Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

What I think of Hilbert space? I like it! As a math-think. But not as a physics-thing. But there are more fundamental formulations in physics wrong for physics, in my view. Take 'particle photons' for example. Or the Spacetime continuum. With 'eventpoints' at each 'instant of time', t. I have shown the Second Law determines 'physical time' to be 'duration of time', Δt. This may help explain the 'missing energy' which goes by the alias 'dark'.

What makes my current essay different is my claim any mathematical model of 'what is' the Universe is metaphysical in essence. The fundamental question is: "why should our mathematical deductions be reflected in our measurements of Nature"? The idea that Nature can be completely described by mathematical models is a metaphysical belief. And in order to prevent physics from morphing into metaphysics, Basic Law of physics should be mathematical tautologies applied to measurements. I show Planck's Law, for example, is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy measurement.

Roger Schlafly also questions Math in Physics. And his essay currently ranks first! While mine lingers between 'being and nothingness'...

Constantinos

P.S. Recalling an earlier discussion you had concerning the existence of 'negative frequencies', you may be interested to know in my formulation the de Broglie frequency and wavelength can be any real number both positive AND negative. Furthermore, I find no need to use complex numbers.

Dear Eckard,

In my view, Hilbert space is only a mathematical model of physical states. It has no separate physical reality apart from math. As all mathematical ideas, it is a 'think' rather than the 'things' of physics. And as I argue in my essay, I believe all mathematical models of what is the Universe are metaphysical in essence and so will ultimately fail. The only way out of this inescapable truth is to base physics only on mathematical tautologies applied to our measurements. As for your specific request. I have not yet read Kadin's essay and as soon as I do and understand what he is saying I will comment separately on that.

But I just needed to respond to you concerning my P.S. In my derivation of the de Broglie frequency and wavelength, these are 'rates' (see my essay Endnotes for the derivations). And as rates, they can be any real number positive or negative. For example, my local representation of energy in blackbody radiation is E0 eνt where E0 is intensity and ν is 'frequency' of radiation. Energy in physics is thought to be a 'wave' with a 'frequency'. Imaginary numbers are thrown into the math mix in order to get energy expressed as 'waves'. But I don't believe that is necessary. In my formulation we have an 'exponential of energy' and a 'growth rate' instead. Let me quickly add, I like complex numbers! And I find them very useful in many ways. But I just don't believe they are needed to mathematically represent radiation.

Best,

Constantinos

The 'exponential representation of energy' did not come through in my comment above. It should be E0 exp(vt).

Dear Eckard,

OK. I took a look at Alan Kadin's essay. Didn't understand much of it. But here is what I understand. Correct me if I misunderstand. He writes, "a matter wave is a real coherent rotation of a fundamental vector quantum field". I understand 'rotation' and I understand 'vector field'. But what in the (physical) world is a 'quantum field'?

Alan seeks to change the current paradigm by keeping the same quantum ideas. But only with a new twist. Or rotation! It's a little like keeping Ptolemaic epicycles while talking about gravity. Though Alan may be able to get the math to work out and produce " both particle trajectories and particle discreteness [that] follow from the dynamics of the quantum field", I don't believe more math will fix physics! Only a 'physical view' that makes sense can fix physics.

I believe I have presented such view. Fundamental to that view is "energy propagates continuously as a wave but manifests discretely in interactions". Clearly this resolves the 'wave-particle dilemma' and the 'measurement problem'. Furthermore, my derivation of de Broglie frequency and wavelength allow these to be any real positive or negative numbers. A new meaning of 'matter waves' is revealed.

I prefer my naive view to mathematical obstructions!

Best,

Constantinos

Dear Eckard you write, " positive and negative de Broglie frequency and wavelength are mathematical artifacts". That may be true, but does not in any way illuminate the paradox of 'matter-waves' that is at the heart of many discussions here and the point to my last comment. There is nothing real about this view. Just more "mathematical artifacts" which you and I and others have been criticizing! (have I got that part wrong Eckard re:your criticisms?

In contrast to this sad state of affairs, 'growth and decay' is all real! No "mathematical artifacts" here! And that is what my derivation of the de Broglie frequency and wavelength reveal.

Your defense of Alan Kadin is admirable! I too support his questioning of the photon as particle. In fact, I mathematically prove in my Endnotes of my current essay the following proposition: "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave". Perhaps you have disassociated from my essay before you reached that part!

Constantinos

Dear Eckard:

Thanks for posting this.

First of all, thanks for correcting my spelling of ideell. I had known that, but I think I confused it with the French.

Secondly, I certainly wasn't blaming you for sloppiness in language. I think that was your criticism in the previous post, which I agreed was an issue, so I was just clarifying the actual intended use of the word "for", which you pointed out could be taken to mean something else. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" and I agreed it was the latter and that the use of the word "for" is sloppy.

