Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

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

Eckard,

Either one accepts Einstein's 1905 two postulates and sings Divine Einstein and Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, or declares one of them false and sings No one told me about sorrow, no one said I'd be lonely. There is no third alternative.

Pentcho Valev

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

Dear Eckard,

I think that Lorentz contraction is an imaginary result of special relativity. It follows from the Extended special theory of relativity. There is shown that constancy of speed of light c is a convention and axiom of special relativity, but real speeds of light my be more then c. See also Metric theory of relativity.

Sergey Fedosin

Hello Eckard. Intuition gives some information that you can find the right one. Correctness of the information verified in many ways, this is obsnovanie. "Curvature of space" - a false justification. Kant wrote better understood as having no scientific and educational importance. Kant used the excellent education he received. What is a continuum? Black body radiates heat. That means, the heat in the form of photons? Kontinnum - continuous medium malostrukturirovannaya, simple. Ether, water, gravity, light - continua. Time is of the origin of odnovrmennosti. Shtyrkov Atsyukovsky and right, the ether is. Now a physicist, Einstein, that she does not need air. Origin of the substance, in all their diversity, must explain the physics - biosubstantsy, minerals, metals, and other gases. That physics explains that biology will confirm. In this origin needs air. Physics tells of the origin of matter, in general, without going into details. Poiskhozhdenie with ether - is in the details.

Dear Escard, the paper: Feist N: Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment - ; Proceedings of the NPA 6 (2010), 1-4, Fig. 7. is unavailable for me, I can say nothing about it.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Eckard,

Hegel continuous to be among my most favorite modern philosophers. His "Phenomenology of Spirit" had a profound influence in my thinking. I draw much insperation and intellectual guidance from him still. But my criticism of "atomism" is different from Hegel's.

I am less concerned with "atomism" in Nature than "atomism" in our thinking. The "particle view" has dominated our thinking and our theories of the Universe since Newton and beyond. And though unquestionably successful, such 'mental frame' reflects Western values and norms which have their inherent limitations. I believe we've reached such 'theoretical limits' in Physics now. And breaking through this mental barrier requires we think differently.

For me, this starts with a 'non-quantum' view and derivation of Planck's formula for blackbody radiation. My mathematical derivation of Planck's formula does not use 'energy quanta' but simple continuous processes. Eric Reiter in his essay, "A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory", has presented experimental evidence for this. He needs our support!

Eckard, can you please comment on my mathematical derivations at the Endnotes of my essay? ( "The Metaphysics of Physics"). Specifically, 1) Planck's formula, 2) The Law of Inertia, 3) de Broglie equations with freguency and wavelength being any real number positive or negative, 4) "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave" 5) my explanation of CSL in my reply to Pentcho under my essay.

Fondly,

Constantinos

P.S. Have you rated my essay yet? Please do! I am hovering between 'being and nothingness' !!!