Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard

What disappoints and confuses me most is that you can't see the pure logical reasoning my hypothesis is based upon, and it's very important consequences.

Secondly your apparent unwillingness to research that which you question, but willingness to remain without that knowledge! If you follow the links (or simply Google!) you'll find that the density and extent of ionised particles (plasma) is not really in any contention until a third approximation. The 19th Feb new scientist (p18) shows it's (extraordinary to those who haven't researched it) domain and capability as the surface fine structure of all matter, (doi:10.1021/nl103408h) and the latest Nature refers to galaxies with around 300Bn Solar masses of plasma halo (i.e. a little above average) being most likely to become 'starburst galaxies. You must agree we will never find answers if we're poorly informed and harbour too many doubts.

You talk of 'speculation'. The reason I have researched so carefully and comprehensively is to remove that speculation (though it will never be non zero). Logical reasoning needs the firm foundation of good postulates.

You must try to see it from my viewpoint. Having done that I now only come across people who haven't bothered to do it, but think it reasonable to accuse me of guesses and speculation!!!

Frankly it is clear science will never progress while people think it reasonable to do that, and I feel very let down that you seem to be happy to join them Eckard! I thought far more of your scientific rigour.

Are you really not prepared to simply check the evidence base and logic of any parts of my work you query? At the end of it is the solution you (and many others) search for, but if it can be shown wrong I will be very happy too! I only ask that it is assessed scientifically, not by the lazy saying; "I can't be bothered to check but think 'this' ..which doesn't quite match so I expect you're just speculating so will ignore your thesis".

You recognise we need logical reasoning then ignore it! That is quite insulting and I really can't believe you recognise that is what you are doing, or do you?.

Peter

Dear Eckard,

Your criticism is always well intended, wise and helpful. I consider you a friend and a supporter. We share, along with many others in this forum, many misgivings on the current 'state of physics'. And we seek earnestly to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. Whereas you look for such by deeply examining the math used in physics, I tend to question the 'physical view' of physics.

But I have come around more to your view that there may be something amiss in the way math is used in physics. Math abstracts too much from physics. Unwittingly, we may be drawing wrong conclusions. Certainly, 'point masses' may be a problem. But also spacetime, as many have argued in this forum. My misgivings about a spacetime continuum is that it appears to me that this viollates basic laws of thermodynamics. In my humble opinion, it may be incorrect to 'instantiate' physical events by (x,y,z,t). I believe thermodynamics requires that physical events have 'extention' in space and 'duration' of time.

This necessity of thermodynamics takes many forms. In my explanation of the double-slit experiment I argue that 'there is an accumulation of energy over some duration of time before manifestation of energy'. This view also appears in my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. I also demonstrate this in my essay with the mathematical relationship I derive between thermodynamic entropy and time. And you have argued in the past that this idea may also explain the Gompf et al. false measurements.

Eckard, it is my belief that the only mathematics we should apply to physics is that which describes the 'interaction of measurement'. My derivation of Planck's Law is such. No wonder it is so remarkably accurate. Mathematical models of the Universe may contain abstractions that are unrealistic.

Constantinos

I think it really, you are very skilling and rational at my opinion.I beleive you must give them a course of rationality and objective realism.It's only simple that this.

if I learn here it is with the kind of persons as you.Because I am arrogant yes, but I love learn all days.With you I have learned several concepts and ideas and equations.The alephs of Cantor....mainly.Don't change Eckard.

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Eckard,

You wrote:

"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."

Unless I'm missing something, the idea of homogeneous R is acceptable, because any magnitude whatsoever can be set equal to the unit value of R. Thus, what was an irrational magnitude in association with another unit value, can be transformed into a rational magnitude by fiat.

Of course, as soon as the transformation is made, another set of magnitudes, different from the first, becomes irrational. The process is repeatable ad infinitum. So, why then do we speak of rational and irrational numbers in an absolute sense? A given magnitude may be considered rational or irrational, depending upon our choice of reference. In this sense, geometric magnitudes are relative, not absolute.

In my opinion, the really ancient (i.e. more ancient than the Greeks) had it right, when they said that, where two quantities exist, one greater than another, then there shall be one greater still. They made no mention of "irrational" magnitudes.

However, it's not that we can ignore them, or else we wouldn't be having this contest. But the more important question is the one of trichotomy, which the ancients held as fundamental. When we consider that the elements of R have two interpretations, then we can consider the trichotomy of numbers two ways. The first sub-divides the unit number (the quantitative interpretation of number), and the second compares two sets of unit numbers (the operational interpretation of number).

In the first interpretation, the numbers 1/2 and 2/1 differ by 2 operations, not by 2 units. This is the basis of the concept of octaves, or a doubling/halving operation, we might say. If we double 1/2 once, we get the quantity 1, double it again, we get the quantity 2. Conversely, if we divide 2 into half once, we get the quantity 1, half it again, we get the quantity 1/2. Performing the operation twice in either "direction," shows the symmetry of the numbers, with respect to the number 1.

