No 3 things
Yuri Danoyan
Abstract
Assumptions of physics need reconsider:1)4D spacetime. 2) Gravity as a fundamental force 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h). Alternatives have been proposed. 1.Splitting 3D discrete space from 1D continues time.2.Gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe. 3. Only Planck constant as a fundamental dimensional constant.Attachment #1: My_crazy_theory.pdf
It easy.You can read my essay.
You are right.My russian English not so good,but text is quite clear.
Dear Eugene,
Isn't physical reality something objective that does not depend on the perspective of an observer?
What about logical structures in the brain, they are known to be flexible.
LSD in the title of Kyle Miller's essay deterred me, you made me curious. I found not much to agree on and nothing new in it.
Best regards,
Eckard
Hi Eckard,
Yes, I believe that physical reality does not depend upon the perspective of an observer, but 'physics', the map of reality, generally does to a large extent.
And in quantum theory this includes "counterfactuals" and perhaps other concepts that may affect theory.
Although logical structures in the brain are quite flexible, I do not believe that the structures that we use to map the world are 100 percent integrated or otherwise seamlessly overlapping. Certainly these maps differ from brain to brain, and I believe they are similarly dis-integrated in one brain. And I am not sure whether or not there are logical issues having to do with the way our brains process self-referential logic.
The point is that physics (per d'Espagnat) is based on realism, logic, and locality, and most Bell theorists have decided to forego realism and locality in favor of retaining logic. But to me, logic is the most mysterious and least understood aspect of the three, while both my theoretical model and my mind tell me that local realism is valid. I cannot prove that the problem lies with logic, but I do not consider that anyone has proved that local realism is false. If I'm forced to choose, based on incomplete knowledge, I choose local realism and fuzzy logic (not "the" fuzzy logic).
As for Kyle's topic, I had missed it until I saw Georgina's comments. The topic is not an easy one to discuss. I have written in past contests about the effects on perception which I interpret as 'suppressing' metric awareness of distance and difference in favor of topological awareness of connectedness and unity. It is, in general, not a topic that goes anywhere as most who have not experienced it have no idea what is being discussed, while most who have experience of it have not the physical or metaphysical concepts to make sense of the experience.
I hope this response addresses your comment.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Please try to object:
Poincaré's method of synchronization assumes that a signal needs the same time from an emitter A to a reflector B as return from B to A. It is obviously correct as long as the distance between A and B remains unchanged. The synchronization suggested by Einstein in 1905 extends Poincaré's method on the case that A and B are linearly moving relative to each other with constant speed. Einstein was not yet wrong when he argued that that synchronization requires measuring. However, he ignored that the simultaneity cannot at all be achieved by a single round-trip measurement ABA. Instead one needs for instance simultaneous measurements AC and BC with reference to a neutral point C. Having defined an A-time and a B-time, Einstein tacitly assumed A at rest ("Zeit des ruhenden Systems") but B the moving system. Thomas van Flandern aptly criticized Einstein's synchronization as desynchronization.
Einstein wrote: "Hence we must not attribute absolute meaning to the notion simultaneity. Two events that are simultaneous if looked at from one coordinate system must not be considered simultaneous events if seen from a system in motion relative to it."
Of course, an observer cannot judge the temporal order of two observed events without further knowledge. Einstein's special theory of relativity has been based on the confusion between reality and what an observer measures.
Eckard
Eckard
You again assume without thought that the detector itself, (ignoring the reflector) is not involved in the process. ("...the wave propagates in only one medium...")
This is the wrong assumption I'm discussing. In fact the Hutchinson essay also explains the relationship if not the massive implications quite well in another way, showing the detector cannot detect anything without the light negotiating a a refractive plane (i.e. frame change);
"...In every free space solution for a detector, either the detector has detected the quantum or it has not. After diffraction, the solution almost certainly converges to just one such set of overlapping free space solution because any other solution would be unstable."
This is indeed the precise situation for the KRR experiments. The detector (lens) is in lateral motion wrt the incident medium. So the KRR effect does apply, and all anomalies are resolved, and Snel's law is recovered.
It seems you perhaps tried to read the essay too fast and lost track of the complex logical consistency.
Peter
Peter,
The experiment described in my Fig. 5 is an acoustical one without any lens and with definitely only one medium (air) in which the sound pulse propagates between two rigid boundaries. There is no possibility for a refraction to be seen.
