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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Hayrani OZ**: *on* 10/28/12 at 6:47am UTC, wrote Gentlemen: I came across this dialogue 21 months after it has taken place!...

**Custom Essay Writing Service**: *on* 5/14/12 at 22:03pm UTC, wrote Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic ...

**Yuri Danoyan**: *on* 4/24/12 at 2:15am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard This article of Hooft mybe interesting for you ...

**John S. Minkowski**: *on* 11/24/11 at 6:40am UTC, wrote As one can see, the last three posts were hacked. Hopefully, no hackers...

**Edwin Klingman**: *on* 5/14/11 at 1:43am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein, You were kind enough to point out on another...

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 5/1/11 at 7:54am UTC, wrote Dear Yuri, Well, a written book fits to the block universe while nature...

**Author Yuri Danoyan+**: *on* 5/1/11 at 4:07am UTC, wrote That figures. I don't believe in God. G. 't H ...

**Author Yuri Danoyan+**: *on* 4/30/11 at 18:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard I will try to show concrete difference between the 2...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Joe Fisher**: "Not one visible person has ever had any invisible finite “free-will.”..."
*in* The Quantum Agent

**Eckard Blumschein**: "There are at least the following arguments against generalizing Fourier..."
*in* The Quantum Agent

**Malcolm Riddoch**: "@Steve Agnew: “physical reality is made up of changes in matter action”..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Joe Fisher**: "The most compelling evidence that the ability of white men of only being..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Jack James**: ""That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the..."
*in* Could Consciousness Forge...

**David Sloan**: "Quick note: I have removed a post from this topic which is in discussion of..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Lorraine Ford**: "I’m waiting for you to say the words."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**John Cox**: "Words immediately spring to mind."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Agent**

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

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

**Thermo-Demonics**

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

**Gravity's Residue**

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

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

FQXi FORUM

February 18, 2020

CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]

TOPIC: Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]

TOPIC: Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]

While there is no evident reason for believing that the world was anyhow made of discrete parts but overwhelming evidence for a rather continuous evolution, signal processing is superior if based on discrete values. This seeming contradiction gave rise to an investigation on how analog and digital approaches relate to each other and to reality. Three interrelated mathematical pillars of physics were found to suffer from unjustified generalization: Points instead of endpoints, once and twice redundant equivalences. A realistic interpretation of abstraction-made ambiguity sheds new light on quantization and apparent symmetries.

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

Dear Eckard,

That was a really enjoyable essay, clearly combining your vocation and your avocation.

"Complex calculus is so excitingly superior...". Yes, isn't it. In "The Road to Reality" Penrose speaks thirteen times (I counted) about "complex number magic". I believe that I mentioned to you in the past, but if not, I'd like to recommend now Paul Nahin's "An Imaginary Tale, The Story of SQRT(-1)". I think you'll love it.

You mention Heisenberg's imaginary difference and Minkowski's ict. I would be interested in your opinions or insights into this aspect of reality.

Thanks for a refreshing essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

That was a really enjoyable essay, clearly combining your vocation and your avocation.

"Complex calculus is so excitingly superior...". Yes, isn't it. In "The Road to Reality" Penrose speaks thirteen times (I counted) about "complex number magic". I believe that I mentioned to you in the past, but if not, I'd like to recommend now Paul Nahin's "An Imaginary Tale, The Story of SQRT(-1)". I think you'll love it.

You mention Heisenberg's imaginary difference and Minkowski's ict. I would be interested in your opinions or insights into this aspect of reality.

Thanks for a refreshing essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

I feel pleased by your kind interest, and I appreciate your hints. No, I did not yet read Penrose and Nahin. What about magics, I decided to quote [13] Peat's essay as to elucidate Pauli's mysticism and its influence on quantum theory.

Having learned a solid step by step approach to complex calculus at TU Dresden from 1960 to '66 and subsequently taught fundamentals of EE for more than forty years at Otto v. Guericke University Magdeburg, I cannot confirm any mystery of i.

Already Bombelli understood that a+ib is always appears together with its complex conjugate a-ib. There is a very simple but compelling argument against the belief that i may be interpreted in terms of reality: The chosen negative sign of the argument in exp(- i omega t) is not just arbitrary agreed on, but it even depends on which scientific discipline has been chosen. I was told: More than a hundred years ago, the EEs decided to prefer anticlockwise rotation by multiplication with i in order to get as little negative signs in complex power of propagating signals as possible.

I collected a lot of seemingly mysterious oddities and asked myself for reasonable explanations. I am a bit ashamed because I not immediately understood that the oddities with use of complex calculus go back to something that proved at least also superior as compared to ancient mathematics as now is complex calculus. I am speaking of what deserves the name first mathematical revolution: introduction of differential calculus.

You asked for opinions and insights concerning ih and ict. Well, you got aware of as I am claiming most important consequences affecting 20th century theories in physics. Thank you for addressing this. If you are ready to read my essay carefully and open for accepting your own conclusions, you will hopefully not shy back from what seems to be unbelievable. I am waiting for those who will try to rebut may basic argument: No matter how useful negative as well as imaginary numbers are, reality can be expressed without them. A lot of apparent symmetries can be attributed to inappropriate interpretation of per se correct mathematics.

In my abstract I mentioned three affected interrelated mathematical pillars of physics. Did you understand from my essay how they are interrelated?

Regards,

Eckard

I feel pleased by your kind interest, and I appreciate your hints. No, I did not yet read Penrose and Nahin. What about magics, I decided to quote [13] Peat's essay as to elucidate Pauli's mysticism and its influence on quantum theory.

Having learned a solid step by step approach to complex calculus at TU Dresden from 1960 to '66 and subsequently taught fundamentals of EE for more than forty years at Otto v. Guericke University Magdeburg, I cannot confirm any mystery of i.

Already Bombelli understood that a+ib is always appears together with its complex conjugate a-ib. There is a very simple but compelling argument against the belief that i may be interpreted in terms of reality: The chosen negative sign of the argument in exp(- i omega t) is not just arbitrary agreed on, but it even depends on which scientific discipline has been chosen. I was told: More than a hundred years ago, the EEs decided to prefer anticlockwise rotation by multiplication with i in order to get as little negative signs in complex power of propagating signals as possible.

I collected a lot of seemingly mysterious oddities and asked myself for reasonable explanations. I am a bit ashamed because I not immediately understood that the oddities with use of complex calculus go back to something that proved at least also superior as compared to ancient mathematics as now is complex calculus. I am speaking of what deserves the name first mathematical revolution: introduction of differential calculus.

You asked for opinions and insights concerning ih and ict. Well, you got aware of as I am claiming most important consequences affecting 20th century theories in physics. Thank you for addressing this. If you are ready to read my essay carefully and open for accepting your own conclusions, you will hopefully not shy back from what seems to be unbelievable. I am waiting for those who will try to rebut may basic argument: No matter how useful negative as well as imaginary numbers are, reality can be expressed without them. A lot of apparent symmetries can be attributed to inappropriate interpretation of per se correct mathematics.

In my abstract I mentioned three affected interrelated mathematical pillars of physics. Did you understand from my essay how they are interrelated?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

While I am completely with you on the attempt to remove mysticism from physics [we seem to be losing this battle, by the way] I also agree with Penrose that complex calculus is almost magical in it's beauty.

But do not read Penrose first (if at all). Paul Nahin is an Electrical Engineer and I really think you would love his book.

I have no real argument with your contention that "No matter how useful negative as well as imaginary numbers are, reality can be expressed without them." In the bottom figure on page 2 of my essay, the 'arrow' goes through the 'surface'. If I introduce the complex 'i' as a means of keeping these two directions orthogonal, I can derive Schrodinger's equation almost immediately. I'm trying to write this up in a convincing manner.

As for the last question, I will re-read your essay and come back to you. I've read many essays in the past few days, and the details get fuzzy fast.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

While I am completely with you on the attempt to remove mysticism from physics [we seem to be losing this battle, by the way] I also agree with Penrose that complex calculus is almost magical in it's beauty.

But do not read Penrose first (if at all). Paul Nahin is an Electrical Engineer and I really think you would love his book.

I have no real argument with your contention that "No matter how useful negative as well as imaginary numbers are, reality can be expressed without them." In the bottom figure on page 2 of my essay, the 'arrow' goes through the 'surface'. If I introduce the complex 'i' as a means of keeping these two directions orthogonal, I can derive Schrodinger's equation almost immediately. I'm trying to write this up in a convincing manner.

As for the last question, I will re-read your essay and come back to you. I've read many essays in the past few days, and the details get fuzzy fast.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Perhaps you are correct in that we personally may loose the battle. However the battle will certainly go on after my dead.

I have already a lot of ammunition, and I do not expect finding any tangible counterargument in the book by Nahin. Nonetheless I will try to get it as soon as someone has given it back to our library.

You are definitely not the only one who has no logical argument with my contention.

What about Schroedinger, his papers in 1926 were the first ones I looked into as to find out where he might be wrong. In the fourth one, I found the most crucial guess as an almost inevitable logical consequence of the usual superficial use of complex calculus. This explains why the team Born, Kramers, Heisenberg, Jordan, and Pauli independently arrived at the same mistake as Schroedinger and Weyl and also Dirac and others.

They altogether rejected the possibility of negative wavelength, frequency and energy while it was quite natural to them that time can be positive as well as negative. In brief, they were unable to really understand that Heaviside's approach is based on tacit preconditions, which were no longer valid.

Regards,

Eckard

Perhaps you are correct in that we personally may loose the battle. However the battle will certainly go on after my dead.

I have already a lot of ammunition, and I do not expect finding any tangible counterargument in the book by Nahin. Nonetheless I will try to get it as soon as someone has given it back to our library.

You are definitely not the only one who has no logical argument with my contention.

What about Schroedinger, his papers in 1926 were the first ones I looked into as to find out where he might be wrong. In the fourth one, I found the most crucial guess as an almost inevitable logical consequence of the usual superficial use of complex calculus. This explains why the team Born, Kramers, Heisenberg, Jordan, and Pauli independently arrived at the same mistake as Schroedinger and Weyl and also Dirac and others.

They altogether rejected the possibility of negative wavelength, frequency and energy while it was quite natural to them that time can be positive as well as negative. In brief, they were unable to really understand that Heaviside's approach is based on tacit preconditions, which were no longer valid.

Regards,

Eckard

As a non-physicist physician, having read a multitude of your posts on this website, I am embarrassed to admit that I cannot tell whether you think that we need the physics to prove the math, the math to prove the physics, or neither of the above.

To me, as a lay person, the ideas of zero, i, and the infinities are mathematical, whereas the issue of divisibility is physical. The problems seem to arise when we use physical constructs for the former (singularities and the like) and mathematical precision for the latter (space, time, etc.)

Thank you for a very interesting essay.

John S. Minkowski, M.D.

report post as inappropriate

To me, as a lay person, the ideas of zero, i, and the infinities are mathematical, whereas the issue of divisibility is physical. The problems seem to arise when we use physical constructs for the former (singularities and the like) and mathematical precision for the latter (space, time, etc.)

Thank you for a very interesting essay.

John S. Minkowski, M.D.

report post as inappropriate

Dear medical Doctor,

Thank you for your mature comment. I fear, your essay is a bit too parsimonious as to really hurt anybody. You wrote: "This representation is where the money is, and so therefore, it must be the truth." Maybe, Jan M. (1916-1991) relates to the Hermann M., and you relate to the former. Otherwise, I would suspect behind your sarcastic utterance an almost antisemitic attitude.

Perhaps you know that Christian Betsch won 1,000,000.00 Mark which was a fortune in 1925, i.e. after inflation in Germany. Why? His price-winning book "Fiktionen in der Mathematik" dealt with Hans Faihinger's theory of the as if, and the point is, he pleased even Fraenkel by letting the question whether Cantor's set theory is correct or wrong undecided. So he did not hurt anybody.

I agree with you: Notions like zero and i are mathematical while in reality we are doomed to find only finite pattern. I would however like to add that continuity of reality is also an untestable abstraction. And I tried to show with my Fig. 1 that both limitations are mathematically equivalent to each other via cosine transformation.

I realized you writing "infinities" instead of infinity. Here we might disagree. I know that you are following the mainstream belief, and therefore I cannot expect you to easily swallow my arguments unless you are willing to read again and judge yourself without any prejudice what I wrote. In the latter case, I am willing to provide further support. Concerning this question my critics hurts every average mathematician. Sorry for that.

Doesn't my Appendix 1 exemplary show that a more precisely reinstalled Euclidean notion of number avoids problems inside mathematics?

Regards,

Eckard

Thank you for your mature comment. I fear, your essay is a bit too parsimonious as to really hurt anybody. You wrote: "This representation is where the money is, and so therefore, it must be the truth." Maybe, Jan M. (1916-1991) relates to the Hermann M., and you relate to the former. Otherwise, I would suspect behind your sarcastic utterance an almost antisemitic attitude.

Perhaps you know that Christian Betsch won 1,000,000.00 Mark which was a fortune in 1925, i.e. after inflation in Germany. Why? His price-winning book "Fiktionen in der Mathematik" dealt with Hans Faihinger's theory of the as if, and the point is, he pleased even Fraenkel by letting the question whether Cantor's set theory is correct or wrong undecided. So he did not hurt anybody.

I agree with you: Notions like zero and i are mathematical while in reality we are doomed to find only finite pattern. I would however like to add that continuity of reality is also an untestable abstraction. And I tried to show with my Fig. 1 that both limitations are mathematically equivalent to each other via cosine transformation.

I realized you writing "infinities" instead of infinity. Here we might disagree. I know that you are following the mainstream belief, and therefore I cannot expect you to easily swallow my arguments unless you are willing to read again and judge yourself without any prejudice what I wrote. In the latter case, I am willing to provide further support. Concerning this question my critics hurts every average mathematician. Sorry for that.

Doesn't my Appendix 1 exemplary show that a more precisely reinstalled Euclidean notion of number avoids problems inside mathematics?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Sir,

Your essay is very interesting. However, regarding 0 and i, we have the following observation, because there is lot of confusion in this area. Here we present the mathematical view of physics.

Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there is no similar substance, then its number is one. If there are similar substances, then the number sequence begins depending upon the number of perception as one plus one plus one etc. Zero implies absence of the object of description at "here-now", even though it exists elsewhere. Thus, it is not a number in the normal sense. For this reason, no linear accumulation or reduction (addition or subtraction) is possible involving zero. Multiplication and division are non-linear accumulation and reduction. Since zero is not a number in the formal sense, non-linear reduction is not possible, because it is non-existent at here-now. Multiplication with zero takes the object to the realm of non-existence, thus reducing it to zero.

Regarding i, the concept itself does not stand mathematical scrutiny, as it fails the test of logical consistency, which is the benchmark for judging the validity of a physical statement. Not only it is not a number (because it is un-physical), but also the squaring of complex conjugates is un-mathematical. This is the reason why complex numbers are not considered in programming. In any multiplication, we multiply not only the numbers, but also the signs. This is because the signs represent "ownership". If A has 10 apples, he owns it. If he has -10 apples, he owes ten apples to someone else. This simple, but fundamental mathematical principle is overlooked in squaring the conjugates. Thus, the whole mathematics of the "wave-function" is un-mathematical.

We have discussed on this and related subjects elsewhere. Kindly read our essay for further details.

With kind regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is very interesting. However, regarding 0 and i, we have the following observation, because there is lot of confusion in this area. Here we present the mathematical view of physics.

Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there is no similar substance, then its number is one. If there are similar substances, then the number sequence begins depending upon the number of perception as one plus one plus one etc. Zero implies absence of the object of description at "here-now", even though it exists elsewhere. Thus, it is not a number in the normal sense. For this reason, no linear accumulation or reduction (addition or subtraction) is possible involving zero. Multiplication and division are non-linear accumulation and reduction. Since zero is not a number in the formal sense, non-linear reduction is not possible, because it is non-existent at here-now. Multiplication with zero takes the object to the realm of non-existence, thus reducing it to zero.

Regarding i, the concept itself does not stand mathematical scrutiny, as it fails the test of logical consistency, which is the benchmark for judging the validity of a physical statement. Not only it is not a number (because it is un-physical), but also the squaring of complex conjugates is un-mathematical. This is the reason why complex numbers are not considered in programming. In any multiplication, we multiply not only the numbers, but also the signs. This is because the signs represent "ownership". If A has 10 apples, he owns it. If he has -10 apples, he owes ten apples to someone else. This simple, but fundamental mathematical principle is overlooked in squaring the conjugates. Thus, the whole mathematics of the "wave-function" is un-mathematical.

We have discussed on this and related subjects elsewhere. Kindly read our essay for further details.

With kind regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

Edwin Klingman's comment on your essay made me curious. I asked you to comment on mine. While I would appreciate you even more taking directly issue concerning my definitely hurting conclusions, you addressed a perhaps important issue.

Unfortunately I have to admit a lot of disagreement, for instance if you declares zero unphysical and THEREFORE no number. Aren't numbers in general unphysical?

Ancient mathematicians considered the two the first number. In medieval Europa the line of positive and negative numbers including zero was introduced. I see this paving the way for superior calculus while simultaneously creating a risk of misinterpretation.

Does the concept of i really not stand mathematical scrutiny?

Are multiplication and division really non-linear operations?

Regards,

Eckard

Edwin Klingman's comment on your essay made me curious. I asked you to comment on mine. While I would appreciate you even more taking directly issue concerning my definitely hurting conclusions, you addressed a perhaps important issue.

Unfortunately I have to admit a lot of disagreement, for instance if you declares zero unphysical and THEREFORE no number. Aren't numbers in general unphysical?

Ancient mathematicians considered the two the first number. In medieval Europa the line of positive and negative numbers including zero was introduced. I see this paving the way for superior calculus while simultaneously creating a risk of misinterpretation.

Does the concept of i really not stand mathematical scrutiny?

Are multiplication and division really non-linear operations?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

Jan M. Minkowski was my father, and Hermann Minkowski's grandfather is a common ancestor.

Regarding "This representation is where the money is...": When first read it sounds sarcastic (as you correctly identified), but actually it can also be read as a tautology in that the vast majority of the money of the world is represented digitally, as I alluded to earlier in the essay.

Thanks for the reply and please no offense intended.

John M.

report post as inappropriate

Jan M. Minkowski was my father, and Hermann Minkowski's grandfather is a common ancestor.

Regarding "This representation is where the money is...": When first read it sounds sarcastic (as you correctly identified), but actually it can also be read as a tautology in that the vast majority of the money of the world is represented digitally, as I alluded to earlier in the essay.

Thanks for the reply and please no offense intended.

John M.

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

Isn't money in general based on counting and therefore discrete? Nonetheless, I learned the expressing "how much does it cost", not how many.

The reason for some physicists to look for smallest particles seems to be nonetheless promising after Guericke's likewise expensive search for empty space has led to the first industrial revolution and also to electricity.

Regards,

Eckard

Isn't money in general based on counting and therefore discrete? Nonetheless, I learned the expressing "how much does it cost", not how many.

The reason for some physicists to look for smallest particles seems to be nonetheless promising after Guericke's likewise expensive search for empty space has led to the first industrial revolution and also to electricity.

Regards,

Eckard

Thanks Eckard,

You have added a third way of parsing the digital/money pair as regards to the actual counting. And I could offer a fourth in that digital reality costs money, although much less than before.

I agree that physical pursuits of the mathematical ideas of 0 and infinity have been (despite Aristotle) most important in building our modern world and its history, but I fear the unintended side-effects for my children.

Regards, John M.

report post as inappropriate

You have added a third way of parsing the digital/money pair as regards to the actual counting. And I could offer a fourth in that digital reality costs money, although much less than before.

I agree that physical pursuits of the mathematical ideas of 0 and infinity have been (despite Aristotle) most important in building our modern world and its history, but I fear the unintended side-effects for my children.

Regards, John M.

report post as inappropriate

Dear John M.,

You wrote "digital reality costs money, although much less than before." Perhaps you meant digital virtual reality and compared it with perceptually equivalent not yet digitalized alternatives.

I rather felt reminded of the cost for equipment like LHC that is designed as to search for a suspected digital structure of time and space. I see these efforts similar to the intention of medieval alchemists to make gold. Tschirnhaus and Boettger made white gold: china. Isn't the www a spin-off of Swiss physicists?

"Despite Aristotle"? Isn't his view "infinitum actu not datur" still correct? By the way, there were already ancient symbols for zero. Most likely ancient and medieval mathematicians hesitated using it because they understood the two the first number after what we are calling the neutral element of multiplication: the one. Not by chance, Leibniz invented the dual numbers and also the infinitesimals. I see an overlooked problem not in infinity and not even in zero but in a strictly ideal understanding of the basic measure one.

You complained: "I fear the unintended side-effects for my children." If I guess correctly, you do not like your children excessively consuming digital pleasures like gameboys, headphones, TV, internet, etc. Well, as I wrote: "Signal processing is superior if based on digital values." I even partially ascribe the present turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere to the desire for participating in such tempting pleasures. However such questions are off-topic. At least my essay deals with deeper issues.

Since I am retired, I do not fear side-effects that put my employment at risk when I frankly utter what is definitely highly unwelcome to many experts.

Regards, Eckard

You wrote "digital reality costs money, although much less than before." Perhaps you meant digital virtual reality and compared it with perceptually equivalent not yet digitalized alternatives.

I rather felt reminded of the cost for equipment like LHC that is designed as to search for a suspected digital structure of time and space. I see these efforts similar to the intention of medieval alchemists to make gold. Tschirnhaus and Boettger made white gold: china. Isn't the www a spin-off of Swiss physicists?

"Despite Aristotle"? Isn't his view "infinitum actu not datur" still correct? By the way, there were already ancient symbols for zero. Most likely ancient and medieval mathematicians hesitated using it because they understood the two the first number after what we are calling the neutral element of multiplication: the one. Not by chance, Leibniz invented the dual numbers and also the infinitesimals. I see an overlooked problem not in infinity and not even in zero but in a strictly ideal understanding of the basic measure one.

You complained: "I fear the unintended side-effects for my children." If I guess correctly, you do not like your children excessively consuming digital pleasures like gameboys, headphones, TV, internet, etc. Well, as I wrote: "Signal processing is superior if based on digital values." I even partially ascribe the present turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere to the desire for participating in such tempting pleasures. However such questions are off-topic. At least my essay deals with deeper issues.

Since I am retired, I do not fear side-effects that put my employment at risk when I frankly utter what is definitely highly unwelcome to many experts.

Regards, Eckard

Dear Eckard,

Congratulations for this work full of rationality.

The reals are the reals.

Best and good luck

Steve

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for this work full of rationality.

The reals are the reals.

Best and good luck

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

Well, I am trying to purify science from mysticism. It seems to be a hard job.

You wrote: "The reals are the reals".

Really? I quoted the book Numbers by Ebbinghaus et al. as to show what is a widespread weakness among mathematicians. The have problems to understand in what the reals are different from the rational numbers p/q. The reals are thought the union of irrational and rational numbers. Weyl called the rationals bones and the irrationals a sauce embedding the latter. I do not share this view.

When Ebbinghaus himself admitted problems of understanding, he did it cautiously. Even more cautiously encrypted he uttered his attitude towards Cantor's transfinite numbers by quoting Lessing at the begin of the belonging chapter.

Is there just one number y=f(x) because x is a unique number? I am saying no.

Best whishes to you,

Eckard

Well, I am trying to purify science from mysticism. It seems to be a hard job.

You wrote: "The reals are the reals".

Really? I quoted the book Numbers by Ebbinghaus et al. as to show what is a widespread weakness among mathematicians. The have problems to understand in what the reals are different from the rational numbers p/q. The reals are thought the union of irrational and rational numbers. Weyl called the rationals bones and the irrationals a sauce embedding the latter. I do not share this view.

When Ebbinghaus himself admitted problems of understanding, he did it cautiously. Even more cautiously encrypted he uttered his attitude towards Cantor's transfinite numbers by quoting Lessing at the begin of the belonging chapter.

Is there just one number y=f(x) because x is a unique number? I am saying no.

Best whishes to you,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

Well indeed it's necessary and you make a very good Occam Razzor if I can say,it's sad that people doesn't take these rationalities with more pragmatism,

I beleive you focus a little too much on history of sciences.And you lack a little of universality thus a little of generality.

But you are skilling and rational, it's interesting,rare and important.

In...

view entire post

Well indeed it's necessary and you make a very good Occam Razzor if I can say,it's sad that people doesn't take these rationalities with more pragmatism,

I beleive you focus a little too much on history of sciences.And you lack a little of universality thus a little of generality.

But you are skilling and rational, it's interesting,rare and important.

In...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

While every one speaks of separating science from mysticism, there are few genuine attempts in this direction. Mysticism takes over when we do not define something clearly and leave it open-ended so that everyone is free to interpret it in their own ways. When these interpretations mix up with other similar interpretations, it leads to some confusing statements, which again are interpreted differently by different people. The only way to get rid of mysticism from science is to precisely define the various terms used by scientists: such as number, one, zero, infinity, etc., in the above example. We have discussed about these in our essay and and in some posts under other essays.

Number is a property of substances by which we difference between similars. If there are no other objects similar to the one perceived, it is said to be one. If there are others, then we perceive each as one similar to the other. The sequences of different perceptions give rise to the perception of different numbers. All numbers are real, as they are associated with objects that are real. Infinity is not a big number, but it is like one - without similars, with the only exception that while in the case of one, the dimensions are fully perceptible, in the case of infinity; the dimensions are not fully perceptible like those of time and space in their absolute or analog forms. Thus, no mathematics is possible using infinity.

Real numbers are different from the rational numbers p/q, in the sense that while the dimensions of both p and q are q are fully perceptible, the effect of reduction of one by the other may not be fully perceptible. The complex numbers are unreal and unphysical, as they are contrary to the mathematical principle as applied to physics. All physical objects are nothing but accumulation and reduction of their constituent particles. Linear accumulations and reductions are addition and subtraction and non-linear accumulations and reductions are multiplication and division. Negative numbers are related to ownership of the objects. If A owns five apples, he has them. If he has -5 apples, then he does not have any, but owes these to someone else. These are linear accumulations or reductions. Squaring is non-linear accumulation by the same number and square root is non-linear reduction by the same number (other than one). Non-linear accumulation or reduction requires two objects with partially similar and partially dissimilar properties. Thus, we find that while linear accumulation or reduction involving one is possible, non-linear accumulation or reduction involving one is meaningless. 1 + 1 = 2. But, 1 x 1 = 1. Since square root is non-linear reduction by the same number other than one, square-root of -1 is meaningless. Thus, complex numbers are unphysical and imaginary. For this reason, it is not applied in computer programming.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

While every one speaks of separating science from mysticism, there are few genuine attempts in this direction. Mysticism takes over when we do not define something clearly and leave it open-ended so that everyone is free to interpret it in their own ways. When these interpretations mix up with other similar interpretations, it leads to some confusing statements, which again are interpreted differently by different people. The only way to get rid of mysticism from science is to precisely define the various terms used by scientists: such as number, one, zero, infinity, etc., in the above example. We have discussed about these in our essay and and in some posts under other essays.

Number is a property of substances by which we difference between similars. If there are no other objects similar to the one perceived, it is said to be one. If there are others, then we perceive each as one similar to the other. The sequences of different perceptions give rise to the perception of different numbers. All numbers are real, as they are associated with objects that are real. Infinity is not a big number, but it is like one - without similars, with the only exception that while in the case of one, the dimensions are fully perceptible, in the case of infinity; the dimensions are not fully perceptible like those of time and space in their absolute or analog forms. Thus, no mathematics is possible using infinity.

Real numbers are different from the rational numbers p/q, in the sense that while the dimensions of both p and q are q are fully perceptible, the effect of reduction of one by the other may not be fully perceptible. The complex numbers are unreal and unphysical, as they are contrary to the mathematical principle as applied to physics. All physical objects are nothing but accumulation and reduction of their constituent particles. Linear accumulations and reductions are addition and subtraction and non-linear accumulations and reductions are multiplication and division. Negative numbers are related to ownership of the objects. If A owns five apples, he has them. If he has -5 apples, then he does not have any, but owes these to someone else. These are linear accumulations or reductions. Squaring is non-linear accumulation by the same number and square root is non-linear reduction by the same number (other than one). Non-linear accumulation or reduction requires two objects with partially similar and partially dissimilar properties. Thus, we find that while linear accumulation or reduction involving one is possible, non-linear accumulation or reduction involving one is meaningless. 1 + 1 = 2. But, 1 x 1 = 1. Since square root is non-linear reduction by the same number other than one, square-root of -1 is meaningless. Thus, complex numbers are unphysical and imaginary. For this reason, it is not applied in computer programming.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel Omar Perez,

You wrote in your thread:

- "I have read your essay. I can see we have some points in common, particularly, what you mentioned in a previous post about the idea of adimensional points. As I told sometimes these things become a prejudice quite hard to get rid of it."

My reply_

I have to apologize for my poor memory. Could you please explain to me your position? Do you consider Euclid's definition of point a prejudice of mine?

- "I also agree with the idea of the infinite quantities, this is a problem that dates back to Aristotle and it has not been appropriately solved."

My reply:

Well, Aristotle's meant: Infinity actu non datur (There is no actual infinity).

I consider this still correct if seen from the perspective of counting, i.e. inside the rational numbers: While there is already general agreement on that irrational numbers, e.g. sqrt(2) correspond to a never-ending rational representation, I am arguing that rational or even natural numbers are likewise unimaginable if seen belonging to a Peirce continuum of truly real numbers. Infinite accuracy is an unreal purely mathematical fiction. I agree with you that the mathematics of Cauchy, Weierstrass, Dedekind, Cantor, Hilbert, etc. solved such problems by arbitrary definitions rather than appropriately. I am arguing that there is no reasonable option but to understand the real numbers in the sense of Peirce's true continuum. When Peirce distinguished himself from "pseudo-continuum" he felt perhaps not strong enough as to clearly add the for the sake of logics necessary distinction between the two mutually excluding and complementing ideal worlds of continuity R and discreteness Q, which is of course irrelevant in physical measurement.

- "I think your work emphasizes theses issues that I am sure it could shed light on the nature of numbers, points, etc."

My reply:

I do not see a reasonable alternative to Euclid's definition of a point and also Peirce's definition of a continuum. Physics and mathematics itself will benefit from more precisely reinstated Euclidean definition of a number as a measure.

- "In fact, I have been studying the problem of infinite quantities, you may be interested in seeing the surreal numbers, that apparently solve the seven indeterminacies and say something about the division by zero."

My reply:

While I did not deal with surreal numbers, I looked at Robinson's hyperreals, and I did not find any tangible justification, neither in logics nor in practice. Aren't they just a fabrication that is based on Cantor's questionable naivety?

What about division by zero, engineers like me do not shy back from equating anything/zero with infinity and anything/infinity with zero. I do not see progress in these questions since Bernoulli. I agree with Terhardt: Fake rigor is an unnecessary obstacle.

Let me add:

The main reason for me to deal thoroughly with fundamentals of mathematics was the rejection of R+ "for mathematical reasons". Practice has been benefiting from cosine transformation for many years.

Regards,

Eckard

You wrote in your thread:

- "I have read your essay. I can see we have some points in common, particularly, what you mentioned in a previous post about the idea of adimensional points. As I told sometimes these things become a prejudice quite hard to get rid of it."

My reply_

I have to apologize for my poor memory. Could you please explain to me your position? Do you consider Euclid's definition of point a prejudice of mine?

- "I also agree with the idea of the infinite quantities, this is a problem that dates back to Aristotle and it has not been appropriately solved."

My reply:

Well, Aristotle's meant: Infinity actu non datur (There is no actual infinity).

I consider this still correct if seen from the perspective of counting, i.e. inside the rational numbers: While there is already general agreement on that irrational numbers, e.g. sqrt(2) correspond to a never-ending rational representation, I am arguing that rational or even natural numbers are likewise unimaginable if seen belonging to a Peirce continuum of truly real numbers. Infinite accuracy is an unreal purely mathematical fiction. I agree with you that the mathematics of Cauchy, Weierstrass, Dedekind, Cantor, Hilbert, etc. solved such problems by arbitrary definitions rather than appropriately. I am arguing that there is no reasonable option but to understand the real numbers in the sense of Peirce's true continuum. When Peirce distinguished himself from "pseudo-continuum" he felt perhaps not strong enough as to clearly add the for the sake of logics necessary distinction between the two mutually excluding and complementing ideal worlds of continuity R and discreteness Q, which is of course irrelevant in physical measurement.

- "I think your work emphasizes theses issues that I am sure it could shed light on the nature of numbers, points, etc."

My reply:

I do not see a reasonable alternative to Euclid's definition of a point and also Peirce's definition of a continuum. Physics and mathematics itself will benefit from more precisely reinstated Euclidean definition of a number as a measure.

- "In fact, I have been studying the problem of infinite quantities, you may be interested in seeing the surreal numbers, that apparently solve the seven indeterminacies and say something about the division by zero."

My reply:

While I did not deal with surreal numbers, I looked at Robinson's hyperreals, and I did not find any tangible justification, neither in logics nor in practice. Aren't they just a fabrication that is based on Cantor's questionable naivety?

What about division by zero, engineers like me do not shy back from equating anything/zero with infinity and anything/infinity with zero. I do not see progress in these questions since Bernoulli. I agree with Terhardt: Fake rigor is an unnecessary obstacle.

Let me add:

The main reason for me to deal thoroughly with fundamentals of mathematics was the rejection of R+ "for mathematical reasons". Practice has been benefiting from cosine transformation for many years.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Sir,

The above discussion is very interesting. You have rightly interpreted the views of Aristotle in your post. We have covered this issue extensively in our essay and other posts. You may like to go through it.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

The above discussion is very interesting. You have rightly interpreted the views of Aristotle in your post. We have covered this issue extensively in our essay and other posts. You may like to go through it.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

Sorry for my late reply. I was not aware of this post.

Please do not get me wrong. I did not mean that Euclid's definition is a prejudice or yours. I just wanted to say that it is prejudice to think that a line is made up of points. That is all. Since a point is adimensional (with zero length), something finite (like a line) can only be constituted of things of finite lengths, therefore lines are not constituted of points. However one can find infinite many points in a line (and one can associate a real number to each point). This appears to me a dychotomy difficult to swallow. I agree with you that there is no other reasonable alternative to Euclid's definition.I will analyze Peirce's proposal.

You: Aren't they just a fabrication that is based on Cantor's questionable naivety?

Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite. The surreal numbers allow us in principle to deal with operations like infinite-1, sqrt{infinite}, etc. But to my knowledge, no one knows the physical meaning of that.

You: What about division by zero, engineers like me do not shy back from equating anything/zero with infinity and anything/infinity with zero. I do not see progress in these questions since Bernoulli.

Zero represents nothingness. The operation of division is a question. A question that ask for a number "a" such that "a" times "b"= "c". If c is different from zero and b=0 the question makes no sense, it cannot be asked. Why? because b=nothingness, and being b nothingness, nothing can be say about it.The same occurs if b=0 and c=0 but Weierstrass call this, an indeterminate form. Why? because the number "a" could take on any value. But if the nothingness does not exist these operations become fictitious.

What do you think?

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Sorry for my late reply. I was not aware of this post.

Please do not get me wrong. I did not mean that Euclid's definition is a prejudice or yours. I just wanted to say that it is prejudice to think that a line is made up of points. That is all. Since a point is adimensional (with zero length), something finite (like a line) can only be constituted of things of finite lengths, therefore lines are not constituted of points. However one can find infinite many points in a line (and one can associate a real number to each point). This appears to me a dychotomy difficult to swallow. I agree with you that there is no other reasonable alternative to Euclid's definition.I will analyze Peirce's proposal.

You: Aren't they just a fabrication that is based on Cantor's questionable naivety?

Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite. The surreal numbers allow us in principle to deal with operations like infinite-1, sqrt{infinite}, etc. But to my knowledge, no one knows the physical meaning of that.

You: What about division by zero, engineers like me do not shy back from equating anything/zero with infinity and anything/infinity with zero. I do not see progress in these questions since Bernoulli.

Zero represents nothingness. The operation of division is a question. A question that ask for a number "a" such that "a" times "b"= "c". If c is different from zero and b=0 the question makes no sense, it cannot be asked. Why? because b=nothingness, and being b nothingness, nothing can be say about it.The same occurs if b=0 and c=0 but Weierstrass call this, an indeterminate form. Why? because the number "a" could take on any value. But if the nothingness does not exist these operations become fictitious.

What do you think?

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

Anonymous was Israel Perez. Because he did not mention Aristotle, I guess "Dear Sir" addresses me. While I dealt with your essay and do largely agree with most of it, I would appreciate the possibility answering any questions you might have here.

Dear Israel,

You wrote: "one can find infinite many points in a line". I would like to add: Even the tiniest piece of the line can even be thought to contain uncountably much of points. I blame virtually all mathematicians up to know for following Dedekind and G. Cantor and concluding that there must be more real numbers than rational ones because the rationals are a subset of the former. Following Galileo Galilei I consider this conclusion not justified: R and Q are two different qualities that must not be quantitatively compared with each other.

The ill Kronecker was no longer able to maintain his resistance against Cantor's naive ambitions and his mental attacks because he himself also intended reaching the impossible: Arithmetization of irrational numbers. All other mathematicians likewise desired to have a rigorous justification for treating the irrationals as if they were rationals.

You wrote: "Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite."

In my Appendix B I disagree with you and also with the mainstream of mathematicians. We need not dealing with the logical splits in Cantor's many utterances concerning what he called merely potential infinity, infinitum creatum sive transfinitum, and infinitum absolutum if we accept with Archimedes and Spinoza infinity as the property that cannot be reached by counting and not exhausted: Addition or subtraction of any quantity to infinity yields infinity.

SQRT(oo) = oo, etc.

Since Bernoulli/l'Hospital one knows how to cope with indeterminate expressions like oo/oo, O/O, oo-oo, 1^oo, etc.

Regards,

Eckard

Anonymous was Israel Perez. Because he did not mention Aristotle, I guess "Dear Sir" addresses me. While I dealt with your essay and do largely agree with most of it, I would appreciate the possibility answering any questions you might have here.

Dear Israel,

You wrote: "one can find infinite many points in a line". I would like to add: Even the tiniest piece of the line can even be thought to contain uncountably much of points. I blame virtually all mathematicians up to know for following Dedekind and G. Cantor and concluding that there must be more real numbers than rational ones because the rationals are a subset of the former. Following Galileo Galilei I consider this conclusion not justified: R and Q are two different qualities that must not be quantitatively compared with each other.

The ill Kronecker was no longer able to maintain his resistance against Cantor's naive ambitions and his mental attacks because he himself also intended reaching the impossible: Arithmetization of irrational numbers. All other mathematicians likewise desired to have a rigorous justification for treating the irrationals as if they were rationals.

You wrote: "Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite."

In my Appendix B I disagree with you and also with the mainstream of mathematicians. We need not dealing with the logical splits in Cantor's many utterances concerning what he called merely potential infinity, infinitum creatum sive transfinitum, and infinitum absolutum if we accept with Archimedes and Spinoza infinity as the property that cannot be reached by counting and not exhausted: Addition or subtraction of any quantity to infinity yields infinity.

SQRT(oo) = oo, etc.

Since Bernoulli/l'Hospital one knows how to cope with indeterminate expressions like oo/oo, O/O, oo-oo, 1^oo, etc.

Regards,

Eckard

All that is important in fact.

Let's take the binar paradox about the diagonal of Cantor and the infinity.Always a different appears.......surprising infinity +1.

The different orders appear.

What do you think dear Eckard about the rationals and the reals.Of course they are more numerous these rationals due to a fractionalization.This aleph 0 with N and Q.We can calculate this serie of the entires.It's a numerable system.

My question is this one, is it continu for you.

The aleph 1 and the reals is continu at the exp.....if we tend to the aleph 2 and the curves.....the aleph 3 is probably the sphere and the aleph infinity is the same .....EUREKA for the distribution of numbers hihihi

Hypothese of the continuity is solved because all is ......in fact all is a question of domains , limits and utilized methods...that depends of what we want describe.....for the fractal....finite serie.....for the binar .....for this ....

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Let's take the binar paradox about the diagonal of Cantor and the infinity.Always a different appears.......surprising infinity +1.

The different orders appear.

What do you think dear Eckard about the rationals and the reals.Of course they are more numerous these rationals due to a fractionalization.This aleph 0 with N and Q.We can calculate this serie of the entires.It's a numerable system.

My question is this one, is it continu for you.

The aleph 1 and the reals is continu at the exp.....if we tend to the aleph 2 and the curves.....the aleph 3 is probably the sphere and the aleph infinity is the same .....EUREKA for the distribution of numbers hihihi

Hypothese of the continuity is solved because all is ......in fact all is a question of domains , limits and utilized methods...that depends of what we want describe.....for the fractal....finite serie.....for the binar .....for this ....

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

All three of my appendices are anything than harmless. In contrast to Ray Monroe, I am in a comfortable position: I can blame you for uttering guesswork when you claimed having found applications tor aleph_2 and aleph_3. You would be the first one worldwide since more than one hundred years.

My appendix B explains what generations of mathematicians were either unable to find out or perhaps unwilling to admit: How did Georg Cantor manage cheating not just himself?

I am hopefully not the only one who understands: While there is only one ideal property infinity, the same infinity has two aspects depending on the side from which we look at it.

On one hand, according to Archimedes insight, there is no limit to the process of counting. And there is also no limit to the mathematical process of splitting. Weierstrass introduced rigor into the mathematics of rational numbers when he formalized Cauchy's method of limit. Cantor correctly mentioned that this so called potential infinity is not yet actually infinite.

On the other hand, a Cauchy sequence approximates its limit as good as we like. While an irrational numbers like sqrt(2) cannot be found within the rational numbers of any finite precision, it has nonetheless its unique place on the Peirce-continuous line of logically correct understood real numbers.

The infinite precision of a real number is as unphysical as are less mystified notions as for instance one, line, point, sin(omega t) and zero. In this sense, the absolute infinity is not special at all. Adding any number to infinity yields infinity again as multiplication of any number with zero yields zero.

Cantor's infinitum creatum sive Transfinitum and his transfinite alephs have proven useless phantasm. Their only alleged basis was the second diagonal argument which can be easily rebutted as indicated in my appendix B.

Eckard

All three of my appendices are anything than harmless. In contrast to Ray Monroe, I am in a comfortable position: I can blame you for uttering guesswork when you claimed having found applications tor aleph_2 and aleph_3. You would be the first one worldwide since more than one hundred years.

My appendix B explains what generations of mathematicians were either unable to find out or perhaps unwilling to admit: How did Georg Cantor manage cheating not just himself?

I am hopefully not the only one who understands: While there is only one ideal property infinity, the same infinity has two aspects depending on the side from which we look at it.

On one hand, according to Archimedes insight, there is no limit to the process of counting. And there is also no limit to the mathematical process of splitting. Weierstrass introduced rigor into the mathematics of rational numbers when he formalized Cauchy's method of limit. Cantor correctly mentioned that this so called potential infinity is not yet actually infinite.

On the other hand, a Cauchy sequence approximates its limit as good as we like. While an irrational numbers like sqrt(2) cannot be found within the rational numbers of any finite precision, it has nonetheless its unique place on the Peirce-continuous line of logically correct understood real numbers.

The infinite precision of a real number is as unphysical as are less mystified notions as for instance one, line, point, sin(omega t) and zero. In this sense, the absolute infinity is not special at all. Adding any number to infinity yields infinity again as multiplication of any number with zero yields zero.

Cantor's infinitum creatum sive Transfinitum and his transfinite alephs have proven useless phantasm. Their only alleged basis was the second diagonal argument which can be easily rebutted as indicated in my appendix B.

Eckard

hihihih it's full of relevance dear Eckard, I was right, you are the most skilling here on FQXi.

But here is my question.

How could you differenciate those two infinities, the infinity inside the physicality and the infinity behind our walls, these physical limits, quantics and cosmological?

lET'S TAKE the number of particles in our universe, the number of cosmological spheres and you multiplicate them .......what is this number finite or infinite....?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

But here is my question.

How could you differenciate those two infinities, the infinity inside the physicality and the infinity behind our walls, these physical limits, quantics and cosmological?

lET'S TAKE the number of particles in our universe, the number of cosmological spheres and you multiplicate them .......what is this number finite or infinite....?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Do you think the equipotence and the omnipotence show the road of a real explaination for the link between the absolute , the physical reality and its fractals of maths.......

The spheres are better than points of course.if a real abstraction of the reality is really harmonized.The infinity doesn't need to be calculated, it is just a tool of calculation for some series. That permits the...

view entire post

The spheres are better than points of course.if a real abstraction of the reality is really harmonized.The infinity doesn't need to be calculated, it is just a tool of calculation for some series. That permits the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

You wrote:

"I believe you focus a little too much on history of sciences."

Let me try and explain some of my reasons:

- When I got aware of inconsistencies, I looked for possible mistakes, and eventually I found crucial decisions mainly in the German mathematics of the 19th century and in the German physics of the 20th century. Because German is my mother tongue, I had ideal possibilities to read the pertaining original papers, and I found all my suspicions confirmed.

- Before retirement, I was with Otto von Guericke University, and our faculty was named after Werner von Siemens. Therefore I dealt with historical facts. I got in particular interested in two questions:

On which basis did the utterly fertile differential calculus and belonging technical and industrial progress arise after Galilei, Kepler, Descartes, Guericke, Leibniz, Newton, Watt, etc.?

How did arise the application of Fourier's, Maxwell's and Heaviside's theories and complex calculus? Why did Cantor manage causing so much unnecessary quarrel?

- I consulted mathematicians as to understand some arbitrary definitions, and they pointed me to literature that guided me back to Euclid, Bombelli, Dedekind, and others.

- I collected valuable insights from public discussions and from literature including a booklet by the outsider Mückenheim.

- Having experienced very different political systems, I do not trust in any seemingly overwhelming propaganda.

- Having participated in FQXi contests, I got aware that physicists seems to be still unable to reach full agreement on just one theory without paradoxes. Perhaps John Merryman is not the only one who is highly skeptical concerning modern theories.

- Even a lifetime would presumably be too short as to thoroughly deal with all branches of speculative physics. My life is almost over.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

"I believe you focus a little too much on history of sciences."

Let me try and explain some of my reasons:

- When I got aware of inconsistencies, I looked for possible mistakes, and eventually I found crucial decisions mainly in the German mathematics of the 19th century and in the German physics of the 20th century. Because German is my mother tongue, I had ideal possibilities to read the pertaining original papers, and I found all my suspicions confirmed.

- Before retirement, I was with Otto von Guericke University, and our faculty was named after Werner von Siemens. Therefore I dealt with historical facts. I got in particular interested in two questions:

On which basis did the utterly fertile differential calculus and belonging technical and industrial progress arise after Galilei, Kepler, Descartes, Guericke, Leibniz, Newton, Watt, etc.?

How did arise the application of Fourier's, Maxwell's and Heaviside's theories and complex calculus? Why did Cantor manage causing so much unnecessary quarrel?

- I consulted mathematicians as to understand some arbitrary definitions, and they pointed me to literature that guided me back to Euclid, Bombelli, Dedekind, and others.

- I collected valuable insights from public discussions and from literature including a booklet by the outsider Mückenheim.

- Having experienced very different political systems, I do not trust in any seemingly overwhelming propaganda.

- Having participated in FQXi contests, I got aware that physicists seems to be still unable to reach full agreement on just one theory without paradoxes. Perhaps John Merryman is not the only one who is highly skeptical concerning modern theories.

- Even a lifetime would presumably be too short as to thoroughly deal with all branches of speculative physics. My life is almost over.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Hello dear Eckard,

All that is interesting.

You ask many things, I will do the same.....hihihi

How are your glands, eyes, brains,cells,...are spheres and spheroids?

Why our stars, planets, moons, BH also ...are spheres or spheroids if you prefer?

Why the rotation is so important?

What are our big revolutions,the wheel, the motor, the rotor, the...

view entire post

All that is interesting.

You ask many things, I will do the same.....hihihi

How are your glands, eyes, brains,cells,...are spheres and spheroids?

Why our stars, planets, moons, BH also ...are spheres or spheroids if you prefer?

Why the rotation is so important?

What are our big revolutions,the wheel, the motor, the rotor, the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

You asked me: "Do you believe in God?"

Earl Bertrand Russell wrote: There are many religions but at best a single one can be the true one.

I already confessed that I consider causality in the sense of rejecting mysticism the only indispensable hypothesis of science.

Accordingly I would feel in principle unbiased concerning any further hypothesis including genesis alias big bang, spacetime and antiworlds. They might be entirely or partially correct or wrong. However, there are reasons to be skeptical:

Don't big bang, primordial elements and inflation remind of old religions?

Is there at all any reliable way and any need to see beyond the logical horizon?

Isn't spacetime a construct closely linked with the twin paradox due to Lorentz transformation? Isn't it bewildering to explain the reportedly observed flatness of universe as an illusion due to inflation?

Arn't antiworlds and physical singularities possibly artifacts of unjustified interpretation of mathematics? Will quantum computing become feasible? Will Higgs be found?

For such questions I am happy to have found one more independent touchstone. If it puts me inside the mainstream, then the better. I am prepared to accept any convincing argument.

Eckard

You asked me: "Do you believe in God?"

Earl Bertrand Russell wrote: There are many religions but at best a single one can be the true one.

I already confessed that I consider causality in the sense of rejecting mysticism the only indispensable hypothesis of science.

Accordingly I would feel in principle unbiased concerning any further hypothesis including genesis alias big bang, spacetime and antiworlds. They might be entirely or partially correct or wrong. However, there are reasons to be skeptical:

Don't big bang, primordial elements and inflation remind of old religions?

Is there at all any reliable way and any need to see beyond the logical horizon?

Isn't spacetime a construct closely linked with the twin paradox due to Lorentz transformation? Isn't it bewildering to explain the reportedly observed flatness of universe as an illusion due to inflation?

Arn't antiworlds and physical singularities possibly artifacts of unjustified interpretation of mathematics? Will quantum computing become feasible? Will Higgs be found?

For such questions I am happy to have found one more independent touchstone. If it puts me inside the mainstream, then the better. I am prepared to accept any convincing argument.

Eckard

Dear community,

While I am still waiting for responses by several contestants including Cristinel Stoica, I highly appreciate the private response to my essay I got from David Joyce. He is a professor of mathematics, an expert in history of mathematics. I will ask him again for his permission to put his reply on this public location.

In the meantime I would like to try and clarify to him and perhaps to you all which two old notion I would like to suggest for reinstating more precisely:

i) Euclid's notion of number as related to the ideal notion of unity

ii) a continuum every part of which has parts as still stated by Peirce.

Both old notions were accepted until the 19th century. While the notion unity is not identical with any object of consideration like length, area, a countable item, etc., it can nonetheless be attributed to it, and it shares its extension.

When the notion of number relates to the notion of unity, and a true continuum cannot be composed of any finite amount of extension-less points, which do not have parts, then there are no singular numbers. Brouwer's intuitionism comes close to it.

Accordingly, we should not declare Aristotle, Galilei, and Leibniz outdated and Peirce just an often drunk stupid American. Even if Peirce was an outsider, I consider him more intelligent than the whole folks including Dedekind, Cantor, Frege, ...

Let's judge the foundational consequences for physics. Shouldn't we consider numbers and continuum quasi orthogonal to each other?

Eckard

While I am still waiting for responses by several contestants including Cristinel Stoica, I highly appreciate the private response to my essay I got from David Joyce. He is a professor of mathematics, an expert in history of mathematics. I will ask him again for his permission to put his reply on this public location.

In the meantime I would like to try and clarify to him and perhaps to you all which two old notion I would like to suggest for reinstating more precisely:

i) Euclid's notion of number as related to the ideal notion of unity

ii) a continuum every part of which has parts as still stated by Peirce.

Both old notions were accepted until the 19th century. While the notion unity is not identical with any object of consideration like length, area, a countable item, etc., it can nonetheless be attributed to it, and it shares its extension.

When the notion of number relates to the notion of unity, and a true continuum cannot be composed of any finite amount of extension-less points, which do not have parts, then there are no singular numbers. Brouwer's intuitionism comes close to it.

Accordingly, we should not declare Aristotle, Galilei, and Leibniz outdated and Peirce just an often drunk stupid American. Even if Peirce was an outsider, I consider him more intelligent than the whole folks including Dedekind, Cantor, Frege, ...

Let's judge the foundational consequences for physics. Shouldn't we consider numbers and continuum quasi orthogonal to each other?

Eckard

His words are interestings.The continuity and the discreteness in a real distribution, harmonious.The sphere helps of course.

This Euclid was a sacred searcher in all case.The prof David Joyce seems well knowing this matter and these numbers.Interesting his point of vue about the o, the - ...

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

This Euclid was a sacred searcher in all case.The prof David Joyce seems well knowing this matter and these numbers.Interesting his point of vue about the o, the - ...

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

The primes numbers are interestings....and Euclid said...n!+1.....them they are infinites in fact no? Perhaps if the university of Alexandria has some works about the numbers.....perhaps after all ,they proof what the 0 doesn't really exist ?

Tchebichev....n and 2n ....they are everywhere dear Eckard these primes.

1-1/3+1/5-1/7..........=0.77...

Between 0.740...and 0.78.....a...

view entire post

Tchebichev....n and 2n ....they are everywhere dear Eckard these primes.

1-1/3+1/5-1/7..........=0.77...

Between 0.740...and 0.78.....a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

Educated experts know that Alexandria was the capital of Ptolemaic dynasty from 323 to 30 BC. The Ptolemaic system is however named after Ptolemaios Claudius who also worked in Alexandria but from after 83 AD to 161, i.e. much later. You should meanwhile be familiar with him because I already told you he anticipated your spheres.

Euclid lived from 365 to about 300 and worked at the Museion of Alexandria, which was the ancient university. Unfortunately, the belonging famous library with 600,000 handwritten books burned down in 48 BC.

I will check your hint to Moebius.

Eckard

Educated experts know that Alexandria was the capital of Ptolemaic dynasty from 323 to 30 BC. The Ptolemaic system is however named after Ptolemaios Claudius who also worked in Alexandria but from after 83 AD to 161, i.e. much later. You should meanwhile be familiar with him because I already told you he anticipated your spheres.

Euclid lived from 365 to about 300 and worked at the Museion of Alexandria, which was the ancient university. Unfortunately, the belonging famous library with 600,000 handwritten books burned down in 48 BC.

I will check your hint to Moebius.

Eckard

Fortunalmly I am the first for the real unfication of spheres....

I repeat for our scientists friends from over the world.

QUANTUM SPHERES(and their numbers and volumes and rotations!!!).....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES(this number is fascinating and probably the same for the uniqueness!!!).....UNIVERSAL SPHERE(and this sphere evolves!!!)

the real toe, the real gut the real...

view entire post

I repeat for our scientists friends from over the world.

QUANTUM SPHERES(and their numbers and volumes and rotations!!!).....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES(this number is fascinating and probably the same for the uniqueness!!!).....UNIVERSAL SPHERE(and this sphere evolves!!!)

the real toe, the real gut the real...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

Thank you for making me aware of Moebius function. Usually I do not like playing around with numbers like a game. Such pure mathematics reminds me of pure speculations by Stiefel, the fried of Luther. Sometimes they are of relevance, e.g. concerning symmetries of crystals or within atoms. Ray Munroe (while he promised to read my essay he seems to lack counterarguments) and others here seem to be experts in this field. Gauss, Moebius and contemporaries found out a lot of peculiarities in so called theory of numbers. Therefore they abandoned the traditional link between the notion number as a measure.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with negative and imaginary numbers except for being prone to wrong interpretation due to an arbitrarily stripped off link to an original reference zero. As the title of my essay indicates, the usually introduced once or twice redundant ambiguity tends to be even excitingly superior. Engineers like me benefit a lot from so called linearized small-signal consideration, i.e. restriction to symmetric small enough alternative components.

However, I am not aware of a single case where real processes could not be described, in principle, without the arbitrarily attributed negative and complex numbers.

Temporal as well as spatial distance (unilateral time, and radius of a sphere, respectively) are originally not subject to symmetry. That's why I suspect SUSY ill-founded if understood as real. Do we really need complex calculus as to describe the mirror symmetry of bosons and the antisymmetry of fermions? See my admittedly naive hint to a quite simple trigonometric relation.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for making me aware of Moebius function. Usually I do not like playing around with numbers like a game. Such pure mathematics reminds me of pure speculations by Stiefel, the fried of Luther. Sometimes they are of relevance, e.g. concerning symmetries of crystals or within atoms. Ray Munroe (while he promised to read my essay he seems to lack counterarguments) and others here seem to be experts in this field. Gauss, Moebius and contemporaries found out a lot of peculiarities in so called theory of numbers. Therefore they abandoned the traditional link between the notion number as a measure.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with negative and imaginary numbers except for being prone to wrong interpretation due to an arbitrarily stripped off link to an original reference zero. As the title of my essay indicates, the usually introduced once or twice redundant ambiguity tends to be even excitingly superior. Engineers like me benefit a lot from so called linearized small-signal consideration, i.e. restriction to symmetric small enough alternative components.

However, I am not aware of a single case where real processes could not be described, in principle, without the arbitrarily attributed negative and complex numbers.

Temporal as well as spatial distance (unilateral time, and radius of a sphere, respectively) are originally not subject to symmetry. That's why I suspect SUSY ill-founded if understood as real. Do we really need complex calculus as to describe the mirror symmetry of bosons and the antisymmetry of fermions? See my admittedly naive hint to a quite simple trigonometric relation.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

Some brilliant stuff again, as I've grown to expect.

We're up against some good competition, but what stands out mostly for me is how much science is still 'belief' led, and beliefs really do depend on what paper we read.

I was posting something for Jason in the blogs this morning, and thinking of you, I went deeper into the archives and found the rich seam I was after, in fact one I hadn't seen before from as far back as 2002!

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

I won't swamp you with others, just to say things have moved on much since then, but still missing the key, the solution to it all now provided by the DFM. I'm still trying to get it published, but I suppose the attached and my essay here, prove that even if it does get published it probably won't be understood and will make no difference.

I'd be delighted in your views on the above and my essay if you can find time to read them.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Some brilliant stuff again, as I've grown to expect.

We're up against some good competition, but what stands out mostly for me is how much science is still 'belief' led, and beliefs really do depend on what paper we read.

I was posting something for Jason in the blogs this morning, and thinking of you, I went deeper into the archives and found the rich seam I was after, in fact one I hadn't seen before from as far back as 2002!

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

I won't swamp you with others, just to say things have moved on much since then, but still missing the key, the solution to it all now provided by the DFM. I'm still trying to get it published, but I suppose the attached and my essay here, prove that even if it does get published it probably won't be understood and will make no difference.

I'd be delighted in your views on the above and my essay if you can find time to read them.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Having tried to read your essay twice, I must confess being unable to clearly understand it. On the other hand, you seem to claim some sort of scientific breakthrough. For that reason I asked other contestants for their opinion with no avail. There is only one piece of advice I possibly can offer to you: Please omit any unnecessary detail from your argumentation, avoid unusual or even unknown abbreviations, anticipate distrust, and provide compelling arguments.

At the moment I do not read blog-related postings. Thank you for the link.

Best wishes,

Eckard

Having tried to read your essay twice, I must confess being unable to clearly understand it. On the other hand, you seem to claim some sort of scientific breakthrough. For that reason I asked other contestants for their opinion with no avail. There is only one piece of advice I possibly can offer to you: Please omit any unnecessary detail from your argumentation, avoid unusual or even unknown abbreviations, anticipate distrust, and provide compelling arguments.

At the moment I do not read blog-related postings. Thank you for the link.

Best wishes,

Eckard

Dear Peter,

I looked at the 2002 article by Graham Shore that excited you. Group velocity and phase velocity are well known to be different from front velocity. Since Shore did not get famous, how do you hope for getting recognition?

Regards, Eckard

I looked at the 2002 article by Graham Shore that excited you. Group velocity and phase velocity are well known to be different from front velocity. Since Shore did not get famous, how do you hope for getting recognition?

Regards, Eckard

Georgina Parrey seems to provide support to my Appendix C. I did not read all other essays so far. However, her essay is presumably the most helpful one, at least to me.

So I consider Georgina utterly remarkable not just because she is one of at best a few female contestants here, maybe even the only one. Maybe she is the only women to be mentioned in connection with Albert Einstein after Milena, Elsa, and Itha. Hopefully, she will give rise to getting rid of several paradoxes and unjustified speculations.

Eckard

So I consider Georgina utterly remarkable not just because she is one of at best a few female contestants here, maybe even the only one. Maybe she is the only women to be mentioned in connection with Albert Einstein after Milena, Elsa, and Itha. Hopefully, she will give rise to getting rid of several paradoxes and unjustified speculations.

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

your high regard is most flattering and not unwelcome. I am so glad that another person can see the usefulness of the ideas I have presented and has not just dismissed the content of my essay. For me this is not just an essay in an obscure science competition but a further chance to have these ideas heard and considered.

You own essay is a gold mine of information, historical facts and good ideas. I can not assimilate it all at once. You have certainly addressed the essay question but from a very different direction to myself.

There is one minor error of language. You have said species that interbreed when I am sure you mean members of a species that interbreed. Inter species breeding is uncommon but intra species breeding is the norm.

There is a long time until the end of the competition. I hope that your essay is given the consideration it deserves. Whatever the outcome your work will have been read and inspired others.

report post as inappropriate

your high regard is most flattering and not unwelcome. I am so glad that another person can see the usefulness of the ideas I have presented and has not just dismissed the content of my essay. For me this is not just an essay in an obscure science competition but a further chance to have these ideas heard and considered.

You own essay is a gold mine of information, historical facts and good ideas. I can not assimilate it all at once. You have certainly addressed the essay question but from a very different direction to myself.

There is one minor error of language. You have said species that interbreed when I am sure you mean members of a species that interbreed. Inter species breeding is uncommon but intra species breeding is the norm.

There is a long time until the end of the competition. I hope that your essay is given the consideration it deserves. Whatever the outcome your work will have been read and inspired others.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

It is difficult to me too to decide from the abstracts of so many essays which one might be worth to look at. And even after I read the essays by Peter Jackson and John Merryman, I am still hesitating to take issue because my opinion is split between agreement, suspicion, and even some disagreement.

I appreciate Edwin Klingman who gave me a hint to a book by Nahin: An Imaginary Tale. I also appreciate David Joyce who gave me the permission to make his reply to me public. And, of course, I appreciate any correction. My English is still shaky, and I am in debt to those like you and Robert Fritzius who are so kind helping me. I started learning and using the English language immediately after I got the possibility in 1989 when I was already 47 years old.

You are quite right: The best we can immediately achieve is inspiring each other. I will carefully check your arguments. Be patient.

Regards,

Eckard

It is difficult to me too to decide from the abstracts of so many essays which one might be worth to look at. And even after I read the essays by Peter Jackson and John Merryman, I am still hesitating to take issue because my opinion is split between agreement, suspicion, and even some disagreement.

I appreciate Edwin Klingman who gave me a hint to a book by Nahin: An Imaginary Tale. I also appreciate David Joyce who gave me the permission to make his reply to me public. And, of course, I appreciate any correction. My English is still shaky, and I am in debt to those like you and Robert Fritzius who are so kind helping me. I started learning and using the English language immediately after I got the possibility in 1989 when I was already 47 years old.

You are quite right: The best we can immediately achieve is inspiring each other. I will carefully check your arguments. Be patient.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

thank you. I am glad you are not offended by my pointing out the minor language difficulty. Your English is on the whole very good but not perfect yet, as you are aware. Your actual words were "species interbreeding." I did not have your essay file open when I posted my last message. The wording does sound like inter species rather than intra species breeding.It is a very, very minor point in a large and detailed essay. Your intended meaning can be guessed too.

I think also it was the wording of your initial post on my thread that was confusing to me.I will try to answer it back on that post on my thread rather than here. I will also continue to re-read your essay and hope to give more constructive feedback at a later time.

report post as inappropriate

thank you. I am glad you are not offended by my pointing out the minor language difficulty. Your English is on the whole very good but not perfect yet, as you are aware. Your actual words were "species interbreeding." I did not have your essay file open when I posted my last message. The wording does sound like inter species rather than intra species breeding.It is a very, very minor point in a large and detailed essay. Your intended meaning can be guessed too.

I think also it was the wording of your initial post on my thread that was confusing to me.I will try to answer it back on that post on my thread rather than here. I will also continue to re-read your essay and hope to give more constructive feedback at a later time.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

Thank you for trying, I hope you will persist. I do understand, as I moved far away from complex maths as a matter of principle long ago so we reside far apart, yet that can make interaction very rich. As I said to Edwin, we are looking at the same mountain from different sides, that means between us we see more than we ever could alone.

I wholly agree with and support your...

view entire post

Thank you for trying, I hope you will persist. I do understand, as I moved far away from complex maths as a matter of principle long ago so we reside far apart, yet that can make interaction very rich. As I said to Edwin, we are looking at the same mountain from different sides, that means between us we see more than we ever could alone.

I wholly agree with and support your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Hopefully you will agree with me on that science will not benefit from contest winners who are distinguished by an opinion that best meets the hope of the majority for a unification of obviously contradictory theories and who manages to avoid hurting anybody as managed for instance the nobody Christian Betsch.

Luigi Foschini did not tell anything new to me when he pointed to the option of choosing the most appropriate out of mutually complementing models.

I strongly dislike his anti-foundational attitude to blame just imperfection of language for ongoing trouble between continuous theory of relativity (R) and discrete quantum theory (Q). Wouldn't it be better to investigate into all directions before denying the discrepancy? This could include all four possibilities: R as well as Q correct, only R absolutely correct, only Q absolutely correct, or even both wrong.

My essay should understandably to everybody show that apparent symmetries in Q can be ascribed to improper interpretation of complex calculus. Furthermore I arrived at the initial suspicion that Lorentz transformation might be at least inappropriate. I intend checking some critical arguments by you, Georgina Parry, Rafael Castel, and Basudeba. Could you please help me? I am not yet interested in the alternative explanations you gave. You wrote:"The LT is not required as the light signal from the centre of the stream only does c." Even less clear to me is your sentence:"most cited evidence against SR is only falsifies that assumption, which was not a postulate." I got the impression you are arguing against LT: "the mystical exponential transformation Hendrik Lorentz derived by using Larmor's 't' factor with Fresnel's original equation and Fitzgerald's length contraction. This was all constructed to explain CSL for moving observers, but if constancy can be explained with consistent logic by a quantum mechanism what place for the Lorentz Transformation? (LT)."

What do you mean with a big gun? You wrote "we must now resort to the big gun with a curved trajectory to falsify our model; GR." Please clarify.

Regards, Eckard

Hopefully you will agree with me on that science will not benefit from contest winners who are distinguished by an opinion that best meets the hope of the majority for a unification of obviously contradictory theories and who manages to avoid hurting anybody as managed for instance the nobody Christian Betsch.

Luigi Foschini did not tell anything new to me when he pointed to the option of choosing the most appropriate out of mutually complementing models.

I strongly dislike his anti-foundational attitude to blame just imperfection of language for ongoing trouble between continuous theory of relativity (R) and discrete quantum theory (Q). Wouldn't it be better to investigate into all directions before denying the discrepancy? This could include all four possibilities: R as well as Q correct, only R absolutely correct, only Q absolutely correct, or even both wrong.

My essay should understandably to everybody show that apparent symmetries in Q can be ascribed to improper interpretation of complex calculus. Furthermore I arrived at the initial suspicion that Lorentz transformation might be at least inappropriate. I intend checking some critical arguments by you, Georgina Parry, Rafael Castel, and Basudeba. Could you please help me? I am not yet interested in the alternative explanations you gave. You wrote:"The LT is not required as the light signal from the centre of the stream only does c." Even less clear to me is your sentence:"most cited evidence against SR is only falsifies that assumption, which was not a postulate." I got the impression you are arguing against LT: "the mystical exponential transformation Hendrik Lorentz derived by using Larmor's 't' factor with Fresnel's original equation and Fitzgerald's length contraction. This was all constructed to explain CSL for moving observers, but if constancy can be explained with consistent logic by a quantum mechanism what place for the Lorentz Transformation? (LT)."

What do you mean with a big gun? You wrote "we must now resort to the big gun with a curved trajectory to falsify our model; GR." Please clarify.

Regards, Eckard

Hi Eckard.

I will clarify;

"The LT is not required as the light signal from the centre of the stream only does c"

The LT was essentially used by Einstein to prove the limit 'c' for all (co-moving) observers. That is what I refer to it as being "REQUIRED" for. . - BUT, if an observer only receives light at 'c', and the light 'pulse' he observes is only MOVING at 'c', the LT is simply superfluous! It was a mistake not to understand the point, which Georgina has taken up and proved well, that 'apparent' velocity from another reference frame is not the same as actual velocity. The light signals from the pulse to the observer are new, 'scattered' (and polarised) signals, in sequence one after the other, giving only the 'impression' of something moving at c

report post as inappropriate

I will clarify;

"The LT is not required as the light signal from the centre of the stream only does c"

The LT was essentially used by Einstein to prove the limit 'c' for all (co-moving) observers. That is what I refer to it as being "REQUIRED" for. . - BUT, if an observer only receives light at 'c', and the light 'pulse' he observes is only MOVING at 'c', the LT is simply superfluous! It was a mistake not to understand the point, which Georgina has taken up and proved well, that 'apparent' velocity from another reference frame is not the same as actual velocity. The light signals from the pulse to the observer are new, 'scattered' (and polarised) signals, in sequence one after the other, giving only the 'impression' of something moving at c

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Klingman made me aware of a book by Paul Gilbert Nahin: An Imaginary Tale.

This evening I got it. I was curious for the promised mystery of the imaginary unit. So far I did not find anything new to me except some interesting historical details.

Nahin wrote on p. 47 referring to John Wallis 1616-1703): "It should be another century before the now "obvious" representation of complex numbers as points in the plane...".

So far I blamed mathematicians at the time of Gauss (1777-1855) for this inaccuracy.

Having just got a 5 rating from someone who perhaps mistook my essay, I would like to stress that I do not at all dislike negative or imaginary numbers. On the contrary, I merely maintain that they do not immediately describe reality and therefore the usual attributions of reality to ih and ict deserve a scrutiny no matter how well established the belonging theories seem to be.

Eckard Blumschein

This evening I got it. I was curious for the promised mystery of the imaginary unit. So far I did not find anything new to me except some interesting historical details.

Nahin wrote on p. 47 referring to John Wallis 1616-1703): "It should be another century before the now "obvious" representation of complex numbers as points in the plane...".

So far I blamed mathematicians at the time of Gauss (1777-1855) for this inaccuracy.

Having just got a 5 rating from someone who perhaps mistook my essay, I would like to stress that I do not at all dislike negative or imaginary numbers. On the contrary, I merely maintain that they do not immediately describe reality and therefore the usual attributions of reality to ih and ict deserve a scrutiny no matter how well established the belonging theories seem to be.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Escard,

You cannot prove that the world is analog, digital, or analog-digital by analyzing signal processing, complex calculus or mathematical laws. And the discussions about history of physics (Zeno, Aristotle) proves nothing. To prove that reality is analog, digital, or analog-digital you must analyze the structure of spacetime and matter, but not complex calculus or the history of physics.

Sincerely

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

You cannot prove that the world is analog, digital, or analog-digital by analyzing signal processing, complex calculus or mathematical laws. And the discussions about history of physics (Zeno, Aristotle) proves nothing. To prove that reality is analog, digital, or analog-digital you must analyze the structure of spacetime and matter, but not complex calculus or the history of physics.

Sincerely

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantin,

I respect your conviction. I never said that the world is analog. You are quite right: Such belief cannot be proven. I maintain that both continuous and discrete models are valuable idealizations.

As a retired teacher of fundamentals of electrical engineering, I could merely reveal improper assumptions and interpretations affecting three mathematical pillars of physics.

I consider my results carefully founded and surprising, hurting and hopefully stimulating.

Can "the structure of spacetime" really be analyzed? I see it a rather problematic model of reality, not reality itself.

The historic view may help to distinguish between what has proven foundational and what was allegedly foundational but in the end futile speculative theory.

Can we expect anything fertile and useful from causal set theory after not even Cantor's naive set theory has proven necessary in more than one hundred years?

The latter has proven not even wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

I respect your conviction. I never said that the world is analog. You are quite right: Such belief cannot be proven. I maintain that both continuous and discrete models are valuable idealizations.

As a retired teacher of fundamentals of electrical engineering, I could merely reveal improper assumptions and interpretations affecting three mathematical pillars of physics.

I consider my results carefully founded and surprising, hurting and hopefully stimulating.

Can "the structure of spacetime" really be analyzed? I see it a rather problematic model of reality, not reality itself.

The historic view may help to distinguish between what has proven foundational and what was allegedly foundational but in the end futile speculative theory.

Can we expect anything fertile and useful from causal set theory after not even Cantor's naive set theory has proven necessary in more than one hundred years?

The latter has proven not even wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard-

Thanks for taking the time to read my essay: Is Reality Digital or Analog? by Joel Mayer, MD. Our goals are seperate in that my interest is the quantum mechanics of cell production while yours seems to be the mathematics of electrical engineering. Yet, it helps me to read papers by someone with your background. As from your words I can learn how to make a better impression on physical scientists. Do you have a blog? May I have a link? I need to study your papers! joelm_armillary at msn.com

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for taking the time to read my essay: Is Reality Digital or Analog? by Joel Mayer, MD. Our goals are seperate in that my interest is the quantum mechanics of cell production while yours seems to be the mathematics of electrical engineering. Yet, it helps me to read papers by someone with your background. As from your words I can learn how to make a better impression on physical scientists. Do you have a blog? May I have a link? I need to study your papers! joelm_armillary at msn.com

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joel,

Mathematics of electrical engineering is my background rather than my prevaling interest. You will find my last refereed by IEEE paper and my homepage in the references I gave to this essay. I also recommend my

previous essays.

When I started with my homepage, I responded to Al Bregman who aked for altruists as to remove a special debate on auditory function from a huge list devoted to all auditory matters. I am a bit ashamed for neglecting my homepage.

The reason for me to do so is my intention to contribute, within the few years I may still hope to live, perhaps essential corrections to some very basics of mathematics and physics I got aware of. I consider them the key to a better understanding not just of cochlear function. While I am still in contact with all leading experts of this very special field worldwide, most of these individuals typically tend to adhere each to his own ideas or celebrate their heros. I do not expect a better situation here among physicists. Nonetheless I will try my best to get understood. Thank you for reading my essay.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Mathematics of electrical engineering is my background rather than my prevaling interest. You will find my last refereed by IEEE paper and my homepage in the references I gave to this essay. I also recommend my

previous essays.

When I started with my homepage, I responded to Al Bregman who aked for altruists as to remove a special debate on auditory function from a huge list devoted to all auditory matters. I am a bit ashamed for neglecting my homepage.

The reason for me to do so is my intention to contribute, within the few years I may still hope to live, perhaps essential corrections to some very basics of mathematics and physics I got aware of. I consider them the key to a better understanding not just of cochlear function. While I am still in contact with all leading experts of this very special field worldwide, most of these individuals typically tend to adhere each to his own ideas or celebrate their heros. I do not expect a better situation here among physicists. Nonetheless I will try my best to get understood. Thank you for reading my essay.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard Blumschein

Thank you for read my essay.

I think, you are misunderstanding something. You cannot separate mathematics and logic. If you are saying you have found some problems with some basic notions in mathematics it is because the logic that you are using to think about these notions do not agree with the logic that define and govern them. I read your essay and what you see as problem is because you are unconsciously denying the excluded middle principle of classical logic that allows to abstract numbers with the limit point of the extension they represent. I agree with you extensions are more fundamental, but what you are ignoring is that if you say we should not identify extensions with its points, what are you saying is that we shouldn't use classical logic to describe the continuum, that kind of misconceptions is what my essay is about. On the other hand you don't need a quantum computer to justify that quantum reality is ruled by a non classical logic, you just need a half-silvered-mirrow and light to construct a a machine that cannot be described using classical logic. I hope you will read again my essay and try to understand that my point agrees with yours in many points.

Regards,

J.B.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for read my essay.

