LOST IN MATH ... AND MEASUREMENT sounds a bit hopeless.

I claim having FOUND among others a possibly important mistake by Fourier.

Eckard

    Dear Heinz

    Thanks for reading my work and leaving your important comments. I would like to ask in what sense Gravitation and el. mag. waves came out of the blue. To my understanding there was a gradual process for the development of these theories.

    You mention that: no substantial progress has been made beyond the tautological confirmation of what lies hidden in the axioms of those theories.

    Definitely I agree, no much progress, but as always, attacking the principles will lead to progress. For instance the question on the origin of the particle spin.

    Regarding your disagreement, certainly, measurements and math might compose a model, but what kind of model? Current models are merely mathematical and the explanations are also mathematical, with barely no physical insight, this is why nobody understands quantum mechanics. I argue that we should work out a physical understanding to make physical sense. This would help us, for instance, to rule out the different interpretations in quantum mechanics and make some progress in this field.

    As for your last comment, I wonder why you call it pseudo-empirical model-view of world. Why pseudo? Where is the pseudo part? and what is your understanding of a model?

    I will be looking forward to seeing some feedback.

    Best regards

    Dear Eckard

    Thanks for your comment, I hope you enjoyed my work. I will take a look at your writing, it sounds interesting.

    Regards

    Dear Israel,

    as regards concepts it is difficult to see how they could evolve. Until Newton it was uncontested knowledge that force can only be conveyed by collision. Accordingly was his gravitation, which is action at a distance, initially ridiculed by some. I also don't see a viable trajectory from Newton's to Einstein's gravitation. Further, Huygens' superposition of unit waves explaining diffraction etc. can't be derived from then prevailing geometrical optics. Also from Huygens to Fresnel I see no change of principles, only refinement. Rather, if concepts were soft, I believe that nothing at all could be observed. Models, on the other hand, are indeed soft and for this reason no laws of nature - just models. Let me explain in some more detail and bore you with a little bit of philosophy...

    Irrespective whether model or natural law, any speculation beyond the given requires pre-knowledge. How otherwise could we express such speculation? The task then at hand is the weighing of such speculation in light of pre-knowledge. There was a 17th century philosopher, Baruch de Spinoza, who held the following: "A thing necessarily exists, if no cause or reason be granted preventing its existence." What he says is, that a thing exists, if it is non-contradictory. Popper said that we can accept a theory as long as it hasn't been falsified. Falsification, however, is contradiction. So, are Spinoza and Popper saying the same?

    It is important to recall that Popper's theory of falsification (and Spinoza's assertion per se) is a theory over propositions (Sätze). "Only propositions can falsify propositions. Measurements, experiments and data as such have no place in Popper's theory, i.e. falsification is an armchair job. This means mere facts can neither verify nor falsify theories. The first stage of attempting the falsification of a theory consists according to Popper in its consistency check, which I call the semantics-check. Can we reasonably speak about what the theory pretends to claim? In the case of quantum mechanics his conclusion was: no we can't, unless we consider statistical quantum ensembles in a frequentist's sense. Well, it doesn't really need super-intelligence to find that any other traditional interpretation is a-semantic, thus failing the pre-test. Also recent QM and relativity interpretations/extensions would not pass the semantic test and hence end up dead in the water even before reaching the core of the falsification procedure, the weighing of two semantically consistent theories against each other. I guess Spinoza would buy this.

    But then there is a difference: the important word in Spinoza's assertion that things exist "if no cause or reason be granted..." is the word NO! whereas Popper suggests falsification against so called Basissätze, i.e. a set of fundamental propositions that is believed to be 'true'. This is where Popper changes over from falsification to affirmation, which is super-critical not because the chosen set may contain false propositions, but because it reduces the totality of human knowledge down to almost nothing and entirely excludes human experience in the world, i.e. the phenomena. This is what Spinoza would have rejected, for other knowledge domains (e.g. biology) and the phenomena make up for an estimated 99.9% of our daily propositions.

