"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 6 Mar 2010 18:57 On 7 Mar., 00:28, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > On 5 Mar., 23:35, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > >> Tue Sorensen wrote: > >>> Isn't that exactly what EMR is, though? Superpositional lightspeed > >>> waves that only rarely, under certain circumstances, act as particles? > >> Um, no. Presuming by "EMR" you mean electromagnetic radiation, it just > >> consists of photons, which are elementary particles which always travel > >> at c. > > >>> I think EMR qualifies as "energy" too. I know it's difficult to put > >>> into equations, but essentially I think we have to operate with such a > >>> thing as free-floating energy, and electromagnetic radiation is the > >>> main form of it. After all, perhaps the most cental process in all the > >>> universe - stellar fusion - concerns vast quantities of matter being > >>> transformed into energy (and hence comprises a major illustration of E > >>> = mc2). I think the proper way of comprehending the universe is to > >>> understand how matter and energy behave in relation to each other, not > >>> just in Einstein's equation but concretely in the physical universe. > >> It's not clear what you're confused about here, but it's clearly something. > > > I doubt not that! :-) > > Perhaps some humility about dictating how the Universe must work is > called for, then. > > > > >> Photons contain energy, yes. (They're very simple particles; they don't > >> contain much else.) Other particles also contain energy, and > >> arrangements of particles, given certain fields, can also contain energy > >> within them. This is all well-known; you're acting like we don't > >> understand how fusion works. > > > What I guess I am getting at is that, since matter is something > > concrete, energy should be, too, rather than just being potential, > > kinetic, momentum, Joules, etc. I am searching for an "energy medium" > > of sorts - a carrier medium of pure energy. And I think we have it in > > EM waves. I realize that "pure energy" in the spatial universe as we > > know it will most often turn into particles, and that the quantum/ > > superpositionality properties of energy prevents it from being > > concrete like matter, but I will still claim that electromagnetic > > radiation in itself, in its wave form, when the wave function is > > maintained/uncollapsed, must correspond to "energy" (and only after > > the collapse of the wave function do we get particles, because that's > > when the given quantum of energy "shrinks"/collapses into material > > definition). After all, going by E = mc2, what takes place in stars is > > the fusion of hydrogen into helium (etc.), leading to a massive > > release of energy, i.e. EMR; light in diverse wavelengths being > > emitted from the star, i.e. matter having turned into energy. Correct? > > > I think there is a reluctance in current science to define energy > > properly, and acknowledge its nature in the form of EMR. It is as if > > we refuse to accept "energy" as an extant and real phenomenon in > > itself (the way we see matter), preferring to look at it only as > > particles or kinetic momentum. And this seems to be because of the way > > energy is treated in the equations and the math. To me, this way of > > treating energy is obsolescent. We need a better way of talking about > > and defining energy, also in the math. That is my impression, at > > least. > > This screed doesn't really make much sense. Energy is a fundamental > concept in physics, and the only one seeming to have trouble > understanding it is you -- even by your own admission. That you used > the phrase "potential, kinetic, momentum, Joules" indicates serious > disorganization and lack of understanding of what those words even mean. > Perhaps you should try learning some physics before dictating that > physics needs major modifications?' Perhaps I would, if I could just get past some people's lousy bedside manner... > If you're the only one struggling to > understand something, perhaps the problem isn't in what you're having > difficulty understanding. I've discussed my ideas with (admittedly not world class) astronomers and physicists, and when we use plain language they end up saying that they don't know enough to say whether my ideas could be correct. Admittedly, when we go into math, there are all sorts of ways in which my ideas are either wrong or inexpressible. However, I choose to believe that this is because the current theories are too constrained in their mathematical conventions to be open to the new theoretical strides that I'm introducing. Properly, who are you to say that that's not the case? If we are to progress, the existing theories and the math too must eventually be reinterpreted in order to allow any possibility for advances. My only option is to work with things I understand. My understanding tells me that my ideas (which of course have only been cursorily touched upon here) have something radically new and improved to offer, and as long as I haven't been persuaded of the contrary, I'm naturally going to stick with them. I'm not a math person, but I believe the fundamental laws can also be understood by other forms of logical approaches. So I think outside of the box, rather than just accepting the current paradigm like most people, including you. But yeah, I need to understand a lot of things much better. - Tue
From: Darwin123 on 6 Mar 2010 19:42 On Mar 4, 8:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > 1. Don't the terms "causality" and "determinism" actually mean the > exact same thing? If processes follow the rules of causality, then the > outcomes are also determined, aren't they? People tend not to like > determinism, because they see it as negating free will. But wouldn't > you say that determinism is something quite different from *pre- > *determinism, which is more a destiny kind of thing? So shouldn't > science-minded people embrace the term "determinism" just as much as > we do "causality"? > I have not read formal definitions of these two words, though I am a physicist. I can only say how I use the words. There is a fine difference in meaning the way I use them. They both refer to the uniqueness of a solution. However, the direction in time is different. When I say that everything has a cause, I am saying that history is unique. One can deduce a unique set of conditions in the past based on measurements made today. When I say something is determined, I am saying that the future is unique. One can predict a unique set of conditions in the future based on measurements made today. I usually here the word causality used more often in physics than determinism. I think that is because in most cases it it easier to determine the past than the future. History is easier to examine than the future can be predicted.
