CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Towards More Reasonable Evolution by Eckard Blumschein
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Essay AbstractScientific 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 BioSee 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
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? Therefore, are physics answers of a singularity or infinity from false models? If a transform (map) of a measurement has a singularity or infinity, is the model false although it may be useful in some realm? Your example of 1/r in the gravitational force mapping equation is such a condition.
Your discussion of the Hamiltonian broached a subject with which I've been uncomfortable. Perhaps the coordinate system that allows a 0 or negative potential should be disallowed in physics. Or, the calculating scheme should focus on inertia and gravitational mass - always positive. Perhaps the Equivalence Principle is not a principle but should be derived from a more fundamental principle (I've suggested the Emergence Principle.).
I agree improved ethics and morals to deal with the realities of a technology culture are needed. Humanity must impose nature's (God's) decisions on itself else nature will cause the collapse of society. It has done this in the past, several times. The unskilled worker or welfare recipient have the highest birth rate. The poorer living conditions in the past had nature dealing with this by higher disease rates and society dealt with this by draconian means. Perhaps the humanitarianism of today's morals is wrong. We are in a warm period that produces more food than a cool period. Societies tend to increase population when more food is available. When the cool period comes, the society starves and collapses. The Chinese approach doesn't work. Although population is reduced, the people that can help are restricted.
Thanks for your essay and your insights.
Hodge
view post as summary
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
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 imaginary invisible “elementary fields and particles up to memories, aims, intentions, and beyond.”
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 20:54 GMT
On p. 3, I tried to describe as clearly as possible what is reasonably meant with the notion "reality" in common sense.
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear Dr. Blumschein,
In my essay, I have accurately contended that that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Simple verifiable reality has absolutely nothing to do with your attempt “to describe as clearly as possible what is reasonably meant with...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Blumschein,
In my essay, I have accurately contended that that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Simple verifiable reality has absolutely nothing to do with your attempt “to describe as clearly as possible what is reasonably meant with the (abstract) notion (of invisible)"reality" in (invisible abstract) common sense.”
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 18:53 GMT
I hope, John C Hodge accepted my arguments.
What about Joe Fisher's "am" I am not a native speaker.
Joe could perhaps be so kind telling me whether he refers to what I am calling the logical infinity or to what was called the mathematical infinity.
I am familiar with G. Cantor's infinitum absolutum in contrast to his infinitum creatum sive transfinitum.
Aristotle stated: infinitum actu non datur.
When my essay didn't gave a reference to Katz & Katz and to Bedürftig, this doesn't mean I am not aware of them.
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Blumschein,
If you would be kind enough to read my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, you would find out exactly what I mean by using the word “am.”
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 in 1952 that he hadn't found the complete answer). Relativists will always sidestep each issue circularly, so the theory can take us nowhere.
Unfortunately that's exactly what you've been drawn into with your own description. I set out some simple falsifications clearly in my post but you chose to 'look away' as they're inconvenient. You DO need some reference frame to define your emission 'point' and
measure from it even though claiming you don't. Your description is also inconsistent for our observer at rest in Earths outer atmosphere. Good science is about facing and recognising inconsistencies. So identify a valid observer for me!
The first thing you must accept is the reality of experimental discovery. If you haven't looked' then do so as any solution described will otherwise fail. We know very accurately the make-up of most of 'space'. Certainly none of it is entirely 'empty', just quite diffuse between galaxy clusters, and all regions are in relative motion. Einstein didn't know any of that but we now DO so can correct the errors - once we apply not ignore it!
The more flawed ideas there are the more confused the situation and the more confounded will be our efforts to gain clarity. That's why they must be 'called out'. I'm sure you agree our biggest problem is those clinging to old or 'pet' theories and ignoring evidence. That's non-s(ci)ence!
Your description only needs a little updating to correspond to reality and be useful. I'm sure your mind can still do that if the will exists!
Best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 21:29 GMT
Peter,
You wrote: "You DO need some reference frame to define your emission 'point' and measure from it".
