CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT
Essay AbstractWhile 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.
Author BioSee http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
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
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 22:23 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 08:05 GMT
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
John S Minkowski, M.D. wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 04:19 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 09:30 GMT
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
basudeba replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 10:01 GMT
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
basudeba replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Sir,
Let us try to explain our thoughts to you to the best of our abilities.
We never said that zero is not a number. All we said is that it is not a number in the normal sense. By this we meant that mathematics involving zero stands at a different footing than those for other numbers.
We never said that zero or any other number is unphysical. All we said is that number is a property of substances. Thus, they are always associated with physical objects. Only their association with "here-now" or otherwise distinguishes zero from other numbers.
We do not accept imaginary or complex numbers, because they are not associated with any physical objects. That is the reason why they could not be used for programming.
Incidentally, we have made some studies on numbers and had published a book on the subject. Actually this book is the first volume of a series. The book deals with precise definitions of different terms used in physics. More than half of the book deals with numbers.
In case you are interested, you may forward your mailing address to mbasudeba@gmail.com
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Instead of possibly mistaking each other concerning details, we should ask for most important practical implications. Do you agree with the mainstream in that i is indispensable for quantum physics? If not, what kind of alternative do you offer?
Regards,
Eckard
basudeba replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Sir,
We do not agree with main stream that i is indispensable for "main stream physics". We have commented about our theories elaborately elsewhere in these posts. Since you appear to be a firm believer of "main stream physics", possibly there is no meeting ground for us and we should terminate this thread here.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
If you will read my essay carefully, might get aware that I found out what I consider serious flaws within or related to, respectively, three mathematical pillars of physics. That's why I originally decided not to read overly speculative essays.
I was merely curious why so many participants felt attracted to comment on Gibbs who defended string theory. By chance I found contributions of you among them. While I roughly share your attitude, I cannot confirm all details of your reasoning. If I recall correctly, you wrote Schrödinger's equation was invented for probabilities. I am a German, and I read the original papers in Ann. Phys. 1926. In his 4th communication Schroedinger clearly described what he did and why. The interpretation as probabilities was not Schroedinger's idea.
You are claiming that there are quantitative errors. I cannot judge that. You are also claiming that complex numbers are not considered in programming. This might be true in some sense. However, you do not specify how you mean it. What do you mean with un-mathematical and with un-physical?
Don't you feel forced to admit my preference for notions by Euclid, Galilei, and Peirce compellingly explained? Mainstream mathematics considers them outdated.
Eckard
basudeba replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 04:20 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for the above post. We have high respects for Schroedinger and we cannot think of belittling him. What we meant was that his ideas have been twisted out of context. For example, his ideas about the cat paradox was to make fun of the then prevailing notions about quantum physics. But it has been used for the opposite effect. Similarly, his equation in one dimension has been extended to three dimension by adding two more factors. Firstly, the equation contains a term x^2. Hence it is an equation in two dimensions, which it should be, as energy always propagates in two dimensional fields. You cannot add two other terms to make the equation in one dimension (which represents distance only because in any other way it will be two dimensional) make three dimensional (which represents volume). Thus, the equation cannot explain helium or higher atomic spectra. Even though there are claims to the contrary, the theoretical predictions do not match observation.
We have a totally different approach to physics and we can describe and explain all physical phenomena with simple physics observable derived from fundamental principle. We have discussed it elaborately about it in the posts below the essay of Mr. Israel Omar Perez and many others. We have not only described the four fundamental forces of Nature, but also given a different theory of gravitation. For all these, we do not require complex numbers.
Since it is not mainstream physics, it will be difficult for others to shed their inhibitions and discuss the merits or otherwise of it. We do not claim that we are right and others are wrong. We are not here for name and fame or prosperity and pleasure. We are pained at the wrong direction followed by "science" and hope that reason will prevail to start a course correction. There is a glimmer when LHC experiment was conceived to call the bluff of the Standard Model. But even though the experiment did not find Higg's Bosons, there is a proposal to upgrade it and run it for one more year. How long we will continue with the wastage of public money by befooling the gullible public through the cult of incomprehensibility?
Kindly forgive us if our post has been harsh to hurt the sentiments of some. But palatable benevolence is a rarity and bitter truth is better than flattering disaster.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John S Minkowski, M.D. wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 08:17 GMT
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
John S. Minkowski replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 17:20 GMT
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
John S. Minkowski replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I am flattered that you chose to respond to my posts. I will not try to parse the phrase 'deeper issues' since our premises and assumptions about our presence on earth may be very different. I would argue that digital reality and digital virtual reality are identical.
It is my understanding that divisibility produced nuclear power and weapons, and the human fascination for the infinite can associate with both cosmology and organized religion.
I hope you find this post less objectionable, otherwise, avocational.
Respectfully,
John M.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear John M.,
What about my use of the metaphor "deeper" I was not consequent. In principle, I consider reality as the basis of all. In that I differ from those who believe that the world has been build according to given laws from at least one primordial element. While I do not exclude this possibility, I am reluctant to swallow any belief in genesis without at least imaginable evidence or applicability.
I am using "deeper" synonymous with a "higher" level of abstraction and generalization.
However different our premises might be, I hope we will be in position to negotiate and arrive at sometimes unexpected agreements. So far I did not yet understand in what sense you equate digital reality and digital virtual reality. Isn't the term virtual reality unmistakable? I feel tempted to conclude that in your understanding digital reality does not refer to the idea that time and space are digital at the most elementary level.
According to my dictionary "objectionable" means offensive and unacceptable. Be sure I do not feel any utterance of you objectionable. On the contrary, I feel happy if someone stimulates me to rethink my own view. Admittedly I did not understand how "the human fascination for the infinite can associate with both cosmology and organized religion".
Regards, Eckard
John S Minkowski replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 20:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,
You are correct. My understanding is exactly that time and space are not digital at the most elementary level, even though digital representations most accurately describe the current phenomenology that we have observed. So to use hearing as the analogy, a digital recording represents the original with less signal to noise issues than analog recording, as long as the sampling rate is fast. You are undoubtedly an expert in this area, so I prefer not to look more of a fool. Generalizing, an event can at best be represented after the fact, but never repeated at exactly the same time (unless the second law 'is not even wrong'). And so the issue is not about what is the reality but rather how it is represented after the fact. This was the point of my essay, and this is why I sarcastically suggested that infinitely many universes could occupy the same space. Continuing the analogy(!!), digital data could play multiple recordings virtually simultaneously on discrete systems - this a little joke.
Regards, John M.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear John M.,
I consider my Fig. 1 an important part of what I have to tell: The non-linear cosine transformation changes discrete into continuous and vice versa. The inner ear works similar. Accordingly, it is difficult to decide which presentation immediately corresponds to reality. I consider ideal continuity as unrealistic as ideal discreteness. Nonetheless I share your view. Time and length seem to be more natural as compared with frequency and wave number. Perhaps Peirce was correct in that temporal and spatial distance are not lattices.
Regards, Eckard
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Congratulations for this work full of rationality.
The reals are the reals.
Best and good luck
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
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
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 fact you must think by yourself about numbers and sometimes you mix the ideas of others for a description of some words as here the infinity.But be sure I like read your posts.A very skilling scientist.And in the same time we learn this history of physics.
Well the most important is to uinderstand the finite physicality, and the infinity due to our young age at the universal scale.
It's totally different.
With your little f(x)=......there you make the same than the people with their decoherences.......
we can calculate our finite systems....we can appraoch them......we can add or multiplicate......but the finite system rests as they are.The infinity appears only in our multiplications of these finite systems.....RELEVANT VERY RELEVANT AS HABIT YOUR ESSAY.
Best Regards and wishes
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
basudeba replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 07:45 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I agree with you on that clarification of how to understand notions like number, zero, one, and infinity is decisively important for the topic of this contest. If you are unable to plausibly define what you meant with un-mathematical, then you have the option to simply avoid using it. You were perhaps anyway the only lonely one. However, a mathematics without continuum and discrete number is hardly conceivable.
Dedekind wrote a book "Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen" (What are numbers, and why do we need them?). This was an anti-thesis to Kronecker who is famous for the utterance: "The natural numbers were made by God; anything else is man-made." I am suggesting to reinstate Euclid's notion of number, which is not very different from yours, in a manner that incorporates the ideal, i.e. infinite accuracy of geometric notions like point and line. As soon as David Joyce will get fully aware of the consequences, he will become silent. He is definitely not in position to admit in public that Cantor was not even wrong. Look at his telltale address http://aleph0.clarkedu/~djoyce/ .
Regards, Eckard
basudeba replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 03:30 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you for describing us as the only one. But does a lonely view invalidate our description? We hold that the validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency. Whatever is not logically consistent, is not mathematical.
We are not here for name and fame or prosperity and pleasure. We are a seeker of truth. If that makes us lonely, let it be so. We welcome it. After all Copernicus has shown us how to face truth.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 07:10 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
While the notion "unphysical" is often used as to express that something is mathematically correct but different from physical reality, your notion "un-mathematical" is unusual. I wrote: "If you are unable to plausibly define what you meant with un-mathematical, then you have the option to simply avoid using it. You were perhaps anyway the only lonely one" (who is using this notion).
Let me reiterate a joke that exemplifies something unphysical: Assume only three persons being in a room, then five of them leaving it. Mathematically correct would be the conclusion that two persons have to enter the room as to make it empty.
Not just my essay tries to address similar discrepancies between reality and its mathematical description. Spoljaric also deals with fictions, and I am convinced we will agree on some of your caveats too. Could we agree that un-mathematical stands for not mathematically consistent? If so, it could still be possible that there are some moot points in the assumed fundamentals of mathematics as I tried to show.
Regards,
Eckard
basudeba replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving the example which makes our task easier. In our essay, we had also given one example to show that all of mathematics is not physics, bur physics is mathematical in specified ways only. Your example is one which is logically not consistent. Hence it is unmathematical.
We are the only lonely one because no one except us defines the technical terms precisely, so that it provides ample room for manipulation to suit their theories. We have defined number precisely in a complete book on number theory and some of the contributors here have already read it. We have discussed it essay and repeatedly in many of our posts. If you define a number precisely, you will realize that your example is not mathematics. Number is a property of all substances by which we can differentiate between similars. If there is no other similar objects, then it is one. If we perceive other similar objects, then we perceive each as one and assign the totality of of such perceptions a name that is sequenced based on number of repetitions. This gives the number sequence. We have discussed about negative numbers, zero, infinity and complex numbers elaborately in our book and generally briefly in many of our posts here. Since we perceived three persons, we knew there are three persons. We can see them depart and the number of persons will be reduced to zero according to our definition. Negative number has a different connotation, which we have described elsewhere. Hence your example only validates our assertion that most of the development of science is illusory and like chasing a mirage. The same cannot be said about experimental physicists, who are doing an excellent job. But without the backing of theory, they are leading in the dark and in many cases creating Frankenstein's monsters. This is what worries us.
By the way, without involving complex mathematics and exotic particles, we have developed a theory of everything, which will be published soon. We have hinted about some aspects of it in many of our posts here.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
My joke was printed in a newspaper as a joke about mathematicians. Ordinary people understand that there are of course no negative people while mathematicians tend to neglect such a trifle. They do not consider it un-mathematical but rather mathematical in a derogative sense.
You wrote: "most of the development of science is illusory and like chasing a mirage. The same cannot be said about experimental physicists, who are doing an excellent job". Wouldn't it be better to try and show in detail what is presumably wrong, submit it to a peer reviewed journal or conference and get your evidences recognized step by step?
By the was, I feel you might naively overestimate the correctness of experimental results. Nimtz has perhaps still been claiming having measured transmission of signals with a velocity in excess of c.
I agree with you in some details. Read my response to Steven.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 17:34 GMT
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
basudeba replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 06:57 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
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
Israel Perez replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT
Dear Eckard
You: I would like to add: Even the tiniest piece of the line can even be thought to contain uncountably much of points.
I agree, as I said the tiniest piece of a line is also a line and it can contain infinite points.
I 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."
Sorry, here I have a mistake, I wanted to say that: "... but he did NOT say anything about the idea of the infinite."
You: 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.
I agree with you. In fact, lately, I am starting to think that the infinite is just an illusion.
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Israel,
I agree that reaching infinity by counting or reaching zero by repetitious splitting is an illusion. This is however only one aspect of infinity, the so called potential (in the sense of unreachable) infinity.
Many infinite series are converging. The second aspect of infinity is seen from outside and called actual (in the fictitious sense of perfectly reached) infinity. It is complementary to the first one: The actually infinite sum or product of all elements of a converging series is a (fictitious) limit.
Imagine for instance a square composed of its half + the half of the remaining half + the half of the latter + and so on.
A famous example for an infinite product was given by Wallis:
pi/2 = 2/1 . 2/3 . 4/3 . 4/5 . 6/5 . 6/7 . 8/7 ...
In such a case theoretically all of infinitely many elements are required.
I consider it also justified to calculate 1/oo=0.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 16:56 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 07:35 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 11:23 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 18:38 GMT
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
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 real definition of domains ....and codes also for some binar systems for example.
In all honesty dear Eckard, do you beleive in God ?
Me I am frank, I am a pure universalist, I beleive in something of infinite above our perceptions.It's not a religion or other, no it's just that it's not possible to have a so beautiful sphere in evolution and all its codes without a kind of absolute.Now of course we live in the physicality and if we can't see this infinity, there is a reason I think.The informations continue their road dear Eckard.It's an evidence.
The human inventions are totally different than our pure universality.There you shall understand the difference ,I am persuaded, between this said universality and on the other side some religious explainations of humans.When I read the sacred books,the bibble, the talmud, thje coran, the hindouism,the boudhism.......a simple conclusion is everywhere...the love of all creations simply.We are all linked, uniques and precious,.......the real universality is the total respect of all creations and the pure complementarity of harmonization.It's better than chaos.
The aleph is the first letter in hebraic writing......the 1 is the 1 dear Eckards and 1x0.......has no sense!!!!
Best Regards for your maturity also .
EQUIPOTENCE+OMNIPOTENCE=SPHERIPOTENCE.
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Steve,
You are among the few who do not feel hurt by my perhaps difficult to rebut arguments. Before I will answer any reasonable question, let me comment on the what has been solicited:
• How can a spacetime or other continuum—with continuous symmetries—emerge from a 'digital' description?
- I am arguing that the symmetry of Schwarzschild solution is most likely an artifact rather than a description of reality. Nonetheless, differential equations are certainly best suited to describe dependencies on spatial and temporal distances if there are no relevant discrete structures to be considered. In other words: A superimposed Heaviside function is often the only relevant discrete structure. It does not emerge. It has to be obeyed.
• What is the nature of space? How would a discrete universe expand without the discreteness becoming evident? Or, does it become evident?
- This question might bother those who intend to see spatial and temporal distance subject to some quantization.
• What are the implications of a minimal length, time, or energy, and how could we observe them now? Or, is this the wrong way to view fundamental discreteness?
- Planck mass could be measured. Counting peas does usually not make much sense.
• Is a universe that is infinite in various ways incompatible with a digital description?
- I prefer guessing that reality might be potentially infinite, and I do not see this lack of limitation an obstacle that could hinder digital approximations.
• How is a digital description consistent with a 'flow' of time? How does causality work?
- In practice, the potentially infinite rational numbers are always sufficient. Theoretically, I am arguing that Peirce was correct, and the fictitious entity of all real numbers should be seen as a true continuum. I see causality the most indispensable and irrefutable hypothesis of science. Of course, it is strictly speaking often impossible to exactly define single countable objects. Panta rhei. Natura non facet saltus. Causality must not be confused with determinism.
• Can the World be modeled as (or even be) a digital computation? Where does this picture lead us?
- Back to determinism a la La Mettrie: Man a machine.
• Are simple discrete models like cellular automata, etc., effective approaches to physics?
- Perhaps they are not ingenious enough.
• Is there a deep, foundational reason why reality must be purely analog, or why it must be digital?
- Something should be called “foundational” or “deep” if it obeys logic without paradoxes and if it has proven fertile in applications. I gave examples for pseudo-foundational speculations and for foundational pragmatism. Instead of a direct answer I offer a touchstone. Judge yourself.
Eckard
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT
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
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 turbins....?
How are our eggs, fruits,seeds,...?
A water drop, a wave,......Why the favorites sports of humans are with spheres?
How is our Universe for you? a square.
Why the particules have a big probability to be spheres?
a fly of birds........why the circles, the toti, the spheroids, the spheres and the rotations are so important and foundamental?
Why pi is so beautiful in its pure serie of infinity?
How are your hands? Why the man of de vinci has this circle ....I will say a sphere around?
