Continuation Causes Superior but Unrealistic Ambiguity by Eckard Blumschein

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

I hope this article you will like

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0001

Regards

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

If I compare van Leunen with Grishaev, I dislike the rude style of the latter and the obedient views of the former who claims having explored "the origin of physical dynamics and the reason of existence of special relativity" by only using mathematics.

While I do not agree with van Leunen on various details, my main reproach resembles the judgment of Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics by von Essen: lacking links to references, attempts to solve foundational questions by mere use of mathematical formalisms.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

FQXi will perhaps not appreciate any other language than English. I do not see any reason to thoroughly deal with the article you suggested. To me Planck constant is not an atom of space or time but a coefficient like c.

I should rather devote my time to the question whether or not Lorentz transformation fits to the non-Parmenidean view. So far, I found a lot of arguments against Poincarè's (de)synchronization.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

While this paper by the Nobel laureate 't Hooft is definitely an excellent one, I guess it did not and will not resolve for good the problems that are hindering the desired unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics.

As a result of my essay, I prefer a much simpler way out.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

Non-Parmenidean view mean Heraclitus view.

Regards

Yuri

[deleted]

It seems to me very interesting

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

The author wrote: "At the level of particles, things can happen in reverse, because particles obey time-symmetric laws of mechanics." My essay tries to explain why this view is not correct:

So called laws are differential equations which were abstracted from integral relationships. Only on the belonging level of abstraction, the future can be predicted. Reality is basic and neither symmetric nor asymmetric. It is unilaterally restricted to effects/traces of past processes.

There are no traces of future events, not even on the level of particles.

In my essay 527 I quoted a silly attempt by Schulman to quantify a border between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds. Instead I ascribe the putative time symmetry of quantum mechanics to an evidently improper use of complex calculus.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

Yes, Herakleitos of Ephesos (544-483) "the dark" considered the world in permanent change while Parmenides of Elea (540-480) denied change. The pupils of the latter Melissos and Zeno fabricated sophisticated paradoxical evidences as to justify his monism.

Hopefully Lee Smolin (doesn't smol' mean black?) will live up to the chance for reinstating the Heraklitean view into physics. Einstein was certainly not the first one who preferred the unrealistic tense-less Parmenidean view. Already Descartes and many others preferred a range as large as possible, i.e. time from minus infinity to plus infinity. Perhaps, Hilbert followed Einstein, v. Neumann followed Hilbert, etc. They called the flow of time an illusion. Feynman and de Stuecklenberg even suggested backward time.

Here in the contest, I rarely found proponents of the panta rhei. I recall someone (Bolognesi?) claiming that the world works like a computer step by step. In this sense, not only analog computers but also digital ones are realistic.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

Oliver Penrose is older brother of Roger Penrose

More references to his view you can read there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Penrose

Yesterday, I accidentally discovered interesting article

Author Peter Lynds

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612053

where i found reference to Oliver Penrose

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf

What is your opinion about Lynds article?

Regards

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

Before finally commenting on Lynds, I will look into something more promising . Already the title of Lynd's article looks bewildering to me. While I appreciate that Lynds mentioned Kant, the founder of scientific cosmology, I tend to consider his irrational model one more evidence for an institutionalized demand to support the block universe.

I personally do not see any Kant paradox. I consider big bang cosmology hypothetical. I agree with Lynd in that singularities are fictions, and time travel is impossible. I feel hurt if someone, no matter whether he is someone like Peter Jackson, or Georg Cantor, or Peter Lynds, tells me I am perhaps too less intelligent as to grasp his great ideas.

Kind regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

If the Universe is cyclical mechanism and repeats itself, then both right and

Heraclitus and Parmenides.

All the best

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

Resurrection is a Christian belief, not a reproducible observation. Perhaps, observed cycles of day and year were naively combined with the idea that the sun is a god who dies and resurrects. Isn't it overdue to reduce physics to observation and logical reasoning?

While I do not like mere speculation, and I do not see any basis for abandoning causality, nobody can exclude that the part of the presumably potentially infinite world which is observable to us is subject to some oscillations. However, even spiral processes would not necessarily happen "within" an a priori given time. As explained in my essay, I see the seeming time symmetry of Schwarzschild solution an artifact of abstraction.

Any existence monism contradicts to rational methods. A perpetuum harmonic oscillator reflects just the mathematically imaginary variant of monism. In your terminology: A strictly cyclic mechanism belongs to Parmenides, Zeno and fatalism, not to Heraclit's fire and free will.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

Monism just mean: we live only one time.

Pluralism mean: we live many time.

Who is monist?

Heraclitus or Parmenides?

Regards

Yuri

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

We are moving away from the main item - discussing your "heretical" essay which I accept.Today i send your essay to Frank Wilczek asking him what he thought about it. Wonder what he would answer me if any answer.

All the best

Yuri

[deleted]

I send my question to Wilczek this way

http://www.frankwilczek.com/resources.html

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

My correspondence with other Nobel laureate G.Hooft about Blumschein essay

Yuri:

"What is your attitude to essay Eckard Blumschein?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/833

I think that it raises for discussion a very important issue for the revision of the foundations of modern physics"

His answer:

"I found this essay too long and too boring to read. My superficial search for anything touching upon the foundations of physics led to negative results."

Cordially,

G. 't Hooft.

[deleted]

Dear Yuri,

What did 't Hooft mean with negative results instead of no results at all? Aren't negative results antitheses? I consider my essay not long enough as to reveal that my reasoning inevitably implies heresy in physics while it obviously criticizes e.g. Cantor's aleph_2. Of course, if my arguments concerning ih and ict are correct, then this will not just touch the work of many previous laureates and laureates to come.

Should I really be curious how the community will react if the LHC cannot confirm the Higgs and SUSY? I do not expect flexibility in what I consider a foundational question: Does a tenseless blockuniverse correspond to reality, or in other words, is Poincarè's Lorentz (de?)synchronization justified?

Nobel laureates are highly respected. They should maintain their reputation by arguing honest and factual.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

To my mind "Twin paradox" is "Scheinprobleme der Wissenschaft" because c -speed of light not eternal constant.

Regards

Yuri

[deleted]

That figures. I don't believe in God.

G. 't H

________________________________________

From: Yuri Danoyan [mailto:yuri@danoyan.net]

Sent: Tue 26-4-2011 23:25

To: Hooft, G. t

Subject: RE: Eckard Blumschein essay

God made integers, all else is the work of man.

Leopold Kronecker

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/leopold_kronecker.html#ixzz1KfNpx9Uh

I agree with Leopold Kronecker

You are right partially.

Cordially

Yuri

From: Hooft, G. t [mailto:G.tHooft@uu.nl]

Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:46 PM

To: Yuri Danoyan

Subject: RE: Eckard Blumschein essay

Physics does not depend on the existence of numbers. They are a human invention.

________________________________________

From: Yuri Danoyan [mailto:yuri@danoyan.net]

Sent: Tue 26-4-2011 21:15

To: Hooft, G. t

Subject: RE: Eckard Blumschein essay

I think it is very important question.

Сan physics without the negative, imaginary,complex numbers?

Yuri

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Yuri,

Monism is a 18th century notion that has various meanings. Mathematicians called Parmenides an existence monist. See e.g. http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/parmenides.html

I acknowledge you reproach. We should rather focus on the notion block universe.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

I will try to show concrete difference between the 2 approaches:

Parmenides and Heraklitus.

Suppose two options with the same content:

1, The text of the Written.

2, The Audiorecording of the same text.

Written is Parmenides.

Audiorecording is Heraklitus.

Regards

Yuri

« Previous Page Next Page »