In the second interpretation, the numbers 1/2 and 2/1 differ by two units, in a a single comparison operation. We are evaluating them to determine which number is greater than the other number, or if there is no difference between them. In this case, the operation is like the balance scale, rather than the knife, and the quantities are discrete. Although we could choose to include fractions of discrete units, but then we must decide whether or not to include both the equal divisions (i.e. rational parts) of a single unit, and the arbitrary divisions (i.e. irrational parts) of a single unit, or only one of these.

Choosing to exclude fractions, we can use arbitrary signs (e.g. & -) to indicate our perspective relative to which side of the number 0 we might refer to. However, in this case, we must remember that the number 0 is actually the number 1 again, as in the first interpretation, but with a different meaning.

This time, the number 1 is both 1 and 0, at the same time. It is interpreted as 0, because 0 represents the result of the comparison evaluation between the two numbers, when there is no difference between them. However, 0 is also interpreted as 1, because 1 means that the relative number of units in the comparison of the two sets is equal. It's just two different ways of regarding the same thing.

So, dear Eckard, I believe that you are right in that no trichotomy exist in R, natively, but we must recognize that we can clearly employ the elements of R to produce a trichotomy, in at least two ways.

Sincerely,

Doug

Dear Eckard,

I have definitely enjoyed reading your thought-provoking essay. However I need more time to understand what your eventual conclusion is. Your essay is strong on historical mathematics aspects of the digital versus analog issue, and I learnt new things. But I cannot say that the questiion `digital vs. analog' is meaningful if taken in one whole go to address all of nature - I believe you express that too. Clearly, different phenomena exist that are digital/analog. That is why I have tried to address a specific issue.

Like I said, I certainly enjoyed reading your knowledgable essay, but I cannot form a view as to your conclusions. I should apologize that I am not saying something more substantial right now ...Cheers ...Tejinder

The problem indeed with Cantor as several mathematicians as Mr Baez ..., they do not respect our walls, and limits, they want know with their methods behind these walls.The problem is what the numbers do not exist there, as the time and nor dimensions.That implies that all their conclusions are falses just because they make the same error than Cantor, they do not respect this domain and its limits,they want explain with our physicality a thing without phsyicality.That has no sense of course as the pseudo hidden variables or this and that.....REALISM AND OBJECTIVITY.

never 1 idea ....but several......always an occahm razzor of rationality.....the idols do not exist.Just works towards our truth.....simple and evident of course.

Poincarré and Rienmann shall agree I beleive.

Good luck, you make a good job also Eckard, I have a name for you, the master of the Occham Razzor,don't hesitate to put the equilibrium.

Regards

Steve

Cantor had as many men due to hormons, a vanity, it's unfortunally in the biological system, Cantor had also as many thinkers and searchers of truths and truth a kind of illumination, a kind of crazzyness, a kind of I don't know. They thought probably that they were a kind of prophet or a kind of elected by God.That's why probably they have some neurological and psychological problems. Mr Baez seems skilling , the problem is not here, I think that the problem is always the people around the interesting persons, we return thus always at the base of this vanity(present in all persons without difference, now of course all people can evolve and be more humble, it's a personal choice as the faith).Many persons are jaleous or think they are always right,prsonally, I am laughing of that because in fact wa re all the same, humans.Now of course many scientists like to be listened or read, or be honored, it's the human nature.It's always the same problem with a kind of beautiful words repeting still and always the same things than in the books...is it essential, perhaps or perhaps no, it is not the question. It exists good and bad people everywhere and just due to a lack of education and still these hormons and this vanity and the monney, this stupidity above the cries of poors. Cantor for me was a philosophe and not a physicist.Newton I prefer or Borh,or Descartes(do you know his beautiful book about the method, I suppose that yes) thanks for making a little difference.Mr Baez is for me first the cousin of a very good singer that I like, second he has a beautiful blog about the category theory where some maths are relevanta bout topos and this and that,that permits the sortings and synchro in computings, it's interesting in all case.I consider him thus as a mathematician skilling and a good inventor of algorythms I suppose.But he is not a phsyicisists.You yes you are a real physicist skilling and a good mathematician , but you aren't a theoretical physicisit. Edwin, dr Layzer, ...them are theoretical phsyicisicts.

Me I am simply a human, musician , horticultor and without PhD with a small theory, relevant at my humble opinion.Of course some people will love and others shan't like it.It's the life,I prefer of course working with people who agrees and not of course with the others, as all Eckard , as all I make the same simply.The essential is not to show his knowledges(which are in the books) for a kind of vanity but for a total sharing of a new thing(which is not still in the books, the good books of course).

Spherically yours my friend Eckard the gentlemen

ps don't change Eckard!

Steve

I quote from "Particles and Paradoxes" by Peter Gibbins Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 153:"A quantum logical interpretation of quantum mechanics shifts some of the oddities of quantum mechanics into logic".

