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

Dear Robert,

Let me explain why I prefer abstaining from use of the insulting word nonsense: Strong words cannot make arguments stronger. On the contrary, they tend to indicate weakness.

Consider for instance Knoll's provocative "Remembering the Future". Knoll is aware that he contradicts to common sense. He kows that this makes him attractive, and many friends of Einstein's BU (block universe) will appreciate his according musing.

I should add that Ben Akiba claimed "Any future event did already exist in the past". Corresponding religions including rebirth, eternal life with the rewarding virgins in heaven, and fatalism did perhaps arose from the observed cyclicity of the four seasons.

Eckard

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

Dear Robert,

Well, when I am suggesting calculate as if there was no causality, this is no revolution in wisdom. My position is in this case not even at odds with idealism and the bible: In the BEGINNING WAS the word.

Don't get me wrong: While science doesn't even need a beginning of time, the word WAS is based on the trust in temporal order. The invariance of the laws of nature under shift along time scale is quite understandable: the laws were found by means of abstraction. They lost therewith their immediate link to the (conjectured) reality. In order to accept this compelling but systematically ignored argument, one doesn't even need to know Bell's theorem.

When I selected just a few suggestions to calculate as if, I already tried to indicate how they are interrelated.

Next time I will try and as promised explain how to understand and how to apply the notion of being infinite for a standing wave between Neumann or Dirichlet mirrors.

Best,

John,

"... nature is not likely to be adequately described by any one particular method of analysis." ???

A Polack wrote: "The map is not the territory." In so far I partially agree. The mathematical map in terms of abstracted laws extends from minus infinity to plus infinity. Nature is the unchangeable territory. It does not yet include what is still open to influences in the merely more or less predictable future. Fourier got utterly popular by providing something that is very elegant one the abstract level of theory but contradicts to common sense: Complex analysis seems to allow a spectral analysis not just of data from the past but also of not yet available future data. Consequently complex analysis implies to deny the distinction between past and future as actually did Einstein and Hilbert. Well, within a model or a record there is no "now": The map as well as a photo are not the territory.

I already mentioned that science doesn't require a beginning of time (point of creation), and I add we don't need an end of time (doomsday) either. However, engineers like me need the here and the now.

Kind regards,

Eckard

4 days later

While perhaps nobody may deny that the complex Fourier transform introduces an arbitrary reference point, You Tube is propagating a video: "But what is the Fourier Transform? A visual introduction".

The video repeatedly nicely illustrates how an endless sinusoidal function of time can be wrapped around a circle. Is there a problem? Yes: One may calculate as if there was no causality but in reality the past is closed and the future is open. Accordingly there is a border between past and future that can be shifted at will on the level of abstract models but definitely not at the basic level of physical reality.

Fourier's theory as well as the video neglects something that is also quite plausible: An endless path is (only) imaginable along any closed loop, no matter whether it forms a circle or an interval between two mirrors. In the latter case, a standing wave obeys Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions at the surfaces of the mirrors.

Endlessness at both sides implicates the need to chose a point of reference at will.

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

    JC Hodge,

    My main credo/topic is causality. You wrote: "greater Understanding and greater Wisdom yields survival and population growth." Are you sure that survival and unlimited population growth don't eventually exclude each other? This perhaps shocking question of mine intends to make aware of the importance and the risks of idealization in general, including physics. Be careful, the map is not the territory. Nonetheless, I suggest continuing to deliberately calculate to some extent as if there was no causality.

    By the way, Heisenberg's uncertainty is not bound to complex Fourier transform. It relates to conjugate pairs like time and frequency with real-valued cosine transform too.

    Eckard

    Tim Palmer called some questions of mine „deep questions!! ". I guess, typical mistakes in mathematics cannot at all be so deeply rooted that they cannot be clearly addressed, and most likely it is often possible to find out what went wrong in history.

    My reason to delve into the fundamentals of mathematics was the rejection of my suggestion to allow R+ and cosine transform instead of R. My argument was: In order to describe the past (or the future) alone, on does not need time values that extend from minus infinity to plus infinity. In particular, data that are not yet available cannot be analyzed. I am arguing that R+ and cosine transform CT as a special cases of R and FT relate to FT as does N to Z. R and FT only differ from R+ and CT in that they need an arbitrarily chosen reference point. Instead of accepting R+ and CT, some mathematicians denied the possibility to separate R+ from R. Indeed, modern topology doesn't allow a discrete cut. I blame Hausdorff and Dirac for making this mistake very obvious. I found out, as I indicated in my essay, that the notion of continuity as used by Rolle is inappropriate in case of a discrete jump. By the way Rolle understood in contrast to Descartes that -1 is larger than -2.

    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).

    John C Hodge,

    My message is: Be careful if calculating as if an ideal map was the territory even if it is of course different. In case of ethics, the biblical ideal is to get more power by getting more followers. As far as I now, Malthus did not yet vote for a more comprehensively responsible ethics because he focused on nutrition and ignored that the main risk is not directly malnutrition but side effects of more efficient methods to exhaust and irreversibly poison nature.

