" ... orthodoxy that certainly I for one, already perfectly understand ..."

Really, Peter?

Tom,

'Really?' Yes, and for very many years.

But I learned nobody can learn and agree on all of science. So I learnt theory as 'theory' not as 'facts'. Was that the difference?

Now you know that - I hope we may better progress. So do postulate your ideas!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, if you learned relativity theory, you learned the fact that it is mathematically complete. Given that fact, there are are no alterations that one may add, subtract or interpret into being without destroying the theory. That's why we can't come to an understanding.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Fact"? No, I only ever learnt 'scientific theory', that there are no 'facts' in science, and that despite apparently complete mathematics Einstein was clear that relativity theory was incomplete without a physical mechanism. Maths is all very well but Einstein knew there was more, so considering maths alone is just 'cherry picking'. He would not agree with your suggestion.;

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

"as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... "

"...we should never stop questioning"

"...I firmly believe (and) hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis..."

I've said agree with him that; "The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction."

All Einstein's thoughts and concepts support my propositions. Even if the maths have to be junked completely to get a physical analogue he would have been ecstatic. But even that surely counts for nought against correspondence with observation and predictive power, including to mop up the dozens of unresolved anomalies around.

All I suggest is that the propositions need objective scientific falsification, so without relying just on recourse to prior theory and 'beliefs'.

So 'mathematically complete' it may be (though many disagree) but I propose 100% physically correct it may not be.

Peter

Tom,

"Any point can simultaneously map to any set of points provided it is far enough away."

The fact is this is perspective. You can see a large building from a distance much better than up close. Much as a historian can have a better perspective on events than a particular participant in those events. The operative term here, for that particular perspective is, "far enough away."

We have had this same debate in many different forms; the general view vs. the specialized view, etc.

The reality is they are all particular points of view. There is no God's eye perspective which can combine all possible perspectives. The signals get washed out by the flood of noise.

Much like simply leaving the shutter open longer on a camera gives you more information carrying energy/light, but detail gets washed out.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Given the human proclivity for getting caught up in herd like behavior, it might also mean someone who is "far enough away" might have a more objective perspective on the actions of a particular group, than someone more deeply involved in the activities of the group.

Regards,

John M

Ps,

Even if they are not as informed of the details and minutiae within the group, they are generally given a better perspective of the larger context and larger patterns which may not be readily apparent to those within.

" ... they are generally given a better perspective of the larger context and larger patterns ..."

Not if the patterns are scale invariant and infinitely self similar.

Tom,

And one of those patterns are waves of complexity that build up until they become unstable, nebulous and unsustainable, like foam on a cresting wave.

Then it's back down to a more stable level, from which the energy input starts the process again.

Regards,

John M

More on the relationship between pight and mass;

Quantum condensation was predicted in the 1920s by Bose and Einstein, who theorised that particles will form a condensate at very low temperatures. The first experimental demonstration of the quantum condensate followed in the 1990s, when a gas of atoms was cooled to just a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-273°C). The need for such an extremely low temperature is related to the mass of the particles: the heavier the particles, the lower the temperature at which condensation occurs. This motivated an ongoing search for light particles that may condense at higher temperatures than atoms. The eventual goal is to find particles that form a condensate at room temperature.

The researchers have created a particle that is a potential candidate for fulfilling the quest: the extremely light plasmon-exciton-polariton (PEP). This particle is hybrid between light and matter particles. It consists of photons (light particles), plasmons (particles composed of electrons oscillating in metallic nanoparticles) and excitons (charged particles in organic molecules).

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-particle-quantum-condensation-room-temperature.html#jCp

And this;

Electrons can occupy topological edge states because they are charged particles whose energy spectrum can be dramatically modified by large magnetic fields. To simplify, a magnetic interaction is key for realizing quantum Hall states. The question here to ask is how researchers can design a material where photons---massless, charge-free, packets of energy--- flow as if they are being manipulated by a super strong magnet. To put it another way, how can the energy spectrum of light be modified to support robust topological states? And what do these photonic edge states look like?

In the JQI design, the light moves through a 2D landscape consisting of nearly flat ring-shaped silicon waveguides called resonators. By comparison, the arena for electrons is typically at the two-dimensional interface between two sheets of semiconductor. What the JQI scientists showed was that indeed light can, under the right circumstances, circulate around the edge of the silicon chip, without significant loss of energy, and do so even in the presence of defects.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-topological-edge.html#jCp

    a year later

    More on the relationship between pight and mass;

    _______________

    [url=http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.php]http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.php[/url]

    Write a Reply...