Two steps back, one leap forward by Steven Oostdijk

Greetings,

An interesting essay. Not too difficult to read, and it brings up some interesting points. I make a few similar suggestions in my contest essay. For starters, I state that "The equation is not the phenomenon we are using Math to model" as an extension of Korzybski's quoted statement "the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory."

It seems that there was some hesitation, given that your essay was the last to be posted, but I am glad we are able to read it. You will find the full range in this contest, from ideas and theories heavily founded on Math, to others which argue as you do that we are too Math bitten - and have forgotten how to think conceptually. Understanding is really what we need, in order to do real Science.

I am firmly in both camps, as I feel strongly that many physicists hide behind the Math - or use it as a crutch - being able to manipulate symbols well, without fully grasping the meaning, or remembering that the equations are a model of something tangible. On the other hand, I am a die hard constructivist (if it exists, it had to be constructed somehow) who believes that structures arising from pure Mathematics are used as a template by nature, to help create what we observe.

But I will agree that Math is not Physics, and that the two should not be confused.

Good Luck,

Jonathan J. Dickau

You say, "Assuming a lightray passing the sun travels to earth in about 500s and assigning the acceleration of gravity to an expansion of the Earth, we can then calculate the observed position of this lightray on earth:" You do know that light falls with twice the expected Newtonian acceleration, right? An expansion of the Earth would bollox GPS, water mains, and levitated dual sphere superconducting gravimeters gravimeters sensitive to parts-per-billion relative. arXiv:gr-qc/9909014; Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003); Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004); Nature 425 374-376 (2003); http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ Section 3.4.1, Figure 5. http://www.gwrinstruments.com/gravity/gravityindex.htm

You say, "Miles Mathis has mathematically deconstructed Planck's constant to prove that all photons (even charge photons) are real particles with size, spin and mass" You do know that photon-photon vacuum scattering, theory and observation, laughs at that, right? Phys. Rev. 46 1087 (1934) then Phys. Rev. Let. 79 1626 (1997). You say, "Specifically, it is shown that the photon has a radius G times the radius of the proton." If so, photons woudl vacuum scatter outside theory and observation. You are wrong.

You say, "time is only a perception of the human mind." If you don't like oscillators, try radioactive decay (but not electron capture decay). Uranium and thorium in mica and zircons are powerful counterarguments to your proposition. Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? Its walls are layered - 6000 vertical feet of rock layering. With fossils, too. Colorado oil shale started as lake varves, 1000 foot depth of 1/4" layers. None of that happened simultaneously or over a week.

Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model, Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009). DI Herculis' anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General Relativity, arxiv:0909.2861 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417 Deeply relativistic neutron star binary PSR J0737-3039A/B with a 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance, arxiv:astro-ph/0609417 Yer gonna need more than steel taps on your shoes to dance around those puppies.

Truths need not be believable, they merely self-consistently exist. Lies must be believable. Consequently, lies are usually much more believable than the truth. For all that, ignorance is not a form of knowing things.

Dear Steven

Excellent essay. I'd have a few issues with detail but discussing those would be churlish as your main thrust is so important, we really must take the mathematical blinkers off. Maths is an important tool but no more. Perhaps to test and work hand in hand exporing theory and models, but it can't generate them. I demonstrate this in my own essay, which goes a little further and links to a real model proving what you say is true. I'd be most grateful if you'd check it out and comment.

It's based on some of AE's philosophy, as yours is; "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." and

"as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... "

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

You say, "his does not happen if ALL matter expands at the same rate including photons." Physics is neither uniformly linear nor nonlinear. A zoom lens is no more valid than a mirror (Yang and Lee) . GRB 090423 at redshift z = 8.2. Given "matter expansion" making your local maunder fly, how big was the universe then compared to now? How does uniform expansion affect anything in your argument and differential expansion not be trivially detectable as wrong?

The hydrogen atom 21 cm line is measured and modeled accurate to 14 significant figures. High field multinuclear Fourier transform supercon NMR spectra are sub-parts-per-billion consistent with 1960s continuous wave vacuum tube electromagnet NMR spectra. SLAC, FermiLab, CERN, RHIC... work to exact spec as does GPS with its relativistic corrections (Shapiro delay). "Alternative" theories with no empirical basis are jokes. *All* of physics is *simultaneously* self-consistent.

Absent a reproducible falsifying observation (Galileo vs. Aristotle), an empirical falsification of a founding postulate (elliptic and hyperbolic geometries versus Euclid; then Thurston), or more inclusive and *testable* theory that defaults to its predecessor (Einstein vs. Newton), you offer nothing. Curve fitting interpolates arbitrarily well and extrapolates not at all. Long Term Capital Management was a theoretical sure thing fueled by Nobel Laureates. It went $4.6 billion negative in 1998 and imploded despite a notional value of ~$1.25 trillion. Sound familiar re 2008? Defective theory is intolerable.

Do better. Community = 3.2 vote is a wry amusement.

Hi dear Mr Steven Oostdijk,

Very pragmatic essay and where we see the balance necessary between math and sciences .Congratulations and good luck for the contest.

I liked a lot your words ,well said !

" Before we go deep into math I think we should first study the full implications of the theories of Relativity on the relativity of velocities and accelerations and the postulate that (real) photons are the information/property carriers of space and time."

Dear Uncle Al ,

Any sense in a whole point of vue ,you can say 90 per cent of corrects datas ,things or equations ,if your reasonning ,the 20 per cent which rest ,are like that without sense about the fundamentals . This kind of mind don't act in total universality but in closed circle where anybody for contradict your words .

That names the vanity .

You confound all about the theories ,you can't distinguish the real fundamentals with this pragmatism which aren't a pragmatism in fact in the whole .

This kind oof reflexion is intolerable in an universal point of vue where the complementarity is fudamental .

All goes to the sphere ,the spherisation with or without your appovement .And all others fundamernatls ideas or THEORIES where the imaginaries ,the naturals ,the primes and the reals are harmonized in function with our specific thermodynamic and its mass .

The theory and the fundamentals are all .

The essay of Mr Oostdijk is very interesting about the real sense of physics where even the math must be adapted .The actual problem with the theories like you say is the extrapolations ,purely mathematical in the imaginaries .

Don't confound ,somebody should look ...hihihihi

rational ,fundamenatl ,pragmatism ,basic,and theoretical ...

Sincerely

Steve

Dear Uncle Al,

From your tone I must understand that you are still reading more in the paper than was put into it. I'll try to answer your remarks but I'm no expert on every topic.

Your question: "How does uniform expansion affect anything in your argument and differential expansion not be trivially detectable as wrong?"

My answer: Size is relative too. Our measuring sticks of space and time are photons. If photons follow the same expansion the local results will read the same, we will see differences when we are comparing photons arriving from different distances as described by GR.

(cont'd).

You mention a whole list of accurate results. I do not see where the essay denies those. But for at least one I can help you out of a dream: GPS is not dependent on results of the theories of Relativity to function since GPS receivers do not depend on a local clock. GPS functions by syncing all satellites to one ground clock (we could only call this "Lorentzian relativity) and the receivers only compensate for first and second order Doppler effects.

You mention:

"Absent a reproducible falsifying observation (Galileo vs. Aristotle), an empirical falsification of a founding postulate (elliptic and hyperbolic geometries versus Euclid; then Thurston), or more inclusive and *testable* theory that defaults to its predecessor (Einstein vs. Newton), you offer nothing. Curve fitting interpolates arbitrarily well and extrapolates not at all. Long Term Capital Management was a theoretical sure thing fueled by Nobel Laureates. It went $4.6 billion negative in 1998 and imploded despite a notional value of ~$1.25 trillion. Sound familiar re 2008? Defective theory is intolerable."

That paragraph unfortunately does not convey any meaning to me.

You say "Do better. Community = 3.2 vote is a wry amusement"

Then I say: score 3.2 seems to be about average.

Thanks for your comments,

Steven

Dear Steven Oostdijk,

Meanwhile there are so many distracting essays that I did not got aware of you before, by chance, I read some discussion with Arjen Dijksman.

I would appreciate someone who collected at least the names of all those who contributed valuable arguments in favor of a physics that is not misled by questionable mathematics or at least questionable interpretations.

I do not refer to the perhaps many ones with merely a gut feeling that LHC will not confirm SUSY, and quantum computers will not work as promised.

Among those who seem to share this view might be Terry Padden, Uncle Al, you and me.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Steven,

I very much enjoyed the first few pages of your resume which express quite well some of the issues of current physics. A clear example of questionable theoretical development is the introduction of all kinds of (virtual) particles beyond already observed real massive particles and photons. This is very well demonstrated by the quoted article.

From my perspective, the pages were you present other people's work are less convincing since they have similar issues as current physics. Application of a formal approach, starting out with formulas and proceeding with manipulations thereof, is unlikely to match reality. In principle, there are an infinite number of possible formalizations. I agree that time plays a special role in physics and should not be viewed as a dimension. This is already clear when one considers that time progresses. That is, it has an asymmetric character. This phenomenon cannot be resolved by formal considerations. Most equations in physics are symmetric in time and assume that time has a continuous character. Based on those equations it will never be possible to demonstrate what the character of time is. Introduction of 3 extra time 'dimensions', as you indicate in your essay, seems to be based on formal considerations and is not based on currently observed observed reality.

I would like to point you to an alternative approach in which theory follows from a reality-based approach. This theory starts with the already observed four fundamental interactions. Moreover, it considers the fact that existence of any object (particle) is only possible as a perturbation in some medium when it is stabilized by some other means. From these considerations, a theory is developed that exhibits quantum and relativistic features and demonstrates how space and asymmetric time can be viewed. Furthermore, this theory indicates the existence of only massive particles and photons and does not produce virtual particles or any other exotic particles, although prediction of particle masses remains a topic of further research.

I have provided an overview of this theory in my essay which, admittedly, suffers from some shortcuts making it less transparent. The references provide the indepth rationalization but are, as far as I can tell, are hardly consulted. A slide deck on my website provides an alternative description.

Dear Ben,

Thanks for you comments. Unfortunately I have no time to go through your website in detail since I want to spend time on the contest first, but I could already answer some of the questions you put up there:

You question, what:

is time? - The spin motion of photons

is space? - The linear motion of photons

Planck's constant - Hiding the mass of photons

is mass - An expansion of all matter, including photons

is matter (electrons, protons ...) - spinning photons

is charge - bombardment with photons

is spin - photons spinning axially or 'head to tail' in three dimensions

gravity - the same as mass or inertia (expanding matter)

is electromagnetism - result of the photon bombardment field

are photons - the smallest known particles, the units of spacetime

is life - matter reproducing itself

is dark energy and dark matter - not taking into account the photon masses

are the causes of quantum paradoxes - there are none if you realize all particles are real

is the speed of light an upper limit for physical interactions - do we know for sure?

does the universe exist - to ask this question

does the universe seem to expand (does it really?)- everything expands, but size is relative

Steven Oostdijk

Dear Steven,

I have finally read your entry (and the works of the 4 people you cite). The first thing I need to ask is: what is your actual contribution to it, because it looks mostly a Miles Mathis type of paper?

The second question is about what degree you consider Miles Mathis's ideas right? Simply from a likelihood point of view, what are the chances that he is right and all the other bright guys over hundreds of years were wrong? Now there is no smoke without fire, and he is rooting his analysis on umbral calculus, certainly a valid mathematical approach, but on the physics explanation he is completely off the mark.

Florin

Dear Florin,

Thanks for your contribution. I think you have very well understood the core of the paper. It was indeed written with cooperation from Miles, but he is not interested in these types of contests. You can say the argumentation and storyline are mine while most physical content from Miles.

From your question I can see you have read some pages from Miles, but definitely not all 1200 of them. And since when is the thruth determined by majority voting as you suggest? Physics is not politics, but the determination of the simplest expressions of physical thruths. Does the fact that we probably spend about 100000 manyears on string theory in the meantime make it true? Did the fact that Albert Einstein was just one man with five major physics papers in this one year 1905 make them less true?

(cont'd, the editor does'nt allow me longer texts)

A discussion about right or wrong is a hard one since a lot of mainstream result interpretation is covered in great white clouds of math. How to determine if a 'virtual particle' is real? Mainstream claims that photons have no mass, but have momentum and a wavelength. Miles simply shows that photons are real particles with a mass and a spin, so that the claimed 'virtual' or 'messenger' photons are also real. I would say that by Occam's razor his interpretation would prevail hands down.

Miles shows that Relativity is indeed real but that GR can be done with simple algebra by really applying the equivalence principle. Again a hands down win. It might even be that using the simple algebra and the fact that the real photon field stabilizes planetary orbits it will become possible to calculate a multi body orbit :)

Could you reveal a little more detail where you think Miles' theories are off the mark?

Good luck with the contest,

Steven Oostdijk

Dear Steven,

Indeed I did not read all 1200 pages, but I read quite a few and I did not see even a single correct one yet. Let's pick two at random:

"The collapse of the wave function:" It not only cannot predict individual outcomes, it can't even predict probabilities, as I showed above. If the probabilities of the wave equations matched the probabilities of experiments, then you wouldn't need a collapse of the wave function, even as it is defined now." This is wrong on two counts: 1. the collapse of the wave function has nothing to do with the probabilities QM calculates. Here is the classical analogue. Consider a standard dice (die). The probability to roll each number is 1/6 and it all adds up to 1. I roll the die and say I get a 3. At that moment the probability to roll any other number collapses to 0 for 1,2,4,5,6 and 1 for 3. The QM wavefunction collapse is the same thing, but what is strange in nonrelativistic QM is not the collapse per se, but that it involves a non-unitary evolution while the standard evolution of the wavefunction is always unitary. This is strange because if everything is quantum mechanical then the system measuring device should also obey the QM rules and the combined evolution should be unitary but this is not what is observed experimentally. Classical mechanics has no such problems and we can understand its collapse within the Poison bracket formalism. The second mistake is that QM does compute the probabilities correctly and in total agreement with experiment. If that were not the case, Einstein would have had a much easier case to make against Bohr.

"Unifying the proton with the electron". After the experiments of the deep inelastic electron scattering against the proton, we now know that the proton is a composite particle made out of 3 quarks. Quarks were predicted earlier to explain conservation of various quantum numbers, but nobody accepted them until the scattering experiments. Therefore any unification of the proton with the electron is still born. And by the way, the mass of the proton was already obtained in numerical simulations and therefore the statement: "Once again, we have been told that the number 1820 is a fluke or a mystery, beyond physical comprehension, akin to the question of why horses have four legs instead of eight." is vacuous.

Coming back to your essay, I do like your example of how to compute the light bending, and I also enjoyed the picture in a picture in a picture. Good luck to you too.

Florin

'The future of physics is shown most clearly in the discovery by a contemporary author that it is not necessary to unify the gravity and E/M fields, since they are both already unified field equations..'

I completely agree as I've come to the same conclusion via an entirely different path. The following is part of a rely at my essay (Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe):

If a particle cannot distinguish by what force or field it is accelerated, if the field by accelerating it brings its inertia to expression as gravity, as a force between the source of the field and the particle, then we should apply the equivalence principle (if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck ... ) by saying that electromagnetism is but a way to manipulate gravity. As long as we insist it to be a wholly different kind of force, completely independent from gravity, it indeed will stay a force unifyable with gravity. So when I read about the quest for the unification of gravity with electromagnetics, about gravitons and Higgs particles and other nonsense like Big Bang and Inflation hypotheses, I wonder whether I should take the trouble to learn the lingo. To mee it seems that our toolbox (maths and models) has taken over physics, which, however invaluable, for different reasons is a sorry state of affairs. More about ducks you can find in my reply of 9 oct. to Arjen Dijksman above.

Dear Florin,

I applaud the effort you took to at least read Miles' website. Most mainstream trained people dismiss him as 'fringe' before reading. Let me see if I can formulate a quick answer for the two topics you mentioned to be incorrect:

1. The collapse of the wave function

Probability math gives us only probabilities and no physical answers. It is simply incomplete. But QM does not even give the right probabilities. What Miles argues is that the collapse of the wave function is a desperate attempt of QM to mask that their math is just not giving a real physical answer. We could describe classical mechanics with statistics, but Newton's theories actually give a straight answer.

2. Unifying the proton with the electron

We do not have any macroscopic proof of the existence of quark "particles". We just see three peaks showing up in experiments. Miles shows how the electron and proton are three levels of spin(x,y,z) apart (explaining what is now interpreted as quarks) and how the mass ratio between the electron and proton can be simply explained by these spin levels, directly yielding the ~1821 ratio.

If you already were convinced that GR can be done in a simpler way, why could that not hold for other theories as well?

Thanks for your questions,

Steven