• [deleted]

Dear Eckard,

I wish I knew German as well as you know English. If I did, I would gladly try to write in your language. By using the word "vice," I intended the meaning "defect," and by using the word "virtue," I intended the meaning "value." The algebra of the reals has both traits.

You are right in regards to the Lagrangian, but let's keep things as simple as possible. To my mind, you have put your finger on the major problem with the foundation of math and physics. Euclid's definition of point must hold, in my opinion. However, what he understood in terms of ratios of measures also must hold. Ratios work in three ways, which we can call positive, negative and neither.

On this basis, if a ratio is neither positive nor negative, it must be a unit ratio, n/n, n = 0 --> infinity in R. Hence, -n/n or n/-n or -n/-n are illegal ratios. No such ratios can exist. However, because, as Grassmann, Clifford and Hestenes understood, there are two interpretations of numbers possible, R- is a reality as well.

The first interpretation of number is R. The quantity of things, the answer to the question "How much, or how many?" On the other hand, there is another interpretation of R, which results from a relation between two quantities in R, such as the ratio of n and m. Let's say both n and m

Dear Constantinos,

If I compare your essay with the essay "Quantum Theory without Quantization" by Ken Wharton, I clearly prefer yours although Ken's already was rewarded with a FQXi membership proposal. The main reason for me to reject Ken is his readiness to accept the fatalistic idea of an a priori given block universe. Admittedly, I agree with his BIQ while I do not see that you even understood how fundamental and hard to decide the question "discrete or continuous" is.

Best regards,

Eckard

Dear Doug,

I highly appreciate your readiness for unbiased dealing with my admittedly rather uncommon arguments.

You wrote:

"Ratios work in three ways, which we can call positive, negative and neither.

On this basis, if a ratio is neither positive nor negative, it must be a unit ratio, n/n, n = 0 --> infinity in R. Hence, -n/n or n/-n or -n/-n are illegal ratios. No such ratios can exist. However, because, as Grassmann, Clifford and Hestenes understood, there are two interpretations of numbers possible, R- is a reality as well.

The first interpretation of number is R. The quantity of things, the answer to the question "How much, or how many?" On the other hand, there is another interpretation of R, which results from a relation between two quantities in R, such as the ratio of n and m. Let's say both n and m"

Well, in case of a ratio trichotmy holds. However what about irrational numbers?

I learned from Fraenkel's 1923 book there are not three but four logical possibilities. Fraenkel himself was not unbiased. Following G. Cantor's insane intention, he did not accept the fourth possibility.

I am arguing: Real numbers must be understood homogeneous, i.e. without distinction between rational and irrational ones. Only then they are truly essentially different from the rational ones. This requires to admit that numbers of infinite precision within a continuum of such truly "real" numbers cannot be subject to trichotomy. In other words: I consider Dedekind's extension from rational to real numbers reasonable on condition we do not try to enforce trichotomy for the real numbers too. This paradise is elusive.

Best regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

I have some further comments to make on this subject, but I will forebear in order to point you to the John Baez article that I referred to earlier. I finally found it, but I don't know if "clarifies" is the word that I should have chosen. Maybe the word "discusses" would have been a better choice.

At any rate, take a look at it and see if it is helpful at all.

It is here.

Doug

  • [deleted]

Hello Eckard,

The question "discrete or continuous" has as many meanings as minds to ponder on these. Your favorite math villains, Cantor, Dedekind and others, had their own understanding of these. As also modern physicists do, and in as many varied ways. I like the view that 'discrete' means 'countable' while 'continuous' means 'measureable' (I think John Merriman may have expressed this in such simple terms). And Reality is both. I view the ocean as continuous while the bucketfuls of water we draw from the ocean as discrete. I also state that energy propagates continuously while interacts discretely. And in my essay I show how all this is perfectly self consistent. No duality dilemmas here!

Eckard, I know that you like to look for structural cracks in the joints of the conceptual beams of a theory. You bring an engineer's mind to the problems with modern physics. Your vast technical knowledge makes you especially effective in raising such issues. I admire that thoughtfulness. But that thoughtfulness is not me. My approach is different. But we both join in calling for a return to 'physical realism'. To me, much of modern physics involves more 'Ptolemaic epicycles' seeking to describe the dizzying orbits of ideas removed from physical experience. But do we need to know how epicycles work in order to understand ellipses?

Sometimes, dear Eckard, we need to step back and ignore the details in order to see the 'big picture'. Do we have a better understanding of the architecture of a cathedral were we to know how each brick is positioned in the structure? I have been accussed of having a 'simple and naive' view of physics. Considering where the 'complex theories' of modern physics have taken us, I take this accussation as a complement! In my essay I give a simple thunbnail sketch of 'a world without quanta'. Were this view help bring us closer to 'physical realism', I would be deeply greatified.

Best,

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

Dear Conatantinos,

In science, unambiguous and understandable languages tend to indicate trustworthy work.

Already "!!!! is suspicious.

I did not find in my dictionary the word physis. Don't 'prime physis' and 'undefined and undefinable' sound mystical?

You uttered:"I know how you feel about all the mathematical abstractions". How can you know my feelings?

You are repeatedly claiming:"... a 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought for more than 100 years." Sought by whom an how? Why didn't you give belonging references?

I presume that the seeming discrepancy between L=T-V and H=T+V is due to different coordinate systems. Has Hayrani Oz more to say on this?

I have to justify myself for using the word touchstone nearly synonymous to criterion of correctness. And I am a bit shocked by the unexpected result that Lorentz metric might possibly be ill-founded.

How do you justify your metaphor Rosetta stone with respect to the many notorious paradoxes of quantum physics?

Regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

Dear Eckard

Sorry for my late reply. I was not aware of this post.

Please do not get me wrong. I did not mean that Euclid's definition is a prejudice or yours. I just wanted to say that it is prejudice to think that a line is made up of points. That is all. Since a point is adimensional (with zero length), something finite (like a line) can only be constituted of things of finite lengths, therefore lines are not constituted of points. However one can find infinite many points in a line (and one can associate a real number to each point). This appears to me a dychotomy difficult to swallow. I agree with you that there is no other reasonable alternative to Euclid's definition.I will analyze Peirce's proposal.

You: Aren't they just a fabrication that is based on Cantor's questionable naivety?

Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite. The surreal numbers allow us in principle to deal with operations like infinite-1, sqrt{infinite}, etc. But to my knowledge, no one knows the physical meaning of that.

You: What about division by zero, engineers like me do not shy back from equating anything/zero with infinity and anything/infinity with zero. I do not see progress in these questions since Bernoulli.

Zero represents nothingness. The operation of division is a question. A question that ask for a number "a" such that "a" times "b"= "c". If c is different from zero and b=0 the question makes no sense, it cannot be asked. Why? because b=nothingness, and being b nothingness, nothing can be say about it.The same occurs if b=0 and c=0 but Weierstrass call this, an indeterminate form. Why? because the number "a" could take on any value. But if the nothingness does not exist these operations become fictitious.

What do you think?

Israel

Eckard

Sorry, I'd referred to the Discrete Field Model (DFM) previously and in my essay, I too easily forget it does need repeating. The question mark what missing by convoluted English convention due to its rhetorical nature, as it wasn't a quote or a 'fresh' question but an explanation of the question I had asked.

I must also remember metaphors can be lost in translation, and respect and thank you for your view on what I also recognise as apparent over assertiveness. I've been previously criticised for 'understatement', and wished to be more 'direct' but seem have over compensated.

Lorentz Transformation (LT) Sorry, It seems I wasn't 'direct' enough there! In the DFM the LT as currently applied is shown as completely redundant. I think it was Robert S's essay (I must write down the spelling of his name! - see my thread) that demonstrates the real 'motion' transformation mathematically.

However, there is a clear place for the LT exponential curve in the power input requirement for acceleration i.e. in the LHC, where infinite power is needed at over 99.9999etc % 'c'.

(would I be wasting my time with a metaphor about 'sideways promotion' in business?)

But what I'd really like you to do Eckard is to understand 'why'. Not just mathematically but in real local reality terms.

Light changes speed when it goes through a zone with a refractive index 'n', (i.e. glass or a plasma) which, if the 'zone' is a boundary zone surrounding an inertial frame, (i.e. co-moving), maintains 'c' for an observer within the new frame.

To any 'stationary' or moving observers outside that frame it will move at c/n plus the relative v. i.e. c v. But that doesn't matter as nothing really breaches 'c', not even the 2nd order signal telling all the other observers of its APPARRENT speed from their frame. Georgina shows that beautifully.

So few have seen the beautifully simple consequences of that I'm quite distraught. I hope you'll try again as it does prove the LT redundant.

A While ago I promised you a simple video. I did post it but you may have missed it; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm

Please do practice picturing a light pulses entering a moving glass (n = 1.55) box in your mind, then again from the different inertial frames one by one. I have found that in that glass box lie the solutions to ...most things.

best wishes

Peter

Eckard

Sorry it wasn't the essay of Robert (Spoljaric) though equally excellent, I was referring to in the above (25th) post, it was Rafael Castel. See; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/835

Two typo's crept in, in the 2ns line read 'was' for 'what', and there should be a 'to' somewhere further down.

Do let me know how you get on. Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    Dear Eckard,

    I do enjoy your 'voice' and style of your comments. It's at the same time refreshing and challenging. I can only hope to be as good in my answers as you are in your questions.

    You will not find 'physis' in your German-English dictionary since this is a Greek word. Physics derives from it! Simply, 'prime physis' referes to 'first nature'. I find appropriate to use this term to describe the quantity eta in my essay . As 'first nature' it is undefined and undefinable. Other physical quantities like energy and momentum can be defined in terms of it. In my essay , 'prime physis eta' is the only quantity that connects mathematical results to physical nature.

    You write, "How can you know my feelings? ". O.K. I don't know your "feelings". This was a statement of 'empathy' (agreement?) with previous statements you've made.

    The 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought by physicists at the time (and some decades later) when Planck derived his formula using 'energy quanta'. This marks the beginnings of Quantum Physics. If you like, just disregard that statement all together. It does not change the substance and validity of my results.

    As to the Rosetta Stone metaphore, all I meant by it is that the formulation of Planck's Law in my essay leads to many other connections to known Physics. For example, Planck's Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation can be shown to be mathematically equivalent.

    You write, "... I am a bit shocked by the unexpected..." . We are all shocked by the unexpected! It's in the nature of the unexpected. But the shock is neither confirming nor denying what may shock us. Just like there are problems with 'point masses', we should suspect also 'events' happening instantly at t=s. As I show in my essay , Thermodynamics requires 'more time' than 'no time'.

    I'll let Hayrani Oz speak for himself! But he is too busy right now to engage in this forum. I can only direct you to a pdf file of his response to Ken Wharton. You can find this attached under my post under Ken's essay.

    Constantinos

    Dear Basudeba,

    Anonymous was Israel Perez. Because he did not mention Aristotle, I guess "Dear Sir" addresses me. While I dealt with your essay and do largely agree with most of it, I would appreciate the possibility answering any questions you might have here.

    Dear Israel,

    You wrote: "one can find infinite many points in a line". I would like to add: Even the tiniest piece of the line can even be thought to contain uncountably much of points. I blame virtually all mathematicians up to know for following Dedekind and G. Cantor and concluding that there must be more real numbers than rational ones because the rationals are a subset of the former. Following Galileo Galilei I consider this conclusion not justified: R and Q are two different qualities that must not be quantitatively compared with each other.

    The ill Kronecker was no longer able to maintain his resistance against Cantor's naive ambitions and his mental attacks because he himself also intended reaching the impossible: Arithmetization of irrational numbers. All other mathematicians likewise desired to have a rigorous justification for treating the irrationals as if they were rationals.

    You wrote: "Well Cantor just showed by induction that there are infinites sets "bigger" than others, but he did say anything about the idea of the infinite."

    In my Appendix B I disagree with you and also with the mainstream of mathematicians. We need not dealing with the logical splits in Cantor's many utterances concerning what he called merely potential infinity, infinitum creatum sive transfinitum, and infinitum absolutum if we accept with Archimedes and Spinoza infinity as the property that cannot be reached by counting and not exhausted: Addition or subtraction of any quantity to infinity yields infinity.

    SQRT(oo) = oo, etc.

    Since Bernoulli/l'Hospital one knows how to cope with indeterminate expressions like oo/oo, O/O, oo-oo, 1^oo, etc.

    Regards,

    Eckard

    Dear Constantinos,

    Sorry for my typo. I learned to ask myself: Is there possible a dispensable word in a paper I intend to publish. The word physis needs an explanation while primordial is common. A single link to your essay might be helpful. I asked for at least one reference that confirms your statement "The 'classical' derivation of Planck's Law has been sought by physicists ...". Maybe you are right?

    Let's compare your idea of threshold with my and perhaps also Schroedinger's picture of more than just a single mode. I am not familiar with the details. I just vaguely recall that Schroedinger managed to calculate the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom non-relativistically. What can you add?

    Regards,

    Eckard

    Dear Peter,

    I looked into a post of you in 835 and wondered about "We already know plasma is 99% of the Universe." Even if you gave a reference, I would be not ready to just believe that this is a proven fact. To me the notion universe is a logical inclusion of anything what might exist no matter whether or not we are in position to get information from it.

    Take this as a cry for help from me. I feel not able to follow all of your exciting insights without doubts.

    Regards,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    Dear Eckard,

    One think you should know about me. I don't make comparison references. Just like I don't pass judgements on others. I am not a scholar. But I am a free and independent thinker.

    You write,

    "...Schroedinger managed to calculate the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom non-relativistically. What can you add?"

    Not much on that at this time. There are many things I don't know. Most everything! But do I need to know the 'whole truth' to know the truth I know? I am always ready to argue and defend my ideas. I am constantly surprised with the unexpected 'gold nuggets' I find in this 'gold mind' I call the Rosetta Stone. Those with better skills and better tools will find even bigger ones. But they'll need to follow the Light into the Mind.

    Constantinos

    Dear Constantinos,

    I would like to once again confirm my support for your attitude. Hopefully you will benefit from this support and from my criticism.

    All the best,

    Eckard

    Dear Peter,

    When I visited a nice castle I was told it was often visited and much liked by the German emperor Wilhelm II whom I blame for even applauding WW2. I am asking: Why was he, why was even the mainstream mainly in Germans so naive and cruel?

    Well, there was resistance against arrogance. Alfred Nobel decided against Leffler-Mittag: Let be no price for mathematics. Planck's protégé did not get a Nobel price for what might be seen plagiarized. I know, there are generations of so called cranks who failed to disprove what is misleadingly called relativity.

    My own suspicion arose from dealing with foundational questions in mathematics. I alluded to it in my Appendix C. Let us try and clarify synchronization:

    Abel and Bebel are sitting in trains moving away from each other with known velocity v. Communicating with each other by em waves that propagate with c, they intend to synchronize their clocks. Did you consider suited procedures, and if so, at which result did you arrive?

    Curious,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    Dear Eckard

    The plasma science basis is quite well covered in the references here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

    It seems kind of accepted in the relevant specialist journals that ion plasma as the 3rd state of matter, makes up most of the 'matter' in the universe! Only when it gets joined up does it become gas or 'ponderable mass' as Einstein called it. If we look at our own ionosphere/plasmasphere, or the halo's of galaxies (see the refs) stretching out hundreds of Kiloparsecs at densities up to those refered we can see how it may have some influence!

    Abel and Babel can do this but need calculators, the relative 'v', and the distances involved at the moment of synchronisation (including how far each is from the relevant end of his train). To be accurate they'd also need air temperatures, windspeed, 'n' of the windscreen glass, humidity, gravity etc, but the air each end of the train is turbulent anyway so we'll stop at the 2nd order approximation. [Godel rules!] We'll also assume both trains are receding/moving apart (moving wrt the tracks/air).

    Strictly the em waves will propagate at c/n of air, approx n = 1.0003. They will however change speed a number of times, including twice at each glass screen where (as we well know!) they do the c/n of glass, say n = 1.55, on entry, and then speed up again entering the outside air, but of course speed up MORE than they slowed down (as the air in the train was moving with the train).

    We don't really need to know the speed of each train as we can just use the reciprocal v and average the two out, (unless we're only relying on one person to speak at the co-ordination moment, - but they must remember the arrival times may be different and must be averaged).

    The signals move through the air at c/n of the air (Doppler shifted subject to 'n', and train & wind speed) then go through the glass slow down/speed up process again, (obviously with blue shift inside the glass) then speeds up (and red shifts back again - but this time not as much) to go through the air in the train at c/n wrt the train. There will be a residual red shift to each directly proportional to the relative v.

    They can do their sums either in advance or afterwards, then synchonise the clocks.(as Georgina's principles) They may need to pre set two points so each can do it individually. It is still possible if they don't have the speed/distance data, but they'd each need a spectrometer to record and analyse the travel history of each signal via absorption bands etc. (EM waves are compelled by the laws of physics to keep a log of their travels, so when humans reach a certain intelligence level their history can be fully analysed).

    Of course if one of them decides to walk to the toilet at the wrong time....!

    You'll see from the references to the paper that if we replace the glass screens with dense plasma the effect is the same, and if we move it laterally the time signal ('Time averaged Poynting Vector') is deflected, or curved through space (space-time).

    Sorry if that got a bit complicated, but physics may actually really be more simple than folk.. once we can handle the moving variables in our minds. There were only 3 inertial frames (fields) and 2 observers involved. The 'transformation' between them is simply refraction, and c or c/n always rules.

    That was straight 'off the cuff' so please do query any confusing bits, or throw me any others.

    Peter

      • [deleted]

      Dear Eckard,

      Thanks for confirming! I do value your support of my attitude. Do you equally confirm my many mathematical derivations in my essay resulting from this attitude? If not, which one specifically you have questions about? My Planck's Law derivation? The equivalence of Boltzmann's entropy equation to Planck's Law? The mathematically argued connection between entropy and time? My interpretation of The Second Law to say that 'all physical processes (events) need a positive duration of time to occur'? My existence argument of Planck's constant and what it really means? Or something else of the many results in my essay too numerous to list in this post?

      I take all your advice seriously and reflect on it. Reflect on the results I have in earnest put forth. All are mathematically argued. Some may surprise you.

      All the best,

      Constantinos

      Dear Constantinos,

      Perhaps I understand your unhappiness. I am sorry, I feel not in position to judge your mathematical work. Even if I did endorse it, we both together would certainly not manage to convince editors of refereed journals that it is not just correct but even a Physis and a Rosetta stone.

      I admit a suspicion of mine: You certainly know that Einstein was influenced by Boltzmann when he agreed with Ritz to not agree. Ritz meant: Future cannot influence past. Even the late Einstein denied the separation between "past, present and future". I consider Ritz correct in this case, and I am arguing that the idea of a spacetime that includes the past and likewise the future is anticipatory and reflects a fatalistic attitude.

      If I recall correctly, Georgina Parry shared Einstein's presentist view while she nonetheless denies the reality of spacetime. I did not yet take the time to thoroughly analyze her essay and the belonging discussion.

      Anyway, I suspect that there might be hidden mistakes around the use of probabilities and distributions. Did you read the essay by Joel H. Meyer, a Medical Doctor? In a previous contest I mentioned an obviously unrealistic result by Gompf et al. as a reason for me to distrust single electron counting.

      Let's ahow that we are not yet too old as to find out mistakes.

      Good luck to us both,

      Eckard

      Dear Peter,

      I do not put your ideas concerning c/n in question because my focus is directed only on the very basic reasoning to be read in Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, more precisely it is devoted to the assumed procedure of synchronization. I am anyway not competent in the huge field of plasma physics. I merely dealt with high pressure welding arcs with a lot of opaque metal vapor and temperatures in the range of several thousand K. And I abstain from swallowing guesses how large, how old, and how ionized the whole universe might be.

      So far I found out that the idea of round-trip synchronization might originate from Poincaré 1898. I consider it the basis for Minkowski metric, and I suspect it being at least inappropriate if not simply wrong.

      In order to clarify the matter we need at first no speculations on how to interpret more or less belonging experiments. We only need logical reasoning.

      Regards,

      Eckard