How are really the space and the light thus in their pure BEC? The same simply, an pure entanglement of spheres and a finite serie.You shall understand why their rotations, spin.and orbt.are so important for a real polarity of evolution under specific codes of evolution between these 3 essentials inside the universal sphere......
Why the sphere, that is the question?
Why they rotate, why they are, why they evolve these mass?
Why the 3D is so essential....because the rotations need this foundamental.
Best Regards dear Eckard.
Why the maths show the road of the physicality? Because they can be finite also.....
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 10:47 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 09:20 GMT
Please find attached what Prof. David Joyce of Clark University wrote to me.
attachments:
Joyce.doc
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 13:30 GMT
Please find attached my preliminary reply to Prof. David Joyce.
attachments:
Joyce1.doc
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 10:54 GMT
Thanks dear Eckard,
Your thread is fascinating,relevant and rational.It's so important.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Hi, Very beautiful discussion indeed about the continuity and the discreteness. My thought has always been that in fact the 0, the - and the infinity doesn't really exist in the pure physicality. The 1 as unit is essential for magnitudes indeed, the reals are essentials. The spherical distribution seems so incredible , simple and in the same time so complex.For me the 1 is the most foundamental unity,the volumes are correlated.It's incredible the combinations in fact , there the groups and categories seems relevant for applications, now of course the Universe has its specific ultim serie with the real 1 as unit of beginning and x as closed limit.That for all universal finite series,ultim if I can say,Galois perhaps can help.
Best
steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
a/0 Why ?
Why the real transcendance is relevant after all?
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 11:22 GMT
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
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 beautiful symphony of sphere helps .....the arythmetic dear Eckard, the arythmetic ....pi/4 , the primes and the constan,ts,UNIVERSALS......it's a kind of road of distribution inside a sphere ....polyhedrization spherization.They make me crazzy you know these primes.
Zeta function....euler and poincarré fortunally have searched this conjecture.
Rieman more with complexs.
Why do you see those 0 on the 1/2 line of the graph.The Moebius function is interesting, isn't it AND ITS VALUES 1 AND -1.
The sphere dear Eckard, the sphere and its spherization shows the real distribution of numbers.The conjectures and identities are logic.
In fact it's a play with finites systems and infinities in their pure domais of distributivity and its sisters, the commutativity and the associativity.
A spherical distribution of numbers .......and the curves appear(see the0)!!!
Regards
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 16:08 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
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
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 unification and you know it like all here, I say that humbly of course, I am not better than others, just I show my discovery and I discuss ....in fact it's logic all these proportionalities with rotating spheres, it's logic that the universe is a sphere in improvement and optimization.It's logic also that the link between the small and the big is these spinning spheres.......it's logic all that simply and it's foundamental.We have so many works to do still for the discovery of this sphere and its central sphere where all turns around, it's logic and rational I repeat humbly.We live indeed on a sphere , we turn around a sphere, we are composed by spheres, we we turn around an center, we turn inside this universal spheres, all turns, in us, around us, ....all dar Eckard is in this universal and spherical logic.Ptolemée probably like many others thinkers from the past shall agree with my general conclusion.And they shall help me I beleive in this research of truths and truth.The complemenatrity as said Borh is so essential when the foundamentals are respected.
Regards
Spherically yours
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
You are interesting,
Insight reaches its climax dear Eckard wawww, beyond the boundaries of language, sharp and straight, and casually concealing vanity.I like that.The words, the poems, the essays, the books,...so so so important!!!
You shall agree, I am convinced that science is not a vast plain of deafening dins revealing the limits of this so-called personal vanity.No I am persuaded you are more intelligent than that.
Yet he must know why and what are the fundamentals of these tender numbers. These series enchant your steps, is not it?If not it's just a limted road of extrapolations and theories. Naivity would be like if I was above the prisons of the poor with some water.the question is not there hihih Words are like numbers, and numbers are like spheres, with the pride of others or not.
The trigo. as the algebras are reals and rationals in conclusion.as the distribution of numbers if the domain is respected of course.The imainaries and complexs are under the law of the sphere.
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 23:17 GMT
Steve,
I noticed that a posting of you concerning strings is under review. Let me frankly admit that I fear your style will deter serious readers. On the other hand, I am open to respect everybody's ideas. You are a fan of spheres, and I admit considering spherical coordinates less arbitrary than Cartesian ones. In particular I like the spherical Bessel function sinc(x). What about Tchebychev polynoms, I am an EE, and I often used them. So I do not expect that you can tell me something of value by just mentioning them. Complex calculus can be a valuable tool in trigonometry. However, there are identities, e.g. between cos(x) and ch(ix). Complex calculus is not based on these identities but on an omission: cos(x) + or - i sin(x) instead of merely cos(x). Do you understand the omission?
Eckard
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
You are az comic also or what,let's be direct and frank, vanitious with nothing of new, sorry I loose my time with you, you rerpeat always the history and nothing of new, good travel for history pseudo theorist.The best in history yes.That's all.You see ,it's easy to be desagreable.
you say"Serious reader" ,yes and me I AM THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.Don't be offensed.We just speak simply,you can...
view entire post
You are az comic also or what,let's be direct and frank, vanitious with nothing of new, sorry I loose my time with you, you rerpeat always the history and nothing of new, good travel for history pseudo theorist.The best in history yes.That's all.You see ,it's easy to be desagreable.
you say"Serious reader" ,yes and me I AM THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.Don't be offensed.We just speak simply,you can make the same.
A real commedy and you are inside this comedy like habit.Learn my new equation mvV BETWEEN ALL PHYSICAL SPHEERS ? QUANTICS AND COSMOLOGICAL but I doubt you can understand this universality.You speak and that's all, skilling in history of maths and physics but you don't invent nothing of new at my knowledge.You fear even to use the name spheer, no but frankly ahahahaha let's me laugh, I just tried to show you the real road but apprently your own vanity is a problem for you.Cantor and after euclid and after gallilei no but frankly you think what with your pseudos beautiful words.You want read my poems and theaters in french or what.I will send you here one by day ok.
On that we can continue to speak about the numbers and spheers but frankly I doubt I can evolve sometimes.
PS first I respect when I am respected, ok don't forget the past of this platform.
Second my post are under review because I am frank but I am always polite,I understand FQXi thus, I have defaults indeed as all people
For Mr Bolognesi,he made the vanitious without answer, thus of course action reaction.The other under review is about the forums of classical spheres,thus of course you shall understand why I d like know more.
3 if people have seen my theory(seious people)I will be recognized simply.and you shall be invited.
The rest is vain.And I insist you must focus on the study of this evident rationality,the spheres ,quantic and cosmologicals,if not never you shall understand the real meaning of the spherization inside a closed system.
Regards
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 11:31 GMT
hihihii don't be angry, I just test your caracter hihihi
I like you you know as all here in fact, I like them simply.
ps S(n)=a0/2+a1cos 2pix/T+...+an/2cosn2pix/T+b1sin2pix/T+....+bn-1sin(n-1)2pix/
T.....HARMONY DEAR ECKARD .Do you see imaginaries when you interpolate en Lagrange?Do you see the difference about the distribution of numbers.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
as you know I am a little crazzy, I am persuaded you aren't offensed,you know I have some neurological problems ,thus of course I am excused no.
Best my friend Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 14:05 GMT
You speak about Thchébychev....his theorem indeed is interesting...x entire....newton binom....and this and that you know it as me!
I love that you know.don't play with maths with me, you shall be very very surprised.
You want what in fact,I am persuaded you can't answer to my question......for begining...let's assume n=3(a1,a2,a3) and (b1,b2,b3) in cartesian coordonates of...
view entire post
You speak about Thchébychev....his theorem indeed is interesting...x entire....newton binom....and this and that you know it as me!
I love that you know.don't play with maths with me, you shall be very very surprised.
You want what in fact,I am persuaded you can't answer to my question......for begining...let's assume n=3(a1,a2,a3) and (b1,b2,b3) in cartesian coordonates of vectors......INEQUATLITIES OF BOUNIAKOVSKI...Cauchy says...the scalar product of vectors is smaller or = to the product of their modulations.
Now let's assume a convergence of series infinites and for finites integrations.How can you insert the reals proportionalities in others dimensions than 3; no evidently and fortunally.The 3D correlates the rotating spheres PROPORTIONAL WITH MASS THE TIME IS A RESULT OF THESE ROTATIONS ALSO.
In conclusion How could you appraoch the real meaning of theory of spherization,if your rational proportions aren't spherical and finites in their pure definition.You must differenciate an application thus with a generality of our laws, the enginiering is indeed different than our universal laws.
When I want appraoch the Planck scale and its finite number, I use the correct serie simply and this one is universal and in 3d.I thought you could hould me but I think now what no,I will continue to search this number alone ,it's not serious.Like many here you don't really understand the generality and the details of my theory.
Best
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steev Dufourny replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
an omission, no but frankly.I don't ask you to tell me the correlations between a hyperbolic fuction and a trigonometric fuction at my knowledge?
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 19:34 GMT
Steven,
You are definitely not the only one who cannot immediately understand why it is an omission when we add + or - i sin(x) to cos(x) as to perform a transformation into complex plane. Just consider the equivalences 2cos(x)=exp(ix)+exp(-ix). Mathematicians and EEs took different arbitrary decisions to omit either the phasor that rotates clockwise or the ant-clockwise rotating one.
Notice once again:Physics does not use equivalences but an arbitrary omission as to get into complex domain. Therefore the results should not be interpreted before the belonging correct return into the original domain
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 12:32 GMT
ahahah that's this of course ahahah
you confound the real meaning of things unfortunally.You are better for engenierings than for the theory.I doubt you really understand the real distribution of numbers.You can invent a domain and put some series of analyzes, that's all.Think by yourself dear Eckard and not with the ideas of history,you can think creatively by yourself you know.
2cos(x)=exp(ix)+exp(-ix). hahahah interesting
Sincerely an omission ahahah
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 13:32 GMT
let's play with maths......u=Asin(wt+phi)...you like the harmonical oscillations ...see the waves , their wave lenghts and T the period.Put a graphic and your axe of time.hihihi
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Steven,
I apologize for overestimating your mathematical knowledge. You need not be familiar with sinc, ch, and all that. Look:
exp(ix) = cos x + i sin x
exp(-ix) = cos x - i sin x
Addition yields 2 cos x
Let's say it in other words:
If one offers to you a gift that includes two mutually extinguishing parts: as many positive Euros as negative ones, then it would differ from zero due to omission of the debts part.
Basudeba dislikes negative and imaginary numbers. I disagree with him on that. I like them but I merely claim that we should know what we do and whether we are in the domain of reality or in complex domain. Fourier transformation is a transformation INTO complex domain.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 10:31 GMT
hihhi Eckard, you are surprising, it's cool.I don't overestimate the maths, I just use them rationaly.
You know I understand the point of vue of Mr Basudeba.Indeed some inventions are humans and others universal.Of course we evolve and some stupidities (monney, arms and weapins, differences, frontiers,borders...)are purelly dedicated to disappear in time space evoluution.The 0,the-, the infinity are just humans....for the complexs , they are inside a sphere in their pure distribution.The rationality is this one thus,3d and a time constant for all localities inside the globality in evolution.
Eckard ,your omission is beautiful indeed !
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Steve,
You are perhaps the only honest and unbiased one here to whom I may explain some allegedly counterintuitive, mystical, etc. mathematical trifles as simply as they are without hurting your ego.
I frankly admit having first read "on electrodynamics of moving bodies" just a few weeks ago. I stumbled about the idea of synchronization by a round trip ABA of light.
I also got aware of what FQXi's Paul Davies suggested concerning the twin paradox. And a bit later I came across to the word "desynchronisation" in a paper by van Flandern. Peter Jackson guided me to abundant literature of outsiders. I got other hints too. Fortunately, the theory of relativity is a bit off topic in the contest that is devoted to the question "Is Reality Digital or Analog?".
You wrote: "... disappear in time space ..."
Even you are perhaps not yet ready to face Georgina Parry's insight that spacetime is a non-objective fiction. I vote for realism. This includes a comprehensive, non-arbitrary, and fully plausible mathematics as well as just a single, objectively real, and absolutely causal while not deterministic and perhaps never fully predictable nature in physics. I share the guess that the laws of mathematics and physics are to be found rather than invented.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
hihihi you suspect too many things , and they aren't founded.Hiiihihi Don't be offensed I just laugh,you love Georgina or what ? I am laughing simply eckard, I am laughing.You are surprising, it's cool.
I can say only thing Dear Eckard, The determinism is the sister of rationalism.And my theory is rational.And you do n,ot understand it,you try to pass a rational universalist for a mysticist, it's that and after what ....hihihi
You are not realist, because you forget the essential, this universality and its codes of evolution.Now we must admit, and all here is ok I think that you are a very good mathematician.You use correctly the methods and others, but can you invent an equation if you don't understand the real meaning of entropy and its codes inside mass.I don't know, at this momment I think no.
You must rethought about your interpretation of what is an universal spirituality ,compared to humans inventions.You shall differenciate the rational thinkers of course.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 00:34 GMT
Dear Steve,
I did not yet carefully deal with Georgina's essay because it is lacking important features of scientific work including numbered pages and paragraphs. Moreover, I do not share some of her opinions. In so far I do not like her. However, she seems to be the only person here who is brave enough as to judge independently. I consider even you someone who has no chance but to eventually reflect most common tenets.
My essay does not just claim having found incorrect generalizations that are affecting three mathematical pillars of physics. In part I also provided rather compelling evidence for what I am claiming. You might blame me for poor command of English, lacking respect for idols, etc., however, I am waiting in vain so far for a factual challenge.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 11:54 GMT
ahahaha that is that Of course.
I suspect a big vanity and a lack of generality, you try and that's all.A good student, it's well.Pobably a good job also, probably it's a pride for you,it's well you are recognized ahahah a comic yes ,with a good english and good maths due to your learning, but you do not understand the real foundamentals.You think you are rational, no dear , no , you are just a good translator of some methods, that's all.You are in fact lost in the big city and its cries of opulence, you turn in round due to a lack of generality.Thus we understand why you try to understand Cantor.In fact you try to be in the history, as your masters,these scientits of the past,but you aren't of these team dear Eckard, thus how could you continue their works, it's not possible for you simply.You are interestings that said for some engenierings and technologies, that's all.
Now I propose one thing , you also come on linkedin APS, as that we shall see how you are a theorist......but I doubt.If your only kind of judgments is about the faith of others, I suspect a lack of generality still and always about our entropy.You do not understand it simply.Thus of course it's well you rest in the math and trigo.....cos sin cotg arcsin .....no but really where are we ????
To you hihii we are going to smile in live Mr The vanitious pseudo theorist.A real comedy ...good job thus and monney ahahah
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 11:58 GMT
a challenge ahahaha how could you have a challenge if you don't understand this challenge, rest in enginiering, it's well for you.
And pass less time on net, at your age, fra,kly, me I am young, I have still a lot to learn and I have many things to say, but You frankly? HIHIHIH I love this platform.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Steve,
I enjoy you frankly uttering what others would never say. Indeed, I should explain what I meant when I referred to "unjustified generalizations" from which I consider three interrelated mathematical pillars of physics suffering:
- At first, the non-Euclidean notion of numbers is an abstraction that has no correlate in reality. Here I largely agree with Basudeba. Anybody might ask me for more details and implications.
- Secondly, while use of alternating component (AC) is excitingly superior, one must not generalize and forget that reality also includes DC.
- Thirdly, while complex numbers are also excitingly useful, one must reprach all those teachers who tend to introduce a variable as a "in general complex" one.
The relationship between 2nd and 3rd mistake is obvious. Ask for more details.
Regards,
Eckard
Post scriptum: Steve, you should at least try and learn to be respectful.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 09:38 GMT
ps the past of this platform, I WAS NOT RESOECTED thus ACTION REACTION .It's only simle that this.
I respect alwways people whan they are humbles and not vanitious, the others I eat them in live.After all you hurt people in the past, thus of course the equilibrium of your own vanity is important, no?
Ps you must should try to learn a little universality, and less of ommission.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 10:08 GMT
As I said in private to Ray also, I am obliged to be as that in the sceinces community.I am just obliged, I am nice but I must be strong.It's not irrespectful, just logic due to a big big vanity inside this said sciences community.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steev Dufourny replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
Eckard,I am just obliged you know,but I like people sincerely, it's the most important, I am arrogant I agree but I am obliged,sorry .I like Ray, you, Georgina, Peter, Lawrence, Jason,Edwin,John,James,TH,....I am just obliged.
ps your essay is very well and is very rational.
