Square Wheels Or Real Dynamics? by François Xavier Le Rouge

Hi F. Le Rouge,

I posted a reply to you on my thread.

CJ

F. Le Rouge,

I have another response on my thread.

Dear François,

I like your trans-disciplinary vision. Perhaps, the parallel you establish between Zeno and Bugs Bunny was never stronger than in "Case of the Missing Hare":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P7mv31v-hU#t=6m31s

I have in mind, of course, the "Quantum Zeno effect", which also can be exemplified by this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muLIPWjks_M

and Dr. Who's Blink episode.

Good luck with your research,

Cristi Stoica

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

- 'Relativity theory' is not a 'Revolution' as Dr Rovelli says because the new idea that the algebraic conventional reference is more real than reality itself was introduced by I. Newton, R. Descartes, C. Huygens, P. Fermat BEFORE Planck, Poincaré and Einstein.

- The idea that 'Subjectivity is stronger than Objectivity' is the same idea. Symmetry, Infinity, Eternity are as many subjective approximations of Nature that is not symmetric, infinite, eternal, full of paradoxes, contrarily to Einstein theory, CLT, Quadratic equations, cells and vectors of time/space...

- This is the reason why the subtle Time -so 'intimate'- took bit by bit the lion's share from C. Huygens until the Travel in Time, Big-bang or Higgs Boson hunting illusions.

-In Descartes 'Natural Philosophy' for instance you still have all the stuff from the beginning: 'Squaring the circle', 'Paradox', 'Trigonometry', 'Translation of Geometry in Algebra' and 'String Theory' too.

- Dr C. Rovelli's attempt is about the same than many others here such as D. Bundy, Clinton K. Miller, Christine Dantas or Garrett Lisi 248 angles Theory (published in French press) that -to sum up- do consist in strengthening the Time or the Variable but using the same method that introduced the worm in the apple. It is C. Dantas' duration, G. Lisi's translation of Algebraic equations in Geometry, C. Miller 'Hic et Nunc', Rovelli's new scale, D. Bundy's mystic disinfection of 'Superstring theory'.

- Let us take the snowboard image: it is like a group of snowboarders would love to ski. Some want to forget the board material, others the snow matter, but no one the idea of snowboard itself! I do not even speak about dreamers that believe that video games are more real.

For them the fall will be the harder and there is no paradox in my theory. Just because those do not expect the tree in the middle of the skiing Track.

To answer to a Question that I am asking myself -Why is Time-Religion of Anglo-Saxon and Italian ruling Science so strong?- I read Rodolfo Gambini's Essay from the beginning until the end and I put a few (heretical) conclusions about it here:

- Major objection against Gambini idea of 'free-will' is that there is no Freedom at all in randomisation, which is a binary algebraic system entirely based on Symmetry. Standard Model of this symmetric system is a Mirror and the deductions are just the hypothesis Reflex to which a factor is sometimes applied.

Some Scientists will take the Sunset (or Particle and Wave), some others will only take the Set, although the sole Sun is part of Nature.

N. Bohr reserve towards A. Einstein, or A. Einstein towards E. Schrödinger Arithmetic, or M. Planck towards Boltzmann and even towards his own conclusion (Boltzmann is the only one to have no reserve in this story), etc. this irresolution is coming from the same looming. Closer you are to the Nature, narrow the Mirage (and the Higgs Boson is so far away from Natural things!).

Fragmenting Energy as M. Planck is doing with Boltzmann Quanta Arithmetic is only possible at the theoretical level.

'The abrupt change in the wave function' as Gambini says, this 'broken wave' is just a 'coming back to Nature': Inflexion of the Reflex!

-Wether it is done on purpose or not, the Question of the Nature of Time is cleverly skipped in Gambini's Theory. How? Just because Time presumption is still there in his Epistemology.

A few explanations about this: D. Hume is quoted but E. Kant after or saint Augustine before could be too who are deducing a model of Scientific 'Understanding' FROM Time Reference, i.e.: Memory (Past), Intelligence/Contemplation (Present) and Free Willing (Future). Put a dot on a circle for Present or Observer and you will have the sketch of this 'trigonometric' epistemology -with the Infinity idea above of course.

-The Question of the Nature of Time is vanishing in the Epistemology but Time does resuscitate everywhere in the Probability Theory, the Quanta Physics and, last but not least, in Einstein's Theory as arrows, vectors, cells, blocks, waves, entirely conventional scales or variables.

Old problem of 'Adaequatio rei et intellectus' is solved in an 'Adaequatio intellecti et intellectus' problem.

I am reading the confidence of a French Scientist in a Magazine that is about : 'Waouw! Quanta Physics is so accurate! It is a miracle!' No: a Mirage.

- If bad news is that LHC-Experience is just a gigantic video-game for rich Scientists, good news is that I prove so that Science is cheap Sports, not Golf.

FXL,

If I hit a proton off of a golf tee at a 45 degree angle with maximum velocity and it collided with another proton with equal but opposite velocity, would it produce a larger golf ball? would the ball still have a chance of going in the hole? The answer is that it wouldn't matter for very long (get it?) Now if the collision doesn't produce a larger golf ball, do we scrap the golf game? No! We just question the relative humidity of the air that the golf ball is moving through. The ball, clubs and course would be just as real. The air however - would suddenly become more mysterious.

Are you speaking about real golf or video game Mr K.? I mean: Is the LHC Engine a Computer or a Golfer?

I read this in a book written by a French specialist of Quanta Physics (Roland Omnès), that 'Spin' is a kinetic function of a Particle that has therefore no motion. Bugs Bunny would not have speak better.

May I suggest you to read the detailed disentanglement below on my forum, have a good Rest after, and wake up then, free from 'Quanta Physics' ideology turning and turning again around the same point since three hundred centuries at least?

SUNSET OF QUANTA PHYSICS

I want to strengthen here my special demonstration that the many paradoxes of 'Quanta Physics' were in the 'Empiricism' or 'Ballistic Science' born in the XVIIth Century before. That is to say that the 'Wavefunction' or the 'Spinfunction' are just ideologies diverted from Descartes, Mersenne, Fermat, Huygens, Newton and so one.

This short scientific article below will concentrate on French R. Descartes first, then H. Poincaré, not to avoid French culpability in this Scientific entanglement or 'cul-de-sac' that has become a kind of 'New Superstition' now (And I call in fact 'LHC experience' in Europe a Superstition).

One can see in fact that Descartes, one of the first Scientists who trumped up the tools of Empiricism, is from the beginning face to face with the same hesitations or misunderstandings than 'today Science':

1. Light has a limited Speed for Descartes -but unlimited too.

2. Descartes is translating Geometry in algebraic Geometry as Riemann did with others Euclid's laws.

3. Descartes is either thinking 'Space' in terms of 'Full' or 'Empty' (same for Newton).

4. Descartes is still 'quantifying' (as Planck or Einstein after him did) what cannot be quantified (Energy and Time).

5. There are 'holes' in Descartes algebraic geometry where 'black holes' of 'Quanta Physics' are coming from.

Those problems that were only 'mechanical' problems or 'algebraic language' problems became bit by bit physical problems, enigmas of the Universe equations and (super)symmetries.

1. Difference is not clear in Descartes' Principles between what is 'undefined' and what is 'infinite'. And between what is running very very fast as Light -or has an unlimited speed. To be clearer, not only the Sun is real for Descartes, but the Sunset. And his idea of the Set is giving rise to his idea of the Sun. Not a o for the description of the Sun but an 8. Paradox of General Relativity and Dualism of the particle are made of the same trouble.

2. Descartes translated Geometric drawings in new Algebraic Geometry for no reason, ignoring the sense of the Geometric drawings. Riemann did the same, ignoring the difference between numbers or arrows as Euclid principles were just measurement principles that had to be adjusted to be more accurate. As Euclid did not know that the World was a sphere.

3. Space is seen in the Empiricism mostly as 'nothing material' but as 'something material' too, not only in Newton's Mathematics but in Descartes' too. This is one of the most metaphysical point with the Infinity idea, because of the comparison between 'Light' and 'God' in the Christian Bible. Due to their religious ideas or images of God, Huygens, Descartes, Newton have slightly different ideas about Light, that is to say Ether, that is to say Space. There is no place enough here to study this Christian Metaphysics in details -why Newton is a little bit more materialist than Descartes or Huygens are?-, but one must notice that this 'Natural Philosophy' is part of the foundations and cannot be just 'forgotten' (Argument of -proud to be- Atheist Scientist R. Dawkins that I. Newton Faith or Religion have no consequential effects on his Mathematics, this statement of R. Dawkins has no scientific basis. More than that: Dawkins himself does use Christian metaphysics hidden in Algebraic references.) One think about Einstein here too, whose 'Space idea' is nothing less than 'airy' too.

4. Descartes, trying to solve famous Aristotle's Paradox of two different Concentric Circles on a line, is quantifying the circle's with pieces of their circumferences as these circles were Wheels, not Circles. Descartes did not understood Aristotle's lesson. Here comes the 'Sunset again' and the problem of the Sun swallowed by the Set. This is the problem of 'Theoretical experiences' (General Relativity) that are open Doors to entanglement between Algebra and Nature (As Pythagorean B. Russell admitted at the End of his career, 'forgetting Pythagoras' as he says.) Same mistake is made by Planck when he is quantifying Energy with the 'help' of Boltzmann's Algebra. (Lesson of Aristotle was that 'Potential Infinity' depicted with a circle reference is exactly the same than 'Infinity' postulate depicted with a line! Is this not incredible that Empiricism Method is based here on what denies it!?)

5. What are 'black holes' of Universe? They are holes in the sophisticated 'Standard Model'. Something is lacking that will be called 'Holes'. And where can we find this holes in Descartes Mathematics? Where Descartes is trying to solve Aristotle's Paradox of two circles I just evoked above. Descartes has to state that the smaller circle is slipping in the bigger one. He will translate this upset 'slip' in 'discontinuous' algebraic reference or Dotted line. Exactly as 'Astrophysics' based on 'Quanta physics' will translate the Discontinuity that is in the 'Standard Model' in 'Black Hole' idea. Same for 'Superstring Theory' or 'Big-Bang' Theory which is the translation of 'Potential Infinity' postulate in Physics (Or: Riemann's Sphere laws taken as Physical laws.)

I give then a Quoting of a letter written by Descartes that enables to understand that H. Poincaré sophisms, close at hand from H. Bergson sophisms are nothing else than a metaphysical divarication in spite of their algebraic appearance:

« First thing one have to give his attention is that many [Scientists] are intermingling 'Space idea' with 'Time' or 'Speed idea'...

If I had wanted to link 'Speed idea' with 'Space idea', I ought to have given three dimensions to Force although I gave Force only two for leaving Time out. And if I proved somewhat Ability in this small essay about Statics, it is mostly on this point -because it is impossible to say anything good about Speed without having explained deeply what Weight is and the whole World System. »

(R. Descartes, Sept. 12th, 1638)

In their attempts to put more 'Spirit' in Empiricist Science, Poincaré or Bergson* (same for Einstein of course) will introduce Time dimension contrary to Descartes who thinks it is more logic to exclude Time and Speed. His solution is different but Descartes is face to face with the same problem than Carlo Rovelli on this forum or Lee Smolin. Difference is that 'old' Descartes is a little bit more logic than 'young' C. Rovelli or L. Smolin are, who do no want to forget conventional Time because of a metaphysical preamble that they do not even think about.

Read the quotation again! What does Descartes want to? He wants to cut the Mathematics from Natural Philosophy as much as possible. And what do we have after all that Time? 'LHC Experience', 'Differential Geometry' that are entirely made of Metaphysics!

No Astrophysics anymore but 'Universal Fiction'. God damn it!

(*To ground a kind of 'Intelligent design' in Biology against Darwin, Bergson added sophism of 'duration'.)

Dear Francoise Le Rouge,

"More real than reality" describes phantasms best.

"Boltzmann is the only one to have no reserve in this story"

So we have to blame someone who already committed suicide?

Maybe you are best able to understand the background of my seemingly just formal mathematical objections.

Great.

Regards, Eckard

'Mirroring just creates redundancy' as Blumschein says in his forum: this is the key point.

One can add that each Time that a Symmetry is 'observed', there is no Physics, no Observation but just Language. At the end of his life, Bertrand Russell discovered that he was wrong before and that Algebra was not 'pure water'.

Modern Physics and its 'Black Holes', 'String Theory', 'Expansible World', 'Non-Euclidian Geometry' is just a Looming.

