Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
Next: Why Pendulum as a clock do not shows, what General Theory of Relativity predicts?
From: mpc755 on 12 Dec 2009 20:01 On Dec 12, 8:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Dec 11, 6:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html > > > 'Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing"' > > > Exactly how does a virtual particle form from nothing? > > > Exactly how does a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, enter, > > > travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without > > > releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum? > > > Exactly how is a C-60 molecule able to enter one slit or multiple > > > slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits, > > > or not, in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits)? > > > Virtual particles do not exist and the C-60 molecule always enters and > > > exits a single slit. > > Consider this. > > [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be > > restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." > > From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as > > a > > PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron > > in a given reqion of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact > > describing the very bending of space itself. > > The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than > > different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment > > form GR. It is no different. > > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > > true. > 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. > What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. > But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. > We are discussing the 'stuff of space'. The substance which occupies > three dimensional space. > All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the > substance of space. > And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of > space is that it is not at rest when displaced. > So, again, I ask of those who can think beyond their spoon fed > indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, > 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple > slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or > having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule > enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the > future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the > slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely > the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of > space? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." Any moving particle or object had an associated displacement wave in the substance of space.
From: glird on 12 Dec 2009 20:23 On Dec 12, 9:53 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 7:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Consider this. [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as a PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an electron in a given region of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in fact describing the very bending of space itself. The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment from GR. It is no different. Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are true. >> > > 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. That's also true when discussing physics. >< What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. We are discussing the 'stuff of space; the substance which occupies three dimensional space. > Why not discuss the substance which occupies space regardless of how many directions someone assigns to it? < All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the substance of space. And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of space is that it is not at rest when displaced. > "At rest" relative to what; and how will it be measured? Consider a ball of compressible matter that fills its local space and is at rest therein. In the act of being compressed the material is being displaced inwardly. Of itself, that doesn't require the ball per se to have ceased to be at rest right where it was. < So, again, I ask of those who can think beyond their spoon fed indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of space? > The latter is more likely; but that, by itself, doesn't explain the results of the twin slit experiments. >< What do you suppose that it means when physicists say that LENGTH is contracted when discussing the very well known theory of Relativity ?? > Although they don't know it, it means that lengths will appear to be be contracted as measured by differently moving esynched systems whose unit rods are q shrunken in X and unchanged in Y and Z. > And did you notice that they say the same kinds of things > regarding TIME ?? That's for the same reason, whether they know it or not. >< This is what it means - when they say that "space is bent". It is dimension which is being bent, twisted, expanded, contorted, etc. Length and Time are Dimensions. > So are weight and mass and color and many other things that physics measures. > Yes, the word dimension is frequently used in mathematics, but it is also an artifact of physical reality as well. . Define "artifact". < When you say that dimension is not physical - this is simply wrong. Take a ruler, a yardstick, a tape-measure, whatever, and go measure the length of something. You have just made a Physical Observation of dimension. Take a clock and let it run for 5 minutes, you have just made a measurement, and a Physical Observation of the dimension of time. In fact, if there were no such thing as time in physics, it is very doubtful that mathematicians would have ever come up with the idea on their own. If we lived in a world without time, mathematicians would have never had any reason to incorporate it into models and probably would have never even conceived of it in the first place. In this regard, mathematics owes a debt of gratitude to physics for this thing known as Time. > The word "time" is misleading. It has at least two different meanings. 1. It means "duration", i.e. how long things last, whether measured or not. 2. It means "the indications of the hands of clocks". As such it is a dimension, an aspect of reality we choose to measure. I call the first "physical time" and the second "metrical time". In the absence of human beings the first would exist but not the second. < Try to imagine this - a universe with 3 dimensions of time and 1 dimension of length. > "Length" is generally measured in one direction, the others being "width' and "height"; each of which is a dimension. "Metrical time" in GR is different than in Classical Physics. (In the latter, it is the same everywhere regardless of how things move. In GR - and STR - clocks and all other physical processes run at rates that depend on three things: 1. The speed of an object wrt the local material that fills space. 