Congratulations, I stop to bother you.It was not my aim.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 23:58 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 11:43 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 03:02 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 13:36 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 01:32 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Georgina,
When you decided to focus on the question what is reality in the context of physics, you tacitly addressed not just the relationship between mathematics and physics but also the very basics of mathematics. I consider it rather an advantage that you were not mislead by an advanced and accordingly questionable mathematical training. So you may feel free to judge on the basis of common sense, and therefore you should be able to follow my reasoning e.g. concerning the correct notion of number. At least you should be able to notice that I disagree with the rather common attribution of the notion foundational to what I consider arbitrary and speculative mathematics and physics from Cantor's naive set theory up to string theory.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 02:47 GMT
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
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 two main notions. I believe it really is that simple, local and real.
As a quick explanation of mine; A glass of beer or plasma has a non zero refraction co-efficient 'n' so light goes through it at c/n, and is diffracted.
If we slide it down the bar at v, c/n is invariant in the frame of the beer, so if we stay on our stool we'd see the rate light passes through it as apparently c/n + v. (or -v). (We don't need the Lorentz Transformation LT as we're only seeing scattered light from the beer/plasma particles, and we're not seeing object reality). If we slide with the beer it passes our frame at a different apparent rate.
If we're moving faster than the glass we need to use a negative number to describe the apparent change. in other words there are infinitely many inertial frames and none of them give us concrete object reality so we don't need the LT, but we can add and subtract.
The physics are the same in the LHC pipe, where it's photoelectrons doing the diffraction (bending and delaying) and in the plasmasphere round a body or group of bodies in space, where it does a pretty cool impression of curved space time, achieving the same results, but also explaining all the anomalies, like 3 year lensing delays!- flat gravitational curves, Pioneer/flyby etc etc.
Because ALL bodies have a local 'fine structure' field there are "infinite-simally" many. All having a local background frame. this is the point where you need to think in pictures and visualise moving frames with frames, with frequency and wavelength transforming at the cloud, shock and halo boundary zones. I've posted a stack of papers elsewhere covering all angles, here's another; 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
And Steve; I've stumbled upon a central role for rotating spheres. I tried the predictive power of discrete fields on one of the main problems in the cosmos, galactic secular evolution. It threw the answer straight back, and it was via the rotating plasma-sphere that hangs around the spent super massive fast rotating black hole (spinning Tokamak/toroid quasar) had finished spitting out the last bits of galaxy in it's plasma jets.
A Tokamak has intrinsic rotation and it starts to rotate on the new perpendicular axis, but WITH the whole plasmasphere. There are some great Hubble shots. This starts the sequence with an open barred spiral, and a whole recycling process falls into place, ending with a tidal ring and a new quasar. this solves re-ionisation and has massive implications, no less that the big bang as a scaled up version! powered by a a previous universe. And, considering infinity, there must also be life after death. (paper now submitted)
And Eckard I really do thank you for your advice, which I shall try to better follow.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 00:14 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 00:02 GMT
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
Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 23:02 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 00:54 GMT
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
Joel Mayer, MD wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 13:47 GMT
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
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 17:34 GMT
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
John Benavides wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 19:45 GMT
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
John Benavides replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 10:21 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 17:50 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 22:39 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 00:22 GMT
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?
Doug replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 01:30 GMT
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
Doug replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Doug,
Thank you for the clarification that John Baez did not clarify anything but his dependence on Cantor & Co. He just added one more bewildering consequence to for instance Buridan's ass, the inability of topology to perform a symmetrical cut, the failure to correctly return to the original after cosine transform and its inverse as revealed in my Appendix A, Haseltine's problems at the origin, and Terhardt's updating of Laplace transformation.
The reason for me to deal with the matter was the inability of otherwise highly respectable mathematicians to tell me convincingly how to deal with the very nil when splitting R (blackboard bold) into R+ and R-. Some suggested including it into R+, others into R-, others demanded treating it separately, others gave me the permission to decide at will. In short: I did not get a convincing advice.
I was forced to clarify the murky matter myself. Fortunately I grew up in the ruins of Eastern Berlin. So I can read the original papers, and the need to survive in changing political systems trained my distrust.
Let me continue later.
Regards,
Eckard
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 21:18 GMT
Dear Doug,
Andy Akhmeteli pointed me to a different "clarification" by John Baez: "Division Algebras and Quantum Theory" arXiv 1101.56904v:
"Abstract: Quantum theory may be formulated using Hilbert spaces over any of the three associative normed division algebras: the real numbers, the complex numbers and the quaternions. Indeed, these three choices appear naturally in a number of axiomatic approaches. However, there are internal problems with real or quaternionic quantum theory. Here we argue that these problems can be resolved if we treat real, complex and quaternionic quantum theory as part of a unified structure. Dyson called this structure the "three-fold way". It is perhaps easiest to see it in the study of irreducible unitary representations of groups on complex Hilbert spaces. These representations come in three kinds: those that are not isomorphic to their own dual (the truly "complex" representations), those that are self-dual thanks to a symmetric bilinear pairing (which are "real", in that they are the complexifications of representations on real Hilbert spaces), and those that are self-dual thanks to an antisymmetric bilinear pairing (which are "quaternionic", in that they are the underlying complex representations of representations on quaternionic Hilbert spaces). This three-fold classification sheds light on the physics of time reversal symmetry, and it already plays an important role in particle physics. More generally, Hilbert spaces of any one of the three kinds - real, complex and quaternionic - can be seen as Hilbert spaces of the other kinds, equipped with extra structure."
This does of course not answer my original question, which was already answered by your hint with the "point in the middle left over". Nonetheless it shows to me that mathematicians like John Baez do not devote the due attention to what I consider important: the question of redundancy and ambiguity.
Regards,
Eckard
Doug replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 03:37 GMT
Dear Eckard,
You wrote:
"This does of course not answer my original question, which was already answered by your hint with the "point in the middle left over". Nonetheless it shows to me that mathematicians like John Baez do not devote the due attention to what I consider important: the question of redundancy and ambiguity."
The reason this is so, I believe, is due to the fact that they have had to construct the 1D, 2D and 3D inverses by inventing real numbers and imaginary numbers. They invented real numbers via logic and symbols, and imaginary numbers via rotations.
In a sense, by combining these ad hoc inventions, they have been able to increase the algebra of 2
0 (the reals, R), to 2
1 (the complexes, C), to 2
2 (the quaternions, H), and to 2
3 (the octonions, O), but the O algebra is non-associative. Hence, they run into problems with trying to use it in physical theory.
Since the algebra of C only lacks the distributive property, they mostly use it, but evidently they can use the R and the H algebras, as well (the latter probably as H+H).
But what they would really like is an R
3 algebra that has all three division algebra properties intact. The fact that R- is redundant to R+ and that the arrow of time has to be added to remove ambiguity in physical interactions modeled with DEQs, is not immediately relevant to their challenge of pathological algebras that they are having to cope with, though it might still be after a solution is found.
Regards,
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT
Sorry, "1D, 2D and 3D inverses" should read "1D, 2D and 3D algebras."
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Doug,
At first I would like to again express my gratitude for giving me the correct hint to Baez's "point in the middle left over".
I wrote: Nonetheless it shows to me that mathematicians like John Baez do not devote the due attention to what I consider important: the question of redundancy and ambiguity."
You explained:"The reason this is so, I believe, is due to the...
view entire post
Dear Doug,
At first I would like to again express my gratitude for giving me the correct hint to Baez's "point in the middle left over".
I wrote: Nonetheless it shows to me that mathematicians like John Baez do not devote the due attention to what I consider important: the question of redundancy and ambiguity."
You explained:"The reason this is so, I believe, is due to the fact that they have had to construct the 1D, 2D and 3D inverses by inventing real numbers and imaginary numbers. They invented real numbers via logic and symbols, and imaginary numbers via rotations."
I guess, they simply took the real line R between minus infinity and plus infinity for granted. Descartes reportedly hesitated to adopt R, and you are familiar with Hamilton: On one hand, he "felt his notation [of a couple (a,b)] somehow better since it avoids the absurd" [a+ib]. On the other hand he meant "... these definitions are really not arbitrarily chosen" (cf. Nahin p. 81 who commented "indeed not").
Really not? I do not share Nahin's opinion. Let's begin with a real function f(x)=cos(x) that describes a measured quantity and with Euler's identity F(x)=exp(ix)=cos(x)+i sin(x). In order to relate f(x) to the anti-clockwise rotating phasor in complex plane we may either arbitrarily add +i sin(x) or split cos(x) into exp(x) + exp(-x) and arbitrarily omit exp(-x). In both cases f(x) and F(x) are related to each other not via an identity but an arbitrary transformation. We may benefit from the chosen complex plane, no matter whether we gave preference to the positive or negative sign. If we intend to interpret a result we got in complex plane, then we are well advised to perform the due inverse transformation.
You wrote: "... the O [octonions] algebra is non-associative. Hence, they run into problems with trying to use it in physical theory. Since the algebra of C only lacks the distributive property, they mostly use it, but evidently they can use the R and the H algebras, as well (the latter probably as H+H).
But what they would really like is an R3 algebra that has all three division algebra properties intact. The fact that R- is redundant to R+ and that the arrow of time has to be added to remove ambiguity in physical interactions modeled with DEQs, is not immediately relevant to their challenge of pathological algebras that they are having to cope with, though it might still be after a solution is found."
I do not deny additional problems with algebras of further extended numbers. My focus is on the peculiarity of all elapsed or as elapsed anticipated time as well as of all distance: They are always real, and they always have a natural point zero. In other words: They are real and one-sided. So far I see there aspects persistently ignored in mathematics. As a consequence, many experts did not believe that the results of my real-valued calculations of a spectral analysis can be correct. They even ignored compelling arguments: Their own ears are not synchronized to our agreed time scale, and they cannot perform complex calculus. The moving pictures expert group gave preference to MP3, which turned out to excellently work with cosine transform instead of Fourier transform.
Restriction to one-sided real functions is partially quite accepted. Nobody is using a negative radius, and negative temporal distance is also rather abstruse. Some theorists seem to enjoy worrying people with negative probability, negative energy, or the like. Electrical engineers remain calm. They are familiar with negative (differential) resistance. I blame most physicists for still sticking on not just Pauli's belief in a mystery.
Best regards,
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
I have some further comments to make on this subject, but I will forebear in order to point you to the John Baez article that I referred to earlier. I finally found it, but I don't know if "clarifies" is the word that I should have chosen. Maybe the word "discusses" would have been a better choice.
At any rate, take a look at it and see if it is helpful at all.
It is
here.
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Stee Dufourny replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:37 GMT
John Baez is a good mathematician but the realism is not always his priority.
Eckard you are surprising. I was right , you are the real teacher here, the best for me.sincerely.
Regarsd
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 00:08 GMT
Dear Dough,
Thank you very much for the link that promises an easy understanding of the notion torsor. Hopefully Steve was not quite wrong when he praised me as a good teacher. At the first glimpse John Baez seems rather to resemble such teachers like Cauchy and Kronecker although he starts with easily understandable examples. It does not matter much that he wrongly assumes that one cannot measure voltage but merely differences of it. Actually voltage is already the difference between two potentials.
Engineers and physicists might smile and wonder how mathematics now rediscovered the unilateral quantities which were so far called semi-groups.
Moreover, I feel a bit bewildered by a lot of explicit and implicit exclamation marks.
Maybe my aversion against category theory is premature. In this case we should be grateful to John Baez as an interpreter.
Papers like "Topos Theoretic Aspects of Semigroup Actions" by Funk and Hofstra are less digestible for non-mathematicians.
Now it should become obvious how my hopefully largely sufficient suggestions are mutually interrelated while at variance from the very beginning with a quite different and highly artificial set theoretic and even category theoretic approach.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:50 GMT
I think it really, you are very skilling and rational at my opinion.I beleive you must give them a course of rationality and objective realism.It's only simple that this.
if I learn here it is with the kind of persons as you.Because I am arrogant yes, but I love learn all days.With you I have learned several concepts and ideas and equations.The alephs of Cantor....mainly.Don't change Eckard.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Dough,
You wrote: "I have some further comments to make on this subject,... "
I am curious.
What about Georg (I consider Moritz more important) Cantor's aleph's, rumor had it that some universities intended to no longer teach set theory. To my best knowledge there is no single application for any aleph except for countably infinite (aleph_0) and uncountable (aleph_1). Moreover I did not find a single tenable evidence, see my Appendix B. Poincaré might be to blame for spacetime. However, it might be correct that he called G. Cantor a charlatan and set theory an illness we will be cured from. I am sorry for hurting the feelings of so many who were trained to see G. Cantor an idol.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 18:02 GMT
The problem indeed with Cantor as several mathematicians as Mr Baez ..., they do not respect our walls, and limits, they want know with their methods behind these walls.The problem is what the numbers do not exist there, as the time and nor dimensions.That implies that all their conclusions are falses just because they make the same error than Cantor, they do not respect this domain and its limits,they want explain with our physicality a thing without phsyicality.That has no sense of course as the pseudo hidden variables or this and that.....REALISM AND OBJECTIVITY.
never 1 idea ....but several......always an occahm razzor of rationality.....the idols do not exist.Just works towards our truth.....simple and evident of course.
Poincarré and Rienmann shall agree I beleive.
Good luck, you make a good job also Eckard, I have a name for you, the master of the Occham Razzor,don't hesitate to put the equilibrium.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear Steve,
Do not compare John Baez with the tragic figure Georg Cantor who believed having got his CH directly from god and who suffered from mental illness since 1884 and eventually died in a madhouse because he was unable to provide proofs for his naive ideas.
John Baez is in position to emphatically endorse in an elegant manner rather than criticize week for week the work by many many others. He should therefore have many friends.
Georg Cantor declared virtual all great mathematicians and philosophers including Aristotle, Cauchy, Galilei, Gauss, Hegel, v. Helmholtz, Kant, Kronecker, Leibniz, Locke, and Newton opponents of his unique theory.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 11:59 GMT
Cantor had as many men due to hormons, a vanity, it's unfortunally in the biological system, Cantor had also as many thinkers and searchers of truths and truth a kind of illumination, a kind of crazzyness, a kind of I don't know. They thought probably that they were a kind of prophet or a kind of elected by God.That's why probably they have some neurological and psychological problems. Mr Baez seems skilling , the problem is not here, I think that the problem is always the people around the interesting persons, we return thus always at the base of this vanity(present in all persons without difference, now of course all people can evolve and be more humble, it's a personal choice as the faith).Many persons are jaleous or think they are always right,prsonally, I am laughing of that because in fact wa re all the same, humans.Now of course many scientists like to be listened or read, or be honored, it's the human nature.It's always the same problem with a kind of beautiful words repeting still and always the same things than in the books...is it essential, perhaps or perhaps no, it is not the question. It exists good and bad people everywhere and just due to a lack of education and still these hormons and this vanity and the monney, this stupidity above the cries of poors. Cantor for me was a philosophe and not a physicist.Newton I prefer or Borh,or Descartes(do you know his beautiful book about the method, I suppose that yes) thanks for making a little difference.Mr Baez is for me first the cousin of a very good singer that I like, second he has a beautiful blog about the category theory where some maths are relevanta bout topos and this and that,that permits the sortings and synchro in computings, it's interesting in all case.I consider him thus as a mathematician skilling and a good inventor of algorythms I suppose.But he is not a phsyicisists.You yes you are a real physicist skilling and a good mathematician , but you aren't a theoretical physicisit. Edwin, dr Layzer, ...them are theoretical phsyicisicts.
Me I am simply a human, musician , horticultor and without PhD with a small theory, relevant at my humble opinion.Of course some people will love and others shan't like it.It's the life,I prefer of course working with people who agrees and not of course with the others, as all Eckard , as all I make the same simply.The essential is not to show his knowledges(which are in the books) for a kind of vanity but for a total sharing of a new thing(which is not still in the books, the good books of course).
Spherically yours my friend Eckard the gentlemen
ps don't change Eckard!
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 16:25 GMT
I quote from "Particles and Paradoxes" by Peter Gibbins Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 153:"A quantum logical interpretation of quantum mechanics shifts some of the oddities of quantum mechanics into logic".
Isn't such a "solution" similar to what Hilbert 1921 confessed: Axiomatic set theory shifts certain naive beliefs into formalisms that are no longer obviously paradoxical?
So far nobody could tell me why a more precise reinstating of the pre-Dedekind notion of number and Peirce's genuine continuum could be impossible.
Hilbert warned about a huge heap of rubble. I also expect some losses, losses of paradoxes, of wrong interpretations in physics, and the like, but not of of anything valuable.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 14:59 GMT
I think that when a work is rational ,it can be completed, and sometimes it's not necessary to complete it. Pierce is rational because the numbers rest inside a closed system of distribution, the continuity in this line of reasoning rests logic and rational. In fact it's always a question of domains and groups of continuity. The numbers and their distribution shall be always rational in their series. Cantor is not about a rational continuum due to the confusion between the unknwn and the physicality, the numbers indeed are reals inside this physicality in evolution.
Could you say me more about abduction, deduction, and induction dear Eckard please, I am persuaded you have some ideas, philosophical.....hypothesis, consequences,demonstration after all.....that seems a kind of categorification also in a computing point of vue?
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
For you Eckard, who was the best rationalist, the most rational and logic between these persons, Dedekind, Cantor, Riemann,Gauss,Poincarré,Pierce,Euler,Stern,Dirichlet,Hilber
t.
Could you tell me more please also about the zeta function and the relation with pi.The theory of numbers and the continuity is fascinating .....
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Steve,
You might easily find yourself how the zeta function and pi are related.
You will however not find anybody who frankly admits as do I that so called rigorous mathematical (Dedekind 1888, Peano 5th axiom) induction is utterly useful for arithmetics but strictly speaking not correctly applicable to real numbers that are really different from the rational ones.
Conclusion from n to n+1 works for any n but definitely not necessarily to the entity of all. This is my old fashioned notion of infinity. It seems to be trustworthy. From this side I have no reason to suffer from mental illness or commit suicide as did G. Cantor, Boltzmann, Hausdorff, Turing, and Grotendieck.
I am confident that sooner or later mathematicians will find the way back to pre-Dedekind basics.
What about my insight quantum theory could - contrary to Pauli's opinion - in principle be described without complex numbers, I see this already supported by Freeman Dyson, John Baez, and here by Andrej Akhmeteli.
So far I did not yet get support for R+ as the tailor-made domain. This is understandable because we all were indoctrinated to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity while physics cannot deal with something it does not anticipate. In other words, consideration is at least restricted to one side while of course there is no known limit for the past as well as for the future.
However, future is more or less uncertain.
Regards,
Eckard
Regards,
Eckard
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 08:35 GMT
Dear Steve,
You asked: "who was the best rationalist, the most rational and logic between these persons,
Dedekind, Cantor,Riemann,Gauss,Poincarré,Pierce,Euler,Stern,Dirichlet
,Hilbert
."
Among my favorites are Euclid, Galilei, Euler, and many others also including Peirce. The latter stands for what the other you mentioned made or considered outdated.
When I wrote pre-Dedekind mathematics, this was a questionable simplification. While I found the old and physically correct Euclidean notion of number still maintained up to the time of Dedekind, its mathematical mutilation to just a single point begun earlier. Let me consider the row Gauss, Riemann, Stern, Dirichlet, Dedekind, Cantor, Poincaré, Hilbert.
The book by Nahin to which Edwin Klingman pointed me made me aware of even elder roots. My admiration for Gauss has become overshadowed when I got aware of his arrogance. More factually, I dislike that he promoted the complex plane, which goes back to Wallis, Wesse, Argand, and Hamilton, without to stress that it is not accessible via Euler's identity but via an omission.
I see Riemann, Cauchy and others preferring to create pure mathematics that neglects the link with its application in physics. What about Moritz Stern, I did not find him mentioned in literature that describes the origin of set theory. While Dirichlet was lacking a solid education, he was nonetheless very influential in particular on Dedekind. Dedekind on his part managed to cautiously and elegantly advertise what I consider a clever seemingly rigorous self-deception. Frankly admitted having no evidence he kindly asked to nonetheless believe him. While G. Cantor had the same intention, he managed to provide stunning evidences and get a nimbus of a genius. Poincaré is told having called Cantor a charlatan. Maybe, he was not quite wrong in that. I like Hilbert's transformation. Hilbert was very disappointed when his successor Hermann Weyl rejected large parts of set theory. In all I see Hilbert's influence on physics with very mixed feelings. It was Hilbert who denied for mathematical reason that past and future are fundamentally different from each other.
Regards,
Eckard
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 11:42 GMT
Thank you very much dear Eckard for this beautiful aswer and explaination.Me My Favorites are Borh, Newton , Gallilei and Euler.
I agree about the works of Pierce, it's very inetersting and relevant, as what the rational logic will be always the best road.
The interpretations of the physicality can be made by maths if and only if the real domains are inserted with their pure finite series.
In all case, you are a real searcher of truths and truth.Thanks for that and for your knowledges.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Doug wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 11:40 GMT
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
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 discussing the doorway leading to the bewildering consequences that makes things so murky today. (See
here)
W.R. Hamilton had similar misgivings about negatives and imaginaries, which he sought to eliminate by basing algebra on motion, instead of fixed forms. But as you point out, engineers can't afford to mess around with bewildering consequences. When they discard one of the side bands in SSB transmission to eliminate the redundancy of info in their transmissions, they are looking for practical results.
Nevertheless, when the redundancy is part of the symmetry of nature, as she is always balancing her act, I think it's an important objective to understand how and why she does it, even though that understanding may not have practical consequences in the short term.
When Dirac had the sudden insight that connected Heisenberg's "strange" multiplication with the familiar Poisson brackets, the physics community was trying to solve the real problem presented by real experiments. They could not, of course, see the day when the use of Lie algebras of Lie groups would run into trouble trying to extend their ideas into three dimensions.
The concepts of C and R- have worked out well for physics, and C has worked out well for engineering, in a practical sense, even if philosophers have been left bewildered and confused. For a philosopher, understanding is usually a matter of clearing out the fog, but when the fog keeps pouring out of universities and labs as it does in modern times, the hapless philosopher can only retreat to a cave and try to clear his head, as best he can.
In my cave, I contemplate the tetraktys. It starts with 2
0 = 1, implying that rational numbers are primordial. If so, then 2/2 = 1 must have some profound significance, and if that signicance lies in the symmetry of reciprocity, then the concept of inverses is a crucial one. As I touched on in the discussion of my essay, it is useful to think of 2/2 = 2
(1-1) = 2
0 = 1, as 1/1, where the equality of the numerator and the denominator denote a difference of 0, as well as a quotient of 1.
When we take this ratio view, then there are definitely two real "directions" possible, with respect to 0, the negative ratio 1/2 and the positive ratio 2/1, on either side of the unit ratio, 1/1, which is equal to unity, because their is no difference between numerator and denominator. The difference, or imbalance of 1/2 can be expressed as -1, the lack of difference, or lack of imbalance of 1/1 can be expressed as 0, and the difference, or imbalance of 2/1 can be expressed as +1. So, we have -1, 0, +1, with no issue remaining as to which "side" we should assign nil to, and the fact that there is a two octave spread between them suggests that the c limit in physics may be misleading, in some cases.
Just some thoughts to share with you.
Regards,
Doug
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 18:38 GMT
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
Doug replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 13:41 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 06:13 GMT
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
Doug replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,
When we consider the approach of the pendulum to the plumb line, the plumb line is definitely in its future. If the plumb line and the arc of the pendulum's swing are divided into n and m parts, respectively, then we can describe the projected position of the pendulum on the plumb line in terms of x/n, as x --> n, and the actual position of the pendulum in terms of y/m, as y --> m.
I think that we can all agree that a "now" moment arrives when x = n and y = m. However, the plumb line is still in the future of the pendulum at this point, since both n and m cannot be points of no spatial extent, but only magnitudes of some extent, ad infinitum. Clearly, we cannot say that the two are coincident, until both 1/n and 1/m --> 0.
Yet, if we are to measure the diminishment of these two remaining units, we have to further sub-divide them into n and m parts, and the process starts over, ad infinitum. Hence, we see that Zeno's paradox is in full force, in this case, even though we know that x --> 0 and y --> 0, eventually.
How do we resolve this paradox? I submit that one way is to transform the remaining y unit into its inverse. Since x is wholly dependent on y, it can serve as a measure of y's transformation into its inverse. When y's transformation is complete, x = 0.
But what is the inverse of y, if not -y? and doesn't x --> 1, in the other "direction," as y --> -y? How, then, does x --> 0 and x --> 1, simultaneously? The only way to resolve this new paradox, as far as I can tell, is to admit that x too has an inverse, namely -x. Consequently, as y --> 0, -y --> 1, simultaneously, and as x --> 0, then -x --> 1, simultaneously.
Such a transformation, in both cases, involves an instant change in "direction," at all "points" along the length of the units. It is only at this boundary between the two, opposite, "directions" that we can consistently define a point of no spatial extent and an instant of no temporal duration.
The physicists describe just such a constant transformation, as the potential energy of position is transformed into its inverse, the kinetic energy of motion and vice-versa. Therefore, this approach not only seems reasonable to me, but exhibits a hint of that unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences, that Wigner points out.
Warm regards,
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 22:52 GMT
Dear Doug,
You intended to demonstrate that negative quantities are necessary. Well, this is true for mathematical physics with emphasis on mathematical in a derogative sense. I see so called harmonic oscillator as well as your pendulum as examples for strictly speaking unrealistic models. In reality, no oscillator oscillates for good.
You might argue that for instance sound pressure is the alternating components of atmospheric pressure. Maybe you heard of mammals blooding out of their ears because they were exposed to 210 dB re 20 microPa. Yes, I refer to whales in water. Air cannot convey symmetrical waves of such SPL because there the negative half wave is limited to the atmospheric pressure.
In your example, neither kinetic not potential energy is negative. If I recall correctly, energy typically corresponds to distance from origin in phase plane, and realistic trajectories of stable systems are strictly speaking inward directed spirals. What about your definitions of x and y, aren't they arbitrary?
You wrote:"Such a transformation, in both cases, involves an instant change in "direction," at all "points" along the length of the units. It is only at this boundary between the two, opposite, "directions" that we can consistently define a point of no spatial extent and an instant of no temporal duration."
Really? Isn't this at odds with Euclid's definitions of a point as having no extension in general and of a number as always denoting a measure, not a point?
While quantities like distance and elapsed time do not have an inverse, differences between distances or between elapsed times can of course be negative. Consequently, the logarithm of e.g. a relation between two distances can also be negative.
As long as physicists always prefer the "more general" R instead of the tailor-made R+, people may continue mocking: mathematical physics is if three out of two men left a room and therefore one man has to come in as to make the room empty.
Warm regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 02:55 GMT
Dear Eckard,
You wrote:
"In your example, neither kinetic not potential energy is negative. If I recall correctly, energy typically corresponds to distance from origin in phase plane, and realistic trajectories of stable systems are strictly speaking inward directed spirals. What about your definitions of x and y, aren't they arbitrary?"
Well, of course, but we need labels. No one is arguing the ontology of negative cabbages. However, if the point of the plumb line, which the location of the pendulum crosses, is designated '0' then, according to normal convention, we can label the top of its swing to the right as positive 1, and the top of its swing to the left as negative 1.
Even though both of these poles are positive, in the sense that the rise of their swings is in opposition to gravity, the location of the pendulum at either pole is the result of motion in two, opposed, "directions." If we plot the motion, and correlate it with potential and kinetic energy, we can see how the two types of energy are inverses:
Position of Pendulum: -1, 0, +1
Energy of Position: -1, 0, +1
Energy of Momentum: 0, 1, 0
Thus, the fact that kinetic energy is the inverse of potential energy does not require negative reality, only negative labels to describe the reality.
Wouldn't you agree?
Regards,
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Doug,
You wrote: "... we need labels."
I agree that use of labels is superior. However, I maintain: Redundancy and arbitrariness can be avoided in principle by choosing an appropriate point of reference.
You are quite right: "if the point of the plumb line, which the location of the pendulum crosses, is designated '0' then, according to normal convention, we can label the top of its swing to the right as positive 1, and the top of its swing to the left as negative 1."
However, the normal convention is arbitrary.
Just add what you wrote:
"Energy of Position: -1, 0, +1
+Energy of Momentum: 0, 1, 0"
The sum is strange: -1, 1, +1
You wrote: "Thus, the fact that kinetic energy is the inverse of potential energy does not require negative reality, only negative labels to describe the reality."
I consider the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a closed system constant:
sin^2(x)+cos^2(x)=1.
"Wouldn't you agree?" I would like to do so because I need supporters in this contest, and I hope it is for you just a little step to accept what I consider a key.
Isn't there still growing confusion not just among students who have to swallow an abundance of allegedly counter-intuitive theories from Cantor's transfinite alephs up to white holes? I observed even here in the contest a widespread readiness among laymen to spontaneously welcome new suggestions ranging from a variable Planck's constant by Constantinos Ragazas to Peter Jackson's exciting ideas and the tendency among experts to favor overly formalized "serious" speculations. Not even Georgina Parry did consequently challenge idolized theories. I consider my arguments in Appendix C strong ones. I just avoided to open one more frontal attack.
Best regards,
Eckard
Doug replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear Eckard,
You wrote (for some reason, this doggone editor eliminates all plus signs for me!!!):
"Just add what you wrote:
Energy of Position: -1, 0, +1 plus Energy of Momentum: 0, 1, 0
The sum is strange: -1, 1, +1
I consider the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a closed system constant: sin^2(x) plus cos^2(x) = 1."
As you point out, the sum of the kinetic and potential energy remains a constant value, as their relative values change inversely, but when the same relationship is expressed in terms of sine squared and cosine squared, using the Pythagorean theorem, the algebra eliminates the negative sign, because it has two square roots for -1: -1
2 = +1
2 = 1.
Thus, the sum is strange, but only because of the limitation of the algebra. In this case, it appears that what might normally be considered a vice in the algebra of R, is now regarded as a virtue!
Regards,
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT
Eckard,
You also wrote:
"Isn't there still growing confusion not just among students who have to swallow an abundance of allegedly counter-intuitive theories from Cantor's transfinite alephs up to white holes? I observed even here in the contest a widespread readiness among laymen to spontaneously welcome new suggestions ranging from a variable Planck's constant by Constantinos Ragazas to Peter Jackson's exciting ideas and the tendency among experts to favor overly formalized "serious" speculations. Not even Georgina Parry did consequently challenge idolized theories. I consider my arguments in Appendix C strong ones. I just avoided to open one more frontal attack."
I concur with your line of thought on this. You may may be interested in this quote from David Hestenes:
"...there is a great proliferation of different mathematical systems designed to express geometrical ideas - tensor algebra, matrix algebra, spinor algebra - to name just a few of the most common. It might be thought that this profusion of systems reveals the richness of mathematics. On the contrary, it reveals a wide-spread confusion - confusion about the aims and principles of geometric algebra."
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Doug,
My dictionary tells me: A vice is a moral fault in someone's character or behavior. I would blame contradictory arrows of positive directions rather than a limitation of the algebra.
I only very vaguely recall, in connection with the notion of action, that the Lagrangian is not the sum of but the difference between kinetic and potential energy. Maybe I am wrong here. Nonetheless I expect confusion if, e.g., the positive incrementation dx of x remains unchanged while the direction of force changes its sign at zero. I also recall oddities with modal analysis in cylindrical coordinates.
Just for fun I will quote from Nahin, p. 14, how already John Wallis confused himself:
Since a/0, with a larger than 0, is positive infinity, and since a/b, with b smaller than 0 is a negative number, then this negative number must be greater than positive infinity because the denominator in the second case is less than the the denominator in the first case. This left Wallis to the astounding conclusion that a negative number is simultaneously both less than zero and greater than positive infinity ...".
Best regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Doug replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 05:21 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I wish I knew German as well as you know English. If I did, I would gladly try to write in your language. By using the word "vice," I intended the meaning "defect," and by using the word "virtue," I intended the meaning "value." The algebra of the reals has both traits.
You are right in regards to the Lagrangian, but let's keep things as simple as possible. To my mind, you have put your finger on the major problem with the foundation of math and physics. Euclid's definition of point must hold, in my opinion. However, what he understood in terms of ratios of measures also must hold. Ratios work in three ways, which we can call positive, negative and neither.
On this basis, if a ratio is neither positive nor negative, it must be a unit ratio, n/n, n = 0 --> infinity in R+. Hence, -n/n or n/-n or -n/-n are illegal ratios. No such ratios can exist. However, because, as Grassmann, Clifford and Hestenes understood, there are two interpretations of numbers possible, R- is a reality as well.
The first interpretation of number is R+. The quantity of things, the answer to the question "How much, or how many?" On the other hand, there is another interpretation of R+, which results from a relation between two quantities in R+, such as the ratio of n and m. Let's say both n and m
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
Dear Doug,
I highly appreciate your readiness for unbiased dealing with my admittedly rather uncommon arguments.
You wrote:
"Ratios work in three ways, which we can call positive, negative and neither.
On this basis, if a ratio is neither positive nor negative, it must be a unit ratio, n/n, n = 0 --> infinity in R+. Hence, -n/n or n/-n or -n/-n are illegal ratios. No such ratios can exist. However, because, as Grassmann, Clifford and Hestenes understood, there are two interpretations of numbers possible, R- is a reality as well.
The first interpretation of number is R+. The quantity of things, the answer to the question "How much, or how many?" On the other hand, there is another interpretation of R+, which results from a relation between two quantities in R+, such as the ratio of n and m. Let's say both n and m"
Well, in case of a ratio trichotmy holds. However what about irrational numbers?
I learned from Fraenkel's 1923 book there are not three but four logical possibilities. Fraenkel himself was not unbiased. Following G. Cantor's insane intention, he did not accept the fourth possibility.
I am arguing: Real numbers must be understood homogeneous, i.e. without distinction between rational and irrational ones. Only then they are truly essentially different from the rational ones. This requires to admit that numbers of infinite precision within a continuum of such truly "real" numbers cannot be subject to trichotomy. In other words: I consider Dedekind's extension from rational to real numbers reasonable on condition we do not try to enforce trichotomy for the real numbers too. This paradise is elusive.
Best regards,
Eckard
Anonymous replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Eckard,
You wrote:
"I am arguing: Real numbers must be understood homogeneous, i.e. without distinction between rational and irrational ones. Only then they are truly essentially different from the rational ones. This requires to admit that numbers of infinite precision within a continuum of such truly "real" numbers cannot be subject to trichotomy. In other words: I consider...
view entire post
Dear Eckard,
You wrote:
"I am arguing: Real numbers must be understood homogeneous, i.e. without distinction between rational and irrational ones. Only then they are truly essentially different from the rational ones. This requires to admit that numbers of infinite precision within a continuum of such truly "real" numbers cannot be subject to trichotomy. In other words: I consider Dedekind's extension from rational to real numbers reasonable on condition we do not try to enforce trichotomy for the real numbers too. This paradise is elusive."
Unless I'm missing something, the idea of homogeneous R+ is acceptable, because any magnitude whatsoever can be set equal to the unit value of R+. Thus, what was an irrational magnitude in association with another unit value, can be transformed into a rational magnitude by fiat.
Of course, as soon as the transformation is made, another set of magnitudes, different from the first, becomes irrational. The process is repeatable ad infinitum. So, why then do we speak of rational and irrational numbers in an absolute sense? A given magnitude may be considered rational or irrational, depending upon our choice of reference. In this sense, geometric magnitudes are relative, not absolute.
In my opinion, the really ancient (i.e. more ancient than the Greeks) had it right, when they said that, where two quantities exist, one greater than another, then there shall be one greater still. They made no mention of "irrational" magnitudes.
However, it's not that we can ignore them, or else we wouldn't be having this contest. But the more important question is the one of trichotomy, which the ancients held as fundamental. When we consider that the elements of R+ have two interpretations, then we can consider the trichotomy of numbers two ways. The first sub-divides the unit number (the quantitative interpretation of number), and the second compares two sets of unit numbers (the operational interpretation of number).
In the first interpretation, the numbers 1/2 and 2/1 differ by 2 operations, not by 2 units. This is the basis of the concept of octaves, or a doubling/halving operation, we might say. If we double 1/2 once, we get the quantity 1, double it again, we get the quantity 2. Conversely, if we divide 2 into half once, we get the quantity 1, half it again, we get the quantity 1/2. Performing the operation twice in either "direction," shows the symmetry of the numbers, with respect to the number 1.
In the second interpretation, the numbers 1/2 and 2/1 differ by two units, in a a single comparison operation. We are evaluating them to determine which number is greater than the other number, or if there is no difference between them. In this case, the operation is like the balance scale, rather than the knife, and the quantities are discrete. Although we could choose to include fractions of discrete units, but then we must decide whether or not to include both the equal divisions (i.e. rational parts) of a single unit, and the arbitrary divisions (i.e. irrational parts) of a single unit, or only one of these.
Choosing to exclude fractions, we can use arbitrary signs (e.g. + & -) to indicate our perspective relative to which side of the number 0 we might refer to. However, in this case, we must remember that the number 0 is actually the number 1 again, as in the first interpretation, but with a different meaning.
This time, the number 1 is both 1 and 0, at the same time. It is interpreted as 0, because 0 represents the result of the comparison evaluation between the two numbers, when there is no difference between them. However, 0 is also interpreted as 1, because 1 means that the relative number of units in the comparison of the two sets is equal. It's just two different ways of regarding the same thing.
So, dear Eckard, I believe that you are right in that no trichotomy exist in R+, natively, but we must recognize that we can clearly employ the elements of R+ to produce a trichotomy, in at least two ways.
Sincerely,
Doug
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear Doug,
While I agree with nearly all you wrote, I am not sure whether or not you carefully distinguished between R and Q. This distinction is somewhat tricky. There is no reason to question trichotomy in Q.
Regards,
Eckard
Doug replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Eckard,
I guess my point would be that R+ is a set of n-dimensional countables, while only from Q can we get R. Maybe we are agreed.
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 22:53 GMT
Dear Doug,
You wrote:"I guess my point would be that R+ is a set of n-dimensional countables, while only from Q can we get R. Maybe we are agreed."
The only reasonable to me possibility to clearly and consequently distinguish between R and Q is not conform with the current tenets: While present mathematics declares R also as subject to trichotomy as definitely is Q,
I consider R, and of course R+ too, a genuine continuum as still described by Peirce: something every part of which has parts. Such continuum can strictly speaking neither be separated into single points, no matter how many, nor can it be an existing set composed of them. Only rational numbers are countable. Consequently understood real numbers are uncountable even if they can be approximated as accurately as you like. They are a different quality.
Correspondingly it is not correct to make a quantitative comparison between R and Q. There are not more reals than rationals because there is no basis for a quantitative comparison between a quantity and a quality. Cantor's paradise is an infinitum creatum, an elusive created infinity, an infinity inspired by the imagination of a huge number.
Dedekind declared the real numbers the union of rational and irrational numbers.
This is only reasonable if one admits that the embedded rational numbers lost their property to be numerically accessible. Dedekind was forced to admit having no evidence for equal treatment. He understood that any two rational numbers must be different from each other but he denied that genuine continuity demands numbers of unimaginable actually infinite precision, which must NOT allow to be distinguished from each other. For instance 0.999... and the fictitious successor 1.000... each with an actually infinite amount of nines or zeros, respectively, differ from each other by nothing.
Since Pythagorean time mathematicians have a problem with their lacking readiness to admit that countables and continuum exclude and complement each other. Having learned to benefit from infinite series, mathematicians of 19th century were not satisfied with the obvious correctness of limits. Now we have several axiomatic set theories that claim to be rigorous but none of them could achieve any improvement. On the contrary, they caused and will continue to cause unnecessary trouble.
All this would not bother me if no "mathematical" obstacles against R+ did arise from theories based on Dedekind's and Cantor's superficial distinction between rational and real numbers while simultaneous equal treatment of them.
In my essay I gave examples for further shortcomings.
In principle, my suggestions are addressed to mathematicians. However I see they likewise relevant for physics and in particular the given topic. Dedekind was among the first who suggested a discrete (non-Peirce) continuum of space.
Incidentally, at that time, the notion dimension was not the original one.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 11:45 GMT
I erroneously wrote: "at that time, the notion dimension was not the original one."
I meant: "at that time, the notion dimension was still the original one."
Eckard
Doug replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Eckard,
To my unsophisticated, amateur mind, the idea of rational numbers embedded in a continuum is ludicrous. If we take the number 1 in R+, we have two options to consider, one is the operation where we add multiple ones together, and the other is where we divide up the one into multiple parts.
In the first operation, we can continue to add ones to the accumulated total forever, without limit. In the second operation, we can continue to divide up the one into smaller divisions forever.
Clearly, there is no gap between the divisions of 1 that we choose, just as there is no gap between the multiple units we accumulate. However, when we add an x number of y divisions to some accumulated total of units, if x < y, then obviously there are geometric magnitudes that we cannot access numerically.
Nevertheless, it is conceivable that, if we had a workable procedure, we could change our units to an appropriate magnitude in order to access the formerly inaccessible geometric magnitude numerically, since the choice of the magnitude that we use for our unit is arbitrary.
Hence, this demonstrates that the so-called irrational numbers, or irrational magnitudes, are nothing more than an artifact of our choice of a unit magnitude. This does not mean that such an artifact cannot be used to advantage, but it does mean that we should keep in mind that it is called irrational for a good reason.
When we collapse the unit ball to zero, one of the irrational artifacts associated with 1, the square root of 2 (the other is the inverse of the square root of 2), which is the larger radius, ceases to exist (as does its inverse) once the unit radius reaches zero, even though it is a significantly larger magnitude (and even though its inverse is a significantly smaller magnitude).
Is it not so, surely?
Regards,
Doug
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
Dear doug,
You wrote: "the idea of rational numbers embedded in a continuum is ludicrous." I would not say ludicrous because I see it rather a clever kind of self-deception. It works well in nearly all situations because approximations by rational numbers can be as accurate as desired. However, I gave exceptions in my Appendix A, in my references Aseltine and Terhardt, and in previous essays and discussions.
You also wrote: "called irrational for a good reason". Yes, they cannot be written as p/q with p, q finite. The other meaning irrational does not apply because mathematics is not beyond rational thinking.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Ben Baten wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 23:50 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 00:57 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
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
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 22:20 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 00:16 GMT
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
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 01:24 GMT
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
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 03:41 GMT
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
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 the interaction of energy (energy exchanges). This derivation of Planck's Law does NOT use energy quanta, yet it is possible to show how energy quanta manifest in physics.
Planck's Law marks the very beginnings of Quantum Physics and a 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought for more than 100 years. Surprisingly, the derivation in my essay is a very simple and ellegant proof that uses continuous processes only. Most likely, the very simplicity of this proof is the reason it was missed by physicists for more than a century. So, just from this alone, I can confidently argue for "a world without quanta".
But I show much more! The mathematical derivation of Planck's Law in my essay acts like a Rosetta Stone to translate known physics into a consistent and sensible formulation. This I try to do in a limited but very suggestive way in my essay. It allows for a 'physical view' that 'makes sense'. I will not argue all the results in my essay and in my papers here. But I want to hilight also a significant connection between entropy and time that is a mathematical consequence of Planck's Law. This leads to a rewording of The Second Law of Thermodynamics to assert that 'all physical processes (events) take some positive duration of time to manifest'.
You write: "Do you see any difference between the action S and what you are calling eta?"
In my essay the quantity eta is 'prime physis' and is undefined and undefinable. However, energy can be defined as the time-derivative of eta and momentum can be defined as the space-derivative of eta, as well as other physical quantities. Basic Law of physics can then be mathematically derived from these. So, eta can be thought of BOTH as 'accumulation of energy' as well as 'action'. Planck's constant is commonly thought as a 'quantum of action'. There is no contradiction to this with anything in my essay. But in addition, Planck's constant can ALSO be thought as a 'minimal accumulation of energy' that can be measured. It turns out that thinking of h as 'accumulation of energy' has advantages in that it gives deeper and greater meaning to Planck's Law. Furthermore, using eta (aka enerxaction by Oz) combines Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics. Hayrani Oz has much to say on this. I dare not step into his shoes!
You write: " I consider h a natural constant similar to c"
Interestingly dear Eckard, one of the 'Rosetta Stone' consequences of my derivation of Planck's Law is to show that though this Law can be written with any value 'eta' instead of h, the Law can be shown to ALWAYS REDUCE to its usual familiar form!!! Moreover, it becomes clear that Planck's constant h is really not a natural universal constant, but rather h is the 'fixed eta' used as a 'standard of measurement' for Kelvin temperature. So the existence and value of h has more to do with our theoretical regime and our system of measurement. In a sense, the physical theory we use to 'see' Nature has a 'conceptual focal point' beyond which we cannot 'see'. That 'focal point' is h.
You write: "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. "
Dear Eckard, I know how you feel about all the mathematical abstractions. I don't care for much of that either. But this becomes a problem in Physics only if Physics becomes too enamoured with the beauty of pure math and does not proved a 'physical view' that makes sense. Math is just a language. We cannot fault good math for bad physics. From my perspective, the 'business of physics' is to provide us 'physical explanations' and a 'physical view' that makes sense. Physics has failed us in that!
You write: "I do not yet see how the renaming of action into eta alias enerxaction may have any consequence for physics and technology."
It is much more than renaming Physics, Eckard! It is a serious matter of reformulating Physics! The thumbnail sketch I sought to present in my essay shows that physics can be about 'a world without quanta'. Hayrani Oz, my coauthor, has much to say how this approach has great use in simplifying engineering problems. He's been doing this with his students successfully for many years.
Best,
Constantinos
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 08:24 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
If I compare your essay with the essay "Quantum Theory without Quantization" by Ken Wharton, I clearly prefer yours although Ken's already was rewarded with a FQXi membership proposal. The main reason for me to reject Ken is his readiness to accept the fatalistic idea of an a priori given block universe. Admittedly, I agree with his BIQ while I do not see that you even understood how fundamental and hard to decide the question "discrete or continuous" is.
Best regards,
Eckard
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
Hello Eckard,
The question "discrete or continuous" has as many meanings as minds to ponder on these. Your favorite math villains, Cantor, Dedekind and others, had their own understanding of these. As also modern physicists do, and in as many varied ways. I like the view that 'discrete' means 'countable' while 'continuous' means 'measureable' (I think John Merriman may have expressed this in such simple terms). And Reality is both. I view the ocean as continuous while the bucketfuls of water we draw from the ocean as discrete. I also state that energy propagates continuously while interacts discretely. And in my
essay I show how all this is perfectly self consistent. No duality dilemmas here!
Eckard, I know that you like to look for structural cracks in the joints of the conceptual beams of a theory. You bring an engineer's mind to the problems with modern physics. Your vast technical knowledge makes you especially effective in raising such issues. I admire that thoughtfulness. But that thoughtfulness is not me. My approach is different. But we both join in calling for a return to 'physical realism'. To me, much of modern physics involves more 'Ptolemaic epicycles' seeking to describe the dizzying orbits of ideas removed from physical experience. But do we need to know how epicycles work in order to understand ellipses?
Sometimes, dear Eckard, we need to step back and ignore the details in order to see the 'big picture'. Do we have a better understanding of the architecture of a cathedral were we to know how each brick is positioned in the structure? I have been accussed of having a 'simple and naive' view of physics. Considering where the 'complex theories' of modern physics have taken us, I take this accussation as a complement! In my
essay I give a simple thunbnail sketch of 'a world without quanta'. Were this view help bring us closer to 'physical realism', I would be deeply greatified.
Best,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Dear Conatantinos,
In science, unambiguous and understandable languages tend to indicate trustworthy work.
Already "!!!! is suspicious.
I did not find in my dictionary the word physis. Don't 'prime physis' and 'undefined and undefinable' sound mystical?
You uttered:"I know how you feel about all the mathematical abstractions". How can you know my feelings?
You are repeatedly claiming:"... a 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought for more than 100 years." Sought by whom an how? Why didn't you give belonging references?
I presume that the seeming discrepancy between L=T-V and H=T+V is due to different coordinate systems. Has Hayrani Oz more to say on this?
I have to justify myself for using the word touchstone nearly synonymous to criterion of correctness. And I am a bit shocked by the unexpected result that Lorentz metric might possibly be ill-founded.
How do you justify your metaphor Rosetta stone with respect to the many notorious paradoxes of quantum physics?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 22:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I do enjoy your 'voice' and style of your comments. It's at the same time refreshing and challenging. I can only hope to be as good in my answers as you are in your questions.
You will not find 'physis' in your German-English dictionary since this is a Greek word. Physics derives from it! Simply, 'prime physis' referes to 'first nature'. I find appropriate to use this term to describe the quantity eta in my
essay . As 'first nature' it is undefined and undefinable. Other physical quantities like energy and momentum can be defined in terms of it. In my
essay , 'prime physis eta' is the only quantity that connects mathematical results to physical nature.
You write, "How can you know my feelings? ". O.K. I don't know your "feelings". This was a statement of 'empathy' (agreement?) with previous statements you've made.
The 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought by physicists at the time (and some decades later) when Planck derived his formula using 'energy quanta'. This marks the beginnings of Quantum Physics. If you like, just disregard that statement all together. It does not change the substance and validity of my results.
As to the Rosetta Stone metaphore, all I meant by it is that the formulation of Planck's Law in my
essay leads to many other connections to known Physics. For example, Planck's Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent.