Finally, most importantly, from the rest of your comments I'm pretty sure you haven't read my essay despite, where I argued *for* an absolute cosmic time, despite your criticism that there are weak points in my view. I've argued that despite the way time passes in arbitrary frames of reference according to relativity theory, cosmology indicates that there has to be one true cosmic passage of time, against which time scales for relatively moving observers. I've pointed out that this means an absolute simultaneity-relation. Such a universal frame of reference and universal time does not---and cannot, according to relativity theory---come to mean absolute *synchronicity*, though. Unless you're denying SR entirely, you can't claim this because according to the theory two clocks in relative motion can't be synchronised: from either one's perspective, the other's rate has to be slowed. However, as I've shown in my essay, this does not mean that there can't be a coherent universal time that defines absolute *simultaneity*.

Daryl

Dear Eckard,

I have in fact proven the possibility of this third alternative (the one you state, not Pentcho: I'm for the two postulates, just not the third---that absolute space and time are superfluous and can't be detected---and I DO NOT sing Divine Einstein) in my essay. It is by definition impossible for "observer" C' to interact in any way with "observers" A, B, and C, who exist in an absolute "flowing" present.

By the way, with regard to your Saulus/Paulus comment, have you by chance read Ref. [9] by Weyl in my essay. It's quite a neat article. For example, after Petrus opens with "Lass uns heute ausfuehrlich darueber sprechen, warum du nicht mehr glaubst, dass (*M*) die Traegheit eines Koerpers durch das Zusammenwirken aller Massen des Universums zustande kommt. O Saulus! Saulus! wie kannst du dich so gegen die offen zutage liegende Wahrheit verstocken!" Paulus responds by saying "ich deine eben ausgesprochene Ueberzeugung nicht mehr zu teilen vermag; und wenn hier der Fels liegt, auf dem die Relativitaetskirche steht, o Petrus!, so bin ich in der Tat ein Abtruenniger geworden. Aber um dich ueber meine Ketzerei ein wenig zu beruhigen..."

You can call me Paulus if you'd like, because I do think space-time geometry is Lorentzian, and that the mathematical theory of relativity is correct---just so long as you know that I'm for a presentist interpretation of the theory that involves an absolute cosmic time and is therefore fundamentally at odds with much of what relativity theory is commonly supposed to describe.

Daryl

Since this is an English site, here's my translation of that quote:---

Peter: "Let us talk today in detail about why you no longer believe, that (M) the inertia of a single body results from the interaction of all the masses of the Universe. O Saul! Saul! how can you so harden yourself against Truth that is as clear as day!"

Paul: "I can no longer share this outspoken conviction of yours; and if here lies the rock on which the relativity church stands, o Peter!, then I have indeed become an apostate. But to calm you a little about my heresy..."

(I referred to this in a footnote on page 3 of my essay, where I quoted Peter's later remark: "If the cosmological term fails to help with leading through to Mach's principle, then I consider it to be generally useless, and am for the return to the elementary cosmology [Wenn es mit Hilfe des kosmologischen Gliedes nicht gelingt, das Machsche Prinzip durchzufuehren, so halte ich es ueberhaupt fuer zwecklos und bin fuer die Rueckkehr zur elementaren Kosmologie.]")

Eckard, you wrote: "The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space."

You are right in a sense but note that, whether or not Einstein says it explicitly, the conclusions of special relativity are derived from the assumption that the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER or IN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER is constant. Just take a look at some textbook derivation of time dilation: first it is assumed that the speed of light is c in the observer at rest on the ground's (B's) frame and then the miraculous time dilation is derived.

So if the postulate of constant c is wrong when c is referred to the observer, then that's the end of relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Hello Eckard. In English, I do not read this essay with your familiar on the annotation and successfully. That's what I understood. How to avoid mathematical physics determinism neobsnovannoy intuition? Suggest this approach. We do not know the origin of mathematics. On this, we are moving in its field intuitively, without analyzing. You can see the literal math, operates numbers and quantities. And you can see the abstract mathematics. An abstract mathematics is geometry and formulas. The formula E = mc2 literally. Maybe she needed a scientist to make a nuclear bomb. But in school textbooks it unnecessarily. Abstract formula gave M.Plank. It has not yet begun to analyze. Physics necessary abstraction. But this is metaphysics. A bit of metaphysics in my essay "The information - quantum energy balance" of 30 August.

Mistranslation of information - quantum energy balance. Necessary: information - quantum energy balance.

Hello Vasily,

Neobosnovannaja intuicia = unfounded intuition. Neobosnovannoy = of the unfounded ... ? I can only guess what you intend to say, and I noticed that you did not yet compare physics with balanced control in a power grid (IEB) but you also repetitiously referred to Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Immanuel Kant stated: "Spsce and time are quanta continua." I do not disagree.

And yes, mathematics is ranging from discovered most unavoidable logic to wildly speculating individual creations.

Incidentally, Orenburg is only about 500 km remote from Kasan where Shtyrkov lives. Do you agree with him?

While the English translation of your essay is readable to me, I do not deal with consciousness.

Eckard