2. The state of relative motion of the viewer. 3. The method of measuring when things happen. Relativity requires that two differently located esynched clocks of a given system be used to measure the rate of events in any differently moving system. Because esynched clocks of a moving system have different settings than each other in the direction the system is moving, and because the distance between two clocks that are x apart in their own system is q-shrunken, there are AT LEAST "3 dimensions of {metrical} time" in GR. < It might be a pretty weird place. Difficult to even understand it. Difficult to imagine such a thing. And mathematicians would have never discovered this thing known as time if it weren't occurring in nature. > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in the universe. > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has not happened yet. > Fortunately!! < Resorting to things such as "existential indeterminacy" is typically regarded as breaking the rules, doing something which is not mathematically valid. In my opinion, I believe that mathematics is not the only tool available for making quantified abstract models of things. Math is the best tool, but not the only tool. > Take away the word "quantified" and i'd agree. Leave it in and ... name me another tool that uses equations to quantify things. <And conjectural models are "equivalent" to mathematical models because they both produce the same exact numerical results. > Give us an example. < That is why Schrodinger's Wave Equation may be regarded as mathematics, or it can be restated in terms of "conjectural modeling" in which case it describes bent space. > Please restate the wave equation in terms of anything at all and show us how it describes "bent space" - i.e. the u,v,w lines whose variable curvature maps the density of space-filling compressible matter. <These views are equivalent. These are very different views, but they are equivalent. No different than the equivalence that we see in the famous elevator example from GR. It is exactly the same thing. When you see this, then you will understand QM as a layman should. > The elevator example is doubly defective. 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? {No physicist ever did!}) glird
From: mpc755 on 12 Dec 2009 20:37 On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 9:53 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> On Dec 12, 7:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Consider this. [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." > > From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as > a PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an > electron in a given region of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in > fact describing the very bending of space itself. > The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than > different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment > from GR. It is no different. > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > true. >> > > > > > 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. > > That's also true when discussing physics. > > >< What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. > > But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. We are > discussing the 'stuff of space; the substance which occupies three > dimensional space. > > > Why not discuss the substance which occupies space regardless of how > many directions someone assigns to it? > > < All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the > substance of space. > And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of > space is that it is not at rest when displaced. > > > "At rest" relative to what; and how will it be measured? Consider > a ball of compressible matter that fills its local space and is at > rest therein. In the act of being compressed the material is being > displaced inwardly. Of itself, that doesn't require the ball per se > to have ceased to be at rest right where it was. > When the aether is displaced it is not at rest. > < So, again, I ask of those who can think beyond their spoon fed > indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, > 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple > slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or > having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule > enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the > future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the > slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely > the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of > space? > > > The latter is more likely; but that, by itself, doesn't explain the > results of the twin slit experiments. > The displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. If you perform the experiment over and over again, the pattern the C-60 molecules make on the screen will form an interference pattern. If you 'detect' the C-60 molecule, you destroy the coherence of the displacement wave (decoherence) and there is no interference and the direction the C-60 molecule travels will not be altered by the 'chop'. If you perform the double slit experiment with photons, the photon wave enters and exits both slits while the photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The direction the photon 'particle' travels is altered by this interference and executing the experiment over and over again and the photons will create an interference pattern on the screen. > >< What do you suppose that it means when physicists say that LENGTH is contracted when discussing the very well known theory of Relativity ?? > > > Although they don't know it, it means that lengths will appear to be > be contracted as measured by differently moving esynched systems whose > unit rods are q shrunken in X and unchanged in Y and Z. > > > And did you notice that they say the same kinds of things > > regarding TIME ?? > > That's for the same reason, whether they know it or not. > > >< This is what it means - when they say that "space is bent". It is dimension which is being bent, twisted, expanded, contorted, etc. Length and Time are Dimensions. > > > So are weight and mass and color and many other things that physics > measures. > > > Yes, the word dimension is frequently used in mathematics, but it is also an artifact of physical reality as well. . > > Define "artifact". > > < When you say that dimension is not physical - this is simply wrong. > Take a ruler, a yardstick, a tape-measure, whatever, and go measure > the length of something. You have just made a Physical Observation of > dimension. Take a clock and let it run for 5 minutes, you have just > made a measurement, and a Physical Observation of the dimension of > time. > In fact, if there were no such thing as time in physics, it is very > doubtful that mathematicians would have ever come up with the idea on > their own. If we lived in a world without time, mathematicians would > have never had any reason to incorporate it into models and probably > would have never even conceived of it in the first place. In this > regard, mathematics owes a debt of gratitude to physics for this thing > known as Time. > > > The word "time" is misleading. It has at least two different > meanings. > 1. It means "duration", i.e. how long things last, whether measured or > not. > 2. It means "the indications of the hands of clocks". As such it is a > dimension, an aspect of reality we choose to measure. > I call the first "physical time" and the second "metrical time". In > the absence of human beings the first would exist but not the second. > > < Try to imagine this - a universe with 3 dimensions of time and 1 > dimension of length. > > > "Length" is generally measured in one direction, the others being > "width' and "height"; each of which is a dimension. "Metrical time" > in GR is different than in Classical Physics. (In the latter, it is > the same everywhere regardless of how things move. In GR - and STR - > clocks and all other physical processes run at rates that depend on > three things: > 1. The speed of an object wrt the local material that fills space. > 2. The state of relative motion of the viewer. > 3. The method of measuring when things happen. > Relativity requires that two differently located esynched clocks of a > given system be used to measure the rate of events in any differently > moving system. Because esynched clocks of a moving system have > different settings than each other in the direction the system is > moving, and because the distance between two clocks that are x apart > in their own system is q-shrunken, there are AT LEAST "3 dimensions of > {metrical} time" in GR. > > < It might be a pretty weird place. Difficult to even understand it. > Difficult to imagine such a thing. And mathematicians would have never > discovered this thing known as time if it weren't occurring in nature. > > > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > the universe. > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > not happened yet. > > > Fortunately!! > > < Resorting to things such as "existential indeterminacy" is typically > regarded as breaking the rules, doing something which is not > mathematically valid. In my opinion, I believe that mathematics is not > the only tool available for making quantified abstract models of > things. Math is the best tool, but not the only tool. > > > Take away the word "quantified" and i'd agree. Leave it in and ... > name me another tool that uses equations to quantify things. > > <And conjectural models are "equivalent" to mathematical models > because they both produce the same exact numerical results. > > > Give us an example. > > < That is why Schrodinger's Wave Equation may be regarded as > mathematics, or it can be restated in terms of "conjectural modeling" > in which case it describes bent space. > > > Please restate the wave equation in terms of anything at all and show > us how it describes "bent space" - i.e. the u,v,w lines whose variable > curvature maps the density of space-filling compressible matter. > > <These views are equivalent. These are very different views, but they > are equivalent. No different than the equivalence that we see in the > famous elevator example from GR. It is exactly the same thing. When > you see this, then you will understand QM as a layman should. > > > The elevator example is doubly defective. > 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in > it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the > elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. > Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. > 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is > a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for > reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. > (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the > elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If > it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? > {No physicist ever did!}) > > glird
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 11:13 On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 9:53 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> On Dec 12, 7:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 11:11 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Consider this. [1] "Any probabilistic problem from traditional mathematics can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation." > > From that statement you may regard the Schroedinger Wave Equation as > a PDF which describes NOT MERELY the probability of finding an > electron in a given region of space, BUT ALSO it may be regarded as in > fact describing the very bending of space itself. > The difference between one and the other is NO DIFFERENT than > different frames of reference in the famous rocket thought experiment > from GR. It is no different. > Whether we use Schroedinger Wave Equation to describe location of > electrons, or bending of space, this is your choice to make. BOTH are > true. >> > > > > > 'Bending of space' is meaningless when discussing nature. > > That's also true when discussing physics. > > >< What is being bent? And your answer will then be 'space'. > > But we are not discussing three dimensional space, of course. We are > discussing the 'stuff of space; the substance which occupies three > dimensional space. > > > Why not discuss the substance which occupies space regardless of how > many directions someone assigns to it? > > < All we are doing is apply the least amount of properties to the > substance of space. > And the least amount of properties we can apply to the substance of > space is that it is not at rest when displaced. > > > "At rest" relative to what; and how will it be measured? Consider > a ball of compressible matter that fills its local space and is at > rest therein. In the act of being compressed the material is being > displaced inwardly. Of itself, that doesn't require the ball per se > to have ceased to be at rest right where it was. When the aether is displaced it is not at rest. > > < So, again, I ask of those who can think beyond their spoon fed > indoctrination into the nonsense, is it more likely a C-60 molecule, > 60 interconnected atoms, can enter, travel through, and exit multiple > slits simultaneously without releasing energy, requiring energy, or > having a change in momentum and is it more likely a C-60 molecule > enters one slit or multiple slit depending upon what will occur in the > future (detectors are placed, and, or, removed from the exits to the > slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)), or is it more likely > the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the substance of > space? > > > The latter is more likely; but that, by itself, doesn't explain the > results of the twin slit experiments. > The displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. If you perform the experiment over and over again, the pattern the C-60 molecules make on the screen will form an interference pattern. If you 'detect' the C-60 molecule, you destroy the coherence of the displacement wave (decoherence) and there is no interference and the direction the C-60 molecule travels will not be altered by the 'chop'. If you perform the double slit experiment with photons, the photon wave enters and exits both slits while the photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. When the photon waves exit the slits, they create interference. The direction the photon 'particle' travels is altered by this interference. Execute the experiment many times and the photons will create an interference pattern on the screen. If you detect the photon, the coherence of the photons waves is destroyed (decoherence) and the direction the photon is traveling will not be altered by the 'chop'. > >< What do you suppose that it means when physicists say that LENGTH is contracted when discussing the very well known theory of Relativity ?? > > > Although they don't know it, it means that lengths will appear to be > be contracted as measured by differently moving esynched systems whose > unit rods are q shrunken in X and unchanged in Y and Z. > > > And did you notice that they say the same kinds of things > > regarding TIME ?? > > That's for the same reason, whether they know it or not. > > >< This is what it means - when they say that "space is bent". It is dimension which is being bent, twisted, expanded, contorted, etc. Length and Time are Dimensions. > > > So are weight and mass and color and many other things that physics > measures. > > > Yes, the word dimension is frequently used in mathematics, but it is also an artifact of physical reality as well. . > > Define "artifact". > > < When you say that dimension is not physical - this is simply wrong. > Take a ruler, a yardstick, a tape-measure, whatever, and go measure > the length of something. You have just made a Physical Observation of > dimension. Take a clock and let it run for 5 minutes, you have just > made a measurement, and a Physical Observation of the dimension of > time. > In fact, if there were no such thing as time in physics, it is very > doubtful that mathematicians would have ever come up with the idea on > their own. If we lived in a world without time, mathematicians would > have never had any reason to incorporate it into models and probably > would have never even conceived of it in the first place. In this > regard, mathematics owes a debt of gratitude to physics for this thing > known as Time. > > > The word "time" is misleading. It has at least two different > meanings. > 1. It means "duration", i.e. how long things last, whether measured or > not. > 2. It means "the indications of the hands of clocks". As such it is a > dimension, an aspect of reality we choose to measure. > I call the first "physical time" and the second "metrical time". In > the absence of human beings the first would exist but not the second. > > < Try to imagine this - a universe with 3 dimensions of time and 1 > dimension of length. > > > "Length" is generally measured in one direction, the others being > "width' and "height"; each of which is a dimension. "Metrical time" > in GR is different than in Classical Physics. (In the latter, it is > the same everywhere regardless of how things move. In GR - and STR - > clocks and all other physical processes run at rates that depend on > three things: > 1. The speed of an object wrt the local material that fills space. > 2. The state of relative motion of the viewer. > 3. The method of measuring when things happen. > Relativity requires that two differently located esynched clocks of a > given system be used to measure the rate of events in any differently > moving system. Because esynched clocks of a moving system have > different settings than each other in the direction the system is > moving, and because the distance between two clocks that are x apart > in their own system is q-shrunken, there are AT LEAST "3 dimensions of > {metrical} time" in GR. > > < It might be a pretty weird place. Difficult to even understand it. > Difficult to imagine such a thing. And mathematicians would have never > discovered this thing known as time if it weren't occurring in nature. > > > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > the universe. > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > not happened yet. > > > Fortunately!! > > < Resorting to things such as "existential indeterminacy" is typically > regarded as breaking the rules, doing something which is not > mathematically valid. In my opinion, I believe that mathematics is not > the only tool available for making quantified abstract models of > things. Math is the best tool, but not the only tool. > > > Take away the word "quantified" and i'd agree. Leave it in and ... > name me another tool that uses equations to quantify things. > > <And conjectural models are "equivalent" to mathematical models > because they both produce the same exact numerical results. > > > Give us an example. > > < That is why Schrodinger's Wave Equation may be regarded as > mathematics, or it can be restated in terms of "conjectural modeling" > in which case it describes bent space. > > > Please restate the wave equation in terms of anything at all and show > us how it describes "bent space" - i.e. the u,v,w lines whose variable > curvature maps the density of space-filling compressible matter. > > <These views are equivalent. These are very different views, but they > are equivalent. No different than the equivalence that we see in the > famous elevator example from GR. It is exactly the same thing. When > you see this, then you will understand QM as a layman should. > > > The elevator example is doubly defective. > 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in > it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the > elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. > Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. > 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is > a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for > reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. > (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the > elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If > it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? > {No physicist ever did!}) > > glird