I guess, the astonishing directivity of the 220 kHz ultrasonic transducer used by Feist is not very well known.
You mentioned Hutchinson's essay, I looked in vain for his reply to what you wrote to him and quoted here. You did not even tell me what you meant with your Fig. 5.
Sorry, I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?
Eckard
Dear Edwin,
I too blame inappropriate rigorous use of logics for unfortunately meanwhile as mandatory accepted nonsense, cf. my Fig. 4.
The correct denotation of flexibility of neural structures is plasticity.
If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent.
Best,
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
"If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent."
I think that the essays here (more than one hundred of them) show that physics does to a large extent depend upon the perspective of the observer. And they probably come as close as possible to proving that physics is also wrong to a large extent. It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged.
And while I agree that our neural nets are plastic and hence can learn, I do believe that -- regardless of how distributed over the net -- logical concepts and other concepts are discretely organized and overlap only to a degree, if at all. It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head, and this shows (to me) that minimal overlap exists between such ideas.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Eugene,
"It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head".
Well, split thinking may even manifest itself as a disease: schizophrenia. Georg Cantor's tragedy begun with his naive idea to count in excess of infinity. He ignored that infinity is a property, not a quantity. Having already announced an evidence for well-ordering the reals, he was unable to provide it. Also he declared having got his CH directly from God. While he believed being correct, he failed to prove it. He got insane although Zermelo saved his life work by fabricating AC in 1904/08.
Best,
Eckard
Eckard
This link just for you
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6044
All the best
Yuri
Thank you Yuri,
Having read such good textbooks as for instance Oskar Becker's, I will read Manin's paper like a weak attempt to defend some presently mandatory views, a paper that reveals intuitions behind mathematics but neglects due logic clarifications.
I would appreciate if someone did try and took issue concerning what I tried to make evident to everybody in my Figures.
You now, we are partially supporting each other. I cannot at all judge whether or not your intriguing claim concerning the fundamental constants is correct. What you wrote on 3+1 looks a bit speculative to me. It reminds me of Stiefel, a friend of Martin Luther.
By the way, the expression three plus one was currently used for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the three Baltic republics and Westerwelle. I would avoid such mistakable expression.
Eckard
Dear Eckard
Big difference between 3+1 and 3:1
Das war also des Pudels Kern ... "
Peter,
May I ask you to answer at least those questions of mine that are possibly very relevant to SR? Is no answer an answer?
Eckard
Dear Edwin,
"It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged."
Well, perhaps not every challenged assumption is really questionable. The question which was put which are wrong can be put the other way round: Which are not wrong?
I already wrote and partially explained that I do not appreciate questioning causality, c, and time. You mentioned three pillars: realism, logic, and locality. While I agree with Bernard d'Espagnat on that the notions of physics belong to an empirical construct, not to the idea of ultimate reality, I tend to trust in that theories can be at least inappropriate. In other words, I do not exclude possibilities to find surprising mistakes in overlooked basic preconditions for the design and/or interpretation of experiments. The more sophisticated an experiment is, the more it might be prone to be wrongly based and/or commented on.
What about locality, EEs like me are calculating with fields of potentially infinite extension and potentially infinite transmission of signals. Doesn't even the pretty distant moon obviously act on earth by causing the tides?
Nonetheless I tend to agree with you concerning local realism, not primarily because I cannot imagine entanglement but simply because I consider much of modern mathematics affected by an arbitrary denial of unwelcome logics when set theory was accepted. Those like Spalt and Mückenheim, who openly objected were not tolerated. Only an Ebbinghaus could dare to indirectly declare Cantor wrong.
Best,
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
I agree that simply being challenged does not indicate that an assumption is wrong, and that most of the challenges are more likely to be wrong. Yet even if only a handful of fundamental assumptions are wrong, that seems very significant to me. On another thread some anonymous commenter claimed that FQXi was a waste of time -- that it was like looking for diamonds in a coal bin. But someone else pointed out that if the diamond is found, it make make the search worthwhile.