No. As do incremental sensors, I only measure the distance between the emitting point at the moment of emission and the point of arrival at the moment of arrival. Emitter and receiver may have frames of reference that are moving relative to each other.
In particular if their distance doesn't change then it and also the time of flight can be measured, in principle.
You wrote: "1st; Who can properly determine 'Time of Flight'? The answer is nobody! Choose an observer and I'll show you his problem."
I am curious. For the sake of simplicity I consider an emitter E and a receiver/observer R on a line without any reference point. Let the distance between E and R increase during the time of flight from d_0 to d_1.
Notice: There is no third point of reference relative to which E and R could have a velocity of relevance.
The notorious problem is thinking in terms of either the Newtonian ballistic picture where the speed of a bullet depends on the speed of the cannon or of the picture how a wave travels in a medium.
My definition makes an uncommon distinction between empty space without any point of reference and the hypothetical medium aether that was ad hoc attributed to a differently understood space, thought to include a center point or a boundary being equivalent to it. CMBR is not qualified as such boundary.
Eckard
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 12:52 GMT
Eckard,
Re;
"I consider an emitter E and a receiver/observer R on a line without any reference point. Let the distance between E and R increase during the time of flight from d_0 to d_1. ... There is no third point of reference relative to which E and R could have a velocity of relevance."OK. Firstly, the ability to measure 'in principle' is highly arguable and anyway...
view entire post
Eckard,
Re;
"I consider an emitter E and a receiver/observer R on a line without any reference point. Let the distance between E and R increase during the time of flight from d_0 to d_1. ... There is no third point of reference relative to which E and R could have a velocity of relevance."OK. Firstly, the ability to measure 'in principle' is highly arguable and anyway meaningless if it can't be done in reality. No possibility of experiment = valueless model.
You also DO have a 'hidden' reference point for measurement; which is the 'position' of observer R with respect to (wrt) E at the moment of emission. Doing away with backgrounds is ok but it can't also do away with that! You'll struggle to impose that over embedded beliefs so let me put it again like this;
How can R ever know 'where' or HOW FAR AWAY E is at the time of emission?? The fact is Eckard he can't can he!
Sure Einstein was wrong, but your simplest of descriptions wasn't 'missed' by he and others but dismissed as valueless.
Just to finish; If an observer was beside E what would he pin his instrument or 'tape measure' too to judge the distance to R by? YT The only solution is to CREATE the reference point you've tried to remove. (And unless he traveled at light speed he could never find R anyway).
Can you think of any application where the description may be of use? As an astronomer who's struggled to improve on inconsistent data and flawed distance measurement 'conventions' already I can't find any. If we take an observer on a planet offset half way between E and R then we're just back to and observer reference frame wrt R and E.
There IS a useful logical solution but you must perhaps be honest with yourself that it lies elsewhere.
Nonetheless your essay itself deserves a high score. However my first score was high and I was immediately trolled with two 1's. I'll hold fire so you don't suffer the same fate, unless you're unconcerned.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 17:28 GMT
Peter,
You are unable to get free from your selfish point of view. You asked: "How can R ever know 'where' or HOW FAR AWAY E is at the time of emission??" As an astronom you should know that already Roemer in 1676 and Breadley in 1728 managed to determine the one-way speed of light from Jupiter's satellites and stellar aberration, respectively. Fitzeau (1849), Foucault (1862), and Michelson (1879) used a toothed wheel or a rotating mirror. Since then, inferometric measurements were performed in labs with stationary equipment that emits and receives the light.
My students regularly used a simple means as to roughly measure the speed of signals. Of course, we measured distances before the experiments, and time by means of signals of given frequency on an oscilloscope. When I reduced the issue to E and R on a line, I assumed empty space consisting of mutual distances and a pre-SR notion of time.
I translate your teleological ascription of missing "knowledge" to R into a more serious argument: You argue that there is no causal link between the time of flight and the distance between E and R. Indeed, the value c of the speed of light in vacuum is an empirical measure despite its relation to epsilon and my.
My definition differs from Poincaré's two-way approach while it is similar to the aether hypothesis except for it doesn't refer to a light-carrying medium.
