Calculate “as if “… but be careful by Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,

As I have stated in past conversations, I know of no instance, in which nature makes use of any orthogonal transform, such as a Fourier transform. So the properties of such transforms do not coincide with any natural phenomenon. Humans developed such transforms, and subsequently assumed that they can be used to describe natural phenomenon. They can - but the question remains, how precisely do they correspond to the actual phenomenon? Do they exactly reproduce every aspect of the phenomenon? I do not know of a single case in which that is true. They are useful tools, for describing behaviors, just like English is a useful tool for describing behaviors. But neither, by itself, is capable of providing enough detail to enable an engineer to perfectly emulate any natural phenomenon being described. In other words, transforms and language merely provide a mechanism for talking about phenomenon, but what is being talked about matters more than the mechanism does. If you use transforms (or English) to talk about nonsense (like wavefunctions collapsing) then you are still just talking about nonsense. The fact that you can very precisely describe this nonsense, does not change the fact that it is still just nonsense.

Here is the issue that I have been trying (without much success) to get physicists to understand: "in general, nature did not yet and can certainly never obey manmade arbitrarily constructed mathematics"

In Shannon's Information theory, nothing is arbitrary; in order to recover "information" (not just data!) a receiver must know, a priori, exactly how to recover any information encoded into a signal. The proper technique for performing such a recovery cannot be deduced from analyzing the signal. Thus, the fundamental assumption underlying the entire scientific method, namely that it ought to always be possible to deduce the required recovery technique, by studying the data, is false. There are cases in which it is simply not possible. But this does not mean that the information can never be recovered! It just means that you have to already know exactly how to do it, independently of the data to which the technique is going to be applied. This is exactly the problem with quantum theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

For example, in a "Bell test", in order to correctly determine the polarization of a photon, you must know a priori how to get the polarization axis of the detector perfectly aligned with the polarization of the photon, prior to ever attempting the measurement! In other words, the phase angle between the detector and the photon must be either 0 or 180 degrees, before the measurement is ever even attempted! But the entire point of every Bell test is to avoid doing that! Thus, the entire experiment is just producing garbage results! My point is, it is not just the phase angle in a Fourier representation that matters. Everything matters! You have to know exactly what measurements can be made and exactly how they need to be made, before even attempting to make them. Failing to understand that fact is why physicists have failed to understand quantum theory.

The ancient Greek philosophers debated whether or not it is possible to find something, when you do not know exactly what you are looking for. Shannon definitively answered that question: there are some "things" that can never be reliably found, unless you do know exactly how to find them. He called such things "information". The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, in its limiting case, defines a single bit of information; that is why physicists have so much trouble trying to measure it (at arbitrary angles), as in a Bell test. They have yet to realize what they are even looking for, or looking at - they are witnessing the behavior of "information", not collapsing wavefunctions, non-localities, or any of the other nonsensical interpretations that they have concocted.

Rob McEachern

Eckard,

You are correct: "There is no known to me reason to accept that the frequency analysis of a measured signal may depend on the arbitrary (redundant) choice of a reference point."

When I first studied FM-signal demodulation techniques (there are many), I was intrigued to discover that communications engineers do not use the concept of "Fourier frequency" at all, as it appears in connection with a Fourier transform. Instead, they use the concept of "instantaneous frequency" which is the first derivative of the "instantaneous phase", with respect to time. Since the derivative removes any constant phase offset, any "phase reference point" is immediately rendered irrelevant to the process. This is one of the reasons why frequency modulation was preferred over phase modulation, in early, analog radio systems - the demodulator never has to concern itself with trying to establish a phase "reference point". The same is true of the auditory system - the actual signal processing in such systems, has little to do with Fourier phases, frequencies or superpositions.

So the reason that I do not share your concern about "inappropriate" properties of Fourier transforms, is because I, like "mother nature", have learned to avoid ever using them, for inappropriate forms of data analysis - anything other than crude, imprecise estimates of "blobs" of energy, distributed across a "power spectrum". That is all that wavefunctions-squared represent - crude estimates of a received energy distribution, which when divided by the energy-received-per-quantum, yields an estimate of the number of received quanta (AKA a histogram or probability distribution). That is all there is to quantum theory! It has little to do with the behaviors of waves or particles or anything else! Quantum theory is nothing more than a Fourier transform based description of a histogram! Assuming that the theory is describing anything else, is the cause of all the nonsensical interpretations. And that is why I do not abstain from using the word "nonsense"; the problem is obvious, once you understand what a Fourier transform based wavefunction is really describing. It is not describing a superposition at all. It is only describing a histogram - an energy-detecting filter-bank, in which each filter, is just a "matched filter", for whatever you are trying to detect! When you employ an inappropriate "matched filter", as is the case in every Bell-test, you get a bogus estimate of the number of correctly detected quantum - resulting in spurious-correlations, the belief in "spooky action at a distance", and all the other misinterpreted nonsense being written about for the past eighty years.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

"...crude estimates of received energy distributions, which..., yields an estimate of the number of received quanta ."

Yes, I must agree. The key word is 'received' and the qualifier is 'quanta'. We only detect (and only to an arbitrary degree by prescribed observation) the transition zone at the antennae, not the source. We assume a symmetrical form of emission but we can neither detect it or the natural form of the far field. All of physics, including classicism, neglects that we are conjuring a hypothesis based entirely on the confusion of cross-sectional decay rates of intensity in the near field, which physically display not only inverse square, but also inverse cube and inverse exponential rates of change of intensity. And any detection only gives us the interactive responses in close proximity of a macro-scopic 'antennae'.

