Constantinos,

let me try once again, hopefully this time with more success:

1) It seems that either "integrable" is synonymous to "continuous on closed intervals" in your essay/papers, or you questioning some well known mathematical results. As I wrote, only the general statements involving "any integrable function" are problematic. If still in doubt, then consult a reasonable calculus handbook or ask a friendly mathematician.

2) Well, just try the same with the Fermi-Dirac distribution, with the Ansatz E(t)=E0e-rt and apropriate "fit", this time fitting for -rt, and voila, you have it!

But it is only "the art of fitting", nothing more.

You skipped my point 3), does it mean that you agree with me here ?

In the following 3) below refers to my point 4), and so on.

3) "Mathematical truth" refers to formal constructions, developed in an axiomatical/deductive way, while "physical truth" reflects the knowledge gained from experiments. In theoretical physics, mathematical methods are used to model the "physical truth", maybe with predictive results, but nothing more. Even the most elegant results have to be rejected if not confirmed experimentally. Sure, Pythagorean theorem may be used to measure distances, but this theorem does not impose that the physical space is Euclidean!

4) You wrote "What rules am I changing ?" Let me cite your answer on the pointed out contradiction:"Perhaps the mathematical limit enforces that \eta= 0. But since we cannot measure in physics below the threshold h, we have for all experimental purposes the mathematical limit produces once again Planck's Law"

It seems that you simply ignore the results that are inconvenient.

5) The blackbody radiation is a property of the blackbody, therefore in a sense "blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody" as I wrote in my previous posting in a somewhat strange-looking wording.

If you determine the radiation spectrum of some object, and it can be identified as blackbody spectrum corresponding to a definite temperature T, then this object is identified as a blackbody heated to the temperature T.

It seems that you ignored the rest of my point 6) ? Because I think it is important, let me repeat it below:

--------

The measurement of the blackbody radiation is another story, and if we want to measure the radiation itself, we have to eliminate somehow the detector influence, usually through proper setup and calibration. The detector radiates too !

The model presented in your essay tries to describe the interaction between the radiating blackbody and a detector working in a very specific way and it is at the same time claimed that it reflects exactly the radiating blackbody. This is a wrong approach in my opinion, although it may lead to a correct formula. The Ansatz for E(t) (I mean here the formula itself) does not allow for a differentiation between the "source" and the "sensor".

--------

In other words, a blackbody radiates in approximately the same way when measured or not. Just imagine a device for remote temperature measurement, do you think that the temperature of the measured object is as indicated on the device only during the measurement ? And what when the device is broken ?

6) Although I agree with your statement about Torah, I'm still confused by the contradicting statements about \eta, see below

7) You wrote: "I left eta as an undefined quantity in my essay. Thus, all the results I have listed are purely mathematical and very general."

Pardon me, but it is simply impossible to derive _any_ results for an undefined quantity. Or I'm missing something important here ? Maybe you mean the physical interpretation of \eta, not the definition ?

Any mathematical construction needs a non-contradictory set of axioms, definitions, etc., otherwise it is _not_ mathematics for sure.

You wrote also: "Perhaps you can do more ..." Maybe, but I'll definitely start from checking the present status of such approaches, look for similarities, etc. One could waste a lot of time trying to crack open doors!

Best regards,

-Joachim.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #87

Joachim,

I can see that you like to argue! Me too! This can go on for a very long time! Hope one of us gets tired of this soon!

You write: "...consult a reasonable calculus handbook or ask a friendly mathematician."

My background is mathematics! An 'integrable function' is by definition one whose integral EXISTS! And if the integral exists over [0,t] than the ratio of the integral over the interval also exists. By definition this ratio IS the AVERAGE! Please ...

You write: "You skipped my point 3), does it mean that you agree with me here ?".

No I do not agree with you! I just got tired of addressing irrelevant trivialities whose only aim is to divert the discussion from the more salient relevant points.

I think I will stop with that!

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

Indeed, our discussion seems to lead nowhere. I do not think that my points are only "irrelevant trivialities", just ask another competent persons about that.

I wrote my comments only because you asked for it, and because we are here at FQXi to discuss even the strangiest things.

All the best and good luck with your efforts,

-Joachim.

Dear Lawrence,

You seem to see in my derivation of Planck's Formula Laplace transform. That may lead you to some deeper insights, but from my perspective I don't see the point. I just lose the physical meaning of that math.

All the results in my essay have a clear and simple physical meaning and are mathematically argued. What is the physical meaning of the Laplace transform you are arguing I inadvertently used in my derivation of Planck's formula? And does this also show what I am showing? Namely, that Planck's formula is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the one obtained from Planck's formula.

I do not argue with the mathematics used in physics. Rather, I argue with the physics in the mathematics used. What motivates me in this intellectual venture is my desire to understand physics physically. Modern Physics lacks physical meaning that makes sense. The 'man in the street' knows more about 'time travel', for example, than the theorist who with mathematical certainty asserts it.

We need 'physical realism'. I show in my essay this is possible. My derivation of Planck's Formula avoids energy quanta and discrete statistics. In this view, we gain a clearer understanding of what the Formula actually means.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

Okay and thanks for the reply.

Kind regards,

Alan

Hello Anthony Dicarlo,

Thanks for your email. Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in describing the physics that you thought you'd find in the essay. Especially since my main objective is greater 'physical realism' in physics. One suggestion perhaps that may help. Don't try to understand the essay from the perspective of current physics! It's much simpler than that! Certainly, don't look to find in the essay a formulation of physics based on 'information'.

In the first sentence that you referenced, I wasn't attempting in any way to trace the history of quantum physics. Rather, I was only setting the stage for the discussion to follow in the essay. And that originates with Planck's Law which even now is taken to conclusively demonstrate the existence and need of 'energy quanta'. The central theme in my essay is to show that this just is not necessary. I provide a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law which does not use quanta and discrete statistics. In fact, I demonstrate that Planck's Law is not even a 'physical law' that in some deep way depends and describes some inner workings of the Universe. This Law I show is a mathematical tautology. It describes how we can calculate identically the 'intensity of energy' from the 'changes in energy' (the amount of energy absorbed by the sensor) at a given temperature.

You write, "I can't quite envision a physical model of your "interaction of energy." "

Simple: Consider a sensor that can absorb energy (something like a thermometer). Think of the sensor at some fixed point. The sensor is radiated by energy with intensity E0 and after a short interval of microscopic time Δt the sensor absorbs an amount of energy ΔE (as with osmosis). These 'equal size sips' of energy ΔE occur in discrete imperceptible steps Δt which collectively raise the sensor (thermometer) to that final reading. This explains why the final reading is not reached asymptotically but is reached actually through such discrete Δt steps. Planck's Law I argue is a mathematical tautology that describes at each discrete step Δt how E0 and ΔE are related at a given temperature T. The 'interaction of energy' here is the radiation/absorption that takes place at the sensor.

You further write, "please provide me with one piece of information you can obtain regarding the cosmos that does not include as the root electromagnetic coupling to your senses. "

I would even go further and argue that even the "electromagnetic coupling to your senses" is only our human way of understanding such experience. I don't go that far in my essay to explain how we humans can know! But I can say with certainty that I know Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology and not some 'physical law'.

All the best,

Constantinos

    a month later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #93

    I'm still rooting for you brother! :) May your heart be at peace, and your mind beautiful.

    7 days later

    Yasu Constantinos

    As I understand it your essay and addenum are mathematical elucidations of a physically realistic model of physics based on a unique new derivation of Planck's constant (h). That is great. You singled out Einstein's quantum assumption as the basis of the conceptual troubles that faced quantum mechanics later on. I fully agree with your approach and think that that the idea (that the photon is a point in space as well as a package of energy) is at the basis of half the trouble with the foundational understanding (and future development) of physics today. I have presented my reasons for that in my present fqxi paper and also in the earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based.

    You have presented the idea of energy absorption in "equal-sized sips" that is only manifested when 'delta E' energy is accumulated. As I understand this is somehow related to the so-called 'semi-classical theory' that has been debated following Einstein's 1905 paper and then abandoned when Schrodinger presented his equation. I liken the gradual absorption of energy in the sensor and its sudden release to that of water in the Japanese garden 'deer-chaser' mechanism .