You write, "... I am a bit shocked by the unexpected..." . We are all shocked by the unexpected! It's in the nature of the unexpected. But the shock is neither confirming nor denying what may shock us. Just like there are problems with 'point masses', we should suspect also 'events' happening instantly at t=s. As I show in my
essay , Thermodynamics requires 'more time' than 'no time'.
I'll let Hayrani Oz speak for himself! But he is too busy right now to engage in this forum. I can only direct you to a pdf file of his response to Ken Wharton. You can find this attached under my post under
Ken's essay.Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Sorry for my typo. I learned to ask myself: Is there possible a dispensable word in a paper I intend to publish. The word physis needs an explanation while primordial is common. A single link to your essay might be helpful. I asked for at least one reference that confirms your statement "The 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought by physicists ...". Maybe you are right?
Let's compare your idea of threshold with my and perhaps also Schroedinger's picture of more than just a single mode. I am not familiar with the details. I just vaguely recall that Schroedinger managed to calculate the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom non-relativistically. What can you add?
Regards,
Eckard
Anonymous replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Eckard,
One think you should know about me. I don't make comparison references. Just like I don't pass judgements on others. I am not a scholar. But I am a free and independent thinker.
You write,
"...Schroedinger managed to calculate the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom non-relativistically. What can you add?"
Not much on that at this time. There are many things I don't know. Most everything! But do I need to know the 'whole truth' to know the truth I know? I am always ready to argue and defend my ideas. I am constantly surprised with the unexpected 'gold nuggets' I find in this 'gold mind' I call the Rosetta Stone. Those with better skills and better tools will find even bigger ones. But they'll need to follow the Light into the Mind.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 09:19 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
I would like to once again confirm my support for your attitude. Hopefully you will benefit from this support and from my criticism.
All the best,
Eckard
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Thanks for confirming! I do value your support of my attitude. Do you equally confirm my many mathematical derivations in my essay resulting from this attitude? If not, which one specifically you have questions about? My Planck's Law derivation? The equivalence of Boltzmann's entropy equation to Planck's Law? The mathematically argued connection between entropy and time? My interpretation of The Second Law to say that 'all physical processes (events) need a positive duration of time to occur'? My existence argument of Planck's constant and what it really means? Or something else of the many results in my
essay too numerous to list in this post?
I take all your advice seriously and reflect on it. Reflect on the results I have in earnest put forth. All are mathematically argued. Some may surprise you.
All the best,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Perhaps I understand your unhappiness. I am sorry, I feel not in position to judge your mathematical work. Even if I did endorse it, we both together would certainly not manage to convince editors of refereed journals that it is not just correct but even a Physis and a Rosetta stone.
I admit a suspicion of mine: You certainly know that Einstein was influenced by Boltzmann when he agreed with Ritz to not agree. Ritz meant: Future cannot influence past. Even the late Einstein denied the separation between "past, present and future". I consider Ritz correct in this case, and I am arguing that the idea of a spacetime that includes the past and likewise the future is anticipatory and reflects a fatalistic attitude.
If I recall correctly, Georgina Parry shared Einstein's presentist view while she nonetheless denies the reality of spacetime. I did not yet take the time to thoroughly analyze her essay and the belonging discussion.
Anyway, I suspect that there might be hidden mistakes around the use of probabilities and distributions. Did you read the essay by Joel H. Meyer, a Medical Doctor? In a previous contest I mentioned an obviously unrealistic result by Gompf et al. as a reason for me to distrust single electron counting.
Let's ahow that we are not yet too old as to find out mistakes.
Good luck to us both,
Eckard
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 02:44 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Your criticism is always well intended, wise and helpful. I consider you a friend and a supporter. We share, along with many others in this forum, many misgivings on the current 'state of physics'. And we seek earnestly to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. Whereas you look for such by deeply examining the math used in physics, I tend to question the 'physical view' of physics.
But I have come around more to your view that there may be something amiss in the way math is used in physics. Math abstracts too much from physics. Unwittingly, we may be drawing wrong conclusions. Certainly, 'point masses' may be a problem. But also spacetime, as many have argued in this forum. My misgivings about a spacetime continuum is that it appears to me that this viollates basic laws of thermodynamics. In my humble opinion, it may be incorrect to 'instantiate' physical events by (x,y,z,t). I believe thermodynamics requires that physical events have 'extention' in space and 'duration' of time.
This necessity of thermodynamics takes many forms. In my explanation of the double-slit experiment I argue that 'there is an accumulation of energy over some duration of time before manifestation of energy'. This view also appears in my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. I also demonstrate this in my
essay with the mathematical relationship I derive between thermodynamic entropy and time. And you have argued in the past that this idea may also explain the Gompf et al. false measurements.
Eckard, it is my belief that the only mathematics we should apply to physics is that which describes the 'interaction of measurement'. My derivation of Planck's Law is such. No wonder it is so remarkably accurate. Mathematical models of the Universe may contain abstractions that are unrealistic.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Does "math abstract too much from physics"? No. I rather see all those morons or charlatans who confuse an abstract model with the object from which it was abstracted. Having experiences an even worse rating now, I pretend ensuring all fans of the Greatest that he is of course an exception. I am here still waiting for a miracle, the promised comments by Tejinder Singh.
I appreciate your partial agreement with my criticism, and I also agree with your thermodynamic argument against spacetime. Did you read the excellent book by Zeh?
What about my aversion against what Bourbaki declared foundational to mathematics, a clueless and somewhat sad professor of mathematics pointed me not to Cantor who was obviously let's say exotic but to Weierstrass who got respected after many poor years when he shocked the community with a monster function. Meanwhile I understood the trick. He used the two mutually excluding aspects of infinity simultaneously. In these decades of the 19th century, the good old notion number was redefined with serious consequences from naive set theory to Hausdorff continuum and category theory, affecting physics too.
I agree on that experiments are touchstones for theories. However, the correct design of experiments and the correct interpretation of the results are crucial.
Best regards,
Eckard
Hayrani OZ replied on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 06:47 GMT
Gentlemen:
I came across this dialogue 21 months after it has taken place!
I will not discuss enerxaction publicly in all of its details until I choose to do so. Because of this, I do not expect one to understand and appreciate its (and Ragazas' allied concepts via eta) scientific and technological significance until I do so. At this point, the only comment I have is about Blumschein's question above in this chain:"I presume that the seeming discrepancy between L=T-V and H=T+V is due to different coordinate systems. Has Hayrani Oz more to say on this?
Here is what I have to say for now: There is not a matter of discrepancy and or a coordinate system difference between the Lagrangian function L and the Hamiltonian function H; both are due to fundamentally different mechanics views of two individuals well-respected in the literature. Operations on the time integrals of these functions when broadened under the concepts of enerxaction dynamics yield for one of them an incorrect and for the other one a correct description of equilibrium phenomena. The difference between these two functions is not a matter of a simple sign mistake either. I will kindly leave you pondering on which one is the correct one and which one is the incorrect one, and why?
The Foundations of classical mechanics we use today are built on shaky grounds and unsolidified concepts. Not only the answers but the questions we ask must also be right!
Best regards, Hayrani OZ
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 01:05 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 21:07 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 00:12 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 10:32 GMT
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
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 16:48 GMT
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
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 ionosphere/plasmasphere, or the halo's of galaxies (see the refs) stretching out hundreds of Kiloparsecs at densities up to those refered we can see how it may have some influence!
Abel and Babel can do this but need calculators, the relative 'v', and the distances involved at the moment of synchronisation (including how far each is from the relevant end of his train). To be accurate they'd also need air temperatures, windspeed, 'n' of the windscreen glass, humidity, gravity etc, but the air each end of the train is turbulent anyway so we'll stop at the 2nd order approximation. [Godel rules!] We'll also assume both trains are receding/moving apart (moving wrt the tracks/air).
Strictly the em waves will propagate at c/n of air, approx n = 1.0003. They will however change speed a number of times, including twice at each glass screen where (as we well know!) they do the c/n of glass, say n = 1.55, on entry, and then speed up again entering the outside air, but of course speed up MORE than they slowed down (as the air in the train was moving with the train).
We don't really need to know the speed of each train as we can just use the reciprocal v and average the two out, (unless we're only relying on one person to speak at the co-ordination moment, - but they must remember the arrival times may be different and must be averaged).
The signals move through the air at c/n of the air (Doppler shifted subject to 'n', and train & wind speed) then go through the glass slow down/speed up process again, (obviously with blue shift inside the glass) then speeds up (and red shifts back again - but this time not as much) to go through the air in the train at c/n wrt the train. There will be a residual red shift to each directly proportional to the relative v.
They can do their sums either in advance or afterwards, then synchonise the clocks.(as Georgina's principles) They may need to pre set two points so each can do it individually. It is still possible if they don't have the speed/distance data, but they'd each need a spectrometer to record and analyse the travel history of each signal via absorption bands etc. (EM waves are compelled by the laws of physics to keep a log of their travels, so when humans reach a certain intelligence level their history can be fully analysed).
Of course if one of them decides to walk to the toilet at the wrong time....!
You'll see from the references to the paper that if we replace the glass screens with dense plasma the effect is the same, and if we move it laterally the time signal ('Time averaged Poynting Vector') is deflected, or curved through space (space-time).
Sorry if that got a bit complicated, but physics may actually really be more simple than folk.. once we can handle the moving variables in our minds. There were only 3 inertial frames (fields) and 2 observers involved. The 'transformation' between them is simply refraction, and c or c/n always rules.
That was straight 'off the cuff' so please do query any confusing bits, or throw me any others.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 06:49 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 20:32 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT
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
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 17:10 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 00:12 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:47 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 00:27 GMT
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
Thomas Wagner wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 21:31 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
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
Tom Wagner wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
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
Tom Wagner wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
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
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 to Sommerfeld on page four. When he states that no wave is reflected from infinity in finite time sounds a bit like the notion that a moving object cannot transverse an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time. Be that as it may, I am more interest in the next statement, Standing waves are strictly speaking approximations.
A standing wave is a very definable and precise physical phenomenon. It is the initiator of most and perhaps all sound. This can best be seen in a musical example. More than half a century ago, Frederick Saunders wrote an article about the physics of music for Scientific American. This article had more errors and misconceptions that I have ever seen in one article. Saunders was a noted figure in the acoustical world, but physicists are only human (at least most of them are).
One false assumption that most people make about the generation of a music as sound, and I use Saunder's example of an instrument such as a clarinet or an oboe, is that it is the movement of the traveling longitudinal wave that transverses the from the mouthpiece to either the end of the instrument or to the first open key actually creates the sound.. A conjugate is returned and wave moves back and forth through the instrument.
Saunders makes the statement that it is the air that flows in and out of the finger holes that creates the sound. He then went on to state the fundamental is the only note whose sound goes out of the end of the instrument. If this were to be true then why do they put bells on both clarinets and oboes if they only affect a single note?
The movement of the traveling wave back and forth sets up the frequency of the tone. The structure of the sound begins in the reed of either instrument. This is fed from the mouthpiece to the sides of the instrument. The movement of the air creates a classic standing wave, which is modified by the information residing on the sides. The severe impedance mismatch between the air and the materials from which an instrument is created means that the body of any instrument contributes little to the sound we hear. The primary interface that creates the sound lies across the plane of the open end of the instrument. This is why a bell increases the volume of the sound; it increases the area of interface.
This is true of most instruments. The standing wave that forms in the body of most instruments is a resonance. Perhaps the biggest obstacle in understanding sound is the lack of understanding that a vibration and a resonance are two related but decidedly different things. Any material with some elastic properties will resonate to any frequency. Only if the resonance is near to the overtone structure of the resonating material will that material vibrate. On the other hand, a vibration is necessary to create the resonance initially. Both the vibration and the resonance are digital.
Sound is not a single isolated occurrence; it is a process that ends in the Organ of Corti. The Organ of Corti is a fluid filled canal in the cochlea, which houses the hair cells that stimulate the nerves to the brain. The final argument for hearing being a discrete process is that the messages the nerves send to the brain are in the form of discrete pulses. They respond to an increase in amplitude by sending more pulses per unit time.
Since all of the nerves that send data to the brain are quite the same we have to wonder if all sensations are transmitted to brain as discrete pulses. While I agree that the brain is not necessarily just a big computer we have to be aware of the fact that the complex of nerves that address the brain do behave a bit like a computer bus and the pulses are, in effect, bit patterns.
Thanks for a very provocative essay.
Tom Wagner
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:13 GMT
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
Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
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
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:50 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 09:36 GMT
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
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Eckard,
on the contrary Mc Taggart's very clear and unambiguous definition of the elements neccessary for time as we know it are very useful. The everyday notion of past, present and future is not adequate.
As I have tried to explain in my essay for the distant observer events that have already occurred and are to the near man already the past, are yet to be experienced and are in that distant observer's future. Though beyond what has already occurred everywhere (even though it has not been experienced) the future is un-written. So you see from this that some parts of the future, not yet experienced, are preordained, as they have already happened, and others are not.So there is partial determinism allowing causality and free will.
The everyday notion of a present experienced by all simultaneously is not sufficient to explain observations, where there is observed to be non simultaneity of events. (See the dog on the hill example in the essay.) However simultaneity is necessary at the foundational level to permit causality.The differentiation of (Foundational)object and (Reconstruction from received data)image reality allow both to co-exist without contradiction or paradox.
The experienced present is formed from the data that is -received-, not the objects or events that exist or the data immediately it is formed. So objective or uni-temporal Now (Where foundational objects exist and interaction occurs) is different from the experienced space-time present. There is transmission delay according to distance from object or event which causes temporal distortion of the image reality experienced.
Best regards, Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 23:52 GMT
Dear Georgina,
You wrote: "The everyday notion of a present experienced by all simultaneously".
Sorry, I am not aware of anybody who is stupid enough as to not understand that it is impossible to see or hear without a delay what happend elsewhere. I am also sure that the huge majority of people who easily understand that for instance thunder takes some time of flight never heard the name McTeggart.
Regards,
Eckard
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 05:00 GMT
Yes Eckard,
you are correct that most people do understand there is an information delay. However it does seem that there has been a general difficulty reconciling this knowledge with the notion of the present. Most are not conscious that the present experience is not a singular simultaneously occurring collection of events, or objective slice of reality happening right Now - but a...
view entire post
Yes Eckard,
you are correct that most people do understand there is an information delay. However it does seem that there has been a general difficulty reconciling this knowledge with the notion of the present. Most are not conscious that the present experience is not a singular simultaneously occurring collection of events, or objective slice of reality happening right Now - but a composite image formed from received data with incorporated time delay, that is unique for each observer.The amount of delay being variable according to the distance from the origin and the nature of the stimulus.Smells taking longer than sound taking longer than light.
I suspect experiments are designed without the subjective, relative nature of the present being taken fully into account. The two ends of the laboratory are not seen at precisely the same time by the experimenter standing at different ends of the room.It takes time for the light reflected to reach the experimenters eyes and be processed.
Such considerations are important for example when quantum physicists start to talk about time travel. On a minute scale due to the high speed of light and tiny scale of particles under consideration, the far end of the room is seen in the past compared to what is actually happening at the far end of the room. The yet unobserved event might be said to be occurring in the future as it has not yet been observed, but so it is with all distant observations.It becomes the experienced present when the observation is made ie the data is received and processed so that there is an awareness of it.
This gets really messed up for astronomical observations because it takes a vast amount of time for the data to arrive so it is obviously not something happening right now but yet it only now a part of present experience.Until it is observed it is something that has happened but is not yet observed, like the event at the end of the room. Still in the future until it is seen even though the event has happened. After the event is seen it becomes the past consigned to memory or other records.
Those events that have happened but are not yet observed are only a part of the future, the determined part. Beyond what exists at the uni-temporal objective Now (That is right now in objective reality) there is nothing so the future is open and unwritten. Allowing non determinism and free will.I think confusion over this is what lead to the writing of the Andromeda paradox. It can be understood either as I have explained here or by using the Lorentz transformation to calculate what would be observed. The event becomes a part of the present when the data is received by the observer not when the data is formed.
I do not know if you have actually talked to many people about their concept of the present. I seem to have had great difficulty getting others to accept the composite nature of an experienced present moment which is an image of reality formed from received data, rather than an objective reality made from objects and events as they are in space. If you are now saying this is the common everyday perception of the present then I am surprised at that.