    At first, I suggest dealing with the ideals in mathematics and in physics. Is my distinction between Euclid's ideal point and mathematician's dot plausible to you? Wilhelm Busch was mocking:

    Who cannot imagine a point is simply too lazy for that. (My source: Mückenheim "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen").

    Eckard

    .

    Hopefully I could find out why the notion infinity has a record of causing confusion. Just a few examples: Bernhard Bolzano (1781-1848) who created the notion Menge (= set) wrote "Die Paradoxien des Unendlichen" Reclam Leipzig 1851

    Cantor: On the different points of view with respect to the actual infinity (in German) Halle 1890

    Hilbert's hotel is famous, also his paper "Über das Unendliche" in Math. Annalen 95(1925)165

    Lavine „Understanding the infinite".

    I see the latter inappropriate to someone who tries to benefit from "understanding".

    I am already not sure whether to criticize Wolfram's definition of infinity as "an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number or just smile because the real numbers are conceptualized as endless. To me, the property of being infinite (= unbounded = endless) is an absolute quality, not a quantity.

    Relative endlessness means something very useful while logically quite contradictory. Being endless with respect to something as introduced by Bernoulli and Leibniz tamed the nonmathematical quality, made it a usable quantity as if it still was a quality.

    There are consequences: Singularity functions like e.g. sign(x) do strictly speaking not fit into what I am calling a mathematics of continuity (anything flows) or with other words Rolle's mean value postulate.

    Accordingly, the definition sign(0)=0 is unfounded, etc.

    While Laurent Schwartz felt guided by his desire to be rigorous and logical, his basic idea effectively was just the opposite: Abandoning Euclid's indivisibility of a point for the sake of the analogy with electrical dipoles, quadrupoles, and so on.

    The theory of distributions followed Rolle when introducing so called testfunctions D, i.e., smooth functions which have compact support.

    Already the notations and conventions were "correcting" plausible mathematics:

    N0:={0}в€ЄN

    вЉ† means subset, вЉ‚ will not be used

    Etc.

    What about claimed applications cf. "Some applications of the theory of distributions" Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol. I, New York: Wiley, 1963, p. 23-58

    Seen from the perspective of engineers and physicists, the intriguing possibility of endless repetition of the operation differentiation is rather an unnecessary and distracting support of e.g. Hausdorff.

    Well, one may calculate to some extent within the theory of distributions and adopt Dirac impulses. However, be cautious and don't ignore arguments against unjustified consequences of belonging topology. If singularities are justified at all, then certainly not inside smooth functions. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of ideal (not smooth) singularity functions like ramp, step, pulse and doublet. See my earlier essays.

    Point charges, line currents and the like are ideals that should not be extended by force to inappropriate models. It is just often best to calculate as if a dot was a point, provided one understands what one does.

    If you pretend to calculate as if you were blindly following a pied piper who attracts crusaders (nowadays by means of seemingly compelling videos) then be careful: You need not giving rise in public for getting burned as was Giordano Bruno. You are not obliged to become one more crank among thousand who failed to find and point out what actually went wrong with putatively compelling mathematical evidence.

    For instance, G. Cantor's transfinite numbers seem to contradict common sense. Their defenders called them counterintuitive as if common sense was inappropriate. Actually, it was Cantor who was led by his naïve intuition: "einfaches Hinüberzählen, mehr als unendlich viele Zahlen". The distinction between Cantor's aleph zero and aleph one is plausible to me. Anything else including the diagonal arguments should be judged from the perspective of the (so far missing) application in science. While a critical study of Fraenkel's 1923 textbook reveals the cardinal logical mistake, the deeper reason for the acceptance of the rather strange transfinite set theory may be found in a desire of mainstream mathematicians to cope with inconsistencies affecting the notion number: Are they anything one may calculate with? Is this a good question? The natural numbers combine an idealization (the number one) with equality based repetition (addition). In this sense, mathematics is based on logics but not Hilbert's other way round.

    At Quora, Cristinel Stoica recently reminded of his FQXi essay 1357. So far I didn't find a current essay by him. May I hope for himself or someone else taking issue concerning what I am calling mistakes?

    Eckard Blumschein

    Reply to Eckard Blumschein's comments:

    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 your essay, The truncated Fourier analysis results in the next term after truncation is the Uncertainty (Heisenberg's Uncertainty?). The photoelectric experiment where the slope of the energy vs frequency line has a slope of h (Plank's constant). So, the best a measurement can do is within 1 h . So the Fourier series in representing a observed value is a truncated Fourier series where Heisenberg's Uncertainty is the next term. The idea of conjugate pairs is an artifact of assuming particles are infinite waves.

    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.