I think, you are misunderstanding something. You cannot separate mathematics and logic. If you are saying you have found some problems with some basic notions in mathematics it is because the logic that you are using to think about these notions do not agree with the logic that define and govern them. I read your essay and what you see as problem is because you are unconsciously denying the excluded middle principle of classical logic that allows to abstract numbers with the limit point of the extension they represent. I agree with you extensions are more fundamental, but what you are ignoring is that if you say we should not identify extensions with its points, what are you saying is that we shouldn't use classical logic to describe the continuum, that kind of misconceptions is what my essay is about. On the other hand you don't need a quantum computer to justify that quantum reality is ruled by a non classical logic, you just need a half-silvered-mirrow and light to construct a a machine that cannot be described using classical logic. I hope you will read again my essay and try to understand that my point agrees with yours in many points.

Regards,

J.B.

report post as inappropriate

Dear John Benavides,

Thank you very much for providing me a chance for taking issue against unfortunately mandatory arbitrarily settled tenets. I appreciate that you are dealing with a topic that is with roughly Dedekind's words difficult and (seemingly) marginal. I see some important implications. And, well, your 'point' agrees with mine in many 'points'.

When I finished my essay it was too long. So I decided to omit my somewhat constructivistic position concerning trichotomy and the TND. As a mathematician you should know that Brouwer got aware that the TND is only valid in Q, not in R.

From your name I guess, you are perhaps not in position to read German. Otherwise I would recommend to you a nice historical survey by Oscar Becker and books by Gericke.

What about the missing logic in quantum theories as expressed by Feynman, I would like to go into the nitty gritty and learn what is wrong. I am convinced having found a serious mistake made in 1925. I am also pretty confident that quantum computing and Higgs boson are based an at least shaky ground.

Please tell me why you are believing that a half-silvered mirror contradicts classical logic. I am aware of several experiments. Don't you take the possibility into account that something you learned to imagine might be simply incorrect?

Didn't Cantor ignore the 4th logical possibility? Wasn't Galileo Galilei correct?

I do not say we shouldn't use classical logic. I maintain, any really real number is as fictitious as is an irrational one. We must not believe to be able taking it away separately.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for providing me a chance for taking issue against unfortunately mandatory arbitrarily settled tenets. I appreciate that you are dealing with a topic that is with roughly Dedekind's words difficult and (seemingly) marginal. I see some important implications. And, well, your 'point' agrees with mine in many 'points'.

When I finished my essay it was too long. So I decided to omit my somewhat constructivistic position concerning trichotomy and the TND. As a mathematician you should know that Brouwer got aware that the TND is only valid in Q, not in R.

From your name I guess, you are perhaps not in position to read German. Otherwise I would recommend to you a nice historical survey by Oscar Becker and books by Gericke.

What about the missing logic in quantum theories as expressed by Feynman, I would like to go into the nitty gritty and learn what is wrong. I am convinced having found a serious mistake made in 1925. I am also pretty confident that quantum computing and Higgs boson are based an at least shaky ground.

Please tell me why you are believing that a half-silvered mirror contradicts classical logic. I am aware of several experiments. Don't you take the possibility into account that something you learned to imagine might be simply incorrect?

Didn't Cantor ignore the 4th logical possibility? Wasn't Galileo Galilei correct?

I do not say we shouldn't use classical logic. I maintain, any really real number is as fictitious as is an irrational one. We must not believe to be able taking it away separately.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I recommend you to read the paper of Deutsch and Lupacchini that I cited on my essay, I am sure you will enjoy it even if you will not agree with their arguments, it is a short and very nice paper. There you will find why I think classical logic is not appropriate to describe quantum reality.

report post as inappropriate

I recommend you to read the paper of Deutsch and Lupacchini that I cited on my essay, I am sure you will enjoy it even if you will not agree with their arguments, it is a short and very nice paper. There you will find why I think classical logic is not appropriate to describe quantum reality.

report post as inappropriate

Dear John Benavides,

I did not yet manage getting D. Deutsch, R. Lupacchini, Machines, logic, and quantum physics, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 , September 2000. While I esteem Diana Deutsch an excellent expert, I am not sure whether the work by David Deutsch has a sound basis. I already uttered my doubt that quantum computing will ever work as promised, not for the excuses aired in a previous contest but possibly due to a fundamental mistake. What about formal logic, I abstain from layman's guesses. I merely criticize obvious to me inconsistencies in fundamentals of mathematics.

Let me give examples:

Dedekind himself admitted to have no proof for his famous cut. The devil is already in his basic assumptions.

Cantor might have got insane because he was unable to provide an already announced proof.

Kronecker understood that G. Cantor was wrong. When David Tong wrote "... everyone disagreed with Kronecker" he was unfortunately right. Kronecker's tragic was, he also intended to perform the impossible: Arithmetisierung of the continuum. Cauchy and Weierstrass preferred to build on Leibniz's pragmatism. Irrational numbers were already pretty well understood by Martin Luther's friend Stiefel. The naive elusive alephs by G. Cantor caused nothing but unnecessary trouble. Or can you give an example for any use of aleph_2? Having uttered this criticism privately, I often heard: We know, Cantor ... However. Even Ebbinghaus evades in public to call a spade a spade. Read his Lessing quote.

My position is quite clear: While real numbers must not be understood as rational numbers of very high precision as the actual infinity must not be understood as a very large number, it is nonetheless absolutely legitimate to treat them like rational ones because the difference between R and Q is only relevant if one tries to single out a particular number.

I dislike books for engineers that illustrate the function |sign(x)| v-shaped going down to zero for x=0 "for mathematical reasons". This is a benign but unfortunately not the only nonsense.

While I highly appreciate H. Weyl's honest admissions:

"We are less certain than everabout the ultimate foundations" and

"at the moment no explanation is in sight" (for PCT symmetries),

I cannot agree with his metaphors calling the rational numbers bones embedded into the sauce of reals. Well, the sauce is a good metaphor. However, the number five of rational numbers has lost its accessible identity among consequently understood reals. It is no longer a bone.

I guess, I understand well why mathematics refuses accepting logic. My suggestion the reinstate Euclid's notion of number more precisely as a limit measured from zero might hopefully provide a way out the calamities.

Did you understand my points?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I did not yet manage getting D. Deutsch, R. Lupacchini, Machines, logic, and quantum physics, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 , September 2000. While I esteem Diana Deutsch an excellent expert, I am not sure whether the work by David Deutsch has a sound basis. I already uttered my doubt that quantum computing will ever work as promised, not for the excuses aired in a previous contest but possibly due to a fundamental mistake. What about formal logic, I abstain from layman's guesses. I merely criticize obvious to me inconsistencies in fundamentals of mathematics.

Let me give examples:

Dedekind himself admitted to have no proof for his famous cut. The devil is already in his basic assumptions.

Cantor might have got insane because he was unable to provide an already announced proof.

Kronecker understood that G. Cantor was wrong. When David Tong wrote "... everyone disagreed with Kronecker" he was unfortunately right. Kronecker's tragic was, he also intended to perform the impossible: Arithmetisierung of the continuum. Cauchy and Weierstrass preferred to build on Leibniz's pragmatism. Irrational numbers were already pretty well understood by Martin Luther's friend Stiefel. The naive elusive alephs by G. Cantor caused nothing but unnecessary trouble. Or can you give an example for any use of aleph_2? Having uttered this criticism privately, I often heard: We know, Cantor ... However. Even Ebbinghaus evades in public to call a spade a spade. Read his Lessing quote.

My position is quite clear: While real numbers must not be understood as rational numbers of very high precision as the actual infinity must not be understood as a very large number, it is nonetheless absolutely legitimate to treat them like rational ones because the difference between R and Q is only relevant if one tries to single out a particular number.

I dislike books for engineers that illustrate the function |sign(x)| v-shaped going down to zero for x=0 "for mathematical reasons". This is a benign but unfortunately not the only nonsense.

While I highly appreciate H. Weyl's honest admissions:

"We are less certain than everabout the ultimate foundations" and

"at the moment no explanation is in sight" (for PCT symmetries),

I cannot agree with his metaphors calling the rational numbers bones embedded into the sauce of reals. Well, the sauce is a good metaphor. However, the number five of rational numbers has lost its accessible identity among consequently understood reals. It is no longer a bone.

I guess, I understand well why mathematics refuses accepting logic. My suggestion the reinstate Euclid's notion of number more precisely as a limit measured from zero might hopefully provide a way out the calamities.

Did you understand my points?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear all,

I feel pleased by nice comments. For instance Doug Budy wrote: "I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your knowledge of things and your belief and attitude toward things fundamental. I support your insistence on re-instating Euclid's view of number as measure and Peirce's view of the continuum as infinitely divisible, full heartedly."

However, may I call those cowards who did not accept being challenged? Or do they just not take me serious?

Eckard

I feel pleased by nice comments. For instance Doug Budy wrote: "I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your knowledge of things and your belief and attitude toward things fundamental. I support your insistence on re-instating Euclid's view of number as measure and Peirce's view of the continuum as infinitely divisible, full heartedly."

However, may I call those cowards who did not accept being challenged? Or do they just not take me serious?

Eckard

Doug Bundy pointed me to a "clarification" by John Baez. I did not find it and asked in Physics Forum for help.

A. Neumaier replied concerning what Andy Akhmeteli and I found out independently of each other: "In principle C is not necessary even for quantum theory-"

He argued: "It might be sufficient in principle but forcing physics into the Procrustes bed of banning C would make many things very tedious - from the Fourier transform to creation and annihilation operators. How would one write the canonical commutation relation [q,p]=i hbar without using complex numbers?"

The answer can be found in my essay:

C is definitely superior but redundant. R+ and the cosine transform are sufficient in principle. So called "verschaffte Quantisierungsbedingung" can be written as 2 pi pq/h - 2pi qp/h = i as to understand that Plancks constant h has nothing to do with i and commutation. Both the imaginary unit and the property of non-commuting are redundant artifacts due to complex Fourier transformation from one-sided reality into the Hermitian symmetry in complex domain. Notice: Fourier transformation is based on an arbitrary omission. This and its consequences is surprising to experts of quantum theory. Nonetheless it is true.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

A. Neumaier replied concerning what Andy Akhmeteli and I found out independently of each other: "In principle C is not necessary even for quantum theory-"

He argued: "It might be sufficient in principle but forcing physics into the Procrustes bed of banning C would make many things very tedious - from the Fourier transform to creation and annihilation operators. How would one write the canonical commutation relation [q,p]=i hbar without using complex numbers?"

The answer can be found in my essay:

C is definitely superior but redundant. R+ and the cosine transform are sufficient in principle. So called "verschaffte Quantisierungsbedingung" can be written as 2 pi pq/h - 2pi qp/h = i as to understand that Plancks constant h has nothing to do with i and commutation. Both the imaginary unit and the property of non-commuting are redundant artifacts due to complex Fourier transformation from one-sided reality into the Hermitian symmetry in complex domain. Notice: Fourier transformation is based on an arbitrary omission. This and its consequences is surprising to experts of quantum theory. Nonetheless it is true.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I reformulated my reply to A. Neumeyer as follows:

As already the title of my essay "Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity" indicates, C is excitingly superior to R which is on its part superior to R+ while R is once redundant, and C is twice redundant, i.e. fourfold copy of reality if we obey the undeniable property of all measurable functions of time to be restricted to what already is or at least will become past.

From this restriction follows that R+ and cosine transform are sufficient, in principle.

So called "verschaffte Quantisierungsbedingung" can be written as 2 pi pq/h - 2pi qp/h = i. Planck's constant h has nothing to do with i and nothing with non-commuting matrices.

Both the imaginary unit and the property to not commute are redundant artifacts due to complex Fourier transformation from one-sided reality into complex domain with Hermitian symmetry. Notice: Fourier transformation requires arbitrary analytic continuation, and it is further based on an arbitrary omission. This inevitable implies redundancy and ambiguity, which would vanish with correct return into the one-sided and real domain of reality.

Once again, who can point me to a clarification by John Baez concerning the notions number and continuum?

As already the title of my essay "Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity" indicates, C is excitingly superior to R which is on its part superior to R+ while R is once redundant, and C is twice redundant, i.e. fourfold copy of reality if we obey the undeniable property of all measurable functions of time to be restricted to what already is or at least will become past.

From this restriction follows that R+ and cosine transform are sufficient, in principle.

So called "verschaffte Quantisierungsbedingung" can be written as 2 pi pq/h - 2pi qp/h = i. Planck's constant h has nothing to do with i and nothing with non-commuting matrices.

Both the imaginary unit and the property to not commute are redundant artifacts due to complex Fourier transformation from one-sided reality into complex domain with Hermitian symmetry. Notice: Fourier transformation requires arbitrary analytic continuation, and it is further based on an arbitrary omission. This inevitable implies redundancy and ambiguity, which would vanish with correct return into the one-sided and real domain of reality.

Once again, who can point me to a clarification by John Baez concerning the notions number and continuum?

Hi Eckhard,

I'm sure it was on Baez's site, n-category cafe, where I was reading it. For instance, he writes about metric spaces and says: (see here)

"Let's start with a simple observation. Steve Schanuel has a paper 'What is the length of a potato?' in which he points out that a closed interval of length 1 centimetre is not very good as a ruler: if you put two of them end-to-end then you don't quite get an interval of 2cm - there's a point in the middle left over. A half-open interval would be better. Thus, the measure of the closed interval isn't really 1cm: it's 1cm+1point, or 1cm1+1cm0, or simply 1cm+1. Similarly, a closed interval of length acm has length acm+1."

I don't know if this is what I remembered now or not, but at least it's a place to start.

report post as inappropriate

I'm sure it was on Baez's site, n-category cafe, where I was reading it. For instance, he writes about metric spaces and says: (see here)

"Let's start with a simple observation. Steve Schanuel has a paper 'What is the length of a potato?' in which he points out that a closed interval of length 1 centimetre is not very good as a ruler: if you put two of them end-to-end then you don't quite get an interval of 2cm - there's a point in the middle left over. A half-open interval would be better. Thus, the measure of the closed interval isn't really 1cm: it's 1cm+1point, or 1cm1+1cm0, or simply 1cm+1. Similarly, a closed interval of length acm has length acm+1."

I don't know if this is what I remembered now or not, but at least it's a place to start.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

Again, is it not a problem with defining a point? There must always be room for the concept of nothing, but how something can be located to the left of nothing makes no sense at all, unless we are talking about motion, locations and directions. I'm reminded of the "crying jag" that Lorna Sage had when she was a child, as reported by Sean Carroll several years ago, when he was...

view entire post

Again, is it not a problem with defining a point? There must always be room for the concept of nothing, but how something can be located to the left of nothing makes no sense at all, unless we are talking about motion, locations and directions. I'm reminded of the "crying jag" that Lorna Sage had when she was a child, as reported by Sean Carroll several years ago, when he was...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Doug,

Yes, yes, and yes with minor caveats. I intend continuing my other posting as promised but not yet immediately. Then I will explain why I consider the current interpretation of real numbers a chimera.

Thank you for reminding me of even more reasons to get aware that sometimes the idea "a number is a number is a number" has unacceptable consequences. Before Terhardt wrote his updating of Laplace transformation, he faced notorious rejection of his justified criticism from all peers. Your argument is absolutely correct while the use of located and location is seemingly self-contradictory:

"how something can be located to the left of nothing makes no sense at all, unless we are talking about motion, locations and directions".

I would rather prefer to say: There is no negative distance in reality, and no effect precedes its cause. Non-causality is always unreal.

I was happy that my students did not ask me how to apply the picture of a symmetrical delta impulse on a one-sided radius scale at r=0. While I hate pretending, I nonetheless felt obliged to not deviate from mandatory theory.

What about C, my point relates to the tacit use of an arbitrarily chosen omission, of mostly either the clockwise or the anti-clockwise rotating phasor. Euler's equivalence is no problem at all. Heaviside's continuation demands the correct return to the original one-sided and real domain.

Admittedly I do not quite understand what you meant with "cave". And of course, log(1)=0. A measure in dB is not the original one.

I am not familiar with Hamilton. Did he continue the old fluentist ideas which were used e.g. by the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, Cavalieri, Torricelli, and Newton?

I don't see Dirac responsible for the double redundancy in quantum theory. Already Poisson and later on all experts around Heisenberg including Kramers, Born, Pauli, and Jordan took the unrealistic bilateral time scale from minus infinity to plus infinity for granted. Accordingly, Schroedinger/Weyl used to choose a complex ansatz.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Yes, yes, and yes with minor caveats. I intend continuing my other posting as promised but not yet immediately. Then I will explain why I consider the current interpretation of real numbers a chimera.

Thank you for reminding me of even more reasons to get aware that sometimes the idea "a number is a number is a number" has unacceptable consequences. Before Terhardt wrote his updating of Laplace transformation, he faced notorious rejection of his justified criticism from all peers. Your argument is absolutely correct while the use of located and location is seemingly self-contradictory:

"how something can be located to the left of nothing makes no sense at all, unless we are talking about motion, locations and directions".

I would rather prefer to say: There is no negative distance in reality, and no effect precedes its cause. Non-causality is always unreal.

I was happy that my students did not ask me how to apply the picture of a symmetrical delta impulse on a one-sided radius scale at r=0. While I hate pretending, I nonetheless felt obliged to not deviate from mandatory theory.

What about C, my point relates to the tacit use of an arbitrarily chosen omission, of mostly either the clockwise or the anti-clockwise rotating phasor. Euler's equivalence is no problem at all. Heaviside's continuation demands the correct return to the original one-sided and real domain.

Admittedly I do not quite understand what you meant with "cave". And of course, log(1)=0. A measure in dB is not the original one.

I am not familiar with Hamilton. Did he continue the old fluentist ideas which were used e.g. by the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, Cavalieri, Torricelli, and Newton?

I don't see Dirac responsible for the double redundancy in quantum theory. Already Poisson and later on all experts around Heisenberg including Kramers, Born, Pauli, and Jordan took the unrealistic bilateral time scale from minus infinity to plus infinity for granted. Accordingly, Schroedinger/Weyl used to choose a complex ansatz.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

While there is no negative distance in reality, there definitely is a left and right, an up and down and a backward and forward, relative to a selected position, and since space is usually defined as a set of positions satisfying the postulates of geometry, I think it important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sir W. R. Hamilton was an English astronomer and mathematician who coined the term "vector," first explained complex numbers as coordinates on a graph (or rotation made possible by an imaginary number), and is credited with the invention of quaternions (even though a Frenchman beat him to it and understood the true nature of quaternions better).

It was based on his ideas that Pait, arguing for Hamilton's quaternions, took on Heaviside and Gibbs, and lost the battle with their vector algebra, which has dominated ever since.

However, quaternions found a new life in computer calculations, since it greatly simplifies the manipulations of 3D rotations and avoids gymbal lock. They were mostly revived by David Hestenes, who first recognized the value of the ideas of Grassmann and Clifford and popularized them through his modification of Grassmann's geometric algebra (GA) (see here).

GA is slowly gaining acceptance, since it greatly simplifies vector algebra through the use of new concepts and definitions that combine scalars and vectors in something called the geometric product. It has to do with rotation and an inner and outer product.

As I mentioned, it was Hestenes' work on GA that drew attention to the work of Hamilton, Grassmann and Clifford, and it was mostly centered on the set of Clifford algebras upon which his work sheds so much light.

This lead me to a little known essay by Hamilton that is called "Algebra as the Science of Pure Time." Most people think that it was based on Kant's ideas of time. I don't think it has anything to do with the Greek concept of the continuum as a moving point.

It focuses on the comparison of moments of time, where we can say that two moments may be coincident, or else one is later or earlier than the other. Of course, his development was confined to the observer's frame of reference in the abstract.

report post as inappropriate

While there is no negative distance in reality, there definitely is a left and right, an up and down and a backward and forward, relative to a selected position, and since space is usually defined as a set of positions satisfying the postulates of geometry, I think it important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sir W. R. Hamilton was an English astronomer and mathematician who coined the term "vector," first explained complex numbers as coordinates on a graph (or rotation made possible by an imaginary number), and is credited with the invention of quaternions (even though a Frenchman beat him to it and understood the true nature of quaternions better).

It was based on his ideas that Pait, arguing for Hamilton's quaternions, took on Heaviside and Gibbs, and lost the battle with their vector algebra, which has dominated ever since.

However, quaternions found a new life in computer calculations, since it greatly simplifies the manipulations of 3D rotations and avoids gymbal lock. They were mostly revived by David Hestenes, who first recognized the value of the ideas of Grassmann and Clifford and popularized them through his modification of Grassmann's geometric algebra (GA) (see here).

GA is slowly gaining acceptance, since it greatly simplifies vector algebra through the use of new concepts and definitions that combine scalars and vectors in something called the geometric product. It has to do with rotation and an inner and outer product.

As I mentioned, it was Hestenes' work on GA that drew attention to the work of Hamilton, Grassmann and Clifford, and it was mostly centered on the set of Clifford algebras upon which his work sheds so much light.

This lead me to a little known essay by Hamilton that is called "Algebra as the Science of Pure Time." Most people think that it was based on Kant's ideas of time. I don't think it has anything to do with the Greek concept of the continuum as a moving point.

It focuses on the comparison of moments of time, where we can say that two moments may be coincident, or else one is later or earlier than the other. Of course, his development was confined to the observer's frame of reference in the abstract.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Doug,

The paper "THEORY OF CONJUGATE FUNCTIONS,OR ALGEBRAIC COUPLES; WITH A PRELIMINARY AND ELEMENTARY ESSAY ON ALGEBRA AS THE SCIENCE OF PURE TIME" by the Irishman Hamilton does indeed play a role in the history of complex and hypercomplex numbers. Nahin deals with the certainly more important former.

Steve Dufourny (I hope our Wallonic friend will forgive me if I misspelled his name), blamed me repeatedly for vanity. Is it really bad if I am convinced that so many so famous experts including Hamilton, John Baez, and Ken Wharton neglected a trifle? I consider essential what Claude Shannon formulated roughly as follows: While, in principle, the past is known to us but we cannot change it, the future is, in principle, unknown to us but can be influenced.

No matter how we interpret free will, I do not see any justification for the belief in a fatalistic block universe. Is it vanity to say that tense-less mathematical physics does not yet obey what is well considered in ordinary language?

To some extent I agree with the essay by Hadjidakis "Has the time ...".

You wrote:

"While there is no negative distance in reality, there definitely is a left and right, an up and down and a backward and forward, relative to a selected position, and since space is usually defined as a set of positions satisfying the postulates of geometry, I think it important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Well, we are almost free to choose the origin of our coordinate systems. Almost means: The domain of certainty ends and the domain of possibilities begins in reality at the point NOW. You certainly know the famous sentence: Give me a fix point, and I will turn the world upside down. Notions like left and right, up and down, forward and backward refer, as you correctly wrote, to a selected position. In other words, they are relative ones.

Are there logical, natural limits? I think so. Any distance cannot be negative. Likewise, elapsed time is always positive. The sliding relative to our ordinary time scale point NOW is a fix point that allows us to turn theories upside down that are obviously leading from one paradox into the next one. Blame me for vanity. I apologize for hurting so many. I do not consider myself a PC potato watching the anticipated movie of my past and future life. Please accepts this as to grasp in what sense redundancy grows from R+ to R to C and so on.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

The paper "THEORY OF CONJUGATE FUNCTIONS,OR ALGEBRAIC COUPLES; WITH A PRELIMINARY AND ELEMENTARY ESSAY ON ALGEBRA AS THE SCIENCE OF PURE TIME" by the Irishman Hamilton does indeed play a role in the history of complex and hypercomplex numbers. Nahin deals with the certainly more important former.

Steve Dufourny (I hope our Wallonic friend will forgive me if I misspelled his name), blamed me repeatedly for vanity. Is it really bad if I am convinced that so many so famous experts including Hamilton, John Baez, and Ken Wharton neglected a trifle? I consider essential what Claude Shannon formulated roughly as follows: While, in principle, the past is known to us but we cannot change it, the future is, in principle, unknown to us but can be influenced.

No matter how we interpret free will, I do not see any justification for the belief in a fatalistic block universe. Is it vanity to say that tense-less mathematical physics does not yet obey what is well considered in ordinary language?

To some extent I agree with the essay by Hadjidakis "Has the time ...".

You wrote:

"While there is no negative distance in reality, there definitely is a left and right, an up and down and a backward and forward, relative to a selected position, and since space is usually defined as a set of positions satisfying the postulates of geometry, I think it important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Well, we are almost free to choose the origin of our coordinate systems. Almost means: The domain of certainty ends and the domain of possibilities begins in reality at the point NOW. You certainly know the famous sentence: Give me a fix point, and I will turn the world upside down. Notions like left and right, up and down, forward and backward refer, as you correctly wrote, to a selected position. In other words, they are relative ones.

Are there logical, natural limits? I think so. Any distance cannot be negative. Likewise, elapsed time is always positive. The sliding relative to our ordinary time scale point NOW is a fix point that allows us to turn theories upside down that are obviously leading from one paradox into the next one. Blame me for vanity. I apologize for hurting so many. I do not consider myself a PC potato watching the anticipated movie of my past and future life. Please accepts this as to grasp in what sense redundancy grows from R+ to R to C and so on.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

Thank you for you essay. It is good to see people who are passionate about their field, since it brings about good discussions. I have a few remarks about the content:

1. Page 1. Analog computing is outdated. It was immediately bound to the real behavior of lumped electric amplifiers, capacitors, and resistors. Its results could be wrong, e.g. due to ignored invariance laws.

What kind of invariance laws are you referring to?

2. Page 1. Some phenomena can better be described by continuous "analog" models, others by discrete models.

There are also models which have a combination of discrete and analog aspects. Think about a clock, which has both continuous and discrete behavior: continuous behavior between the ticks and discrete behavior at the moment the tick is produced.

3. Page 2. quantum physicists are trying to derive from created mathematics a completely discrete structure of reality.

This is partially true. The Schrodinger equation has a continuous solution. If you talk about particle models, then it is somewhat correct. Both particles and interactions are modeled as discrete entities, often involving never directly observed virtual particles. I think there are major issues with that approach.

4. Page 7. When Minkowski's introduced ict as fourth dimension, he confessed not to understand why it is imaginary.

There is no real need to introduce imaginary time. It leads to more convenient mathematical expressions, but moves away from the underlying physics. See my essay for an impression that i is not needed. On my website I have a report that derived the Lorentz Transformation without ever needing i).

5. Page 7. Planck's constant h is just required as to get a dimensionless argument. It may be called quantum of action, but it has the meaning of the smallest quantum of energy E=h-bar*omega only on condition there is a lower limit to the circular frequency. Wave guides have such a cut-off frequency for transversal waves.

The expression and cut-off behavior is, I think, correct for the case of waveguides that you mention involving photons. However, unlike for electrons, the quantum of action of photons is equal to zero (E=pc gives 0=Edt-pdx, where c=dx/dt, for free electrons: h=Edt-pdx, more details on my web site). The expression E=h-bar*omega should really be read as omega_photon=dE/h-bar, where dE is the change in energy of an atom when the photon is emitted. Conservation of energy then says dE_atom = E_photon such that E-photon=h-bar*omega_photon, where h still pertains to the atom. E-photon=h-bar*omega_photon can be less formally written as E=h-bar*omega. So, although the quantum action of a photon is equal to zero, the expression E=h-bar*omega contains h. Lot's of details, but important for correct physical interpretation imo.

Best regards and good luck with the contents.

report post as inappropriate

1. Page 1. Analog computing is outdated. It was immediately bound to the real behavior of lumped electric amplifiers, capacitors, and resistors. Its results could be wrong, e.g. due to ignored invariance laws.

What kind of invariance laws are you referring to?

2. Page 1. Some phenomena can better be described by continuous "analog" models, others by discrete models.

There are also models which have a combination of discrete and analog aspects. Think about a clock, which has both continuous and discrete behavior: continuous behavior between the ticks and discrete behavior at the moment the tick is produced.

3. Page 2. quantum physicists are trying to derive from created mathematics a completely discrete structure of reality.

This is partially true. The Schrodinger equation has a continuous solution. If you talk about particle models, then it is somewhat correct. Both particles and interactions are modeled as discrete entities, often involving never directly observed virtual particles. I think there are major issues with that approach.

4. Page 7. When Minkowski's introduced ict as fourth dimension, he confessed not to understand why it is imaginary.

There is no real need to introduce imaginary time. It leads to more convenient mathematical expressions, but moves away from the underlying physics. See my essay for an impression that i is not needed. On my website I have a report that derived the Lorentz Transformation without ever needing i).

5. Page 7. Planck's constant h is just required as to get a dimensionless argument. It may be called quantum of action, but it has the meaning of the smallest quantum of energy E=h-bar*omega only on condition there is a lower limit to the circular frequency. Wave guides have such a cut-off frequency for transversal waves.

The expression and cut-off behavior is, I think, correct for the case of waveguides that you mention involving photons. However, unlike for electrons, the quantum of action of photons is equal to zero (E=pc gives 0=Edt-pdx, where c=dx/dt, for free electrons: h=Edt-pdx, more details on my web site). The expression E=h-bar*omega should really be read as omega_photon=dE/h-bar, where dE is the change in energy of an atom when the photon is emitted. Conservation of energy then says dE_atom = E_photon such that E-photon=h-bar*omega_photon, where h still pertains to the atom. E-photon=h-bar*omega_photon can be less formally written as E=h-bar*omega. So, although the quantum action of a photon is equal to zero, the expression E=h-bar*omega contains h. Lot's of details, but important for correct physical interpretation imo.

Best regards and good luck with the contents.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I apologize for not yet having read your essay. Thank you very much for already responding to mine.

1. Let me give a primitive example first. Imagine a cube with sides of length a. Volume V grows with a^3. Surface S grows with a^2: S/V=a^2/3.

Many decades ago, in order to easily investigate the eddy currents within a small metallic disc rotating through a magnetic field of a power meter, an enlarged analog model was build. Each dimension was enlarged by the same factor. The results were horribly wrong.

2. Yes. An similar example is to be seen in the ripples shown in my Fig.1. Notice: Those who were only familiar with the traditional FT-based spectrogram could not believe that this obviously causal and also with respect to other features more realistic figure was correct because it seemingly violated the uncertainty relation, which is to be seen valid just for discrete lines on the ridges of the continuous ripples.

3. With "completely digital structure" I meant quantization also of space and time. Because this is hard to imagine, I asked Lawrence Crowell for his fractal picture, and he showed it. Not just for Charles S. Peirce but also for Schroedinger, space and time were continua. Hopefully you got aware that and why I consider not just point charges, line currents, singularities and the like very useful but strictly speaking unrealistic ideals, but I consider continuous functions like sin(omega t), when thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity, also just unrealistic fictions.

4. I referred to what Minkowski himself wrote. By the time I will carefully read what you have to say concerning Lorentz tranformation.

5. My emphasis was on "only on condition", meaning in principle perhaps not. Acoustical cavities and coaxial electric cables admit longitudinal waves with very low frequency, too.

Best regards,

Eckard

I apologize for not yet having read your essay. Thank you very much for already responding to mine.

1. Let me give a primitive example first. Imagine a cube with sides of length a. Volume V grows with a^3. Surface S grows with a^2: S/V=a^2/3.

Many decades ago, in order to easily investigate the eddy currents within a small metallic disc rotating through a magnetic field of a power meter, an enlarged analog model was build. Each dimension was enlarged by the same factor. The results were horribly wrong.

2. Yes. An similar example is to be seen in the ripples shown in my Fig.1. Notice: Those who were only familiar with the traditional FT-based spectrogram could not believe that this obviously causal and also with respect to other features more realistic figure was correct because it seemingly violated the uncertainty relation, which is to be seen valid just for discrete lines on the ridges of the continuous ripples.

3. With "completely digital structure" I meant quantization also of space and time. Because this is hard to imagine, I asked Lawrence Crowell for his fractal picture, and he showed it. Not just for Charles S. Peirce but also for Schroedinger, space and time were continua. Hopefully you got aware that and why I consider not just point charges, line currents, singularities and the like very useful but strictly speaking unrealistic ideals, but I consider continuous functions like sin(omega t), when thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity, also just unrealistic fictions.

4. I referred to what Minkowski himself wrote. By the time I will carefully read what you have to say concerning Lorentz tranformation.

5. My emphasis was on "only on condition", meaning in principle perhaps not. Acoustical cavities and coaxial electric cables admit longitudinal waves with very low frequency, too.

Best regards,

Eckard

Eckard

My clarification /answer in the above thread missed this;

"we must now resort to the big gun with a curved trajectory to falsify our model; GR."

It was a bit of a play on words, a 'big gun' as the ruling paradigm of General Relativity, as both big guns and GR have curved trajectories! but also to give it the sternest test; How would the DFM stand up under the test of GR and gravity!

It's opened up an astonishingly simple solution, and I've since gone further; Have you ever wondered how a passing asteroid can exert more gravity on us if it moves faster? That's what inertial/gravitational mass equivalence says. Stupid? Perhaps not, as the DFM shows how it works. Add up all the plasma ions (photo-electrons) with inertial mass but zero rest mass (they evaporate at rest), that grow around matter accelerated in a void (i.e. the LHC pipe) proportionally to speed, and we find it perfectly equivalent!

It was also found that the (quantum particle) plasma coma/tail of a comet did have that gravity as it 'bent' and dilated space time (diffracted through the plasma halo) by 2 arc secs, exactly as predicted.

Of course this may look, waddle, swim and quack like a duck but not be one. So do we all ignore it? I anyway decided that while everyone else was away hungrily searching for quantumish relatives of my similitudinal 'ducky' thing I'd try roasting it with some orange. It tasted perfect! I offer everyone as much as they wish, (including as sandwiches while off looking for those mysterious ducks if they wish).

I hope you might try a taste?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

My clarification /answer in the above thread missed this;

"we must now resort to the big gun with a curved trajectory to falsify our model; GR."

It was a bit of a play on words, a 'big gun' as the ruling paradigm of General Relativity, as both big guns and GR have curved trajectories! but also to give it the sternest test; How would the DFM stand up under the test of GR and gravity!

It's opened up an astonishingly simple solution, and I've since gone further; Have you ever wondered how a passing asteroid can exert more gravity on us if it moves faster? That's what inertial/gravitational mass equivalence says. Stupid? Perhaps not, as the DFM shows how it works. Add up all the plasma ions (photo-electrons) with inertial mass but zero rest mass (they evaporate at rest), that grow around matter accelerated in a void (i.e. the LHC pipe) proportionally to speed, and we find it perfectly equivalent!

It was also found that the (quantum particle) plasma coma/tail of a comet did have that gravity as it 'bent' and dilated space time (diffracted through the plasma halo) by 2 arc secs, exactly as predicted.

Of course this may look, waddle, swim and quack like a duck but not be one. So do we all ignore it? I anyway decided that while everyone else was away hungrily searching for quantumish relatives of my similitudinal 'ducky' thing I'd try roasting it with some orange. It tasted perfect! I offer everyone as much as they wish, (including as sandwiches while off looking for those mysterious ducks if they wish).

I hope you might try a taste?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I blame my age for feeling not in position to immediately understand your many metaphors and claims.

My dictionary gave stern, sterner, sternest for something very serious and strict, OK.

DFM seems to be your private abbreviation, and if D stands for digital, I did not yet understand how this is meant.

The sentence "How would ... !" does not end with a question mark.

In all, your overly emphatic style will perhaps not be appreciated by peers.

I got the impression you evaded the question whether or not you consider the Lorentz transformation appropriate and correctly interpreted. Am I wrong in that?

Regards,

Eckard

I blame my age for feeling not in position to immediately understand your many metaphors and claims.

My dictionary gave stern, sterner, sternest for something very serious and strict, OK.

DFM seems to be your private abbreviation, and if D stands for digital, I did not yet understand how this is meant.

The sentence "How would ... !" does not end with a question mark.

In all, your overly emphatic style will perhaps not be appreciated by peers.

I got the impression you evaded the question whether or not you consider the Lorentz transformation appropriate and correctly interpreted. Am I wrong in that?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

Sorry, I'd referred to the Discrete Field Model (DFM) previously and in my essay, I too easily forget it does need repeating. The question mark what missing by convoluted English convention due to its rhetorical nature, as it wasn't a quote or a 'fresh' question but an explanation of the question I had asked.

I must also remember metaphors can be lost in translation, and respect and thank you for your view on what I also recognise as apparent over assertiveness. I've been previously criticised for 'understatement', and wished to be more 'direct' but seem have over compensated.

Lorentz Transformation (LT) Sorry, It seems I wasn't 'direct' enough there! In the DFM the LT as currently applied is shown as completely redundant. I think it was Robert S's essay (I must write down the spelling of his name! - see my thread) that demonstrates the real 'motion' transformation mathematically.

However, there is a clear place for the LT exponential curve in the power input requirement for acceleration i.e. in the LHC, where infinite power is needed at over 99.9999etc % 'c'.

(would I be wasting my time with a metaphor about 'sideways promotion' in business?)

But what I'd really like you to do Eckard is to understand 'why'. Not just mathematically but in real local reality terms.

Light changes speed when it goes through a zone with a refractive index 'n', (i.e. glass or a plasma) which, if the 'zone' is a boundary zone surrounding an inertial frame, (i.e. co-moving), maintains 'c' for an observer within the new frame.

To any 'stationary' or moving observers outside that frame it will move at c/n plus the relative v. i.e. c + v. But that doesn't matter as nothing really breaches 'c', not even the 2nd order signal telling all the other observers of its APPARRENT speed from their frame. Georgina shows that beautifully.

So few have seen the beautifully simple consequences of that I'm quite distraught. I hope you'll try again as it does prove the LT redundant.

A While ago I promised you a simple video. I did post it but you may have missed it; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.h

tm

Please do practice picturing a light pulses entering a moving glass (n = 1.55) box in your mind, then again from the different inertial frames one by one. I have found that in that glass box lie the solutions to ...most things.

best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, I'd referred to the Discrete Field Model (DFM) previously and in my essay, I too easily forget it does need repeating. The question mark what missing by convoluted English convention due to its rhetorical nature, as it wasn't a quote or a 'fresh' question but an explanation of the question I had asked.

I must also remember metaphors can be lost in translation, and respect and thank you for your view on what I also recognise as apparent over assertiveness. I've been previously criticised for 'understatement', and wished to be more 'direct' but seem have over compensated.

Lorentz Transformation (LT) Sorry, It seems I wasn't 'direct' enough there! In the DFM the LT as currently applied is shown as completely redundant. I think it was Robert S's essay (I must write down the spelling of his name! - see my thread) that demonstrates the real 'motion' transformation mathematically.

However, there is a clear place for the LT exponential curve in the power input requirement for acceleration i.e. in the LHC, where infinite power is needed at over 99.9999etc % 'c'.

(would I be wasting my time with a metaphor about 'sideways promotion' in business?)

But what I'd really like you to do Eckard is to understand 'why'. Not just mathematically but in real local reality terms.

Light changes speed when it goes through a zone with a refractive index 'n', (i.e. glass or a plasma) which, if the 'zone' is a boundary zone surrounding an inertial frame, (i.e. co-moving), maintains 'c' for an observer within the new frame.

To any 'stationary' or moving observers outside that frame it will move at c/n plus the relative v. i.e. c + v. But that doesn't matter as nothing really breaches 'c', not even the 2nd order signal telling all the other observers of its APPARRENT speed from their frame. Georgina shows that beautifully.

So few have seen the beautifully simple consequences of that I'm quite distraught. I hope you'll try again as it does prove the LT redundant.

A While ago I promised you a simple video. I did post it but you may have missed it; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.h

tm

Please do practice picturing a light pulses entering a moving glass (n = 1.55) box in your mind, then again from the different inertial frames one by one. I have found that in that glass box lie the solutions to ...most things.

best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

PS.

Arthur Eddington was leading the duck hunting party so they're in safe hands. But you'll be pleased to know the LT was plucked out with all the other feathers, down and entrails.

I'm trying to find the comet Ref. but here are 2 of dozens to be going on with in case you wish to check out the scientific basis. Just ask for any more.

http://sci.esa.int/jump.cfm?oid=48440

Anderes E Knox L, van Engelen A. Lense mapping

against CMBR ion scattering. Phys.Rev.D (Accepted

Mon Jan 31 2011). (no hyperlink yet)

Xing-Hao Y, Quiang L. Gravitational lensing analysed by the

graded refractive index of a vacuum J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 10

075001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1464-4258/10/7/075001

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Arthur Eddington was leading the duck hunting party so they're in safe hands. But you'll be pleased to know the LT was plucked out with all the other feathers, down and entrails.

I'm trying to find the comet Ref. but here are 2 of dozens to be going on with in case you wish to check out the scientific basis. Just ask for any more.

http://sci.esa.int/jump.cfm?oid=48440

Anderes E Knox L, van Engelen A. Lense mapping

against CMBR ion scattering. Phys.Rev.D (Accepted

Mon Jan 31 2011). (no hyperlink yet)

Xing-Hao Y, Quiang L. Gravitational lensing analysed by the

graded refractive index of a vacuum J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 10

075001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1464-4258/10/7/075001

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

I almost missed your reference to me in your post below! It would be helpful if there were automatic 'alerts' send to those affected by such comments!

Clearly, from your quote on my thinking, or more accurately your understanding of this,

“... a widespread readiness among laymen to spontaneously welcome new suggestions ranging from a variable Planck's constant by Constantinos Ragazas to ...”

it is clear to me that you don't understand my thinking! Not that this should be a surprise – that being the nature of new ideas. But you could have addressed your misgivings about my ideas directly with me! I would have clarified!

Simply, dear Eckard, it is NOT my position that Planck's constant (and all that is associated with this in Physics) can be considered as a variable! Rather, the quantity that Planck's constant is a value of ( the time-integral of energy) CAN be considered as a variable! Consider integrating energy at a point over a time interval from 0 to t. Wont that quantity (that integral) be a 'variable'?

There is nothing inconsistent (mathematically or physically) in everything that I demonstrate in my essay. In fact, most all of these will appear in a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics this July. The coauthor that has invited me to this project is Hayrani Oz, a Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University. He finds my work (including the 'quantity eta', same type as Planck's constant) commendable and in total agreement with methods and ideas he has been using in his own work and teaching for many years. Whereas I use 'eta' for the time-integral of energy, he uses what he calls 'enerxaction'.

In my essay I do, however, present an argument as to why Planck's constant exists, and what it really means! Read my essay more carefully, and if you have questions PLEASE address these to me instead!

I have greatly valued your past support and contributions in these FQXi blogs, Eckard, and I continue to do so. But that comment took me by completely surprise!

Best regards,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I almost missed your reference to me in your post below! It would be helpful if there were automatic 'alerts' send to those affected by such comments!

Clearly, from your quote on my thinking, or more accurately your understanding of this,

“... a widespread readiness among laymen to spontaneously welcome new suggestions ranging from a variable Planck's constant by Constantinos Ragazas to ...”

it is clear to me that you don't understand my thinking! Not that this should be a surprise – that being the nature of new ideas. But you could have addressed your misgivings about my ideas directly with me! I would have clarified!

Simply, dear Eckard, it is NOT my position that Planck's constant (and all that is associated with this in Physics) can be considered as a variable! Rather, the quantity that Planck's constant is a value of ( the time-integral of energy) CAN be considered as a variable! Consider integrating energy at a point over a time interval from 0 to t. Wont that quantity (that integral) be a 'variable'?

There is nothing inconsistent (mathematically or physically) in everything that I demonstrate in my essay. In fact, most all of these will appear in a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics this July. The coauthor that has invited me to this project is Hayrani Oz, a Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University. He finds my work (including the 'quantity eta', same type as Planck's constant) commendable and in total agreement with methods and ideas he has been using in his own work and teaching for many years. Whereas I use 'eta' for the time-integral of energy, he uses what he calls 'enerxaction'.

In my essay I do, however, present an argument as to why Planck's constant exists, and what it really means! Read my essay more carefully, and if you have questions PLEASE address these to me instead!

I have greatly valued your past support and contributions in these FQXi blogs, Eckard, and I continue to do so. But that comment took me by completely surprise!

Best regards,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

Please accept my sincere apology for not addressing my comments directly to you and to Peter. I consider myself still as one out of your supporters. You might recall our discussion concerning dS/dt=L=T-V while H=T+V. See my current discussion with Doug. Do you see any difference between the action S and what you are calling eta?

Here at 833, I am in position to refer to what I wrote on h:

"Planck's constant h is just required as to get a dimensionsless argument pq/h of non-linear functions like also cos(omega t). It may be called quantum of action, but it has the meaning of the smallest quantum of energy only on condition there is a lower limit to the circular frequency omega. Wave guides have such a cut-off frequency for transversal waves."

In other words: I consider h a natural constant similar to c. Is c a quantum? The Latin word quantum asks how large or how much. Cantor was insisting that infinity is not uncertain but a quite clearly defined quantum. What did the title of your essay "World without Quanta?" suggest if not continuity? You wrote: "Planck's constant h is customarily thought of as 'action'." Isn't it rather called quantum of action? I do not see you answering the question whether there is a world without quanta of what you called eta.

I tried an admittedly uncommon mathematical interpretation of the quanta as ripples to be seen in my Fig. 1. You are a mathematician. I wonder why you are preferring instead a physical interpretation that seem not to hurt anybody.

The only utterance of you I am taking amiss is that you are denying the possibility of flaws affecting the fundamentals of mathematics and of wrong interpretations.

I do not yet see how the renaming of action into eta alias enerxaction may have any consequence for physics and technology.

Best regards,

Eckard

Please accept my sincere apology for not addressing my comments directly to you and to Peter. I consider myself still as one out of your supporters. You might recall our discussion concerning dS/dt=L=T-V while H=T+V. See my current discussion with Doug. Do you see any difference between the action S and what you are calling eta?

Here at 833, I am in position to refer to what I wrote on h:

"Planck's constant h is just required as to get a dimensionsless argument pq/h of non-linear functions like also cos(omega t). It may be called quantum of action, but it has the meaning of the smallest quantum of energy only on condition there is a lower limit to the circular frequency omega. Wave guides have such a cut-off frequency for transversal waves."

In other words: I consider h a natural constant similar to c. Is c a quantum? The Latin word quantum asks how large or how much. Cantor was insisting that infinity is not uncertain but a quite clearly defined quantum. What did the title of your essay "World without Quanta?" suggest if not continuity? You wrote: "Planck's constant h is customarily thought of as 'action'." Isn't it rather called quantum of action? I do not see you answering the question whether there is a world without quanta of what you called eta.

I tried an admittedly uncommon mathematical interpretation of the quanta as ripples to be seen in my Fig. 1. You are a mathematician. I wonder why you are preferring instead a physical interpretation that seem not to hurt anybody.

The only utterance of you I am taking amiss is that you are denying the possibility of flaws affecting the fundamentals of mathematics and of wrong interpretations.

I do not yet see how the renaming of action into eta alias enerxaction may have any consequence for physics and technology.

Best regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

...I ask all those wishing to verify my true thinking on Planck's constant to read my essay,"A World Without Quanta?"

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

...I ask all those wishing to verify my true thinking on Planck's constant to read my essay,"A World Without Quanta?"

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

Happy to have this discussion with you. I know there is room for misunderstanding what I show in my essay, "A World Without Quanta?". Many of my results, (all mathematically argued!) go against the current thinking of Physics. The most startling of these is to mathematically demonstrate that Planck's Law is in fact a mathematical truism (and not a Law of Physics) that describes...

view entire post

Happy to have this discussion with you. I know there is room for misunderstanding what I show in my essay, "A World Without Quanta?". Many of my results, (all mathematically argued!) go against the current thinking of Physics. The most startling of these is to mathematically demonstrate that Planck's Law is in fact a mathematical truism (and not a Law of Physics) that describes...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Tejinder Singh promised to read my essay and comment on it. I would like to encourage all those who also might perhaps have trouble with my essay: Please do not hesitate uttering criticism.

Eckard

Eckard

Eckard

Sorry it wasn't the essay of Robert (Spoljaric) though equally excellent, I was referring to in the above (25th) post, it was Rafael Castel. See; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/835

Two typo's crept in, in the 2ns line read 'was' for 'what', and there should be a 'to' somewhere further down.

Do let me know how you get on. Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Sorry it wasn't the essay of Robert (Spoljaric) though equally excellent, I was referring to in the above (25th) post, it was Rafael Castel. See; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/835

Two typo's crept in, in the 2ns line read 'was' for 'what', and there should be a 'to' somewhere further down.

Do let me know how you get on. Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I looked into a post of you in 835 and wondered about "We already know plasma is 99+% of the Universe." Even if you gave a reference, I would be not ready to just believe that this is a proven fact. To me the notion universe is a logical inclusion of anything what might exist no matter whether or not we are in position to get information from it.

Take this as a cry for help from me. I feel not able to follow all of your exciting insights without doubts.

Regards,

Eckard

I looked into a post of you in 835 and wondered about "We already know plasma is 99+% of the Universe." Even if you gave a reference, I would be not ready to just believe that this is a proven fact. To me the notion universe is a logical inclusion of anything what might exist no matter whether or not we are in position to get information from it.

Take this as a cry for help from me. I feel not able to follow all of your exciting insights without doubts.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Peter,

When I visited a nice castle I was told it was often visited and much liked by the German emperor Wilhelm II whom I blame for even applauding WW2. I am asking: Why was he, why was even the mainstream mainly in Germans so naive and cruel?

Well, there was resistance against arrogance. Alfred Nobel decided against Leffler-Mittag: Let be no price for mathematics. Planck's protégé did not get a Nobel price for what might be seen plagiarized. I know, there are generations of so called cranks who failed to disprove what is misleadingly called relativity.

My own suspicion arose from dealing with foundational questions in mathematics. I alluded to it in my Appendix C. Let us try and clarify synchronization:

Abel and Bebel are sitting in trains moving away from each other with known velocity v. Communicating with each other by em waves that propagate with c, they intend to synchronize their clocks. Did you consider suited procedures, and if so, at which result did you arrive?

Curious,

Eckard

When I visited a nice castle I was told it was often visited and much liked by the German emperor Wilhelm II whom I blame for even applauding WW2. I am asking: Why was he, why was even the mainstream mainly in Germans so naive and cruel?

Well, there was resistance against arrogance. Alfred Nobel decided against Leffler-Mittag: Let be no price for mathematics. Planck's protégé did not get a Nobel price for what might be seen plagiarized. I know, there are generations of so called cranks who failed to disprove what is misleadingly called relativity.

My own suspicion arose from dealing with foundational questions in mathematics. I alluded to it in my Appendix C. Let us try and clarify synchronization:

Abel and Bebel are sitting in trains moving away from each other with known velocity v. Communicating with each other by em waves that propagate with c, they intend to synchronize their clocks. Did you consider suited procedures, and if so, at which result did you arrive?

Curious,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

The plasma science basis is quite well covered in the references here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

It seems kind of accepted in the relevant specialist journals that ion plasma as the 3rd state of matter, makes up most of the 'matter' in the universe! Only when it gets joined up does it become gas or 'ponderable mass' as Einstein called it. If we look at our own...

view entire post

The plasma science basis is quite well covered in the references here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

It seems kind of accepted in the relevant specialist journals that ion plasma as the 3rd state of matter, makes up most of the 'matter' in the universe! Only when it gets joined up does it become gas or 'ponderable mass' as Einstein called it. If we look at our own...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I do not put your ideas concerning c/n in question because my focus is directed only on the very basic reasoning to be read in Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, more precisely it is devoted to the assumed procedure of synchronization. I am anyway not competent in the huge field of plasma physics. I merely dealt with high pressure welding arcs with a lot of opaque metal vapor and temperatures in the range of several thousand K. And I abstain from swallowing guesses how large, how old, and how ionized the whole universe might be.

So far I found out that the idea of round-trip synchronization might originate from Poincaré 1898. I consider it the basis for Minkowski metric, and I suspect it being at least inappropriate if not simply wrong.

In order to clarify the matter we need at first no speculations on how to interpret more or less belonging experiments. We only need logical reasoning.

Regards,

Eckard

I do not put your ideas concerning c/n in question because my focus is directed only on the very basic reasoning to be read in Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, more precisely it is devoted to the assumed procedure of synchronization. I am anyway not competent in the huge field of plasma physics. I merely dealt with high pressure welding arcs with a lot of opaque metal vapor and temperatures in the range of several thousand K. And I abstain from swallowing guesses how large, how old, and how ionized the whole universe might be.

So far I found out that the idea of round-trip synchronization might originate from Poincaré 1898. I consider it the basis for Minkowski metric, and I suspect it being at least inappropriate if not simply wrong.

In order to clarify the matter we need at first no speculations on how to interpret more or less belonging experiments. We only need logical reasoning.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Eckard

What disappoints and confuses me most is that you can't see the pure logical reasoning my hypothesis is based upon, and it's very important consequences.

Secondly your apparent unwillingness to research that which you question, but willingness to remain without that knowledge! If you follow the links (or simply Google!) you'll find that the density and extent of ionised particles (plasma) is not really in any contention until a third approximation. The 19th Feb new scientist (p18) shows it's (extraordinary to those who haven't researched it) domain and capability as the surface fine structure of all matter, (doi:10.1021/nl103408h) and the latest Nature refers to galaxies with around 300Bn Solar masses of plasma halo (i.e. a little above average) being most likely to become 'starburst galaxies. You must agree we will never find answers if we're poorly informed and harbour too many doubts.

You talk of 'speculation'. The reason I have researched so carefully and comprehensively is to remove that speculation (though it will never be non zero). Logical reasoning needs the firm foundation of good postulates.

You must try to see it from my viewpoint. Having done that I now only come across people who haven't bothered to do it, but think it reasonable to accuse me of guesses and speculation!!!

Frankly it is clear science will never progress while people think it reasonable to do that, and I feel very let down that you seem to be happy to join them Eckard! I thought far more of your scientific rigour.

Are you really not prepared to simply check the evidence base and logic of any parts of my work you query? At the end of it is the solution you (and many others) search for, but if it can be shown wrong I will be very happy too! I only ask that it is assessed scientifically, not by the lazy saying; "I can't be bothered to check but think 'this' ..which doesn't quite match so I expect you're just speculating so will ignore your thesis".

You recognise we need logical reasoning then ignore it! That is quite insulting and I really can't believe you recognise that is what you are doing, or do you?.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

What disappoints and confuses me most is that you can't see the pure logical reasoning my hypothesis is based upon, and it's very important consequences.

Secondly your apparent unwillingness to research that which you question, but willingness to remain without that knowledge! If you follow the links (or simply Google!) you'll find that the density and extent of ionised particles (plasma) is not really in any contention until a third approximation. The 19th Feb new scientist (p18) shows it's (extraordinary to those who haven't researched it) domain and capability as the surface fine structure of all matter, (doi:10.1021/nl103408h) and the latest Nature refers to galaxies with around 300Bn Solar masses of plasma halo (i.e. a little above average) being most likely to become 'starburst galaxies. You must agree we will never find answers if we're poorly informed and harbour too many doubts.

You talk of 'speculation'. The reason I have researched so carefully and comprehensively is to remove that speculation (though it will never be non zero). Logical reasoning needs the firm foundation of good postulates.

You must try to see it from my viewpoint. Having done that I now only come across people who haven't bothered to do it, but think it reasonable to accuse me of guesses and speculation!!!

Frankly it is clear science will never progress while people think it reasonable to do that, and I feel very let down that you seem to be happy to join them Eckard! I thought far more of your scientific rigour.

Are you really not prepared to simply check the evidence base and logic of any parts of my work you query? At the end of it is the solution you (and many others) search for, but if it can be shown wrong I will be very happy too! I only ask that it is assessed scientifically, not by the lazy saying; "I can't be bothered to check but think 'this' ..which doesn't quite match so I expect you're just speculating so will ignore your thesis".

You recognise we need logical reasoning then ignore it! That is quite insulting and I really can't believe you recognise that is what you are doing, or do you?.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Please calm down. I never accused you of guesses and speculation. I just refused to endorse something I am not in position to judge. I am sure that your essay and the additional links will be of interest for many experts. I merely fear, your sometimes empathic style could possibly deter cautious referees.

Let me clarify: So far I do not even consider the Big Bang a proven fact but merely a hypothesis. I do not expect any possibility to get reliable knowledge on how old or how large the universe might be.

My reasoning, my experience and my gut feeling tell me that the claim by Nimtz having measured propagation of signals with a velocity in excess of c is undoubtedly based on mistakes.

You will certainly agree that opposition to SR is reasonable despite of its allegedly overwhelming experimental confirmation. Time will tell whether your reasoning is correct. If I understood you correctly, you wrote you do not need the Lorentz transformation. So far I do not see an immediate contradiction between this statement and my objection against the ABA synchronization. Admittedly, a symmetrical (Galilean) synchronization alone does not yet answer all questions.

I am reading some pertaining books.

Regards,

Eckard

Please calm down. I never accused you of guesses and speculation. I just refused to endorse something I am not in position to judge. I am sure that your essay and the additional links will be of interest for many experts. I merely fear, your sometimes empathic style could possibly deter cautious referees.

Let me clarify: So far I do not even consider the Big Bang a proven fact but merely a hypothesis. I do not expect any possibility to get reliable knowledge on how old or how large the universe might be.

My reasoning, my experience and my gut feeling tell me that the claim by Nimtz having measured propagation of signals with a velocity in excess of c is undoubtedly based on mistakes.

You will certainly agree that opposition to SR is reasonable despite of its allegedly overwhelming experimental confirmation. Time will tell whether your reasoning is correct. If I understood you correctly, you wrote you do not need the Lorentz transformation. So far I do not see an immediate contradiction between this statement and my objection against the ABA synchronization. Admittedly, a symmetrical (Galilean) synchronization alone does not yet answer all questions.

I am reading some pertaining books.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

I have definitely enjoyed reading your thought-provoking essay. However I need more time to understand what your eventual conclusion is. Your essay is strong on historical mathematics aspects of the digital versus analog issue, and I learnt new things. But I cannot say that the questiion `digital vs. analog' is meaningful if taken in one whole go to address all of nature - I believe you express that too. Clearly, different phenomena exist that are digital/analog. That is why I have tried to address a specific issue.

Like I said, I certainly enjoyed reading your knowledgable essay, but I cannot form a view as to your conclusions. I should apologize that I am not saying something more substantial right now ...Cheers ...Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

I have definitely enjoyed reading your thought-provoking essay. However I need more time to understand what your eventual conclusion is. Your essay is strong on historical mathematics aspects of the digital versus analog issue, and I learnt new things. But I cannot say that the questiion `digital vs. analog' is meaningful if taken in one whole go to address all of nature - I believe you express that too. Clearly, different phenomena exist that are digital/analog. That is why I have tried to address a specific issue.

Like I said, I certainly enjoyed reading your knowledgable essay, but I cannot form a view as to your conclusions. I should apologize that I am not saying something more substantial right now ...Cheers ...Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder,

Thank you very much for responding and hitting the nail on its head. You are quite right: While I did not hesitate to frankly utter some definitely unwelcome implications from my work as an engineer, I gave no direct answer to the topical question. I merely expressed my doubts: I consider it unlikely while not impossible that anything can be reduced to either purely continuous or purely discrete models.

I preferred first asking myself whether or not pertaining speculations are foundational, and how reliable are theories that could provide a hypothetical answer.

Let me tell an experience of mine: When I observed retrograde motion of cathode spots in a plasma, I looked into literature and found about 15 mutually excluding explanations. Such situations made me cautious because at best a single one can be correct.

Having discovered a lot of obvious flaws in various fields, I am focusing on possible mistakes in most fundamental theories. I hope future generations will be better prepared to answer the topical question if e.g. complex quantization and putative symmetries are better understood.

Kind regards,

Eckard

Thank you very much for responding and hitting the nail on its head. You are quite right: While I did not hesitate to frankly utter some definitely unwelcome implications from my work as an engineer, I gave no direct answer to the topical question. I merely expressed my doubts: I consider it unlikely while not impossible that anything can be reduced to either purely continuous or purely discrete models.

I preferred first asking myself whether or not pertaining speculations are foundational, and how reliable are theories that could provide a hypothetical answer.

Let me tell an experience of mine: When I observed retrograde motion of cathode spots in a plasma, I looked into literature and found about 15 mutually excluding explanations. Such situations made me cautious because at best a single one can be correct.

Having discovered a lot of obvious flaws in various fields, I am focusing on possible mistakes in most fundamental theories. I hope future generations will be better prepared to answer the topical question if e.g. complex quantization and putative symmetries are better understood.

Kind regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

I hope your plasmonics is getting fine tuned. I find the web and journals about 5 years ahead of most books. I hope you've Googled plenty as well. Recent Optical fibre science is also another hoard of hidden riches. I generally read 3-5 new papers/day, from all subjects, plus the journals. The current (26th) New Scientist p16 has a typical result, showing particles 'bounce' off the plasma fine structure of matter NOT the solid mass itself! Wave particle interaction is fascinating.

You seemed to prejudice yourself against trusting my work with regard to superluminal motion. But I don't think you ever took on board the point about 'apparent' motion, from a different inertial frame, being wholly different to real local superluminal motion which I agree is not possible, and which gives rise to the 'Lorentz' (actually originally Fresnel) exponential curve, which is misused and only has that very limited domain.

If you don't see that; Please, envisage a fast flowing river. You are sitting in your car on the bank observing. The laws of physics say water no water molecule can move at more than 0.1mph. If you drive your car along the bank and video the water molecules at the centre of the stream from your inertial frame would they care? would they be breaking the law? of course not.

But then you stand still and video them, and the centre of the stream is still doing 7mph wrt your camera!! Are they breaking the law? Of course not! Their own 'inertial field' is that of the molecules nearer to the bank each side. No water breaks the law LOCALLY, and no water cares about which planet it's on or who else is moving anywhere. Physicists must learn to renormalise mathematical results back to reality, as all maths, points, lines and vectors, are mathematical. Moving points are not valid in geometry!

So apparent v + c should be fine, and it's probably about time physics took that aboard as it seems to be in denial at present, due to lack of comprehension and over reliance on maths. All this is as simply explained by Georgina.

It's implications are fundamental, bypassing Bell to give Reality and Locality, and should be able to move physics on 100 years. You may also look over the last few posts on my string. If you can help by advising on how better you think it may be explained I'd warmly welcome it.

Do keep asking any questions. Sorry got a little frustrated when my carefully thought out answer was apparently just dismissed the last time. 'Apparent' is an important concept!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I hope your plasmonics is getting fine tuned. I find the web and journals about 5 years ahead of most books. I hope you've Googled plenty as well. Recent Optical fibre science is also another hoard of hidden riches. I generally read 3-5 new papers/day, from all subjects, plus the journals. The current (26th) New Scientist p16 has a typical result, showing particles 'bounce' off the plasma fine structure of matter NOT the solid mass itself! Wave particle interaction is fascinating.

You seemed to prejudice yourself against trusting my work with regard to superluminal motion. But I don't think you ever took on board the point about 'apparent' motion, from a different inertial frame, being wholly different to real local superluminal motion which I agree is not possible, and which gives rise to the 'Lorentz' (actually originally Fresnel) exponential curve, which is misused and only has that very limited domain.

If you don't see that; Please, envisage a fast flowing river. You are sitting in your car on the bank observing. The laws of physics say water no water molecule can move at more than 0.1mph. If you drive your car along the bank and video the water molecules at the centre of the stream from your inertial frame would they care? would they be breaking the law? of course not.

But then you stand still and video them, and the centre of the stream is still doing 7mph wrt your camera!! Are they breaking the law? Of course not! Their own 'inertial field' is that of the molecules nearer to the bank each side. No water breaks the law LOCALLY, and no water cares about which planet it's on or who else is moving anywhere. Physicists must learn to renormalise mathematical results back to reality, as all maths, points, lines and vectors, are mathematical. Moving points are not valid in geometry!

So apparent v + c should be fine, and it's probably about time physics took that aboard as it seems to be in denial at present, due to lack of comprehension and over reliance on maths. All this is as simply explained by Georgina.

It's implications are fundamental, bypassing Bell to give Reality and Locality, and should be able to move physics on 100 years. You may also look over the last few posts on my string. If you can help by advising on how better you think it may be explained I'd warmly welcome it.

Do keep asking any questions. Sorry got a little frustrated when my carefully thought out answer was apparently just dismissed the last time. 'Apparent' is an important concept!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I see two easy explanations for measured superluminal velocity: a mistake or an illusion. Admittedly I did not yet deal with your explanation how the latter might work as an apparent velocity. I admire your ability to read so many news. Decades ago I decided not to watch TV any more because to much information is difficult to digest at least to me.

I still did not yet understand what you meant with " 'Lorentz' (actually originally Fresnel) exponential curve". The Lorentz factor as a function of velocity is no exponential function.

I also did not yet understand why you seem to prefer a "digital" field theory.

Regards,

Eckard

I see two easy explanations for measured superluminal velocity: a mistake or an illusion. Admittedly I did not yet deal with your explanation how the latter might work as an apparent velocity. I admire your ability to read so many news. Decades ago I decided not to watch TV any more because to much information is difficult to digest at least to me.

I still did not yet understand what you meant with " 'Lorentz' (actually originally Fresnel) exponential curve". The Lorentz factor as a function of velocity is no exponential function.

I also did not yet understand why you seem to prefer a "digital" field theory.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard.

It is simply exposed by analogy.

A boat has a maximum speed of 'c' kph. It is moving on a river, which is flowing at v kph. 20 observers (Ob1-20) are given video cameras and told to record it so it's speed can be analysed. The first 17 take the video from cars going up and down the bank, and back and forth over bridges, from trains, cycles, aeroplanes, the space station, the moon, jogging across adjacent fields and from other moving boats. They all get different results!! Ob18 is standing still, on Earth, on the river bank. So.. Does he get the result 'c'?

Of course not he get's c plus v.! ...Ob19 then uses the Hubble space telescope camera! SO... Does he get 'c'? ...Of course not - he gets c plus v plus v2(=orbital v of Hubble).

So.. one left! Ob20 is the only intelligent life form. He jumps into the water, or onto another boat, and float at rest wrt the water, videoing the boat as it comes past close by (LOCALLY), and his result gives precisely 'C'.

The stream from the Quasar is the river. it has 'incentric' (graded) motion, going slow beside the bank and fast at it's centre. (There are some super cross sections through the jet streams from spectroscopy in some papers on the web). In all this time the boat was complying with 'c' and knew nothing of all the fools rushing around with cameras, who might as well have been on another planet!

Was that understandable?

The sq root formulae was originally Fresnels, for another (proper) purpose. The term was wrong, is there a handy term for the infinite curve produced?

I DON'T actually prefer a 'digital' field theory. Nature may be called whatever we wish but the model consists of an unknown condensate field of energy potential which is of limited compressibility, equivalent to Edwins 'C' field or the old 'ether', so may be as continuous as the waves it propagates. When perturbated or compressed (by meeting a medium doing 'a' relative speed) particles are condensed. These are initially ions, i.e. a plasma. These then impliment the change in f and or lambda (subject to which way the observer is rushing around with his camera!) to maintain 'c' and conserve E locally within the new co-moving medium. These ions can bunch together to make more or less intelligent life forms and their houses.

i.e. Matter would not exist without discrete particles, but the field they condense from is continuous. It is not however entirely a continuum! as it is in what might trendily be termed 'blocks' of continuum. Whether we call a wave continuous is semantics! (see Ken Whartons excellent and very readable essay).

If you'd like any of the evidence follow the references or do just ask.

This is mega paradigm changing stuff you know!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

It is simply exposed by analogy.

A boat has a maximum speed of 'c' kph. It is moving on a river, which is flowing at v kph. 20 observers (Ob1-20) are given video cameras and told to record it so it's speed can be analysed. The first 17 take the video from cars going up and down the bank, and back and forth over bridges, from trains, cycles, aeroplanes, the space station, the moon, jogging across adjacent fields and from other moving boats. They all get different results!! Ob18 is standing still, on Earth, on the river bank. So.. Does he get the result 'c'?

Of course not he get's c plus v.! ...Ob19 then uses the Hubble space telescope camera! SO... Does he get 'c'? ...Of course not - he gets c plus v plus v2(=orbital v of Hubble).

So.. one left! Ob20 is the only intelligent life form. He jumps into the water, or onto another boat, and float at rest wrt the water, videoing the boat as it comes past close by (LOCALLY), and his result gives precisely 'C'.

The stream from the Quasar is the river. it has 'incentric' (graded) motion, going slow beside the bank and fast at it's centre. (There are some super cross sections through the jet streams from spectroscopy in some papers on the web). In all this time the boat was complying with 'c' and knew nothing of all the fools rushing around with cameras, who might as well have been on another planet!

Was that understandable?

The sq root formulae was originally Fresnels, for another (proper) purpose. The term was wrong, is there a handy term for the infinite curve produced?

I DON'T actually prefer a 'digital' field theory. Nature may be called whatever we wish but the model consists of an unknown condensate field of energy potential which is of limited compressibility, equivalent to Edwins 'C' field or the old 'ether', so may be as continuous as the waves it propagates. When perturbated or compressed (by meeting a medium doing 'a' relative speed) particles are condensed. These are initially ions, i.e. a plasma. These then impliment the change in f and or lambda (subject to which way the observer is rushing around with his camera!) to maintain 'c' and conserve E locally within the new co-moving medium. These ions can bunch together to make more or less intelligent life forms and their houses.

i.e. Matter would not exist without discrete particles, but the field they condense from is continuous. It is not however entirely a continuum! as it is in what might trendily be termed 'blocks' of continuum. Whether we call a wave continuous is semantics! (see Ken Whartons excellent and very readable essay).

If you'd like any of the evidence follow the references or do just ask.

This is mega paradigm changing stuff you know!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

O posted a reply on my page but it didn't seem to go through so I will post it here.

Yes I read your essay but I confess I did not give it proper thought the first time. I apologize to you for my posting as it was not well taken and you are absolutely correct in being disturbed.Your essay is very good and your points well taken.I shall endeavor to read further essays more carefully.

Tom Wagner

report post as inappropriate

O posted a reply on my page but it didn't seem to go through so I will post it here.

Yes I read your essay but I confess I did not give it proper thought the first time. I apologize to you for my posting as it was not well taken and you are absolutely correct in being disturbed.Your essay is very good and your points well taken.I shall endeavor to read further essays more carefully.

Tom Wagner

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom Wagner,

Having read several essays, I realized that almost nobody besides me addressed not merely continuous vs. discrete but literally analog vs. digital models.

Accordingly most readers of my essay did perhaps not understand why I consider already DEQs the first step into ambiguity and complex representation twice redundant. The reasons for me to thoroughly deal with history of mathematics were mainly paradoxes not just in physics but also already in mathematics.

I pondered about the possibility to restrict the scope of my essay as not to lose all readers. However, even if I was not in position to explain in detail how the many uncommon alternatives to established tenets are interrelated, this mutual dependency is important.

What about the chance of getting these alternatives taken seriously, I so far hoped in vain for arguments that challenge me, and I can imagine how FQXi cautiously anticipates reactions of those who are definitely unhappy with what they will feel wrong and an attack on their theories. Not all posts are immediately shown. My votes did not change the indicated rates and numbers of public votes. Nonetheless I highly appreciate the opportunity to take part in a polite factual discussion without taboos.

On the other hand, I consider most of the alternatives well founded, and I expect the outcome of LHC providing further support for my criticism. In the meantime, I can only collect further indications.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Having read several essays, I realized that almost nobody besides me addressed not merely continuous vs. discrete but literally analog vs. digital models.

Accordingly most readers of my essay did perhaps not understand why I consider already DEQs the first step into ambiguity and complex representation twice redundant. The reasons for me to thoroughly deal with history of mathematics were mainly paradoxes not just in physics but also already in mathematics.

I pondered about the possibility to restrict the scope of my essay as not to lose all readers. However, even if I was not in position to explain in detail how the many uncommon alternatives to established tenets are interrelated, this mutual dependency is important.

What about the chance of getting these alternatives taken seriously, I so far hoped in vain for arguments that challenge me, and I can imagine how FQXi cautiously anticipates reactions of those who are definitely unhappy with what they will feel wrong and an attack on their theories. Not all posts are immediately shown. My votes did not change the indicated rates and numbers of public votes. Nonetheless I highly appreciate the opportunity to take part in a polite factual discussion without taboos.

On the other hand, I consider most of the alternatives well founded, and I expect the outcome of LHC providing further support for my criticism. In the meantime, I can only collect further indications.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I am sure which might be the better place to submit a post so I am submitting to both our sites.

Thank you for alerting me as to the rating system of which I was unaware. I will certainly now reread your essay (I have been fighting some deadlines here so I could not give this entire project the attention I would like. I am now going to take the time to read some of the other essays as the interplay between those of us who entered essays seems to be the most interesting part of this whole experience.

Tom Wagner

report post as inappropriate

I am sure which might be the better place to submit a post so I am submitting to both our sites.

Thank you for alerting me as to the rating system of which I was unaware. I will certainly now reread your essay (I have been fighting some deadlines here so I could not give this entire project the attention I would like. I am now going to take the time to read some of the other essays as the interplay between those of us who entered essays seems to be the most interesting part of this whole experience.

Tom Wagner

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I have reread your essay and I do have a better picture of what you are saying. While I do have a fair layman's grasp of the study sub-atomic particles I do not possess the sophistication nor the experience in such matters to allow me to engage in a meaningful debate. I plan to read it again as there is much included that stimulates ideas.

I was struck by your reference...

view entire post

I have reread your essay and I do have a better picture of what you are saying. While I do have a fair layman's grasp of the study sub-atomic particles I do not possess the sophistication nor the experience in such matters to allow me to engage in a meaningful debate. I plan to read it again as there is much included that stimulates ideas.

I was struck by your reference...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom Wagner,

Please do not take it amiss that I added Wagner. Tom alone is perhaps a too frequent name. You need not telling me acoustics. While my dissertation, forty years ago, was a comparative study of power electronics for arc welding, the superiority of welding by ear challenged me. Maybe you know the English professor and self declared pop star Chris Plack. It was he who told me that there is a Steven Greenberg of ICSI Berkely who uttered similar ideas on the mechanism of hearing as I suggested. The latter argued correctly that a frequency analysis alone could not explain the astonishing performance of hearing. For instance, onset is utterly important. Steven Greenberg organized together with Malcolm Slaney of Stanford an Advanced Study Institute on Computational Hearing in 1998 in Il Ciocco, Tuscany, and invited me to take part. Here I met virtually all important experts on hearing. Since then I thoroughly dealt with auditory function.

Certainly you know the huge list that was initiated by Al Bregman and is maintained by Dan Ellis. Al Bergman asked for altruists as to get his list rid of too controversial discussions. Jont Allen and I each provided a forum.

I intended to find out how the extraction of temporal features from sound might work and how to explain why the spectrogram has so many shortcomings. In the end I got increasingly aware of a cardinal mistake in theory of signal processing:

Complex analysis and inclusion of void future data is a detour.

Meanwhile I also got familiar with many details of the physiology of the auditory pathway up to A1. In Magdeburg we have a Leibniz Institute of Neurobiology. Moreover I regularly attended the annual meetings of DAGA (German Acoustics Society) and read JASA as well as ARLO papers. Currently I am just participating in a list on Cochlear Amplifier by Matt Flax.

What about my statement that standing waves are strictly speaking an approximation, I should add that I was teaching fundamentals of electrical engineering for decades. So you may consider me a professional in this field.

You wrote: "A standing wave is a very definable and precise physical phenomenon." What I meant refers to the fact that every signal in reality has a beginning and an end. We may describe it as a superposition of a transient and a stationary component. Neglect of the former is an approximation.

If I did not sufficiently answer your question, please do not hesitate asking again. Questions by laymen are often valuable. We need not be able to follow for instance Lawrence Crowell as to find out why the theory of "relativity" and non-relativistic quantum mechanics do not fit together, why quantum computing does not work, and why so far neither the Higgs boson nor SUSY were experimentally confirmed.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Please do not take it amiss that I added Wagner. Tom alone is perhaps a too frequent name. You need not telling me acoustics. While my dissertation, forty years ago, was a comparative study of power electronics for arc welding, the superiority of welding by ear challenged me. Maybe you know the English professor and self declared pop star Chris Plack. It was he who told me that there is a Steven Greenberg of ICSI Berkely who uttered similar ideas on the mechanism of hearing as I suggested. The latter argued correctly that a frequency analysis alone could not explain the astonishing performance of hearing. For instance, onset is utterly important. Steven Greenberg organized together with Malcolm Slaney of Stanford an Advanced Study Institute on Computational Hearing in 1998 in Il Ciocco, Tuscany, and invited me to take part. Here I met virtually all important experts on hearing. Since then I thoroughly dealt with auditory function.