As for "fields of potentially infinite extension", that is an engineering approximation, but infinity is often chosen as the limit to force the value to zero at that limit. In my essay I deal with the 'extent' of the wave function and try to show that realistic orbital lengths may be hundreds of wavelengths long. In this sense the moon raises tides on earth at a distance approximately 30 times the diameter of the earth. So it seems both reasonable and far from "potentially infinite".
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Is a diamond to be found in Ernst Fischer's essay? I tend to appreciate it because he arrived at the insight that there is no physical singularity. Typical FQXi members will appreciate it because it is based on the theory of relativity. The perhaps best criterion for a diamond is a check of its hardness which makes it useful.
I tried my best to present and illustrate the key insights in my essay as etching as possible, although I am fully aware of having no chance to get many scores with this attitude. Peter Jackson was the only one so far who intended testing them. Unfortunately he refused to answer my questions.
Incidentally I would avoid saying "far from potentially infinite" because to me potentially infinite is an ideal quality, a property, not something more or less close. What about the wave function in your essay, I did not recall having found
whether or not it symmetrically extends in both directions of time.
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
I very much like Ernst Fischer's essay, and his conclusions, but I don't feel competent to judge his work. The problem is indicated by the second figure on page 4 of my previous essay, where I show Doug Sweetser's view of metric and potential maps. It seems to me that he has combined these maps to include both potential and metric, and that is unorthodox in my view. He also refers to "local mass density" which I understand to be ill-defined in general relativity. So I very much like his essay and would like to believe he is correct, but cannot justify certain of his assumptions. I'm glad to see his high ranking. Hopefully that means that more qualified reviewers also like it.
As for the wave function in my essay, the physical wave in not time symmetrical, although the analogous solutions of the Schrodinger equation can probably be considered to be so. The wave is left-handed only (not right-handed) which I think is associated with time asymmetry, and it has finite extent.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
My knowledge about left-handed waves roughly corresponds to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization
You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me. Since you are an outstanding expert, I guess you are much better in position to tell me some mathematical details and their experimental quantification than Newstead in reply to my questions concerning their essay.
Best regards,
Eckard
Hi Eckard,
I hesitate to comment on Mark Newstead's essay, which I have read but not studied. Rather than try to translate his answer to you [Aug 23, 2012 @14:13] I would rather address the difference in an EM wave and the C-field wave that I postulate is the basis of the QM wave function.
I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear superposition of such components is of course the basis of Fourier analysis.
The key physical basis of such EM waves is their ability to propagate (through a medium or vacuum) far from the source of the radiation. In contrast, the wave that I describe is a circulating field (according to the weak field approximation to GR) induced by a 'mass current density' which has units of momentum density, mv where m is mass density and v is velocity. This wave is best viewed as a 'vortex' which has one field component, C, (versus two, E and B for EM waves) and does not propagate away from the source but travels *with* the source, soliton-like. There is no 'infinite' aspect to this wave but it does decay over a finite distance. Without the finite range of the 'trailing vortex' (analogous to aircraft wingtip vortices) the wave would not extend over the range of excited orbits and there would be no interference leading to quantized stable orbits.
You provided a link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization, to an article discussing circular polarization, that contains a nice animation showing a circularly polarized E-field wave. Note that this wave propagates far from the source, unlike the C-field wave and note also that the E-field is a radially directed field from the axis of propagation, whereas I picture the C-field wave as circular (or cylindrical) circulating about the axis of propagation, and centered on the inducing source current density. This is a quite different physical phenomenon.
As for the 'left-handed nature' of this wave, the GR equation is curl C = -p where p is the momentum density. I interpret the minus sign to indicate left-handed circulation. This is compatible with many left-handed aspects of particle physics, from neutrino to boson, and even shows up in biological molecules. The implications are too many to discuss in a comment, but I find them significant.
Finally, you say "You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me". You are correct. I have combined de Broglie's wavelength-momentum relation p = h/lambda with the GR equation curl C ~ p to obtain: lambda (dot) curl C = h, where h is Planck's constant. This is interpreted as a quantized 'volume' and I show how an atomic orbit can be viewed as an integer multiple of such volumes. This is a new physical relation that has never been proposed before and probably takes some digestion from people who seem to think that everything is already known about quantum mechanics, and that we should just take their word and "shut up and calculate". In addition, I believe that there are other implications, based on a geometric algebra approach, which I hope to develop further in the future.
I hope that this comment has answered some of your question.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman