• [deleted]

  • Post #196

Eckard

Sorry I missed this, having been away on holiday.

"his obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity"

This concept does reflect physicality, it is just misconceived (ie it is not an illusion). As far as we can know (ie without entering the domain of belief) physical existence is: a) independently substantive b) involves alteration. The key point here is that the difference does not exist, but it reflects physicality, ie two or more different physically existent states, which when compared reveal differences. And only one such state can exist at a time, in any given sequence. In simple language: as at any point in time, the previous existent state (aka the past) must have ceased to exist, there is an existent state (aka the present), the state which will succeed this (aka the future) does not exist. There is only ever a present in a continuously changing sequence of presents. And there are many sequences occurring concurrently. Time is the duration unit in the measuring system, timing, which compares the number of changes in sequences and hence calibrates the relative rate at which any given change is occurring. It is not a "basic physical quality" of physical existence, but a feature of the revealed difference between them.

As you then say, a flawed presumption about 'time' (albeit a different one) can then become incorporated into mathematical constructions which purport to represent reality. The more general point here is that any representational device must correspond with reality as it is independently manifest, ie not be in accord with intrinsic metaphysical rules. That is a belief system. Except that when it is mathematics, and intrinsically valid, it can, superficially, appear objective. For example: infinity. Physical reality exists, therefore it cannot have the attribute of infinity, because it is finite. This is a classic example of the confusion which arises by not properly differentiating what can be known from what cannot be known. The concept of infinity actually reflects the fact that we are trapped in an existential loop, ie logically there may be an alternative. But we cannot know it, and so it does not come under the auspices of science, which is objective knowledge of reality as independently manifest, not beliefs about what may or may not be 'really' 'out there'.

Paul

    Dear Steve,

    Yes, I am probing to some extent today's conception of math and physics as solicited with the topic of this contest. I don't have illusions. Most contestants prefer offering their speculations while they blindly trust in the basics and authorities I am questioning. Someone who did not understand Einstein, disrespects Cantor and Hilbert, and criticizes or ignores my pet deserves to be rated one.

    It is perhaps easier to agree on selected claims of my essay than to acknowledge the intrinsic links between the five provocative figures in it.

    Let me begin with a question you raised: Do we need negative frequency? Trained at TU Dresden, I was teaching foundations of electrical engineering at Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg for forty years, enough time for a careful scrutiny of complex calculus and its interpretation. Physicists from a freshman up to a Feynman do not devote much attention to the first steps and tend to interpret negative frequencies at which they arrived. They are even ready to split the time into clockwise and anticlockwise domains.

    Presumably you did not yet understand me when you wrote:[negative frequencies are] "just as real and useful as positive frequencies". Go back to my Fig. 1. It illustrates an undeniable fact: Future data cannot be measured in advance. Only functions of positive elapsed time can be subject to spectral analysis.

    I will explain consequences in the next post.

    Eckard

    Dear Steve,

    MP3 is clever and uses cosine transformation. Those who prefer complex Fourier transformation have to follow Heaviside on slippery ground: Analytic continuation means fabricating a future from nothing by assuming it equal to zero and splitting this fictitiously extended function into even and odd components. This is a clever way to benefit from elegant calculus. However, one has to know what one did.

    If only the education didn't tempt to ignore such trifles like the difference between reality and model and between the real-valued and one-sided functions of time f(t) and their complex-valued two.sided (apparently symmetrical) function of frequency F(omega). The positive and negative frequencies of F(omega) must not be interpreted separately.

    Now you will hopefully be in position to understand my Fig. 2 as serious reproach of current nonsense to be found in many textbooks.

    Sorry for that,

    Eckard

    Dear Steven,

    My Fig. 3 may look like overly sophisticated. It is however at the heart of a dispute I had with Hendrik van Hees who blamed me for damaging the reputation of my University. While he soon apologized himself for that, it took me a lot of energy to force him to admit that he was wrong.

    My claim was and is that Fourier transformation of the real-valued uni-lateral f(t) in IR is just redundant as compared to the simpler cosine transform in IR.

    HvH was reluctant to admit that IR is as mathematically correct as is IR. In my essay 833 I pointed to some related worries about zero and offered a plausible solution to the question how to deal with zero in case of splitting IR into IR and IR-. This solution is illustrated in the lower part of Fig. 3.

    Best,

    Eckard

    Dear Steven,

    My Fig. 4 questions the appropriateness of ZFC in physics while it was adopted from Fraenkel himself 1923. At that time Fraenkel followed G. Cantor who denied the 4th logically possible relation between two objects. Of course, something that is incomparable cannot be numerically expressed. The late Fraenkel admitted that Cantor's set theory is merely more colorful than a less bizarre alternative.

    Eckard

    Dear Georgina,

    I see it as a false assumption that objective reality is what we see, hear, feel, or measure. You thoroughly dealt with the matter, and I expect you to confirm this opinion of mine. What we see is only a subjective picture of objective reality. I will read your essay in order to check whether you arrived at the conclusion that Einstein's relativity and beauty are only in the eye of the observer/beholder. Presumably you would not win high scores with this correct and necessary insight.

    Best,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #202

    Yes Eckard I do confirm that opinion of yours as stated in your previous post. By objective reality I understand you to be referring not to a reality that can be confirmed by another observer but a reality that exists independently of observation.

    Thank you, Georgina

    Dear Eckard,

    I'm a bit bewildered by your response... I wasn't attempting to draw attention to my essay by commenting on yours; I didn't even reference it. However, since you raised the topic, it's difficult for me to understand how a submission like mine that questions and proposes to replace the fundamental building blocks of every aspect of modern physics could be viewed in the mainstream modernist way you seem to view it.

    I implore you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The standard model and general relativity do mesh with most experimental results quite well, and any new theory must do at least as well. The fact that these two theories have serious problems (which is what my essay is about!) does not mean that it's useful to deny that they've done better than Newtonian physics in explaining things.

    Though you may think me too accommodating of the "scientific establishment," please note that I didn't stereotype you or reject your ideas despite the fact that you obviously don't belong to that establishment. Neither do I belong to it, and I ask you not to stereotype me either.

    Also, many of the mathematical ideas in my essay aren't establishment ideas because I developed them myself. The physical ideas (cause and effect!) are simple and well motivated; the math is whatever it has to be to get the job done. Ask the "scientific establishment" if they like my ideas... until now I haven't even been able to get anyone in the establishment to read them!

    This is your thread, and I'll say no more about my own work, though I remind you that I didn't raise the topic. But you discourage friendly and honest remarks about your essay when you pull politics into it. Progress in science won't be made by merely being angry at ossified orthodoxy. It will be made by being better across the board. Take care,

    Ben

    • [deleted]

    • Post #204

    Dear Eckard,

    Perhaps I did miss a nuance in your assessment of negative frequencies. It wasn't quite clear what you were claiming. Your posts here do help. I pointed out that, of course, a negative frequency does not have to be associated with backwards progressing time which is apparently your main concern.

    And yes, I agree that the cosine transform is just as valid to perform as the Fourier transform. The only drawback is that the result you get doesn't generate the phase relationships between the various frequency components. Which is perfectly adequate in many applications.

    So much more than that I don't have the time to devote on this subject. Sometimes it doesn't pay to over-complicate a simple problem. I hope you don't feel that I made a mistake in rating your essay.

    With best wishes,

    Steve

      Yes Georgina, and Einstein synchronization depends on an observer. I hope we will nonetheless support each other.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Paul,

      I admire your efforts to preach presentism to those who might share a slightly different view. I hope we can nonetheless respect each other. What about infinity, I agree with you on that one cannot find in reality anything that is evidently absolutely infinite. Assumed infinity of space and time are potential infinities when seen from human perspective.

      You seem to defend a "just misconceived concept". Did you refer to Einstein's belief that the separation between past and future is just an illusion? Wouldn't this contradict your explanation "not an illusion".

      Anyway, I am more interested in arguments against what I am claiming in my essay.

      Eckard

      Dear Steven,

      My main concern is correct reasoning including correct mathematics. Fourier transformation (FT) vs. cosine transformation (CT) is indeed not a complicated problem. Nonetheless, most experts perhaps including you consider CT just a special case of FT with limited application. Well, CT is absolutely equivalent to FT (except for the arbitrarily chosen in IR point of reference) only with the assumption that reality is real-valued and one-sided. Then FT is twice redundant, i.e., IR contains four identical copies of reality.

      I have to fear that virtually nobody here will rate my essay correctly and more importantly accept the consequences concerning symmetry issues in physics.

      I will return to the wave issue later.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Dear Steven,

      You wrote: "As you know we share the perception that Lorentz invariance is not a complete description of how wave phenomena work, especially with regard to interactions with particles. There weren't quite enough details of Feist's experiment to fully understand the setup and results. I'm seek out his paper and comment further on that. In general though, light waves are transverse in nature while sound waves and many other mechanical waves vibrate in longitudinal directions in space. Outside of a vacuum EM waves do have a longitudinal component, but that component is not self-traveling. It dissipates quickly. So it's not clear yet how applicable the Feist experiment is to EM."

      Before I got retired I was with at an institute for electronics, signal processing and communication technology. Therefore I got a bit familiar with TEM waves in cavities as well as with acoustics waves and a comparison between them. You are quite right, TEM and acoustic waves are different to some extent. Nonetheless I realized that Feist's result cannot be explained if one adopts the reasoning by Lorentz to acoustics. I wrote that neither Feist nor Bruhn explained Feist's measurement. I should correct me and say convincingly explained. Meanwhile Feist sent me an arXiv paper (24 pages in German) in which he theoretically justified his measurement. I cannot recommend reading it because Feist dealt with many marginalia including Ritz, Pashky, and Marinov transformation. His own explanation is similar to mine but about as geometrical and worrying as Marmet's attack on MMX.

      Norbert Feist wrote (my translation): As I was informed by Dr. Karl Mocnik/Graz in December 2000, he had already 10 years ago realized that Michelson experiments with sound have the same outcome as the optical ones.

      Just some details: Width of the transducer 2 cm, width of the reflector much larger.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Dear Ben,

      In response to Stephen Sycamore I tried to explain how the uncommon views of mine behind each of my figures are logically connected, and I hope this chain of heretical but well-founded views can help to eventually resolve at least some of the questions that gave rise to the topic of the contest.

      I see your approach much more straight forward. Of course, it would be desirable to immediately find a unification of theories that contradict to each other while each of them has been successful, approved, and confirmed by "robust evidence". I am ready to question this robustness.

      I doubt that this unification can be achieved with mere modification of what you called "the fundamental building blocks of every aspect of modern physics". The topic of the contest asks for good reason: What BASIC assumption is wrong? Perhaps you are on a good way when focusing on mathematical foundations. That's why I suggested to you some food of thought. Please don't take amiss my honest opinion. I respect your work and wish you success.

      Eckard

      Dear Eckard,

      I appreciate your magnanimous reply. In any case, as you point out, honesty is preferable to false praise! I respect your point of view, and assure you that there are no hard feelings. Take care,

      Ben

      • [deleted]

      • Post #211

      Eckard

      If I remember correctly, because you have said this before, it is not presentism. Anyway, I do not care what it is, the point is that knowledge supposed to be objective must correlate with physical reality as it is independently manifest. And it is really quite easy to establish, generically, how that must be. Which brings me to this notion of 'points of view', there is only one, because physical existence only occurs in one form. And indeed, it is from the "human perspective". Precisely what other perspective is there?

      I referred to Einstein only in the sense that it was a quote you used. My point, which is correct, was about past, present, future. The point about 'illusion' was that that would have no experienceable substantiation. But there is a physical reality reflected in these concepts of past, present, future, it is usually just not that which actually occurs.

      "I am more interested in arguments against what I am claiming in my essay"

      Indeed, but if your base concepts about the reality being modelled by mathematical constructions is incorrect, then that becomes a reundant exercise.

      Paul

      Dear Ben,

      You wrote: "I think that set-theoretic issues are very relevant to physics. I have run into the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice in my own efforts to understand physics."

      I did not yet take issue in that direction because my own reasoning is most likely far away from what you learned and thought. Don't hurry, I am prepared but not keen for a controversy where virtually all silent participants would consider me stupid at least in the beginning. I nonetheless hope that my radicalism might help you out if you will run into trouble in future. You are still young enough for reaching decisive progress.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Paul,

      Human perspective means what you are calling manifest in opposition to ideal constructs including the divine perspective imagining a sight from out side. For instance, a point is not tangible. I also maintain, the very moment is strictly speaking not manifest.

      You are correct: If my "base concepts about the reality being modelled by mathematical constructions" were wrong then one could not expect correct results.

      You merely failed to show me where they are wrong.

      Eckard

      Hello Eckard,

      Would it be possible for you to write up something additional to clarify the issues you bring up? I believe you are entitled to submit 2 files inside this forum.

      I'm thinking it would help very much and be more convincing if you laid out a detailed list of assumptions, dependencies and inferences in a step-by-step manner similar to the procedure followed for a math proof.

      Steve

        Dear Eckard,

        Congratulations, I'm very happy to see you as a finalist!

        Edwin Eugene Klingman