Isn't such a "solution" similar to what Hilbert 1921 confessed: Axiomatic set theory shifts certain naive beliefs into formalisms that are no longer obviously paradoxical?

So far nobody could tell me why a more precise reinstating of the pre-Dedekind notion of number and Peirce's genuine continuum could be impossible.

Hilbert warned about a huge heap of rubble. I also expect some losses, losses of paradoxes, of wrong interpretations in physics, and the like, but not of of anything valuable.

Eckard

Eckard,

I guess my point would be that R is a set of n-dimensional countables, while only from Q can we get R. Maybe we are agreed.

Doug

Dear Eckard

I hope your plasmonics is getting fine tuned. I find the web and journals about 5 years ahead of most books. I hope you've Googled plenty as well. Recent Optical fibre science is also another hoard of hidden riches. I generally read 3-5 new papers/day, from all subjects, plus the journals. The current (26th) New Scientist p16 has a typical result, showing particles 'bounce' off the plasma fine structure of matter NOT the solid mass itself! Wave particle interaction is fascinating.

You seemed to prejudice yourself against trusting my work with regard to superluminal motion. But I don't think you ever took on board the point about 'apparent' motion, from a different inertial frame, being wholly different to real local superluminal motion which I agree is not possible, and which gives rise to the 'Lorentz' (actually originally Fresnel) exponential curve, which is misused and only has that very limited domain.

If you don't see that; Please, envisage a fast flowing river. You are sitting in your car on the bank observing. The laws of physics say water no water molecule can move at more than 0.1mph. If you drive your car along the bank and video the water molecules at the centre of the stream from your inertial frame would they care? would they be breaking the law? of course not.

But then you stand still and video them, and the centre of the stream is still doing 7mph wrt your camera!! Are they breaking the law? Of course not! Their own 'inertial field' is that of the molecules nearer to the bank each side. No water breaks the law LOCALLY, and no water cares about which planet it's on or who else is moving anywhere. Physicists must learn to renormalise mathematical results back to reality, as all maths, points, lines and vectors, are mathematical. Moving points are not valid in geometry!

So apparent v c should be fine, and it's probably about time physics took that aboard as it seems to be in denial at present, due to lack of comprehension and over reliance on maths. All this is as simply explained by Georgina.

It's implications are fundamental, bypassing Bell to give Reality and Locality, and should be able to move physics on 100 years. You may also look over the last few posts on my string. If you can help by advising on how better you think it may be explained I'd warmly welcome it.

Do keep asking any questions. Sorry got a little frustrated when my carefully thought out answer was apparently just dismissed the last time. 'Apparent' is an important concept!

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Doug,

You wrote:"I guess my point would be that R is a set of n-dimensional countables, while only from Q can we get R. Maybe we are agreed."

The only reasonable to me possibility to clearly and consequently distinguish between R and Q is not conform with the current tenets: While present mathematics declares R also as subject to trichotomy as definitely is Q,

I consider R, and of course R too, a genuine continuum as still described by Peirce: something every part of which has parts. Such continuum can strictly speaking neither be separated into single points, no matter how many, nor can it be an existing set composed of them. Only rational numbers are countable. Consequently understood real numbers are uncountable even if they can be approximated as accurately as you like. They are a different quality.

Correspondingly it is not correct to make a quantitative comparison between R and Q. There are not more reals than rationals because there is no basis for a quantitative comparison between a quantity and a quality. Cantor's paradise is an infinitum creatum, an elusive created infinity, an infinity inspired by the imagination of a huge number.

Dedekind declared the real numbers the union of rational and irrational numbers.

This is only reasonable if one admits that the embedded rational numbers lost their property to be numerically accessible. Dedekind was forced to admit having no evidence for equal treatment. He understood that any two rational numbers must be different from each other but he denied that genuine continuity demands numbers of unimaginable actually infinite precision, which must NOT allow to be distinguished from each other. For instance 0.999... and the fictitious successor 1.000... each with an actually infinite amount of nines or zeros, respectively, differ from each other by nothing.

Since Pythagorean time mathematicians have a problem with their lacking readiness to admit that countables and continuum exclude and complement each other. Having learned to benefit from infinite series, mathematicians of 19th century were not satisfied with the obvious correctness of limits. Now we have several axiomatic set theories that claim to be rigorous but none of them could achieve any improvement. On the contrary, they caused and will continue to cause unnecessary trouble.

All this would not bother me if no "mathematical" obstacles against R did arise from theories based on Dedekind's and Cantor's superficial distinction between rational and real numbers while simultaneous equal treatment of them.

In my essay I gave examples for further shortcomings.

In principle, my suggestions are addressed to mathematicians. However I see they likewise relevant for physics and in particular the given topic. Dedekind was among the first who suggested a discrete (non-Peirce) continuum of space.

Incidentally, at that time, the notion dimension was not the original one.

Regards,

Eckard