which time and locality seem to be transcended.

report post as inappropriate

"You and Steve are both assuming that matter, action, and time exist separately from consciousness."Larens Imanyuel.** I'm Not.** Matter and action yes, time no. Passage of time can be accounted for by change in configuration of the Object universe it is not necessary to use temporal language to describe that. Its a psychological need not a physical requirement. The time dimension of space time...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I think that continuing to discuss the definition of fundamental types is not going to be productive unless we start with a small enough piece of physics to practically demonstrate isomorphisms between types. I propose that we go back and look at pre-Hellenic astronomy before technology was up to determining the parallax of the Moon, so we are working with a 2-D Celestial Sphere viewed from the Earth. Let us just consider the two brightest objects, the Sun and the Moon, and their first order parameters. This gives us three pairs of parameters that reduce to five numbers, because two parameters are equal:

1) The angular diameters of the Sun and the Moon,

2) the dihedral angle between the the Ecliptic and the Equater,

3) the dihedral angle between the lunar orbit and the Ecliptic,

4) the length of the year in days, and

5) the length of the year in months.

These can be matched to highly composite numbers thus showing* prima facie * that there is an isomorphism between these pieces of math and astronomy. One needs to show that the construction of this set of numbers is privileged in that there are compelling mathematical reasons to choose the particular operations. In addition one should statistically show that there are small second and third order parameters shared by the numbers, so that the first order calculations are part of a larger rapidly converging sequence of operations. Does anyone else have some other stipulations to put on the calculations?

report post as inappropriate

1) The angular diameters of the Sun and the Moon,

2) the dihedral angle between the the Ecliptic and the Equater,

3) the dihedral angle between the lunar orbit and the Ecliptic,

4) the length of the year in days, and

5) the length of the year in months.

These can be matched to highly composite numbers thus showing

report post as inappropriate

Are you using the term isomorphism with philosophical or mathematical meaning?

Can you please define type as you are using it.

This may help -From wikipedia, Type. Type may refer to:In philosophy: Type (metaphysics), a concept in the type-token distinction In theology: Type & Antitype in Typology (theology),In mathematics:Type (model theory), Type theory basis for the study of type systems, Type or arity, the number of operands a function takes, Type, any proposition or set in the intuitionistic type theory

"These can be matched to highly composite numbers"Larens Imanyuel. What does that mean?I don't mean significance but what do you mean by a highly composite number and what is it to match measurements to them.

Quote:" One needs to show that the construction of this set of numbers is privileged in that there are compelling mathematical reasons to choose the particular operations. In addition one should statistically show that there are small second and third order parameters shared by the numbers, so that the first order calculations are part of a larger rapidly converging sequence of operations. " Larens

I don't understand the why of any of that. You seem very preoccupied by the numbers and correlations between them, is this numerology rather than physics?

report post as inappropriate

Can you please define type as you are using it.

This may help -From wikipedia, Type. Type may refer to:In philosophy: Type (metaphysics), a concept in the type-token distinction In theology: Type & Antitype in Typology (theology),In mathematics:Type (model theory), Type theory basis for the study of type systems, Type or arity, the number of operands a function takes, Type, any proposition or set in the intuitionistic type theory

"These can be matched to highly composite numbers"Larens Imanyuel. What does that mean?I don't mean significance but what do you mean by a highly composite number and what is it to match measurements to them.

Quote:" One needs to show that the construction of this set of numbers is privileged in that there are compelling mathematical reasons to choose the particular operations. In addition one should statistically show that there are small second and third order parameters shared by the numbers, so that the first order calculations are part of a larger rapidly converging sequence of operations. " Larens

I don't understand the why of any of that. You seem very preoccupied by the numbers and correlations between them, is this numerology rather than physics?

report post as inappropriate

I am using the word isomorphism in its generic sense of a structure preserving mapping.

Here I am using the word type in its model theory sense, not in its type-token sense.

A highly composite number has more divisors than any smaller natural number. Wikipedia covers this subject well.

To match numbers and measurements one uses topology common to the structures of the concepts involved. This is part of what is necessary to what is usually called "calculating the values of physical constants from pure math".

To fully explain the mathematical language of my stipulations I would have to specify all the axioms I am using in my constructions, which would be too lengthy for this comment. Two of them are that highly composite numbers have higher priority in use, and numbers cannot just be deleted. They must either go into a "used set" or an "unused set" where the set has some coherent definition larger than "used". Other axioms may become important in further discussion of the uniqueness of the construction.

To show that there are higher order parameters one compares ones calculations with empirical data and shows that the small ratios obtained also have a pattern of small ratios between themselves.

I am using scientific numerology. To start building a model one must first look for patterns in the data to determine what must be put into the model.

report post as inappropriate

Here I am using the word type in its model theory sense, not in its type-token sense.

A highly composite number has more divisors than any smaller natural number. Wikipedia covers this subject well.

To match numbers and measurements one uses topology common to the structures of the concepts involved. This is part of what is necessary to what is usually called "calculating the values of physical constants from pure math".

To fully explain the mathematical language of my stipulations I would have to specify all the axioms I am using in my constructions, which would be too lengthy for this comment. Two of them are that highly composite numbers have higher priority in use, and numbers cannot just be deleted. They must either go into a "used set" or an "unused set" where the set has some coherent definition larger than "used". Other axioms may become important in further discussion of the uniqueness of the construction.

To show that there are higher order parameters one compares ones calculations with empirical data and shows that the small ratios obtained also have a pattern of small ratios between themselves.

I am using scientific numerology. To start building a model one must first look for patterns in the data to determine what must be put into the model.

report post as inappropriate

(Numerology is any belief in divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding events. It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. .......The term numerologist is also used derogatorily for those perceived to place excess faith in numerical patterns (and draw scientifically unsound inferences from them), even if those people do not practice traditional numerology.Wikipedia, numerology)

What makes your numerology scientific? Or do you just mean that you are applying numerology to scientific problems?

report post as inappropriate

What makes your numerology scientific? Or do you just mean that you are applying numerology to scientific problems?

report post as inappropriate

For numerology to be scientific it must include an analysis of why the correlations between mathematically and empirically determined numbers are statistically significant - and are not just the result of selecting random matches from a sufficiently large set.

Science has three parts: induction, axiom formation, and deduction. Numerology refers to the induction part and may include formal axiom formation. The orthodox may use the word "numerology" merely as a derogatory term so as to exclude the formation of unorthodox new models.

Because "rigorousness" is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder, I am open to discussing what stipulations need to be placed on numerological analysis to make it "rigorous". I find it difficult to get useful responses, because few people have given it much thought. The orthodox may also abuse the offer by demanding stipulations that are impossible for any new model to meet.

report post as inappropriate

Science has three parts: induction, axiom formation, and deduction. Numerology refers to the induction part and may include formal axiom formation. The orthodox may use the word "numerology" merely as a derogatory term so as to exclude the formation of unorthodox new models.

Because "rigorousness" is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder, I am open to discussing what stipulations need to be placed on numerological analysis to make it "rigorous". I find it difficult to get useful responses, because few people have given it much thought. The orthodox may also abuse the offer by demanding stipulations that are impossible for any new model to meet.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your explanations Larens.

You asked " Does anyone else have some other stipulations to put on the calculations? " The regular contributors to these discussions are not numerologists. Why don't you just demonstrate your numerical magic and see if anyone here is impressed and/or converted, rather than asking us to contribute to something we know nothing about. Straight off I think there is most likely a problem of sample size in determining the statistical significance of the correlation of small groups of numbers.

report post as inappropriate

You asked " Does anyone else have some other stipulations to put on the calculations? " The regular contributors to these discussions are not numerologists. Why don't you just demonstrate your numerical magic and see if anyone here is impressed and/or converted, rather than asking us to contribute to something we know nothing about. Straight off I think there is most likely a problem of sample size in determining the statistical significance of the correlation of small groups of numbers.

report post as inappropriate

Since a 2-D system is simpler than a 3-D system, ignore parallax and treat the two brightest objects on the Celestial Sphere - the Sun and the Moon - as discs. Use their angular diameters, orbits, and periodic times of travel to get six first order parameters.

To calculate these six parameters from pure...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I need to replace the mention of quantum mechanics in my last post with something understandable to 8th graders. The first question is how does one mathematically justify the specific mapping of the five derived natural numbers into the six physical measurements?

{12,47,70,360,720} => {angular diameters, inclinations, temporal periods}

Some rules are:

1) Map simpler constructions into lower dimensional concepts.

2) if there is an orientation and its inverse, use both,

3) if there are three numbers, use the extremes as a pair.

As I mentioned, the inverse of the largest number gives the smallest angles of the system, i.e., 1/720 of a circle equals the angular diameters of both the Sun and the Moon.

The pair of numbers {12,360} are defined only by divisibility. This is simpler than the construction of 47 and 70, so (adding the identity) {1,12,360] are mapped to (1-D) time. The Celestial sphere is 2-D, so the extremes {1,360} are mapped to orthogonal motions. These numbers are interpreted as velocities, because velocities are invariants of the motion, respectively giving years and days (for the same period of time). The intermediate number 12 accordingly gives months.

Basic relativity of measurement means we effectively start counting intervals from zero rather than one. Thus 47, which was derived as 48-1, is in units of the smallest angle. The inverse concept then applies to 70, i.e., it represents 1/70 of a circle.

As I mentioned, 47 corresponds to the obliquity of the Earth and the inclination of the Ecliptic to the Equator, because the subtraction of 1 from 48 corresponds to doubling the diameter of the Sun, the brighter and more extensive celestial object. The 1/70 of a circle then corresponds to the inclination of the mean lunar orbit to the Ecliptic.

report post as inappropriate

{12,47,70,360,720} => {angular diameters, inclinations, temporal periods}

Some rules are:

1) Map simpler constructions into lower dimensional concepts.

2) if there is an orientation and its inverse, use both,

3) if there are three numbers, use the extremes as a pair.

As I mentioned, the inverse of the largest number gives the smallest angles of the system, i.e., 1/720 of a circle equals the angular diameters of both the Sun and the Moon.

The pair of numbers {12,360} are defined only by divisibility. This is simpler than the construction of 47 and 70, so (adding the identity) {1,12,360] are mapped to (1-D) time. The Celestial sphere is 2-D, so the extremes {1,360} are mapped to orthogonal motions. These numbers are interpreted as velocities, because velocities are invariants of the motion, respectively giving years and days (for the same period of time). The intermediate number 12 accordingly gives months.

Basic relativity of measurement means we effectively start counting intervals from zero rather than one. Thus 47, which was derived as 48-1, is in units of the smallest angle. The inverse concept then applies to 70, i.e., it represents 1/70 of a circle.

As I mentioned, 47 corresponds to the obliquity of the Earth and the inclination of the Ecliptic to the Equator, because the subtraction of 1 from 48 corresponds to doubling the diameter of the Sun, the brighter and more extensive celestial object. The 1/70 of a circle then corresponds to the inclination of the mean lunar orbit to the Ecliptic.

report post as inappropriate

"Some rules are:

1) Map simpler constructions into lower dimensional concepts.

2) if there is an orientation and its inverse, use both,

3) if there are three numbers, use the extremes as a pair.

As I mentioned, the inverse of the largest number gives the smallest angles of the system, i.e., 1/720 of a circle equals the angular diameters of both the Sun and the Moon." Larens Immanyuel

Where do these rules come from? Why these particular rules? How does the application of these rules*mathematically justify* the mappings? Are you not just saying this is what will be done and therefore it is justified? I'm not expressing interest in the numerology but interest in why you find application of these, and the earlier mentioned procedures for selecting numbers, of particular relevance or significance.i.e. the psychological appeal.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

1) Map simpler constructions into lower dimensional concepts.

2) if there is an orientation and its inverse, use both,

3) if there are three numbers, use the extremes as a pair.

As I mentioned, the inverse of the largest number gives the smallest angles of the system, i.e., 1/720 of a circle equals the angular diameters of both the Sun and the Moon." Larens Immanyuel

Where do these rules come from? Why these particular rules? How does the application of these rules

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina, the rules come from the broader concept of "privileged" numbers and objects, i.e., ones that are unique such that people would independently choose them, if just instructed to "choose the same one as everyone else without communicating with them". This falls under the broader concept of "simplicity". If something can be chosen just by using this default rule, its definition will use the fewest symbols and will have the lowest algorithmic complexity. One still has to define the sets from which to choose. There is also the assumption that people are using the same language or ones similar enough that the translation algorithm is small enough not to change peoples choices.

Applying these rules*mathematically justifies* the mappings, because simplicity is an important part of mathematics. For brevity I just gave some rules that I was going to use in my posting.

report post as inappropriate

Applying these rules

report post as inappropriate

"the rules come from the broader concept of "privileged" numbers and objects, i.e., ones that are unique such that people would independently choose them, if just instructed to "choose the same one as everyone else without communicating with them". Larens

It seems that already you are implicating some kind of psychological role in the foundation of the process. I will accept that they are "privileged" without testing it myself, as I know that most people asked to very quickly answer a number of simple questions and then asked to name a vegetable will say carrot. Making it I suppose a privileged vegetable : ) Having chosen the privileged numbers why are they used according to those particular rules?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

It seems that already you are implicating some kind of psychological role in the foundation of the process. I will accept that they are "privileged" without testing it myself, as I know that most people asked to very quickly answer a number of simple questions and then asked to name a vegetable will say carrot. Making it I suppose a privileged vegetable : ) Having chosen the privileged numbers why are they used according to those particular rules?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

I should have said "mathematicians" instead of "people". I was at an event recently in honor of Martin Gardner at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute. Besides mathematicians many children and other people interested in math were there. I tried out the concept by asking "What is the privileged prime? The Director of MSRI and another mathematician I know well, Carlos Sequin, both...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thank you again. I now understand what you mean by privileged numbers, these are known to mathematicians and are not just any numbers that come easily to mind.I don't see the significance of matching certain real "privileged "numbers to certain privileged shapes. How is it helpful to match abstract privileged numbers to observed shapes using specific given rules for their "manipulation"?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Matching numbers to shapes is what mathematicians do, though they may abstract the process to higher levels and call it "algebraic geometry".

In this case we can start with Einstein's Canon of Mathematical Simplicity: "Nature is the Realisation of the Simplest Conceivable Mathematical Ideas." This is an example of "fundamental theoretical physics".

"Simplest" was later defined by Kolmogorov Complexity, the number of bits needed to represent something, but that is not computable. Privileged Numbers is a further extension of the idea of simplicity.

To validate our theory we need to apply it to the simplest system we can. I found the motion of the Earth and the Moon on the Celestial Sphere the simplest relevant system. It is observed by the large majority of children and involves elementary arithmetic and geometry. Since I have chosen privileged numbers and concepts throughout, the raw probability of random matching is less than one part in 10^{15}. If math and science are isomorphic here to such a high degree, than all of math and science may be assumed to be isomorphic.

report post as inappropriate

In this case we can start with Einstein's Canon of Mathematical Simplicity: "Nature is the Realisation of the Simplest Conceivable Mathematical Ideas." This is an example of "fundamental theoretical physics".

"Simplest" was later defined by Kolmogorov Complexity, the number of bits needed to represent something, but that is not computable. Privileged Numbers is a further extension of the idea of simplicity.

To validate our theory we need to apply it to the simplest system we can. I found the motion of the Earth and the Moon on the Celestial Sphere the simplest relevant system. It is observed by the large majority of children and involves elementary arithmetic and geometry. Since I have chosen privileged numbers and concepts throughout, the raw probability of random matching is less than one part in 10

report post as inappropriate

I see that I entered the wrong type of months/year in my calculation of the second order time parameter. It should be synodic months in 360 days:

((12.19075/12)(365.2422/360))

This is close to the value 67/66 calculated from the classification of finite simple groups and the irregularity of distributions of finite sequences with the symmetries varified over many phenomena. I did not mention that, because it is way too advanced mathematics for a first order presentation. I did catch the error, however, when I noticed the wrong value. Including the derivation of this parameter decreases the probability of random matching by a couple of orders of magnitude to less than one part in 10

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.