From Unpredictability to Predictability by Branko L Zivlak

Dear Zivlak,

I really enjoyed this essay, thank you. Prediction is a fascinating topic and you have made me realise that a meteorologist has many similarities to a shares analyst/forecaster. I agree with you that risk mitigation / better forecasting, is achieved by avoiding:

1. Imprecise terminology;

2. Multiple units of measurement for the same phenomenon;

3. Inadequate use of mathematics.

Kind regards,

Jack

Dear Branko L Zivlak, the comprehension of the universe as a whole is hindered by the reluctance of people to believe that space is matter and that space moves relative to itself, since it is matter. They still believe that space exists by itself, as a container of bodies, and that it is motionless.

The neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the principle of the identity of space and Descartes's matter, gave the Heisenberg uncertainty principle the opposite meaning. It has become the principle of definiteness of points in space, according to which an infinitely large impulse is needed to separate it from other points. Moreover, in order to make it move together with other points within a certain interval, an impulse is needed, the magnitude of which is inversely proportional to the interval.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich. "

I add that the measurement system should be based on units of length and time LT. For example, the amount of matter is L3, i.e. volume of space. The charge is L3T-1, i.e. the speed of movement of space. Mass - L3T-2, i.e. space acceleration (see Chuev's system of units). I note that if we multiply the mass given in kilograms by the gravitational constant, we get the mass in L3T-2.

I like this essay Branko,

And I will have to read it again both for enjoyment and full comprehension. The Planck unit system has much value to recommend it for. I agree about the confusion with units, and we find a similar thing with technical terms in Physics, Math, and Engineering. There are different words, different letters of the alphabet used for the same variable, and so on. The way that Multivariate Calculus is taught exacerbates this problem for Physics or Engineering students because the emphasis is so different. It is almost insane.

I would say that it is important to use applicable Maths for the problem at hand. The use of enough Math is not sufficient. I think both inadequate and improper use of Mathematics can get people into trouble. In one lecture I attended; Mikhail Kovalyov stated that most of what we see in nature is non-linear if you were to truly represent the Physics in Maths. But since so many such equations are unsolvable; people impose a limiting or initial condition to obtain linear solutions, and work with those.

That is perhaps the inadequate use of Maths for the application or conditions modeled, because the equations used tell only part of the story, or do not cover the full range of dynamic behaviors an actual system can possess. I know that comes up a lot in meteorology. I will have more to say later.

Best,

Jonathan

If we could only train people to use it...

The preferred terminology is 'to arbitrarily large values' or 'for extremely large values of N,' but in my paper I use the term 'goes to infinity' for a purely mathematical relation. Even in that instance though; it would be more correct to say it 'marches toward infinity.'

Only with infinite time or infinite repetition would an actual infinite value be arrived at. This is too subtle for most folks. It gives a deceptive impression of things like black hole horizons when we treat a variable in nature as though it could be infinite, not only massively huge.

I am reminded of Plato's comment via Diogenes "Time is the image of eternity." for which the equivalent is "Space is the image of infinity." I guess the idea that space goes on endlessly is a compelling one. It certainly approaches an infinite expanse, but it will probably never get there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello Branko,

An interesting essay with a number of valuable points. While I agree with your three obstacles:

1.Imprecise terminology;

2.Multiple units of measurement for the same phenomenon;

3.Inadequate use of mathematics.

the last one casts a long shadow for me. Science develops models about how we perceive reality (you can also call this 'the universe'), based upon mathematics. However mathematics can involve structures that do not conform to reality, yet still allow mathematics to be very useful for modeling reality. In particular the concept of infinity (or infinitesimal) is deeply ingrained in mathematics - from the calculus to rendering the value of pi.

We must be careful not to attach characteristics of mathematics to the physical models built using them - unless explicitly part of the model.

This is one reason why the appearance of infinities in physical models is considered a bad thing (or lack of knowledge as I believe you put it). The infinities are part of the mathematics used to model reality - but are not part of a universe defined by finite objects and measurements.

I consider this a confusion of levels - the formal mathematical tools level and the physical model using measurements level.

Another example of this confusion would be the importance of the value of pi you appear to have assumed. While the value of pi does not change, the ration of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter is only equal to pi if the space we are working in is Euclidean. If 3-D space is a curved 3-D surface, this ratio can vary - as could calculations of wavelength and time. Assuming space is Euclidean makes things easier to calculate, but potentially less accurate.

Mathematics is also not static (nor is it homogeneous - consider Brouwer) and the interplay between mathematical tools and physical models has proved fruitful over the centuries. This interplay, however, needs to be understood better and made more explicit so as to reduce the confusion between the levels.

Don

"... in physics we should eliminate the term infinity, because the results of mathematical operations with infinite values are also undefined values." Infinity is beyond counting or measuring -- therefore it is a semi-theological concept in terms of fundamental physics -- often useful mathematically but not fundamentally true in physics. My guess is that the radius of our universe is a constant.

"A simple Hubble-like law in lieu of dark energy" by Yves-Henri Sanejouand, 2014, arXiv

I have conjectured that Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are geniuses -- do we agree or disagree on this?

Hi Branko,

The 'discovered' vs 'invented' aspect of mathematics can be a telling perspective. I have not had a discussion where the symbols we use are considered 'discovered' but are always understood to be 'invented'.

Some more discussion can lead to an understanding that the mathematics we discover are dependent (at least to a degree) upon the symbols we use (if we had stuck with Newton's or Hamilton's symbols, we might be much farther behind today).

This leads to some concept that symbols and mathematical rules have a sort-of symbiotic relationship - each influencing the other. So even if mathematical rules are discovered, the invention of symbols are a necessary part of the discovery.

Given the symbolic nature of your formulas, do you think they are entirely discovered?

If we could define the rules for negative logarithms, we would need new symbols to properly make use of them. We might be able to define a value to 'i' (=sqrt(-1)) and compress x iy into a true single value z, which would impact many equations.

Maybe your formulas could equate to different concepts if we could symbolize negative logs?

Don

Dear Zivlak.

You wrote: Hence, the universe of finite mass and radius is eternal, but with finite time cycle of the universe.

NASA has measured back in 2014 Universa has Euclidean Shape. The energy of matter and energy of space of the universe are infinite. Bat there is no singularities. See my article attached. Your statement above is false.

yours amritAttachment #1: 3_Black_Holes_are_Rejuvenating_Systems_of_the_Universe_.pdf

Hello Branco,

And which constants are the most fundamental? - Primordial (ontological) constants of the Universum as a whole?

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Sorry, Branko!