Certainly you know the huge list that was initiated by Al Bregman and is maintained by Dan Ellis. Al Bergman asked for altruists as to get his list rid of too controversial discussions. Jont Allen and I each provided a forum.

I intended to find out how the extraction of temporal features from sound might work and how to explain why the spectrogram has so many shortcomings. In the end I got increasingly aware of a cardinal mistake in theory of signal processing:

Complex analysis and inclusion of void future data is a detour.

Meanwhile I also got familiar with many details of the physiology of the auditory pathway up to A1. In Magdeburg we have a Leibniz Institute of Neurobiology. Moreover I regularly attended the annual meetings of DAGA (German Acoustics Society) and read JASA as well as ARLO papers. Currently I am just participating in a list on Cochlear Amplifier by Matt Flax.

What about my statement that standing waves are strictly speaking an approximation, I should add that I was teaching fundamentals of electrical engineering for decades. So you may consider me a professional in this field.

You wrote: "A standing wave is a very definable and precise physical phenomenon." What I meant refers to the fact that every signal in reality has a beginning and an end. We may describe it as a superposition of a transient and a stationary component. Neglect of the former is an approximation.

If I did not sufficiently answer your question, please do not hesitate asking again. Questions by laymen are often valuable. We need not be able to follow for instance Lawrence Crowell as to find out why the theory of "relativity" and non-relativistic quantum mechanics do not fit together, why quantum computing does not work, and why so far neither the Higgs boson nor SUSY were experimentally confirmed.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

I wish I had a greater knowledge of the things you discuss in your essay. I think you are doing an important job of looking at the mathematics that is used to describe reality and what it really means to be continuous or discreet , analogue or digital. For models to be -realistic- these considerations need to be made. It is a very different approach to the other essays I have read here and a valuable direction of investigation. Because of my non mathematical background it is an essay that I will have to reread a number of times and digest slowly.

I will admit that the thought "what do we -really- mean by continuous or discreet, analogue or digital?" did pop into my mind but having a huge body of content discussing reality there we was not room to also thoroughly consider that in my essay. I think you are doing that. I touched on it with the film photography. Which may be talked about as an analogue process but the film does have a chemical structure and therefore it is individual grains that change color or not.

I did notice that Eugene Klingman in this thread mentioned the usefulness of having i orthogonal to a surface. IMO There is unseen spatial change over time, which is not visible from the perspective of the observer, at the same scale as the observed object. The direction of that change can not be a direction that exists within the 3 dimensional spatial structure of the observer's individual reference frame. It is an other direction. So therefore it can not be represented as a real direction or measurement because it is not seen and so is not measurable like a "real" distance.

Your support has not gone unnoticed and is very much appreciated.I do hope your ideas get the attention consideration they deserve.

Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

I wish I had a greater knowledge of the things you discuss in your essay. I think you are doing an important job of looking at the mathematics that is used to describe reality and what it really means to be continuous or discreet , analogue or digital. For models to be -realistic- these considerations need to be made. It is a very different approach to the other essays I have read here and a valuable direction of investigation. Because of my non mathematical background it is an essay that I will have to reread a number of times and digest slowly.

I will admit that the thought "what do we -really- mean by continuous or discreet, analogue or digital?" did pop into my mind but having a huge body of content discussing reality there we was not room to also thoroughly consider that in my essay. I think you are doing that. I touched on it with the film photography. Which may be talked about as an analogue process but the film does have a chemical structure and therefore it is individual grains that change color or not.

I did notice that Eugene Klingman in this thread mentioned the usefulness of having i orthogonal to a surface. IMO There is unseen spatial change over time, which is not visible from the perspective of the observer, at the same scale as the observed object. The direction of that change can not be a direction that exists within the 3 dimensional spatial structure of the observer's individual reference frame. It is an other direction. So therefore it can not be represented as a real direction or measurement because it is not seen and so is not measurable like a "real" distance.

Your support has not gone unnoticed and is very much appreciated.I do hope your ideas get the attention consideration they deserve.

Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

Be not worried if I got anonymous. It costs me time to login. Nonetheless I did so again. The system seems to tend logging me out.

I apologize for not reading most of the many responses you got. Admittedly I am a bit disappointed because you did not as clearly issue against spacetime as I hoped you to do.

Edwin Klingman asked me about the same as did you: How to interpret ict and ih. Concerning the latter see my essay. What about ict and spacetime, I seem to be the only one here who claims that physics must get rid of the Janus head of a mathematics that claims to fit reality from minus infinity to plus infinity. This would not even fit to the big bang.

I do not understand what exactly you meant with spatial change over time. Engineers like me have to understand their tools. Complex plane is a tool to me, not an extension of numbers. Already Bombelli wrote that a+bi always comes together with its complex conjugate a-bi. In order to get only a+bi, one has to arbitrarily omit the latter. Of course, complex calculus is utterly advantageous - provided one does either not forget to go back into the domain of reality or a complex solution can reasonably be interpreted, e.g. complex impedance Z = R +i omega L.

Best regards,

Eckard

Be not worried if I got anonymous. It costs me time to login. Nonetheless I did so again. The system seems to tend logging me out.

I apologize for not reading most of the many responses you got. Admittedly I am a bit disappointed because you did not as clearly issue against spacetime as I hoped you to do.

Edwin Klingman asked me about the same as did you: How to interpret ict and ih. Concerning the latter see my essay. What about ict and spacetime, I seem to be the only one here who claims that physics must get rid of the Janus head of a mathematics that claims to fit reality from minus infinity to plus infinity. This would not even fit to the big bang.

I do not understand what exactly you meant with spatial change over time. Engineers like me have to understand their tools. Complex plane is a tool to me, not an extension of numbers. Already Bombelli wrote that a+bi always comes together with its complex conjugate a-bi. In order to get only a+bi, one has to arbitrarily omit the latter. Of course, complex calculus is utterly advantageous - provided one does either not forget to go back into the domain of reality or a complex solution can reasonably be interpreted, e.g. complex impedance Z = R +i omega L.

Best regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

I really have not thought enough about these questions of the fundamentals of mathematics and how best to use mathematics to model reality. Which is one of the reasons I am very glad that you are.

I was just trying to say that I think there may be a legitimate use for i as explained and hopefully clarified below.

In my essay I have tried to show that space-time mathematics relates only to the recieved image of reality and incorporated temporal distortion. There is no change within the space-time model as it is a static geometric model, where time is a part of the geometry.

However to have casality and passage of time there has to be a foundational reality where there is spatial change giving a sequence of earlier and later. Hence time appears as earlier and later in a sequence of spatial arrangements or positions. The spatial sequence is Mc Taggarts C series; the earlier later passage of time is B series; (space-time) past , present future expereince is Mc Taggart A series time. See his paper on the unreality of time in my references.

So if One wishes to have that passage of time type change and -also- relate this to what is observed (in static space-time) one needs to have a change of position that can not be represented within the 3 spatial dimensions of space-time and that is a spatial distance that can not be a "real" measurement of distance because it can not be observed as a distance, within the observers scale and frame of reference.

report post as inappropriate

I really have not thought enough about these questions of the fundamentals of mathematics and how best to use mathematics to model reality. Which is one of the reasons I am very glad that you are.

I was just trying to say that I think there may be a legitimate use for i as explained and hopefully clarified below.

In my essay I have tried to show that space-time mathematics relates only to the recieved image of reality and incorporated temporal distortion. There is no change within the space-time model as it is a static geometric model, where time is a part of the geometry.

However to have casality and passage of time there has to be a foundational reality where there is spatial change giving a sequence of earlier and later. Hence time appears as earlier and later in a sequence of spatial arrangements or positions. The spatial sequence is Mc Taggarts C series; the earlier later passage of time is B series; (space-time) past , present future expereince is Mc Taggart A series time. See his paper on the unreality of time in my references.

So if One wishes to have that passage of time type change and -also- relate this to what is observed (in static space-time) one needs to have a change of position that can not be represented within the 3 spatial dimensions of space-time and that is a spatial distance that can not be a "real" measurement of distance because it can not be observed as a distance, within the observers scale and frame of reference.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

Use of i is of course legitimate. I trained a lot of students to use it. However, all physics except for quantum theory can in principle be reduced to differential equations instead. More precisely, the latter can be abstracted from original integral relationships as I tried to explain. Pauli raised the question why quantum mechanics is the only lonely discipline for which i is essential. I gave references that demonstrate his mysticism.

I appreciate your insight that spacetime cannot be a physical reality. I would not call the Doppler effect a temporal distortion, and I maintain: Future data cannot be perceived.

What about Mc Taggart, I do not consider him worth mentioning if we intend to explain to ordinary people what everybody understands anyway, the distinction between past and future. It is just the unrealistic model of blocktime that causes trouble. You are quite right calling it "a static geometric model".

Only elapsed time can be measured.

Regards,

Eckard

Use of i is of course legitimate. I trained a lot of students to use it. However, all physics except for quantum theory can in principle be reduced to differential equations instead. More precisely, the latter can be abstracted from original integral relationships as I tried to explain. Pauli raised the question why quantum mechanics is the only lonely discipline for which i is essential. I gave references that demonstrate his mysticism.

I appreciate your insight that spacetime cannot be a physical reality. I would not call the Doppler effect a temporal distortion, and I maintain: Future data cannot be perceived.

What about Mc Taggart, I do not consider him worth mentioning if we intend to explain to ordinary people what everybody understands anyway, the distinction between past and future. It is just the unrealistic model of blocktime that causes trouble. You are quite right calling it "a static geometric model".

Only elapsed time can be measured.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

I enjoyed your essay which built a solid case for the superiority of digital signal processing and discrete representations. I thought that the historical references to Euclid, Leibniz, Gauss, Cantor and others were fascinating.

Best regards,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay which built a solid case for the superiority of digital signal processing and discrete representations. I thought that the historical references to Euclid, Leibniz, Gauss, Cantor and others were fascinating.

Best regards,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Paul,

In my understanding, foundational questions should not just include FOM (fundamentals of mathematics) but demand some clarification in FOM even if corrections might be painful to those mathematicians to whom aleph is a gospel and set theory the alpha and omega alias infinity of mathematics. I agree not just with David Joice in that the good old Euclidean notion number was abandoned in the 19th century. So far I seem to be the first one who makes this an issue. Cantor's "counterintuitive" infinities beyond infinity provoked distrust, and they got even used as to enforce purely formal thinking. I do not intend being considered one more crank who tries to disprove Cantor or Einstein. Having dealt with the foundations of the foundations, I see the necessity for tiny but very basic resurrections.

When I tried to explain why discrete and in particular digital models are superior, I did not hide that any belonging abstraction and in particular linearizing implies a loss of realism. I do not yet see any possibility to decide whether or not the world is anyhow discrete at the lowest level. However, most likely such lower end of our scales for temporal and spatial distance would be as useless as an upper end. I never dealt with or believed in the big bang.

Already when I was a child, I did not understand those who spoke of blowing up a point. To me numbers and continua are likewise abstract notions that do not have exact correlates in nature unless we define for instance how to count a pregnant cow. My Fig. 1 might illustrate how to imagine discrete values to be seen in a continuous function and how a non-linear transformation changes the scales. When I heard for the first time the expression negative signal to noise ratio, I was confused. How can it be negative? The answer is simple: SNR is usually given in dB.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

In my understanding, foundational questions should not just include FOM (fundamentals of mathematics) but demand some clarification in FOM even if corrections might be painful to those mathematicians to whom aleph is a gospel and set theory the alpha and omega alias infinity of mathematics. I agree not just with David Joice in that the good old Euclidean notion number was abandoned in the 19th century. So far I seem to be the first one who makes this an issue. Cantor's "counterintuitive" infinities beyond infinity provoked distrust, and they got even used as to enforce purely formal thinking. I do not intend being considered one more crank who tries to disprove Cantor or Einstein. Having dealt with the foundations of the foundations, I see the necessity for tiny but very basic resurrections.

When I tried to explain why discrete and in particular digital models are superior, I did not hide that any belonging abstraction and in particular linearizing implies a loss of realism. I do not yet see any possibility to decide whether or not the world is anyhow discrete at the lowest level. However, most likely such lower end of our scales for temporal and spatial distance would be as useless as an upper end. I never dealt with or believed in the big bang.

Already when I was a child, I did not understand those who spoke of blowing up a point. To me numbers and continua are likewise abstract notions that do not have exact correlates in nature unless we define for instance how to count a pregnant cow. My Fig. 1 might illustrate how to imagine discrete values to be seen in a continuous function and how a non-linear transformation changes the scales. When I heard for the first time the expression negative signal to noise ratio, I was confused. How can it be negative? The answer is simple: SNR is usually given in dB.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I was hoping to see a response to my post above. The more rigorous logical analysis is in a post I've just made to Tom in support of Georgina in the blogs (Time travel) but repeated in my string. I hope you'll look, as it identified conceptually and logically where our understanding and application of maths and SR was incorrect.

I note I haven't scored yours yet and will do so now with the far higher one it deserves, as time is running out. I do hope you will agree mine deserves the same, if you haven't done so yet.

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I was hoping to see a response to my post above. The more rigorous logical analysis is in a post I've just made to Tom in support of Georgina in the blogs (Time travel) but repeated in my string. I hope you'll look, as it identified conceptually and logically where our understanding and application of maths and SR was incorrect.

I note I haven't scored yours yet and will do so now with the far higher one it deserves, as time is running out. I do hope you will agree mine deserves the same, if you haven't done so yet.

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I did not yet read what you just wrote in your string. Time travel is impossible to me. What about the somewhat simplistic explanation you gave by means the metaphor of a river, it did not yet immediately convince me. With acoustic waves in a single medium one can also not exceed the velocity of sound by means of superposition.

You might read what Tom Van Flandern wrote: "Is faster-than-ligth propagation allowed by the laws of physics?" and "Lorentz Contraction" in http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp .

Does it agree with your ideas? I see it agreeable with logic and all pertaining experiments I am aware of. It also seems to agree with the many convincing arguments collected by Ekkehard Friebe.

Yan Flandern recognizes a universal time, a universal instant of now. Lorentz transformation works just one way and therefore without paradoxes. Minkowski metric seems to loose its basis. Physics becomes less mystic, and my touch stone seems to work: We do perhaps no longer need ict.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I did not yet read what you just wrote in your string. Time travel is impossible to me. What about the somewhat simplistic explanation you gave by means the metaphor of a river, it did not yet immediately convince me. With acoustic waves in a single medium one can also not exceed the velocity of sound by means of superposition.

You might read what Tom Van Flandern wrote: "Is faster-than-ligth propagation allowed by the laws of physics?" and "Lorentz Contraction" in http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp .

Does it agree with your ideas? I see it agreeable with logic and all pertaining experiments I am aware of. It also seems to agree with the many convincing arguments collected by Ekkehard Friebe.

Yan Flandern recognizes a universal time, a universal instant of now. Lorentz transformation works just one way and therefore without paradoxes. Minkowski metric seems to loose its basis. Physics becomes less mystic, and my touch stone seems to work: We do perhaps no longer need ict.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

I enjoyed the ideas in this essay. We are very much on the same line. Quantities are related to objects, negative and complex numbers are useful because they represent orientations of real objects. They represent common sense reality, nothing magical about them. We could do without complex numbers and replace them with their 3D analogs, the more powerful quaternions.

I remember you also used examples of auditory perception in last year's essay to make your point.

I especially liked the sentences:

"Strictly speaking there are neither absolutely continuous nor absolutely discrete signals, because any tangible thing is finite."

"Even begin and end of an animal’s life are continuous while irreversible processes."

"Peas are preferably treated as if they were uncountable. Uncountable liquids are measured in terms of countable gallons."

"Both the foundations of mathematics and, to a larger extent, basic interpretations of implication for physics are not yet as mature as possible."

"...unfortunately common identification of a number with just one point instead of the distance between zero and a virtual limit point..."

"Foundational pragmatism outperforms pseudo-foundational formalism"

Best wishes for this contest,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed the ideas in this essay. We are very much on the same line. Quantities are related to objects, negative and complex numbers are useful because they represent orientations of real objects. They represent common sense reality, nothing magical about them. We could do without complex numbers and replace them with their 3D analogs, the more powerful quaternions.

I remember you also used examples of auditory perception in last year's essay to make your point.

I especially liked the sentences:

"Strictly speaking there are neither absolutely continuous nor absolutely discrete signals, because any tangible thing is finite."

"Even begin and end of an animal’s life are continuous while irreversible processes."

"Peas are preferably treated as if they were uncountable. Uncountable liquids are measured in terms of countable gallons."

"Both the foundations of mathematics and, to a larger extent, basic interpretations of implication for physics are not yet as mature as possible."

"...unfortunately common identification of a number with just one point instead of the distance between zero and a virtual limit point..."

"Foundational pragmatism outperforms pseudo-foundational formalism"

Best wishes for this contest,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Arjen,

Even John Baez confirmed in principle that quantum physics can equivalently be expressed in terms of real or complex numbers, and quaternions and octonions.

However, so far he did not even mention the - as I maintain - reasonable tailor-made description in terms or only positive real numbers (R+).

My argument is simple: Any finite interval in R can be completely shifted into R+, and this shift merely reverses the original physical relationship. For instance, any analysis of measured data has nothing to do with what will possibly happen after the measurement.

Some consequences imply a lot. For instance, there is presumably no a priori given block of spacetime, no Higgs boson and no SUSY. MP3 works well with cosine transformation. This does however not mean that negative and complex numbers are unnecessary. On the contrary, they are utterly advantageous if correctly used and interpreted.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Even John Baez confirmed in principle that quantum physics can equivalently be expressed in terms of real or complex numbers, and quaternions and octonions.

However, so far he did not even mention the - as I maintain - reasonable tailor-made description in terms or only positive real numbers (R+).

My argument is simple: Any finite interval in R can be completely shifted into R+, and this shift merely reverses the original physical relationship. For instance, any analysis of measured data has nothing to do with what will possibly happen after the measurement.

Some consequences imply a lot. For instance, there is presumably no a priori given block of spacetime, no Higgs boson and no SUSY. MP3 works well with cosine transformation. This does however not mean that negative and complex numbers are unnecessary. On the contrary, they are utterly advantageous if correctly used and interpreted.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

I am very pleased with your new found popularity. Hope your essay makes it to the panel, as it appears it will. I am equally (if not even more) pleased, but not with my rating position (38) of my essay. But rather, by a very significant result I just posted yesterday. I consider you a friend and a supporter. So I just had to tell you of this directly.

Two very key assumptions in physics (dating back to Einstein) are

1)The constant speed of light (CSL)

2)The Photon Hypothesis (PH)

The first lead to Relativity, while the second lead eventually to Quantum Physics.

In my very short paper “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave” I give a simple mathematical proof that CSL contradicts PH.

I look forward to your always insightful comments.

Best Wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

I am very pleased with your new found popularity. Hope your essay makes it to the panel, as it appears it will. I am equally (if not even more) pleased, but not with my rating position (38) of my essay. But rather, by a very significant result I just posted yesterday. I consider you a friend and a supporter. So I just had to tell you of this directly.

Two very key assumptions in physics (dating back to Einstein) are

1)The constant speed of light (CSL)

2)The Photon Hypothesis (PH)

The first lead to Relativity, while the second lead eventually to Quantum Physics.

In my very short paper “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave” I give a simple mathematical proof that CSL contradicts PH.

I look forward to your always insightful comments.

Best Wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

While I maintain my support for you, I would like to clarify that the constant speed of light does not date back to Einstein but largely to Maxwell. Likewise the principle of relativity does not date back to Einstein but at least to Galilei. Planck's quantum (1900) predates Einstein's (1905) PH. Planck's appreciation might be to blame for his decision as editor to accept Einstein's paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" which omits any reference to Poincaré.

Best regards,

Eckard

While I maintain my support for you, I would like to clarify that the constant speed of light does not date back to Einstein but largely to Maxwell. Likewise the principle of relativity does not date back to Einstein but at least to Galilei. Planck's quantum (1900) predates Einstein's (1905) PH. Planck's appreciation might be to blame for his decision as editor to accept Einstein's paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" which omits any reference to Poincaré.

Best regards,

Eckard

Thanks for that historical clarification, Eckard. I am always impressed by your vast knowledge and your deep insights. And that is the reason I seek your comments on the result I linked in my last post.

I am aware that Maxwell's equations (considering light as a wave) determine that the speed of light is a constant. My just posted result does the opposite. With the assumption that the speed of light is constant, I mathematically demonstrate that light must be a wave. Thus, under all circumstances, light is a wave. In my view, this contradicts the Photon Hypothesis and the 'physical view' it lead to. It makes a strong case for a continuous universe.

Good luck,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

I am aware that Maxwell's equations (considering light as a wave) determine that the speed of light is a constant. My just posted result does the opposite. With the assumption that the speed of light is constant, I mathematically demonstrate that light must be a wave. Thus, under all circumstances, light is a wave. In my view, this contradicts the Photon Hypothesis and the 'physical view' it lead to. It makes a strong case for a continuous universe.

Good luck,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

Hector Zenil claims the opposite: "The World is Either Algorithmic or Mostly Random". This is understandable since he imagines the world like a computer created by God out of nothing and switched on at the Big Bang. So far I cannot see any reason to invoke such capitalized items into physics. Who is correct?

I agree with you on that light is a continuous function of time, an electromagnetic wave. However, does this exclude a discrete spectrum of frequencies alias energy levels? So far, it is commonly assumed that a function of time relates to its spectral representation via the Fourier transformation.

I maintain: The original and therefore non-arbitrary and non-redundant relationship is not the complex Fourier transformation but rather its real part, the cosine transformation.

Because the cosine transformation is its own inverse and a discrete function of time corresponds to a continuous spectrum and vice versa, it is not obvious which one is the primary one. Moreover, in reality there are neither ideal continuous nor ideal discrete functions of time or frequency because the width of window is always finite, see also the essay by Ken Wharton.

Andrej Akhmeteli is certainly correct when he appreciates that "a more precise future theory may reverse the verdict" that declared reality discrete or continuous.

Engineers like me, pysiologists, and others need not something to believe in but best matching tools. We are even ready to choose different most appropriate tools according to the special case of application if we know that among them are just approximations.

Given you did find out that the world is continuous, who will benefit from that?

The decision for digital signal processing was definitely a profitable one.

Best regards,

Eckard

Hector Zenil claims the opposite: "The World is Either Algorithmic or Mostly Random". This is understandable since he imagines the world like a computer created by God out of nothing and switched on at the Big Bang. So far I cannot see any reason to invoke such capitalized items into physics. Who is correct?

I agree with you on that light is a continuous function of time, an electromagnetic wave. However, does this exclude a discrete spectrum of frequencies alias energy levels? So far, it is commonly assumed that a function of time relates to its spectral representation via the Fourier transformation.

I maintain: The original and therefore non-arbitrary and non-redundant relationship is not the complex Fourier transformation but rather its real part, the cosine transformation.

Because the cosine transformation is its own inverse and a discrete function of time corresponds to a continuous spectrum and vice versa, it is not obvious which one is the primary one. Moreover, in reality there are neither ideal continuous nor ideal discrete functions of time or frequency because the width of window is always finite, see also the essay by Ken Wharton.

Andrej Akhmeteli is certainly correct when he appreciates that "a more precise future theory may reverse the verdict" that declared reality discrete or continuous.

Engineers like me, pysiologists, and others need not something to believe in but best matching tools. We are even ready to choose different most appropriate tools according to the special case of application if we know that among them are just approximations.

Given you did find out that the world is continuous, who will benefit from that?

The decision for digital signal processing was definitely a profitable one.

Best regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I had forgotten to rate your essay. I have now done so. If you have forgotten me, I ask you to remember.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I had forgotten to rate your essay. I have now done so. If you have forgotten me, I ask you to remember.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Having repeatedly faced punishment by getting rated one, I am nonetheless not ready to hide the unwelcome results of my perhaps compelling reasoning even if this is seen an attack on holy grails in mathematics and also in physics. If no experiment will provide accordingly expected results, then I see no way but to deal with really foundational question not in the sense of more and more excuses and speculations but readiness to look for and admit very basic mistakes.

I would highly appreciate the same courage. What is your opinion concerning aleph_2 and concerning fair synchronization?

Eckard

Having repeatedly faced punishment by getting rated one, I am nonetheless not ready to hide the unwelcome results of my perhaps compelling reasoning even if this is seen an attack on holy grails in mathematics and also in physics. If no experiment will provide accordingly expected results, then I see no way but to deal with really foundational question not in the sense of more and more excuses and speculations but readiness to look for and admit very basic mistakes.

I would highly appreciate the same courage. What is your opinion concerning aleph_2 and concerning fair synchronization?

Eckard

Eckard,

You say: "I would highly appreciate the same courage. What is your opinion concerning aleph_2 and concerning fair synchronization?"

It is not lack of courage that prevents me from stating opinions, as you will see all over these threads, if you read my various comments and responses. Only uncertainty and/or incompetence prevents my expressing an opinion, and I feel incompetent to say anything about aleph_2 that would add to the conversation.

I hope you do not hold this against me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You say: "I would highly appreciate the same courage. What is your opinion concerning aleph_2 and concerning fair synchronization?"

It is not lack of courage that prevents me from stating opinions, as you will see all over these threads, if you read my various comments and responses. Only uncertainty and/or incompetence prevents my expressing an opinion, and I feel incompetent to say anything about aleph_2 that would add to the conversation.

I hope you do not hold this against me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Please read what I just wrote to Georgina as to explain why Poincarè/Einstein's special theory of relativity overlaps past and future. I have to apologize for not proofreading and for not deleting the wrong text after the end of my message. Nonetheless, I consider it essential and I hope for your comment.

What about your refusal to take issue, I know that I will neither find any mathematician who can factually defend aleph_2 nor a mathematician who is brave enough to admit in public that it is pure nonsense.

The situation concerning SR might be a bit different because physics is closer to reality, and the above mentioned arguments are more easily understandable even for laymen. Aren't they?

What about your theory, I for my part have to admit being unable to judge its correctness in detail. Maybe, you could explain some key ideas a little bit better. Nonetheless, I appreciate you taking issue for realism. If I compare your essay with Peter's, yours is much more proficient, and also your comments were well balanced. So I feel in position to rate it high.

Best regards,

Eckard

Please read what I just wrote to Georgina as to explain why Poincarè/Einstein's special theory of relativity overlaps past and future. I have to apologize for not proofreading and for not deleting the wrong text after the end of my message. Nonetheless, I consider it essential and I hope for your comment.

What about your refusal to take issue, I know that I will neither find any mathematician who can factually defend aleph_2 nor a mathematician who is brave enough to admit in public that it is pure nonsense.

The situation concerning SR might be a bit different because physics is closer to reality, and the above mentioned arguments are more easily understandable even for laymen. Aren't they?

What about your theory, I for my part have to admit being unable to judge its correctness in detail. Maybe, you could explain some key ideas a little bit better. Nonetheless, I appreciate you taking issue for realism. If I compare your essay with Peter's, yours is much more proficient, and also your comments were well balanced. So I feel in position to rate it high.

Best regards,

Eckard

Hello Eckard,

congratulation for your essay!

I don't know if we are on the same line (at least mathematically) but I think you'll enjoy reading my essay because of my proposition for "simplexity" as a good answer to "ict" (for the best one) in your sentence:

"When Minkowski’s introduced ict as fourth dimension, he confessed not to understand why it is imaginary..."

(see my essay here http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/952)

Best regards, good luck for the contest

Ayind Mahamba

report post as inappropriate

congratulation for your essay!

I don't know if we are on the same line (at least mathematically) but I think you'll enjoy reading my essay because of my proposition for "simplexity" as a good answer to "ict" (for the best one) in your sentence:

"When Minkowski’s introduced ict as fourth dimension, he confessed not to understand why it is imaginary..."

(see my essay here http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/952)

Best regards, good luck for the contest

Ayind Mahamba

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

I'd hoped you may respond to the note I referred above. I give another analogy below. I was glad to help get your essay back closer to where it belongs. You should also look at the excellent Ionescue essay, very logical mathematical concepts, directly demanding and supporting my DFM model, which consigns Lorentz to oblivion!

ANALAGY; I flew the Atlantic in a 150mph jet stream 2 weeks ago. It was very bumpy getting 'in' and 'out' of the stream, (we could see the 'speed over ground' changing) but we arrived an hour early. Consider; The plane did normal cruising speed within the jet. When we spoke within the plane the sound moved wrt the plane. The same with light. The noise outside would move wrt the LOCAL air. An observer on a boat would measure it at C plus V. Yet no light or sound would reach that observer at more than C or the speed of sound!! Plasma does precisely the same with it's refractive index as glass and air.

We've been guilty of invalid logic and inadequate mental capacity.

I hope you'll score my essay before the deadline if you haven't as I think it important the result gets attention in a reputable journal. Do confirm if you understand the logic now, and do check my string.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I'd hoped you may respond to the note I referred above. I give another analogy below. I was glad to help get your essay back closer to where it belongs. You should also look at the excellent Ionescue essay, very logical mathematical concepts, directly demanding and supporting my DFM model, which consigns Lorentz to oblivion!

ANALAGY; I flew the Atlantic in a 150mph jet stream 2 weeks ago. It was very bumpy getting 'in' and 'out' of the stream, (we could see the 'speed over ground' changing) but we arrived an hour early. Consider; The plane did normal cruising speed within the jet. When we spoke within the plane the sound moved wrt the plane. The same with light. The noise outside would move wrt the LOCAL air. An observer on a boat would measure it at C plus V. Yet no light or sound would reach that observer at more than C or the speed of sound!! Plasma does precisely the same with it's refractive index as glass and air.

We've been guilty of invalid logic and inadequate mental capacity.

I hope you'll score my essay before the deadline if you haven't as I think it important the result gets attention in a reputable journal. Do confirm if you understand the logic now, and do check my string.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir

Very sorry that you did not read my essay.

I am your ally

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

report post as inappropriate

Very sorry that you did not read my essay.

I am your ally

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

I apologize for my inability to rapidly grasp your ideas. You quoted three times Wheeler and once a paper, maybe yours on geometry of the microworld in a journal chemistry and life.

In order to support you in time, I should get a hint what special subject you refer to. I am trying to understand your somewhat Russian English. Yes, symmetry and antisymmetry are important. However, in what particular matter are you my ally?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I apologize for my inability to rapidly grasp your ideas. You quoted three times Wheeler and once a paper, maybe yours on geometry of the microworld in a journal chemistry and life.

In order to support you in time, I should get a hint what special subject you refer to. I am trying to understand your somewhat Russian English. Yes, symmetry and antisymmetry are important. However, in what particular matter are you my ally?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

“So far, it seems to be most reasonable to consider the world neither finite nor actually infinite but potentially infinite towards smaller as well as larger values of spatial and temporal distance. While Planck length and Planck time are too small and Planck energy is too large as to be of practical use, Planck mass amounts 22 microgram, which would be easily measurable”

First I want quote comment my essay:

1.Some notes about variations of fundamental constants:

In discussion between L. B. Okun, G. Veneziano and M. J. Duff, concerning the number of fundamental dimensionful constants in physics (physics/0110060). They advocated correspondingly 3, 2 and 0 fundamental constants. Why they not considering case, where only 1 constant Planck-Dirac's constant; h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec?

This will be convincingly, because c not contain mass dimension for triumvir and G not contain t for triumvir

h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.

As a consequence only Mp/Me=1836 true dimensionless constant?

2.Contrary to you I think the space is granular and discrete and hope holometer experiment will prove this idea

My approach more radical? Time is illusion and subsequently not refferent to real or imaginative idea

C is false constant….

G is false constant….

My view close to Rovelly idea that time not exist.

Only 3d space is real substance and collective effect 2d fermion and 2d boson surfaces

Sorry my Russian English!

report post as inappropriate

“So far, it seems to be most reasonable to consider the world neither finite nor actually infinite but potentially infinite towards smaller as well as larger values of spatial and temporal distance. While Planck length and Planck time are too small and Planck energy is too large as to be of practical use, Planck mass amounts 22 microgram, which would be easily measurable”

First I want quote comment my essay:

1.Some notes about variations of fundamental constants:

In discussion between L. B. Okun, G. Veneziano and M. J. Duff, concerning the number of fundamental dimensionful constants in physics (physics/0110060). They advocated correspondingly 3, 2 and 0 fundamental constants. Why they not considering case, where only 1 constant Planck-Dirac's constant; h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec?

This will be convincingly, because c not contain mass dimension for triumvir and G not contain t for triumvir

h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.

As a consequence only Mp/Me=1836 true dimensionless constant?

2.Contrary to you I think the space is granular and discrete and hope holometer experiment will prove this idea

My approach more radical? Time is illusion and subsequently not refferent to real or imaginative idea

C is false constant….

G is false constant….

My view close to Rovelly idea that time not exist.

Only 3d space is real substance and collective effect 2d fermion and 2d boson surfaces

Sorry my Russian English!

report post as inappropriate

Other quote my essay comment

My guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

Rounding values.

report post as inappropriate

My guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

Rounding values.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

Do let me know if you saw the nuance in the jetstream analogy above, I also repeated an excellent blog insight from Georgina ref QM, an even better analogy, and other references in my string which would interest you. this seems to include the full demise of Lorentz.

But the most important thing is the note I make of the Ionescue essay, so far largely unnoticed, excellent mathematical logic which both demands and proves my DFM logic. I seem to be slipping back now so probably won't get the into Journal exposure group, which is a massive shame. But please do give me your views on the Ionescue essay, and confirm afterwards if you've 'spotted the error' in current physics.

Many thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Do let me know if you saw the nuance in the jetstream analogy above, I also repeated an excellent blog insight from Georgina ref QM, an even better analogy, and other references in my string which would interest you. this seems to include the full demise of Lorentz.

But the most important thing is the note I make of the Ionescue essay, so far largely unnoticed, excellent mathematical logic which both demands and proves my DFM logic. I seem to be slipping back now so probably won't get the into Journal exposure group, which is a massive shame. But please do give me your views on the Ionescue essay, and confirm afterwards if you've 'spotted the error' in current physics.

Many thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

While I appreciate your perhaps valuable hints to heretical literature and also to some extent your emphatic attitude, I am disappointed because you did not answered questions of mine, in particular concerning the lunar experiment. Instead you suggested to me an essay by Ionescu. The name is from Romania. Do not write Ionescue. This essay did not get a high rating so far. I will need some time to look into even if just 4 pages text are sparse, and I found imperfections at the first glimpse.

What about your genial DFM logic, you would perhaps have a better chance to reach me if jour wording was more factual. I looked into my dictionary for the word demise. "The full dead of Lorentz" sounds not appropriate to me.

Georgina already admitted to me that someone persuaded her being wrong. I hesitate asking you for a concise explanation. Ask yourself why I do not expect myself intelligent enough as to understand what you could write.

Regards,

Eckard

While I appreciate your perhaps valuable hints to heretical literature and also to some extent your emphatic attitude, I am disappointed because you did not answered questions of mine, in particular concerning the lunar experiment. Instead you suggested to me an essay by Ionescu. The name is from Romania. Do not write Ionescue. This essay did not get a high rating so far. I will need some time to look into even if just 4 pages text are sparse, and I found imperfections at the first glimpse.

What about your genial DFM logic, you would perhaps have a better chance to reach me if jour wording was more factual. I looked into my dictionary for the word demise. "The full dead of Lorentz" sounds not appropriate to me.

Georgina already admitted to me that someone persuaded her being wrong. I hesitate asking you for a concise explanation. Ask yourself why I do not expect myself intelligent enough as to understand what you could write.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

Congratulations!

Pleased that your essay made it to the final round!

Best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations!

Pleased that your essay made it to the final round!

Best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos, Juri, and Peter,

Admittedly I did not pay attention to modalities like the final round. I rather intend learning from others and give my best knowledge in return. I have to apologize not just for misspelled or missing words but mainly for lacking ability to thoroughly read all possibly valuable essays and grasp new ideas. My judgments are certainly often inaccurate. Likewise I cannot condemn those who gave my essay the lowest possible rating. Too many of my positions contradict to commonly believed tenets.

What service can I offer to you?

Dear Yuri,

You are still soliciting my answer. I am sorry. When I mentioned Planck mass, I only intended to demonstrate why I tend to not trust in Planck length/time as smallest parts of scales. Your guesses look interesting.

Dear Peter,

Having read Lucian Ionescu's essay, I found several utterances close to my own heretical positions. For instance he wrote on p.3 "amorphous set of real numbers". When I wrote my essay I exceeded the limit, and then I decided to omit unnecessary and highly mistakable words or sentences until the limit was met.

No just Lucian's essay is difficult to read at least to me because of logical gaps, because of abundantly used "..." as to stress that an expressions is not meant literally, by use exclamation marks e.g.: "... The continuum is the cause of all "trouble" in mathematics!"

Sorry, I did not find any confirmation for your DFM in Lucian's essay.

Regards,

Eckard

Admittedly I did not pay attention to modalities like the final round. I rather intend learning from others and give my best knowledge in return. I have to apologize not just for misspelled or missing words but mainly for lacking ability to thoroughly read all possibly valuable essays and grasp new ideas. My judgments are certainly often inaccurate. Likewise I cannot condemn those who gave my essay the lowest possible rating. Too many of my positions contradict to commonly believed tenets.

What service can I offer to you?

Dear Yuri,

You are still soliciting my answer. I am sorry. When I mentioned Planck mass, I only intended to demonstrate why I tend to not trust in Planck length/time as smallest parts of scales. Your guesses look interesting.

Dear Peter,

Having read Lucian Ionescu's essay, I found several utterances close to my own heretical positions. For instance he wrote on p.3 "amorphous set of real numbers". When I wrote my essay I exceeded the limit, and then I decided to omit unnecessary and highly mistakable words or sentences until the limit was met.

No just Lucian's essay is difficult to read at least to me because of logical gaps, because of abundantly used "..." as to stress that an expressions is not meant literally, by use exclamation marks e.g.: "... The continuum is the cause of all "trouble" in mathematics!"

Sorry, I did not find any confirmation for your DFM in Lucian's essay.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

You are noted my very poor Russian Englisch and therefore it is difficult to assemble a unified picture my view of this World ..

Because you are a specialist of arc welding i would be very grateful if you could help me to be welding my design.

For further correspondence please write me me at

yuri@danoyan.net

Yours sincerely

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

You are noted my very poor Russian Englisch and therefore it is difficult to assemble a unified picture my view of this World ..

Because you are a specialist of arc welding i would be very grateful if you could help me to be welding my design.

For further correspondence please write me me at

yuri@danoyan.net

Yours sincerely

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Supporters:

God made the integers; all else is the work of man.

Leopold Kronecker

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/leopold_kronecke

r.html#ixzz1GqfukUUg

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.

Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920

English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

report post as inappropriate

God made the integers; all else is the work of man.

Leopold Kronecker

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/leopold_kronecke

r.html#ixzz1GqfukUUg

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.

Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920

English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

report post as inappropriate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

My favorite part of math in college was

It was very aesthetic.

Holographic Universe –final solution of science….

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

My favorite part of math in college was

It was very aesthetic.

Holographic Universe –final solution of science….

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Yuri,

Could you please reveal your argument? You should be sure that a hint to Fourier-transform is inappropriate. I was teaching this matter for decades.

I found out that on condition of restriction to measured data, there is no reason to include negative elapsed time. Hence cosine transform is sufficient. MP3 coding benefits from this fact.

What about Kronecker, I looked into the link you gave and got aware that Dedekind was missing in the list of related mathematicians they gave. Dedekind's 1887 book "Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?" can be seen an antithesis to Kronecker's famous utterance.

Kronecker was the main barrier against Cantor's transfinite paradise until his health broke down under massive personal attacks by Cantor. I consider him doomed to fail because he had the same intention as had Dedekind and Cantor: to rigorously construct an algebra of continuum. Why did Kronecker's colleague Weierstrass protect Cantor? There is little known. Weierstrass did not publish scientific papers, there are only scripts of his lessons written by his pupils. In contrast to the rich Jew Kronecker, Weierstrass held very popular lessons and had numerous pupils. Perhaps, Weierstrass was not aware of what was behind the stunning monster function that made him respected: mutually contradicting aspects of infinity.

Nobody should get me wrong. I am not denying that real numbers are a reasonable extension of the rational ones. I just would like to clarify that they do not make the rational numbers complete. They are something else. Even equivalent real numbers are something fictitious, something quite different from their rational correlates. There is no rigorous bridge between discrete and continuous unless one deceives themselves by means of brutal arbitrary redefinition of these notions.

Donatello Dolce suggested a sweet but poisoned alternative donation: "a third possible description incorporates aspects of both." I intend taking issue.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Could you please reveal your argument? You should be sure that a hint to Fourier-transform is inappropriate. I was teaching this matter for decades.

I found out that on condition of restriction to measured data, there is no reason to include negative elapsed time. Hence cosine transform is sufficient. MP3 coding benefits from this fact.

What about Kronecker, I looked into the link you gave and got aware that Dedekind was missing in the list of related mathematicians they gave. Dedekind's 1887 book "Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?" can be seen an antithesis to Kronecker's famous utterance.

Kronecker was the main barrier against Cantor's transfinite paradise until his health broke down under massive personal attacks by Cantor. I consider him doomed to fail because he had the same intention as had Dedekind and Cantor: to rigorously construct an algebra of continuum. Why did Kronecker's colleague Weierstrass protect Cantor? There is little known. Weierstrass did not publish scientific papers, there are only scripts of his lessons written by his pupils. In contrast to the rich Jew Kronecker, Weierstrass held very popular lessons and had numerous pupils. Perhaps, Weierstrass was not aware of what was behind the stunning monster function that made him respected: mutually contradicting aspects of infinity.

Nobody should get me wrong. I am not denying that real numbers are a reasonable extension of the rational ones. I just would like to clarify that they do not make the rational numbers complete. They are something else. Even equivalent real numbers are something fictitious, something quite different from their rational correlates. There is no rigorous bridge between discrete and continuous unless one deceives themselves by means of brutal arbitrary redefinition of these notions.

Donatello Dolce suggested a sweet but poisoned alternative donation: "a third possible description incorporates aspects of both." I intend taking issue.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Yes i mean cosine transform is sufficient.

But cosine transform follow from Fourier transform...

report post as inappropriate

But cosine transform follow from Fourier transform...

report post as inappropriate

You are not adequately appreciated the utterance of Eddington.

This is just what you say...about negative or imaginative numbers,about up and down,about left and right etc. There are all relative.

report post as inappropriate

This is just what you say...about negative or imaginative numbers,about up and down,about left and right etc. There are all relative.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

I posted some links on Jason's string showing coloured cross sections through an 'apparent' superluminal quasar gas jet (HH34 as photo in my essay)

The core 'blue' areas are doing 'c' locally wrt the bit they're in, which is doing 'c' wrt the bit IT'S in, etc. etc.

There are stacks of good papers, here is just one, See Fig 5? etc for a jet with a 7c core. (wrt Hubble).

Just because we're looking from Hubbles frame DOES NOT make us special. There may be 1,000 Hubbles around the universe doing all sorts of seed wrt the jet!!

Only measurement the from same inertial frame as the subject motion is valid, and we'll find the answer is max 'c'.

It's a problem of self centric thinking. We must stop thinking we're so special! See my last essay Reference.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I posted some links on Jason's string showing coloured cross sections through an 'apparent' superluminal quasar gas jet (HH34 as photo in my essay)

The core 'blue' areas are doing 'c' locally wrt the bit they're in, which is doing 'c' wrt the bit IT'S in, etc. etc.

There are stacks of good papers, here is just one, See Fig 5? etc for a jet with a 7c core. (wrt Hubble).

Just because we're looking from Hubbles frame DOES NOT make us special. There may be 1,000 Hubbles around the universe doing all sorts of seed wrt the jet!!

Only measurement the from same inertial frame as the subject motion is valid, and we'll find the answer is max 'c'.

It's a problem of self centric thinking. We must stop thinking we're so special! See my last essay Reference.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

When I criticized your style, my intention was to help you. Even if the question of velocity in excess of c is a bit off topic, I highly appreciate you pointing to these unexpected experimental results.

Your last reference is Henrich J. Heine S. Norenzaya A. The weirdest people in the world? 2010. B&B Sciences, vol 33 p61. New Scientist vol 208 No 2976 Nov 2010 p42-45. Because I do not have the New Scientist at hand, could you please reveal whom they refer to?

I see self centric thinking overcome by Galileo Galilei's relativity but resurrected by Poincaré/Einstein's desynchronization. I guess, Tom Van Flandern was the first one to speak of desynchronization. Admittedly i did not yet read the book by Petr Beckmann. Van Flandern gave an explanation. Did you deal with it?

I apologize for taking issue in a matter that is outside my competence. I was guided to it because I could not understand the origin of complex Minkowski metric, and I wonder how many paradoxes belong to SR: twin, grandfather, Ehrenfest, Adromeda, .... Maybe I am a bit dense or too old. Isn't it already strange that I am shrinking because something moves rapidly relative to me, no matter whether it is small or large.

Regards,

Eckard

When I criticized your style, my intention was to help you. Even if the question of velocity in excess of c is a bit off topic, I highly appreciate you pointing to these unexpected experimental results.

Your last reference is Henrich J. Heine S. Norenzaya A. The weirdest people in the world? 2010. B&B Sciences, vol 33 p61. New Scientist vol 208 No 2976 Nov 2010 p42-45. Because I do not have the New Scientist at hand, could you please reveal whom they refer to?

I see self centric thinking overcome by Galileo Galilei's relativity but resurrected by Poincaré/Einstein's desynchronization. I guess, Tom Van Flandern was the first one to speak of desynchronization. Admittedly i did not yet read the book by Petr Beckmann. Van Flandern gave an explanation. Did you deal with it?

I apologize for taking issue in a matter that is outside my competence. I was guided to it because I could not understand the origin of complex Minkowski metric, and I wonder how many paradoxes belong to SR: twin, grandfather, Ehrenfest, Adromeda, .... Maybe I am a bit dense or too old. Isn't it already strange that I am shrinking because something moves rapidly relative to me, no matter whether it is small or large.

Regards,

Eckard

Ooops, the link;

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&

ved=0CEMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Famas.py5aal.googlepages.com%2

F008Astrophysical_Jets_Outflows_py5aa.pdf&rct=j&q=Superlumin

al%20Astrophysical%20Outflows&ei=pQWCTbbyN8iphAeNoc3EBA&usg=

AFQjCNHn2DtcdVxIgXa0QFbYv9asqrClaA&sig2=5E9pm5JZX-NxSqVpihz5

nQ

Peter

report post as inappropriate

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&

ved=0CEMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Famas.py5aal.googlepages.com%2

F008Astrophysical_Jets_Outflows_py5aa.pdf&rct=j&q=Superlumin

al%20Astrophysical%20Outflows&ei=pQWCTbbyN8iphAeNoc3EBA&usg=

AFQjCNHn2DtcdVxIgXa0QFbYv9asqrClaA&sig2=5E9pm5JZX-NxSqVpihz5

nQ

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

i would like introduce to you my article

What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

i would like introduce to you my article

What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

While papers in viXra are not endorsed, I do not doubt that Pauli made the utterance: "Zweiteilung und Symmetrievemindeung, das ist des Pudels Kern. Zweiteilung ist ein sehr altes Attribut des Teufels” and the answers you got by known experts are authentic. Your application on spin might be correct. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this matter.

Anyway, my effort to clarify what is in mathematics wrong behind Buridan's donkey seems to have far reaching consequences.

Regards,

Eckard

While papers in viXra are not endorsed, I do not doubt that Pauli made the utterance: "Zweiteilung und Symmetrievemindeung, das ist des Pudels Kern. Zweiteilung ist ein sehr altes Attribut des Teufels” and the answers you got by known experts are authentic. Your application on spin might be correct. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this matter.

Anyway, my effort to clarify what is in mathematics wrong behind Buridan's donkey seems to have far reaching consequences.

Regards,

Eckard

And even the great Heisenberg could not decode Pauli's utterance.

Great expert of Pauli's scientific heritage Hans Primas wrote to me

Dear Yuri Danoyan,

The original German quotation is:

"Zweiteilung und Symmetrievemindeung, das ist des Pudels Kern. Zweiteilung ist ein sehr altes Attribut des Teufels. (Das Wort Zweifel soll urspünglichch Zweiteilung bedeutet haben)."

It is in a letter by Pauli to Heisenberg, who quote it (without given the date of the letter) in:

W. Heisenberg, Wolfgang Paulis philosophische Auffassungen, Die Naturwissenschaften, vol. 46 (1959), pp.661-663.

It is again quoted in W. Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze , Piper Verlag , Muenchen (1969), p.317. In the English translation of this book (Physics and Beyond, Harper and Row, New York (1974), p.234) it is translated as:

"Division and reduction of symmetry, this then is the kernel of the

brute! The former is an ancient attribute of the devil."

It is notoriously difficult to translate Pauli's striking and succinct German in another language. Here Pauli refers to Goethe's Faust, part 1, second scene "Faust's study":

"Das war also des Pudels Kern ... "

In German, this phrase has become proverbial, known to everyone (even if to people who do not know the Faustian context), essentially in the sense "that is the crux of the matter".

The phrase you quote "WHERE ACTUALLY THE DOG LIES EXACTLY BURIED !" seems to me not to be a literal translation of a remark by Pauli, but a translation of the German saying: "da liegt der Hund begraben". This saying is probably more then 400 years old, and the authoritative "Deutsches Woerterbuch" by Grimm leave the question of the origin of this saying open. Probably "Hund" does not refer to "dog", but to the Middle High German "hunte" (meaning "centum", "hundred coins"), or more generally "booty" or "treasure". Nevertheless, the present-day meaning is clear to every German-speaking child. It means roughly: "that is the crux of the matter".

I hope that these explanations are a bit helpful. Wit my best regards

Hans Primas

Dear Dr.Primas

I OFTEN MEET SOME ENIGMATIC AND MISTERIOUS PHRASE OF WOLFGANG PAULI

''DIVISION (INTO TWO) AND REDUCTION OF SYMMETRY..WHERE ACTUALLY THE DOG LIES EXACTLY BURIED !"

I READ THIS PHRASE IN RUSSIAN ,BUT NOT READ IN GERMAN.ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AUTHENTIK TEXT?

WHAT MEAN PAULI TO YOUR OPINION?

THANK YOU FOR ANSWER.

Yuri Danoyan

--

Hans Primas

Kusenstrasse 21, CH-8700 Kuesnacht (Switzerland).

Phone: 01 9107167. E-mail: primas@ggaweb.ch

report post as inappropriate

Great expert of Pauli's scientific heritage Hans Primas wrote to me

Dear Yuri Danoyan,

The original German quotation is:

"Zweiteilung und Symmetrievemindeung, das ist des Pudels Kern. Zweiteilung ist ein sehr altes Attribut des Teufels. (Das Wort Zweifel soll urspünglichch Zweiteilung bedeutet haben)."

It is in a letter by Pauli to Heisenberg, who quote it (without given the date of the letter) in:

W. Heisenberg, Wolfgang Paulis philosophische Auffassungen, Die Naturwissenschaften, vol. 46 (1959), pp.661-663.

It is again quoted in W. Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze , Piper Verlag , Muenchen (1969), p.317. In the English translation of this book (Physics and Beyond, Harper and Row, New York (1974), p.234) it is translated as:

"Division and reduction of symmetry, this then is the kernel of the

brute! The former is an ancient attribute of the devil."

It is notoriously difficult to translate Pauli's striking and succinct German in another language. Here Pauli refers to Goethe's Faust, part 1, second scene "Faust's study":

"Das war also des Pudels Kern ... "

In German, this phrase has become proverbial, known to everyone (even if to people who do not know the Faustian context), essentially in the sense "that is the crux of the matter".

The phrase you quote "WHERE ACTUALLY THE DOG LIES EXACTLY BURIED !" seems to me not to be a literal translation of a remark by Pauli, but a translation of the German saying: "da liegt der Hund begraben". This saying is probably more then 400 years old, and the authoritative "Deutsches Woerterbuch" by Grimm leave the question of the origin of this saying open. Probably "Hund" does not refer to "dog", but to the Middle High German "hunte" (meaning "centum", "hundred coins"), or more generally "booty" or "treasure". Nevertheless, the present-day meaning is clear to every German-speaking child. It means roughly: "that is the crux of the matter".

I hope that these explanations are a bit helpful. Wit my best regards

Hans Primas

Dear Dr.Primas

I OFTEN MEET SOME ENIGMATIC AND MISTERIOUS PHRASE OF WOLFGANG PAULI

''DIVISION (INTO TWO) AND REDUCTION OF SYMMETRY..WHERE ACTUALLY THE DOG LIES EXACTLY BURIED !"

I READ THIS PHRASE IN RUSSIAN ,BUT NOT READ IN GERMAN.ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AUTHENTIK TEXT?

WHAT MEAN PAULI TO YOUR OPINION?

THANK YOU FOR ANSWER.

Yuri Danoyan

--

Hans Primas

Kusenstrasse 21, CH-8700 Kuesnacht (Switzerland).

Phone: 01 9107167. E-mail: primas@ggaweb.ch

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

Concerning of Pauli's quote i would like put forward following consideration. Despite the fact that Pauli wrote this in the fifties, he intuitively guessing future trends.

"Division and reduction of symmetry", is just confirmation your idea to cut the axes from - infinity to + infinity and get rid negative numbers along with imaginary numbers.

Regards,

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Concerning of Pauli's quote i would like put forward following consideration. Despite the fact that Pauli wrote this in the fifties, he intuitively guessing future trends.

"Division and reduction of symmetry", is just confirmation your idea to cut the axes from - infinity to + infinity and get rid negative numbers along with imaginary numbers.

Regards,

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Yes, I already understood this interpretation. Accordingly, a more precise translation could be "division in two halves and getting rid of symmetry".

Symmetry is redundant.

In order to avoid getting mistaken, I would like to clarify that the restriction to past events only concerns reality. Models are extending symmetrically including past and future. The laws are time-symmetrical, the embedding into influences is one-sided. While I did not yet fully understand your idea of 3:1. There are actually three time domains: traces of past events in reality, calculated past and calculated future at the abstracted and extrapolated level of models. So far, physics neglects the unilateral timescale of reality because mathematics misleadingly suggests that R and C are more general domains as compared with R+. This is mathematically correct but incorrect if applied on reality. Abstraction creates additional degrees of freedom that do not have correlates in reality: apparent symmetries.

Regards,

Eckard

Yes, I already understood this interpretation. Accordingly, a more precise translation could be "division in two halves and getting rid of symmetry".

Symmetry is redundant.

In order to avoid getting mistaken, I would like to clarify that the restriction to past events only concerns reality. Models are extending symmetrically including past and future. The laws are time-symmetrical, the embedding into influences is one-sided. While I did not yet fully understand your idea of 3:1. There are actually three time domains: traces of past events in reality, calculated past and calculated future at the abstracted and extrapolated level of models. So far, physics neglects the unilateral timescale of reality because mathematics misleadingly suggests that R and C are more general domains as compared with R+. This is mathematically correct but incorrect if applied on reality. Abstraction creates additional degrees of freedom that do not have correlates in reality: apparent symmetries.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

The paper is here; (or copy/paste and Google it) http://northwestern.academia.edu/WillBennis/Papers/154149/We

irdness_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder_Commentary_on_Henrich_

Heine_and_Norenzayan

WEIRD is simply Western Educated Industrialised Rich and Democratic, who are top of the list for limited self centric thinking. This turns out to be the philosophical cause of lack of understanding of nature. I covered it in my string.. but for you dear Eckard;

If two people are asked; "Where is the brown cow" We would likely say something like; "Around 300m away over there to my right, walking away."

A far easterner or African would more likely say; "Under the tall brown tree walking south to the river".

This may not seem much but it can be critical to all science, even since Galileo, as we're now faced with exactly the same challenge, and have failed.

If flying in our space ship somewhere beyond the moon watching the flash of light crossing (on it's vector relative to us)the surface of Earth we say "Ah! Earth must shrink for a moment from our viewpoint as we're not allowed to see it moving at more than 'c'!!" Lorentz gave us the tool.

But what ARE we thinking!? Do we really think we're that important? Does the flash of light care about us, does it REALLY go faster than c if we don't use the LT? Does the light from the flash travel to us faster than c, of course not, so what's the LT for? What job does it do?

And if we were doing 0.5c the other way, would that slow the light down on earth? or slow down the light travelling to us through the ionosphere? Of course not, it always does c/n locally.

So would Earth appear to shrink differently for all of infinitely many inertial frames? why on earth (lol) would it need to?

And if we did 0.7c and saw a ship approaching at 0.7c? Light could not possibly get past our ship windows, or visors, plasma fine structure without being Doppler shifted to the blue and slowed to our local 'c'. Exactly as QED, atomic scattering theory etc. all says it is! (Electrons absorb photons, and emit them AT 'C')

Only our poor understanding and self centric thinking allowed Lorentz to ignore the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Plank solution when Stokes died and hijack Fresnel's formula to invent the LT.

I seem to have missed you lunar question, but NASA's experiments proved my point, the Earth has an Earth centric frame, and solar system a Sun centric frame, ending with the Pioneer/Voyager anomaly plasma shock encounter. Links here. Let me know if it was another question. You question my facts, which is pointless and makes you miss the very important science! The implications are vast, solving all paradoxes and most anomalies.

2 Nasa and 1 PJ papers; http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818

v2 http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

If you think very hard about it you should experience the wonderful eureka moment.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

The paper is here; (or copy/paste and Google it) http://northwestern.academia.edu/WillBennis/Papers/154149/We

irdness_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder_Commentary_on_Henrich_

Heine_and_Norenzayan

WEIRD is simply Western Educated Industrialised Rich and Democratic, who are top of the list for limited self centric thinking. This turns out to be the philosophical cause of lack of understanding of nature. I covered it in my string.. but for you dear Eckard;

If two people are asked; "Where is the brown cow" We would likely say something like; "Around 300m away over there to my right, walking away."

A far easterner or African would more likely say; "Under the tall brown tree walking south to the river".

This may not seem much but it can be critical to all science, even since Galileo, as we're now faced with exactly the same challenge, and have failed.

If flying in our space ship somewhere beyond the moon watching the flash of light crossing (on it's vector relative to us)the surface of Earth we say "Ah! Earth must shrink for a moment from our viewpoint as we're not allowed to see it moving at more than 'c'!!" Lorentz gave us the tool.

But what ARE we thinking!? Do we really think we're that important? Does the flash of light care about us, does it REALLY go faster than c if we don't use the LT? Does the light from the flash travel to us faster than c, of course not, so what's the LT for? What job does it do?

And if we were doing 0.5c the other way, would that slow the light down on earth? or slow down the light travelling to us through the ionosphere? Of course not, it always does c/n locally.

So would Earth appear to shrink differently for all of infinitely many inertial frames? why on earth (lol) would it need to?

And if we did 0.7c and saw a ship approaching at 0.7c? Light could not possibly get past our ship windows, or visors, plasma fine structure without being Doppler shifted to the blue and slowed to our local 'c'. Exactly as QED, atomic scattering theory etc. all says it is! (Electrons absorb photons, and emit them AT 'C')

Only our poor understanding and self centric thinking allowed Lorentz to ignore the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Plank solution when Stokes died and hijack Fresnel's formula to invent the LT.

I seem to have missed you lunar question, but NASA's experiments proved my point, the Earth has an Earth centric frame, and solar system a Sun centric frame, ending with the Pioneer/Voyager anomaly plasma shock encounter. Links here. Let me know if it was another question. You question my facts, which is pointless and makes you miss the very important science! The implications are vast, solving all paradoxes and most anomalies.

2 Nasa and 1 PJ papers; http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818

v2 http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

If you think very hard about it you should experience the wonderful eureka moment.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I referred to the NASA lunar laser experiment you mentioned. My question was: Did you deal with Tom Van Flandern's LR (Lorentz relativity)? He criticized SR and argued that all putative confirmation of SR can be explained with LR. He also argued in favor of velocities of bodies in excess of c. I did not grasp why did he need Lorentz, and why do you reject Lorentz but not SR?

You know, I consider myself a bloody layman in this field. I merely found out that Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" omitted any reference to its obvious source, and perhaps therefore it was not logically consistent to me.

Regards,

Eckard

I referred to the NASA lunar laser experiment you mentioned. My question was: Did you deal with Tom Van Flandern's LR (Lorentz relativity)? He criticized SR and argued that all putative confirmation of SR can be explained with LR. He also argued in favor of velocities of bodies in excess of c. I did not grasp why did he need Lorentz, and why do you reject Lorentz but not SR?

You know, I consider myself a bloody layman in this field. I merely found out that Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" omitted any reference to its obvious source, and perhaps therefore it was not logically consistent to me.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

Thanks for the excellent questions, including on my string.

Full response in two posts there.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the excellent questions, including on my string.

Full response in two posts there.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I got a hint to premetric electrodynamics, found this

link

and also to a current seminar perhaps related to prof. Hehl.

I will read the paper. Naybe, someone can comment on it and how it relates to Galilean electrodynamics.

Eckard

link

and also to a current seminar perhaps related to prof. Hehl.

I will read the paper. Naybe, someone can comment on it and how it relates to Galilean electrodynamics.

Eckard

Eckard

The link above is to a dead end. A bit like current physics really!

Peter

PS. Yuri - you left me a note ref a 2011 paradigm change here. Where? Abandonment of symmetry?!

report post as inappropriate

The link above is to a dead end. A bit like current physics really!

Peter

PS. Yuri - you left me a note ref a 2011 paradigm change here. Where? Abandonment of symmetry?!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

I am sorry. The paper "Premetric electrodynamics" by B. Jancewicz can be found at

arXiv:0807.2989v1 [physics.class-ph] 18 Jul 2008.

It surveys a lot of papers in this field based on differential forms including

M. Fecko "On 3+1 decomposition ..." .

"A crowning achievement of this approach is the book by Hehl and Obukhow":

Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics: Charge, Flux and Metric. Birkhäuser, Boston 2003.

In premetric electrodynamics, with the use of a plenty of directed quantities, namely multivectors and differential forms, no scalar product is necessary.

Regards,

Eckard

I am sorry. The paper "Premetric electrodynamics" by B. Jancewicz can be found at

arXiv:0807.2989v1 [physics.class-ph] 18 Jul 2008.

It surveys a lot of papers in this field based on differential forms including

M. Fecko "On 3+1 decomposition ..." .

"A crowning achievement of this approach is the book by Hehl and Obukhow":

Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics: Charge, Flux and Metric. Birkhäuser, Boston 2003.

In premetric electrodynamics, with the use of a plenty of directed quantities, namely multivectors and differential forms, no scalar product is necessary.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

Thanks, I'll look.

You said on mine; "I do not know what a Grand Slam is, and the more you are trying to enlighten me the less I see my questions answered."

International Rugby Eckard, sport, ..world wide except little east of Holland and north of Rumania. England played abysmally and lost away to Ireland, but won the european '6 Nations Championship'.

On the LT you desire a simple answer that does not exist. It's like asking, 'are beans edible'. Those who know most about beans will have to say;

"Yes, most varieties are, and in many forms but there are many and a few are not."

The simplest answer would be 'Yes', but that could misguide you and 100 others to poison yourselves.

With the LT the simple answer is 'No', but that is not the whole truth.

The DFM shows physics is far simpler and more 'connected' than we've realised, but we need to understand more than our current simplistic 'either/or' view before we could see that.

Perhaps my response this morning to Basudeba on my string may unveil that pot of gold for you.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks, I'll look.

You said on mine; "I do not know what a Grand Slam is, and the more you are trying to enlighten me the less I see my questions answered."

International Rugby Eckard, sport, ..world wide except little east of Holland and north of Rumania. England played abysmally and lost away to Ireland, but won the european '6 Nations Championship'.

On the LT you desire a simple answer that does not exist. It's like asking, 'are beans edible'. Those who know most about beans will have to say;

"Yes, most varieties are, and in many forms but there are many and a few are not."

The simplest answer would be 'Yes', but that could misguide you and 100 others to poison yourselves.

With the LT the simple answer is 'No', but that is not the whole truth.

The DFM shows physics is far simpler and more 'connected' than we've realised, but we need to understand more than our current simplistic 'either/or' view before we could see that.

Perhaps my response this morning to Basudeba on my string may unveil that pot of gold for you.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

In Magdeburg we have a nice exhibition devoted to the history of science. There can everybody elevate water with a big wooden Archimedes screw. Nonetheless I have to admit being unable to imagine your perhaps rather speculative idea. Moreover, I never dealt and will perhaps never deal with gravitation. Being a layman in this respect, I should abstain from speculations. I just wondered in a previous contest why Uncle Al questioned the equivalence between inert and grave mass. By the way, arguing against reciprocity of SR, Van Flandern wrote: "GR is built on SR using only one-way Lorentz transformations relative to the local gravitational potential field" and "The ... Twin Paradox ... has no counterpart in LR because LR's transformations work only one way."

Well, as Guericke found out in Magdeburg, there is attraction and repulsion between what was later identified as electric charges. These effects can be well explained in terms of potential energy. The denotations positive and negative electricity were coined by Lichtenberg.

Regards,

Eckard

In Magdeburg we have a nice exhibition devoted to the history of science. There can everybody elevate water with a big wooden Archimedes screw. Nonetheless I have to admit being unable to imagine your perhaps rather speculative idea. Moreover, I never dealt and will perhaps never deal with gravitation. Being a layman in this respect, I should abstain from speculations. I just wondered in a previous contest why Uncle Al questioned the equivalence between inert and grave mass. By the way, arguing against reciprocity of SR, Van Flandern wrote: "GR is built on SR using only one-way Lorentz transformations relative to the local gravitational potential field" and "The ... Twin Paradox ... has no counterpart in LR because LR's transformations work only one way."

Well, as Guericke found out in Magdeburg, there is attraction and repulsion between what was later identified as electric charges. These effects can be well explained in terms of potential energy. The denotations positive and negative electricity were coined by Lichtenberg.

Regards,

Eckard

Thanks for the reply Eckard. I always wondered why positive and negative charges aren't called clockwise and anti-clockwise as a rotational visual reality.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

Imagine electric charges like a static electric field that exhibits ideal spherical symmetry. Accordingly, its rotation would not be noticeable at all.

This is quite different from the electromagnetic field radiated from an antenna. The latter is a directed dipole field with orthogonal to each other electric and magnetic components. In this case there is the possibility of clockwise or anti-clockwise circular polarization.

In contrast to the attractive electrostatic field between charges of opposite sign, both the repulsive electrostatic fields between charges of equal sign and the attractive gravitational fields have a property in common: Their superposition is additive, not subtractive. In case of electromagnetic waves, there is constructive and destructive interference.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Imagine electric charges like a static electric field that exhibits ideal spherical symmetry. Accordingly, its rotation would not be noticeable at all.

This is quite different from the electromagnetic field radiated from an antenna. The latter is a directed dipole field with orthogonal to each other electric and magnetic components. In this case there is the possibility of clockwise or anti-clockwise circular polarization.

In contrast to the attractive electrostatic field between charges of opposite sign, both the repulsive electrostatic fields between charges of equal sign and the attractive gravitational fields have a property in common: Their superposition is additive, not subtractive. In case of electromagnetic waves, there is constructive and destructive interference.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I am extremely grateful to you for introducing me an unusual thinker

Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I am extremely grateful to you for introducing me an unusual thinker

Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Even if the moot point does not immediately relate to my essay, I would be extremely grateful to everybody who could explain to me why Tom Van Flandern, the Czech Petr Beckmann, Luis von Essen of NIST, and the many other opponents were not accepted. In what were they wrong?

I have several reasons to be worried:

All putative evidences that allegedly confirm SR seem to admit alternative interpretations.

To me the logic by Poincaré/Einstein is not convincing.

Minkowski's metric is not understandable to me.

While Van Flandern and others accepted the Lorentz factor, I tend to be cautious:

- Voigt was the first one who derived the factor of concern when he dealt with Doppler's principle for an elastic medium.

- When Lorentz derived it, he used the same mathematical method.

- Aleksandar Vukelja (http://masstheory.org) demonstrated the "Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz Transformation in Relativity Theory". Was he wrong?

- The factor does not distinguish between motions towards or away from each other.

Regards,

Eckard

Even if the moot point does not immediately relate to my essay, I would be extremely grateful to everybody who could explain to me why Tom Van Flandern, the Czech Petr Beckmann, Luis von Essen of NIST, and the many other opponents were not accepted. In what were they wrong?

I have several reasons to be worried:

All putative evidences that allegedly confirm SR seem to admit alternative interpretations.

To me the logic by Poincaré/Einstein is not convincing.

Minkowski's metric is not understandable to me.

While Van Flandern and others accepted the Lorentz factor, I tend to be cautious:

- Voigt was the first one who derived the factor of concern when he dealt with Doppler's principle for an elastic medium.

- When Lorentz derived it, he used the same mathematical method.

- Aleksandar Vukelja (http://masstheory.org) demonstrated the "Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz Transformation in Relativity Theory". Was he wrong?

- The factor does not distinguish between motions towards or away from each other.

Regards,

Eckard

Van Flandern convinced me that the space is expands or shrinks, but not the Universe.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Yuri,

I prefer sound citation, and I see no necessity for me to deal with speculations that are perhaps off topic.

The reason for me to mention Van Flandern relates to the question whether or not ict is correctly founded. While Van Flandern is not the only one who questioned SR, he seems to be familiar with both pretty recent experimental results and many historical details. His argumentation against SR does indeed look trustworthy. Nonetheless, I feel bewildered by his propaganda for Le Sagian pushing gravity. Where did he write that space expands or shrinks? I guess the universe including all space is potentially infinite. If so, then they cannot expand or shrink.

Eckard

I prefer sound citation, and I see no necessity for me to deal with speculations that are perhaps off topic.

The reason for me to mention Van Flandern relates to the question whether or not ict is correctly founded. While Van Flandern is not the only one who questioned SR, he seems to be familiar with both pretty recent experimental results and many historical details. His argumentation against SR does indeed look trustworthy. Nonetheless, I feel bewildered by his propaganda for Le Sagian pushing gravity. Where did he write that space expands or shrinks? I guess the universe including all space is potentially infinite. If so, then they cannot expand or shrink.

Eckard

Dear Eckard!

Please read carefully Van Flandern attitude to modern cosmology.

Yuri

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniver

seHaveABeginning.asp

"As a final note on the question of the universe's expansion, it should not be forgotten that it is not even certain that the universe is presently expanding (as opposed to contracting) even within the context of the big bang theory. Sumner has recently argued that the new space introduced by the expansion must dilute the permittivity of the vacuum, which in turn must alter the frequency of electrons around atoms. This affects observed redshifts twice as strongly as the speed of expansion. When this consideration is factored into the equations, it turns out that the present universe is actually collapsing, not expanding, under big bang premises!18

So we see that, despite the widespread popularity of the big bang model, even its most basic premise, the expansion of the universe, is of dubious validity, both observationally and theoretically."

report post as inappropriate

Please read carefully Van Flandern attitude to modern cosmology.

Yuri

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniver

seHaveABeginning.asp

"As a final note on the question of the universe's expansion, it should not be forgotten that it is not even certain that the universe is presently expanding (as opposed to contracting) even within the context of the big bang theory. Sumner has recently argued that the new space introduced by the expansion must dilute the permittivity of the vacuum, which in turn must alter the frequency of electrons around atoms. This affects observed redshifts twice as strongly as the speed of expansion. When this consideration is factored into the equations, it turns out that the present universe is actually collapsing, not expanding, under big bang premises!18

So we see that, despite the widespread popularity of the big bang model, even its most basic premise, the expansion of the universe, is of dubious validity, both observationally and theoretically."

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Thank you. Once again, Tom Van Flandern's reasoning is at least at the first glimpse convincing to me. This was quite different when I read papers by Voigt, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohm, and Peter Jackson. What about pushing gravity, I am not sure. Maybe, all counter arguments refer to a corpuscular consideration, and a nearly equivalent wave model is more appropriate.

In general, I share the attitude to look first for possible mistakes before claiming. I remind of Hermann Weyl's certainly justified but ignored admissions.

May I reiterate my desire for clarification concerning the Lorentz factor issue?

Regards,

Eckard

Thank you. Once again, Tom Van Flandern's reasoning is at least at the first glimpse convincing to me. This was quite different when I read papers by Voigt, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohm, and Peter Jackson. What about pushing gravity, I am not sure. Maybe, all counter arguments refer to a corpuscular consideration, and a nearly equivalent wave model is more appropriate.

In general, I share the attitude to look first for possible mistakes before claiming. I remind of Hermann Weyl's certainly justified but ignored admissions.

May I reiterate my desire for clarification concerning the Lorentz factor issue?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Previously, I did not take seriously David Bohm Holographic View, but now I'm sure he discovered the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_o

rder_according_to_David_Bohm

See:

The hologram as analogy for the implicate order

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Previously, I did not take seriously David Bohm Holographic View, but now I'm sure he discovered the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_o

rder_according_to_David_Bohm

See:

The hologram as analogy for the implicate order

A common grounding for consciousness and matter

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

When I mentioned Bohm, I referred to his textbook "The Special Theory of Relativity", which was written in 1964. Admittedly I am not familiar with his holographic view. I suspect that hidden variables were fabricated as a remedy to the annoying disharmony between Poincaré's relativity and quantum mechanics.

What about holographic aspects in the function of brain, the idea that everything is memorized in every region is simply at variance with experience and physiological experiments. Nonetheless it is true that the memorized information is highly distributed with considerable redundancy, and the idea of one-to-one mapping from cochlear nucleus via IC and MGB to a particular layer of A1 and so on is likewise naive.

I would strongly object to any distinction between the already divided past and the still undivided (unseen but predetermined) future part of the whole. Even if this wild guess was true, fatalism would not give an appropriate orientation.

Regards,

Eckard

When I mentioned Bohm, I referred to his textbook "The Special Theory of Relativity", which was written in 1964. Admittedly I am not familiar with his holographic view. I suspect that hidden variables were fabricated as a remedy to the annoying disharmony between Poincaré's relativity and quantum mechanics.

What about holographic aspects in the function of brain, the idea that everything is memorized in every region is simply at variance with experience and physiological experiments. Nonetheless it is true that the memorized information is highly distributed with considerable redundancy, and the idea of one-to-one mapping from cochlear nucleus via IC and MGB to a particular layer of A1 and so on is likewise naive.

I would strongly object to any distinction between the already divided past and the still undivided (unseen but predetermined) future part of the whole. Even if this wild guess was true, fatalism would not give an appropriate orientation.

Regards,

Eckard

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. They may understand free will to refer to something more like liberty (e.g., a freedom to act according to one's determined motives). In contrast, the incompatibilist positions are concerned with a sort of "metaphysically free will".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

report post as inappropriate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

report post as inappropriate

Maybe I am naive. While I cannot imagine to reasonably deny causality, I consider determinism the elusive belief, dating back to the time of Laplace, that anything can be determined in the sense of prepared or calculated. Aren't causality and free will quite naturally compatible without compatibilism?

Eckard

Eckard

Recently Bohmian interpretation and Holographic Principle comes back:

Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Suskind (String Theory) Juan Maldacena (AdS/CFT), Verlinde (gravity), Smoot (Universe's expansion). There are prominent physicists, some of them are Nobelists.

report post as inappropriate

Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Suskind (String Theory) Juan Maldacena (AdS/CFT), Verlinde (gravity), Smoot (Universe's expansion). There are prominent physicists, some of them are Nobelists.

report post as inappropriate

My hope connected with this experiments:

http://holometer.fnal.gov/

http://www.popsci.com/

science/article/2010-10/fermilab-building-holometer-determin

e-if-universe-just-hologram

http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/p

rogram_planning/Nov2009PACPublic/holometer-proposal-2009.pdf

report post as inappropriate

http://holometer.fnal.gov/

http://www.popsci.com/

science/article/2010-10/fermilab-building-holometer-determin

e-if-universe-just-hologram

http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/p

rogram_planning/Nov2009PACPublic/holometer-proposal-2009.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I guess this report would be interesting for you

http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I guess this report would be interesting for you

http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Thank you for the link. At the first glimpse I learned a lot about the reasons to presently prefer a finitistic point of view in physics. Since in mathematics, David Hilbert was also a finitist, I prefer checking such arguments carefully.