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 02:15 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : If things don't follow laws, they can't obey principles of reasoning, : either. The problem here is that there are laws, but you don't recognize them for what they are. Possibly because you're unfamilar, or haven't thought it through. Or put another way, you insist on a specific set of laws, regardless of the evidence. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 02:18 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : But what if the laws of the universe are more like spacegravity and : activitytime, and not, as in relativity, spacetime at all? First, one would have to work on the question of "is your question relevant in any way whatsoever". I mean, c'mon. What if there are pink unicorns that run the universe? Pffft. Gimmie a break. Though I suppose your question would be more interesting, even sans evidence as it is, if it were an actua theory with consequences that can be worked out, rather than just throwing around random wordsalad. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Mike Ash on 7 Mar 2010 08:43
In article <32815007-fab2-471f-9fc5-420fb33a931f(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've discussed my ideas with (admittedly not world class) astronomers > and physicists, and when we use plain language they end up saying that > they don't know enough to say whether my ideas could be correct. "Plain language" is the key. In science, plain language doesn't mean jack. Precise terminology exists for a reason: if you use plain language, you end up being extremely vague. Vagueness results in not being able to say whether it's correct or not. Surprise! For example: "what goes up, must come down." Is that correct or not? It's hard to say for sure. It's mostly true, but how do you count things like satellites? You end up getting mired in a semantic debate which tells you absolutely nothing about the world. In precise terminology: "the gravitational force between any two point masses is equal to the gravitational constant, multiplied by the product of their masses, and divided by the square of the distance between them". Is this true? Strictly speaking, no, but it's very close in situations where relativistic effects are not important. Close enough that your astronomer and physicist friends learned it early on and use it fairly regularly. This statement gives you an enormous amount of information about how the world works, and even the discussion about where it falls short is extremely informative. To use plain language: if you can't put your ideas in precise terminology, then they aren't worth the electrons they're encoded with. > Admittedly, when we go into math, there are all sorts of ways in which > my ideas are either wrong or inexpressible. However, I choose to > believe that this is because the current theories are too constrained > in their mathematical conventions to be open to the new theoretical > strides that I'm introducing. Properly, who are you to say that that's > not the case? So far, I haven't seen any evidence that you have even the most basic comprehension about the current theories, so who are YOU to say anything about your "new theoretical strides"? To put it another way: please provide at least one historical example of somebody overthrowing the established order of science who did not understand that same established order. > If we are to progress, the existing theories and the > math too must eventually be reinterpreted in order to allow any > possibility for advances. My only option is to work with things I > understand. My understanding tells me that my ideas (which of course > have only been cursorily touched upon here) have something radically > new and improved to offer, and as long as I haven't been persuaded of > the contrary, I'm naturally going to stick with them. Your understanding, as demonstrated so far, doesn't mean squat. If you want us to take you seriously, give us some actual predictions that can be tested, at least in theory. Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple. > I'm not a math > person, but I believe the fundamental laws can also be understood by > other forms of logical approaches. So I think outside of the box, > rather than just accepting the current paradigm like most people, > including you. Math is just a tool. The fundamental concept of science is making and then testing predictions. Please make a testable prediction. If you don't, then you're not doing science, you're just wanking. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |