Eckard

1. A tourist in New York who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from someone in the street would also buy the Eiffel Tower when in Paris or the Brandenburg Gate when in Berlin. Laughlin equates believers in Quantum Computing to such tourists. Buying London Bridge is a different category - and we don't want to get into Category Theory do we ?

2. I think your concerns about the Alephs are well founded, in a technical sense.

3. Arjen Dijksman (top rating essay) has his own theory of matter on his web page that is a bit more recent. He lives in Paris. Be careful if he wants to sell you anything. I did not buy his theory.

Steven

Thanks for your comments.

I am not happy with the way you quote me. Someone coming to this discussion who has not read my essay could easily get the impression that those quotes express my opinion. They do not. They are part of my argument against such views. Re your second paragraph:

1. When I used the phrase "complex numbers are the supreme reality" I was NOT expressing that as a truth. I was noting that it was a natural consequence of our existing science. A consequence that I deprecate and one that needs correcting - which is the point of my essay. You do the same with the phrase " a continuum is a sequence of points".

PLEASE if you are going to quote anyone make sure you get the context and the meaning correct.

2. I express a view that we need to be both reasonable and rational but that they are different and recently too much emphasis has been on the rational = mathematical side. Even so we cannot do without the mathematical; nor should we want to. Many difficult problems can only be solved by extremely sophisticated mathematics. Without it many stupid ideas gain credence. The internet is knee deep in them. Our best protection from them is our rationality, our mathematics and logic. I want to strengthen these.

You want to abandon them. You want to eliminate the rational or absorb it within the reasonable with the reasonable in control. That would be worse than the rational being in control. What is reasonable is relative. My reason is a long way from yours; but we all live in the same world.

Arjen

Thanks for your comments. They are very much appreciated. Your fair minded, open, and decent approach to this competition sets a standard all entrants should try to emulate. I confess to not having reached the standard you set.

RE Quoting Me. The competition is in a public arena, the internet, so anything goes as far as quoting etc. is concerned. I am much happier being quoted by you than others I can think of.

Terry,

"Physics deals with empirical reality. It must be reasonable. It has no option for that is its purpose" is tweeted.

I appreciate your positive words. Contests and forums like this one are great. They are unlike anything I've known before (usenet, physicsforums ... ). We need each other to advance, so the discussions are constructive.

When you write "I doubt that mathematics as developed since Pythagoras is truly error free?", do you have precise ideas where the errors are hiding? This problem has also occupied my mind (not as much as QM), especially concerning the relation of surfaces and roots.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Mr. Padden,

I've now read your essay twice, and I applaud your call for a physics which is both rational and reasonable. When things (whether physics or other things) become irrational and/or unreasonable it's then clearly time, in my opinion, to stop and re-think them from the ground up.

In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Lee Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (p. 256) I'm convinced that Smolin is exactly correct in this assessment, and I've written an essay on the nature of time which I believe you'll find is both rational and reasonable and which ties in with the Smolin's comment. If you can find or make time to read it, the essay may be found here. Your comments on it are of course invited. (I also have an essay in this competition, but the essay at the link just given offers a broader look at the topic, especially as it applies to Smolin's comment.)

Cheers

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Please accept my apologies for the horrible appearance of the website for which I provided the link in my previous post. Google, in its infinite wisdom, has "migrated" my essay from Google Pages (where it had a reasonably pleasant appearance) to its new home at Google Sites, where it has taken on the look of a ransom note cut and pasted from a newspaper. I'm even now trying to learn how to improve this new, far less than ideal situation. Thanks in advance for your forbearance in dealing with the current strange look. The words, though perhaps unsightly in their superficial appearance on the page, remain as written.

Deart Terry Padden,

Thanks for a wonderful and most enjoyable essay. If I may, I'd like to address it in terms of What, Why, How, etc. and then look at your ten points.

WHAT?:

The problem you so beautifully and competently describe is exacerbated by two facts:

1) The last major particle physics occurred about 1975.

2) The law of 'Publish or Perish' was not repealed about 1975 (or since).

Several essays quote Korzybski's "the map is not the territory". But when physicists run out of new territory to map, they simply switch to making more *ornate* maps of the old territory. After a while this becomes pathological, and the Platonists even begin to claim that the most ornate maps actually create territory. Others simply imagine new territory, and, as I have pointed out, then publish papers on "postulated, but never seen, phenomena" used to explain other "postulated but never seen phenomena".

And institutional control of the mountain is based on "throw rocks down on new climbers", which is very effective at keeping new thinking from getting inside the gates.

You ask, "Is mathematical physics meaningful?" When it serves only to provide more ornate maps, NO! But for much of the last century it served to identify the inhabitants of the particle zoo, beginning in 1900 with the alpha, beta, and gamma rays. This was done by smashing particles from minus infinity and looking at them at plus infinity. Unfortunately, that meant that particles looked like "points". It worked, but the best scheme for doing this was symmetry groups, allowing matric transformations, and quantum field methodologies.

WHY?

But if we know all the particles (I predict no new particles at LHC - no Higgs, no axion, no SUSY, no right handed neutrinos, nothing but resonances, if that) then the tools of discovery are of limited utility, and are not suited to analyzing the non-point particles and their interactions, but as another essayist points out, we always fight the last war, and point particles and symmetry groups "bin berry berry gud to me".

Nevertheless, FQXI has opened the gates a crack, realizing that, even if some crackpots sneak in, the net result will be fresh thinking. God bless 'em.

Mathematical physics isn't really at fault. With no new territory it's inevitable that physicists opt for more ornate maps. The problem is that current concepts of physics are wrong, and this leaves many gaps and mysteries which are filled with "postulated but never seen phenomena".

How do we know that the physics is wrong? As one of your commenters noted, using a "sheet over an irregular shape", the curve fitting procedures "work" over specific regions, but nothing works over the complete domain. When half a dozen or so nuclear models or lattice-QCD models, drastically different from each other, all provide the same level of accuracy, we have a problem! If one model was correct, it should be head and shoulders above the rest.

WHEN?:

When did things go wrong? I've made the case that it was in 1929, when Rutherford's proposal of a 'magnetic-like' nuclear force was too early for data and so Yukawa's 'electric-like' force, with muon mistaken for pion, was 'locked in' for the next 80 years. Of course, lattice-QCD has evolved to 'magnetic-like' flux tubes, but only from an 'electric' base, which is still the core of QCD. In 2007 Wilczek admitted that Yukawa doesn't work at hard-core distances.

But the tools, by 1950, demanded 'fields' (see Goldstein "Classical Mechanics"). The tools were designed to handle "invented" fields, so physicists invented fields. As time went on every new problem was met with an invented field: Higgs, axions, particles, ghosts, inflatons, dark energy, quintessence -- field after field, pulled out of thin air. Why? Because that's what the QFT tools demanded! And it's what current generations of physicists know how to do!

It's reached the point of absurdity. Physicists don't even know which fields are real! None of the fields have actually been seen--they are just abstractions, but as David Mermin recently pointed out, physicists are in the habit of mistaking their abstractions for reality.

HOW?

So how do we solve this problem? It sounds silly to say that the way out is a new field, but that's what I'm saying. In 2006 I reached the conclusion that one more physical field was needed and began working out the consequences. A year later I found out that Martin Tajmar was actually measuring the field and obtaining numbers that matched mine. Tajmar doesn't even know of my interpretation of the field, but his results do reinforce my theory and, unlike the other fields discussed above, this field has been seen (ie, measured)!

Moreover, as I worked through the consequences of this new field, I found that it explained many phenomena that the other fields could not, so I began to "delete" the other postulated fields because they were no longer needed to explain anything.

WHOA!:

Now here's the kicker. After years of working on the problem, I finally convinced myself that consciousness was best understood as a field. Not a mathematical field but a real physical field, like gravity. My essay outlines the approach and references detailed explanations.

Was I crazy? Roger Penrose and others have insisted that physics must eventually address consciousness, but even philosophers are advised to "get tenure first", and in the grant-driven academy, even this may not be enough to justify expressing an opinion about the physical relevance of consciousness. Yet, a dozen or so essays (most from non-institutional authors) actually address consciousness, awareness, or free will.

So Terry, when I re-read your essay, not only did I agree with almost all of your points, but you specifically find that:

1) fields are reasonable

2) the absence of Mind from physics is irrational and unreasonable.

If you're serious about that, and I assume that you are, I invite you to study my essay and associated comments.

HERE:

You asked for and I promised commentary on your 10 points, so here goes:

1) Relations between bodies are mediated through extended fields. Velocity is a local property of a global field, not of a particle. YES, and the C-field explains conservation of momentum, otherwise mysterious and an axiom only.

2) Fields are reasonable. They exist. Magnets prove that. YES

3) The absence of Mind from physics is irrational and unreasonable YES!

4) Dark matter and energy --are two more fields obviated by the C-field.

5) Emergent phenomena -- Reductionists are dead wrong!

6) Hermeneutics of QM -- C-field offers a new interpretation of QM.

7) Interaction -- the consciousness field interacts with mass (and vice versa)

8) Platonist math -- NO! (see "Automatic Theory of Physics" and comments here)

9) Math effective -- YES science must be rational, hence mathematics.

10) Space and time -- YES with the essential nature of time -- the NOW!

You state that the problem is in the mathematics. Not so. The problem is in the physical abstractions that have arisen. There is no amount of mathematics that can remedy incorrect physical concepts. Conversely, if the concepts are correct, then relatively simple (classical fields) math is sufficient.

WHO?

Who is the arbiter? You clearly state that "Experience is physically real. It actually happens to our bodies. We experience 3 dimensions and 'Now'---"

This is exactly where I begin my essay, with the insistence that physics must be based on our own experience, not someone else's irrational, unreasonable abstraction, of which there are many to choose from today.

Terry, please study my essay. You'll find it rational and reasonable. And then you might like to peruse the essays and comments on:

Stefan Weckbach

Jonathan J. Dickau

James Arthur Putnam

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Arjen

1. Re tweeting of quotes. I think what you have quoted will be completely misunderstood in relation to my essay. Perhaps you misunderstood it ? The key point of my essay was to articulate the distinction between the Reasonable & the Rational. As the essay points out, normally the difference is unrecognised and the two terms are used as synonyms. As Ian Durham's essay points out, clear articulation is one of the foundations of effective science. Anyone reading that tweet who has not read my essay will read it on the usual undifferentiated basis and probably think "ho hum, so what, of course !" It is only the conflict between Reasonable and Rational that gives my essay, or the tweet, any meaning. Tweeting Reasonable without tweeting Rational in opposition can't work. That is completely missing from the tweet - but it does not matter. Life goes on.

2. I think you have misunderstood my reference to Pythagoras in the essay. I advocate applying an archaeological analysis to all of science and its foundations. Pythagoras takes us back to 500 BC and the Greek philosophers and the beginnings of western science. It provides a scale for the task. The other scaling parameter is that we need a formalism that can encompass Emergence and eventually Consciousness - which implies the ability to deal with the unconscious !. To address foundations one needs to go beyond maths to logic, philosophy, and - my starting point - language. The distinction between Reasonable and Rational was very consciously chosen as a Title for the essay. I have found what for me are significant weaknesses throughout science. In maths many are (logically) pre-Pythagoras; e.g. i believe the Laws of basic Arithmetic are deficient, and distrust the Real line (I doubt Real numbers, and am uneasy about Rational ones). That, as i mention in the essay, gives me problems with the limits approach to Calculus etc.

I am trying to step back and come up with an approach that may enable a better framework that encompasses the whole of science - which is what we need - including cognitive science. It will keep me busy for some time. I now have a "monster' post to respond to. At least it discusses my 10 basic points which is what I wanted from the competition.

J.C. N.

Thanks for your comments

I am trying to read all essays here and respond to all posts, so I won't have time to read any other stuff for some time, but I'll try to get round to yours. I always ignore ransom notes so there should be no problem.

Edwin

Thanks for your comments - and such a detailed comment. I can only provide a summary response to your points.

1. I think the 4 colour Map theorem raises fundamental issues.

2. In relation to strategic control of mountain fortresses I must refer you to General Wolf whose victory at Quebec created the modern world by winning North America for the British. When told his proposal to attack by climbing the cliffs at the rear would never work because the climb was "impossible" , he replied " and that is why we are going to attack that way !"

3. Mermin is always worth reading. Could you give me a reference to that quote.

4. The last thing i need is another interpretation of QM - unless it is the last one.

5. The only way "abstractions' can be expressed is through the formalism (Maths & Logic & Philosophy etc.) so we may be talking about the same thing, approximately.

6. I'll have another read of your essay when I get time.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Terry, you wrote:

"Perhaps even physicists will become Naive Realists. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps not ! "

Perhaps, though I think not. As Jacob Bronowski said, "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." If it weren't hidden, it wouldn't be interesting. Metaphysical realism is the better bet.

Though I disagree with the premise, your essay was fun to read.

Tom

Terry,

1. A quote is a quote, a sentence often with a broad application. When I select quotes, I have different criteria such as "Does it have a general truth", "Will it be appreciated by my twitter public", "Does it fit in the limited 140 chars", etc. For the interested reader, I always provide the context through a link. Fyi, the link was accessed at least 50 times (see shortened link with a '-' attached), from readers that were not satisfied with a "So what?". Why don't you tweet your answer? It'll be a pleasure for me to retweet it.

2. You know, I need examples. Writing that we need an archaeological analysis to all of science is nicely said (and surely correct), but with what problem can I begin today? I also have a problem with the limits approach of calculus. It is a very imprecise approach, especially when you go from curved lines to straight lines and back again. But as you said "Another day, another argument".

Regards,

Arjen

Dear Terry Padden,

Not sure how to respond to the 4 color map comment. Can you be more specific.

Sometimes attacking the "impossible" way pays off big. Usually not.

Quote is from Mermin's "Reference Frame" column in May 2009 issue of "Physics Today". I think you'll enjoy that column.

Of course I hope it's the last QM interpretation. Comments on Weckbach and Dickau and my essay pages expand on this.

The "abstractions" issue is also discussed in other comments.

I appreciate your re-reading the essay. As stated in my lengthy comments, your key points:

1) fields are reasonable

2) the absence of Mind from physics is irrational and unreasonable.

are addressed by my essay and associated comments. I look forward to any comments you might make, here or on my page.

Thanks again for an excellent essay,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Arjen

1. I know nothing about tweets and their 140 character limits - I found it very difficult fitting within a 27,500 character limit; and I know nothing about blogs. I am too old, therefore too short of time, to learn. I hate wasting time learning new technologies - especially software as it means adjusting to the way someone else (the programmer) thinks about things. I don't find that easy.

Relax about the quotes and tweets. I am happy for you to just do what you enjoy doing. Don't think twice about my comments. I am just a bit obsessive about linguistics, e.g. Reason v Rationality..

2. I started trying to understand things many years ago. Life has brought many delays and frustrations which have been beneficial as, over time, I believe I am achieving greater clarity and a more encompassing vision. I am now trying to get my thoughts into an effective order. One day (the proverbial "soon") I hope to have them in publishable, i.e. serial, form. I expect that document to have lots and lots of examples from all of science. May be others will find useful starting points (things they don't like or don't understand) in that. If they don't it won't matter. It will be just my own old fashioned blog.