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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 7/3/10 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote One more evidence by the team of Ren: Wenxuan He, Andreas Fridberger,...

Peter Jackson: on 1/13/10 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote Eckard Happy new year. I was trying to decipher a Steve D 'spheres'...

Jamie: on 1/6/10 at 0:08am UTC, wrote Hi Eckard Big news just released but not really yet noticed; see my post...

Peter Jackson: on 12/29/09 at 15:17pm UTC, wrote Hi Eckard, Happy Xmas. There are couple of notes to you you'll be...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/18/09 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Steinberg et al. is an old hut from 2003. Phase velocity and...

Peter Jackson: on 12/16/09 at 18:42pm UTC, wrote Eckard No. Logic and maths are not departed by relativisation. I've found...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/14/09 at 21:23pm UTC, wrote Addendum: When I dealt with a recent article, I came to the insight that...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/3/09 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Just an addition to my essay: In "Mechanism of Cochlear Excitation at Low...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Manistha Jain: "Thanks for the Information, I was looking hair care and hair transplant in..." in Serious Science. Serious...

Alex: "Another variant ..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Georgina Woodward: "That the seen spacetime, and reference frame of the observer, those..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Georgina Woodward: "Perhaps I can word that more clearly. The human observer's self generated..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Jonathan Dickau: "Sorry again... I should have read more of the linked attachment before..." in If the world ended...

Jonathan Dickau: "Sorry, Some of these arguments appear vacuous, or depend on hidden..." in If the world ended...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Robert Lawrence Kuhn ℅ Closer To Truth November 17, 2018 Ref: Get out..." in Dissolving Quantum...

RECENT ARTICLES

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

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

FQXi FORUM
November 21, 2018

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Galilei, Gold, Ren - votes for ultimate realism by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 11:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

Maybe Galileo Galilei’s infinity is not as outdated as mathematicians are trained to believe, and we may hope for ultimate realism in physics? Thomas Gold raised an ignored while reasonable objection to a premature but accepted theory. Tianying Ren performed direct measurement that refutes seemingly flawless tenets, which were so far confirmed in an abundance of ingenious experiments. Restriction to elapsed time complements Ren’s work. Apt restrictions might avoid ambiguity due to arbitrariness in general.

Author Bio

see fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 13:37 GMT
Apology:

While I already quoted my M290, I did not yet manage getting access to and putting it on my homepage.

So far I can only offer sending it by email on request.

EB

report post as inappropriate

Uncle Al wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 00:34 GMT
Look at the universe where the atmosphere is opaque to get nothing. Shine light through a slit with fuzzy edges to get apodization. Optical illusions exploit processing peculiarities in the eye and brain. Source, intervening medium, receiver, processing (e.g, filling zeros in a fast Fourier transform), interpretation. Where is the Virgin Mary these days? Where were UFOs in the Middle Ages? Nobody can exercise any supernatural or magical power. The Pope is no more than any other man, as are the sincerely insane. No mindset will free you from gravitation, including Podkletnov. We trust what works.

What is interesting is what fails. Make Godel happy, find propositions that resist answer within a robust (no economics or psychology) model by whatever mechanism. Does reality get grainy at Planck scales, does theory fail for being an approximation, does observation become meaningless whatever the answer? Hard to say. Mathematics is not empirical.

Physics is empirical. Much of the fun is finding and exercising disquieting footnotes. It is cowardice, incompetence, and corruption to impose authority to squelch heterodox inquiry that is consistent with prior observation. JD Roberts hand built an early NMR. When he made Gignard reagents in the tube some of the signals were inverted - emission rather than absorption. His group wrote it off as an equipment anomaly, cleanly missing the discovery of CIDNP (Chemically Induced Dynamic Nuclear Polarization).

Theory can propose but theory cannot dispose. By whatever route, propose a heterodox experiment - and exclude none of its three possibilities: Their answer, your answer, and reality's answer.

report post as inappropriate

Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 04:28 GMT
Dear Eckard-

Some comments on your essay. I must admit being a bit rough on Fourier transformations, since it has been quite a while ago I've used them.

Are you suggesting that it is better to use a cosine than a fourier transform because of causality issues? I recall having discussions about causality issues and also about negative frequencies during my studies, and that neg. and pos. frequency should be considered together.

The fact that the transformation is augmented with a complex part was just for mathematical reason. After multiplication with a transfer function, the complex part at the output could be removed. I think you are suggesting to use a cosine transform (CT). Can you keep the Fourier transfer function or does it need to be modified?

You say: "no explanation was available to the strange phenomenon of an audible missing fundamental". Could you explain this a bit more?

What is represented in Fig 1? Is that a similation of a sound traveling in a cochlea?

On page 3, you refer to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation which, in my view, is a mathematical artifact and therefore it is not necessarily physical. In fact, based on QFM, there is no uncertainty in discrete time dt or discrete displacement dx of a particle. This then results in Edt >=h , pdx >=0 (because dx can be arbitrary small), and p x lamda = h (for p>0, lambda is de Broglie's wavelength).

On page 9, I did not understand the statement: Circular frequency omega = 2 pi f parallels momentum p.

About the local/global issue that you raised earlier: this is in space (one domain). In the frequency-time analysis, two different domains are compared: small pulse gives wide frequency spectrum and v.v.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Ben,

Are you suggesting that it is better to use a cosine than a fourier transform because of causality issues?

-- MPEG coding already does so, not because the experts understood and considered the causality issue but simply because MDCT is most efficient. In this case, STFT is an detour.

I recall having...

view entire post

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

While I appreciate your ideas, it is difficult for me to grasp all aspects you are referring to. Therefore I would like to this time focus on only one perhaps key statement of you:

Mathematics is not empirical.

If I recall correctly it was Heaviside who uttered the opposite. In my essay I quoted Georg Cantor: "The essence of mathematics is just its freedom."

Let me guess that a possible contribution of this contest could be the cry "Fasten your seat-belts" in the sense of landing at realism. This requires to accept the messages by Buridan's ass, Galileo Galilei and many others: Consider mathematics an instrument, not a play, not a gospel. Gauss might be among those to blame for being guilty. He himself was close to reality. However, he got arrogant and hided the traces of his reasoning. Berkeley, ...

Regards, Eckard

Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear Eckard-

This is an important statement: Heaviside introduced a trick how to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity even though future data are definitely not available in advance. Accordingly I see the reason not in the mathematics but in the religious anchored notion of time and god from eternity to eternity. Did you read M290?

I get an error message when I try to retrieve M290. Could you mail the document to me? My email address is at the top of my essay. I tried to email you by using the email address on your home page, but received an error message.

So, you are saying that CT is more efficient (because of the imaginary part of the FT is left out) and causal? The last part, I need to think about (too long ago that I used it).

Let's assume that one performs a CT on a set of data up to the current moment. After that on data sample is added because time progresses. I guess the CT needs to be recalculated for the entire data set. Maybe an odd question: is it possible to faster calculate the CT for the new data set in terms of the previous known CT?

Yes, I meant imaginary part.

I was confused by the piece of text .... parallels momentum p.

Regards,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear Ben,

I will email M290 soon. In the meantime let me briefly reply:

You wrote:

So, you are saying that CT is more efficient (because of the imaginary part of the FT is left out) and causal?

-- Calculation of CT is indeed more efficient. The point is: FT has an arbitrarily chosen point of reference. So phase depends on this redundant choice. The result is ambiguous (positive and negative frequency) and non-causal.

Let's assume that one performs a CT on a set of data up to the current moment. After that on data sample is added because time progresses. I guess the CT needs to be recalculated for the entire data set. Maybe an odd question: is it possible to faster calculate the CT for the new data set in terms of the previous known CT?

-- Your question is not odd at all. One can simplify calculation if one admits a lossy transform. This is valid for CT as well as for FT and for the inner ear. Be not misled by the elegant shift option in complex domain. It cannot be exploited in this case. Heaviside's trick also demands to strictly speaking permanently relocate the window and recalculate the FT when one more sample has lapsed.

I was confused...

-- I apologize for my shaky command of English.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Brian Beverly wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 10:00 GMT
Eckard!

Sorry I didn't write an essay for this competition I would have voted for your essay, but that would be seen as nepotism or sycophancy on my part. I have given your paper a read through. I will have to go through it line by line and ask you a lot of questions too before I understand the weight of it.

You definitely came out swinging with the right hook it is a knockout:

'Science is subject to some general fundamentals that deserve absolute priority. At first, theory has to obey reality, not the other way round. While G. Cantor claimed the essence of mathematics is just its freedom, physics does not let room for mysticism or mere speculation. Accordingly, the traditional concept of causality is indispensable. Science must be a puzzle whose elements do or at least will fit together with no contradictions and no arbitrariness. Let's consider reality an open system and distrust any final condition. Unfortunately, such attitude is at odds with prominent doctrines including conjectured general symmetry'

We have LaTeX now too which will make things easier. I also learned that it is pronounced la tech and that a pompous accent is optional, but encouraged.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Brian,

Do not confuse my attitude with the many answers to tricky but presumably important questions I am intending to convey. I appreciate Terry who shows to me how many effort is required as to reach a more humble non-arbitrary use of mathematics including the correct interpretation of abstract results.

Regards,

Eckard

Roy Johnstone wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 06:05 GMT
Eckard,

You said,

"-- Peirce defined a continuum as something every part of which has parts."

This would certainly correlate with how we consciously percieve the world.

"The point I was making is simply that our conscious sujective perception of physical processes and of "time passing" is continuous,

-- I disagree."

Could you explain further the nature of your disagreement with this statement?

"which is in contrast to experimental observations of the objective world being discontinuous,

-- I consider continuity and discreteness mutually complementing ideals."

This may depend on your interpretation of the words "continuity" and "complimenting". My use of the word "contrast" may be a bit misleading too. I am talking about the way that, despite our brain processes being necessarily quantum in nature, our sensory input is not processed in a way that is *consciously* discrete. It may even still turn out that our brains do function like quantum computers, eg Penrose & Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" microtubule/quantum state idea, but we are not able to "sense" this, as the state vector evolution is "swamped" (decohered?) by classical processes, as per our observation of the classical world.

Cheers

Roy

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear Roy,

This is me, Eckard. I did not login because my connection to fqxi was very slow. Let me tell you my intention and my background: As as an electronics engineer who was a teacher of fundamentals for decades I am used to apply mathematics as a tool. I share with my colleagues the conviction that there is a real world that can be explored rather independently from individual consciousness. We agreed that the theory of electromagnetism has been mature for more than a hundred years. By the way Maxwell's equations go back to Heaviside, the enfant terrible of mathematics.

When I looked for the reason why theory of hearing is still far away from adequately describing physiology and very poor as compared with hearing, I got aware of what I consider a fundamental flaw in the mathematical models of processes: Physics is tense-less.

Does the brain work analog or digital? Be cautious. It has no hardware and no software just so called wetware. Mathematics is abstract. A circle is a continuous line. Even if one choses 9^9^9^9^9 equidistant points as to represent it, the diameter deviates from a multiple of the chosen distance. It is irrational alias alogos.

Even if something can be resolved into indivisibles, it might be more reasonable to treat it as continuous. On the other hand, perception is subject to numerical restrictions. I already object to what most people imagine as the "passing of time". I dislike discussions that do not intend to deal with serious consequences. Given the LHC will confirm SUSY and quantum computers will work as promised and my cospectrogram will be proven wrong then I will perhaps give up.

I am not an expert in quantum computing, and I am familiar with coherence length but I found out that those who introduced entanglement of distant particles made serious mistakes. So it is my guess that quantum computing will never fulfill the very high expectations. How long will I have to live as to judge an outcome of LHC's search for SUSY?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 14:06 GMT
Apology to all:

I managed to fix the problem of access to my file Ritz09.pdf via

I have to beg your pardon also for my incorrect Ref. 21.

In order to correct the address replace the dot between blumschein and M283 by a slash or simple use the second attached link.

attachments: M290.html, M283.html

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 02:09 GMT
Dear Echard,

I promised that I will comment on your essay, but, unfortunately, I am not in position to do so, except to mention that I’m in agreement with you regarding the inadequacy of the numerical models in general and those of cochlea (and auditory perception) in particular. I can refer you to the very preliminary joint work of Dr. Alex Gutkin and our group on applying an earlier version of our (non-numeric) ETS formalism to the modeling of auditory perception. See, for example, Section 6 of Gutkin’s doctoral thesis and the references therein:

phd_full.pdf

Best wishes,

--Lev

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 02:13 GMT
To be more precise, I should have mentioned Section 6.4 of Gutkin's thesis.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear Lev,

Thank you for pointing me to Gutkin. His thesis starts quoting Steven Greenberg who invited me to a NATO Advanced Study Institute where I got excellent insights.

Speech recognition was and is not my field of interest. If I understood Gutkin correctly, he included refractory time when he applied your ETS on HSR fibers.