    What Popper effectively proposed is the minimization of pre-knowledge and physicists increasingly began to substitute propositions by facts (data), which eventually led to the outcry of physicists 'we cannot possibly falsify our theories', while they actually meant 'we cannot possibly falsify our data'. Now, empiricism is a posteriori rule-making over data censored by the phenomena, i.e. modeling (e.g. of the climate), which is to be distinguished from a priori (Spinozean or Kantian) laws of nature, which value the whole of knowledge and experience. In the absence of phenomena, which is the case for all of theoretical physics, the modeling turns into pseudo-empiricism, for data are no empirical evidence of whatsoever..

    the best for your essay,

    Heinz

    Writing a function as F(x,y,z) does not mean that F really exists in physical space, even though x, y and z seem to refer to physical space.

    Israel,

    Excellent essay. Nicely expressed and argued, and we're in very close agreement yet again.

    You well describe the issues of Absolute v Relative motion etc, but it seems may not recall that you (with others) briefly grasped the solution I posited, consistent with Einsteins final (1952) rationale. That's proved powerfully resolving so I'll outline it again here for your view;

    Physical systems only have ONE assignable state of motion k, and occupy bounded 3D spaces. Each is mutually exclusive, but can be embedded within a larger one, and also contain smaller ones. So forming a hierarchy. Now Einstein's (Appx.V) words; "..there is an infinite number of spaces , which are in motion with respect to each other...so..an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable role even in scientific thought."

    When we actually look for the boundaries they're hiding right before our eyes, literally! Fine surface structure electrons play the same role as astrophysical shocks, modulating LOCAL propagation speed to c in each system.

    NASA's E H Dowde and C Su found the same, i.e. (Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 701-715 (2001))

    That explains observed CSL, with ALWAYS a 'local background' frame but no accessible 'absolute' frame. I recall you agreed that logic, but fqXi essays are hard to remember!

    I write all that as it's so important, (consequences presented in my essay) but very well done for your own essay of which I can find no criticism! I'm sure you'll like mine again, and as our ratings are close

    agree as gentlemen both are worth a high score (mine was hit by an annoying 1.0 again!)

    Finally ref your abstract. I showed one implication of the above last year, that A & B can reverse their OWN outcomes by reversing their dial. That needs thought, but a PHYSICAL sequence producing it was described in last years essay, outlined again in this years.

    Very best regards

    Peter

    Dear Heinz

    Thanks for your comments. Despite your explanation I still don't see any justification of your claim that those theories came out of the blue. For instance, Newton was aware that gravitation was not conveyed in total emptiness, he always held that there was aether. However, his theory does not include it and for this he was criticized. So why at the end was his theory established? First because it made testable predictions and explained known phenomena. Besides, at that time people discovered that it was possible to create vacuum with machines and that light and gravitation could travel through the vacuum. This was an argument that many invoke to justify Newton's gravitational theory. When one studies relativity one easily realizes from analyzing Newton's theory that this formulation suggests that gravitation and acceleration are strongly related: [math]F=ma=G\frac{mM}{r^2}[/math]

    by eliminating the inertial mass

    [math]a=g=G\frac{M}{r^2}[/math]

    we see arrive at the Galilean equivalence principle(Einstein's happiest thought). The rest was just to put these ideas in mathematical terms following the four dimensional formulation of special relativity derived by Minkowski. So, I see no "out of the blue" and similarly for the theory of electrodynamics. For this was also a long and complex process that one can trace back. I do agree that some ideas may come out of the blue, but as you put say it they came from some pre-knowledge.

    As for your comments on philosophy, I am aware of Popper, I have read his most important works on the philosophy of science. I have not read much about Spinoza. I know that sometimes propositions cannot be tested for they seem to be beyond experience or data, but as I said, data requires a theoretical framework to have meaning. Experimentation itself cannot rule out propositions because data itself depends on the theoretical framework where laws (principles, propositions) and definitions are embedded. So, in my opinion a model, understood as an abstract construction of some phenomenon, can be useful to understand something about reality (this is how we have built it). For instance, I suppose that materials are composed of atoms with a given arrangement. The atomic composition and the arrangement of the atoms define the physical properties of the material. If I check such or such property of that material and fits with my predictions it means that my model is correct and therefore my model does have explanatory powers because it is helping to understand the observed phenomenon. Models along with the principles help us understand reality.