I too have only recently become aware of Mc Taggart. I have found his A, B, C series helpful because I have myself been trying to describe how a spatial change can become a sequence in time, which is necessary for passage of time and how this is different from experienced and geometric space-time. As his A, B C series are very clear and unambiguous so I am using his series to explanation what I mean.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 08:26 GMT
That should have said "As his A,B,C series are very clear and unambiguous, I am using them to explain what I mean.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 08:44 GMT
Dear Georgina,
If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity. Otherwise the Andromeda paradox is one more indication that Einstein's synchronization is rather a desynchronization. Did you decide whether or not SR is correct?
Because I do not read French, I am not yet sure to what extent Einstein's theory goes back to Poincaré. Maybe Einstein was indeed not aware Poincaré's 1904 paper. This does not matter. Maybe already Poincaré 1898 is to blame. Anyway I see the Galilean principle of relativity violated by the ABA synchronization.
All this is pretty independent from my own work. I merely got aware that there is no plausible explanation for ict.
Again, do you believe in SR or not? And if so, how do you defend the logical asymmetry of ABA synchronization?
Regards,
Eckard
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:24 GMT
Eckard,
you have asked me repeatedly if I believe it or not. I do not think it is a question of belief. Either the mathematics works to give accurate predictions or it does not. I do not use the mathematics myself so I am not qualified to say how well it works from my personal experience. I understand from what I have read that it does work well to make predictions. I would have to qualify that by saying I do not accept that those predictions show the measurements of concrete objects distributed in time and space but only images that will be observed from an observer's perspective.
Yes each observer does have their own "plane of simultaneity". My present is not the same as the next persons present. Data arriving together is formed into the present of each. Which data arrives together to form that present depends upon spatial position. The important point is that past, present and future, experience has to be differentiated from earlier and later sequential change or passage of time.
The sequence of change in foundational reality is the same regardless of the temporal distortion of the sequence due to transmission delay of the data and the different positions of the observers. The non simultaneity of events is an artifact due to that transmission delay and thus temporal distortion of the data. In foundational reality of objects, rather than images formed from received data, there is no non simultaneity, no temporal distribution, but sequential change.
Please can you explain what you are referring to by ABA synchronisation?
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 06:13 GMT
Dear Georgina,
What about all putative evidence that confirms Einstein's SR, you might read Van Flandern, easily available at metaresearch.org. He argues that they altogether can be explained otherwise while nobody directly measured time dilation and nobody directly measured length contraction.
With ABA synchronization I refer to two objects A and B considered in the paper Zur...
view entire post
Dear Georgina,
What about all putative evidence that confirms Einstein's SR, you might read Van Flandern, easily available at metaresearch.org. He argues that they altogether can be explained otherwise while nobody directly measured time dilation and nobody directly measured length contraction.
With ABA synchronization I refer to two objects A and B considered in the paper Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper 1905. I have only a copy in German at hands. For the sake of simplicity, lets restrict to motion along a straight line.
Einstein introduced two clocks. A first one at a point A located at the origin of a coordinate System K at rest is thought belonging to an observer who is in relative motion to the second clock carried by a point B whose coordinates also refer to K. This is already asymmetric because a person at B sees A within his own coordinate system k. As understood by Galilei, there is no justification for an absolute rest. Equal standards would demand to agree on a neutral point C in the middle between A and B.
Of course, if the distance between A and B is growing then A sees or hears the clock of B ticking slower if the temporal distance between two subsequent ticks is unchanged because light or sound, respectively, need an additional time of flight. This effect is named after Christian Doppler, and it is likewise valid for B seeing or hearing A.
Conversely, if the distance gets smaller, then the perceived frequencies increase. Both clocks observed from outside seem to run faster in this case. Such simple and compelling logic is broken if one adheres to the idea that A-related clocks can be attributed to all points in the coordinate system K while B-related clocks can be related to all points in the coordinate system k. All points means locations x between minus infinity and plus infinity. I consider just this idea the key mistake because it requires an overlap of past and future.
Einstein argued that the time in which light travels from A to B must be the same as the time required for returning from B to A: t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B. Then he calculated the return distance 2 AB = (t'_A - t_A)c and concluded
r_AB = (t_B - t_A)(c-v) = (t'_A - t_B)(c+v). Accordingly he arrived at the well known paradox result: (c-v)(c+v) = c^2-v^2 does not depend on the sign of v. While the experimentally confirmed Doppler effect depends on the sign of relative motion, SR predicts a never measured length contraction regardless whether A and B move towards each other or away from each other. Because c-v is about twice as small as SQRT(c^2-v^2), the correct Doppler effect in case A and B move toward each other is about twice as large as the increase according to putative length contraction.
I agree with many experts: Einstein's synchronization by a thought measurement of light reflected from B return to A is unnecessary and led to many paradoxes.
A recent argument against curved spacetime gave evidence for a flat universe.
I should express gratitude towards those who did help me to clarify the matter, in particular Paul Davies. Peter Jackson and Thomas Ray guided me to heretical literature.
Regards,
Eckard
calls A also K and assumes it at rest. He calls B also k and ascribes to it a constant velocity v the direction of which coincides with positive x.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
Eckard,
I have read arguments both for and against SR.
I agree that it is somewhat problematic to assign the same clock time to all points of single reference frame, because everything seen within the reference frame is in space-time and therefore there is temporal distribution within that observed space-time. The data from furthest objects taking the longest to arrive, the nearest the shortest. So the furthest objects are seen further back in time. However it is modeling the observer perspective. To the observer everything he sees, the reconstructed images of external reality, are apparently existing -at the same time-. This relativity relates to the appearances of the image of reality, reconstructed from received data. Not what actually exists without any transmission delay.IMHO.
I also agree with your point about not having stationary points. In my essay I draw attention to the universal trajectory of the earth and how that trajectory would seem to alter as the scale of observation increases. So the observer who is stationary is only stationary from his perspective. If it is -his perspective- under consideration then he can be rightly regarded as stationary.
The overlap of past and future when each assigns his clock to all he sees in his present is not a such a big problem.This is because past and future are not actual realms but are related to the interception of data from which an image of reality is formed. Data not yet received can be considered to be in the future, data that has already been received and is no longer present experience can be considered the past. Of course how each would regard the data depends on his relative perspective. It is not objectively past, present or future, as its name depends on the observers viewpoint.
I know that this is considered to be happening in a space-time manifold and it is generally thought that concrete objects are distributed in both time and space within it. However it is an explanatory mathematical model which does not say for itself exactly what it represents. I am not convinced Einstein knew exactly what it represents. He seemed to think it was a model concrete reality itself. He and Godel were very troubled by time and spent a lot of time trying to comprehend it.I think it works but only as a representation of image reality formed from received data and not as a model of foundational reality in which change and causality occurs.Curved or flat it is still just space-time.
If you have already got the matter clarified in your own mind then there is little point in me saying any more. I have merely said what I think on the matters raised. As community voting will be closing soon you look likely to be a finalist. I am very glad to see that. Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT
Dear Georgina,
There is no escape: The coordinate system K extends into the negative direction to the left of A and into the positive one to the right. For any point B located to the left the distance to A becomes closer if it moves to the right, and hence the Doppler effect yields an increased apparent frequency until B moved to the right side of A and the distance between A and B got growing yielding an decreased apparent frequency. Consequently there is no common coordinate system k fixed at B for which all points or in Einstein's terminology clocks read the same apparent time. Calculating 1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v) = 2v /(c^2-v^2) provides a misleading average.
I also disagree with your utterance that there is nothing to add. At least one question is remaining: How sound are Poincaré's Lorentz transformation and its pre-runner by Woldemar Voigt? The latter did deal with an elastic medium instead of light. The mathematical correctness of the belonging derivation of LT has been put in question by Aleksandar Vukelja. Whether Peter Jackson's objection also matters is not yet clear to me. Van Flandern accepted the Lorentz factor as it was used by Lorentz himself in contrast to Poincaré/Einstein.
Having read several related papers including those by Lorentz himself, Fitzgerald, Janssen and Stachel, Harvey Brown, Yakovenko, Ashby, and of course various Wikipedia articles, I see the main case already clarified for good.
Admittedly, I did not yet read the huge heretical literature. Maybe the opponents of Einstein could convince me that he was right.
Regards,
Eckard
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 20:09 GMT
Eckard,
I agree with you the clocks are not the same for all of the points that B can see. If a clock was actually placed at them. However from -his perspective- everything at those points exist at the same time. One singular present. I thought I had said as much in my previous post.
I can not answer your second question.I am not a mathematician.I do not know enough about the subject.I want mathematicians to tell me, clearly one way or the other, if they think they are sound or not and why. The Lorentz transformation mathematics seems to work to predict observations that will be made,(so I hear). As you point our there is a lot of literature on the matter both for and against, so the case is not closed. I have my own current opinion on the whole matter which I have yet to discover is wrong.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 05:42 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I have realized that that was not correct because the clocks are being synchronized out from the clock, removing the light time delay and not from the observer perspective. Now the competition is over I think I might really think more about this synchronization business. Thank you for giving me an interesting problem to think about.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 03:18 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 16:21 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
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
Arjen Dijksman wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:08 GMT
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
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:23 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 09:12 GMT
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
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 20:48 GMT
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
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:23 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 09:08 GMT
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
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 06:43 GMT
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
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
Eckard,
I truly regret that I am not competent to discuss Aleph_2. We all have our limits. I am inclined to agree with you, but that is without any basis except my high regard for you. I am pleased to see that your position guarantees that someone knowledgeable will look at it.
Thank you for your above remarks on my essay. I just opened this morning's mail and find very good news on the C-field front!
The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:
The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to photons passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this, and also looking for the C-field effects on radio telescope observations of the Milky Way black hole. [Note: 'frame-dragging' is a reference to the C-field.]
The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies. This is the same 'superfluid' that I discuss in my essay and that has been found at LHC.
From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Questions like aleph_2 demand a clarification independent of the contest. Mathematicians have a limit that hinders them to discuss the aleph_2 matter: It belongs to a belief they were forced to swallow. You and me are less biased. We may ask any mathematician: Did anyone find any application for any aleph except for aleph_0 which means infinite and aleph_1 which means uncountable? If he is honest he will confess: Such application is not even imaginable.
Why do I bother about something that is about as ridiculous as are babies under a gooseberry bush? Mathematicians tend to defend some gospel-like basic tenets. Even an essay of this contest does not really promise leaving Cantor's paradise. Of course, I did not hold your confession of being not in position to contribute to this matter against you. On the contrary, I do not just acknowledge your realism and I congratulate you for the agreements with experiments you found. I also highly appreciate your honest readiness to admit limits of your competence.
Having voted, I ponder how to further support you. You will certainly continue your work. Can you anyhow improve your representation? Maybe the first pictures did not yet focus on the essence, maybe the notion C-field could be better illustrated.
Best,
Eckard
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Ayind Mahamba wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 18:34 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 19:36 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 15:42 GMT
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
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 22:52 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 22:57 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 23:53 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 09:25 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Eckard
Why do you not give me answer?
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 04:05 GMT
Eckard,
Congratulations!
Pleased that your essay made it to the final round!
Best,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 10:08 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 10:08 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 10:37 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:17 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
Yes i mean cosine transform is sufficient.
But cosine transform follow from Fourier transform...
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:19 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
"... cosine transform follow from Fourier transform..."
I disagree. I see CT not the daughter but rather the sister of FT. Even Cantor already understood what already Albert von Sachsen (1316-1390) was aware of: There are not less positive numbers as compared with the sum of all positive and negative numbers. Cantor attributed the same cardinality to them. R can be mapped onto R+ and vice versa.
Eckard
Anonymous replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
My reply to "... cosine transform follow from Fourier transform..." was not shown. Why? I consider my disagreement essential because it might be considered wrong.
Well, everybody knows that the Fourier transform (FT) is the sum of its real part cosine transform (CT) and its imaginary part sine transform (ST): FT = CT +i ST.
Let me also address "... 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."
Well, there is definitely no possibility to decide where is left. Cartesian coordinates are always arbitrary. What about up and down, it depends. Definition of what is upward in space is likewise arbitrary. However, downsizing is naturally limited to zero. A negative distance is unreal. The same is true for negative radius, and negative measured time, negative absolute temperature, etc. While it is often reasonable to arbitrary shift the natural reference point zero in order to benefit from use of negative and imaginary numbers, such shift is redundant.
Back to FT and CT: With FT, the kernel exp(ix) = cos x + i sin x is assumed, the restriction to cos x by omission of the imaginary part suggests that CT is a special case of FT. For CT, 2 cos x = exp(ix) + exp(-ix) can likewise be restricted by omission of exp(-ix) to a complex, anticlockwise rotating phasor. In so far the CT is not the daughter but rather the sister of FT.
Correspondingly, the positive real numbers are often considered just a special case of all real numbers. However, at least historically and logically, the latter arose from natural numbers, i.e. positive integers. Kronecker was not quite wrong.
These simple and very basic facts seem indisputable to me. I seriously wonder why even contestants felt entitled to lecture me by hints to FT. Is the essence of what makes analog different from continuous, is the essence of my essay not understandable?
Already Leibniz mentioned that the notions infinity and continuity are like labyrinths. I would rather compare them with a trap which was evaded by Galileo Galilei, Baruch de Spinoza and others who understood that being infinite is a quality that cannot be numerically quantified, and it does not fit into the framework of algebra: Infinity plus infinity is just still infinity, at least if we do not allow a brutal and useless mutilation of the basic notions.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:16 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:17 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:29 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 21:36 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 22:58 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 00:10 GMT
I am admirer of Wittgenstein philosophy:
6.36311
That the sun will rise to-morrow, is an hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise.
6.37
A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity.
http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t637en.html
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 00:23 GMT
I am also admirer Roger Penrose idea Cycles of time
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-U
niverse/dp/0224080369
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 00:32 GMT
I share your admiration. Wittgenstein was also a serious opponent of Cantor's set theory.
Eckard
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 03:46 GMT
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 03:56 GMT
I hope you understand what i think about the Concept of Time.
Time is a circle, and perhaps Nietzsche was right when he spoke about eternal return.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 08:36 GMT
I disagree. While I did not yet get the book you pointed to, I guess Penrose just questioned the Big Bang as putative beginning of the world. To me a cycle is not a circle, not a loop. My life will not repeat. Life cycles rather resemble spirals. By the way, a growing spiral is also different from a helix. Nietzsche is perhaps not someone to be admired. He spoke of Uebermenschen (supermen). This reminds me of fascism and of Cantor's ueberabzaehlbar (more than countable). Maybe Nietzsche influenced Cantor when he was in Leipzig/Halle.
Eckard
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
Paraphrase Wittgenstein we can tell: "World is contradiction or tautology".You told that World is contradiction, you will never repeat.My point of view the World is tautology.Moreover then comes Plato and says there is no knowledge and there only recollection.
Nietzsche, unhappy man, ended his days in the Mental hospital.But his "Eternal return" give as hope to immortality.
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
There is short version Penrose theory
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THES
PA01.PDF
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
"Nietzsche, unhappy man, ended his days in the Mental hospital."
And so ended Georg Cantor.
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 19:04 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 22:00 GMT
Eckard
Thanks for the excellent questions, including on my string.
Full response in two posts there.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 09:25 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 21:09 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 07:17 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 18:22 GMT
PS. Yuri - you left me a note ref a 2011 paradigm change here. Where? Abandonment of symmetry?!
No,abandonment of redundant symmetry!!!
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 21:57 GMT
Dear Yuri,
You and the late Pauli seem to be among a few who admitted having got it correct.
What about Peter Jackson's claim, I wondered why he found so many support here while he did not manage to publish a peer-reviewed paper. So far I blamed his style for the latter. Then I read a comment he made on an essay that is devoted to causal sets. Now I might have understood some of his fans.
An other essay by Paul Halpern gave me a good introduction into some motivation behind the apparently dominating at the moment preference for a discrete view of the world.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:05 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 21:27 GMT
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
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 19:57 GMT
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
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Eckard,
thanks for the explanation.
Best wsihes,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 02:58 GMT
Dear Eckard
I am extremely grateful to you for introducing me an unusual thinker
Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 17:44 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT
Van Flandern convinced me that the space is expands or shrinks, but not the Universe.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 22:05 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 22:45 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 08:16 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 09:41 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 14:58 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 18:43 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
"Aren't causality and free will quite naturally compatible without compatibilism?"
It is not question, it is tautology.
"Tautologies and contradictions lack sense"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 10:13 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 00:08 GMT
Dear Eckard
I guess this report would be interesting for you
http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 09:20 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 14:55 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 23:32 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 01:50 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 17:30 GMT
If holometer confirms the discreteness of space, the non-Archimedean geometry take revenge.
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 02:00 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Eckard
What is your opinion about Karl H. Pribram Holonomic brain theory?
Thank you for advance.
