Galilei, Gold, Ren - votes for ultimate realism by Eckard Blumschein

Having looked into Wikipedia, I would like to call quasi-particles at best magnetic dipoles but not monopoles. I did not yet read Dirac 1931 but I guess he was inspired by the well known to every EE Rogowski coil. Incidentally, is solonoid just a different spellimg of solenoid? If I understood Wikipedia correctly then Dirac himself imagined the other end of the magnetic dipole located somewhere at infinity. Dirac's idea of a string-like field hose looks like inspired by the treatment of singular residuum in case of path integral in 2D.

To me already the infinite field strength in the center of an electric point charge looks suspect. The more I doubt that the fictitious 2D "singularity", which is thougt to link a magnetic monopole with infinity is realistic. I would like to suggest giving exotic ideas a fair but finite credit.

For example, aleph_2 has not found any useful application despite of acceptance and effort by an estimated one hundred of mathematicians over one hundred years.

After 10,000 man-years of likewise futile string-research one should consider the possibility that magnetic monopoles do nor exist, no matter that possibly wrong interpretation of mathematics invited to believe in their existence in reality. I vote for ultimate realism.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

Personally, I am a huge fan of Dirac. He was an Emeritus Professor at my Alma Mater, Florida State University, and he and his family are buried within 50 meters of my grandparents. I visit his grave on occasion. And I would like to see even his craziest ideas, such as the Magnetic Monopole and the Large Numbers Hypothesis, realized.

I have been giving thought to the problem of negative frequencies and negative time. I could be wrong, but I think a reasonable analogy is:

Negative frequency = absence of a frequency, and

Negative time = wave traveling away from the ear (positive = towards).

This allows the possibility of some standing wave solutions with the addition of "positive" and "negative" times (a sum of towards and away from waves). This does not say that the Future affects the Present. That would be crazy!

I understand that you still have your own interpretation.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Hello Eckard,

I attempted a quick read, and enjoyed what I understood. I'd have to read slower and dig deeper, to do it justice. I think it's pretty neat that the human ear can best our best Physics theories, or our understanding of nature. The product of evolution can outdo the product of our own thinking. Should this surprise us? I guess not.

Good Luck,

Jonathan

The Dirac string is a bit different from a dipole. The dipole is one that exhibits a tension, such as it takes work to lengthen a dipole as the two charges, whether electric or the S-dual magnetic charges, have a field effect which generates the tension. With a Dirac string the tension goes to zero under the phase transition. This is what makes the system more monopolar (or monopole-like).

Cheers LC

Dear Lawrence, dear Ray,

A main reason for me to hesitate swallowing infinite field strength as a fact in reality is that I learned using this model while simultaneously understanding that it is just a fiction. Outside a conductor H decreases with 1/r. However, there is no conductor with r=0.

It might be silly when I guess that the allegedly monotonous decreasing spherical field of an electron actually could correspond to sinc^2(r) or the like. In this case E would be finite for r=0, and the ripple could be too fine as to be significant. Doesn't such solution suggest itself? Was it already refuted?

Of course, sinc^2 is always positive. I do not see this a problem, because the elementary electric charge does not change its defined negative sign.

Admittedly, this is pure speculation of mine. Do not draw the wrong conclusion that the trivial but possibly serious revelation of mine is also just guesswork: "Apparent symmetry results from belief in an a priori existing future and from improper interpretation of mathematical results."

I will look what S-dual means.

Regards,

Eckard

There is a phase transition involved here. It is similar to the phase transition in an Ising system.

Cheers LC

Dear Jonathan,

Natural solutions can be understood best if one humbly forgets the usual approach of theory including the most basic and seemingly indisputable assumption. Ask instead for the initially very primitive basic possibilities that could be gradually improved by trial and error always guided by the need for survival. In other words, they have to be evolutionary plausible. In contrast to speculative attitudes as celebrated for instance by Wigner, mirror-symmetry in nature does not relate to subjective feelings like beauty but to objective functional benefits. Once a principle was "invented", it got a variety of applications.

I am still trying to persuade physicists that our senses cannot at all perform higher mathematics. For instance, the ear does not know the commonly agreed but arbitrarily chosen reference point t=0. It has no chance but to refer its analysis to the very now. Therefore it is not surprising that natural solutions may beat the best of physics in terms of performance, efficiency, simplicity, robustness, etc. The natural solution is free of belief-based conjectured invariance principles, arbitrarily chosen common agreement, complex numbers, resulting redundant ambivalence, and most importantly free of non-causality.