Even if it is the most politically uncorrect subject-matter on this fq(x)i Forum, problem of Engineers must be boarded.

I am including G. Galileo and R. Descartes because of their ballistic Science that drives to 'Scale Ideology' that swallows Matter like the Sea is swallowing the Sun at the Sunset. I do insist on the comparison with the sunset because the Looming I am speaking about is a Sailor's ideology (I was listening to a French sailor recently who crossed the Oceans many times and he was explaining that everything on the Sea is a question of Sound.)

Difference between Descartes and today engineers is that Descartes does know that the 'String Theory' comes FROM Sound and Music although today String Scientists think that their theory is going TOWARD poetry and music. They went across the Mirror. Exactly like the young guy that played video games too much and does not know anymore exactly where the reality is. In or out of the Game? In front of him or behind him?

Einstein was obviously disturbed by the fact that the Empiricism/Ballistic Science does not correspond to his own intimate idea of 'flowing' Time. But he is exchanging the right mirror against a concave one which is not less static but gives only the IDEA of flow and wave.

See C. Rovelli's essay for instance: at his turn he is disturbed by Einstein intimate idea and its consequences on Ballistics. So he is letting Einstein's idea on one side like Descartes did more than three hundred years ago. What sounds incredible to me is that contrarily to Descartes Rovelli is forgetting the Time but keeping the Time Dimension!!

This difference between Descartes and Rovelli is coming from the fact that Descartes is one of the fathers of the Algebraic Geometry and the Trigonometry. He does understand it better than his followers and especially the entanglement between Physics and Metaphysics.

But Rovelli is still in Descartes' reference as Einstein and Poincaré were.

Descartes is somewhere mixing Physics and the language... as Rovelli does. But therefore Rovelli is mixing Metaphysics and Physics without beeing aware of this, contrarily to Descartes. Descartes' Rationalism drives to Rovelli's Irrationalism.

So, I have two suggestions for today engineers:

-First one is to solve the problem at Descartes' level: all the paradoxes are still in Descartes' 'Natural Philosophy' and the ball is not as much entangled as it is now after Schrödinger's cat, Feynman's jokes, and all that stuff.

-And if it is just a problem of rules, scales, nothing about Physics, engineers should just organize a poll to decide to choose 'arrows' or 'blocks' to play the game, not blocks and arrows together, what Father Descartes would have condemned for sure himself as a deviation. Because you cannot square the Circle with the tools that are made for cubing one Sphere.

To answer your golf question: I could say that the video golf is very real while the ghost of John Lennon could be on an actual golf course and argue that none of it is real. (I'm guessing he never had Hellman's Mayonnaise - or Moyeu if you like.)

Here are some recent question/comments I posed to Carlo Rovelli and Julian Barbour:

To Rovelli:

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather - emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time dilation of these thermodynamical activities? It seems to me that despite all of the essays, with so many different opinions of time's true nature - we have only two possible fundamental starting points:

1) That the thermodynamical activity, or motion (or what I refer to as fundamental behaviors in my essay) is used as a measurement of "time" but plays a more passive role because these behaviors exist "in" time and their behaviors are just a visible symptom of what "time" they existed in due to their local environment.

Or

2) What we perceive as time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. These behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then - okay. But if some behaviors on the quantum level no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer to refer to the fundamental activities as "behaviors."

For those who commit to the first possible starting point, they would not appear to be in conflict with special relativity - namely Galileo's principle. The existence of time would be part of the metric that particles and forces exist "in." There would exist Einstein's inseparable connection between time and light signal velocity. There would be no "mechanism" - instead, the relative nature of time would just be a co effect of velocity and/or changing gravitational position. Time would exist as a mysterious entity (or co entity) and more questions would certainly need to be asked as to how we could get closer to determining its true nature.

For those who commit to the 2nd possible starting point (which is the one I am committed to) that motions or behaviors define time and in fact are time: Let's take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves "are" time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don't have a description for.

-----------------------------

My additional comment:

I know it is difficult for many people to imagine not having a "time" somewhere in the mysterious background that particles, forces and fields are expressing their behaviors "in." I am just the opposite. I say: imagine taking away all of the particles, forces and fields along with the behaviors they engage in and tell me what is left to be considered a flow of time. If there is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to express time.

----------------------

To Barbour:

If the universe can tell perfect time and could be considered the perfect clock, how would that assumption be affected if it is determined that there is no absolute age of the universe? If I am living on a far away galaxy accelerating at a much faster velocity than ours - then (assuming I take enough vitamins to live through the whole process) how old do I think the universe is from my perspective? Or, how old is the universe to me if I am near a black hole or better yet - If a very long time ago I watched the big bang from a safe distance (where my gravity and velocity would be very different compared to being "inside" the universe) how old would I think the universe is right now? Who would be correct?

Finally, with regard to your observation that the sea is swallowing the sun - that's not all it is swallowing. Remember this from the 1960's?

When the still sea conspires an armor

And her sullen and aborted

Currents breed tiny monsters,

True sailing is dead.

Awkward instant

And the first animal is jettisoned,

Legs furiously pumping

Their stiff green gallop,

And heads bob up

Poise

Delicate

Pause

Consent

In mute nostril agony

Carefully refined

And sealed over.

Mirroring just creates redundancy.

Mistakes unfortunately give rise to redundant theories.

I attached part 2.Attachment #1: 2_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf

Dear Le Rouge,

i must confess that your point of view is very refreshing to me. i regret that i could not come to your essay earlier though i did admire your postings on others , including mine. Your post on Gunn Quznetsov essay finally made me reach you better and here i see the freshness, the freedom , the unbiasness from existing 'knowledge'. Only such an approach is most likely to lead to innovations. i likes your preference for subjectivity over objectivity. The latter restricts one often. i also enjoyed your statement 'looking for freedom in 'randomization'. i have ofetn wondered about the logical evolution of the Universe versus the random nature of physical phenomena taking place within! Where has the reality of logic gone if all events of any physical process are 'completely' random in nature and probability rules the roost. i wonder about the effectiveness of the famous Chi-square test that is used to check the validity of the observed process to be governed by 'pure' chance. i wonder if a tiny number of regular events are mixed cleverly along with the dominant random ones, will this test be always successful to isolate a very tiny mixing of regular events!! May i humbly add that you remain what you are and you need not put weight/refer to good old Descarte or even Einstein, except when you quote them specifically. We are all born in the image of the Creator and intrinsically we capable of reaching the ultimate knowledge all by ourselves. it is another matter if the same can be expressed adequately within the vocabulary of words that exist currently. Silence for contemplation is golden and so are the concepts of 0 and infinity. he latter is not that significant as the former, as number 1 repeated an infinite number of times gives infinity. Thus , only 0 and 1 are significant, as in logic too.

- To Narendra Nath: I must quote Descartes just because he is the Matrix of Rovelli and Smolin. More than three centuries after Descartes they are congratulated for a Theory which is a little bit less logic than Descartes' Statics.

- But I do not believe in Descartes Science and the translation of geometric figures is a big mistake. Can you notice please dear Narendra that I do not believe in Newton's principles either? As a result Statics became Dynamics and Physics became Metaphysics. What is Randomization? Information G. Quetznov is talking about? This is Metaphysics from ballistic idea, that is to say 'military' metaphysics. Nature is beautiful but Nature is not symmetric! Weapons are.

- Who am I to tell to these Officers of Quanta Physics to stop collide and compute trajectories?

Refreshing essay.

I particularly like the comment:

Bugs Bunny does not fall if he does not

estimate it is Time to do it.

My intuition says this is very close to the mark.

- Don Limuti: You can check on C. Rovelli's forum that he does not believe as Bugs Bunny that Space plays its role at a fundamental level (Dec. 12). What is 'fundamental'? Carrots?

Dear Le Rouge,

i have posted in response to your post on my essay today. Kindly see it in the context of science versus spirituality!

Here you have posted something on my post on your essay. I am sorry i don't understand what you wish to say re. Statitics/randomness versus reality/truth/ symmetries of nature. There are asymmetries too in nature,e.g parity non-conservation in weak interactions! Even human face of any individual is not symmetric about the line of symmetry through the middle. In fact, there in so much of individuality in ua all that sometimes i wonder how we are able to manage a community life. Thus, there is both rationality and emotionality that makes the life alive and interesting.