If you are still convinced to have a better solution, you might point to it.
Eckard
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 18:57 GMT
Eckard,
I can't agree that identifying 'bootstrapping' is 'selfish'. Among thousands of approximations since Roemer not one has,
famously!, yet found a way of precisely measuring the one way speed of light without 'relying' on light itself. We've discussed interferomenters before and I've published papers on their limitations and poor interpretation. Either you can pull yourself from the a swamp by your own hair or your description isn't useful, or a contribution to resolving all the anomalies found and paradoxes in SR etc.
I've described one option that DOES resolve the anomalies, not requiring the old 'ether' to carry light. We already know light CHANGES SPEED when it encounters any medium on n=
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 06:25 GMT
Peter,
My definition of the speed of light in empty space does also not need the aether. By the way, the notion aether goes back to Homer and Aristotele. Initially it meant the sky and then a divine immaterial eternal substance free from the contradictions that were thought to be immanent to the elements. When Maxwell's equations explained light as electromagnetic waves, these waves were imagined to propagate in a medium like acoustic waves in air. Before, Newton had imagined light like emitted particles. Your re-emission idea is a variant of his emission theory.
Your last posting seems to be unfinished. Anyway, I don't at all deal with light in "any medium".
What about the one-way measurement, it is of course not feasible in astronomy to directly measure distances and timespans "without relying on light itself". Nonetheless, it is feasibile to reproducibly measure distances on solid objects and also timespans with high accuracy. Einstein was wrong when he denied the possibility of one-way measurement. I see his two-way Poincaré synchronization as a trick to arrive at Lorentz' length contraction formula.
When I wrote "selfish", I meant your attempt to simply declare my essay not as correct as your former essays, without a detailled critical comparison. Moreover, I feel immune against blackmailing.
Eckard
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:15 GMT
Eckard,
You're right. Most of the post was cut as I used a symbol that seems to do so!
Not just Einstein; it's a famous problem in all astrophysics to derive a way to measure 1 way speed! And I didn't suggest you employed ether, only that my (cut- but given before)
"detailed critical comparison" doesn't either. You didn't open up to allow yourself to grasp it before but maybe...
view entire post
Eckard,
You're right. Most of the post was cut as I used a symbol that seems to do so!
Not just Einstein; it's a famous problem in all astrophysics to derive a way to measure 1 way speed! And I didn't suggest you employed ether, only that my (cut- but given before)
"detailed critical comparison" doesn't either. You didn't open up to allow yourself to grasp it before but maybe now;
Fermions are condensed as pairs FROM some condensate, they are not 'ether'. (We've recently found thousands of time more of this space plasma than believed - i.e. 10
14/cm
-3 even locally in Earths turbulent ionospheric shock.
We know fermions couple with Electromagnetic signals (including the visible range). We also know such plasma has a refractive index of n=1 (so has NO detectable EM 'signature'). Now all findings support the notion that all particles re-emitting EM energy do so at c. That is LOCAL 'c' IN THE CENTRE OF MASS REST FRAME OF EACH PARTICLE.
Lastly we know that massive clouds of space plasma move around in space (most often around and in the LOCAL rest frame of co-moving bodies). We also find 'birefringence' (TWO apparent paths/speeds) in less dense plasmas, gases and some other media.
I hope that 'nutshell' explanation was adequate.
Best Peter
Now all we have to do is employ our brains analytical functions and put all those findings together logically. To do it for you;
EM propagation is at 'c'
locally wherever fermions exist, or at c with respect to the last emitters interacted with. Signals may appear to have 'curved paths' in diffuse media until all is interacted with or where (ubiquitous) particle density gradients exist. Light will therefor travel through OUR Solar system at c wrt the SUN unless near a planet. And light in OTHER solar systems will propagate at c wrt to
THAT sun, NOT OURS!!
That description is consistent with ALL findings, including ALL the disparate and otherwise confusing interferometer result. It also solves many anomalous findings. i.e. the KINETIC reverse refraction of light in plasma clouds moving across it's path, (as also found by Lodge in his spinning glass disc experiments).