If we accept nature as a touchstone for theories that are claiming to describe nature then several exotic fruits of physics seem to be possibly unfounded. While I respect originality in science, I do not share the blind admiration for putative giants like G. Cantor, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, v. Neumann, and Dirac.

Laymen like me can acknowledge the important applications of spin but are ignorant of applications of naive set theory, string theory, anti-worlds, anti-matter, magnetic monopoles, quantum computing, Higgs bosons and the like. It does not matter for me that the original explanation of spin seems to be untenable. A theory may work even if it is not yet entirely correct. The most intriguing, flawless and highly awarded mere theory does not convince me.

I d to distrust sophisticated experimental confirmation. That's why I was trying to make Ren's direct evidence more public and respected.

Maybe I did so in vain. Mathematicians do not even respect Galilei's compelling argument. Belief seems to be stronger than reason.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard

"I support your wise words; "A theory may work even if it is not yet entirely correct. The most intriguing, flawless and highly awarded mere theory does not convince me." and;

"Mathematicians do not even respect Galilei's compelling argument. Belief seems to be stronger than reason."

Much of current science is still based on legend and folklore. We talk proudly of the 'scientific method' but most then entirely ignore it at their convenience. Popper would scream at our ignorance of the dangers of just clinging to, rather than examinining, outdated paradigms.

Have you had a good look at Arjen Djikesmans carrier wave model. I believe it fits in with both my 'time genuine' equivalence solution (thanks for your support), and your travelling wave. There are also compatible standing 'dark matter' waves upstream of the earths bow shock which current science is still dumb enough to be shocked at!! The answers to all the problems we have in physics are before us and entirely demonstrable, but those who have them are under house arrest!

That's why I wonder if our limited mental capacity may even be bringing us to the end of our evolutionary road.

Keep plugging away. We may be our last hope!

Peter

I am not at the forefront of set theory. I have had many discourses with a mathematician on these issues, and have read on Turing-Godel theorems. My interest is with respect to information theory. This particular mathematician, who died rather recently, argued pretty clearly that the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is the most comprehensive and consistent system which exists. It is from this that one gets the Cantor transfinite numbers. It also turns out there is a zystem of infinite cardinals larger than the transfinite numbers, called least inaccessible cardinals. Then it turns out these are "too small" and there are a couple of layers beyond this. I am no expert on these matters, but I mention them for some edification.

These matter have at best tangential importance to physics, where possibly Godel's theorem enters into problems with information theory, which in turn involves infinite cardinalities.

Cheers LC

Dear Lawrence,

Does physics need ZFC, NGB, NF, or the like? In order to understand Hilbert's intention you might read Fraenkel 1923 where Fraenkel himself admitted that Cantor's definition of a set, which is by the way still in use, is untenable and cannot be corrected. In order realize that there are no genuine achievements, read Fraenkel's Foundations of Set Theory half a century later.

If something edifies you, it teaches you something useful or interesting. Is aleph_2 useful?

While I do not share Florin Moldoveanu's approach, I read with a grin:

"by Goedel's incompleteness theorem, mathematics is infinite and there is no universal axiomatization of mathematics." If I recall correctly, M. mentioned J. Rau (2007?) in the discussion. Such criticism was not the first one and will not be the last one. Poincaré called set theory a an illness. I guess: Mathematics as a whole is too narrow minded and too self confident as to find the way out. In other words: One has to abandon the belief that an Euclidean point can under all circumstances be exactly attributed to a numerical order.

Read my essay twice. Limitation to 10 pages caused me to select only a few arguments that should nonetheless be sufficient to show that Cantor's naive set theory , Dedekind's axiom of continuity, Zermelo's evidence of Wohlordnung based on the exhaustion of the inexhaustible, etc. were nothing but a failed attempt to deny that countable and uncountable complement each other.

I agree with you that transfinite numbers, least inaccessible cardinals and the like are at least unlikely to contribute anything to realism in physics.

Conversely, I tried to cautiously indicate that, for instance, v. Neumann's problems with Hilbert space relate to Cantor's arbitrary redefinition of the notion infinity. I am arguing: Mathematics has to offer what naturally fits to reality, including sound physics, not vice versa. In that cheeky attitude I feel inspired by Oliver Heaviside, Zenon, and Buridan.

Somehow forbid all paradoxes? I consider paradoxes the raw material of science. Let's rather forbid arbitrariness including set theory. Hopefully, this will purify physics too.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Peter,

I referred to Pauli's objection. An electron would have to have a velocity in excess of the velocity of light.

If the charge of an electron would be distributed in a way that its electrical field did correspond to sinc^2(r), then one could speculate again on rotation.

Such continuous electron would extent itself endlessly into space. Would it be possible that its far remote tail did move with superluminal tangential velocity?

I recall that someone did not deny something similar. He argued that this would not transfer anything.

In all, I admire the teachers of physics who have to learn forever and answer tricky questions of their pupils. Peter Dallos is a very renowned expert in physiology of hearing. He admitted, he examined his students every year with the same few questions. No problem, he confessed, the correct answers are always different.

What about Arden Dijksman, I did not deal with her model since guiding waves are not new ideas.

What about traveling waves, I fear you did not read my essay carefully enough. There are of course genuine traveling waves that can be observed and that exhibit reflection. However, the phenomenon along the basilar membrane looks merely similar. The elder model by v. Helmholtz comes closer.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

I gave the wrong impression, and do understand you are NOT supporting the conventional standing wave.

I'm considering EM rather than sound waves, and agree both are misunderstood, which is at the root of our misunderstanding.

Leateral waves are purely mathematical constructs, and that's how we've fooled ourselves. EM waves are variations of a real property propagated through the dark energy field. I suspect sound and EM waves have more in common than we've thought - as the concept of molecules bashing against each other needs replacing with some kind of particle oscillation transfer model in exactly the same way as EM waves - which must use non conserved particles.

In sound that's more clearly pressure/density related. I suspect the same may prove true of EM waves but it would be in the new and different 'dark' medium we're now investigating (but reputedly forming 75% of the mass/energy of the universe!).

DFM shows how this is acheived with a background field yet maintaining equivalence. Once we stop imagining it can be physically acheived by applying chalk to a blackboard we can progress again.

The Arjen (a guy, pronounced 'Arnie') Djikesman wave is a step towards reality from QM, a neat example, but it seems he's too proud of it to have moved on, or stepped back, to see the greater picture, where maths and SR need slightly greater repositioning to reflect reality. His most important point is in reminding everyone of scale variations, superposed waves of all scales, making a mockery of our simplistic conclusions from the double slit experiment.

Before we leave waves, of course oscillating particles in motion will describe lateral waves over time. That makes them history!

Dear Peter,

I never argued against standing waves. I am merely pointing to compelling evidence against the traveling wave model of cochlea, which was selected (not invented) by the Hungarian v. Békésy and mathematically modeled by the British mathematician of Alsacian origin Lighthill (originally Lichtenberg) in cooperation with Zwislocki and Ruggero. The legacy of these four is still so overwhelming that most experts prefer not to notice Ren's work. This reminds me of Adolf Fraenkel's attitude towards what he called an attack on Cantor's set theory by Brouwer. "If it did succeed it would cause a huge heap of rubble." The proponents of Cantor's untenable set theory are still dominating among mathematicians. After several mathematicians including Goedel and Cohen argued that such theory can neither be proven nor the opposite, it is nonetheless believed like a gospel. Mathematics seems neither to benefit from its putative basics nor to suffer much from it. However, I collected cases where I blame the currently mandatory mathematics for trouble in physics.

Let me in brief return to your ideas. Admittedly I do not understand you. You mentioned lateral waves. Perhaps they are identical with what I used to call transversal in contrast to longitudinal waves. I investigated standing as well as propagating acoustic waves within a cylindric tube as a model of the more difficult to measure electromagnetic waves within a HF wave guide (TEM waves). Sound waves in air propagate roughly a million times more slowly. The equations are simpler for sound waves but similar to those for em waves.

How do we fool ourselves? While I am humbly pointing to the possibility of avoiding the detour via complex calculus in case of analysis for a single measured sound signal, I do not deny the possibility to also arrive at the correct solution with complex calculus plus correct return to reality.

Hear my cry: Physicists like Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and Dirac obviously failed to correctly perform the latter. Should we wonder about apparent symmetries up to the difficulty to find evidence for SUSY? Admittedly, I am not an expert in modern physics. Someone else should scrutinize my objection.

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

Thanks. You should really see George Shoenfelders last post under my essay, (I also gather you owe him a reply on his).

I'm not an "expert on modern physics" either Eckard, and I've learned to mistrust any who claim they are! But, partly for the reasons George points out, I don't rate your chances of anyone scrutinising you objection. "The proof is in the pudding" as the saying goes. But, for once, I do have a lovely pudding for you, which proves proves your objection right.

Unfortunately I had to break a couple of eggs to make it, which will alienate the foolish, ...who won't taste the pudding. Fraenkels attitude lives on.