So what registers as 'received' is a product of the response of the aggregate molecular domains of electromagnetic response, of which the Planck value Quanta is the least observable average. For all we know, and all we can do is conjecture, an emission of energy has the physical form of a linear 'jet', and the entire Quantum response is solely due to how material particles in a yet to be realistically formulated model, respond to energy 'loads'.

Given those physical limitations on detection, and interpretive observation, any type of analysis is not about the EM physical form, but about how we experimentally detect its reception. best jrc

Eckard,

that states it quite simply, and nature is not likely to be adequately described by any one particular method of analysis. Let me again commend you on the effort you have put into writing and conversing in the casual idioms of the English language. You must have labored long on your essay, and it does read well for those of us whom have not had to learn any other language. Thanks again, this has been a learning experience for me, and good luck with the judging. best - jrc

Eckard,

I believe that your claim is valid for minor, evolutionary advances in knowledge; But not for revolutions in wisdom. Strong arguments, that are being systematically ignored, serve no purpose.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

Socrates, Galileo and Planck all eventually came to understand, that simply publishing a revolutionary, strong argument, falsifying existing "wisdom", is useless; because no one with a vested interest in the old ideas, will ever even consider it; it will be dismissed, outright, as "crackpot" at best or "heresy", at worst, that ought to be burned (along with the author). Physicists know the odds and know how to play them - what are the odds that legions of the "best and brightest" could be so completely wrong, for so long?

Socrates et al, eventually realized that anyone attempting to get a radical, new idea accepted, will have to "throw down the gauntlet" and insult the intelligence of the "powers that be", to ever get them "off the fence" and either disprove the claim, or accept that their own long-cherished notions are wrong. In his old age, Socrates insulted the jury at his trial, rather than simply choosing to exile himself and thus be forgotten, as everyone expected him to do. And in his old age, Galileo eventually resorted to publicly calling the pope a "simpleton", in order to finally get the pope "off the fence". I too, am getting old.

In the past, you yourself have commented on the fact that no one here, from academia, has even engaged, much less refuted, my simple "single bit of information" argument regarding Bell's theorem; they cannot find any flaw in it. Nor do they want it to be true - because (1) it will destroy their own "legacy" and (2) they are all deathly afraid of publicly admitting that they can find no flaw in it, for fear that someone else may eventually do so, thereby making them appear foolish and "lose face." Like people living on the flanks of Vesuvius, or near the San Andreas fault, they all know a "Big One" is inevitable, but they all cling to the hope that it will not happen now, after they have spent their entire careers, betting heavily, on the "wrong horse" - hence Planck's comment about waiting for their death. They are too afraid, to climb upon the shoulders of any giants, until after they have assured themselves that they will not be pushed off by their own "peers". In such situations, publicly challenging "their manhood" is often the only way to get them to ever commit to such an endeavor.

Rob McEachern

Eckard:

I read your essay with great interest. You'll see mine has some common ground. However, I understand your view is the characteristics you mention may be used by physics but with caution to relate to observation (not sure you meant the "observation" part). Could you accept the idea that the use of the math characteristics produces problematical physics and should be indicate a model that needs a redo (my thesis)?

One thing I treat lightly (lack of space) was the place of error analysis/statistics in misleading and inadequate for physical models. This point was explored in Nielsen, Guffanti & Sarkar arxiv:1506.01354 "Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae". This point was further explored in Sabine Hossenfelder's recent interview of S. Sarkar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mwYxkhMe8&list=PLwgQsqtH9H5fe4B5YCF3vcZgIkMMULS7z

Let me add a bit on a previous comment on you essay, The truncated Fourier analysis results in the next term after truncation is the Uncertainty (Heisenberg's Uncertainty?).

Would you comment on the idea that all the added dimensions, imaginary numbers, and things like Fourier constants do not improve Understanding or physics. They merely mask better physics.

A bit on numbers. As you see, I hold only cardinal numbers as useful with irrational and transcendental function as contributing to the error between observation and math. I understand the natural number's interest is describing an extension of a point to a line to want to include such numbers. But I reject imaginary numbers as being an unnecessary crutch.

I also note the Turing's proof includes the ordinal number's which makes the proof nonphysical. Similar nonphysical comments are in Godel. I wish I spent a bit more space on this point - but space.

Hodge

Eckard

Note the "and" implying both. Certainly Malthus identified a rule of nature. Technology has allowed a greater population level. But Malthus was correct, population does increase faster than even technology. So, either humanity deals with Malthus' nature or nature will do the population limiting itself. Humanity is a "keystone" species (Serengiti Rules") which means starvation is nature's way of dealing with us. Such has been the case throughout history. The nature's contraction comes at the end of a warm period where food production allows the overpopulation. Then a cool period restricts food production to levels below that required by the population. Civilization collapse follows. So, now we are facing a coming cool period. Has humanity's morals going to prevent a collapse of civilization? I think not. The moral of supporting the weak and non-producers may guarantee collapse. Note the Polynesians on isolated islands had to deal with the food limit by supporting infanticide (of the weak) and suicide.

Like your "territory analogy. Certainly, The line (math) on a map (transformation) is not the road (physics).