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 18:43 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 00:10 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 16:00 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 08:07 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 04:32 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 04:38 GMT
Sorry
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 11:33 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 12:46 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
Edward Teller said to his daughter: I hate all humans. She asked back: Doesn't this mean you are hating yourself? He replied: Yes, I hate myself.
Heisenberg speculated: The path comes into existence only if we observe it.
I feel uncomfortable with such thinking. I rather share Dirac's attitude who is said having asked Heisenberg who emphatically suggested to him, see so many nice girls: Who tells you that they are nice?
From the photography Winterberg looks likewise intelligent but nicer. However, his nuclear drive makes me cautious.
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 15:35 GMT
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
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. It needs pure logic, not mathematical abstraction. It also needs a non 'self centric' viewpoint (see my last ref). Consider yourself in Andromeda, with a very powerful telescope, watching a short string of light 'pulses' (or Q-bits?) passing through the Magellanic clouds heading for the the Milky Way....
As you know about scattering you know the signals you are receiving are from Magellanic particles 'polarised' (charged) in sequence by the passing pulse, and that you receive them locally at 'c' (or c/ n of air = 1.0003). You time the pulses progress against the 'background' clouds they're moving through, and find they're doing about 'c'. You then time them with respect to your lab frame, and get a strange answer! You call up 6 mates on other planets who do the same, all get different answers! So it's clear your lab frames are irrelevant to the pulses as they do 'c' LOCALLY. The pulses then cross the vacuum to the Milky Way. (You pick them up again quickly due to the Halo, stretching out many Kps). You time them and find they've done 'c' with respect to (wrt) nothing (the vacuum) in the gap (Hmmm!). But, as the galaxy was moving towards them, they are now slowing to virtually 'c' wrt the environment they are in, the diffuse background halo say ion 'gas' or plasma). The PMD also slows them slightly, but they pass into the galaxy vacuum at 'c' wrt the galaxy, (SMBH) but slightly blue shifted (closed up).
You check their speed wrt your lab frame again. They appear to be doing about 1.7c due to comparative galactic (and your sun & planetary) motion. But that is an invalid frame, as wrt the galaxy they do 'c'. Your sensitive telescope picks up the suns heliospheric bow shock, some sort of diffuse plasma cloud similar to LL Orionis. As the pulses hit that you can see the glow as they charge each ion sequentially and it emits the light to you. You can see their progress is slowed again to the new local 'c' as they head to the blue 3rd planet, which is moving away. As they catch up and enter the planets plasmasphere and ionosphere they are red shifted again, (but also slightly slowed by PMD), so sped up a bit to do 'c' wrt the planet. A primitive race on the planet looks through its first telescopes and is amazed to find it always doing 'c'! Yet the 'infinity' formula (LT) they invent to explain it endures.
The discrete fields of the DFM are as Minkowski and Einstein predicted but never quite found Florin; "Infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion." The implications are quite major (covered in the other papers) and all good. As Edwin identified, our blind trust in maths has not been adequately tempered by logic, and the development of our conceptual powers needs to continue. Do now re-read it, with the Gedankens, and let me know if it's appeared for you yet.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 09:01 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Eckard
I apologize for something that does not put quotation marks and prepared mixing text of Yuri and Peter.
You evaluate my texts Grammar contradictory: Russian English,non- Russian English.
I try.
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 17:07 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 17:57 GMT
Eckard
You are ignoring some my posts.
Why?
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 20:38 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Eckard
What is your opinion about Marinov experiment?
http://bourabai.kz/marinov/measure0.htm
All the best
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Special issue devoted to Marinov works
http://bourabai.kz/marinov/deutsche.htm
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 00:16 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 01:00 GMT
Dear Eckard
I send to your e-mail address PDF Marinov experiment.
All the best
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
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
AndyM wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
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
AndyM replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 16:51 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 10:13 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 10:53 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:21 GMT
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
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Eckard
How about this Winterberg's article?
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm
Regards
Yu
ri
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
Sorry for rpt, there is other article
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/planck-e.htm
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 15:00 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 17:14 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Yuri,
When I skimmed Winterberg's Planck article, I wondered why he wrote m_p= . Was this a malfunction of my browser?
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 01:00 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 16:00 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
Speed of Gravity confirmation
http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.p
df
All the best
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Eckard
I think that it is a typo.
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 13:51 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 09:12 GMT
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
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 amplitude modulation, (and indeed other aspects) and for over 100 years, but the point is that this is suggesting something different;
It was a rigid mirror not foil, transmitted through air not converted to OF or radio signal pulse codes and there was no diode or decoder, just a plane at the receiving end. This is consistent with more subtle frequency modulation within the superposed wave pattern, and the recent finding re reflection from free ion/plasma fine structure surface 'charge' particles not the medium atoms. This involves PMD and it's importance is the link that gives to sudden death of entanglement, removing Bells inequalites. See; Phys Rev Lett 106, 080404 (25 Feb 2011). I'm sure you believed and love all your 40yr old physics. I was never so convinced (yes, I was taught it, and maths!) and believe it may be improved (as it always has been!).
Again the point about sound within Concord was a conceptual one for Eckard who struggled with the 'Incentric' motion, of gas jets, the core emissions only 'apparently' doing 7c, partially as they are moving within a moving stream equivalent to the fuselage of Concorde. Again the other 'old' stock answer to this can't derive the Hubble observations suggestion of superluminal motion, the DFM explains that this is only due to it's camera 'measuring' from a non valid reference frame. it is an 'apparent rate of change of position' so the SR postulates are not breached. i.e. we can have Local Reality in SR (and without a problem with Bell!). The quantum mechanism driving it is then 'simply' PMD (Stokes Scattering). Sorry if you don't like it but I've tried it Peking and a'l'orange and it does everything it is supposed to, but without the paradoxes. And of course all observers will measure light at 'c' anyway, even in a vacuum, as fine structure ions do what we now know they do, changes it to 'c' locally.
Concorde shrinking?! You really must loosen up and spot poetic licence and tongues in cheek! It was a more amusing way of reminding Eckard (as he actually didn't really need reminding) that contraction has never been found, except, as I've shown him by video, that it has in simple terms of Doppler shift between reference frames - of both sound and light (when changed to the new local 'c' of course). Again it's not 40 year old physics I'm afraid, but that can't be helped. Nature not 'belief' is the final arbiter. Eckard does have a pretty good understanding, though it took some time (and not yet complete) as it needs rare (dynamic, mental) skills - see the latest link in (Eckards) string.
I anticipate from that insulting and wholly incorrect comment (about 'baby' errors, and learning basic physics!) at the end that you'll be unable or unwilling to conceive much of the above. I do hope you'll try anyway as you'd find it worthwhile. For the record I have studied and written a comprehensive paper on PMD and Harmonics as well as other subjects. If you generally assume people may know a little more rather than a little less you may be correct a little more often, and be a far happier person!
Best wishes
Peter
PS. You may perhaps offer some help; As motion is an invalid concept in geometry, and algebra and math use geometrically derived vector space, how does maths validly compute dynamics/motion in 4D?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 18:43 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
Please find attached my preliminary view concerning ict and Lorentz. It continues a discussion with Thomas Ray.
Eckard
attachments:
Tom2.doc
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 22:54 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 10:10 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 19:57 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 00:20 GMT
Eckard
Heracitus(c. 535–c. 475 BCE) was before Ben Akiba(ca.50–ca.135 CE)
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
Eckhard and Yuri,
For a simple, yet different cyclic model of the cosmos, you might want to take a look at my
essay.
It probably qualifies as conformally cyclical, with the primary difference between Penrose's model and my own is the primacy of BHs in the recycling process in my model, whereas Penrose claims that the "age of photons" is indistinguishable from the initial singularity. In my model, I define "cosmic time" as a reference frame at rest wrt the CMB and local time wrt to the null surface which evolves with cosmic expansion, therefore the singularity is just a transition in cosmic time.
Also, regarding SR, you may be interested in a paper from Joy Christian. He is affiliated with both Oxford Univ. and the PU. He has been one of the most reasonable minded physicists that I found recently, although some of his work can get quite technical. His paper on a generalized SR (combined SR with Hamiltonian mechanics) argues for a Heraclitean universe and against the "block universe". His paper can be found
here (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610049v2)
Best Regards,
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
Dear Dan
This is more fresh Penrose's reference
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/T
HESPA01.PDF
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 04:18 GMT
For me big puzzle:
"Why is the collapse of the logarithmic spiral is already at 85 degrees?"
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 13:56 GMT
Yuri,
I have read the Penrose reference previously and I am awaiting the latest edition of his book due out next month.
You wrote: "Why is the collapse of the logarithmic spiral is already at 85 degrees?"
I'm not sure to what this was in reference. Did I miss something from an earlier post?
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Dan
See my reference
http://www.xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/EquiangularSpir
al_dir/equiangularSpiral.html
Description Equiangular spirals with 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80° and 85°. (left to right)
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
Dan
You right....
Joy Christian article very interesting with deep penetration
in Heralitus approach and Parmenides approach.
Paradoxically, both approaches have right to exist.
Yuri
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610049v2
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
Penrose wrote: "So far, we regard the conformal “space-time” prior to
the Big Bang as a mathematical fiction, introduced solely
in order to formulate WCH in a mathematically neat way.
However, my “outrageous” proposal [4] is to take this
mathematical fiction seriously as something physically
real."
The H in WCH stands for hypothesis. Taking a hypothesis as something physically real should be based on sound arguments and evidence, not on the introduction of one more vague idea: "conformal cyclic cosmology". If there was no temporal order, how then to expect a cyclic universe? I see no reason to call CCC outrageous except as an attempt to get attention.
Penrose promised: "The details of all this have yet to be worked out, but, in
principle at least, there should be clear-cut predictions which should be observable."
Instead of anything tangible Penrose then offers one more outrageous suggestion: an "exponential expansion occurring before the Big Bang in CCC, rather than afterwards".
While the question "what was before the big bang" seems legitimate to me, I cannot decide whether or not CCC is on the road to reality. Does Penrose expect the Higgs to be found? Did he deal with unresolved paradoxes?
Eckard
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Eckard
You wrote: "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".
I would like to draw your attention to the controversy, which you admits.
If you are the enemy of doubling the number axis and exclude from consideration negative numbers, it must correctly ruled out the white holes.
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
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
Dan T Benedict replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 15:53 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 21:12 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Dan,
I just looked into "Absolute Being vs. Relative Becoming". Thank you very much!
Fig. 2 exactly illustrates my concern.
Regards,
Eckard
Dan T Benedict replied on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 14:09 GMT
Eckhard,
Here's another reference that may be of interest: "On Radar Time and the Twin Paradox"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104077v2
Dan
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 8, 2011 @ 22:06 GMT
This quotation i invented myself:
"In a world of real possibilities corresponds to one an imaginary world"
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 17:17 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 9, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 11, 2011 @ 16:49 GMT
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
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 17:59 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
"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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 14:26 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
This was a reference to the seldom mentioned the work of Max Planck's "Imaginary problem of science "
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 23:18 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 17:45 GMT
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
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 17:50 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 18:16 GMT
Yes, kissing number for 2 particles in Euclidean case equal to 1.
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 14:54 GMT
See http://newfiz.narod.ru/charge.html
"Физ
80;ческий смысл электрич
77;ского заряда. Как мы отмечали...
view entire post
See http://newfiz.narod.ru/charge.html
"Физ
80;ческий смысл электрич
77;ского заряда. Как мы отмечали в предыдущ
80;х работах, электрон является квантовы
84; пульсато
88;ом [3]. Напомним, что квантовы
77; пульсаци
80; представ
83;яют собой чередова
85;ие всего двух состояни
81;, поэтому временна
03; развёртк
72; квантовы
93; пульсаци
81; является не синусоид
86;й, а меандром; можно сказать, что, на уровне “первокир&
#1087;ичиков” вещества, мир является не “аналогов&
#1099;м”, а “цифровым
. Частота f квантово
75;о пульсато
88;а и его масса m связаны формулой де Бройля"
Translation
"The physical meaning of electric charge. As we have noted in previous studies, the electron is a quantum pulsator [3]. Recall that the quantum fluctuations is an alternation of two states, so the time base of quantum fluctuations is not a sine wave, and meander, we can say that, at the level of "the first bricks" substances, the world is not "analog" and "digital". The frequency f of the quantum pulsator and mass m are connected by the de Broglie"
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
Dear Yuri,
The language of this contest is English. For those who might be interested in Andrej A. Grishaev I found http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti99/abstracts.html and I am curious whether or not the experiment he suggested was performed and if so with which result. A factor two is almost notorious if one compares Newtonian/Galilean vs. relativistic values. Already Schroedinger's result was "incorrect" by a factor two with respect to relativistic consideration. Relativistic length contraction is about half as large as non-relativistic Doppler effect. So I feel not in position to decide what is correct.
My Russian is rusty. Maybe for this reason I did not yet manage to much enjoy reading Grishaev's undoubtedly interesting explanations of basic phenomena. I could not realize that he offered a non-monist view.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 19:04 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
A.A.Grishaev working here
http://aod.msk.ru/catalog.shtml
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 20:54 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Eckard
What is your opinion about Nobel laureate paper?
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Yuri,
While this paper by the Nobel laureate 't Hooft is definitely an excellent one, I guess it did not and will not resolve for good the problems that are hindering the desired unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics.
As a result of my essay, I prefer a much simpler way out.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 21:15 GMT
Sorry, I misspelled Andrej Albertovich Grishaev.
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Eckard
I hope this article you will like
http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0001
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 06:13 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 04:05 GMT
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
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 09:23 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Eckard
Non-Parmenidean view mean Heraclitus view.
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 22:27 GMT
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
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 00:20 GMT
Dear Eckard
If the Universe is cyclical mechanism and repeats itself, then both right and
Heraclitus and Parmenides.
All the best
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Resurrection is a Christian belief, not a reproducible observation. Perhaps, observed cycles of day and year were naively combined with the idea that the sun is a god who dies and resurrects. Isn't it overdue to reduce physics to observation and logical reasoning?
While I do not like mere speculation, and I do not see any basis for abandoning causality, nobody can exclude that the part of the presumably potentially infinite world which is observable to us is subject to some oscillations. However, even spiral processes would not necessarily happen "within" an a priori given time. As explained in my essay, I see the seeming time symmetry of Schwarzschild solution an artifact of abstraction.
Any existence monism contradicts to rational methods. A perpetuum harmonic oscillator reflects just the mathematically imaginary variant of monism. In your terminology: A strictly cyclic mechanism belongs to Parmenides, Zeno and fatalism, not to Heraclit's fire and free will.
Regards,
Eckard
Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Eckard
Monism just mean: we live only one time.
Pluralism mean: we live many time.
Who is monist?
Heraclitus or Parmenides?
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Monism is a 18th century notion that has various meanings. Mathematicians called Parmenides an existence monist. See e.g. http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/parmenides.html
I acknowledge you reproach. We should rather focus on the notion block universe.
Regards,
Eckard
hide replies
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 19:39 GMT
It seems to me very interesting
http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear Yuri,
The author wrote: "At the level of particles, things can happen in reverse, because particles obey time-symmetric laws of mechanics." My essay tries to explain why this view is not correct:
So called laws are differential equations which were abstracted from integral relationships. Only on the belonging level of abstraction, the future can be predicted. Reality is basic and neither symmetric nor asymmetric. It is unilaterally restricted to effects/traces of past processes.
There are no traces of future events, not even on the level of particles.
In my essay 527 I quoted a silly attempt by Schulman to quantify a border between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds. Instead I ascribe the putative time symmetry of quantum mechanics to an evidently improper use of complex calculus.
Regards,
Eckard
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Eckard
Oliver Penrose is older brother of Roger Penrose
More references to his view you can read there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Penrose
Yesterday, I accidentally discovered interesting article
Author Peter Lynds
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612053
where i found reference to Oliver Penrose
http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf
What
is your opinion about Lynds article?
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 26, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Before finally commenting on Lynds, I will look into something more
promising . Already the title of Lynd's article looks bewildering to me. While I appreciate that Lynds mentioned Kant, the founder of scientific cosmology, I tend to consider his irrational model one more evidence for an institutionalized demand to support the block universe.
I personally do not see any Kant paradox. I consider big bang cosmology hypothetical. I agree with Lynd in that singularities are fictions, and time travel is impossible. I feel hurt if someone, no matter whether he is someone like Peter Jackson, or Georg Cantor, or Peter Lynds, tells me I am perhaps too less intelligent as to grasp his great ideas.
Kind regards,
Eckard
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Eckard
We are moving away from the main item - discussing your "heretical" essay which I accept.Today i send your essay to Frank Wilczek asking him what he thought about it. Wonder wha