I'm not an expert in your own field so can't comment further, but; Yes, read 'transverse' for 'lateral' waves.

Waves such as those on the ocean, which I do know well, can only exist at the interface of varying media, or as historical representations of 2 dimensional phenomina in translatory motion, but only otherwise as mathematical constructs. We must consider waves as the regular variation of a property within a 3 dimensional medium. Read my reply to George, and let me know if you think I'm a crackpot!

I you think I'm sane ..I think we may need to work together to overcome the froces of evil!

Best wishes.

Peter

Dear George,

You quoted me:

"Sinusoidal and exponential functions are not subject to the restricted reduction to a basic singularity. Therefore they alone are unfit to describe real processes." and; "Differential equations are not the primary relations in physics but they arose by stripping off the link to reality and hence they opened the door for ambiguity."

and commented:

Absolutely brilliant.

This reasoning of mine was persistently ignored so far. I got the impression that at least many experts agree on that "the map is not the territory", and I would like to add why I consider models never identical with reality:

It is common practice to use initial conditions for calculation of what is future with respect to the chosen starting point. This works in theory. It necessarily fails in practice because there are obviously no closed systems there. In other words: Even if we have correct laws we neither have for sure all possible influences nor would we be able to consider all of them.

Regards,

Eckard

I decided to check in on these sites. When it comes to ZF set theory and physics, at this time it is not a major part of theory. The problem is that it does not say much about dynamics. At best ZF is behind the scenes in proofs of results that might be used in physical theories.

Cheers LC

To those physicists who simply trust in set theory:

Cantor's set theory is called naive and kas been replaced by ZF, standing for Zermelo and Fraenkel, ZFC including the axiom of choice which was added as to justify the assumed well-ordering of the reals, PM standing for principia mathematicae, NBG: Neumann, Bernays, Goedel, NF: new Foundations, or the like.

They all have in common the denial of the genuine (Peirce) continuum of "all" infinitely much of genuine (Euclidean) points. They all are unable to accept a symmetrical distinction between larger or smaller without a neutral point of equality in between.

The reason for me to deal with this peculiarity of a mathematics that restricts itself to discrete numbers was the question how to deal with zero between positive and negative real numbers. I came to the conclusion that there is nothing between past and future, and I learned here from Vesselin Petkov that already St. Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) understood this. When I asked mathematician how to deal with the zero between IR and IR- I got all imaginable arbitrarily chosen answers. My own reasoning led me to a natural but uncommon answer with several implications.

Does physics need such correctness? The mathematicians who followed Dedekind and G. Cantor were correct in so far as the distinction between rational numbers and genuinely real (i.e. irreal) numbers does not matter in practice. Digital computers are anyway exclusively based on rational numbers.

My demand for correctness in excess of all mathematical proofs might nonetheless be important for foundational questions in physics since some very basic mathematical tenets are based on mere arbitrariness. Isn't it arrogant to deny the necessity to restrict measurable values of time or distance to positive values just because positive and negative numbers together are considered more general?

I maintain my reproach: The majority of physicists including most prominent figures did not really always know why they introduced complex quantities and which obligation they ignored. Maybe, the LHC will prove me wrong soon.

Eckard

Eckard

I have a delectable peice of evidence for you, of where and how maths has departed logic in a really key area for physics. - see my posts.

Peter

PS. I don't believe the LHC will prove you wrong.

Dear Peter,

Does (1/gamma)^2 = 1 - (v/c)^2 depart your logic or your maths?

The only valid argument against Minkowski I am aware of is the following:

There are world-points which did send light to O.

However there are not yet world-points which receive light from O.

The German original text says: "Weltpunkte die Licht von O empfangen".

Given I prepare an experiment that intends sending light to a selected target, then it depends on possibly unseen influences whether or not the light will actually hit the target.

It were mathematicians like Dedekind and G. Cantor who made mathematics deviating from compelling arguments. For instance, Dedekind was quite aware that he could not provide the necessary evidence, and he hesitated for 14 years to publish his semi-correct booklet Stetigkeit and Irrationale Zahlen. Cantor got insane because he could not provide his already announced evidence for the well-ordering of the reals.

Several well known very ambitious scientist who contributed to modern theories got victims perhaps at least in part of their own behavior: Boltzmann, Cantor, Ritz, Minkowski, Goedel, Hausdorff, Turing, Grothendieck. While Einstein got divorced and had an insane son, he himself remained healthy perhaps because many of his results were and are still sound.

Regards,

Eckard