My point is largely expressed on p. 10: The SR understood by E. as a 4D space-time [continuum] implies a kind of superdeterminism with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why E. believed time is an illusion and why Karl Popper told Einstein: You are Parmenides.

Parentheses by me, because I do not see the question continuum or lattice of discrete points relevant in this respect.

Regards,

Eckard

Thank you for the link. At the first glimpse I learned a lot about the reasons to presently prefer a finitistic point of view in physics. Since in mathematics, David Hilbert was also a finitist, I prefer checking such arguments carefully.

My point is largely expressed on p. 10: The SR understood by E. as a 4D space-time [continuum] implies a kind of superdeterminism with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why E. believed time is an illusion and why Karl Popper told Einstein: You are Parmenides.

Parentheses by me, because I do not see the question continuum or lattice of discrete points relevant in this respect.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Your compatriot Winterberg very interesting scientist

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/index.html

Regards

Yu

ri

attachments: 163.htm

report post as inappropriate

Your compatriot Winterberg very interesting scientist

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/index.html

Regards

Yu

ri

attachments: 163.htm

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

You, as far as I know, well understood and applied the Fourier transform.

On the other hand are not experiencing special interest to holography.

Why?

Many scientists are waiting to that show experiments with Holometer.

Maybe find a confirmation of the discreteness of space at the Planck scale?

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

You, as far as I know, well understood and applied the Fourier transform.

On the other hand are not experiencing special interest to holography.

Why?

Many scientists are waiting to that show experiments with Holometer.

Maybe find a confirmation of the discreteness of space at the Planck scale?

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

While I know holography for decades and in particular near field acoustic holography, I have many reasons to doubt that Craig Hogan's holographic universe is more than nice science fiction. Given SR and Big Bang will prove untenable. Is there then an event horizon? If there is no shell of cosmic horizon around us, then I cannot imagine a 2D shell rendering our universe to a 3D hologram.

The holometer of Fermilab is perhaps much cheaper than the LHC, and we may smile and wait a few weeks or even months until it succeeded or not to confirm gravity waves in excess of the noise floor and with wavelengths in the order of Planck length.

The used principle is a clever copy of how our two ears and our two eyes are coping with noise.

Regards,

Eckard

While I know holography for decades and in particular near field acoustic holography, I have many reasons to doubt that Craig Hogan's holographic universe is more than nice science fiction. Given SR and Big Bang will prove untenable. Is there then an event horizon? If there is no shell of cosmic horizon around us, then I cannot imagine a 2D shell rendering our universe to a 3D hologram.

The holometer of Fermilab is perhaps much cheaper than the LHC, and we may smile and wait a few weeks or even months until it succeeded or not to confirm gravity waves in excess of the noise floor and with wavelengths in the order of Planck length.

The used principle is a clever copy of how our two ears and our two eyes are coping with noise.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Erckard

in the commentaries to my essay is the following entry

"2D+1 for fermions

+

2D+1 for bosons

=3D+1; Ratio 3:1, because 1 Dimension is common.

Just the hint."

But today i changed my opinion.Time dimension just illusion.

Only 3-dimensional space exist.

report post as inappropriate

in the commentaries to my essay is the following entry

"2D+1 for fermions

+

2D+1 for bosons

=3D+1; Ratio 3:1, because 1 Dimension is common.

Just the hint."

But today i changed my opinion.Time dimension just illusion.

Only 3-dimensional space exist.

report post as inappropriate

If holometer confirms the discreteness of space, the non-Archimedean geometry take revenge.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Curvature of space really limited if space 2D+1 for Bosons and 2D+1 for Fermions.

Negative curvature for Bosons.

Positive curvature for Fermions.

See my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Negative curvature for Bosons.

Positive curvature for Fermions.

See my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

What is your opinion about Karl H. Pribram Holonomic brain theory?

Thank you for advance.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

What is your opinion about Karl H. Pribram Holonomic brain theory?

Thank you for advance.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Having looked into http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/ I should mention first that I have no knowledge concerning vision. I am merely familiar with the auditory pathway where a first frequency analysis is already performed within the cochlea. I would like to stress that this analysis resembles the real-valued cosine rather than the complex-valued Fourier transformation.

While Prigram is a psychologist rather than physiologist, he nonetheless exhibits refreshing care towards those who tend to ignore anything that does not fit into their narrow-minded physical and mathematical repertoire. Prigram writes not Fourier but Fourier-like. He is also aware at least to some extent of the importance of rewarding in which the amygdala plays a key role.

I did not yet carefully read what he wrote. Nonetheless, I consider his work closely related to some papers of mine. I realized that in audition after the first frequency analysis in cochlea about a third of the neurons in the NC, so called T-multipolar chopper cells, convey the temporal code in addition to the spectral one to the inferior colliculus and beyond. At such higher levels there is than the physiological possibility for inter-tonotopic interference. Prigram wrote "taking of the inverse of something like the Fourier transform". The inverse of cosine transform is the original function of time or space. In hearing something similar to the cosine transform of a cosine transform is known as cepstrum (the word spectrum inverted).

Regards,

Eckard

Having looked into http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/ I should mention first that I have no knowledge concerning vision. I am merely familiar with the auditory pathway where a first frequency analysis is already performed within the cochlea. I would like to stress that this analysis resembles the real-valued cosine rather than the complex-valued Fourier transformation.

While Prigram is a psychologist rather than physiologist, he nonetheless exhibits refreshing care towards those who tend to ignore anything that does not fit into their narrow-minded physical and mathematical repertoire. Prigram writes not Fourier but Fourier-like. He is also aware at least to some extent of the importance of rewarding in which the amygdala plays a key role.

I did not yet carefully read what he wrote. Nonetheless, I consider his work closely related to some papers of mine. I realized that in audition after the first frequency analysis in cochlea about a third of the neurons in the NC, so called T-multipolar chopper cells, convey the temporal code in addition to the spectral one to the inferior colliculus and beyond. At such higher levels there is than the physiological possibility for inter-tonotopic interference. Prigram wrote "taking of the inverse of something like the Fourier transform". The inverse of cosine transform is the original function of time or space. In hearing something similar to the cosine transform of a cosine transform is known as cepstrum (the word spectrum inverted).

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

If you close the holographic theory of Pribram, why do you so skeptical to Holographic Universe?

Does a Man and the Universe is not a whole?

report post as inappropriate

If you close the holographic theory of Pribram, why do you so skeptical to Holographic Universe?

Does a Man and the Universe is not a whole?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

I did not confirm the holographic theory as a comprehensive description of how the brain's work works. I see it rather a partially correct model. There is no doubt, distributed massively parallel signal processing with an incredibly huge number of synapses interlinking an already impressive number of neurons has developed in hundreds of millions of years. Spectral analysis and its repetition has proven a most flexible and reliable principle. Nonetheless, it would be naive to ignore the diversity of brain regions, of neurons with quite different from each other properties, and upward as well as downward excitation and suppression mechanisms, etc. The more details we got aware of, the more we must admit: There is no hope to find just one mathematical theory that can describe the brain comprehensively.

I do not see a parallel between processes of permanently evolving superior biological solutions and the presumably rather random history of cosmic objects. Evolution of biology can be imagined as selections of mutations by means of trial and error from generation to generation. It took many millions of generations until evolution created the homo sapiens. So far, cosmology imagines just one big bang generation.

I see it an indication of premature guesswork in physics if the holographic universe is attributed to Fourier transform instead of cosine transform.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I did not confirm the holographic theory as a comprehensive description of how the brain's work works. I see it rather a partially correct model. There is no doubt, distributed massively parallel signal processing with an incredibly huge number of synapses interlinking an already impressive number of neurons has developed in hundreds of millions of years. Spectral analysis and its repetition has proven a most flexible and reliable principle. Nonetheless, it would be naive to ignore the diversity of brain regions, of neurons with quite different from each other properties, and upward as well as downward excitation and suppression mechanisms, etc. The more details we got aware of, the more we must admit: There is no hope to find just one mathematical theory that can describe the brain comprehensively.

I do not see a parallel between processes of permanently evolving superior biological solutions and the presumably rather random history of cosmic objects. Evolution of biology can be imagined as selections of mutations by means of trial and error from generation to generation. It took many millions of generations until evolution created the homo sapiens. So far, cosmology imagines just one big bang generation.

I see it an indication of premature guesswork in physics if the holographic universe is attributed to Fourier transform instead of cosine transform.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

Someone from the great thinkers said "Randomness is our lack of Knowledge."

It seems it was Hegel.

Cordially.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Someone from the great thinkers said "Randomness is our lack of Knowledge."

It seems it was Hegel.

Cordially.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

If I recall correctly, Hegel was opposed to materialism and denied atoms. Nonetheless I tend to at least partially agree with the sentence. In order to avoid fatalism, we must merely not infer that the future has been predetermined and is merely unknown to us.

Regards,

Eckard

If I recall correctly, Hegel was opposed to materialism and denied atoms. Nonetheless I tend to at least partially agree with the sentence. In order to avoid fatalism, we must merely not infer that the future has been predetermined and is merely unknown to us.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

When I read your appraisal of Hegel, I guessed that Magdeburg is located in the territory of the former DDR and apparently indoctrination you received (you were born in 1942 )firmly in your brain.

Division of philosophers into materialists and idealists originated from the classics of Marxism -Leninism,and is simply nonsense .. The history of philosophy and its brightest thinkers, outstanding representatives expressed various, often opposing views to our World.

History of Philosophy is a beautiful bunch of different beatiful flowers.I imagine Philosophy only this way, in contrast to the apologists of Marxism-Leninism.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

When I read your appraisal of Hegel, I guessed that Magdeburg is located in the territory of the former DDR and apparently indoctrination you received (you were born in 1942 )firmly in your brain.

Division of philosophers into materialists and idealists originated from the classics of Marxism -Leninism,and is simply nonsense .. The history of philosophy and its brightest thinkers, outstanding representatives expressed various, often opposing views to our World.

History of Philosophy is a beautiful bunch of different beatiful flowers.I imagine Philosophy only this way, in contrast to the apologists of Marxism-Leninism.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Yes, I was forced to deal with dialectic materialism which indeed goes roots partially in Hegel's influence on Marx and Engels. Appraisal means having dealt carefully. This might describe my generally critical attitude. Perhaps you know that candidates for a promotion were obliged to deliver an elaboration on Marxism in addition to their main thesis. I could not entirely hide my critical attitude in this elaboration. That's why I could not get an overall summa cum laude. If I got indoctrinated then perhaps not much.

I much agree with Hegel's these when he described the infinitely small and the infinitely large as fictions like a void fog and shadow. Hegel's attitude reminds of Parmenides and Zeno. You know the antithesis, and my synthesis is simple and in agreement with Euclid and Galileo: Discrete and continuous are two mutually excluding and complementing sides of the same.

Regards,

Eckard

Yes, I was forced to deal with dialectic materialism which indeed goes roots partially in Hegel's influence on Marx and Engels. Appraisal means having dealt carefully. This might describe my generally critical attitude. Perhaps you know that candidates for a promotion were obliged to deliver an elaboration on Marxism in addition to their main thesis. I could not entirely hide my critical attitude in this elaboration. That's why I could not get an overall summa cum laude. If I got indoctrinated then perhaps not much.

I much agree with Hegel's these when he described the infinitely small and the infinitely large as fictions like a void fog and shadow. Hegel's attitude reminds of Parmenides and Zeno. You know the antithesis, and my synthesis is simple and in agreement with Euclid and Galileo: Discrete and continuous are two mutually excluding and complementing sides of the same.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Friedwardt Winterberg - great scholar of German origin.

Please read his articles

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://bo

urabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Friedwardt Winterberg - great scholar of German origin.

Please read his articles

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://bo

urabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

While my gut feeling welcomes utterances like this: "it is very unlikely that these clouds can be removed by the extrapolation of present theories", I wonder: Why does Winterberg not question the obvious de-synchronization by Poincaré/Einstein? Why does he not have scruples to suggest possibly more dangerous actions than did Edward Teller?

Regards,

Eckard

While my gut feeling welcomes utterances like this: "it is very unlikely that these clouds can be removed by the extrapolation of present theories", I wonder: Why does Winterberg not question the obvious de-synchronization by Poincaré/Einstein? Why does he not have scruples to suggest possibly more dangerous actions than did Edward Teller?

Regards,

Eckard

Edward Teller has been quoted as saying that he had "perhaps not received the attention he deserves" for his work in fusion.

Dr. Winterberg obtained his Ph.D. under Dr. Werner Heisenberg, and is listed as one of the four notable students of Werner Heisenberg on Heisenberg's 'Wikipedia entry, along with Felix Bloch, Edward Teller and Rudolph E. Peierls.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Winterberg obtained his Ph.D. under Dr. Werner Heisenberg, and is listed as one of the four notable students of Werner Heisenberg on Heisenberg's 'Wikipedia entry, along with Felix Bloch, Edward Teller and Rudolph E. Peierls.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

In case you missed this in the blogs and on my string, a reply to a request from Florin, again proving no need for the LT.

Florin

Don't worry, It's still only 1 in 4 who do. It needs the 'different way of thinking' Einstein postulated, very difficult if you use the standards way! There are some thought Gedankens (see the orange bits in my string) which are irrefutable....

view entire post

In case you missed this in the blogs and on my string, a reply to a request from Florin, again proving no need for the LT.

Florin

Don't worry, It's still only 1 in 4 who do. It needs the 'different way of thinking' Einstein postulated, very difficult if you use the standards way! There are some thought Gedankens (see the orange bits in my string) which are irrefutable....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Wouldn't you arguments also apply for sound waves in air?

I am not intending to interpret astonishing pictures that apparently show something moving with 6c.

In "Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?" Tom Van Flandern already gave a plausible possible explanation.

I consider this paper more remarkable for two other reasons:

i) It did convincingly state that all putative evidence for Einstein's SR is not at all compelling. On the contrary, Van Flandern argues that GPS requires remote simultaneity.

ii) I agree with the paper in that the Poincaré/Einstein method of synchronization is rather a desynchronization.

I see A and B here not equally treated and this obviously causing the twin paradox.

Could already Poincarè's Lorentz transformation LT be inappropriate?

So far I failed to find an unquestionable derivation of LT. Neither your objections against LT nor original papers by FitzGerald, Voigt, Lorentz and criticism by Vukeija gave me final clarity. So I am not yet sure whether or not my suspicion against Minkowski's metric including ict is justified.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Wouldn't you arguments also apply for sound waves in air?

I am not intending to interpret astonishing pictures that apparently show something moving with 6c.

In "Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?" Tom Van Flandern already gave a plausible possible explanation.

I consider this paper more remarkable for two other reasons:

i) It did convincingly state that all putative evidence for Einstein's SR is not at all compelling. On the contrary, Van Flandern argues that GPS requires remote simultaneity.

ii) I agree with the paper in that the Poincaré/Einstein method of synchronization is rather a desynchronization.

I see A and B here not equally treated and this obviously causing the twin paradox.

Could already Poincarè's Lorentz transformation LT be inappropriate?

So far I failed to find an unquestionable derivation of LT. Neither your objections against LT nor original papers by FitzGerald, Voigt, Lorentz and criticism by Vukeija gave me final clarity. So I am not yet sure whether or not my suspicion against Minkowski's metric including ict is justified.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

Your suspicion about the Minkowski metric is justified.

But in the microcosm non-Euclidean geometry exists in 2-dimensional space, as I indicated in my essay.It is different for fermions and bosons. Please read Peter Jackson comment to my essay.

Hi Yuri

Excellent. I really can't believe I didn't come across your essay sooner, it was so obvious!

It also seems very consistent with my own essay, in two ways, firstly your concluding paragraph, which astonishingly seems to describe the content of my essay perfectly! and secondly; The discrete field model it describes seems to have a number of 3:1 ratios once we start looking. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Your suspicion about the Minkowski metric is justified.

But in the microcosm non-Euclidean geometry exists in 2-dimensional space, as I indicated in my essay.It is different for fermions and bosons. Please read Peter Jackson comment to my essay.

Hi Yuri

Excellent. I really can't believe I didn't come across your essay sooner, it was so obvious!

It also seems very consistent with my own essay, in two ways, firstly your concluding paragraph, which astonishingly seems to describe the content of my essay perfectly! and secondly; The discrete field model it describes seems to have a number of 3:1 ratios once we start looking. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson,

You used contradictory identities at a time: Author Yuri Danoyan+, non-Russian English, a content that obviously belongs to Peter Jackson, and finally you signed Peter.

You finally lost me when you ignored the argument on top of my last posting. If your idea was true, it would also occur in case of acoustic waves.

I am not begging for voters who support my founded in detail suspicion. I would rather appreciate any relevant argument, no matter which side it supports.

Once again, I nonetheless feel in debt because you made me aware of outsiders like you.

Eckard

You used contradictory identities at a time: Author Yuri Danoyan+, non-Russian English, a content that obviously belongs to Peter Jackson, and finally you signed Peter.

You finally lost me when you ignored the argument on top of my last posting. If your idea was true, it would also occur in case of acoustic waves.

I am not begging for voters who support my founded in detail suspicion. I would rather appreciate any relevant argument, no matter which side it supports.

Once again, I nonetheless feel in debt because you made me aware of outsiders like you.

Eckard

Eckard

My thesis exposes the poor logic used in physics. In a way your own confusion about Yuri's post above also confirms lack of recourse to logic, which would have resolved it. I'm not criticising you, but we need to recognise the lack of rigorous logic in physics, particularly mathematical physics, and not keep on convincing ourselves there is no problem.

Yes. The solution applies to ALL waves, and indeed all particles, which are in any case made of waves. The CMBR rest frame IS a background frame, and the only valid measurement frame is the same frame (field) the phenomena is moving in. Light, as sound, always moves at a definite speed WHERE IT IS MOVING ('locally').

You will know that if a man by an open train window shouts, the sound inside the train moves in the direction of travel faster inside than outside. The same in true of light (n). Including in a vacuum (n=1). Why would we ever think anything else!!

Yet.... To a man outside the train the sound waves IN the train would appear (if he could see them) to travel faster than sound!! Would you deny that!? That is because his inertial frame is invalid, as the sound in moving through a different frame. Why do we believe light should be any different when we know our measurements show it is not?

This is precisely how quasar jets work, knowledge is the solution to all. Seek and thou shall find; With regard to apparent 7c jets, if you simply Google one of the many excellent papers showing the observed construction of these jets from spectroscopy your unfounded scepticism born of inadequate knowledge will be pleasantly relieved. Try this one; (See Figs 4 & 5 etc.) re the graded 'Incentric' motion. Essentially this simply shows that the observer frame is invalid.

ASTROPHYSICAL JETS AND OUTFLOWS Elisabete M. de Gouveia Dal Pino http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0406/0406319.pdf

I need to understand why this seems so hard to understand as the consequences of the DFM really are very important. I do hope you will help by telling me when and how you have seen the light, or what convinces you otherwise!

Very many thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate

My thesis exposes the poor logic used in physics. In a way your own confusion about Yuri's post above also confirms lack of recourse to logic, which would have resolved it. I'm not criticising you, but we need to recognise the lack of rigorous logic in physics, particularly mathematical physics, and not keep on convincing ourselves there is no problem.

Yes. The solution applies to ALL waves, and indeed all particles, which are in any case made of waves. The CMBR rest frame IS a background frame, and the only valid measurement frame is the same frame (field) the phenomena is moving in. Light, as sound, always moves at a definite speed WHERE IT IS MOVING ('locally').

You will know that if a man by an open train window shouts, the sound inside the train moves in the direction of travel faster inside than outside. The same in true of light (n). Including in a vacuum (n=1). Why would we ever think anything else!!

Yet.... To a man outside the train the sound waves IN the train would appear (if he could see them) to travel faster than sound!! Would you deny that!? That is because his inertial frame is invalid, as the sound in moving through a different frame. Why do we believe light should be any different when we know our measurements show it is not?

This is precisely how quasar jets work, knowledge is the solution to all. Seek and thou shall find; With regard to apparent 7c jets, if you simply Google one of the many excellent papers showing the observed construction of these jets from spectroscopy your unfounded scepticism born of inadequate knowledge will be pleasantly relieved. Try this one; (See Figs 4 & 5 etc.) re the graded 'Incentric' motion. Essentially this simply shows that the observer frame is invalid.

ASTROPHYSICAL JETS AND OUTFLOWS Elisabete M. de Gouveia Dal Pino http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0406/0406319.pdf

I need to understand why this seems so hard to understand as the consequences of the DFM really are very important. I do hope you will help by telling me when and how you have seen the light, or what convinces you otherwise!

Very many thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

I apologize for being short of time. I did not deliberately ignore posts.

Dear Peter,

I apologize for I got Yuri wrong.

I looked into the paper and found: "From the Doppler shifts of the emission lines and proper motions it is possible to constrain the jet velocity.

The knots move away from the sources at speeds ~100-500 km/s,... "

This is much less than 300 000 km/s.

Regards,

Eckard

I apologize for being short of time. I did not deliberately ignore posts.

Dear Peter,

I apologize for I got Yuri wrong.

I looked into the paper and found: "From the Doppler shifts of the emission lines and proper motions it is possible to constrain the jet velocity.

The knots move away from the sources at speeds ~100-500 km/s,... "

This is much less than 300 000 km/s.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

What is your opinion about Marinov experiment?

http://bourabai.kz/marinov/measure0.htm

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

What is your opinion about Marinov experiment?

http://bourabai.kz/marinov/measure0.htm

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Special issue devoted to Marinov works

http://bourabai.kz/marinov/deutsche.htm

report post as inappropriate

http://bourabai.kz/marinov/deutsche.htm

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, my eyes cannot read the text on the obviously rather ingenious Marinov experiment.

I learned from Wiki that Stefan Marinow came from Bulgaria and worked in Austria where he committed suicide a few years ago. Having looked at his criticism of SR, I was disappointed because he did not at all deal with Poincaré and his Lorentz transformation.

Having not yet read much I found not much agreement with my own views. In particular, I was a bit reminded of the many who tried to invent a perpetuum mobile.

Eckard

I learned from Wiki that Stefan Marinow came from Bulgaria and worked in Austria where he committed suicide a few years ago. Having looked at his criticism of SR, I was disappointed because he did not at all deal with Poincaré and his Lorentz transformation.

Having not yet read much I found not much agreement with my own views. In particular, I was a bit reminded of the many who tried to invent a perpetuum mobile.

Eckard

Eckard

You must go past page 3! That was for small YSO (stellar) jets in a dense medium. For AGN jets (smbh's) in a 'diffuse' medium it clearly says it is "NOT possible ..to constrain", and I referred to Fig 5. - see caption. What's really interesting is the 'medium' ref, consistent with my other references

The wording of this paper has certainly changed, probably since Elisbet had to look for a job, almost all the words 'superlumenal' have been changed to 'relativistic' etc. Quite typical. But she still uses 'highly collimated', and left the Fig 5 Caption as was. But there are also others; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/as

t11jun97_1/ But the relativist secret police have eliminated most. Apparently they only look like up to 7.8c 'because they're at a shallow angle to us' so obviously relativists can reverse geometric logic too!

In the end Eckard most people will believe what they want to believe. Data and logic don't seem to have to mix when we're dealing with SR.

I don't work like that. Do you?

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

You must go past page 3! That was for small YSO (stellar) jets in a dense medium. For AGN jets (smbh's) in a 'diffuse' medium it clearly says it is "NOT possible ..to constrain", and I referred to Fig 5. - see caption. What's really interesting is the 'medium' ref, consistent with my other references

The wording of this paper has certainly changed, probably since Elisbet had to look for a job, almost all the words 'superlumenal' have been changed to 'relativistic' etc. Quite typical. But she still uses 'highly collimated', and left the Fig 5 Caption as was. But there are also others; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/as

t11jun97_1/ But the relativist secret police have eliminated most. Apparently they only look like up to 7.8c 'because they're at a shallow angle to us' so obviously relativists can reverse geometric logic too!

In the end Eckard most people will believe what they want to believe. Data and logic don't seem to have to mix when we're dealing with SR.

I don't work like that. Do you?

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

I read your paper and would like to know your opinion about the conventional interpretation the astronomical data.

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/superlu

minal.pdf

seems to be a simple version of the geometric argument for apparent superluminal motion using standard physics/math. What is wrong with their geometrical argument?

Andy

report post as inappropriate

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/superlu

minal.pdf

seems to be a simple version of the geometric argument for apparent superluminal motion using standard physics/math. What is wrong with their geometrical argument?

Andy

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, this is meant for Peter's last post. I probably should post this in his essay thread. Again, sorry for the confusion.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andy, dear Peter,

Unfortunately I cannot access the paper by Elisabete because the file is corrupt.

I looked into the NASA paper and found about the same explanation as: "optical illusion that involves no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity" given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion .

Peter, we already disagreed on superluminality in a previous contest. I am still considering Nimtz wrong. Sorry, your idea with plasma and merely local restriction to c does also not convince me.

I am not aware of sound in air that did propagate faster due to the mechanism you are suggesting.

I reiterate, the restriction to the velocity of propagation for a wave is valid for the wavefront, not for components like e.g. phase velocity or transverse velocity.

I cannot derive any reason for me to question c. On the other hand, from "not incompatible" does not follow that it confirms the unfair "synchronization" with SR.

My essay merely provides a touchstone which gave rise to carefully check whether or not ict is correctly founded. So far the pendulum swung to "no".

Regards,

Eckard

Unfortunately I cannot access the paper by Elisabete because the file is corrupt.

I looked into the NASA paper and found about the same explanation as: "optical illusion that involves no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity" given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion .

Peter, we already disagreed on superluminality in a previous contest. I am still considering Nimtz wrong. Sorry, your idea with plasma and merely local restriction to c does also not convince me.

I am not aware of sound in air that did propagate faster due to the mechanism you are suggesting.

I reiterate, the restriction to the velocity of propagation for a wave is valid for the wavefront, not for components like e.g. phase velocity or transverse velocity.

I cannot derive any reason for me to question c. On the other hand, from "not incompatible" does not follow that it confirms the unfair "synchronization" with SR.

My essay merely provides a touchstone which gave rise to carefully check whether or not ict is correctly founded. So far the pendulum swung to "no".

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

The pendulum head is stuck in the sand! As I said, you'll believe whatever you wish, but for the record; Extract from the NASA paper;

"Dr. B. Alan Harmon.. of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center will be presenting the results of multi-wavelength studies of these "Superluminal Sources" - so-named because relativity effects cause the jets of material to appear to be moving faster than the speed of light - in an invited presentation on Wednesday, June 11, at the 190th meeting of the American Astronomical Society."

Extract from Elisabet Paper, Also Gomez Paper;

"Figure 5. Computed radio maps of a compact relativistic jet showing the evolution of a superluminal component with apparent speed 7 times the light speed. Two resolutions are shown: present VLBI resolution (white contours) and resolution provided by the simulation."

The coloured spectroscopic cross sections also clearly show the relative velocity gradient reducing from the core and the surrounding ambient medium. Nothing breaches 'c' LOCALLY, ..only if the medium or observer are moving relatively.

My response to AndyM on my string also clearly exposes the hopeless lack of logic in the supposed 'mathematical' solution.

Logic is also our problem ref plasma. One branch of physics knows precisely how much light is diffracted by what density of plasma (ions), i.e. how much delay and curvature, and now another knows precisely what ion densities exists around our planet. (see my ref's). We've also known about the ionosphere's effect on em waves since the 1950's. Unfortunately putting 2 and 2 together seems to demand more logic than we can muster as we prefer to keep our heads in the sand!

Are you really telling me Eckard that you cannot see that, if we 'painted' a sound wave travelling through a speeding train florescent red, that a video camera on the embankment would measure it's speed differently to the camera on a train!? ..If so.. I fear the human race is truly lost!!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

The pendulum head is stuck in the sand! As I said, you'll believe whatever you wish, but for the record; Extract from the NASA paper;

"Dr. B. Alan Harmon.. of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center will be presenting the results of multi-wavelength studies of these "Superluminal Sources" - so-named because relativity effects cause the jets of material to appear to be moving faster than the speed of light - in an invited presentation on Wednesday, June 11, at the 190th meeting of the American Astronomical Society."

Extract from Elisabet Paper, Also Gomez Paper;

"Figure 5. Computed radio maps of a compact relativistic jet showing the evolution of a superluminal component with apparent speed 7 times the light speed. Two resolutions are shown: present VLBI resolution (white contours) and resolution provided by the simulation."

The coloured spectroscopic cross sections also clearly show the relative velocity gradient reducing from the core and the surrounding ambient medium. Nothing breaches 'c' LOCALLY, ..only if the medium or observer are moving relatively.

My response to AndyM on my string also clearly exposes the hopeless lack of logic in the supposed 'mathematical' solution.

Logic is also our problem ref plasma. One branch of physics knows precisely how much light is diffracted by what density of plasma (ions), i.e. how much delay and curvature, and now another knows precisely what ion densities exists around our planet. (see my ref's). We've also known about the ionosphere's effect on em waves since the 1950's. Unfortunately putting 2 and 2 together seems to demand more logic than we can muster as we prefer to keep our heads in the sand!

Are you really telling me Eckard that you cannot see that, if we 'painted' a sound wave travelling through a speeding train florescent red, that a video camera on the embankment would measure it's speed differently to the camera on a train!? ..If so.. I fear the human race is truly lost!!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Please accept my sympathy. As you quoted: "... appear to be moving faster than the speed of light". This effect is easily understandable and even calculable without your DFM: "Figure 5. Computed ... apparent speed 7 times the light speed ".

I wrote: "... carefully check whether or not ict is correctly founded. So far the pendulum swung to "no"." While I found abundant perhaps largely justified and irrefutable criticism of Einstein's SR, I wonder why Riebe, Marinov, Winterstein, Vukeja and the many others did not manage to unite. I am still not yet sure about Poincaré's Lorentz transformation. Having read Van Flandern, I will check Tom Bethell. Yuri made me aware of a late insight by Pauli.

Presently I am discussing basic questions with John Benavides, Robert Spoljaric, and Tommasso Bolognesi.

Regards,

Eckard

Please accept my sympathy. As you quoted: "... appear to be moving faster than the speed of light". This effect is easily understandable and even calculable without your DFM: "Figure 5. Computed ... apparent speed 7 times the light speed ".

I wrote: "... carefully check whether or not ict is correctly founded. So far the pendulum swung to "no"." While I found abundant perhaps largely justified and irrefutable criticism of Einstein's SR, I wonder why Riebe, Marinov, Winterstein, Vukeja and the many others did not manage to unite. I am still not yet sure about Poincaré's Lorentz transformation. Having read Van Flandern, I will check Tom Bethell. Yuri made me aware of a late insight by Pauli.

Presently I am discussing basic questions with John Benavides, Robert Spoljaric, and Tommasso Bolognesi.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard.

Excellent. It really is that simple. But it's the IMPLICATIONS with respect to light you now need to apply. That is the important part, which proves the LT superfluous.

We have established that something on the train only APPEARS to move at v + v, so we have to subtract the trains v. i.e. our observer frame is invalid if it's not the SAME frame the light is moving through.

The only reason that simple logic was ever lost was to 'explain' CSL with the LT. if we can show we can explain CSL WITHOUT the LT all problems are solved. This is what the DFM does, as simply as above, by showing light will always be received at 'c' wrt each frame ANYWAY!

It's heretical physics Eckard, but it's simple, and it works far better than the old stuff. (no paradoxes or anomalies).

Lie with your eyes shut and get your brain used to it, the fog will evaporate and the holy grail appear.

Best Wishes

peter

(PS. Russia also plays Rugby Union!)

report post as inappropriate

Excellent. It really is that simple. But it's the IMPLICATIONS with respect to light you now need to apply. That is the important part, which proves the LT superfluous.

We have established that something on the train only APPEARS to move at v + v, so we have to subtract the trains v. i.e. our observer frame is invalid if it's not the SAME frame the light is moving through.

The only reason that simple logic was ever lost was to 'explain' CSL with the LT. if we can show we can explain CSL WITHOUT the LT all problems are solved. This is what the DFM does, as simply as above, by showing light will always be received at 'c' wrt each frame ANYWAY!

It's heretical physics Eckard, but it's simple, and it works far better than the old stuff. (no paradoxes or anomalies).

Lie with your eyes shut and get your brain used to it, the fog will evaporate and the holy grail appear.

Best Wishes

peter

(PS. Russia also plays Rugby Union!)

report post as inappropriate

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://

bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://

bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Sorry for broken link

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://

bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://

bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

I am sorry for writing Winterstein instead of Winterberg. Do not expect me to immediately understand his Planck mass plasma model. While you called his view radical, I see his reasoning possibly not radical enough. He claims deriving Einstein's axioms from a more fundamental level, explaining at least in a qualitative way all the features of the standard model. He explains how renormalization and string theory cope with the conclusion that Einstein's gravity field equations and QM cannot both be correct. He tells that and why Popper called Einstein a Parmenides, etc. He has no doubt that SR and QM are confirmed by a very large body of experimental facts. He believes that physics must have its roots at 10^19 GeV, etc. Nowhere he addressed the possibility that the mistakes of Zeno and paradoxes of SR may have common roots. I am not sure, did he even mention the Lorentz transformation? He definitely did not utter any belonging doubt. Maybe, there is some similarity between the views of Winterberg and Spoljaric.

Let met reiterate selected radical different arguments of mine:

- Present mathematics is at odds with the still reasonable for physics definitions of number and point and of continuum by Peirce. This does not require to adapt logics to present mathematics but present mathematics to logics.

- As Shannon formulated: The past cannot be changed but is known in principle. The future is unknown but can be influenced. I conclude: The notion spacetime cannot correctly fit reality. The world cannot be seen in advance from outside.

- As mentioned by Van Flandern, all putative experimental confirmation of SR can be interpreted otherwise and mostly even simpler.

- I did not find literature dealing with the possibility that already Poincarè's desynchronizing synchronization and maybe also his Lorentz transformation were not correctly founded. I see here the origin of the twin paradox.

- My suspicions concerning ih and ict seem to have got further substantiated. At least I am waiting in vain for counterarguments.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I am sorry for writing Winterstein instead of Winterberg. Do not expect me to immediately understand his Planck mass plasma model. While you called his view radical, I see his reasoning possibly not radical enough. He claims deriving Einstein's axioms from a more fundamental level, explaining at least in a qualitative way all the features of the standard model. He explains how renormalization and string theory cope with the conclusion that Einstein's gravity field equations and QM cannot both be correct. He tells that and why Popper called Einstein a Parmenides, etc. He has no doubt that SR and QM are confirmed by a very large body of experimental facts. He believes that physics must have its roots at 10^19 GeV, etc. Nowhere he addressed the possibility that the mistakes of Zeno and paradoxes of SR may have common roots. I am not sure, did he even mention the Lorentz transformation? He definitely did not utter any belonging doubt. Maybe, there is some similarity between the views of Winterberg and Spoljaric.

Let met reiterate selected radical different arguments of mine:

- Present mathematics is at odds with the still reasonable for physics definitions of number and point and of continuum by Peirce. This does not require to adapt logics to present mathematics but present mathematics to logics.

- As Shannon formulated: The past cannot be changed but is known in principle. The future is unknown but can be influenced. I conclude: The notion spacetime cannot correctly fit reality. The world cannot be seen in advance from outside.

- As mentioned by Van Flandern, all putative experimental confirmation of SR can be interpreted otherwise and mostly even simpler.

- I did not find literature dealing with the possibility that already Poincarè's desynchronizing synchronization and maybe also his Lorentz transformation were not correctly founded. I see here the origin of the twin paradox.

- My suspicions concerning ih and ict seem to have got further substantiated. At least I am waiting in vain for counterarguments.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

You wrote: "I did not find literature dealing with the possibility that already Poincarè's desynchronizing synchronization and maybe also his Lorentz transformation were not correctly founded. I see here the origin of the twin paradox."

I think paradox based on "relativity of simultaneity" and consequently the speed of light in one direction along any line is its rate in the opposite direction.If speed of light not constant and vary in time(no direction in space) then idea of simultaneity is false.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "I did not find literature dealing with the possibility that already Poincarè's desynchronizing synchronization and maybe also his Lorentz transformation were not correctly founded. I see here the origin of the twin paradox."

I think paradox based on "relativity of simultaneity" and consequently the speed of light in one direction along any line is its rate in the opposite direction.If speed of light not constant and vary in time(no direction in space) then idea of simultaneity is false.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

In the professional literature often discusses the isotropy of the speed of light, but almost never isochrony speed of light.Often, this fact is accepted as dogma.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

In the professional literature often discusses the isotropy of the speed of light, but almost never isochrony speed of light.Often, this fact is accepted as dogma.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

How about this Winterberg's article?

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

Regards

Yu

ri

report post as inappropriate

How about this Winterberg's article?

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

Regards

Yu

ri

report post as inappropriate

Sorry for rpt, there is other article

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/planck-e.htm

report post as inappropriate

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/planck-e.htm

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

This article by Winterberg suggests positive and negative Planck masses nearly compensating each other. This is unexpected certainly not just for me, while not unreasonable.

Winterberg also argues in favor of the Galilean group, not the Lorentz group because the latter is not compact. So far I did not understand whether or not he dealt with the reasoning of those who are responsible for Lorentz transformation. Having looked into http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P265.PDF by Janssen and Stachel, and in some original papers I feel not yet in position to judge the case.

Anyway, Winterberg's Planck article illustrates that the three mathematical pillars I refer to in my essay are not independent from each other.

Thank you for the hint, best regards,

Eckard

This article by Winterberg suggests positive and negative Planck masses nearly compensating each other. This is unexpected certainly not just for me, while not unreasonable.

Winterberg also argues in favor of the Galilean group, not the Lorentz group because the latter is not compact. So far I did not understand whether or not he dealt with the reasoning of those who are responsible for Lorentz transformation. Having looked into http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P265.PDF by Janssen and Stachel, and in some original papers I feel not yet in position to judge the case.

Anyway, Winterberg's Planck article illustrates that the three mathematical pillars I refer to in my essay are not independent from each other.

