Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/5/19 at 6:54am UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, The text of your paper is very good readable...

Edwin Klingman: on 1/4/19 at 20:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein, On Jan 26, 2018, you suggested (with regard to my...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/26/18 at 16:53pm UTC, wrote Dorogoi Vladimir Nikolaevich, I have to confess, I cannot judge your...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/26/18 at 11:52am UTC, wrote Someone edited my reply by omitting what I wrote in parentheses. Let me...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/26/18 at 9:04am UTC, wrote Sorry Steven, While I agree on that Darwin's idea has proven utterly...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/26/18 at 8:55am UTC, wrote Terry, Your comment is valuable to me. Let me quote and reply in > to...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Gordon Watson: on 2/23/18 at 0:31am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard: above you wrote: "Gordon Watson wrote: -- "Reality makes...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


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.


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Semi-fundamental constructs by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

Some theories are declared as fundamental to mathematics or to physics while they are strictly speaking rather based on semi-fundamental constructs, at best. Application of complex Fourier transform (FT) on functions of time f(t) was in the 20th century and is perhaps still considered as a if not the most fundamental mathematical method of physics and technology. Actually, FT is a tool that doesn't immediately fit to measured data of real processes. Fourier assumed f(t) to extend indefinitely to both sides, mathematically speaking from minus infinity to plus infinity. This implied taking a static view of the world. The alternative dynamic view has proved the more appropriate basis: In reality, in contrast to closed models of processes, the future is more or less open to erratic influences and evades therefore complete prediction. Causality means: Only the past is absolutely closed in the sense it cannot be changed. This essay reminds of how a trick adapted the FT on real conditions where future data are not yet available and asks: Is complex FT with analytic continuation indeed a primary and indispensable fundament? There is a surprising but compelling counterargument: Instead of using complex calculus, any analysis of measured data may, in principle, be based on the real-valued cosine transform (CT). Real time audio technology benefits from CT. The missing in CT imaginary part is obviously a redundant copy. CT and FT are equivalent to each other except for an arbitrarily added to the latter point of reference, and subjectively chosen references are definitely less fundamental than non-arbitrary ones. Therefore, some putative pillars of science are suspected to be just semi-fundamental constructs on a shaky basis. Judge yourself.

Author Bio

See http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369 . The author would like to appreciate FQXi contests and discussions guiding him in his ongoing critical and self-critical search for correct basics. His last boss had refused to comment on his IEEE paper [4] because he considered the matter as too ("so was von") fundamental.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Eckard,

THE REFERENCES ARE MISSING FROM YOUR ESSAY!

If I understand your essay correctly, your key point is that mathematics and physics are different. Physics describes the real world, while mathematics provides tools that can quantitatively model physical phenomena. When the physical foundations are unclear, mathematic models are sometimes taken to represent the physical foundations, but this is incorrect.

I agree. I give several examples along these lines in my own essay. For example, I argue that quantum entanglement is a mathematical artifact that first entered quantum theory by way of Pauli’s mathematical construction to generate the exclusion principle for electrons. The exclusion principle is true, but can arise from nonlinear mathematics in a way that does not require quantum entanglement.

These issues can go beyond philosophy to have technological implications. For example, quantum computing has recently become a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, and depends completely on quantum entanglement for its success. I predict that this technology will fail, which will likely bring about a fundamental reassessment of quantum foundations, probably within about 5 years.

Best Wishes,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 02:02 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you very much for your hint. Hopefully it is possible to add the missing references. [4] is my paper "Adaptation of Spectral Analysis to Reality". There is a version M250 available with corrections by Roland Fritzius. For instance I had written "blue-eyed" instead of naive. [3] lists my FQXi essays in chronological order:

3.1=369, 527, 833, 1364, 1793, 2021, 2342, 3.8=2747. This 9th essay is 3009.

Being not an expert in the history of quantum mechanics, I didn't yet deal much with Pauli's role. I got aware of some other details: Schrödinger was on vacation only equipped with his lover Itha Jünger and a tiny booklet, and in the 4th communication he explained why he introduced a complex wave function. His picture was not by chance equivalent to that of square matrices with Hermitian symmetry by Heisenberg and Born. What about the latter, I read that he objected to Robertson's metric and called the expansion of space nonsense. Speculating a lot, they all followed the piper (as Weil called him) Hilbert who even denied the arrow of time. Nobody even considered the possibility of half-matrices and unidirectional timespan, respectively.

You are claiming that there is no Hilbert space. I agree on that it is perhaps questionable as a basis for physics. However I disagree in the sense that even Cantor's naive set theory still exists in textbooks as a mental construct. I meanwhile understand that there are two mutually excluding views in mathematics: A infinity and B infinities.

What about quantum entanglement and quantum computing, I am cautious with predictions. If I recall correctly, the latter were already announced to function in principle at least two decades ago. Therefore I don't expect a breakthrough of them in the rest of my life.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 19:44 GMT
Many thanks to the FQXi team!

My missing references were added.

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumshein,

A tour de force! Congratulations on an incredibly information-dense essay.

I appreciate your beginning with Fourier transforms, without which quantum mechanics surely would not exist. You have for several essays focused on cosine transforms providing insight based on your audio work. Your issues concerning t = 0 are subtle. I do agree...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 12:25 GMT
Eckard,

I must state that you are consistent. Your last few essays and many of your FQXi forum comments deal with the issue of Cosine Transforms vs Fourier Transforms. The fundamental issue being time symmetry with respect to the present moment.

My education is lacking with respect to the history of Math and Physics. So I am very appreciative of the many historical references that you make regarding the development of thinking.

You also take a novel approach to the question of "what is fundamental". You state several things that you believe are NOT fundamental. Therefore, what IS fundamental is contained in whatever remains. That's a nice touch.

AND you zero in on a possible error that is very fundamental ... How can a theory reject the assumption that there is a medium if that theory is based upon another theory that was derived by using a medium. That's a nice logical paradox.