    I suggest that nature does "calculate" and does arrive at answers. So, Godel's and Turing's theorems do not apply to physics but to math. A common factor is that they both use ordinal numbers as an important part of the proof. This is what triggered the suggestion that ordinal numbers do not belong in physics. As you see, I hold only cardinal numbers as useful with irrational and transcendental function as contributing to the error between observation and math. This suggests the "natural numbers" includes a man-made part - the ordinal numbers.

    Now consider what the cardinal numbers are counting - the standards of measurement. Physics starts with assumptions/postulates about what the standards of measurement are. Advances in physics is primarily about redefining the more reduction standards. For example, Newton defined gravity as a assumed measure in the "The Principia". Gravity was limited to action between masses. In Newton's "Opticks" 1730 edition (careful - different editions have different Query numbering)

    Qu. 17 -22 the gravity was caused by an aether which had additional experiment observations of directing corpuscles in diffraction. That is, the aether characteristics are causeless and all other effects emerge such as gravity and diffraction of light observations. Further, the STOE's plenum includes the aether concept and adds the explanation for astronomical observations such as rotation curves (dark matter) and Planet 9.

    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. The distinction between a dot and a point is that there is no distinction. In physics, the cardinal numbers include the zero to signify the beginning of a standard of measure.

    You noted "the map is not the territory". Mathematical transforms (maps) as a procedure to solve difficult equations is helpful. However, interpretation of the map should not imply physical effects or measures without the inverse transform. For example, General Relativity field equation has the real measures (mass, distance, time) on the Right Hand Side (RHS) and the transform on the Left Hand Side (LHS). The LHS parameters are NOT physical space or time. Singularities or infinities are not physical and are indicative of incorrect calculation. The speed of gravity is frequently and falsely measured with LHS parameters as equal to the speed of light (the maximum possible speed by assumption).

    The STOE developed a Universal Equation with real quantities on both sides of the equation. It started with the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) of A Source at the center of Spiral Galaxies. This equation was applied to astronomical problem observations and to light interference.

    Current morals (not ethics) are distinctly NOT suited for a significant cooling period. There have been many such periods in history. If a society has grown such that the population level requires the warm period, the following cool period means less food. In high population, humanity morals care for the sick and old and infirm young. Indeed, this is so ingrained that even primitive societies overextend (see Tainter "The Collapse of Complex Societies"). However, there are societies that practices exposure of sickly or unwanted (read unable to support) infants. The Bible chronicles Moses was such a child. A further lesson in the life of Moses is where he is unable to contribute to society and unable to cross the river (read a major test). A similar practice was chronicled by Bronowski "The assent of man" episode 2 of the Bakhtiari nomad peoples' response to their harsh life. We see a lesson for humanity that is ignored. The last cold spell in the early 1800s was solved by technology (invention of fertilizer). Will technology do it again?

    The STOE suggest principles of life and for physics should be the same (see https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3032 "Fundamental principles criteria"). For example, life functions with feedback loops (Sarengetti Rules). The STOE suggest feedback is a fundamental method which results in fine tuning of parameters. For example, the CMB temperature is determined by such a loop.

    Hodge

      Dear John Hodge,

      I appreciate the opportunity you gave me to hopefully better explain what I meant with "calculate as if the model was identical with the basic reality behind it".

      While I agree: "Singularities or infinities are not physical", I don't see them "indicative of incorrect calculation" but rather of careless assumptions and/or interpretations.

      I don't at all reject imaginary numbers as being unnecessary.

      Is "the distinction between a dot and a point is that there is no distinction"? Well, I blame the mathematicians for ignoring Euclid's indivisible point. They are instead operating with something for which I don't have a better denotation in English language than the word dot. Words like dot-set topology theory and dot-charge sound strange. They make aware of denied mistakes. Also, we should strictly speaking distinguish between absolute endlessness and the admittedly very reasonable relative infinity.

      Again: Calculate as if but be careful.

      Carefulness demands too that I will explain to you later in what I see you wrong.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Best,

      Eckard

      Wonderful. I appreciate you comments where you suggest I'm wrong. It would certainly help the development of my STOE. I would appreciate you views if they are supported by observations/experiments and not be rejected by observations/experiments.

      You may also note that messages may be sent to my RG page where the many papers of the STOE are displayed.

      Hodge

      Stay calm, John Hodge,

      I did not yet at all deal with your STOE, and I see you my ally concerning birth control.

      Nonetheless I will today begin with evidence against your opinion that "the idea of conjugate pairs is an artifact of assuming particles are infinite waves."

      In Fig. 1 of my third FQXi essay I showed frequency vs. elapsed time plots which were calculated by means of COSINE transformation, not the complex-valued Fourier transfotm. The f vs.t hyperbolas exhibit the same uncertainty relation as found by Heisenberg for P vs. q/h. Notice, Planck's constant is just required as to get an dimension-less argument. Other conjugate pairs are omega and t as well as k and r.

      Can you provide a source for your wrong claim or is it your own guess?

      Eckard