Thank you for the hint, best regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckаrd

I agree with some Vinterberg thesis with correction.I not accept the existence of positive and negative Planck mass.As well as not need positive and negative numbers. Plank mass for me is the following formula:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

Rounding values.

report post as inappropriate

I agree with some Vinterberg thesis with correction.I not accept the existence of positive and negative Planck mass.As well as not need positive and negative numbers. Plank mass for me is the following formula:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

Rounding values.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

If you have the time and are so inclined, I would appreciate your thoughts regarding the following proof: ”If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

It is short and simple. But seems to indicate that the CSL Hypothesis of SR contradicts the Photon Hypothesis of Quantum Physics.

Best regards,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

If you have the time and are so inclined, I would appreciate your thoughts regarding the following proof: ”If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

It is short and simple. But seems to indicate that the CSL Hypothesis of SR contradicts the Photon Hypothesis of Quantum Physics.

Best regards,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

I guess, nobody denies that light con adequately be described as an electromagnetic wave. At least I do not take seriously those who are claiming having measured propagation of signals with a velocity in excess of c. I consider the imagination of point particles and point charges a naive simplification. How to join the two seemingly contradicting views? Look at my Fig. 1. It illustrates the mechanical response of basilar membrane to discrete "singularities" of sound. Photons and phonons are similar concepts.

It depends on the eyes of the beholder what mathematical representation he prefers. Read the Planck article by Winterberg that Yuri pointed us to. As a mathematician you certainly know the meaning of "compact". I am suggesting Peirce's definition of continuity. So I am avoiding this notion. Nonetheless, the question discrete or continuous is by no means trivial. Peirce continuity is a fiction just if seen from inside the realm of rational numbers.

You are in good company: Leibniz, Hegel, Mach, Ostwald, and G. Cantor denied atoms.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I guess, nobody denies that light con adequately be described as an electromagnetic wave. At least I do not take seriously those who are claiming having measured propagation of signals with a velocity in excess of c. I consider the imagination of point particles and point charges a naive simplification. How to join the two seemingly contradicting views? Look at my Fig. 1. It illustrates the mechanical response of basilar membrane to discrete "singularities" of sound. Photons and phonons are similar concepts.

It depends on the eyes of the beholder what mathematical representation he prefers. Read the Planck article by Winterberg that Yuri pointed us to. As a mathematician you certainly know the meaning of "compact". I am suggesting Peirce's definition of continuity. So I am avoiding this notion. Nonetheless, the question discrete or continuous is by no means trivial. Peirce continuity is a fiction just if seen from inside the realm of rational numbers.

You are in good company: Leibniz, Hegel, Mach, Ostwald, and G. Cantor denied atoms.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I am quoting you:

"For practical use Planck length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant."

I am sure Planck mass(energy) eternal relevant.

I am not sure about Planck length and Planck time.

I will try why:

My be h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.I think that the speed of light and speed of gravity the same independently the are luminal or superluminal.

In the formula Planck length G/c^3 no linear link.

In the formula Planck time G/c^5 no linear link.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I am quoting you:

"For practical use Planck length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant."

I am sure Planck mass(energy) eternal relevant.

I am not sure about Planck length and Planck time.

I will try why:

My be h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.I think that the speed of light and speed of gravity the same independently the are luminal or superluminal.

In the formula Planck length G/c^3 no linear link.

In the formula Planck time G/c^5 no linear link.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Speed of Gravity confirmation

http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.p

df

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.p

df

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity Van Flandern is not mentioned. Why?

Admittedly, the perhaps compelling reasoning I tried to explain in my essay is independent and far away from the question of gravity. So I feel rather an enfant terrible than someone who is in position to judge. Just my gut feeling says to me the proponents of SR might have reasons to fear arguments by Van Flandern, and his work will be get published in Turkey rather than in PNAS.

I reiterate my question: Con you please confirm the strange "m_pl= " in the Planck article by Winterberg?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity Van Flandern is not mentioned. Why?

Admittedly, the perhaps compelling reasoning I tried to explain in my essay is independent and far away from the question of gravity. So I feel rather an enfant terrible than someone who is in position to judge. Just my gut feeling says to me the proponents of SR might have reasons to fear arguments by Van Flandern, and his work will be get published in Turkey rather than in PNAS.

I reiterate my question: Con you please confirm the strange "m_pl= " in the Planck article by Winterberg?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

I am sending this article to you for strict evaluation

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO1PDF/V14

N1BEL.pdf

Sincerely

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I am sending this article to you for strict evaluation

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO1PDF/V14

N1BEL.pdf

Sincerely

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

As this concerns sound I thought you might like it.

A novel prediction of the DFM has just been proven correct; Sunlight can carry sound significantly faster than Mach1.

This is equivalent to the DFM explanation of apparent superluminal jets. This is anyway, (apparently against your insistence), already proven by the fact that on Concorde, at Mach2, sound and em waves do go forward as well as backwards, indeed even reputedly at the same speed each way wrt the jet!

I have watched Concord fly many times, with light inside it, and can promise you that, from my reference frame, the plane does NOT appear to contract when the lights are on, so the light is certainly moving superluminally from MY frame, (because mine and all other -non local- frames are invalid for measurement!) i.e. No LT needed.

I thought you may have finally understood this from my last post, but have yet to find a reply.

The Sunlight experiment confirms that our ideas about transmission of both are simplistic and archaic, and that they are related (via 'scattering'.) It was filmed live by the BBC, with a group of physicists. It was 'rough science', using two large bean cans, with a mirror fixed to the base of can 1, reflecting sunlight to the base of can 2 some way away. Speak into can 1. With the mirror covered nothing is heard at can 2. When light is reflected accurately it's carried almost instantaneously to can 2 and heard clearly. So much for old science!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

As this concerns sound I thought you might like it.

A novel prediction of the DFM has just been proven correct; Sunlight can carry sound significantly faster than Mach1.

This is equivalent to the DFM explanation of apparent superluminal jets. This is anyway, (apparently against your insistence), already proven by the fact that on Concorde, at Mach2, sound and em waves do go forward as well as backwards, indeed even reputedly at the same speed each way wrt the jet!

I have watched Concord fly many times, with light inside it, and can promise you that, from my reference frame, the plane does NOT appear to contract when the lights are on, so the light is certainly moving superluminally from MY frame, (because mine and all other -non local- frames are invalid for measurement!) i.e. No LT needed.

I thought you may have finally understood this from my last post, but have yet to find a reply.

The Sunlight experiment confirms that our ideas about transmission of both are simplistic and archaic, and that they are related (via 'scattering'.) It was filmed live by the BBC, with a group of physicists. It was 'rough science', using two large bean cans, with a mirror fixed to the base of can 1, reflecting sunlight to the base of can 2 some way away. Speak into can 1. With the mirror covered nothing is heard at can 2. When light is reflected accurately it's carried almost instantaneously to can 2 and heard clearly. So much for old science!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard.

Your note to Tom is excellent. A seemingly disguised author responded to the copy of the above on my string, missing every key point and subtlety! My response is relevant;

Alec

Thanks for your interest but you've actually missed all 3 points! Partly my fault as I was posting to Eckard (Blumstein) who is a sound specialist. Firstly; yes, of course we've assumed...

view entire post

Your note to Tom is excellent. A seemingly disguised author responded to the copy of the above on my string, missing every key point and subtlety! My response is relevant;

Alec

Thanks for your interest but you've actually missed all 3 points! Partly my fault as I was posting to Eckard (Blumstein) who is a sound specialist. Firstly; yes, of course we've assumed...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

New Measurement of the Earth’s Absolute Velocity with the Help

of the “Coupled Shutters” Experiment

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-

05.PDF

report post as inappropriate

of the “Coupled Shutters” Experiment

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-

05.PDF

report post as inappropriate

Please find attached my preliminary view concerning ict and Lorentz. It continues a discussion with Thomas Ray.

Eckard

attachments: Tom2.doc

Eckard

attachments: Tom2.doc

Dear Eckard

I would like reminding you quote from Winterberg article:

"5. Einstein - Parmenides and the Ontological Proof for the Non-Existence of God

The special theory of relativity understood by Einstein as a four-dimensional space-time continuum implies a kind of superdeterrninisrn with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why Einstein believed time is an illusion and why Karl Popper told Einstein "You are Parmenides," the Greek philosopher (515-445) who believed that being is not becoming and time (becoming) an illusion. With everything exactly predetermined there can be no free will, not even a hypothetical God, and a God without free will is an ontological impossibility.

One therefore can say: If Einstein is right, then there can be no God. The opposite though, is not true; true rather is if God exists then Einstein must be wrong."

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

To my paradoxical opinion now right time for throw away or separated notion of "Time".My sympathies on the Parmenides,Julian Barbour,Carlo Rovelly side.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I would like reminding you quote from Winterberg article:

"5. Einstein - Parmenides and the Ontological Proof for the Non-Existence of God

The special theory of relativity understood by Einstein as a four-dimensional space-time continuum implies a kind of superdeterrninisrn with the future completely determined down to the smallest detail. This was the reason why Einstein believed time is an illusion and why Karl Popper told Einstein "You are Parmenides," the Greek philosopher (515-445) who believed that being is not becoming and time (becoming) an illusion. With everything exactly predetermined there can be no free will, not even a hypothetical God, and a God without free will is an ontological impossibility.

One therefore can say: If Einstein is right, then there can be no God. The opposite though, is not true; true rather is if God exists then Einstein must be wrong."

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

To my paradoxical opinion now right time for throw away or separated notion of "Time".My sympathies on the Parmenides,Julian Barbour,Carlo Rovelly side.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Common sense, technology, and serious physics need two mutually complementing different scales of time:

- related to an arbitrarily chosen reference, e.g. birth of Christ and midnight somewhere.

- counted backward from the very moment.

Otherwise we could not distinguish between past and future.

Regards,

Eckard

Common sense, technology, and serious physics need two mutually complementing different scales of time:

- related to an arbitrarily chosen reference, e.g. birth of Christ and midnight somewhere.

- counted backward from the very moment.

Otherwise we could not distinguish between past and future.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

If the Universe is a sequence of identical cycles, according to Penrose, that is, time is a circle, how do you identify past from future and vice versa?

The Past is the a Future. The Future is the Past.

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

If the Universe is a sequence of identical cycles, according to Penrose, that is, time is a circle, how do you identify past from future and vice versa?

The Past is the a Future. The Future is the Past.

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I would like also quoted Alven's Nobel Prize speech:

"It is possible that this new era also means a partial return to more understandable physics. For the non-specialists four-dimensional relativity theory, and the indeterminism of atom structure have always been mystic and difficult to understand. I believe that it is easier to explain the 33 instabilities in plasma physics or the resonance structure of the solar system. The increased emphasis on the new fields mean a certain demystification of physics."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureate

s/1970/alfven-lecture.html

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

"It is possible that this new era also means a partial return to more understandable physics. For the non-specialists four-dimensional relativity theory, and the indeterminism of atom structure have always been mystic and difficult to understand. I believe that it is easier to explain the 33 instabilities in plasma physics or the resonance structure of the solar system. The increased emphasis on the new fields mean a certain demystification of physics."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureate

s/1970/alfven-lecture.html

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I looked into the alvénlecture and found also:

"They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself

which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are ..."

What about cyclic time, this reminds me of Ben Akiba who said anything repeats itself. Not even a Penrose tells us something new in his nth life.

I vote for more responsibility instead of slogans like "after us the nuclear catastrophe" and "let's jump into death to the virgins in heaven now".

More seriously, my essay tries to explain why white holes gotta excluded from Schwartzschild solution, and why the direction from past to future does not reverse.

Eckard

"They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself

which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are ..."

What about cyclic time, this reminds me of Ben Akiba who said anything repeats itself. Not even a Penrose tells us something new in his nth life.

I vote for more responsibility instead of slogans like "after us the nuclear catastrophe" and "let's jump into death to the virgins in heaven now".

More seriously, my essay tries to explain why white holes gotta excluded from Schwartzschild solution, and why the direction from past to future does not reverse.

Eckard

I read about white holes there:

"Despite the fact that such objects are permitted theoretically, they are not taken as seriously as black holes by physicists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

To my mind "excudeed" not mean "taken as seriosly".

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

"Despite the fact that such objects are permitted theoretically, they are not taken as seriously as black holes by physicists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

To my mind "excudeed" not mean "taken as seriosly".

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

Heracitus(c. 535–c. 475 BCE) was before Ben Akiba(ca.50–ca.135 CE)

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Heracitus(c. 535–c. 475 BCE) was before Ben Akiba(ca.50–ca.135 CE)

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Eckard

Excellent if not quite complete analysis in your post to Tom; [ attachments: Tom2.doc ] Your last sentence is entirely equivalent to my theorem, as stated to Tom, that of infinitely many possible inertial frames there is only one valid frame for measurement.

This removes any need for the LT to support SR (substituting plasma ion scattering/PMD), thus unifying it with QM and allowing Einstein's great goal of Local Reality.

Have I passed you this one;? You are in the space station observing a Pan American highway 10,000km long. Someone switches the street lights on, and they progressively light, from one end to the other, within 0.01 secs. You see this, do the math and, using current physics you'll say;, "..MEIN GOT! That light moved at over 3 x 'c'!.. we must apply the LT formulae to tame it! (if rotation/orbit is the opposite way it will appear even faster from your frame).

In fact the street lights are individual sources each emitting light, at 'c'. This is entirely equivalent to atomic scattering, which is how all light propagates in any dielectric, including ionospheres (plasma variable n = say 1.00001) the interplanetary medium (n = 1), and the glass of the space station windows (at c/n, where n = 1.55).

Imagine those street lights, and think it through, over and over again. Only your mind can handle the dynamics, if you train it to, maths can't.

The Earth, (and Concorde) and the space station are different discrete reference frames (fields) Do let me know if and when you start to see it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Excellent if not quite complete analysis in your post to Tom; [ attachments: Tom2.doc ] Your last sentence is entirely equivalent to my theorem, as stated to Tom, that of infinitely many possible inertial frames there is only one valid frame for measurement.

This removes any need for the LT to support SR (substituting plasma ion scattering/PMD), thus unifying it with QM and allowing Einstein's great goal of Local Reality.

Have I passed you this one;? You are in the space station observing a Pan American highway 10,000km long. Someone switches the street lights on, and they progressively light, from one end to the other, within 0.01 secs. You see this, do the math and, using current physics you'll say;, "..MEIN GOT! That light moved at over 3 x 'c'!.. we must apply the LT formulae to tame it! (if rotation/orbit is the opposite way it will appear even faster from your frame).

In fact the street lights are individual sources each emitting light, at 'c'. This is entirely equivalent to atomic scattering, which is how all light propagates in any dielectric, including ionospheres (plasma variable n = say 1.00001) the interplanetary medium (n = 1), and the glass of the space station windows (at c/n, where n = 1.55).

Imagine those street lights, and think it through, over and over again. Only your mind can handle the dynamics, if you train it to, maths can't.

The Earth, (and Concorde) and the space station are different discrete reference frames (fields) Do let me know if and when you start to see it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dan,

While Peter Jackson is waiting for a reply and my time is limited, I decided to immediately take issue concerning your offers. Well, my essay is an hopefully understandable antithesis to the many ideas that are based on what I consider an unjustified neglect of reasonable restrictions to mathematical solutions.

Looking for possible agreement, I already realized that you are skeptical towards the Einsteinian block universe. What about cosmology, I admit having no knowledge at all. I am just wondering about apparently missing attention to those who are recognized as founders like Kant, Laplace, and Alfvén.

My essay intends to explain that singularities are unrealistic while nonetheless very valuable ideals, as also are point, line, etc.

Having no reason to not agree with Heraclit, I do not see any evidence for a cyclic universe. The more I cannot imagine a Rosen bridge for strive and change.

I am sure, the times you defined do not describe what I consider an important aspect of reality: The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions.

Since technicalities is no obstacle to you, you might look into a paper Yuri pointed us to: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ternaryvelocity.pdf

Dealing with Janssen and Stachel on Lorentz, I feel inspired to ponder about possibly separating between an absolute space and the time-related limitation for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Regards,

Eckard

While Peter Jackson is waiting for a reply and my time is limited, I decided to immediately take issue concerning your offers. Well, my essay is an hopefully understandable antithesis to the many ideas that are based on what I consider an unjustified neglect of reasonable restrictions to mathematical solutions.

Looking for possible agreement, I already realized that you are skeptical towards the Einsteinian block universe. What about cosmology, I admit having no knowledge at all. I am just wondering about apparently missing attention to those who are recognized as founders like Kant, Laplace, and Alfvén.

My essay intends to explain that singularities are unrealistic while nonetheless very valuable ideals, as also are point, line, etc.

Having no reason to not agree with Heraclit, I do not see any evidence for a cyclic universe. The more I cannot imagine a Rosen bridge for strive and change.

I am sure, the times you defined do not describe what I consider an important aspect of reality: The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions.

Since technicalities is no obstacle to you, you might look into a paper Yuri pointed us to: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ternaryvelocity.pdf

Dealing with Janssen and Stachel on Lorentz, I feel inspired to ponder about possibly separating between an absolute space and the time-related limitation for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckhard,

I am puzzled by your response. If you are too busy, I can respect that. If you have no knowledge or interest in BHs or cosmology, I can also respect that. What I cannot respect are conclusions with little or no basis.

You wrote: "I am sure, the times you defined do not describe what I consider an important aspect of reality: The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions."

It may be a surprise to you that I also consider "past and future right now" important aspects of reality, and I am insulted that you would reject my ideas without any hint of consideration. If I had realized that you were so close-minded, I wouldn't have bothered you.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

I am puzzled by your response. If you are too busy, I can respect that. If you have no knowledge or interest in BHs or cosmology, I can also respect that. What I cannot respect are conclusions with little or no basis.

You wrote: "I am sure, the times you defined do not describe what I consider an important aspect of reality: The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions."

It may be a surprise to you that I also consider "past and future right now" important aspects of reality, and I am insulted that you would reject my ideas without any hint of consideration. If I had realized that you were so close-minded, I wouldn't have bothered you.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dan,

Perhaps you mistook me. Well, your essay was not immediately appealing to me because I did not see connections to the A/D-D/A topic. Also i was confused because to me spirals are no closed cycles. Your spirals are already close to what I have to say: The laws of physics do not yet completely reality. This reproach of mine is not addressed to you but to physicists who share Einstein's outer view of universe.

To me the universe is something I am living within. I can in principle influence what will happen. So the unchangeable worldlines of anything subject to my influence are ending right now. I wrote: "The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions." By merely quoting "past and future right now" you omitted what I consider essential: the concrete distinction. I see it not in the differential equations but in integrated influences. Please do not feel insulted. Let me give an example: Everybody has exactly 2 parents etc., however it is uncertain how many children she or he will have. From inside and only from inside, past and future are quite different.

Incidentally, I put a lot of effort in what the mathematicians were unable to answer. You are a mathematician. Can you please either accept or refute my results?

Regards,

Eckard

Perhaps you mistook me. Well, your essay was not immediately appealing to me because I did not see connections to the A/D-D/A topic. Also i was confused because to me spirals are no closed cycles. Your spirals are already close to what I have to say: The laws of physics do not yet completely reality. This reproach of mine is not addressed to you but to physicists who share Einstein's outer view of universe.

To me the universe is something I am living within. I can in principle influence what will happen. So the unchangeable worldlines of anything subject to my influence are ending right now. I wrote: "The concrete distinction between past and future right now, not as theoretical notions." By merely quoting "past and future right now" you omitted what I consider essential: the concrete distinction. I see it not in the differential equations but in integrated influences. Please do not feel insulted. Let me give an example: Everybody has exactly 2 parents etc., however it is uncertain how many children she or he will have. From inside and only from inside, past and future are quite different.

Incidentally, I put a lot of effort in what the mathematicians were unable to answer. You are a mathematician. Can you please either accept or refute my results?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

I remembered on this occasion, the following quote:

"Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.(Dyson)

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I remembered on this occasion, the following quote:

"Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.(Dyson)

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

This quotation i invented myself:

"In a world of real possibilities corresponds to one an imaginary world"

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

"In a world of real possibilities corresponds to one an imaginary world"

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

On the level of reality, my restriction to positive elapsed time does indeed exclude the future and of course white holes. Nonetheless this does not prevent me from anticipation of calculable future on the level of abstraction. Notice, any calculation that predicts the future requires knowledge or assumption of all influences that are considered essential. Such closed systems exist on the level of abstraction for any anticipated process but in reality only for positive elapsed time.

When I first looked into Joy Christian's "Absolute Being vs. Relative Becoming" I much agreed with him except for trifles like the phrase "past, present, and future", which I would never use.

When Christian ascribed fluxions to Newton, he ignored Cavalieri, Descartes, Torricelli and even Aristotle. Nonetheless, Christian took issue against the Parmenidian block-universe of STR. I enjoyed Fig. 2 that illustrates a worldline growing at the moving point "Now" of eternal present.

I will have to look into arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 in order to possibly understand how Christian is able to "generalize" STR. I wonder if the inconsistencies will vanish. Cristian's equation (1) seems to be intentionally assumed without a persuading explanation.

Regards,

Eckard

On the level of reality, my restriction to positive elapsed time does indeed exclude the future and of course white holes. Nonetheless this does not prevent me from anticipation of calculable future on the level of abstraction. Notice, any calculation that predicts the future requires knowledge or assumption of all influences that are considered essential. Such closed systems exist on the level of abstraction for any anticipated process but in reality only for positive elapsed time.

When I first looked into Joy Christian's "Absolute Being vs. Relative Becoming" I much agreed with him except for trifles like the phrase "past, present, and future", which I would never use.

When Christian ascribed fluxions to Newton, he ignored Cavalieri, Descartes, Torricelli and even Aristotle. Nonetheless, Christian took issue against the Parmenidian block-universe of STR. I enjoyed Fig. 2 that illustrates a worldline growing at the moving point "Now" of eternal present.

I will have to look into arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 in order to possibly understand how Christian is able to "generalize" STR. I wonder if the inconsistencies will vanish. Cristian's equation (1) seems to be intentionally assumed without a persuading explanation.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

I am browsed arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 and drew attention to

Chapter VII. HOW FAST DOES TIME FLOW?

Speed of time dt/dt look like tautology.

Is not it?

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I am browsed arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 and drew attention to

Chapter VII. HOW FAST DOES TIME FLOW?

Speed of time dt/dt look like tautology.

Is not it?

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

Why are you silent after 360 commentaries?

Maybe you mean 360 full circle after that nothing to write or think?

All the best.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Why are you silent after 360 commentaries?

Maybe you mean 360 full circle after that nothing to write or think?

All the best.

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Looking back upon so many posts, I am not entirely disappointed. Joy Christian addressed in arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 (1) and in arXiv:gr-qc/0610049v2 (2) what I consider a foundational deficit of established physical theories: Special relativity is based on the Parmenidean anticipatory view. While Joy Christian tried to combine the perhaps correct alternative Heraclitean view with SR by means of additional dimensions, I consider my approach more natural, more radical, and immediately related to the question of what is real. My argument is simple: Because future cannot be measured it does not deserve the attribute real. Fig. 2 in (2) illustrates my concern. Any continuation of a worldline into the non-existent future is necessarily more or less subject to unrealistic ambiguity except for theorists who do not see reality but only their playground.

My gut feeling says to me that mathematics is at risk to loose contact to physical reality if it strives for getting more and more generalized. I recall some reasonable limitations:

- There is no negative distance, no negative elapsed time, no negative absolute temperature, etc.

- While integration can endlessly be repeated, differentiation of a ramp function yields a step function, and differentiation of the latter yields the already fictional singular point. The theory of distributions by Laurent Schwartz has been fruitless so far.

- While there are electrical monopoles, magnetic monopoles were not found.

- There are limitations to the maximal front velocities of sound waves as well as of electromagnetic waves.

- As long as Higgs bosons were not found, the standard model is questionable.

- A cylindrical waveguide cannot transmit transversal modes below cutoff frequency.

Please forgive me if I admit that I did not yet understand how long is the third side in a triangle with two sides each of Planck length adjacent to a right angle.

As soon as I have time for that I will resume further checking arguments by Thomas Ray and others concerning SR and Lorentz local time.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Looking back upon so many posts, I am not entirely disappointed. Joy Christian addressed in arXiv:gr-qc/0308028 (1) and in arXiv:gr-qc/0610049v2 (2) what I consider a foundational deficit of established physical theories: Special relativity is based on the Parmenidean anticipatory view. While Joy Christian tried to combine the perhaps correct alternative Heraclitean view with SR by means of additional dimensions, I consider my approach more natural, more radical, and immediately related to the question of what is real. My argument is simple: Because future cannot be measured it does not deserve the attribute real. Fig. 2 in (2) illustrates my concern. Any continuation of a worldline into the non-existent future is necessarily more or less subject to unrealistic ambiguity except for theorists who do not see reality but only their playground.

My gut feeling says to me that mathematics is at risk to loose contact to physical reality if it strives for getting more and more generalized. I recall some reasonable limitations:

- There is no negative distance, no negative elapsed time, no negative absolute temperature, etc.

- While integration can endlessly be repeated, differentiation of a ramp function yields a step function, and differentiation of the latter yields the already fictional singular point. The theory of distributions by Laurent Schwartz has been fruitless so far.

- While there are electrical monopoles, magnetic monopoles were not found.

- There are limitations to the maximal front velocities of sound waves as well as of electromagnetic waves.

- As long as Higgs bosons were not found, the standard model is questionable.

- A cylindrical waveguide cannot transmit transversal modes below cutoff frequency.

Please forgive me if I admit that I did not yet understand how long is the third side in a triangle with two sides each of Planck length adjacent to a right angle.

As soon as I have time for that I will resume further checking arguments by Thomas Ray and others concerning SR and Lorentz local time.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

This is interesting book about Russian mathematics attitude to Cantor philosophy.

http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Infinity-Religious-M

athematical-Creativity/dp/0674032934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=bo

oks&qid=1242035847&sr=1-1

Also retelling in Russian http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/telegraph/theory/882/

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

This is interesting book about Russian mathematics attitude to Cantor philosophy.

http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Infinity-Religious-M

athematical-Creativity/dp/0674032934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=bo

oks&qid=1242035847&sr=1-1

Also retelling in Russian http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/telegraph/theory/882/

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

Georg Cantor was born in Russia. From the Russian text I understood that not just Poincaré but also Borel, Lebesgue, and Baire were rather critical while later on Egorov, Luzin, and Florensky believed in set theory. Well, set theory and religious mysticism are closely related. Cantor tried (in vain) to get approved by the Catholic church, in particular by cardinal Franzelin.

Thank you for access to many references. Of course, beginning with Ferreiros "Labyrinth of Thought" I was already familiar with most of them, and I wondered why Fraenkel, v. Neumann, Robinson, and many others were not listed.

Regards,

Eckard

Georg Cantor was born in Russia. From the Russian text I understood that not just Poincaré but also Borel, Lebesgue, and Baire were rather critical while later on Egorov, Luzin, and Florensky believed in set theory. Well, set theory and religious mysticism are closely related. Cantor tried (in vain) to get approved by the Catholic church, in particular by cardinal Franzelin.

Thank you for access to many references. Of course, beginning with Ferreiros "Labyrinth of Thought" I was already familiar with most of them, and I wondered why Fraenkel, v. Neumann, Robinson, and many others were not listed.

Regards,

Eckard

"As long as Higgs bosons were not found, the standard model is questionable."

You right Eckard

I proposed other approach

This is my guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Both have radius size 10^-13sm

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

10^16g/10^-24g=10^40

Fgr/Fem =1/10^40

report post as inappropriate

You right Eckard

I proposed other approach

This is my guess:

There are Base Fermion and Base Boson of the Universe.

Both have radius size 10^-13sm

Base Fermion is proton(neutron) Mpr=10^-24 g

Base Boson is Hawking black hole Mhbl=10^16 g

Mplank; Mpl=10^-4g

Mpl=sqrt(Mpr x Mhbl)=10^-4g

10^16g/10^-24g=10^40

Fgr/Fem =1/10^40

report post as inappropriate

The electrostatic force between an electron and a proton

and the gravitational force have a ratio independent of distance

Fc/Fg=10^40 Dirac large Number.

Higgs bosons problem is pseudoproblem....Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft"

Just in case http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/Planck_SCHEINPROBLEM.p

df

report post as inappropriate

and the gravitational force have a ratio independent of distance

Fc/Fg=10^40 Dirac large Number.

Higgs bosons problem is pseudoproblem....Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft"

Just in case http://www.quantum-cognition.de/texts/Planck_SCHEINPROBLEM.p

df

report post as inappropriate

This was a reference to the seldom mentioned the work of Max Planck's "Imaginary problem of science "

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Your translation "pseudoproblems" for Scheinprobleme is better than "Imaginary problems". Scheinleistung means apparent power. It includes Blindleistung which means imaginary or reactive power. I consider some symmetries in complex representation Scheinsymmetrien. Using the word Scheinproblem, Planck referred to what is not really a problem. Eventually he wrote with respect to the value of work: "An ihren Früchten sollt ihr sie erkennen" (Look at its fruits in order to judge it).

So far the search for Higgs bosons is as fruitless as was the effort to find application for transfinite alephs. In my essay I argued that we may not consider speculations foundational while, for instance, a seemingly pragmatic approach by Newton and Leibniz proved evidently foundational. Conversely, the failures to find the Higgs and any application to aleph_2 give rise to look for possible basic mistakes.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

So far the search for Higgs bosons is as fruitless as was the effort to find application for transfinite alephs. In my essay I argued that we may not consider speculations foundational while, for instance, a seemingly pragmatic approach by Newton and Leibniz proved evidently foundational. Conversely, the failures to find the Higgs and any application to aleph_2 give rise to look for possible basic mistakes.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

About your dissatisfaction with this:

"Please forgive me if I admit that I did not yet understand how long is the third side in a triangle with two sides each of Planck length adjacent to a right angle."

First of all 2 quotes from Feynman:

"I believe that the theory that space is continuous is wrong, because we get these infinities and other difficulties, and we are left with questions on what determines the size of all particles. I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" [1]. "Another way of describing this difficulty is to say that perhaps the idea that two points can be infinitely close together is wrong - the assumption that we can use geometry down to the last notch is false" [2].

[1]R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166.

[2] R.P. Feynman, QED (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1985), p. 129.

Eckard

Why do you think that the Pythagorean theorem is valid at these distances and Euclidean geometry works there? In my essay, I just write about it .. Read it again carefully ..

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

About your dissatisfaction with this:

"Please forgive me if I admit that I did not yet understand how long is the third side in a triangle with two sides each of Planck length adjacent to a right angle."

First of all 2 quotes from Feynman:

"I believe that the theory that space is continuous is wrong, because we get these infinities and other difficulties, and we are left with questions on what determines the size of all particles. I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" [1]. "Another way of describing this difficulty is to say that perhaps the idea that two points can be infinitely close together is wrong - the assumption that we can use geometry down to the last notch is false" [2].

[1]R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166.

[2] R.P. Feynman, QED (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1985), p. 129.

Eckard

Why do you think that the Pythagorean theorem is valid at these distances and Euclidean geometry works there? In my essay, I just write about it .. Read it again carefully ..

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

In your essay you wrote: >>in the Hyperbolic geometry ....MANY(Infinity) other extending straight lines pass.. ( analogy with bosons).There is (0,1,infinity) number 1 correspond Euclidean case”.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

In your essay you wrote: >>in the Hyperbolic geometry ....MANY(Infinity) other extending straight lines pass.. ( analogy with bosons).There is (0,1,infinity) number 1 correspond Euclidean case”.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

John Merryman pointed to Perez who pointed to Christov who explained redshift as an effect of apodization (= windowing). John argued that the Big Bang might be based on misinterpreted redshift. In case of acoustics, the effect is audible to everybody: Distant explosions sound deep.

What intrigues me is the possibility to attribute a lower and an upper cut-off to the propagation of light. Maybe, they can be attributed to space. If so, then you could check whether such quantifiable by spectral measurements windows correspond to the Planck quantities.

What about Kissing, I am still not yet sure concerning spacetime. See the current article by Lee Smolin.

Regards,

Eckard

John Merryman pointed to Perez who pointed to Christov who explained redshift as an effect of apodization (= windowing). John argued that the Big Bang might be based on misinterpreted redshift. In case of acoustics, the effect is audible to everybody: Distant explosions sound deep.

What intrigues me is the possibility to attribute a lower and an upper cut-off to the propagation of light. Maybe, they can be attributed to space. If so, then you could check whether such quantifiable by spectral measurements windows correspond to the Planck quantities.

What about Kissing, I am still not yet sure concerning spacetime. See the current article by Lee Smolin.

Regards,

Eckard

See http://newfiz.narod.ru/charge.html

"Физ

80;ческий смысл электрич

77;ского заряда. Как мы отмечали...

view entire post

"Физ

80;ческий смысл электрич

77;ского заряда. Как мы отмечали...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard

If you read Russian you must try to read a book.

http://newfiz.narod.ru/digwor/digwor.html

Author's name A.A Grishaev. When you finish reading you will not have a single question to which you are not get answer.Author's ideology very close to you. Center of his attention is one- notion of Frequency.

Read and enjoy.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

If you read Russian you must try to read a book.

http://newfiz.narod.ru/digwor/digwor.html

Author's name A.A Grishaev. When you finish reading you will not have a single question to which you are not get answer.Author's ideology very close to you. Center of his attention is one- notion of Frequency.

Read and enjoy.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

On a first glance, the book by Andrey Albertovic Grishev, published online in Moscov in Nov. 2010, is rather provocative for several reasons.

It considers the world digital.

It rejects Einstein's theory of relativity. For instance in 1.7 "The truth about the result of the experiment by Michelson-Morley" on p. 20: "This fact demonstrates that the principle of relativity is fully untenable."

It shares the opinion of Essen concerning experiment vs. theory.

It is even mocking: "shutka teoretikov" and "lepet oficialnoi nauki", and

it is using exclamation marks.

Regards,

Eckard

On a first glance, the book by Andrey Albertovic Grishev, published online in Moscov in Nov. 2010, is rather provocative for several reasons.

It considers the world digital.

It rejects Einstein's theory of relativity. For instance in 1.7 "The truth about the result of the experiment by Michelson-Morley" on p. 20: "This fact demonstrates that the principle of relativity is fully untenable."

It shares the opinion of Essen concerning experiment vs. theory.

It is even mocking: "shutka teoretikov" and "lepet oficialnoi nauki", and

it is using exclamation marks.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

What is your opinion about Nobel laureate paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

What is your opinion about Nobel laureate paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, I misspelled Andrej Albertovich Grishaev.

Dear Eckard

I hope this article you will like

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0001

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

I hope this article you will like

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0001

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

If I compare van Leunen with Grishaev, I dislike the rude style of the latter and the obedient views of the former who claims having explored "the origin of physical dynamics and the reason of existence of special relativity" by only using mathematics.

While I do not agree with van Leunen on various details, my main reproach resembles the judgment of Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics by von Essen: lacking links to references, attempts to solve foundational questions by mere use of mathematical formalisms.

Regards,

Eckard

If I compare van Leunen with Grishaev, I dislike the rude style of the latter and the obedient views of the former who claims having explored "the origin of physical dynamics and the reason of existence of special relativity" by only using mathematics.

While I do not agree with van Leunen on various details, my main reproach resembles the judgment of Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics by von Essen: lacking links to references, attempts to solve foundational questions by mere use of mathematical formalisms.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

This is article about Planck constant as a consequence of classic mechanics.

http://kubagro.ru/science/articles/1172.pdf

Amusing

...

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

This is article about Planck constant as a consequence of classic mechanics.

http://kubagro.ru/science/articles/1172.pdf

Amusing

...

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yuri,

FQXi will perhaps not appreciate any other language than English. I do not see any reason to thoroughly deal with the article you suggested. To me Planck constant is not an atom of space or time but a coefficient like c.

I should rather devote my time to the question whether or not Lorentz transformation fits to the non-Parmenidean view. So far, I found a lot of arguments against Poincarè's (de)synchronization.

Regards,

Eckard

FQXi will perhaps not appreciate any other language than English. I do not see any reason to thoroughly deal with the article you suggested. To me Planck constant is not an atom of space or time but a coefficient like c.

I should rather devote my time to the question whether or not Lorentz transformation fits to the non-Parmenidean view. So far, I found a lot of arguments against Poincarè's (de)synchronization.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Yuri,

Yes, Herakleitos of Ephesos (544-483) "the dark" considered the world in permanent change while Parmenides of Elea (540-480) denied change. The pupils of the latter Melissos and Zeno fabricated sophisticated paradoxical evidences as to justify his monism.

Hopefully Lee Smolin (doesn't smol' mean black?) will live up to the chance for reinstating the Heraklitean view into physics. Einstein was certainly not the first one who preferred the unrealistic tense-less Parmenidean view. Already Descartes and many others preferred a range as large as possible, i.e. time from minus infinity to plus infinity. Perhaps, Hilbert followed Einstein, v. Neumann followed Hilbert, etc. They called the flow of time an illusion. Feynman and de Stuecklenberg even suggested backward time.

Here in the contest, I rarely found proponents of the panta rhei. I recall someone (Bolognesi?) claiming that the world works like a computer step by step. In this sense, not only analog computers but also digital ones are realistic.

Regards,

Eckard

Yes, Herakleitos of Ephesos (544-483) "the dark" considered the world in permanent change while Parmenides of Elea (540-480) denied change. The pupils of the latter Melissos and Zeno fabricated sophisticated paradoxical evidences as to justify his monism.

Hopefully Lee Smolin (doesn't smol' mean black?) will live up to the chance for reinstating the Heraklitean view into physics. Einstein was certainly not the first one who preferred the unrealistic tense-less Parmenidean view. Already Descartes and many others preferred a range as large as possible, i.e. time from minus infinity to plus infinity. Perhaps, Hilbert followed Einstein, v. Neumann followed Hilbert, etc. They called the flow of time an illusion. Feynman and de Stuecklenberg even suggested backward time.

Here in the contest, I rarely found proponents of the panta rhei. I recall someone (Bolognesi?) claiming that the world works like a computer step by step. In this sense, not only analog computers but also digital ones are realistic.

Regards,

Eckard