While my spectrograms in cochleagram style are similar to his Fig. 6.17, they differ from all usual responses of a filterbank with a limited number of channels in that they are continuous in frequency. What you called structural history changes with each incoming sample.

In all, a comparison with Gutkin seems to confirm that my method is actually very uncommon and also quite simple. I did not yet manage finding out how Gutkin implemented the frequency analysis. I am claiming that complex calculus is a detour in this case.

Let me remind of the title of my essay: I consider it always necessary to ultimately return to realism after mathematical ambiguities, and I refer to Galilei's allegedly outdated notion of infinity, Gold's objection to v. Békésy's TW, and Ren's measurements, one of which has been quoted by Gutkin. They are altogether at least as unwelcome as the still valid argument by Ritz and uncle Al's obstinate question. Hermann Weyl was perhaps correct when he admitted: "We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations".

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Lev,

Admittedly, I did not yet understand your ETS. Do you distinguish between symmetry in the sense of conservation and stationary cyclic or reversible processes on one hand and irreversible transitional components on the other hand? I am an old and somewhat tired engineer who is not familiar with your expressions like struct and primitive.

In your essay you wrote natural number ... starting from 0. As a bloody layman in mathematics I love the ancient first natural number 2, the first step after agreeing on a unity. Peano changed his choice. Was he influenced by the Nullmenge?

You ascribed a key role to events. Isn't an event just a reasonably idealized but rather imprecise description that includes an ensemble being distributed in space and in a time that is not clearly separated in past and future? An animal can be alive or dead. The event of dying is not point-like. Events are processes.

Did you consider strict causality?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 23:33 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT

“Admittedly, I did not yet understand your ETS. Do you distinguish between symmetry in the sense of conservation and stationary cyclic or reversible processes on one hand and irreversible transitional components on the other hand?”

Eckard,

We postulate that there is no reversible processes: events just get “attached” to the previous ones, and this constitutes the ‘flow of time’.

“In your essay you wrote natural number ... starting from 0. As a bloody layman in mathematics I love the ancient first natural number 2, the first step after agreeing on a unity. Peano changed his choice. Was he influenced by the Nullmenge?”

Whether you start from zero or one is immaterial: you just need a starting point.

“You ascribed a key role to events. Isn't an event just a reasonably idealized but rather imprecise description that includes an ensemble being distributed in space and in a time that is not clearly separated in past and future? An animal can be alive or dead. The event of dying is not point-like. Events are processes.”

Processes are constituted by events: events compose processes.

Events are the most basic (structured) units, and should be considered as ‘mathematical/informational entities which designate an atomic interaction between several basic/primary processes (the structure of the latter is not accessible to us).

So, to begin with, we have primary processes and primitive events, out of which the processes, whose structure is accessible to us, are composed. What this formal language is supposed to offer—in contrast to *all other* formal or common languages—is the congruence of its syntax and semantics: the formal events are supposed to look exactly like the natural ones.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 11:32 GMT
Lev, you wrote -- I reply:

We postulate that there is no reversible processes: events just get “attached” to the previous ones, and this constitutes the ‘flow of time’.

-- I learned that there are no really closed systems and no absolutely reversible processes while nonetheless models like the harmonic oscillator are reasonable to some extent.

Whether you start from zero or one is immaterial: you just need a starting point.

-- Do we really need a starting point like the story of Adam and Eve or an apocalyptic end point? May I suggest focusing instead at the only definitely common point "NOW". I know, this suggestion of mine is too simple as to be acceptable to believing physicists.

Processes are constituted by events: events compose processes.

-- Chicken or egg? Aren't events the result of processes?

Events are the most basic (structured) units, and should be considered as ‘mathematical/informational entities which designate an atomic interaction between several basic/primary processes (the structure of the latter is not accessible to us).

-- Yes, events are entities. However, I consider the atomistic point of view just one option, which is complementary to the genuinely continuous one.

Please find illustrations in the figures of my M290. If a wave reaches a climax, this is an observable event.

No woman can be a little bit pregnant. However, it is almost impossible and perhaps not necessary to exactly determine the very moment of the event of getting pregnant. Mathematics so far demands to exclude the very point t=0 from |sign(t)|=1. I am voting for more realism.

So, to begin with, we have primary processes and primitive events, out of which the processes, whose structure is accessible to us, are composed. What this formal language is supposed to offer—in contrast to *all other* formal or common languages—is the congruence of its syntax and semantics: the formal events are supposed to look exactly like the natural ones.

-- Comparison with language reminds me of a deficit affecting physics. As e.g. Weizsaecker complains in his book Aufbau der Physik, Munic: Hanser 1985, physics ignores tenses.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT

TO Eckard

Who somewhere up there said I (and some others) was one of those who questioned the use of / correctness of / interpretation of / modern mathematics and its use in physics.

I DO NOT ! ! Eckard misunderstands my essay. I endorse and applaud the use of advanced maths. We need more of it, not less. I accept that in principle it is all correct.

My point is not that it is no good; it is very good - but not good enough. To get even more advanced maths we need to extend the foundations of maths to enable its scope to be extended. Extending foundations will of course mean we have to demolish part of the superstructure that has worked very well in the past, and REBUILD it with a better version.

I will post this on Eckard's site also.

-- So far I did not got aware of it.

Dear Terry,

Could you please reveal what you meant with "part of the superstructure" to be demolished and in what it is wrong?

I do not at all object to the use of complex calculus and more sophisticated mathematics. I just got aware of belief-based unnecessary generalization.

To virtually all: Do not confuse theory with reality.

The mistake seem to be so deeply rooted that virtually everybody ignores any alternative. I collected mounting indications for serious misinterpretations. While the topic of this contest lets room for even more science fiction, I prefer seeing the issue the other way round. I vote for ultimate realism.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

The example you have provided to describe constrains on the realism of wave spectrum and its awareness by biophysical systems is a good natural background to explore the physics for its inconsistency on continuum and quantum mechanics. This may emerge with appropriate models of phenomenological formalisation applicable in neutrino physics from biophysical models and vice versa. That is, the modified phenomenological representations of neutrino propagation in matrix may emerge with new wave propagation models, that may resolve constrains on wave spectrum and its awareness in biophysical systems.

As the wave function is a big constrain in transformational representations, we may also have to think of other alternative phenomenological probabilities for wave propagation in matrix. Thereby there is a proposal for cyclic wave propagation model in that there is selective temporal cyclic action of energy-mass transfer with the elements in a matrix in which the wave propagates as energy-mass. This may bypass the epiphenomenon as the transformation representational constrain is trivial. The biophysical awareness of wave spectrum is representational as matter dynamics and matter conservation in the biophysical system for wave spectrum analysis, in that the frequency in time phase and the intensity are coordinators that are transformational as energy and mass in that biophysical system. The structure of cochlea is also in favour of a cyclic wave model of energy-mass propagation and transformation that grades biophysical awareness of wave spectrum. Thereby enhancements in neutrino physics are much essential for emerging more new principles on new physics that may be applicable in biophysics. In this context your article is much appropriate, thanking you ..

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

I appreciate your interest in the physiological aspect of my essay. Please do not take it amiss if I would like to remind you that my essay does not deal with "biophysical awareness". I do not even understand what this expression means.

Did you overlook that I consider audition something that is still superior to theory of audition? I am claiming to have found out one key reason for that, and I guess physics might benefit in general from the ultimate realism it offers.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I read your essay. As it isn't directly related to my field, I haven't anything sensible to say about it (you will learn that I am very cautious...). It was instructive, I knew about von Bekesy's story, but I have no expertise in signal processing. I also had a look at Gompf et al. Idem, in order to have a sensible opinion about the shape of the emitted light pulse, I need to see (or even do) that experiment. It just has so much influencing parameters and one of them is the pressure profile in the bubble, about which I am totally ignorant. And for you, what's your opinion about Gompf et al?

By the way, in order to promote the FQXi contest, may I quote from your essay on my blog or twitter profile?

Regards,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Arden,

Thank you very much for reading my essay. If you are cautious, I understand and accept this in particular concerning Cantor's naive set theory, which is in German abbreviated ML what reminds me of Marxism/Leninism.

What about the v. Békésy story, v. Neumann admired his old nobility. There were Lighthill, v. B., Zwislocki, and Ruggero who altogether ignored Gold's argument.

Please tell me more if you can.

What about Gompf et al., Prof. Eisenmenger himself admitted that the measurement with single electron counting strongly differs from direct measurement with a streak camera and might be wrong. The difference can be explained as superimposed noise in case of SEC.

What about quoting, I would in particular appreciate more attention to Ren. If you will quote my ideas then do not omit the most basic ones:

Those who are not believing physicists like Einstein must no longer deny the difference between past and future. The now is the only reasonable reference of past time. Time ranging from minus infinity to plus infinity is not measurable but merely an abstract construct. Belonging mathematics must be interpreted with more care than Schroedinger did show with his lover Itha. Please do not quote the last 8 words, which refer to Schroedinger Life and Thought.

Kind regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Arjen,

I have to apologize for confusing in a hurry single photon counting (SPC) with single electron counting (SEC). Gompf et al. used SPC.

Moreover, my reply with respect to Gompf merely added information in excess to what I already wrote in papers like M283 or M290, attached here on Oct. 12.

SPC adds a superimposed bell-shaped artifact to the narrower and steeply rising true shape of the measured impulse. When Kuttruff in his laudatio for Eisenmenger at DAGA 03 in Aachen showed the SPC-results, he told us that there were objections because the SPC-results did not depend on variations of material as to be expected and as measured with traditional methods. This is a strong argument.

Nonetheless, Phys. Rev. Letters arbitrarily decided: SPC is highly reliable and the result of Gompf et al. must therefore be correct.

Maybe, I was the only one out of several hundred experts of acoustics in the auditory who got aware that the SPC-results by Gompf et al. were most likely wrong because a bell-shaped function of time is not a typical one in such processes but it rather indicates apparent symmetry.

My profound experience resulted from performing measurement on similar processes of arc ignition with 2 GSample (500 ps) time resolution, and I was familiar with studies by D. Rehfeldt with 1 Million frames per second, cf. a comment of mine in J. Phys. D: Appl. Physics 1999.

In all,

- The SPC-based "measurement" by Gompf et al. exhibits a strikingly symmetrical bell-shaped function of time with an unrealistically large width

- This width does not significantly depend on definitely important influences

- The bell-shape cannot be attributed to the observed processes but it can easily be ascribed to a dominating superimposed random enlargement of the true width.

- Ultimately, the direct measurement e.g. with a streak camera is more trustworthy than the somewhat sophisticated SPC.

I derive two questions:

1) What is wrong with SPC in general or at least in the special case?

2) Why were compelling arguments persistently ignored? Would admission of a flaw with SPC possibly imply the need for more general revisions?

When I look back upon the suspicions of mine that got more and more substantiated, I would like to point out that I not just lost my naive trust in idols but more importantly, I distrust any arbitrary choice in theories and in particular the idea of general symmetry.

While I tend to blame Schroedinger and Einstein guilty for their tragic private lives, my criticism of their work has nothing to do with my high moral standard. I should clarify that Kramers/Heisenberg/Born/Pauli as well as Schroedinger/Weyl and Dirac did not by chance arrive at the same - as I am claiming - wrong interpretation.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 00:52 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I have no acces to papers like that of Gompf so I don't know what kind of measurement you refer to. Would you care to elucidate your comment about photon counting ? Thanks, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Anton,

Please find attached the paper by Gompf et al.

Let me know if you need further elucidation.

Eckard

attachments: M291.html

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 00:54 GMT
Eckard,

This was refreshing. You got it right.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 12:41 GMT
Dear Don Limuti,

Thank you for encouragement. I can only guess what part of my essay or utterance in discussion you are referring to. I tried to at least mention a lot of more or less compellingly substantiated objections concerning what I consider wrong basics in mathematics, in physics, and even in applications, in particular on the theory of hearing.

Didn't Zenon's paradoxes intend to show that reality evades comprehension by means of measurement?

To me, numbers and a genuine continuum mutually exclude and simultaneously complement each other. Being an EE, I guess your v_ac and v_dc mean alternating and direct components of velocity, and you are circumventing my solution to Buridan's ass in order to follow Hilbert who frankly declared intending to maintain Cantor's naive belief.

Kind regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 02:00 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I couldn't acces the paper of Gompf via your post. Would it be possible to describe the experiment and tell me in a few words what you want me to explain ?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi dear Mr Eckard Blumschein,

I read just your essay,there are many essays , it's long to read them but it's very instructive like yours.

I have read on this thread a discussion with Mr Baten about the Fourier series and the CT ,very interesting about the frequences and the limitations of our referential with its adapted local parameters .The good method is essential for the nalayze of signals indeed ,the superimposing is specific and complex .

The harmonix approached analyzes must be reals.These properties are very relevant when we use the good referential of course ,and where the imaginaries and the reals are considered with pragmatism and rationality .

For me the utilisation of properties for the symmetry is primorial .The time too and its translation must be pragmatic thus as a pure constant of evolution.Afetr we derivate ,we integrate ,we make products ,we translate ,we modulate ,we imply the linearity ,the coherence ,the invariance and harmonisation ,we adapt the locality the domain with the correct numbers of course.

It's always just a question of good referential always .

Good luck

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear Anton,

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/Eisenmanger.html

You
have to write Eisenmanger, not the correct name Eisenmenger. When I created the file, I confused e with a because I often wrote mails to Josef Manger with a.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Steve Duforny,

Perhaps you did not yet get aware of my meanwhile thoroughly substantiated suspicion: Time-symmetry in physics of particles is an artifact of improper interpretation of complex wave function.

You wrote:"For me the utilisation of properties for the symmetry is primorial ."

Maybe, in French the word primordial has a different meaning. In English it describes things that have existed from a very early time or since the beginning of the world. I am also not sure what properties and what symmetry you are referring to. Who utilized the properties?

I read your "good luck" as skepticism. Well, science is not a democracy. My essay is too uncommon and demands too much as to avoid many arrogant one votes. Maybe, I am wrong, tangible evidence for SUSY will be found, and quantum computers will work as promised?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 11:20 GMT
Mr Eckard ,

In French ,indeed the meaning is like a priority more like a primordial thus .

For the sceptiscism ,I am alays sceptic ,always I doubt and that to be sure of my datas .It's essential to well extrapolate in fact.If not it's a lost of time .The susy is false ,because each entangled sphere is specific thus the computing must be fundamental with good series and good pragmatic tools .

When you use the ideas of some people ,there too a balance is essential ,if not it's a story of the history whith bizare extrapolations without real sense .

The properties must be interpreted and utilized with rationality correlated with the rationality .We can superimpose but with logic .

For the essay ,a good essay and I repeat good luck for the contes.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 18:15 GMT
Sorry I would say Mr Eckard Blumschein,

Don't bad interpret ,I write too quickly .But I evolve hihi

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 08:06 GMT
Dear Steve,

I appreciate you making progress, and I have to admit: English is my fourth language too.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on your spheres as long as I did not find a pertaining paper.

The perhaps most important message of mine is: Physics has to learn the fundamental difference between past and future. It does not matter that AE as a believing physicist denied this.

Referring to Galilei, I would like the mathematics to unlearn Cantor's paradise.

His second diagonal argument assumes that a list of infinite extension could be considered stationary. This wrong belief corresponds to Dedekind's also unfounded "axiom". When Wolfram here claims: Quadrature of the circle has been possible now, he is correct and wrong at a time.

Even theoretical physics deserves correctness. Common sense is mocking: If only 3 people are sitting in a room, then 5 out of them leave it, consequently 2 have then to come in as to make the room empty.

When I also focussed on Gold and Ren, the reason for me was to show that Nobel price awarded tenets can be wrong. Ren definitely deserves more attention.

Do you object?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

The klangauge is not my force .hihihi I dislike in fact studying languages .Maths and sciences more music it's ok but the language really oh my God .I must be more pofessional .

Each thing at its time ,I will publish .My kind of explaination is the transparence .I am persuaded what some people have understood my theory .This theory of Spherisation will rest and will evolve .

Now I admit there isn't any papers but is it important ,for me no .

About what you say ,I agree because you are pragmatic and it's the most important thus any objection in fact .Indeed the sciences must be rationals without imaginaries extrapolations without sense.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 19:56 GMT
Dear Steve,

I feel you did not yet realize the implications of my detour to the physiology of hearing. I understand your aversion. Just skip the part of my essay that deals with what I consider examples for wrong while firmly established tenets.

I need these examples in order to enforce readiness of my readers for being flexible in a more general controversy too.

I promised to Vesselin Petkow writing a detailed reply here at 527.

I already wrote to him: I also agree that "the whole point of the issue" is "whether or not the future is uncertain".

He would be right if not only the comparatively unproblematic laws of nature but also the whole past, i.e. all initial conditions together would be known and manageable. I consider this an illusion. I learned, and it is plausible, there are no closed systems in reality.

I need a break, Regards so far,

Eckard

Furthermore I wrote to Vesselin: You are claiming:²... the very essence of the art of doing physics is to identify which theoretical concepts in our theories have counterparts in the external world."

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear all,

Let me resume the question of known or uncertain future. With me, perhaps anyone except of believers will share the point of view uttered by Shannon: The past is knowable, in principle, but absolutely unchangeable while the future is changeable, in principle, but its prediction is always uncertain.

Believers like Einstein and Petkov are denying this. It does not matter whether they believe in a religion, a fate (destiny) or merely a deeply hidden comprehensive order of anything. They do not consider future as merely predicted possibilities but as something a priori given and merely not yet known.

I argue: On the level of abstract relations, a distinction between the past and the future is indeed inappropriate. However, you and me do not observe the world

from outside. We live in it and are bound to the very moment. The same is true for any process in reality.

Petkov claims: "The very essence of the art of doing physics is to identify which theoretical concepts in our theories have counterparts in the external world."

While he admits that theories are not the real world, the word external indicates his point of view. Theorists like he feel outside reality. They do not consider their concepts like mere tools but like an independent world of theory.

This perversion might be an almost necessary result of the exclusively abstract style of teaching at universities. Because my humble own vote does not have sufficient wight, I remind of Galilei, Gold, and Ren having provided factual votes for ultimate reality, i.e., for considering theory only a reflection, a shadow of reality. Theory must obey reality, not the other was round.

The search for counterparts in reality seems to be rather helpless in cases like aleph_2, bad ghosts, Higgs boson, SUSY, quantum computers, a genuine traveling wave in cochlea, anti-worlds, etc. In case of problems with identification I recommend to look for possibly fundamental mistakes.

Absurd putative T-symmetry in the sense f(t) = f(-t) is definitely just an artifact due to improper interpretation of complex domain, which on its part necessarily arose from the notion of time believed to be given with a range from eternity to eternity. Please check it: Reality ends at the now. While one can try to predict, prepare, or construct future, future processes cannot be observed in advance. The idea of arbitrarily moving "in" time is as unfounded and futile as are transfinite numbers.

Hopefully this helps,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

Thanks for your answer ,I think you don't understand my theory .

It's not serious .

Good luck in your works .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Steven,

My last mail was addressed to all and took in particular issue with respect to the ideology of Petkov. I consider my "work" largely finished because I can only hope to help the theorists by suggesting an unexpected way out of their calamities. Those who still continue to firmly believe in a final unified theory might rethink their position if the deadlock persists. Enigma can sometimes have a utterly simple explanation.I would like to remind of a female phantom criminal, who was actually due to a DNA that was already within the substance used for the tests. Police looked for a murdering women that did not at all exist.

Your theory is entirely unknown to me. Admittedly, the name spheres reminds of medieval musing about space. If you do not agree with my argumentation tell me please where it is wrong. If I hurt your religious feeling I beg your pardon. Science must not be hindered by belief.

Do not mistake Galilei, Gold, and Ren my heroes. I just appreciate their realism. Good science does not need heroes.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

I think stil what you confound many things ,My what religious (No but I dream or what ,don't confound the universality please with the human inventions .All is said ,you can explain with your more beautiful words ,that won't change the reality of our fundamentals .

Really you confound all .It's not serious .

You are false ,and if you don't understand why thus there it's a little sad .

Your esssay isn't scientific in fact ,it's just an opinion about the sciences community like some persons here on the essay contest .

If I have touch your lack of universality and your vanity ,excuse me ,that was not the aim .

Good luck for this contest thus .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 15:11 GMT
And after what the sun will become a square perhaps .....no but I dream .Medieval ,incredible your lack of realism.You like use words to explain your mind .You aren't the only who can do that .It's easier to speak about nothing than about fundamentasl.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Steve,

I have just 5 minutes time for a preliminary reply. Someone else read my essay and confirmed my arguments. However he blamed me for "challenging the gods" and added this will be contra-productive. The latter is right if I merely intended to win the contest. You got me entirely wrong. I do not confound anything except maybe such important details like your first name. Please accept my apology. Also I do not have anything against anybody here and I respect any religion except if it hinders logical consequence in science. You can prove me wrong if you are able to. Please do so. The votes by Galilei, Gold, and Ren are well founded. Ultimately realism will win.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

I know you have a big respect for people and theri religions .

I insist still on the fact what the universalism is different than a human invention .I want be sure you understand the difference .Don't confound please .

Me too I do not have anything against anybody .The tolerance is an important piece of the universality.

Don't excuse you ,why ,there is nothing .But if you want I accept and I sy you the same ,please accept my apologies too if I touched you .That was not the aim of my discussion with you .

It seems you don't encircle my point of vue about the reality .I am pragmatic and rational dear Eckard ,thus why I must proof a thing where I think the same .I am sure that you understand the meaning of my words.

I am not a religious man ,just an universalist and his compassion ,just because I understand what all is liked simply .

For me a real scientist understand this universality .We are inside a beautiful system in evolution and its equation towards harmony .

About my fisrt name ,please I am not pedant ,arrogant(but I evolve with Fqxi because intelligent people are there and thus the diplomacy is better than the arrogance ) perhaps but there too don't confound please .We must be humble in fact and be tolerant dear Eckard .It's easier on this road ,of course if a balance is made with rationality and pragmatism ,and that in all centers of interest .That facilitates many things about synchronizations of fundamentals .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 23:24 GMT
Dear Steve,

The only peculiarity of your work, which is otherwise entirely unknown to me, is spheres. I wonder if you do not know the spheres of typus systematis Ptolemaici terram in mundi centro locans (I am quoting from Ottonis de Guericke's Experimemta Nova ut Vocantur Magdeburgica de Vacuo Spatio, Iconismus 1). They begin with the inner sphere of the moon alias 1st caelum (Himmel = space and heaven). The outer space is the 11th Himmel alias Empireum. The 7th Himmel is the sphere of Uranus.

"Don't confound"

"You are false"

"Your esssay isn't scientific in fact ,it's just an opinion about the sciences community like some persons here on the essay contest ."

I maintain: My essay includes various very uncommon findings. Maybe some of them are contestable.

You wrote something like a credo "We are inside a beautiful system in evolution and its equation towards harmony ."

To me physics requires causality in its original meaning, and yes, the world looks like something in progress. I consider beauty of mathematics and physics a human feeling that rewards success in our effort to find matching descriptions.

I is located in the amygdala and not mysterious at all.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thank you for making available Gompf's article, though I don't know how this is relevant, what you want me to explain. Reading your essay, I wonder if it may concern causality.

I see I have to split my comment into (at least) 2 parts.

' ..physics does not let room for mysticism or mere speculation. Accordingly, the traditionalconcept of causality is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 09:16 GMT
Part 2,

We might distinguish two kinds of time: the kind involved in the preservation of the state of particles, the kind which keeps them oscillating at a constant frequency about some zero-time point, alternately moving in opposite time directions, the kind which on its own would show a universe frozen in time, all lights out. The second is an accumulative kind of time, produced by or...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 12:13 GMT
Hello dear Eckard ,

I agree that your essay is relevant about the pragmatism.You make indeed several interesting uncommon findings .

Where I disagree ,it's about a limit of understanding .The theory for some people are all their life ,and they use fundamentals .My work is nor arrived like that dear Eckard ,My research is a long work .I respect the work of opthers ,I d like have the same about mine .My conclusion of spherisation ,a GUT of Rotating Spheres ,is a pragmatic work .It's not fallen from the heaven if I can say .

I have some hypothesis in my theory and I have concrete datas too ,thus I repeat don't confound please .I am not anutopic person with imaginaries tools ,no my datas are reals and in all centers of interest .Math phys ,chem,biol,ecology,astronomy,astrobiology,philosophy ,universality .

I can understand you don't know my theory ,due to my isolation and my lack of publications but if you read some of my post ,you shall understand better my pragmatism and ralism about spheres .

About Ptolemea ,I didn't know it .There too don't confound ,we are in 2009n dear Eckard ,I am not Galilei or Ptolemea but Steve a simple researcher of truths .That's all .The mysteries inside a beautiful 3D sphere in evolution and this time constant are still bad understood .And we are babies of the Universe .This is the universality .

In all case ,thanks for your developments ,I see better your point of vue .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Anton,

The more we write, the less is the chance to be taken seriously. Let me try and summarize your suggestions:

- Following v. Neumann who developed the numbers out of the empty set you explains the universe as a creation out of nothing. I fear this will not be of any use.

- Following Bertrand Russell you denied causality. You wrote: "religious idea of causality". He wrote: "Causality is a relic of bygone time like monarchy."

You were trained to trust in the correctness and of quantum mechanics and perhaps set theory too. The reason for me to be not so sure results from questions that arose from a lot of my research as an engineer. Moreover, as a teacher of basics I dealt thoroughly with flaws in application of Fourier transform, in particular non-causality. Look into what I added to my essay on the nature of time.

There are mounting indications that my suspicions are not unfounded.

Let me as concisely as possible explain why from animal behavior up to science causality is indispensable: Any action of a brain on nature has to mimic nature in order to be successful. This even includes random processes. Our world-religions merely personified causality by attributing it to god who was created as a copy of man.

Incidentally, I appreciate your strive for own reasoning, and you are certainly correct in that causality must not be understood as determinism in a naive and narrow minded sense as did e.g. LaMettrie. Unilateral Laplace transform does ignore the causal embedding of the laws of nature. Prediction is not reality.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 22:58 GMT
Dear Steve,

You still did not manage revealing any details of your rotating spheres.

I could not decipher GUT = general unified theory? (just a guess of mine).

Claudius Ptolemaios (85-165) lived in Alexandria. He assumed the earth in the center of universe consisting of rotating spheres. This dogma was believed for more than a millenium and enforced by inquisition during the medieval time .

Maybe you know the German expression Sphaerenklaenge (sound from the spheres).

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

Thanks for the explaination about Ptolemea.

About the name ,you know ,I try to find the best .In my opinion that is the correct .Small entangled quantum spheres and their coded rotations implying mass...time and space evolution ...cosmological spheres(stars,planets,monns,BH...)...universal sphere .In resume the Universal sphere don't turn in its maximum mass mass our future and the ultim main central quantum spheres turn in the maximum implying thus a weak mass ,a big velocity of rotationimplies a weak mass.About the number ,it is very important ,the number of our quantum spheres is the same than our cosmological sphere.1 for the center and 1 for the universal sphere ,inside this finite serie ,a specific number of spheres .

Of course it is a little resume to help you to encircle the whole of my theory .

About Sphaerenklaenge ,could you develop a little please? It seems interesting .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 09:27 GMT
When I speak about spherisation .Here is some points of vue .The spherisation in fact is an evolution system with spheres,physicals.

The fact to have this serie with 1 and 1 is relevant about the uniqueness .Thus all cosmological spheres turn around the center of our universe and are in a specific dynamic towards harmonisation between mass and space .All that inside a finite sphere ,our universal sphere and its volume .This volume since the begining is important for me ,with the increase of mass in time and thus the thermodynamical link with its constants ,invariances ,reeversibilities ,coherences .....all that is ratonal ,basic ,logic ,pragmatic in my opinion when we respect the 3D system in this time constant .The mass is the rotation of spheres ,relatively speaking .

Hope that helps

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 22:36 GMT
No, it does not helps me.

It is not really related to my essay.

Moreover, I do not have any reason to doubt Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464) who wrote:

"Space does not have an end. Accordingly it does not have a center." Already Lucretius Carus (95-55) argued that universe must be infinite.

Ptolemaios imagined the earth the center of spheres. This point of view is still reasonable and in use, for instance if we ascribe a value of hight to a mountain.

The heliocentric model then correctly described the movement of planets around the sun including rotation of the earth.

Maybe the sun moves with respect to the milky way? Maybe the milky way moves in a larger framework? I am ignorant of such details.

Cartesian coordinates xyz go back to the wrong imagination that plane geometry corresponds to geography.

While the distance from center of a spheres is always positive, xyz range from infinity to infinity and need arbitrarily chosen reference points.

The spherical Bessel function sinc(r) is beautifully simple, and it is finite for r=0.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Eckards ,

Sorry ,you are right ,it is not correlated with your essay ,I just explain you some points of vue .

Don't confound the infinite space with the finite universe please .If not that has no sense .All turns around the center of our Universe .The Milky way turns too around and spherisize itself with time .

Frankly ,with Lucres Carus or Nicolas de Cruse ,they are false .Our Universe is not infinite .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Steve,

While it is not my business to speculate, I wonder if anyone could prove the reasoning by Lucretius Carus alias Lukrez and Nicolaus Cusanus (not Cruse) wrong: Something can only have a border if there is something else behind that border.

I argue that so called big bang is most likely not a lower border of time. The only tangible border of measurable time is the now. It is really a pity that physics is not aware of that obvious and irrefutable fact.

The very moment separates between history and possibility. Most likely the laws including to some extend conservation cover both past and future. However, all influences exclusively relate to the past, and all effects of my action right now belong to the future. This is not a question of perception. Time has not only just one direction. It has also just one non-arbitrary point of reference.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Anton,

I overlooked what you wrote before beginning with part 1:

"... Gompf's article, though I don't know how this is relevant, what you want me to explain. Reading your essay, I wonder if it may concern causality."

Causality is one-sided. Common sense is very alert. If something can be observed before it can happen then there is something wrong. Look at ordinary spectrograms or wavelets that decompose a function of time with a sudden onset. You will always be able to see a response before the onset of cause. This impossibility is in particular striking with narrow-band analysis. Experts of signal processing do not worry about non-causality because they felt unable the fix it.

In so far, Fig. 2 of my essay is hard to believe. I cannot expect a lot of high ratings for this and for other reasons from mediocre narrow-minded experts.

Perhaps you can imagine me unhappy with such distrust. The more I trained my awareness of overlooked non-causalities. And I found a lot. In particular, absolute time-symmetry is impossible. Therefore all time-symmetries in reality are imperfect. Perfect mirror-symmetrical functions of time are mathematical artifacts due to the ignored end of reality at the moment under consideration.

When I looked at the results by Gompf et al., I realized that the "measured" functions of time were bell-shaped with astonishing symmetry, for me a typical indication of non-causality. Here I listed details, which substantiate my guess that the "measurement" was incorrect.

Peter Jackson seems to additionally confirm my suspicion by explaining what might be physically wrong with single photon counting. So far I tended to blame the mathematics, in particular the used autocorrelation and deconvolution.

Regards,

Rckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 15:52 GMT
Dear Anton, dear all,

This is Peter Jackson's solution to the Gompf enigma:

I'm not convinced that SPC is a valid or accurate methodology here, for various reasons; The technology is unproven. Right back from Neville Mott we've known particles are propagated and re-absorbed back into the field so there's no guarantee those emitted will not be the same as those counted.(it's the same resolution as the Muon paradox). Particles can't be conserved if we're to achieve unification so we'd better get used to the concept or we'll never get

unified! (no-one has ever witnessed a long range photon or muon, and the

Japanese recently witnessed particles having 'changed' when checked at range. And lastly, there's no corroboration or inductive proof.

An interesting result none the less, but I can't take it too seriously, and predict it will end up being used to prove something entirely different.

Very different to my DFM, which has full inductive proof, but, following the postulate of my essay, hardly anyone has even properly looked at yet!! have you?

As a layman in this field, I would merely like to add that Gompf et al. used low energy photons. If Jackson is correct then I tend to cautiously conclude that several experimentally backed tenets deserve a critical reassessment. I did not for nothing tell the v. Békésy-Gold-Ren story.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

It is the long and long road towards the universal secrets ....

Of course there is something behind this physicality .For me it is very simple ,it is the infinite light ,the unknew ,now we can interpret our physicality but not this eternity .The physicality is limited and in evolution ,where the light becomes mass in time with the gravitational codes ,intrinsic in the main central coded quantum sphere.

We can't interpret our physicazlity with this infinity behind our walls .It is not our aim .This infinity is not a good tool in fact .That gives problems with the domain ,the closed system .

The fact to accept the limits of the physical sphere ,permits to focus on this physicality ,and thus to better understand our rule like catalyzer of this building .

The infinity appears in our math tools due to our young age and our limits of perception .The complexification can be interpretesd like an infinite system of adds or multiplications of primes numbers .But all this system is inside a closed domain where the numbers are specifics .It is there dear Eckard I return about the infinite space and the complexification of numbers and the universe(finite) .The difference between thus the physical finite system and the infinite products of physical numbers ,the primes ,are an evidence and furthermore facilitate many things .

Behind our walls ,quantics and cosmologics , there is indeed the unknew ,bu I beleivre strongly that it isn't our rule to encircle it !,thus it is important to make the difference I think between the infinity ,mathematical ,of the unknew and the physicality .The laws appear in the physicality and the system is already coded since the begining .For that, a specific closed system and its thermodynamic links is essential to create the mass and its complexification .The codes of the gravity ,thus centers ,is very relevant .

It is there what the time is important to create the mass and implant in the strong intreractions if I can say .The past shows us this polarisation .The time is an essential piece of the evolution .Our present is under laws ,constants and universals .Irreversible thus .There I agree about the conservation of laws in the time ,even if the increase of mass appears by weak polarisations,the perception is limited ,thus we can't perceive the decimals .Can we say thus what this is a constant ,no of course but the decimal is far thus ... All is question of perception and limits ,laws and walls in a pure thermodynamical system which evolves .This system is finite ,that facilitates.

Dear Eckard ,could explain the meaning for you of this absolute time please?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray B Munroe wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It started out as an essay about the science of hearing, but turned into a detailed discussion of the properties of numbers and transforms. I am surprised that your paper is not more highly rated. Was Bio-Physics too far off the average reader's interest?

In your paper, you said "Thus Hilbert-space is the straightforward generalization of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 21:40 GMT
Dear Steve,

Dear Eckard ,could explain the meaning for you of this absolute time please?

Any absolute value of a physical quantity is never negative and has a natural point of reference.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

Do you really wonder why I got almost only a one-rating?

My arguments are too uncommon. I challenged too many established tenets at a time. I should be cautious in order to get a ten-rating from you which would hopefully contribute to make Tianying Ren who is right at least as known as v. Békésy who was wrong.

The main contribution of mine to physics is to suggest an overlooked distinction between measurable and abstract time. Neither v. Weizsaecker nor Einstein understood that past and future time must not be considered always exchangeable.

Likewise I argue that it would be logically consequent to consider the rational number 1.000 and the real number 1.000... within a Peirce-continuum equivalent while also essentially different from each other. Physicists tend to regard such attitude tortuous, mathematicians tend to defend Cantor's paradise. Look at Wolfram who claims that the quadrature of the circle has got possible. Well, he is correct from a pragmatic point of view. However, Buridan's ass and EPR indicate a persisting lack of understanding in physics.

Let me reply to what you wrote in one more post.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 23:41 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

Thank you for explaining to me lattice matters. I just quoted v. Neumann.

Descarte's hesitation got obvious to me from a Russian booklet by Cornelius Lanszos (Loevy) who quoted Einstein.

What about the number of dimensions, my argumentation is stolen from a book on physics of plasma the author of which listed many mutually excluding explanation of retrograde motion of cathode spots and argued like B. Russell on religions: At best one out of them can be correct. Hopefully, you do not feel hurt. Ren needs a high rating.

I do not know any reason to consider in theory the natural reference point for elapsed time hopping instead of sliding relative to the conventional scale. In practice, signal processing of auditory signals differs from the natural smooth one. It is restricted to a limited sample rate.

Concerning Heisenberg's uncertainty and what you called non-quantum ear, I would like to tell you that the smallest audible motion of membrane is in the order of a picometer, smaller than the diameter of the hydrogen atom, according to Schulman within the micro-world.

Replace E by omega and h by 1. The uncertainty relation would hold in signal processing too. Nonetheless cochlea and my spectrogram perform better, and I tried to explain why.

Do not worry about spin of point-like models. Recall bishop Berkeley. Models can be very useful even if they fail to model all aspects at a time. Look at the word trivial: three ways. No street is a line, no ramification of streets is a point. A point is still something ideal that does not have parts. Nonetheless I favor sinc(r) instead of 1/r.

To me there is no reason to separate between good physics, appropriate mathematics and good philosophy. The most common criterion is to avoid arbitrariness.

I dislike the word timetravel because it is often meant as an allegedly possible shift of time in reality. Here is again my distinction between past time as a measurable quantity that exclusively belongs to unchangeable reality and what has been abstracted from it and extrapolated: ordinary time. Of course we can shift, flip, stretch or otherwise manipulate any record or theoretical process.

Go in a cinema and travel back into the past. You cannot manage getting younger. I dislike technologies of fraud.

Future buildings do not yet exist. In so far they are not yet to be seen and not yet real. How stupid is a physics that ignores this peculiarity? The notion direction of time is better than direction in time but not sufficient. We have to accept causality, i.e. the fact that no influence comes from future.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 00:50 GMT
I will have to read your essay again more carefully. There are a couple of things which came to mind.

The cochlea is a wedge shaped membrane with a length dependency on the impedance of certain frequencies, or resonance conditions on frequencies with ω = ω(l). This has a nonlinear content to it, which to my suspicion is that wave on the cochlea is similar to a soliton, where a soliton will exist on a region of the cochlea appropriate for the detection of certain frequencies. I might be totally off base here, so you can inform me if I am wrong.

The nonexistence of negative frequencies and in quantum mechanics why energy is bounded below is why there is no well defined notion of a time operator in quantum mechanics. Similarly for the Dirac equation the upper positive portion of the momentum-light cone is physical, while the negative is the “filled up” Dirac sea. Extending things to negative frequencies and energies in mathematical modeling, such as integrating on the complex plane, may or may not have some subtle bearing on deriving some consistent form of time operator. Though to be honest I doubt it.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Eckard,

You have taken my answers out of context. Remember JCN Smith's blog site? I said "The present is real, the past is a faded memory, and the future has not yet been written." The context was in regards to the impossibility of time travel.