    Israel

    Dear Martin

    Thanks for your comment. For instance, the electron density [math]\rho (x,y,z)[/math] depends on the spatial variables, and exists because electrons exists, so if the density exists why not its mathematical representation? The problem as I argue in my essay is that we think that what exists is what we can detect with instruments or our senses but that just half of the story. I think you should first start by telling what you understand by "exist".

    Regards

    Dear Peter

    Thanks for reading my essay, I am glad you find it interesting. Definitely you have a very good memory, I do recall we discussed these matters in the past. I am sorry for not recalling the details and thanks for the reminder. The reference appears to be interesting, I will take a look at it asap. As I argue in my essay, math does not tell the whole story. The preferred frame is sound and can be used to make some progress in physics, let's see what happens in the following years in this respect. The article you cite seems to be in agreement with this view.

    As for Einstein's arguments, it seems that he was happy with the mathematical formulation of general relativity but not very much with references frames. In the book Relativity authored by Pauli, it is clear that Einstein's tried several times to remove any trace of the absolute frame, without success.

    Thanks again, I will read your essay and leave some comments asap. I am sure you did a good job.

    Regards

    Israel I appreciated your essay. Perhaps because my creation theory came from "physical understanding" and then finding the mathematics to explain the measurements. In my essay I describe a flowing "picture" of compositional changes that originate in chaos and become our universe. It also creates the mathematics that can be used to describe it and match the its measurements. I would appreciate your comments (coming from your perspective) on my "revised" essay. John Crowell.

      Dear John

      Thanks for reading my essay. I am happy that you found it interesting. Certainly, I will take a look at your work and leave some comments. To make some progress in physics either mathematical or physical understanding is valuable.

      Regards

      Israel

      Dear Israel,

      I indeed meant that the actual density is not the same "thing" as its mathematical representation. In models of the density, the model is commonly only an approximation of the real density, due to all sorts of approximations that are necessary for being able to calculate a result. E.g. the exchange-correlation functional of an interacting many-particle system can only be approximated, e.g. by assuming the local density approximation, etc. So the model density is not even numerically identical with the actual density.

      I only said this as I see this as being a problem in foundational physics. In general relativity there is a curved spacetime, but this is just a mathematical representation. And what is, in quantum field theory, the field PSI(x,y,z,t)? Why assume that this is a physical field? Historically, this field has only been created in order to describe experimental results.

      Another question is what is meant with "exists". In what sense does the number 5 exist? I think it means that we have a formalized manner of using the symbol "5".

      Dear Martin

      Have you read my essay? There I explain that our brain builds reality according to experimental data that is interpreted in our brain with electrochemical patterns leading to a theoretical framework. The interpretation can be given in terms of sensory-data or in terms of abstractions, such as mathematics. Mathematics can be seen just as a codification of sensory data which is used to model and quantify our physical representations. But physical representations, are just electrochemical patterns, similar to strings of bits in a computer. So, why should we narrow our view to believe that what are senses/instruments detect "exists" and the mathematical codifications of this same information doesn't?

      It is as if we were giving more physical significance to a program that is written in fortran and ignoring another program that does the same as the former but it is written in C++. Why should we think that the program written in C++ is just a representation of the other just because it is written with different symbols and different grammar?

      Best regards

      Israel

      Israel

      I have answered your post on my page.

      Regards ________________ John-Erik

      Yes, OK, "mind" is physical. And so are feelings.

      But I meant: why assume that our mathematical representations exist "out there"?

      Dear Israel,

      Thanks for this essay, whose main point cannot be stressed enough - indeed even Einstein did not appreciate it, especially in his later life. An interesting and polemical analysis in this direction is also contained in Sabine Hossenfelder's book Lost in Math. As you say, it is all about balancing physics, math and measurement, Newton understood this! Best wishes, Klaas Landsman

        Because we assume that our "physical" representations exist out there!