Now in fact that's very close to your own description, apart from it recognizes the known physics of coupling, and also has that massive power to resolve all anomalies and paradoxes (think of any for me if you like and I'll explain how). It's no more 'one way measurable' than any other model but is both fully consistent AND exceptionally useful.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 to the dynamic view by Heraclitus in contrast to the static existence monism by Parmenides. In common sense there is no doubt; Zeno’s paradoxes show that Parmenides and his supporters including Einstein took an unreasonable position akin to fatalism
2. God created man as a copy of His own does perhaps mean, man created God as his copy.
3. Notions like point or infinite are reasonable idealizations on a sound logical basis. However, they must not be naively attributed to reality. The other way round, it is also unreasonable to try and forge fundamentals of mathematics as to agree with real structures.
I am just adding some more points for further debate…
a. Denial of evolution implies the so called block universe that assumes time as eternally extending between minus and plus infinity with no beginning and no end.
………….Time will not go back, we can see earlier times (like yesterday) as history only. There is no going back in time except in science fiction movies. Going into earlier times is not possible……….
b. Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error led Kant and Laplace to cosmogony already before Darwin boosted it. Cosmogony is the thinking that the whole universe was born at a single time.
………….But the Galaxies born at different times and the Galaxies quench at different times, makes this thinking is not correct…………………
c. Cosmogonists think ’The universe could have contained the singularity because the universe evolved or changed from a prior state (the prior state was "empty space", or maybe a state that could not be called "space" at all).’ These cosmogonist philosophers think that no experiment is necessary, as universe was created by will of Gods probably….
….. There is much experimental evidence against this type of thinking is it not………….
d. “….Amount and width of not yet filled gaps in the imaginable evolution from cosmology up to miracles of human brain are decreasing. Among them is the step from a-biological self-organization in physics and chemistry to self-reproducing plants and animals…….”
Why to think that way, … probably the Universe had a mind that produces Galaxies, the same thing continued in smaller things also probably
e. The spatial aspect of such reality is isotropy.
……….. Isotropy is not there in the Universe
view post as summary
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
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 having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at my essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
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.
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
Corrections:
"muslims. The (sunnite) leader" should read "Muslims. The religious leader of Shiites"
"accordingly" should read "accordingly in your thread as soon as possible"
In was in a hurry.
Let me add my kind regards, Eckard
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Blumschein,
Your Idea is amusing....
God created man as a copy of His own does perhaps mean, man created God as his copy
I read your essay once again, it is good, I did not find any more criticism.
Best wishes to your essay. It is good
=snp.gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,
You quoted my quote of Lichtenberg who lived in the 18th century, when atheism was still condemned even in Europe.
Why is this amusing? Perhaps you don't understand me.
I consider my agreement with your statements ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ and "No singularities" also carefully justified.
The latter implicitely declares the present use of mathematics in physics leaving sound reasoning.
Of course, it is allowed to imagine for instance the magnetic field that surrounds an electric conductor as if the latter was just a line.
However, singular lines are unreal. I revealed the primary basis of belonging mistakes already in the notion of relative infiniteness introduced by Leibniz and Bernoulli who lived in the 17th century. I don't see the notion singularity justified within the continnum of real numbers; it only belongs to Z although Z is included in R. Z lost its separability with its embedding in R.
Kind regards,
Eckard
hide replies
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
Giovanni Prisinzano replied on Apr. 9, 2017 @ 15:02 GMT
Eckard, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the thread on Dedekind's axiom: the style of Canute is excellent. I think many here in FQXi forums and contests could learn something from him (including myself, of course).
I just downloaded Prof. Mückenheim's sourcebook. It seems very rich and interesting, certainly very useful for me, regardless of whether or not I agree with the...
view entire post
Eckard, I'm glad you enjoyed reading the thread on Dedekind's axiom: the style of Canute is excellent. I think many here in FQXi forums and contests could learn something from him (including myself, of course).
I just downloaded Prof. Mückenheim's sourcebook. It seems very rich and interesting, certainly very useful for me, regardless of whether or not I agree with the conclusions.