I have played with 8-, 10-, 12- and 14-dimensional TOE models, and K12' is my favorite candidate. Although the particles are represented by points, these points contain the quantum numbers of a 12-dimensional lattice. Twelve dimensions may decompose into a 4-dimensional H4 Quaternion Spacetime and an 8-dimensional Octonion Hyperspace. H4 and E8 have similar component symmetries. These 12 dimensions have many similarities with 11-D M-Theory - the biggest difference may be an imaginary time dimension (I'm not sure...).

Intrinsic spin is a sum of these quantum numbers, and thus, a property of multiple (not zero) dimensions. A classical analogy to intrinsic spin is something like a gyroscope. A gyroscope works via conservation of angular momentum. In the simplest case, we could define angular momentum as L=mvr, where m=mass, v=velocity and r=radial arm. This concept is non-sense in zero dimensions. My "points" contain color, electric charge, flavor, spin, mass, etc. They are not zero-dimensional points with zero structure.

Dear Lawrence,

Your interpretation of negative frequencies as compared to the negative energies of the Dirac Sea is interesting. Of course, Eckard considers these negative frequencies non-physical.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 02:34 GMT
I too consider negative frequencies to be unphysical. I could not say whether or not as pure mathematical terms, something used to perform an integration, but which contribute no negative energy, would have implications for a time operator. To be honest I would strongly doubt that.

Whether the future exists is a bit of an odd question. We might say tomorrow will happen, and in a block model it exists. Curiously in Russian the language has no grammatical sense of a completed action in the moment. The present does not exist! It is too fleating in a way. There are a host of ways of thinking about this, and it comes down to interpretations of time in general relativity. I have wondered whether these interpretations have some sort of mirror to quantum interpretations. This touches on the many worlds interpretation. Yet interpretations of a theory are different from a theory itself.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Georg Schoenfelder,

You listed 12 "criteria of a scientific field that is complete" and asked: "Did I miss anything?"

Please consider the following remarks of mine an attempt to translate your ideas in more common terminology:

You denied Euclid when you wrote; "A 'point' must have a discrete size because it is not nothing." This idea is not new. It reminds me of Zenon, Hegel and Mathis as well as of epsilontics.

The zero-dimensional point, the one-dimensional line, and the 2D area are very old and still useful ideal mathematical notions. I prefer to distinguish these abstractions if necessary from reality and from more realistic models. Often it is reasonable to consider a road a line. Sometimes one has to consider a 2D picture or even a 3D one.

Be cautious. Those who are denying infinity risk to be called a crank. Infinite means endless. For instance, motion along a loop is endlessly possible. Engineers like me used to operate with infinity as if it was a number. Of course, in reality nothing is infinitely large because 'large' is a relative measure, and cannot be attributed to the ideal property of having no limit.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Ray and dear Lawrence,

I got the impression I failed to explain why the fathers of quantum mechanics made a decisive mistake when they shared the common opinion that negative frequencies are to be avoided because they are unphysical.

Let me say it quite pronounced: If a measured or at least measurable basic physical quantity is a real and necessarily terminated at the very moment of measurement, then its Fourier transform must be unphysical in that: It must be a complex function, and it must be a symmetrical function of positive as well as negative frequencies. Neglect of the negative frequencies causes an error. In particular, inverse transform does not return the original real and one-sided f(t) but a complex and symmetrical one that includes a mirror picture of the original one.

In other even more bold words: With Fourier transform, the flaw of being unphysical is a must either in the time or in the frequency domain.

I do not know how familiar you are with Fourier transform. Maybe, the attached files will help.

I would like all those who consider the present real how long they imagine the duration of the present. Doesn't it have zero duration? Those who are only interested in prediction of future try to compact all reality in the sense of influence from the past into initial conditions. This does not correspond to the reasonable view that past events are not merely fading memories but something that really continues to influence the actual state. A memory denotes merely information. Processes in reality cannot be observed in advance.

Regards,

Eckard

attachments: How_do_negative_and_imaginary.doc, How_do_part_2.doc

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 20:13 GMT
I got the idea that with Fourier transforms there are integrations from -∞ to ∞, and to get "symmetry" the same should hold for frequency. However, usually the negative frequencies are treated as positive and the integral doubled --- if one is going to worry about this.

As for memories from the past continually influencing the present, that really occurs if the system is subMarkovian. For many Markovian systems fluctuations at one time do not influence the future, and the correlation of two observables at different times have a delta function.

Negative frequencies are just something which corresponds to the mathematical set up IMO. There are not really negative frequencies, but in the Fourier analysis these correspond to a sign. We might take the Fourier integral

Ψ(t) = (1/sqrt{2π})∫-∞∞dω φ(ω)exp(iωt)

and convert this to

Ψ(t) = (1/sqrt{2π})∫0∞dω φ(ω)(exp(iωt) + exp(-iωt))

or

Ψ(t) = (1/sqrt{2π})∫0∞dω φ(ω)(exp(iωt) - exp(-iωt))

depending on whether φ(ω) is even or odd with the sign on ω. So the negative frequencies can be transformed into something which has no physical implication of an actual negative frequency.

I will try to read you essay again. I will have to admit that I read it rather hurriedly.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 20:13 GMT
PS, my sub and sup did not work on the integrals, but you might get the idea.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I'm sorry. I may have misunderstood you. You are saying that negative frequencies are OK. Within the interpretation of the Dirac Sea analogy, that is comparable to saying that positrons are OK. In Particle Physics, negative energies are positrons. In Solid State Physics, negative masses are holes. What are negative frequencies? Is it the absence of a frequency? It is better to have an absent frequency than a negative time. By the way, haven't we beat this time issue to death?

Although I don't use Fourier transforms on a regular basis, I am familiar with them. In my model, I talk about Direct and Reciprocal lattices. They are Fourier transforms of each other.

Good luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Ray,

I can imagine lattices that are infinite to both sides in Cartesian coordinates. Are there spherical lattices too? If so, they could only exist between r=0 and oo, as does any measured function of time. I will look into your essay because I guess your direct lattices are in an original domain of distances while reciprocal lattices are in a domain of wave numbers. Is this domain a complex one?

I did not say negative frequencies are OK. Hermitian symmetry in complex domain means functions of positive as well as negative arguments with mirror-symmetry of their real part and anti-symmetry of their imaginary part.

So we have a twice redundant, twice unphysical representation in complex domain.

One must always interpret all four components together. By means of a correctly performed inverse transform they will altogether collapse into the real original function. Accordingly, negative energies as well as negative frequencies must not be taken seriously as something with physical meaning but as artifact of Fourier transform. I used to speak of apparent symmetry.

If one calls for instance debts negative money, holes in a solid negative mass, or a negative electric charge in a semiconductor a hole, then this is not an artifact of Fourier transform but the split of something positive in two components, a large positive and a small negative one.

Apparent symmetry as an artifact of Fourier transform is necessarily balanced between positive and negative.

Ray, you wrote: "What are negative frequencies? Is it the absence of a frequency? It is better to have an absent frequency than a negative time. By the way, haven't we beat this time issue to death?"

No, the matter was obviously too difficult for believing physicists like Einstein and v. Weizsaecker. I do not say this as a blasphemy but because they stuck in the traditional belief in an to both sides infinite rigid block of an 'a priori' given time. There are not yet many like me who feel free to only trust in theory that is exclusively founded on repeatable observations, measurable data, and compelling reasoning.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 23:42 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You nicely demonstrated how the Fourier transform relates to cosine transform and sine transform: exp(iwt)+exp(-iwt) = 2 cos(wt).

I am sure you understand that I meant omega when writing w. Indeed, the complex Fourier transform would only be required in case of arbitrary phase shift respective to an arbitrarily chosen point of reference.

You are quite right. If a function of time is assumed to extend from -oo to +oo, then the corresponding function of frequency fills the same range.

In reality, influencing action as well as possibility for observation of a process are limited to the last now under consideration. Consequently, time extends just (backward) in one direction, and the same is true for frequency.

In contrast to Fourier transform, with cosine transform there is no change into an unphysical domain.

I appreciate your intention to read my essay again. You will find further information via http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M283.html, M290, M291, and http://www.fqxi.org/commumity/forum/369 . In case of trouble do not hesitate please dropping a line to eckard d ot blumschein a t arcor do t de.

Regards,

Eclard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Lawrence, dear Ray,

Undoubtedly you are well trained in application of Fourier transform. Nonetheless I would like to invite you to better understand some often omitted very trivial basics. Just look into the files I attached this evening at 19:48.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I was a little sloppy earlier. You are well-versed in Time-Energy (omega) Fourier transforms. A reciprocal lattice is a Fourier transform of a direct lattice in Space-Momentum (wave number). The same concept with different variable pairs...

I've been thinking about the "zero-dimensional point problem". Technically, we could build these simplices and Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) lattices by stacking fruit at the grocery store (the lattice "points" are now the centers of each piece of fruit). In this respect, my model starts to look a lot like Steve Dufourny's spheres.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 04:40 GMT
It is getting a bit late right now so I will have to make this short. With negative time and frequencies the phase exp(isωt), s = sign, has only one sign value for both the frequency and time. So in interpreting where the sign is attached to physically it is usual to assign it to time. So we can fold the negative frequency part of the Fourier integral into a positive part in a sine or cosine transformation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 08:42 GMT
Dear Ray, dear Georg Schoenfelder,

I do not see a zero-dimensional point problem. Nobody demands that the middle point of earth or a spheric football has to have a non-zero size. It is merely a fiction belonging to the more tangible surface of the sphere.

What about Steve Dufourny's spheres, I have to admit, I did not at all get what he suggests.

I will give Peter Jackson a high ranked vote because I got aware that my epiphenomenal cochlear traveling wave almost ideally illustrates his idea concerning the propagation of this time genuine electromagnetic waves.

Although it is far from my field of competence, I naively guess that elementary, i.e. spherical electric monopols, are the most basic elements of physics. Dirac conjectured magnetic monopoles too. Were they found? I guess, this would violate causality.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I follow Neumann nor Russel; I haven't read their texts and don’t know in what context these quotes were made. I have just been asking myself some quite simple questions and they leave only two possibilities. Since any causal reasoning refers to some primordeal cause which by definition not can be understood as it isn't reducible to a preceding cause, causality is unavoidably founded on the quicksands of religion. Either we live in a causal universe, caused, created by some outside intervention, 'god' for short, or we live in a noncausal universe which creates itself. This noncausality doesn't prevent a local, limited causality: though you may dip your finger in the sea, if its physical effect on the sea at the other side of our planet is nil, then your act, however real to you, is a ficitious an event to someone there as future events are to you.

So people who think that there can be a causal universe without a creator are kidding themselves. I'm wondering whether if they try to save causality to exorcize their own subconcious doubts about causality, or whether, despite proclaiming and believing to be atheists, in defending causality try to save their piousness ?

What I'm trying to do in my essay is dream up a mechanism of how a universe can create itself without any outside interference, without violating any conservation law or any other law, which leads to fundamentally different view on nature than what we're used to.

Regards, Anton.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:33 GMT
Hello to all ,

Dear Eckard ,

Thanks a lot .

I think what 0,- and infinity are math tools ,the physicality and its numbers is an other story .Thus I agree about the time and its absolute value,like physical numbers .It is an irreversible system in the physicality and in the whole point of vue of course .The locality seems dancing under the same logic even .Why thus to complicate our simple universal dynamic .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:55 GMT
Dirac magnetic monopoles have been found! These have cropped up in surprising forms. I attach a file on the discovery of Dirac magnetic monopoles in ice-like condensed matter systems. The tetrahedral system of spins can set up a discrete version of the Dirac monopole.

Cheers LC

attachments: 1_375.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I felt a bit underestimated when Ray wrote:"You are well-versed in Time-Energy (omega) Fourier transforms." Did he consider me just an engineer? I was also teaching basics of electricity for 40 years.

Even more I am disappointed that you apparently did not read the two little attachments of mine, or you refused to learn what I would strongly recommend to all physicists: Do not thoughtlessly always introduce physical quantities in complex or operator domain. Well, this is common convenient practice. When I very often made such ansatz myself, I was always aware of the omitted steps and my obligation for proper return to reality. However, you started your argumentation with tacitly assuming a complex exponential function when you wrote:

"With negative time and frequencies the phase exp(isωt), s = sign, has only one sign value for both the frequency and time. So in interpreting where the sign is attached to physically it is usual to assign it to time. So we can fold the negative frequency part of the Fourier integral into a positive part in a sine or cosine transformation."

Physically correct are indeed only positive frequency and only positive elapsed time in case of consideration the past. Accordingly, a cosine transform would no only be sufficient but also tailor made.