From: Huang on 13 Dec 2009 11:28
> > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > the universe. > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > not happened yet. > > > Fortunately!! I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > < Resorting to things such as "existential indeterminacy" is typically > regarded as breaking the rules, doing something which is not > mathematically valid. In my opinion, I believe that mathematics is not > the only tool available for making quantified abstract models of > things. Math is the best tool, but not the only tool. > > > Take away the word "quantified" and i'd agree. Leave it in and ... > name me another tool that uses equations to quantify things. The results of conjectural modelling, the numerical results, are all expexcted values. Modelling with conjeture produces the exact same numbers as mathematics. The difference is that mathematics operates on values which are "given", and conjecture operates on values which are "postulated". That is the difference between a deterministic tool such as mathematics, and an inherently non-deterministic tool such as conjecture. Other than that, the numbers produced by either model match exactly. The only diffence being that one result is provable, and the other result is an expectation and non-provable. Because the numbers match exactly, one may use mathematics of conjecture interchangeably. They are equivalent. And this jives very nicely with Einsteins Equivalence Principle, it meshes very well. > <And conjectural models are "equivalent" to mathematical models > because they both produce the same exact numerical results. > > > Give us an example. -------------------Reposted------------------------ Readers of my posts will recall that Conjectural Modelling is a methodology which is based on existential indeterminacy, objects which may or may not exist. I am seeking a way to link orthodox Mathematics with Conjectural Modelling. The first step toward developing some clarity of understanding regarding this linkage between math and conjecture is by examining a few simple examples. I have put together some examples and will try to word them as carefully as possible. We consider a very simple example of flipping a coin. First, we examine the standard model of a coin toss that is found in every book in probability theory. Then we examine the same exact problem but use conjectural methods to explain the coin toss. From Probability Theory: We use random variables and consider the probability P(X) where x is a member of {H,T}. P(H) = 1/2 P(T) = 1/2 For brevity we will omit alot of detail here assuming familiarity with this common example. From Conjectural Modelling Things are worded very differently. The philosophy is radically different, but the calculations remain unchanged. We consider the elements of the outcome space to be existentially indeterminate. H exists with probability 1/2, and T exists with probability 1/2. When the event actually occurs, one of these elements must have probability 1 and the other elements must all have probability 0. It is convenient to think of the probability of existence as being "conserved". We have an interesting new definition of what an event is, and a very interesting way of thinking about conservation. Both of these concepts have important applications in physics. Discussion There may or may not be a way to transform one model into the other. Such a transform is expected to be existentially indeterminate because it might make sense that such a transform could be constructed, you still have the fact that mathematics and conjecture are so fundemantally different that it should be impossible that such a trasform could be considered strictly existent. The numbers crunch the same regardless of how you word these problems - and that is an important, undeniable fact. You cannot say if a coint toss is really random or not. And you cannot say if existential indeterminacy is, or is not mathematics. -------------------Reposted------------------------ > < That is why Schrodinger's Wave Equation may be regarded as > mathematics, or it can be restated in terms of "conjectural modeling" > in which case it describes bent space. > > > Please restate the wave equation in terms of anything at all and show > us how it describes "bent space" - i.e. the u,v,w lines whose variable > curvature maps the density of space-filling compressible matter. The wave equation remains unchanged. The only thing that changes is the interpretation of it. > <These views are equivalent. These are very different views, but they > are equivalent. No different than the equivalence that we see in the > famous elevator example from GR. It is exactly the same thing. When > you see this, then you will understand QM as a layman should. > > > The elevator example is doubly defective. > 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in > it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the > elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. > Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. > 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is > a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for > reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. > (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the > elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If > it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? > {No physicist ever did!}) > > glird I dont know that it can really be defined, but I would say that it is the physical manifestation of zero. The physical manifestation of a boundary on existentce. And I would postulate that there would be a similar kind of situation for the largest possible scales. Mathematics has to treat the number zero very carefully, and so too physics muct treat nothingness in very much the same way. Very carefully. That would be enough for the lay explanation, but the technical details become the subject of much debate, and only now are people beginning to question these thiings seriously. The nature of mathematics, existence, and whather perhaps it is valid to consider models which incorporate "partial existence", or "potential to exist", however one may describe it. It may not be mathematics, but if it is equivalent then it may be useful. |