You say: "I see Dedekind and G. Cantor having established the impossible: a continuous line that is composed of distinguishable from each other points."
It seems to me that your words express, referring to the linear order of the real numbers, the meaning of the axiom of choice. Gödel and Cohen demonstrated its independence from the other axioms of Zermelo and Fraenkel. Many mathematicians accept it (more or less implicitly). Others prefer to do without it (usually explicitly). It may be that it is an expression of our defective or erroneous way to consider the real numbers. But it may be that it reflects some deep aspect of their reality and of the nature of mathematical infinity, an infinity that we are not able to completely grasp.
I agree with you that perhaps we will never know if space and time are finite or infinite. In fact we don't know, after 2500 years of theory and research, what they are. And we don't even know what the numbers are, if they are discovered or invented, if they exist outside the mind or are just a product of it, if they are dicrete or continuous, if they are in a sort of Plato's hyperuranium or of Cantor's "paradise" (or Cantor seen by Hilbert's eyes).
I don't think that all sets of numbers we know and use are mental constructs. So are many of them, like the infinite hierarchy of Cantor's transfinite, and probably also imaginary numbers. I tend to think, however, that there is a link between the natural numbers, the positive real numbers, and the world. I find it hard to think, for example, that Pi is only the result of mind's creativity.
In the 2015 contest, I have proposed the hypothesis that real numbers (suitably ordered), space, and time are the same thing, at least for all the reference frames that travel at speeds below that of light. I am not able to prove this hypothesis, nor to deal on my own with all the complexity of the issues it raises. But I think I can argue (as I did in a book and partially in the current contest), it allows to capture som aspects of the nature of time (as long as we exclude the axiom of choice) and probably to explain the possibility of motion and change, very common phenomena that have been always a source of difficulties and paradoxes.
I think I have dwelt too much in this post. But I think also it is a pleasure to converse with you, Eckard.
Best regards again,
Giovanni
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:59 GMT
Daer Giovanni,
A canoe is a small narow boat. Canoeing is a sport. Canute is a German word. Maybe, Ute Can is a female German.
Concerning the axiom of choice I will quickly translate what Mückenheim wrote in his "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", Augsburg 2004:
"At a meeting of German society of mathematicians in 1904, the Hungarian mathematician Julius König presented his...
view entire post
Daer Giovanni,
A canoe is a small narow boat. Canoeing is a sport. Canute is a German word. Maybe, Ute Can is a female German.
Concerning the axiom of choice I will quickly translate what Mückenheim wrote in his "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", Augsburg 2004:
"At a meeting of German society of mathematicians in 1904, the Hungarian mathematician Julius König presented his proof that the real numbers cannot be well-ordered. A counter example would be the best and most convincing method to refute this claim. However, nobody was able to constuct it because König was de facto correct. So far, everybody failed to well-order the real numbers, and there is no serious mathematician who believes in the possibility of success.
Nonetheless, König's proof has today been considered wrong: The controversy made Cantor upset who felt his life work endangered. Immediately after it, Ernst Zermelo (1871-1953) fabricated the axiom of choice."
You wrote:
"But it may be that [AC] reflects some deep aspect of their reality and of the nature of mathematical infinity, an infinity that we are not able to completely grasp."
In contrast to the logical notion of infinite, the mathematical infinity is merely a pragmatic creation by Leibniz and Bernoulli. It can be used as if it was really strictly logically founded. However, it was certainly not by chance that Cauchy begun lecturing a class of 30 students and lost all but one.
You wrote:
"I find it hard to think, for example, that Pi is only the result of mind's creativity."
Well, consequent thinking is rare. Mückenheim denies the actual infinity. Consequently he should also deny the real number zero, and in a next step any real number. Mathematics claims all real numbers to be as distinguishable as definitely are the integer and rational ones. From the perspective of a continuum every part of which has parts, and a point being something that doesn't have parts, I see the mandatory notion of real numbers a self-deception. Strictly speaking, continuum and numbers exclude and complement each other.
Best regards,
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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.