Virtually nobody of the younger generation was confronted at university with the seemingly trivial question why one needs a complex Fourier transform (FT) at all. Instead, all students were told something seemingly correct: "both a Fourier transform and its inverse are in general complex".

Hopefully I explained it understandably why a physically correct function, i.e., a real-valued function of only positive argument in original domain necessarily corresponds to an unphysical, function. i.e., a complex function of Hermitian symmetry in complex Fourier domain. Who has been understanding this is forced to conclude that neither the complexity nor the symmetry must be interpreted as usual in original domain. As long as we are in complex domain, both positive and negative arguments are indispensable. Ignoring the negative ones is exactly the mistake made by the fathers of QM. It results in apparent symmetry after return into the original domain.

I deliberately wrote argument instead of time, frequency, or linear phase. What I wrote holds for any pair of conjugate arguments like time and frequency, radius and wavenumber, position and momentum, etc.

Negative radius is obviously something unrealistic. Nonetheless, with complex FT the inseparable entity of fictitious positive and negative radii would belong to a realistic real-valued function of positive wave-numbers.

I see you in charge for virtually all physicists. Please accept my reproach for an attempt to arbitrarily interpret a complex quantity as if it was a quantity belonging to the domain of real world. There is no sign to attach to something at will.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Ray B Munroe wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Please consider my comments compliments. I didn't mean it any other way. I was actually apologising for my own sloppiness in Fourier transform terminology.

If the mathematics admit the possibility of negative frequencies and negative times, then what does that correspond to physically?

You said "While negative frequencies in a complex domain are just mathematical artifacts without physical meaning, this does not mean they may be neglected. They convey the encoded unilateral origin and its sign." and "One also needs the ignored phase as to correctly return to a realistic unilateral function of time."

I think I understand what you are saying, but wondered if you have a good physical analogy that corresponds to this.

Steve Dufourny is a Belgian Botonist/ Geologist working on a Spherical GUT. English is his fourth language behind French, Dutch and Spanish. So he is difficult to understand at times.

Good Luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I overlooked your attachment. Thank you. The headline is more promising than the text claims: ... report measurements from neutron-scattering experiments showing that the low-energy excitations in spin ices are reminiscent of Dirac’s elementary

magnetic monopoles ...

I am more interested in the question whether it is justified to consider the past merely a fading memory. I already wrote that memories belong to memorized information. The past of reality is definitely more comprehensive. We can only memorize pictures of the past. A memory rather corresponds to a prediction or a plan. I am arguing that physics failed so far to adequately obey the fundamental qualitative difference between past and future. The past is the basis for abstraction and for pictures from the past and the future, not the other way round.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Anton,

I do not share your opinion that trust in causality implies to believe in some primordial moment, creation, or whatever. In order for an insect to save its life when it perceives the call of a bat, it has its ears immediately below the muscles of its wings. Would it benefit from belief in a creator?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Ray,

You wrote:

"If the mathematics admit the possibility of negative frequencies and negative times, then what does that correspond to physically?"

-- Negative and positive frequencies are the result of decomposing the nothing of what is known for sure from the future into two mutually canceling parts. Oliver Heaviside introduced this trick with his decomposition of a step at zero into even and odd part.

You said "While negative frequencies in a complex domain are just mathematical artifacts without physical meaning, this does not mean they may be neglected. They convey the encoded unilateral origin and its sign."

-- I got into the nitty gritty in M283.

and "One also needs the ignored phase as to correctly return to a realistic unilateral function of time."

I think I understand what you are saying, but wondered if you have a good physical analogy that corresponds to this.

-- I do not refer to a possibly boring analogy. I refer to what seems to be a very serious mistake by the fathers of quantum mechanics. Weyl at least wondered himself about the theoretical T-symmetry.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Steve,

I am pleased that you agree in that mathematics provides structures that do not necessarily have physical correlates in every case. On the contrary, I vote for apt restrictions.

Let me also mention that my study of hearing made me aware of the possibility to jump from the ordinary notion of time to an equivalent but quite different one because the ear does definitely not adapt to the steady increase of the timespan counted from Christ's birth. While not uncommon in daily life this backward and observer-bound perspective is an affront for physicists and I see it a challenge for mathematicians, too.

Regards,

Eckaer

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 03:14 GMT
Eckard,

I guess I didn't read attachments because I did not see them or know about them.

The reason complex Fourier transforms are used is analyticity. Complex FTs perserve the Reimann conditions, or holomorphy. In quantum mechanics this translates to unitarity. Of course the exponential operator can be broken into its real and imaginary parts.

When it comes to time with wave mechanics, wave mechanics is time reverse invariant. The physics is perfectly linear, and there are no information loss systems or attenuations. The distinction between past and future comes with information and thermodynamics. This involves some results of Shannon-Khinchin theorems or Kolmogorov entropy. In these cases information can be degraded, scrambled or erased in a system, resulting in entropy increase, or information may be increased in a "machine" with available free energy, just as refrigeration can lower the heat and entropy of something through a heat pump. So the arrow of time problem is involved with the nature of information (even quantum information) in the universe. In fact it involves the structure of the entire cosmology.

If we watch videos of one billiard ball hitting another, then a reversed video is hard to distinquish from the forward play. Yet we can easily tell the difference between the cue ball breaking the racked balls, as opposed to a time reversed video where billiard balls all come together nicely and eject the cue ball. There are a far greater number of ways the balls may be generically arranged on the table after the racked balls are broken, than before. Things like wave mechanics and Fourier transforms and the rest really do not work well in this domain of physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 09:44 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Let me call a spade a spade. What is wrong that IS wrong.

For your convenience I will again attach the two files.

Perhaps it is necessary to discuss in detail the mistake by Heisenberg et al.

You were close to the truth when you wrote:

"Things like wave mechanics and Fourier transforms and the rest really do not work well in this domain of physics."

However, Fourier transform is flawless. Just incorrect use led to the wrong and absurd conclusion that there is T-symmetry in the micro-world while anything else is non-anticipatory.

Right now I am short of time. Later on, I will respond in detail.

To all:

Please tell me what questions I did not yet or not yet satisfactory answered. I recall solitons but I forgot an other hint.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 10:18 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Eckard ,

You are welcome.I wish you all the best in your work.The time is a beautiful constant of evolution in fact ,perhaps that the better is to use it with rationality in its serie.

Dear Lawrence ,

Dear Ray ,Dr Cosmic Ray ,

It is very nice that .I am a little frustrated with my english .But why thus I don't learn more .hihih sorry to all .I am not well organized in fact .You know Ray ,about geology ,I know very well and learn all days too but I haven't my certificate in geology ,I stop before , it was the date when I have had a little cerebral accident ,several days in the coma,it was difficult after ,I had difficulties to speak correctly during several months .Fortunaly ,the time has balanced that .I have some head-aches and that is all .I am well in fact .A little isolated in my home but well .

I thank you very much Ray ,indeed my english is our fourth here ,in Belgium there is two regions,dutch and french ,and the french is a latin language thus for italian and spanish ,it is easy for us,the others latin lang.are roumanian and roman mainly .The dutch is a germanic language like english and german,some similarities are there thus .For exemple Ik spreek Vlams in dutch is I speak Dutch in english .I know the vocabulary but the grammar??? ,I confound all .I think that the better to do for me is the short-phrase ,simple .Short and precise in fact.

Take care dear Ray ,in dutch tot ziens ,in french à bientôt,in english see you soon I think .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

Could you elaborate the meaning of the + - in these tranformations of fourier please? .

I think you make a big error when you don't consider the irreversibility and the linearity of the physical dynamic .

Some parameters are fundamentals and linears .

And the time is a constant of this system .You can take the micro, the meso, or the macro point of vue ,these fundamentals don't change in their linearity .The quantum mechanic is correlated with the cosmological dynamic, with of course different parameters but the thermodynamic laws and the constants ,relatively perceptibles,the time rest invariants .

You can play with the pression ,the volume ,the temperature ,the density ,the mass ,the energy ,the entropy ,but not with our linearities ,reals in our physicality.

The fact to analyze a system like that is in contradiction with the evolution point of vue and its irreversibility of creations on this line time .

This essential piece can't change its state ,fundamentals everywhere in all centers of interest.

The maths are a very best tools ,probably the best for analyze our physicality .But we can't play without rationality .If the infinity ,the -,the 0 more the imaginaries are inserted in an extrapolation of the mind where the time isn't considered,thus how can you arrive to a good understanding of your physical world and its specific laws .

Let's take a fourier serie during an harmonic analyze,what is your domain ,your intrinsic laws,the periodicity,the variables ....you can take bessel too for an analytic harmonic approach ,...in the physicality we can't insert the numbers what we want ,or the domain what we want ,without an irreversible evolutive system ,what is the real sense of an analyze if the essentials and the fundamentals axioms aren't considered?

It is impossible to encircle thus .

You know ,I am ok with math if and only if they synchronize the real physicality and its irreversible linearity .

It exists limits in all physical systems and the irreversibility of the gravity ,mass ,time ....are an evidence in a whole analyze.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

The hint I forgot related to Markov. HMMs are playing a dominant role in speech recognition, and this is somewhat related to my effort for elucidating some enigma of audition. Therefore I know that in case of a Markov chain x->y->z the future is conditionally independent of the past given in the present. Markov chains can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In all, it gets obvious that on the level of information about a source variable the connection to reality has been stripped off. In words for everybody: You can manipulate a photography, a recorded sound or a movie at will. I merely vote for ultimate realism.

Now I will look at what you wrote at 03:14 GMT:

"The reason complex Fourier transforms are used is analyticity. Complex FTs perserve the Reimann conditions, or holomorphy. In quantum mechanics this translates to unitarity. Of course the exponential operator can be broken into its real and imaginary parts."

-- Isn't your first sentence a tautology? Less educated people will not understand the meaning of Riemann conditions, holomorphy and unitarity, and if they could do so, they did still not understand why only a one-sided function of 0

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear Eckard ,

I beleive strongly that it is mpossible to violate the thermodynamics laws ,impossible .

With a chain ,a serie ,a periodicity,a domain ,...it is really and pragmatically impossible .

It is not because one person has invented a method of violation ,what this method is good ,correct.

Don't search the complexity where the simplicity reigns I say me all times.

About Riemann ,it is simple ,the system is finite with prime numbers ,the infinity is just a complexification of numbers by addition or multiplication ,and there the time is essential in its irreversibility (to create the universal serie and its specific oscillation ).

An other point is the nature of the complexs ,I don't like in fact i²=-1 but let's assume this tool ,thus how can we interpret correctly the geometry ?And if the series of complexs are lim tending to 0 and infinity more bizares coordonates .Oh My God ,Where are we thus? The time in this finite system is a pure constant of evolution .

Just a thought

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 18:44 GMT
Dear all,

I have no idea why the last part of my reply is not to be seen.

I consider it understandable to everybody and therefore possibly unwelcome to those who cannot answer the question why Fourier transform requires complex numbers.

I will try and write it down again, maybe not so concisely:

Less educated people will not understand the meaning of Riemann conditions, holomorphy and unitarity, and even if they could do so, they did still not understand why only a one-sided function of x (0

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 18:56 GMT
I will try to get back to this later today. Wave mechanics is time reversed independent, which is the case for Maxwell's equation, Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and so forth. Yet for complex systems the exp(iωt) becomes replaced by an exp(-E/kT). This is a bit handwaving of course, but the unidirectional arrow of time is something which involves the second law of thermodynanamics dS/dt >= 0.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear all,

The reason might be, I used the symbol smaller than.

So I have to write it down again.

... they did still not understand why only a one-sided function of x between 0 and oo can always be expanded into real-valued cosine components.

In order to understand Fourier's approach recall that he dealt with an endless heat-conducting ring, not a ring in mathematical sense. Imagine this ring cut into a piece of length L on a line. In order to preserve the endlessness, imagine the data on the piece mirrored to both sides with endless repetition of the combination of the original piece and one of its mirror pictures, either the left or the right one. The period of this repetition is 2L.

It is recommendable choosing one of the two borders of the piece as the reference point x=0 of this period and benefit from the belonging even symmetry. Then all harmonic components are cosines.

With a different choice of the reference point, the period to be expanded includes attached parts of the mirror picture on both sides. In particular, with the reference x=0 located in the middle of the original piece, we may have only anti-symmetry and therefore only sine components.

While we may take advantage of the shift property of sinusoidal functions in complex plane, the most natural spectrum is nonetheless the real-valued cosine one. A complex spectrum reflects redundancy due to a different choice of the point of reference.

As soon as one understands this and the limitation of measurable physical quantities to positive real values, one can derive in what e.g. Schroedinger was wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I understand what you called handwaving. The invariance of the laws of nature against time reversal is of course not restricted to quantum mechanics.

I do not see any reason for a difference to the macro-world.

Also, my topic is not simply the so called arrow of time but the impossibility that future events act back.

In other words, causal chains of reality ramify backwards. The considered forward ramification is uncertain except for the closed systems of a sterile and ignorant theories. There is no Laplacian demon available, not even for particles.

By the way it is a matter of convention whether one prefers iwt as do physicists or -iwt as do electrical engineers.

The wrong interpretation of apparent symmetry in QM was caused by changing the point of view to the Hamiltonian. So called analytical signals are complex functions of positive and negative time corresponding to real and just positive frequencies.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 19:59 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

While I am neither really interested in magnetic monopoles nor competent in this field I would like to maintain my guess that electric monopoles are the basic ones. The described effect seems to relate to delicate measurement in solid structures. Isn't it a long way to have elementary magnetic monopoles if they are possible at all? I would rather suspect the article you quoted motivated and pushed in by a desire for sensation.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 23:03 GMT
I included that because a comment about monopoles. The papers are rather interesting, and if there are polytope structure to space or combinatorics of spins such as twistors, then this might point to the existence of Dirac monopole string in field theory. It is reasonable to think that at high energy there is a duality between electric and magnetic charges according to S-duality

eg = nh

h = Planck constant (without 2pi).

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 00:14 GMT
I never came across with S-duality, U-duality etc. My knowledge is restricted to the idea that elementary electric fields are imagined to surround an assumed point- charge (a monopole whose counterpart is located at infinity) but are free of vertexes while magnetic fields are assumed to be charge-free fields of vertexes surrounding a line. Because Dirac was also an EE, I wonder how he imagined magnetic monopoles at a time when strings were not yet invented. Perhaps he did not imagine them at all but he merely concluded from formal mathematical dualities that they could be possible.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 03:22 GMT
Dirac's monopole is basically a long solonoid, where if the solonoid, called the tail or string, is made long enough the opening you observe appears as a monopole. Dirac did a number of brillaint things, in particular taking the "square root" of the Klein-Gordon equation to get the spinor wave equation, called the Dirac equation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 09:12 GMT
Thank you for explanation. My problem was that I know duality between the mesh of H-field and and the node of E-field only in even-dimensional 2D structure.

You did not tell me if Dirac himself imagined a long solenoid.

Brilliant guesses are not always entirely correct while often fertile.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 22:16 GMT
Having looked into Wikipedia, I would like to call quasi-particles at best magnetic dipoles but not monopoles. I did not yet read Dirac 1931 but I guess he was inspired by the well known to every EE Rogowski coil. Incidentally, is solonoid just a different spellimg of solenoid? If I understood Wikipedia correctly then Dirac himself imagined the other end of the magnetic dipole located somewhere at infinity. Dirac's idea of a string-like field hose looks like inspired by the treatment of singular residuum in case of path integral in 2D.

To me already the infinite field strength in the center of an electric point charge looks suspect. The more I doubt that the fictitious 2D "singularity", which is thougt to link a magnetic monopole with infinity is realistic. I would like to suggest giving exotic ideas a fair but finite credit.

For example, aleph_2 has not found any useful application despite of acceptance and effort by an estimated one hundred of mathematicians over one hundred years.

After 10,000 man-years of likewise futile string-research one should consider the possibility that magnetic monopoles do nor exist, no matter that possibly wrong interpretation of mathematics invited to believe in their existence in reality. I vote for ultimate realism.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Personally, I am a huge fan of Dirac. He was an Emeritus Professor at my Alma Mater, Florida State University, and he and his family are buried within 50 meters of my grandparents. I visit his grave on occasion. And I would like to see even his craziest ideas, such as the Magnetic Monopole and the Large Numbers Hypothesis, realized.

I have been giving thought to the problem of negative frequencies and negative time. I could be wrong, but I think a reasonable analogy is:

Negative frequency = absence of a frequency, and

Negative time = wave traveling away from the ear (positive = towards).

This allows the possibility of some standing wave solutions with the addition of "positive" and "negative" times (a sum of towards and away from waves). This does not say that the Future affects the Present. That would be crazy!

I understand that you still have your own interpretation.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 04:06 GMT
Hello Eckard,

I attempted a quick read, and enjoyed what I understood. I'd have to read slower and dig deeper, to do it justice. I think it's pretty neat that the human ear can best our best Physics theories, or our understanding of nature. The product of evolution can outdo the product of our own thinking. Should this surprise us? I guess not.

Good Luck,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 14:08 GMT
The Dirac string is a bit different from a dipole. The dipole is one that exhibits a tension, such as it takes work to lengthen a dipole as the two charges, whether electric or the S-dual magnetic charges, have a field effect which generates the tension. With a Dirac string the tension goes to zero under the phase transition. This is what makes the system more monopolar (or monopole-like).

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Lawrence, dear Ray,

A main reason for me to hesitate swallowing infinite field strength as a fact in reality is that I learned using this model while simultaneously understanding that it is just a fiction. Outside a conductor H decreases with 1/r. However, there is no conductor with r=0.

It might be silly when I guess that the allegedly monotonous decreasing spherical field of an electron actually could correspond to sinc^2(r) or the like. In this case E would be finite for r=0, and the ripple could be too fine as to be significant. Doesn't such solution suggest itself? Was it already refuted?

Of course, sinc^2 is always positive. I do not see this a problem, because the elementary electric charge does not change its defined negative sign.

Admittedly, this is pure speculation of mine. Do not draw the wrong conclusion that the trivial but possibly serious revelation of mine is also just guesswork: "Apparent symmetry results from belief in an a priori existing future and from improper interpretation of mathematical results."

I will look what S-dual means.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 00:13 GMT
There is a phase transition involved here. It is similar to the phase transition in an Ising system.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Natural solutions can be understood best if one humbly forgets the usual approach of theory including the most basic and seemingly indisputable assumption. Ask instead for the initially very primitive basic possibilities that could be gradually improved by trial and error always guided by the need for survival. In other words, they have to be evolutionary plausible. In contrast to speculative attitudes as celebrated for instance by Wigner, mirror-symmetry in nature does not relate to subjective feelings like beauty but to objective functional benefits. Once a principle was "invented", it got a variety of applications.

I am still trying to persuade physicists that our senses cannot at all perform higher mathematics. For instance, the ear does not know the commonly agreed but arbitrarily chosen reference point t=0. It has no chance but to refer its analysis to the very now. Therefore it is not surprising that natural solutions may beat the best of physics in terms of performance, efficiency, simplicity, robustness, etc. The natural solution is free of belief-based conjectured invariance principles, arbitrarily chosen common agreement, complex numbers, resulting redundant ambivalence, and most importantly free of non-causality.

If we accept nature as a touchstone for theories that are claiming to describe nature then several exotic fruits of physics seem to be possibly unfounded. While I respect originality in science, I do not share the blind admiration for putative giants like G. Cantor, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, v. Neumann, and Dirac.

Laymen like me can acknowledge the important applications of spin but are ignorant of applications of naive set theory, string theory, anti-worlds, anti-matter, magnetic monopoles, quantum computing, Higgs bosons and the like. It does not matter for me that the original explanation of spin seems to be untenable. A theory may work even if it is not yet entirely correct. The most intriguing, flawless and highly awarded mere theory does not convince me.

I d to distrust sophisticated experimental confirmation. That's why I was trying to make Ren's direct evidence more public and respected.

Maybe I did so in vain. Mathematicians do not even respect Galilei's compelling argument. Belief seems to be stronger than reason.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 13:00 GMT
Dear Eckard

"I support your wise words; "A theory may work even if it is not yet entirely correct. The most intriguing, flawless and highly awarded mere theory does not convince me." and;

"Mathematicians do not even respect Galilei's compelling argument. Belief seems to be stronger than reason."

Much of current science is still based on legend and folklore. We talk proudly of the 'scientific method' but most then entirely ignore it at their convenience. Popper would scream at our ignorance of the dangers of just clinging to, rather than examinining, outdated paradigms.

Have you had a good look at Arjen Djikesmans carrier wave model. I believe it fits in with both my 'time genuine' equivalence solution (thanks for your support), and your travelling wave. There are also compatible standing 'dark matter' waves upstream of the earths bow shock which current science is still dumb enough to be shocked at!! The answers to all the problems we have in physics are before us and entirely demonstrable, but those who have them are under house arrest!

That's why I wonder if our limited mental capacity may even be bringing us to the end of our evolutionary road.

Keep plugging away. We may be our last hope!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
I am not at the forefront of set theory. I have had many discourses with a mathematician on these issues, and have read on Turing-Godel theorems. My interest is with respect to information theory. This particular mathematician, who died rather recently, argued pretty clearly that the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is the most comprehensive and consistent system which exists. It is from this that one gets the Cantor transfinite numbers. It also turns out there is a zystem of infinite cardinals larger than the transfinite numbers, called least inaccessible cardinals. Then it turns out these are "too small" and there are a couple of layers beyond this. I am no expert on these matters, but I mention them for some edification.

These matter have at best tangential importance to physics, where possibly Godel's theorem enters into problems with information theory, which in turn involves infinite cardinalities.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 21:27 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Does physics need ZFC, NGB, NF, or the like? In order to understand Hilbert's intention you might read Fraenkel 1923 where Fraenkel himself admitted that Cantor's definition of a set, which is by the way still in use, is untenable and cannot be corrected. In order realize that there are no genuine achievements, read Fraenkel's Foundations of Set Theory half a century later.

If something edifies you, it teaches you something useful or interesting. Is aleph_2 useful?

While I do not share Florin Moldoveanu's approach, I read with a grin:

"by Goedel's incompleteness theorem, mathematics is infinite and there is no universal axiomatization of mathematics." If I recall correctly, M. mentioned J. Rau (2007?) in the discussion. Such criticism was not the first one and will not be the last one. Poincaré called set theory a an illness. I guess: Mathematics as a whole is too narrow minded and too self confident as to find the way out. In other words: One has to abandon the belief that an Euclidean point can under all circumstances be exactly attributed to a numerical order.

Read my essay twice. Limitation to 10 pages caused me to select only a few arguments that should nonetheless be sufficient to show that Cantor's naive set theory , Dedekind's axiom of continuity, Zermelo's evidence of Wohlordnung based on the exhaustion of the inexhaustible, etc. were nothing but a failed attempt to deny that countable and uncountable complement each other.

I agree with you that transfinite numbers, least inaccessible cardinals and the like are at least unlikely to contribute anything to realism in physics.

Conversely, I tried to cautiously indicate that, for instance, v. Neumann's problems with Hilbert space relate to Cantor's arbitrary redefinition of the notion infinity. I am arguing: Mathematics has to offer what naturally fits to reality, including sound physics, not vice versa. In that cheeky attitude I feel inspired by Oliver Heaviside, Zenon, and Buridan.

Somehow forbid all paradoxes? I consider paradoxes the raw material of science. Let's rather forbid arbitrariness including set theory. Hopefully, this will purify physics too.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Peter,

I referred to Pauli's objection. An electron would have to have a velocity in excess of the velocity of light.

If the charge of an electron would be distributed in a way that its electrical field did correspond to sinc^2(r), then one could speculate again on rotation.

Such continuous electron would extent itself endlessly into space. Would it be possible that its far remote tail did move with superluminal tangential velocity?

I recall that someone did not deny something similar. He argued that this would not transfer anything.

In all, I admire the teachers of physics who have to learn forever and answer tricky questions of their pupils. Peter Dallos is a very renowned expert in physiology of hearing. He admitted, he examined his students every year with the same few questions. No problem, he confessed, the correct answers are always different.

What about Arden Dijksman, I did not deal with her model since guiding waves are not new ideas.

What about traveling waves, I fear you did not read my essay carefully enough. There are of course genuine traveling waves that can be observed and that exhibit reflection. However, the phenomenon along the basilar membrane looks merely similar. The elder model by v. Helmholtz comes closer.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 10:02 GMT
Eckard

I gave the wrong impression, and do understand you are NOT supporting the conventional standing wave.

I'm considering EM rather than sound waves, and agree both are misunderstood, which is at the root of our misunderstanding.

Leateral waves are purely mathematical constructs, and that's how we've fooled ourselves. EM waves are variations of a real property propagated through the dark energy field. I suspect sound and EM waves have more in common than we've thought - as the concept of molecules bashing against each other needs replacing with some kind of particle oscillation transfer model in exactly the same way as EM waves - which must use non conserved particles.

In sound that's more clearly pressure/density related. I suspect the same may prove true of EM waves but it would be in the new and different 'dark' medium we're now investigating (but reputedly forming 75% of the mass/energy of the universe!).

DFM shows how this is acheived with a background field yet maintaining equivalence. Once we stop imagining it can be physically acheived by applying chalk to a blackboard we can progress again.

The Arjen (a guy, pronounced 'Arnie') Djikesman wave is a step towards reality from QM, a neat example, but it seems he's too proud of it to have moved on, or stepped back, to see the greater picture, where maths and SR need slightly greater repositioning to reflect reality. His most important point is in reminding everyone of scale variations, superposed waves of all scales, making a mockery of our simplistic conclusions from the double slit experiment.

