The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

How to drive a car is fundamentally different to the car. How to handle an equation is fundamentally different to the equation. The algorithmic steps required to handle an equation are fundamentally different to the equation.

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent a moving world: it is the physicist and the equations together that represent a moving world. The physicist makes up for the deficiencies in the symbolic equations, which despite the delta symbols merely represent static relationships: the physicist makes the equations move.

To extricate the physicist from the symbolic representation of the world, one needs to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent what the physicist is doing: the physicist is discerning difference in the symbols in the equations, and the physicist is moving and changing the symbols in the equations.

The world is a differentiated system, differentiated into what we would represent by equations, variables and number symbols. It is logically necessary that a differentiated system must differentiate itself (i.e. discern difference in, what we would represent by, equations, variables and number symbols).

The world is a moving system. It is logically necessary that a moving system must move itself (i.e., what we would represent by, the assignment of new number symbols to variables).

The discerning of difference, and the assignment of numbers, can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Lorraine -- where to begin?

You are suggesting that an equation is not objectively independent of the equation maker -- well, then, why write equations at all?

I think I'll just leave it there.

Tom,

Lorraine's post on the 24th with the truth statement assigning cardinal numbers to parametric variables is done for the purpose of condensing the information into shorter bit sequencing. As a physicist, you might abbreviate the value of light velocity in discussion to 3^10 cm/sec, but in actual calculation rigor requires a minimum of six decimal places after the whole number and decimal; that takes an entire 8 bytes in hypertext transport protocol which is shunted to the input pins of the processor which is typically engineered with a 64 bit chip architecture. Then it takes another 64 bit (8 byte) sequence of https for the parameter identifiers of centimeters per second. The assignment of a cardinal number to that real value allows two bytes to transport the variable through the sub routines from input pins to output pins to assemble the routing of quantum level EM pulses of potential difference through the maze of conductive channels to semi-conducting junctions, all engineered on 'time to junction' and 'accumulated level of charge' at junctions. Once the sub-routines, each taking different durations of time to course through the chip circuitry, is assembled by the Fourier Transform to sync as concise signals, the actual computation can be done by identifying the variable values with the truth statement. But instead of transporting the lengthy bit sequencing of the Machine Code https of the numerical values through the sorting process of the sub-routines, those cumbersome real components rest in the do-while loop until actually needed by the machine. Not that Lorraine doesn't temp people to put a penny on the track, LOL, jrc

So, how do the laws of nature work?

Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent a perpetual motion machine whereby one number change at the beginning of the universe sets off a domino effect that explains the events at the end of the universe. The laws of nature are not a perpetual motion generator; the laws of nature are merely passive relationships. Knowledge of these relationships has been derived from physics experiments.

The equations that represent the law of nature relationships represent the fact that, IF some of the numbers that apply to some of the variables are actively changed for some reason, then the numbers that apply to other variables in the equations will change, due solely to passive relationship.

The numbers that apply to other variables in the equations will change, due solely to passive relationship, but not due to active mathematical calculations being performed at the foundations of the universe. Mathematical calculations are what people need to do because people are, unavoidably, using symbols to represent the world and the law of nature relationships.

(cont.)

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent anything active, i.e. the equations do not represent the act of changing the numbers that apply to some of the variables. You need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the act of jumping the numbers i.e. assigning new numbers to variables.

And the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent who or what is acting, who or what is actively changing/ jumping the numbers. Who or what is actively assigning numbers to the variables is relevant in the question of who or what was GENUINELY responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers: was it the laws of nature jumping the numbers, or are people GENUINELY responsible for jumping the numbers? Clearly people are GENUINELY responsible for jumping their own numbers for their own variables.

Tom, don't ask a question: you need to go to the trouble of making a clear case that supports your point of view, whatever your point of view is; you need to provide an argument; for a start, you need to define what an equation is; and also, you need to say who creates, writes, discerns and manipulates equations.

John, you'll have to do much better than a jumble of words: you need to make a clearly defined argument that supports a clearly defined case, if you can.

Tom and John,

The physics' equations that represent the law of nature relationships only work as a representation of the world BECAUSE physicists discern the symbols and physicists move and change the symbols. The equations only represent a moving system because of the consciousness and agency of physicists. Physicists are part of the system of representation. To symbolically represent a STANDALONE system, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the consciousness and agency of physicists. (Clearly these extra, but necessary, symbols represent the consciousness and agency aspects required in order for a standalone world to exist.)

Prove me wrong. Make a case, make an argument.

Serious problem with the SR explanation for the Lorentz force. In the case of a charged particle in proximity to current carrying wire, Two reference frames are considered A) AND B). A is considering the electrons in the wire to be moving and the free charge keeping up with same speed and direction. B) the electrons are considered to be at rest, as the current flows. As if the electron's point of view. In frame A) the electrons and particle are moving So magnetic fields occur and their interaction gives the Lorentz force. B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A). The SR solution I have found on various videos is; As the electrons in the wire aren't moving there is less length contraction of them than when moving .There is also length contraction of the positive ions of the wire. Affecting charge density. The wire neutral in frame A) is charged in B). Electric fields provide Lorentz force.

The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.

Physicists seem to imagine that they can look at the world as if the physicist were outside of the world looking in. The physics' equations that represent the law of nature relationships are physics way of claiming that the physicist can externalise himself from the world. But these equations do not take account of the physicist.

What does "taking account of the physicist" actually mean? Taking account of the physicist actually means that physicists' consciousness of the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, and physicists' agency in manipulating the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, are part of the system, part of the world. You can't externalise these aspects of the world.

Consciousness and agency can't be externalised, as though they are not a part of the system. This is what "taking account of the physicist" actually means. And the only way to symbolically represent the steps that are part of both consciousness and agency is via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Correction (in bold): According to the SR 'explanation': the electrons at rest are passed by the moving electroscopes with deflected/ repelled from each other, gold leaves, as the wire is charged. This is different physics happening for the two different reference frames.

I've read (various sources) that length contraction becomes important at 1/10 the speed of light. Approx. 30,000 km/s. Compare

"The individual electron velocity in a metal wire is typically millions of kilometers per hour. In contrast, the drift velocity is typically only a few meters per hour while the signal velocity is a hundred million to a trillion kilometers per hour." via https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/02/19/what-is-the-speed-of-electricity/ ,Published: February 19, 2014 'What is the speed of electricity'

In reference frame B) the electrons are considered stationary. So individual speed between collisions or drift speed collectively doesn't matter. However, movement of the ions relative to the electrons has to be drift velocity as they are fixed in the wire and can not be taking 'zig zagging' paths like the individual electrons The electrons collectively are passed by the fixed in the wire ions at drift velocity.

" B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A)." GW.

That could be clearer. In B) the electrons are considered stationary and the positive ions to pass by...As the ions seem to be moving. A magnetic field is attributable to them. The free charged particle is considered at rest, so has no magnetic field....Two magnetic fields, the wire's and the free particle's, need to interact for the Lorentz force to happen due to magnetism. Yet the Lorentz force does act. The reason behind the 'electric charge explanation'.

Re. the electroscopes thought experiment. It should not according Relativity be possible to conduct an experiment that would enable an 'observer' to be aware of which reference frame it is in. Leaving aside that electrons and other charged particles can't actually see or be aware of the electroscopes. Your Thoughts?

Modified statement from earlier. movement of the ions relative to the electrons has to be drift velocity as they are fixed in the wire, and moving counter to the electrons collectively. Your Thoughts' on the slow speed issue?

Without a free particle moving with the wire's electron's, just to judge whether the wire is charged:

In the frame with the flowing electrons considered at rest, the electroscopes will seem to pass by. A tiny camera, without charge, could be made to travel along the wire to observe the electroscopes. At drift velocity of the electrons. (As the electrons of the wire are not capable of observing the electroscopes.) The camera could be pulled by attaching it to a distant motor. Another camera of the same type could serve as the lab bench frame.

The electroscopes must give the same charge/no charge indication for both reference frames. Or there would have to be an explanation of how a device can be seen to perform differently according to reference frame. Repulsion of gold leaves and no repulsion are different physics occurring in the same device.

Georgina,

Have you come across any references of drift velocity in arc lighting or arc welding? There seems to be an ambiguity as to whether drift is free electrons moving along the surface of the conductor, or that electrons get displaced in atomic structure towards the electrical ground side of the circuit. And this also applies in non-arcing systems such as 'house current' which is cyclic alternating direction of EMP, the line voltage conducted typically by a black insulation identification and the neutral return identified with white; ground fault safety is by code, green. Some time ago I found some info that worked out to about 10 meters per second for electrons going to ground (literally; earth) across an arc gap with a voltage of 110/220 load, but I was never confident it was an empirically derived value. I like Einstein's statement that is still relevant, "I would just like to know what an electron IS!" :-) jrc

To get a clear view of the electroscope response, it's going to be better if it is pulled along the wire with the camera. A tiny one too. It will be in the electrons' and camera rest frame. Instead of the fixed row.

No John I haven't looked for arcing or lightning drift velocity. What's perplexing me at Present is, I can't find agreement online of whether or not there is an electric field alongside (lengthways) a current carrying wire. Lots of differing opinions and reasons. Confused by the lack of consensus

Hi john, I've watched a video explaining that the 'pinball' idea of current is obsolete. No zig zagging then. It promotes a wave idea of an electron instead. Resistance stemming from disturbance of the regular wave pattern due to displaced or missing ions or impurities. Not from collision with correctly positioned lattice ions. I'd still rather have electron particles with associated wave-like those bouncing droplets.

It also goes on to describe layers of ions and electron flows. Which makes me think of surface charge density. The surface, by that description is either a layer of ions or a layer of electron flow. So shouldn't the surface be charged one way or the other? Because of the charge separation. Though for the whole cross section there are equal no.s of and - charges?? Does the field of the non surface particles (and or waves) neutralize the, or -, field of the surface?