All in all, this is a good essay.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 16:39 GMT
Yes Gary Simpson,

When I responded to all of the various topics of nine FQXi contests as to reveal hidden mistakes in the very foundations of science, in particular of physics and mathematics, my consistent credos were definitely understandable to every open mind and they are most fundamental:

- In reality, the past is undeniably different from the future. Mirror symmetry up to time reversal belongs to abstract models.

- Attributing conjectured causality (but not determinism) to nature is the only and therefore an indispensable alternative to mysticism.

- While there is only one present moment, all other reference points of time are just chosen at will.

- Mathematics is a tool that requires to not blindly "shut up and calculate" but to be aware how it works and how it relates to reality.

- Having dealt for decades with complex calculus including Fourier transform, I feel competent enough in this area.

- In case of denied inconsistencies, something might be fundamentally wrong, no matter how experimentally confirmed it seems to be.

Initially, I did not yet see much how inconsistencies in mathematics and physics depend on each other.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 07:52 GMT
Joe Fisher,

My last boss, an Egyptian muslim, in contrast to octonionist Gary Simpson, understood my "consistent" criticism as a sort of fundamentalism in science.

Gary ignored my uncommon view that already descriptions of physical reality in complex domain tend just add redundant abundance. Nonetheless he demonstrated his ability to look for utterances of mine with which he agreed.

You seem to intend telling me something that is at least not obviously related to a single one out of my nine FQXi essays.

Since you are again and again referring to the structure of universe, I hope you can provide answers to my questions why did Max Born suspect Robertson's expanding universe to be "rubbish" and why I as a layman cannot find a discussion among experts on this issue.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 16:25 GMT
Eckard Blumschein,

In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: “We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 00:43 GMT
Dear Eckard,

An interesting essay...

I noticed your discussion about the meaning of complex numbers and I have found in the analysis in my paper on the electron/positron wave functions (located here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf , in regards to the Schrodinger equation) the following (quoted from my comment on another essay):

“The reason that the vectors are complex, is that the Schrodinger equation requires them to be, as it relates two vector quantities with a complex 'i' in the equation. The reason for that is that the two quantities are orthogonal - multiplying any complex vector by 'i' has the effect of rotating it 90 degrees around the origin in complex space. The vectors are actually real, but the Schrodinger equation uses this mathematical 'trick' to express orthogonality in a concise way.”

Hope this helps...

Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:46 GMT
Dear Declan,

Just interesting? I hope we may support each other. Yes, use of complex plane or equivalent square matrices is just a trick to express orthogonality in an elegant way. Because I was a teacher of fundamentals of EE, my recent essay gave another example: R and omega L. This means, Pauli was not correct when he declared QM the first disciplin in which i is absolutely indispensable.

What about the claimed fundamental difference between QM and classical physics, I guess we may agree.

When my last boss called my ideas "sowas von" fundamental he understood that they were just seemingly marginal. Indeed, my reasoning has been forcing me to question some pillars of not just modern physics but also of mathematics.

Best hopes,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 16:38 GMT
Hi Eckhard,

First of all I like very much your contribution especially the first part.

However;

You say : “Only the past is absolutely closed in the sense it cannot be changed.”. I advise you to read the “Wheelers Gedanken Experiment”(1978).

Alan Aspect and colleagues at the Institut d’Optique, Ecole Nationale Superieure de Cachan and the National Centre for Scientific Research, all in France ,actually performed this delayed choice experiment in 2007 with single photons.(Wheelers delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment with a single atom) click here to read it They used beam-splitters instead of slits. By removing or inserting a second beam-splitter randomly they could either recombine the two paths or leave them separate. It became impossible for an observer to know which path a photon had taken. They showed that if the second beam-splitter was inserted, even AFTER the photon would have passed the first one, the interference pattern was created ! This implicates that an articles wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. It also gives an indication of “Backwards Causation” : the particle must have somehow information from the future, which could mean that this involves sending a message faster than light....THE FUTURE IS ACTING ON THE PAST.

I hope that you also willhave the time to read my essay Foundational Quantum Reality Loops wher I give in my model an explanation of this phenomenon.

Good luck and best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

I consider Fig. 1 in your essay a good illustration that supports my opinion that Parmenides was wrong.

What about Wheeler and his "gedanken", I wrote an essay "Shannon's view on Wheeler's credo. I learned from Nimtz hype and from the many failed mathematicians who attacked G. Cantor's diagonal argument that it is better to look for the most fundamental mistakes than to struggle with illusionists.

While I am familiar with back propagation in neural networks, I wonder if Wheeler's construct of back causation is something new and trustworthy. The word for sunday in Russian language is voskrecenie (resurrection). I rather trust in a causality that doesn't loop within a logical circle.

Since I admire how Klingman manages to grasp and acknowledge many valuable ideas in nearly any essay, I was curious how he could enlighten me in case of yours.

Could you please tell me by whom and when the expression Planck area was first used? Why didn't you refer to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Planck_area ? Should I take the time and read your earlier essays?

Curious,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

I hope this will answer your questions on my thread:

Wheelers Gedanken experiment is not at all a "new" idea, he proposed it already in 1978. Only in 2007 and 2015 I gave you the link to the paper in my earlier post to you) it was proven. So it seams that our "reality" is far more "strange" as we like to admit. On page 5 of my essay you will find the explanation I gave...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Since you revealed being just a hobby physicist without a profound mathematical training similar to what my EE students learned, I should tell you what a non-causal blackbox is, e.g. a non-causal filter or a usual spectrogram. A blackbox has an input and an output. Imagine for instance a mouse running in and coming out of it. Common sense tells you that the mouse must first run into it before it may come out of it. EEs don't bother much that complex theory yields the strange result that the mouse or an electric impulse can come out before running in. This has definitely nothing to do with quantum weirdness.

Your opinion arose perhaps from reading most exciting papers. Accordingly you did not understand what I meant with resurrection (of Christ). Already Ben Akiba meant: anything repeates itself as do day and night, etc.

What I called an EUCLIDEAN point is defined as something that has no parts. Being an ideal abstract notion, it cannot emerge in reality.

I cannot rememer having read your essay The Purpose of Life. Already the title might have deterred me because there is no evident purpose of life. When I agree with Kadin that menkind as a whole has to limit its number of people and consumptive deterioration of earth, I see this responsibility from the perspective of all of us.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 01:25 GMT
Eckard,

It is interesting reading through the various entries and seeing some congruence, especially among the stalwarts, as to a consensus about particular problems in physics, with the issue of time becoming paramount. It would be nice to see some of the more knowledgable members build a well stated argument that might, with the help of FQXI, get some broader attention. I, for one would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 07:19 GMT
Thank you John, for reminding me of Carver Mead. He is renowned for utterly creative ideas and their successful applications in technology. I admire him who was "merely" trained as an EE, as was I too.

I feel, as didn't Mead, engineers must not fear restricted by putatively fundamental laws. This is my only criticism of Klingman's otherwise flawless attitude. Klingman frankly uttered that it is "verboten" (he didn't write forbidden or taboo) to criticize Einstein and Feynman although he himself dared deriving gamma without following Einstein and using two different frames of reference.

Being not in position to read all essays, I wonder if two issues are already sufficiently put in the due focus:

- the role of reference points (in particular with respect to Michelson's 1923 experiment)

- the role of action (I am only aware of one belonging essay by Andrew).

Yes, being equipped with flexible thinking due to my training as an engineer and teacher, I don't shy back from declaring Maxwell's use of the old aether analogy just an although reasonable guess. However, I abstain from claiming that my tentative suggestion of the possibility of an alternative interpretation is more than a guess of mine. While calling propagating em waves their own medium sounds nice, this metaphor might be unnecessary.

We don't need imagining someone like donar with a hammer if we don't yet have another lazy explanation.

Kind regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 07:37 GMT
correction:

Andrew should read Steve Agnew

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
Eckard,

Edwin has a point that the Institution has Einstein and various others on pedestals, but the field is currently taking various assumptions beyond the point of reductio ad absurdum. It is a bubble. Future generations of physical theorists are not going to spend their careers chasing down untestable and chaotic ideas, just because this generation has committed their careers to doing so.

There should be some communal effort among dissidents to point this out, sort through the more compelling concepts and present the most evident in a way that at least puts down a marker. Probably a presentist argument for time would be close to the top of the list. Certainly FQXi has been laying some groundwork for this for years, but nothing has congealed beyond the forum stage.

So the question would be as to how to push it to the next level? Safe to say, the various people who come to mind, you, Edwin, Peter Jackson, Georgina Woodward, are independent minded, but what can pull a team together is not just cooperation, but the existence of an overarching goal and that is becoming very evident.

While this is just percolating in my thoughts and I don't have the professional authority to be officially included, I am going to try pushing toward that goal. Possibly someone from FQXi might be interested to help, possibly Zeeya Merali

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
Also,

"- the role of reference points (in particular with respect to Michelson's 1923 experiment)

- the role of action (I am only aware of one belonging essay by Andrew)."

I would refer the above observations to a comment I made to Georgina last night;

"Our minds only work with what defines and thus limits our observations. You are quite right that it seemingly makes no sense, but then sense is to sense. We only sense boundaries and motion. Thus disequilibrium and finiteness."

My point goes to the premise of my own entry, that space, without any physical properties, would be infinite and in absolute equilibrium, so that under those two categories, reference points and motion, is the essential premise of no references and no motion, leaving just space. Infinite and absolute.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 08:52 GMT
John,

Looking for a possibly enlightening essay I found a seemingly harmless text:

"Quantum mechanics began with discrete “action” [Bohr atom, 1913] along with E=hν and with p=h/λ" and adding "a wave has phase φ=kx-ωt=(1/h_bar)(px-Et). Complex numbers then entered for convenience."

My boss certainly understood the fundamentality of my suggestion to take the very moment as reference for elapsed time instead of so called absolute time and phase.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 21:42 GMT
Eckard,

I found your essay excellently conceived, written and argued this year. I consider it your best one by far. It also helped ease of reading that you 'word ordering' phasing has improved.

I found little to question in the content. I never did consider Fourier Transforms fundamental or complete solutions so we're in agreement. I also found a number of other areas where our essays agree.

But will the academic community reconsider current views? The answer came long ago when respected Imperial College electrical engineer Eric Laithwaite in a Royal Institute Christmas lecture correctly pointed out & demonstrated that physics had 'missed' something important.

Of course physicists all thanked him and rushed to correct it -- in some imaginary universe!! What actually happened was they complained, didn't even consider the new science and lobbied the Dean to remove him from the university. That attitude is what has to change in physics. Luckily the Dean was intelligent and offered to remove THEM if they had a problem!

Within 10yrs theory evolved a little to confound the inconsistencies. Even now we hear academia mostly agreeing fundamental change is due but when any coherent theory varying from current ones is posited all rush to entirely ignore it. Probably out of fear.

Very well written this year Eckard. Top marks coming. By the way my essay this year along with Declan Traill's not only agrees there's NO time reversal but other parts of yours if not quite all, and completes the removal of stupidities in QM. Of course most will run & hide for 10 years. I'll be interested in your thoughts & comments.

I hope you're keeping well. Very best.

Peter

PS; Have you done antenna design? How much can you tell about me where Maxwell's TZ is placed for any wavelength? and what happens at that near/far field transformation zone. I do have a theory that resolves all which I've discussed & cleared with EE's in the field but am interested in your analysis.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 08:05 GMT
Peter,

I am not sure, did you really understand why my boss admitted that my basic argument is "sowas von" fundamental? The nine FQXi contests pushed me to investigate it's consequences from various perspectives. You might decide yourself how it agrees with your own effort.

Starting from physiology of hearing I follow Claude Shannon's formulation of causality: Only what already happened can absolutely not be influenced.

Therefore, the border between past and future is the only non-arbitrary reference point for an, admittedly quite uncommon in theory, notion of time: elapsed time.

I guess, TZ stands for transition zone between near field and far field. Being a bit familiar with antenna design since my last boss is an expert in ground penetrating radar, I can tell you that the two components of an em field are quite different: The fictitious evanescent component doesn't propagate. In contrast to the ideal distinction between past and future with nothing in between, this component of the near field it is gradually decreasing.

Incidentally, an essay by David ? guided me to the insight how QM got unnecessarily complex.

Being aware of my poor English, I would even more appreciate you criticising the content of my nine essays.

Maybe you can also help me to read the formulas in Klingman's essay and his related paper. My old office program cannot properly print the used symbols. Do you have similar problems? What can I do?

My health is fine again, thank you.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 08:09 GMT
David ? stands for David Lyle Peterson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 11:50 GMT
Eckard,

I thought I understood but you've raised doubts. I'm very familiar with Elapsed Time as it's a fundamental concept in yacht handicap computations, mainly 'out & back' but also A to B. I also recall you past interpretations, and indeed, checking back, Davids essay, which I agree with.

Davids concept agrees with my vacuum with local 'presence' as fundamental, and that QM's nonsensical interpretation is a barrier to understanding. What I (and Declan) have done is shown that 'blockage' can be removed. Also 'backward causation!' Of course it won't be countenanced by those in the field, most outside won't understand it, and the few between will mainly run and hide! C'est la vie.

Aside from but consistent with that classical resolution is re-emissions at 'c' in all fermion rest frames. There is then no problem with a rational SR for any other theory, falsifiable or not, to 'solve'. Your concept may well be ok, but it matters not as as measurement (requiring an interaction) must find c in the local frame naturally. (46c quasar jet pulses in collimations observed by displacement rate from the side do NOT need interaction with the pulse so don't violate 'c'!) Of course 'agreement' is not a scoring criteria anyway.

I'm happy to help with phrases & symbols if I can. Don't pdf's solve the symbol issue? I can Email a pdf or word file of Edwins if that helps, contact on pj.ukc.edu@physics.org. or ask Edwin about meaning because I'm not confident. I agree Vladimir's (and your) views on maths.

On phrases, you're prone to putting long qualifiers/descriptors before the subject, which is unfamiliar and disruptive; as in.; "The observation of, viewed from the side by angular displacement by NASA at

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 16:54 GMT
Peter,

After you clarified that "past" is meant as "previous", and perhaps "you" should read "your", I can still not yet understand for sure what you meant with

"I also recall you past interpretations, and indeed, checking back, Davids essay, which I agree with."

Maybe a verb is missing that should refer to David's essay?

Anyway, you pretend agreeing with both him and and me, although I merely appreciate guiding me to the insight that quantum physics got implicitely complex much earlier than in 1924/25.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 13:10 GMT
Eckard,

Quite simple; Put that way the statement "I recall" applied to both your past interpretations and Davids essay.

Why 'pretend agreeing'? I DID agree with all I referred to, as identified. But for clarity I then also noted the differences in our ideas which I'd analysed and discussed in detail as I'm sure you'll recall. I also found much agreement with Davids ideas. If I disagreed I'd certainly say so and why.

I meant to complete the point on antenna and Maxwell's near far field TZ. It's easier in air etc as antenna engineers know it's ~1 micron for short waves and most of Earths atmosphere in the red. That's also Lorentz's transform as it deals with different states of background motion!!

But lets see if we can do it for ground radar. If you approached a body rapidly and emitted radar at the same time as a friend emitted it at rest on the surface,

1) would the signals propagate in the ground at the same v? Yes?

2) Would yours be 'blue shifted'? Yes?

3) Would yours then have an 'additional' speed change over his due to your v.

Think carefully. Presently SR takes NO account of the 'kinetic' speed change of EM signals which is additional to that due to medium index 'n'. In water, air and space it takes ever longer as the medium particles are ever more diffuse.

Is that not a physical change of speed to local c (or c/n) due to absorption and re-emission at the TZ?

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 20:56 GMT
My essay doesn't deal with c/n, your re-emission theory, and your "kinetic" speed changes of EM signals. Also, it doesn't treat the speed c of light in vacuum just a local quantity.

Did you read my essay at all?

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 15:38 GMT
Eckard,

The important questions are for your thought and considered responses, if you wish, not because I mistakenly thought you'd already considered & answered them in the essay, which, as you confirm, you hadn't.

If you don't wish to you only need to say so rather than suggest I hadn't read your essay!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 15:41 GMT
Peter,

I am not a knowing-all. Admittedly I don't completely agree with Ritz although I feel in debt to R. Fritzius who prefers an emission theory as do you. Incidentally, somewhere I read that Newton adopted the emission theory from someone else. He imagined light like particles that possess the property of mass.

The competing wave theory was then based on the assumption of mass and elasicity of a carrying medium, and Hertz actually discovered electromagnetic waves.

Michelson did show that the hypothetic medium cannot have a stationary reference point as has air, the analogon. Are there non-paradoxical alternatives?

Phipps and now Klingman prefer Lorentzian relativity for some reasons. While Einstein's SR has been widely accepted because it fits well to the behavior of particles in accelerators, in particular the two-way synchronization and the belonging non-simultaneity are hard to swallow.

In my essay I didn't exclude the idea that far field em waves don't CARRY energy and momentum but the combinations of elastic electric with inert magnetic field components rather ARE propagating energy and momentum.

Kadin explains away the enigmatic duality between extended in 3D waves and compact single photons.

In all, I have to stress: I am just an old teacher of EE.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 18:11 GMT
Hi Eckard Blumschein

You are really a wonderful mathematician! Your words…CT and FT are equivalent to each other except for an arbitrarily added to the latter point of reference, and subjectively chosen references are definitely less fundamental than non-arbitrary ones. Semi-fundamental constructs dear Eckard Blumschein. I got small question for you…. Can FT or CT work for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 09:44 GMT
I don't know why my reply disappeared. This is a copy:

- "Can FT or CT work for multivariable business forcasting?"

FT with analytic continuation as well as CT are methods to perform a spectral analysis of already measured data, not immediately a forecast. What do you mean by multivariable business?

While I didn't deal with models of the universe and I don't intend doing so, I will have a brief look at your model of our universe as soon as possible.

So far, I am happy that you found out and pointed to a rather amazing fundamental argument from my 9th essay. My most fundamental assumption is causality. -

Let me add:

As a rule, reality is more fundamental than theory. The territory is more fundamental than its map. As a rule means, there are a few fabricated apparent exceptions.

Already the abstract of my essay must not be ignored:

"APPLICATION of complex Fourier transform (FT) on functions of time f(t) was in the 20th century and is perhaps still considered as a if not the most fundamental mathematical method of physics and technology. Actually, FT is a tool that doesn't immediately fit to measured data of real processes."



Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 10:10 GMT
Dear snp,

While I still suspect you didn't read my essay carefully, I have to admit, I for my part am inclined to agree on an emotional "layman" basis with almost all of the many opinions you listed.

Let me just discuss this one:

"-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe".

Hmm. Of course, the word universe means there is only one reality. In this sense, I too see it as closed as also is the so called absolute Archimedean infinity in contrast to Bernoulli/Leibniz/Cantor's relative infinities.

Nonetheless, Sommerfeld's radiation condition is certainly not wrong:

Radiation is never reflected from infinity.

I still didn't manage reading your essay and related stuff.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:28 GMT
I should have anticipated that there are people like Gupta who don't read my essay carefully enough as to understand and accept my hopefully compelling reasoning.

Of course, the matter is truly fundamental.

I got so far three times rated by the public: 7+4+2.

May I hope for factual critics too?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Eckard

Thank you for the reply…

I was talking about SVM the Support Vector Machines in Regression Analysis for multivariable business forecasting. FT is a powerful tool I suppose it can be used….

Your analysis is correct, fundamental is causality.

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear snp,

Decades ago, a professor Schwarz from South Africa made me aware of the nonsensicality of integrating over time from minus infinity to plus infinity in case of lacking support (in mathematical language). Analytic continuation is formally correct but it can also be understood as a sort of self deception.

This doesn't mean that FT and one-sided Laplace transformation are not excellent tools in case of prediction. I merely don't accept as a pillar of reality the seemingly mandatory tenet of block time which denies the strict distinction between past and future. Well, the far past is about as unknown as is the far future. However, I agree with Popper and Shannon, see my essay "Shannon's view on Wheeler's belief": The past is closed (finished) but the future is open.

In other words, no matter how successful a model might be, I consider the agreement between prediction and reality always uncertain to some extent.

One cannot predict the past. A frequency analysis of the future is only possible if one denies possible deviations of reality from model. Only the nonsensical denial of reality including the denial of the now by Einstein fits to performing a frequency analysis of the past simultaneously with a prediction of the future.

I see reality a conjecture rather than a model.

Perhaps one of the first ones who sucessfully predicted and benefited from the ups and downs of a stock market was Gauss. Perhaps the first one who predicted a thunderstorm on scientific basis was Guericke. Such predictions are still uncertain.

By the way, I hope you will convince those in the public who felt entitled to downrate my essay: They too should read my essay more carefully.

Best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thank you for Nice logic

Closed universe… logical analysis is one thing, Mathematically calculating on Dynamic Universe Model Sita is another…. Thats what I did…..

35 years of working on Dynamic Universe Model without any support really hurts me. Now I came to fag end of life, why should I lower any person? I believe in God and Karma…. I did not yet gave any ranking yet to your essay. Please give me mail to snp.gupta@gmail.com, I will intimate you when I do that…

I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

Believe me somebody else did it…

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Joe Fisher,

You might not have found out how the claim, which you are repeatedly offering to many authors of serious essays, actually relates to my essay to some extent.

Nobody denies that every somehow tangible object in 3D has, in principle, a more or less limited extension of its volume and has in this sense a surface.

However, the notion universe doesn't denote such an object if it is conceived as infinite.

A-infinity is an absolute ideal. B-infinities are pragmatic fundamentals of set theoretic foundations of mathematics. Logically they exclude each other.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 20:42 GMT
Eckard:

This is a response to your post in my essay.

What is the question? Who is your boss.

If the question is which of the two philosophers is closer to me, I suggest Heraclitos.

Superluminal mechanism is what allows the quantum weirdness to be understood by classical analogy. It is much simpler than all the quantum baggage. Further, it suggest all observations are non-local in the sense if Bell's inequality. See how simple the quantum world can be?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 22:17 GMT
addendum:

This is a short video showing the model and the actual experiment.

Note the superluminal speed is required for the single photon in the experiment at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear John,

In my Author Bio I wrote: "His last boss had refused to comment on his IEEE paper [4] because he considered the matter as too ("so was von") fundamental."

You asked: "Who is your boss?" I don't think you have to contact him. He is a prolific expert in ground penetrating radar. This technology helps to avoid that innocent civilian get victims of landmines. He was born in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 23:33 GMT
Eckard, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

......................

Thank you Eckard, hope this helps:

EB: Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me.

GW: With every pointed critical comment most welcome, I will whole-heartedly welcome your suggestions.

nb: my preliminary notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). [ps: I've lived with such since 1989 when I first read about Bell's theorem, thanks to Mermin (1998); old habits die hard.]

Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about what's yet to come: a fancy-q for qon, a quantum particle; saving 4 syllables? A fancy-P denoting probability (subjective) and/or prevalence (objective) -- to thus rescue "probability" from much modern nonsense, eg, Fuch's QBism? (At the same time leaving ordinary P and q unchanged in ordinary physics.)

Please have another look at ¶4.1 and the exercise there; knowing that we're on a steady heading to more conventional representations -- see eqn (21). And please make critical suggestions for improvement.

EB: I am unhappy with the lacking readiness to fundamentally clarify the issue of entanglement.

GW: Yes, me too, so thanks for this. Entanglement is nothing mysterious. Under the R-F theorem [and what I call Born's Law: see the law of eponymy], the probability interpretation of QM needs to be more clearly understood. The entanglement brought about by angular-momentum conservation (with the added information that the sum for the two particles is zero), is a physical (and therefore a logical) constraint on all probabilities and observations. This has nothing to do with AAD [nonlocality], nor remote piloting, etc. Rather, if the total angular-momentum is zero in EPRB, then λi = μi pair-wise.

An arbitrarily-oriented polarising interaction with one pristine twin yields thus, by logical inference, a related equivalence-class for the other pristine twin. (And this conclusion, tested any time, always gives the expected result.) There is thus no need to invoke anything mysterious: rather, an understanding of entanglement is crucial to any non-mysterious understanding of EPRB, Aspect’s experiments, QM, and our world in general.

EB: Was Dirac possibly wrong when he believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] is even more fundamental.

GW: Not to diminish Dirac, but to acknowledge R and F: for me, RFT is a more soundly-based argument, with applications beyond QM. For those who see mystery in the superposition of states, or in the preparation of superimposed states, RFT demonstrates this: the superposition principle is a mathematical tool (thus logical constraint), valid for all none-negative distributions; whether of probability, mass, charge, etc.

nb: under TLR, Planck's a quantum-of-action is not mysterious either. It is required for the description of extended particles (in contrast to mathematical points).

EB: Errare humanum est.

GW: And to our friends: Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

EB: I cannot finally judge John Hodge's "opposite approach" because I didn't yet read his essay. ... I am sure that in reality there is no supersonic acoustic wave speed greater than the speed of sound. According to my knowledge, the propagation of light in vacuum was also never measured to exceed c.

GW: I expect to respond to John Hodge tomorrow.

EB: [Edited, as my response] If I understand Gordon Watson correctly, he [with Fröhner] is aligned with the power, centrality and generality of the RFT.

GW: Yes.

EB: I consider my own suspicion much more radical and invite all of you to show in what I am wrong.

GW: I will comment soon, but make this point now: I agree with the second sentence in your essay, but would ask you to reconsider some of your positions in the light of RFT; for many other statements in your pristine essay resonate-in-harmony [verschränkt = entangled] with mine.

PS: With my thanks again, and hoping to be helpful, I will post this on your site too.

Gordon

.................................

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 07:55 GMT
Gordon,

I hope we will help each other to get more attention for our essays. Please don't mistake my criticism of improper use of FT as lacking knowledge. Let me remind of a few of my common sense views which I consider most fundamental "prejudice" (as called by Del Santo from his questionable to me perspective):

- Measured data are fundamental to expected ones, not the other way round.

- Hairs may curl but never truly form closed loops. The same holds for time.

- Accordingly, so called frog's view is basic to the bird's view.

- The barber's paradox worried Frege because he confused frogs with birds.

- Restrictions to elapsed time and cosine transformations fit to frog's views.

- A frog like me (and you?) cannot look backward and forward in time at a time.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 15:05 GMT
Gordon,

I wrote: ... Dirac possibly ... believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental.

You added in parentheses [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] after "it".

I agree on that the R-F theorem shows that probability is just a mathematically equivalent option of interpretation.

However, my "it" referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay.

While have to I expect you not immediately agreeing with me in this case, I nonetheless hope for getting treated fair.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 06:28 GMT
Eckard,

Reading your -- "Dirac possibly ... believed that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory? If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental" --

I took the "it" to refer to Dirac's opinion about the probability amplitude. Hence my comment in the context of the more fundamental R-F theorem.

I see now...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 16:43 GMT
Stefan Weckbach's essay challenged me to better explain how I interpret the notions fundamental, frog's view, and causality.

As the title of my essay "semi-fundamental structures" indicates, my boss understood fundamental as do I and as does my dictionary too: "very important or basic" (as is the trunk of a tree structure in comparison with less fundamental branches and roots).

To me existence is not "the most fundamental 'fundamental' one can imagine. This is obvious to me in mathematics, see A infinity and B infinities. Does a real number really exist? Do transfinte cardinalities exist? ...

To me causality, except for Aristotle's fourth case, is most fundamental.

I see his causa finalis due to confusion of the basic Frog's view with the abstracted from it birds view.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Gordon,

"what is that radical doubt?"

Because the usual notion of time refers to an arbitrarily chosen point t=0 of reference, I doubt that it is an appropriate basis in this case.

This usual scale of time extends from minus infinity to plus infinity and implies therefore the complex Fourier transformation.

Alternatively, the elapsed time refers to something that is non-arbitrary, the actual moment. This scale is always positive, it does permanently slide with respect to the usual scale, and it corresponds to an equivalent real-valued cosine transformation instead FT.

As is obvious since the 1920th but already anchored a decade earlier, QM is based on the usual time scale and accordingly on the redundant complex Fourier view. It doesn't matter whether one prefers Hermitian square matrices or Schroedinger's complex iswave function.

This radicalism of mine is not restricted to QM but it arose from studies of signal processing, in particular of cochlear function.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 15:45 GMT
Continuation:

A key discrepance between the usual event-related scale and the object-related scale of elapsed time is an steadily growing phase angle between the two different reference points. In case of calculationof a usual spectrograms, one has to accordingly relocate the origin of the usual time scale again and sgain.