Before we leave waves, of course oscillating particles in motion will describe lateral waves over time. That makes them history!

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 16:55 GMT
Dear Peter,

I never argued against standing waves. I am merely pointing to compelling evidence against the traveling wave model of cochlea, which was selected (not invented) by the Hungarian v. Békésy and mathematically modeled by the British mathematician of Alsacian origin Lighthill (originally Lichtenberg) in cooperation with Zwislocki and Ruggero. The legacy of these four is still so overwhelming that most experts prefer not to notice Ren's work. This reminds me of Adolf Fraenkel's attitude towards what he called an attack on Cantor's set theory by Brouwer. "If it did succeed it would cause a huge heap of rubble." The proponents of Cantor's untenable set theory are still dominating among mathematicians. After several mathematicians including Goedel and Cohen argued that such theory can neither be proven nor the opposite, it is nonetheless believed like a gospel. Mathematics seems neither to benefit from its putative basics nor to suffer much from it. However, I collected cases where I blame the currently mandatory mathematics for trouble in physics.

Let me in brief return to your ideas. Admittedly I do not understand you. You mentioned lateral waves. Perhaps they are identical with what I used to call transversal in contrast to longitudinal waves. I investigated standing as well as propagating acoustic waves within a cylindric tube as a model of the more difficult to measure electromagnetic waves within a HF wave guide (TEM waves). Sound waves in air propagate roughly a million times more slowly. The equations are simpler for sound waves but similar to those for em waves.

How do we fool ourselves? While I am humbly pointing to the possibility of avoiding the detour via complex calculus in case of analysis for a single measured sound signal, I do not deny the possibility to also arrive at the correct solution with complex calculus plus correct return to reality.

Hear my cry: Physicists like Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and Dirac obviously failed to correctly perform the latter. Should we wonder about apparent symmetries up to the difficulty to find evidence for SUSY? Admittedly, I am not an expert in modern physics. Someone else should scrutinize my objection.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 15:36 GMT
Eckard

Thanks. You should really see George Shoenfelders last post under my essay, (I also gather you owe him a reply on his).

I'm not an "expert on modern physics" either Eckard, and I've learned to mistrust any who claim they are! But, partly for the reasons George points out, I don't rate your chances of anyone scrutinising you objection. "The proof is in the pudding" as the saying goes. But, for once, I do have a lovely pudding for you, which proves proves your objection right.

Unfortunately I had to break a couple of eggs to make it, which will alienate the foolish, ...who won't taste the pudding. Fraenkels attitude lives on.

I'm not an expert in your own field so can't comment further, but; Yes, read 'transverse' for 'lateral' waves.

Waves such as those on the ocean, which I do know well, can only exist at the interface of varying media, or as historical representations of 2 dimensional phenomina in translatory motion, but only otherwise as mathematical constructs. We must consider waves as the regular variation of a property within a 3 dimensional medium. Read my reply to George, and let me know if you think I'm a crackpot!

I you think I'm sane ..I think we may need to work together to overcome the froces of evil!

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear George,

You quoted me:

"Sinusoidal and exponential functions are not subject to the restricted reduction to a basic singularity. Therefore they alone are unfit to describe real processes." and; "Differential equations are not the primary relations in physics but they arose by stripping off the link to reality and hence they opened the door for ambiguity."

and commented:

Absolutely brilliant.

This reasoning of mine was persistently ignored so far. I got the impression that at least many experts agree on that "the map is not the territory", and I would like to add why I consider models never identical with reality:

It is common practice to use initial conditions for calculation of what is future with respect to the chosen starting point. This works in theory. It necessarily fails in practice because there are obviously no closed systems there. In other words: Even if we have correct laws we neither have for sure all possible influences nor would we be able to consider all of them.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 20:34 GMT
I decided to check in on these sites. When it comes to ZF set theory and physics, at this time it is not a major part of theory. The problem is that it does not say much about dynamics. At best ZF is behind the scenes in proofs of results that might be used in physical theories.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 16:10 GMT
To those physicists who simply trust in set theory:

Cantor's set theory is called naive and kas been replaced by ZF, standing for Zermelo and Fraenkel, ZFC including the axiom of choice which was added as to justify the assumed well-ordering of the reals, PM standing for principia mathematicae, NBG: Neumann, Bernays, Goedel, NF: new Foundations, or the like.

They all have in common the denial of the genuine (Peirce) continuum of "all" infinitely much of genuine (Euclidean) points. They all are unable to accept a symmetrical distinction between larger or smaller without a neutral point of equality in between.

The reason for me to deal with this peculiarity of a mathematics that restricts itself to discrete numbers was the question how to deal with zero between positive and negative real numbers. I came to the conclusion that there is nothing between past and future, and I learned here from Vesselin Petkov that already St. Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) understood this. When I asked mathematician how to deal with the zero between IR+ and IR- I got all imaginable arbitrarily chosen answers. My own reasoning led me to a natural but uncommon answer with several implications.

Does physics need such correctness? The mathematicians who followed Dedekind and G. Cantor were correct in so far as the distinction between rational numbers and genuinely real (i.e. irreal) numbers does not matter in practice. Digital computers are anyway exclusively based on rational numbers.

My demand for correctness in excess of all mathematical proofs might nonetheless be important for foundational questions in physics since some very basic mathematical tenets are based on mere arbitrariness. Isn't it arrogant to deny the necessity to restrict measurable values of time or distance to positive values just because positive and negative numbers together are considered more general?

I maintain my reproach: The majority of physicists including most prominent figures did not really always know why they introduced complex quantities and which obligation they ignored. Maybe, the LHC will prove me wrong soon.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 13:43 GMT
Eckard

I have a delectable peice of evidence for you, of where and how maths has departed logic in a really key area for physics. - see my posts.

Peter

PS. I don't believe the LHC will prove you wrong.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Peter,

Does (1/gamma)^2 = 1 - (v/c)^2 depart your logic or your maths?

The only valid argument against Minkowski I am aware of is the following:

There are world-points which did send light to O.

However there are not yet world-points which receive light from O.

The German original text says: "Weltpunkte die Licht von O empfangen".

Given I prepare an experiment that intends sending light to a selected target, then it depends on possibly unseen influences whether or not the light will actually hit the target.

It were mathematicians like Dedekind and G. Cantor who made mathematics deviating from compelling arguments. For instance, Dedekind was quite aware that he could not provide the necessary evidence, and he hesitated for 14 years to publish his semi-correct booklet Stetigkeit and Irrationale Zahlen. Cantor got insane because he could not provide his already announced evidence for the well-ordering of the reals.

Several well known very ambitious scientist who contributed to modern theories got victims perhaps at least in part of their own behavior: Boltzmann, Cantor, Ritz, Minkowski, Goedel, Hausdorff, Turing, Grothendieck. While Einstein got divorced and had an insane son, he himself remained healthy perhaps because many of his results were and are still sound.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 15:47 GMT
Just an addition to my essay:

In "Mechanism of Cochlear Excitation at Low Intensities",

short title "Fluid pressure cochlear activation"

http://physiology.huji.ac.il/pdf/sohmer/05-Coch%2
0I-II-.pdf

the authors Sichel, Perez, Freeman, and Sohmer described new experiments and quoted Martin Braun and Andrew Bell who provided a lot of evidence against v. Békésy's genuine traveling wave that was imagined and mathematically modeled by Lighthill to convey energy along basal membrane from its base to its apex.

In the end realism will always win.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT

When I dealt with a recent article, I came to the insight that Dedekind's main mistake was the interpretation of the rational numbers with the points of a straight line already in §2 of Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen. Actually the physically relevant primary measure is not a point but the distance of size one from point zero to the point one. This distance is thought to be absolutely exact. It can be added in endless repetition and also be endlessly divided into equidistant parts. So it fits to the only compelling and unique definition of continuity by Peirce: Every part of it has parts.

The mathematicians are humbly asked for arguments against this correction. Physicists will hopefully understand how physics may benefit. Dirac impulses are to be understood as integral not over an area symmetrically to a point of concern but one-sided. I consider many complicated turns of mathematics related to the implicit inclusion of surrounding distance of a point. Sets of naked points are never dense, and the property to be infinite is a quality, not a quantity. Galilei is not outdated.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 16, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
Eckard

No. Logic and maths are not departed by relativisation.

I've found the link I've been looking for to show you writing off Nimtz et al's work is an error. Amongst much other eminant proof solid work was done by Chiao etc. at Berkeley; http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.708

Those who decry it misundertand what 'apparent' superluminal motion means and does not mean, and are therefore frightened in a quasi religious way. That makes for very poor science and stunts progress. You should study and consider it carefully it as it leads to key evidence for you as well as additional proof for the DFM. Also look at his work on Bells theorum and the Realism/Locality analysis allowing and explaining observation of superluminal phenomina. As you say, Reality will always win, but, crucially, Locality does NOT have to be abandoned or subjugated, hence unification is possible. (If it isn't we're probably not here anyway!!).

As with superluminal gas jets they are not superluminal in their own frame and causality is not breached. Once you agree to consider 'what if' if that IS possible, you'll be able to see the path to the rest of reality.

Hope you can find it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Peter,

Steinberg et al. is an old hut from 2003. Phase velocity and velocity of the peaks is irrelevant. The decisive velocity of wavefront does not exceed c. Transmission of signals with a speed in excess of c is impossible. Nimtz merely contributed his own confusion.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
Hi Eckard, Happy Xmas.

There are couple of notes to you you'll be interested in in my posts.

"Transmission of signals with a speed in excess of c is impossible"

Indeed - but what you're missing is that you must always also consider and define; '..with respect to what?'

The answer is; The medium (background/field) they're moving through.

Fizeau first proved light moves wrt the medium it's in, Lorentz invented the inifinity transform to stop anyone observing it doing more than 'c'. Now consider the latest fibre optic ring interferometers. Light moves round it at 'c' (adjusted for glass) with respect to the glass, whether it's spinning or not. From our 3rd 'observer' frame the frequency is stretched or contracted, as the Sagnac effect (longer or shorter distance to the moving 'finish'). The only way to avoid us observing it at CplusV uses length contraction (never yet evidenced). So we spin it and check it's doing max rpm, switch the pulse on, and what do we see? The ring suddenly shrinking? The light path shrinking? the ring or light path slowing down? No!

It'd be the same for a fibre optic cable on the side of Concord as we watch it fly past. The pulse would travel at 'c' wrt the cable, which would not suddenly shrink and detach itself from the plane when switched on! (and the plane wouldn't suddenly shink [or shink more] either) and we would see CplusV from our rest, 3rd, frame. A quantum field 3rd frame DOES exist, but can only observe from a distance. If we measure the EM signals reaching us they would all be doing 'c' as we're measuring them in our own frame. Dilation is fine, contraction is not needed.

It's very simple and resolves many paradoxes and anomolies, including your own issues, (substituting reality for unreal math), if you could just forget paganism and let your brain work!!

If you think physics is sorted already read some Lee Smolin or Roger Penrose.

Here's to an enlightened 2010!

Peter Jackson

PS. The new paper on solving Astronomical anomalies is now on viXra. Now working on one analysing the excellent GPS evidence for Discrete Feilds.

report post as inappropriate

Jamie wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 00:08 GMT
Hi Eckard

Big news just released but not really yet noticed; see my post on Peter Jacksons Perfect Symmetry paper.

Best wishes Jaime

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
Eckard

Happy new year.

I was trying to decipher a Steve D 'spheres' message and reminded myself how much I support your pretexts. I also noticed your; "Something can only have a border if there is something else behind that border."

That's pretty central to Einsteins conviction that space is;

"an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other." (1952)

What if they're not just unreal mathematical constructs, but real physical zones of space. It's the borders between those spaces that are important.

Those borders are the planetary/heliospheric shocks and galactic halo's, where clounds of oscillating particles propagate, exactly as they do around all accelerated mass (the protons etc in the LHC).

Th oscillating particles do the same as our FM radio's, modulate the frequency of EM waves, so if a small region of 'space' is travelling through a larger one the EM waves are Doppler shifted to maintain 'c'.

I can't believe so few can 'c' it!!!!

And I'm disappointed you don't seem to be able to see it considering you're views are half way there already!

It joins reality with locality, which acheives unification. It could only be seen as an astonishing acheivement to predict the unexpected results of the NASA Gezari papers. But no-one seems to have noticed. Hey Ho!!

Anyway, in case you have ten minutes my new paper's just published, I'd really appreciate your views; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 Relativistic GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.

Best wishes

Peter

PS. Interestingly Steve's 'multiple spheres' would only need modifying a little to become discrete fields!

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 20:30 GMT
One more evidence by the team of Ren:

Wenxuan He, Andreas Fridberger, Edward Porsov, Tanying Ren:

Fast Reverse Propagation of Sound in the Living Cochlea.

Biophysical Journal Vol. 98 June 2010, 2497-2505

report post as inappropriate