Fröhner mentioned on p. 638 that the wave function is determined only up to a phase factor which is pulled out in his equation (2).

"The superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognized that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as probability density." The superposition principle corresponds to the Riesz-Fejér theorem.

I guess, cosine transform in IR+ with the natural reference point (elapsed time = 0) is also correct.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:35 GMT
MR. Blumschein,

Nicely written!

Read and rate it.

Here is a relater (as far as I understood yours) essay, if you would like to read one (more)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Corciovei Silviu,

Hacking the brain is not so easy. Va doresc mult success.

Perhaps you feel having understood my essay because you are not aware of contradictory theories which are seemingly fundamental in the sense of mandatory.

You are correct, one may understand "What is fundamental" as a questionable question for a single ultimate fundament of physics.

My boss, you and I understood "fundamental" differently as a pretty universal feature within a logical structure. My metaphore is a tree with many not fundamental roots and many not fundamental branches at its two ends.

Toate Bune,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 08:13 GMT
Addendum:

When I was a child who collected stamps I noticed the message "In God we trust".

Weren't Adam and Eve fundamental to everybody? No, at least in this respect, the bible was fundamentally wrong. The same applies for Noah's Arc.

Familiy trees ramify backwards. Just a single male and female individuum are not enough as to cope with occasional genetic defects.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 11:29 GMT
Gordon Watson wrote:

"Reality makes sense and we can understand it."

In my understanding, this is a tautology because I am merely distinguishing between mysticism and conjectured reality of anything including the also comprehensive notion of the physical universe.

Among the first ones who guided us to get a more fundamental in the sense of comprehensive understanding by consequently excluding mysticism was Lichtenberg (1742-1799),the same professor in Göttingen who coined the notions positive and negative electricity.

His aphorisms include:

- Praying in churches doesn't make the ligthning conductor on them unnecessary.

- God created man to be similar to Him does probably mean, man created God similar to himself.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 04:37 GMT
A religious believer asked me to further expand on this comment. Well, from the perspective of the 18th century, God is most fundamental. Newton argued:

"God is more important than physics or mathematics. He created the world such as we see it now. Time and space are absolute. Space is the sensorium of God. God winds up the big clock again and again."

Leibniz distinguished three levels of infinity:

- the (currently preferred as mathematical) relative one

- the logically absolute (potential) one

- God as the highest one.

Leibniz criticized the absolute space as too restrictive. He argued, God doesn't need winding up the created by Himself big clock, the universe. On behalf of Newton, Samuel Clark commented: This implies God is redundant, Leibniz is close to atheism.

When I formulated the title of my essay "Semi-fundamental constructs", I was aware of the quite different meaning of the notion semi-fundamental in modern mathematics. With "semi" I rather meant a restriction to a fundament which needn't be straightforward correct but may possibly be of heuristical value.

I anticipate that only people with common sense will be ready to accept that the age of something is more fundamental than its arbitarily attributed location in a human (e.g. Christian) time scale. Please don't mistake this as blasphemy.

Only elapsed time, i.e. the age, can be measured.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 04:39 GMT
Addendum:

Time is a construct.

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear Eckard, Time is a synonym for universal total movement. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating . Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 17:58 GMT
Dorogoi Boric Semyonovich,

Perhaps you mistook my utterance "time is (merely) a construct" which means it is semifundanental. I meant, ordinary time is not directly measurable on the tevel of reality. It is based on the truly fundamental elapsed time.

I had two reasons for dealing a bit with what Descartes was teaching in the Netherlands.

At first his speculation about space challenged Guericke to perform experiments instead.

Secondly, Descartes combined ancient geometry with the pretty new use of negative numbers into Cartesian coordinates with extension from minus infinity to plus infinity. Ironically he didn't manage reaching as much freedom as possible because in Cartesioan coordinates one necessarily has to arbitrarily choose a point of reference. Hence, Cartesian coordinates are a mathematically perfect construct while not fundamental to physics.

What about your New Cartesian Physics, I found some interesting claims. However, a more careful scrutiny will take more time. Did you deal with the three belonging experiments (1881, 1889, and 1923) by Michelson?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein my attention to the concept of "time" due to the fact that I sometimes try to eliminate it from physics. I get it, but very cumbersome. Therefore, for brevity of presentation, we have to write "time". However, I don't like the phrase "space-time". I believe, that it is equivalent to the phrase "space-movement". The principle of identity of Descartes, then, would be: matter is space and space is matter that moves.

I also have a claim to infinity from (-) to ( + ) if this applies to the axes of the coordinate system, which are used as the inertial reference system in the theory of relativity. You are right that this leads to static. In the dynamics - this leads to existing paradoxes as if to say that in each inertial frame the speed of light is the same. I propose to separate geometrical space, where the statics of matter, from physical space, where the dynamics of matter. The geometric space may be associated with a coordinate system with an infinitely large axes, and each point of physical space you can put a coordinate system with only an infinitely small axes. This explains the results of experiments of Michelson. In geometrical space the speed of light depends on the velocity of the source. In the physical space, in points, of the trajectory of light are infinitesimal inertial frame of reference in which the speed of light is the same. Coming to the receiver, the light demonstrates the constancy of its speed.

Dear Eckard, your high score I need to develop the New Cartesian Physics on. Visit my page and give your comment there, so I got a notice by e-mail and quickly respond.

FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 12:59 GMT
Hello Eckard,

I find your essay relevant, a pleasure to see this redundance and how you interpret the maths and the physics which are different.

++++ :)

Best Regards ; friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 19:19 GMT
Hello Steve,

The word redundant might be a false friend. An Englishman warned me: Don't use it. I means "dismissed by your employer, out of job" (in German arbeitslos).

What I intend to express is something quite different: the property of elements in a mathematical structure that are strictly speaking and with respect to an application unnecessary (= needless) in the sense of avoidable, in principle. Redundant elements increase the apparent volume of information. Hence I consider them and the structure that contains them definitely not fundamental.

This view of mine collides with the also understandable but not always justified strive for more and more generalizing. Several essay authors hope for getting an ultimate fundament of physics by diving "deeper" and deeper. Actually, this strategy leeds to higher and higher levels of abstraction, being as a rule more remote from reality.

What about my ++++, I enjoyed using the symbol box as long as it wasn't misused as to veil the fundamental difference between past and future. Our ancesters were in position to count elapsed days but not future ones. One can only abstract from fundamental observation, not he other way round.

You got my essence. Thank you.

With best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 12:29 GMT
Hello Eckard,

thanks for these explainations.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 06:35 GMT
Some fundamental (historic) details from Lexikon der Antike:

Jewish time counts from assumed creation of the world at 3761 BC. Greece counted from the first list of winners in panhellenic Olympic games in 776 BC. The Romans started with 753 BC (ab urbe condita). Some Roman provinces each referred to the begin of their Roman rule. Muslims refer to the year of Hedshra 622 AD.

Abbot Dionysius Exiguus suggested referring to anno domini (AD). Carolus Magnus definitely died in 814 AD.

The use of time before the birth of Christ (BC), i.e. negative time, goes back to the French theologian D. Petavius (1583-1652).

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 05:02 GMT
Eckard, all,

Good essay. My detailed comments are located over on my essay thread at:

Bollinger assessment of Blumschein essay

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist’s Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 08:55 GMT
Terry,

Your comment is valuable to me. Let me quote and reply in > to it:

Eckard,Your essay caught me completely off guard. For a number or reasons I pretty much accept the “now is real” interpretation a the only one that is logically self-consistent, since all block models of time require a sort of magical preconstruction of the block that on closer examination cannot be made self-consistent without some kind of causality-enforcing “growth” from past to future. Any such “growth’ process looks a whole lot like… well, time, and time with a very definite sense of “now” at the future face of growth.

>

If you get a chance sometime and have not already done so already, you should look up the chirality issue for fermions in the Standard Model. The left-handed and right-handed version of the electron (and other fermions, except neutrinos) present some interesting opportunities to link Fourier components to both particles and how particles obtain mass.

>

My only disappointment in your essay was that I was hoping that in the last couple of pages you would take your model a bit further into particle physics to show how it might connect there.

I realize though that the length limits of these essays are tough, but for me this one ended too quickly.

>

Thank you very much for your honest attempt to grasp what I tried to convey.

Cheers,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 11:52 GMT
Someone edited my reply by omitting what I wrote in parentheses.

Let me try and add something even more simple instead:

Kronecker argued: "The natural (positive) numbers were made by God.

Anything else is manmade."

Doesn't this mean, the natural numbers are more fundamental?

In the same sense I see the elapsed time more fundamental than time and accordingly cosine transformation more fundamental than the complex Fourier transformation.

I am not at all against negative numbers and Fourier transformation but against not warranted speculative generalizations in physics.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

It is so close to me. «The alternative dynamic view has proved the more appropriate basis: In reality, in contrast to closed models of processes, the future is more or less open to erratic influences and evades therefore complete prediction».

«Causality is most fundamental to reality»

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 16:53 GMT
Dorogoi Vladimir Nikolaevich,

I have to confess, I cannot judge your admittedly impressing practical work on measurement of toroidal gravitational waves. I don't yet see many direct relations to the topic of this contest. At least you failed to critically read my own essay. Nonetheless I may confirm your excellent command of English.

Vsjevo choroshevo,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Eckard

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 09:04 GMT
Sorry Steven,

While I agree on that Darwin's idea has proven utterly useful, I prefer a more concise academic style. You might read my essay "Toward more reasonable evolution".

Kind regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2019 @ 20:36 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

On Jan 26, 2018, you suggested (with regard to my essay on re-interpreting special relativity) that I comment on Michelson's later (1923?) experiment.

I believe you were referring to the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Sagnac-type experiment(of which I was unaware). I have now done so and it turns out that this experiment has major consequences, so thank you very much for your suggestion.

The new paper is a much expanded version of the 9-page essay and can be found here:

Everything's Relative, or is it?

My thesis is that special relativity, with all it's contradictions and nonsense, was accepted primarily because of the many experimental 'proofs' of time dilation, from muons to the Hafele-Keating experiments. Because Einstein's theory was the only interpretation, these proofs caused physicists to accept his space-time symmetry [no preferred frame], relativity of simultaneity, and all associated paradoxes [logical contradictions].

Unlike quantum mechanics, with its Bohr, deBroglie-Bohm, Everett, QBism and other interpretations, special relativity has had only ONE interpretation, that of space-time symmetry, thus it's been a package deal; take it or leave it. The energy-time interpretation provides an alternative way to interpret time dilation that does not lead to logical contradictions.

I hope those who were interested in this essay will download the extended version from http://vixra.org/abs/1812.0424

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 5, 2019 @ 06:54 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

The text of your paper is very good readable to me although my computer fails to correctly print some details (in particular headings, copy right, datum, page numbers, and many symbols in formulas). Could you please check whether or not other readers might also be affected?

Being already aware of many out of the compelling arguments you collected so far, I hope for a clarifying discussion. Wasn't Claude Shannon correct when he stated that the past cannot at all be changed but its traces are readable in principle, while the future is influencable in principle but cannot be completely predicted?

While space seems to be symmetrical in all directions, it is obviously not reasonable to assume time as also symmetrical just because the abstraction made laws of motion symmetrical.

Therefore I consider Poincaré/Minkowski spacetime just a mathematical construct. Although you wrote to me that you were not earlier aware of Michelson/Gale/Pearson, I acknowledge your effort to deal with the huge heap of Relativity support.

My very best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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