    The other half of the trouble with physics today that you do not deal with (gravity and quantum mechanics incompatibility) is also due to one of Einstein's assumptions - the constancy of the speed of light in SR (and GR) and again the sensible objections raised at the time were swept away by SR's success, albeit for the wrong reasons. I wish I had your skill to describe my physical intuitions in mathematical form! Incidentally your continuous derivation of planck's constant (h) solves a fundamental problem in my own theory: the spinning of the universal node I theorized is continuous yet the transfer of momentum is in units of (h). Your formulation can explain that little problem.

    Best wishes from Vladimir

      • [deleted]

      • Post #95

      Hello Vladimir, and thank you for your good wishes.

      I am pleased that we agree on many important points. Certainly what I have demonstrated in my papers and essay is that it is possible to have "A World Without Quanta" and demystify Physics of the many counter-intuitive and non-sensical results. 'Physical Realism' in Physics is not only possible but necessary!

      Have you read my very short proof of the proposition that "if the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave"? This is a mathematical proof that shows Einstein's CSL postulate contradicts his 'photon hypothesis'!

      What more need we say! Furthermore, as I argue in the essay, the Second law of Thermodynamics requires that every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur. It cannot occur 'instantaneously' at t = s. Thus, the whole concept of 'spacetime continuum' where a 'physical event' is represented by (x,y,z,t) contradicts Thermodynamics.

      Constantinos

      5 days later

      Dear Constantinos,

      More power to us to help demystify physics - I cannot imagine it will be easy to do that using our partial forays against this or that concept - it is all connected, and unless it is all re-written correctly from scratch it will not be a clear and simple theory.

      I mention this because your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis, then you cleverly show that assuming light velocity is constant implies wave motion, On the other hand you reject the concept of spacetime because of the thermodynamics argument. However the constancy of the speed of light is the basis and reason for flexible and continuous spacetime. This may constitute a contradiction?

      In my theory I assume that light velocity in vacuum is not constant but is a maximum of c and slows down in gravitational fields - the concept of spacetime has to be trashed once and for all, and the Lorentz transformations applied in an 'absolute' universe as I have outlined.

      Best wishes from Vladimir

      • [deleted]

      • Post #97

      Hello Vladimir,

      You write, "...your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis...".

      Just to clarify this point, nothing in my essay or papers assume CSL. It is not needed, it is not necessary, it is not relevant to my work. To tell the truth, I really have not much considered SR or GR in my work, with the exception of the spacetime continuum. And this only in the context of my results concerning entropy, time, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For me it makes so much sense that there must be a positive duration of time for any physical event to occur. That it just is plainly false to talk about 'events' happening instantaneously at t = s.

      I believe that CSL must be derived and not simply assumed. I have some ideas how that can be, which are in line with what you argue: that c is a maximum but the speed of light can vary in a 'vacuum'. One problem! I don't believe in 'vacuums'. Though we can think and consider 'empty space' as a mathematical abstraction, physically and philosophically it does not make sense. 'Physical space' by definition can't possibly be 'empty'.

      All the best,

      Constantinos

      Hello Constantinos

      Sorry if I misunderstood your ideas. I too do not believe in the vacuum (in my theory everything - matter space, radiation is made up of the lattice nodes, but I used the word vacuum to stress the fact that the speed of light can change in a gravitational potential in space...a different case than when it slows down while passing through a transparent medium such as glass or water (refraction). In fact the two effects are identical in my theory ...

      It is interesting to think of things this way: Einstein proposed CSL = contracting space / dilating time. In other words observations are absolute (light) but spacetime are relative. This is so physically unrealistic and unnecessary. Rather, think of it this way: c = variable measured distance traveled / fixed (absolute) time interval. In fact as many have argued - a time interval can be thought of as a change of state of the entire universe and there is not time dimension. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics can be stated in such a world?

      Best wishes from Vladimir

      • [deleted]

      • Post #99

      Dear Vladimir,

      I am entirely guided by 'physical realism' in all my reflections and reasoning in physics. I have as much trouble with 'lattice points' as I do with 'vacuums'! Does that mean that 'vacuums' and 'lattice points' cannot be considered? I don't go that far. Certainly these and other abstract mathematical formulations have been successfully used in physics.

      But here is my problem with all this. We do not 'know' what all these results so obtained mean! These don't 'make sense' to us, though we believe these have 'mathematical certainty'. Physics, unlike mathematics, requires more of us. Having 'mathematical certainty' is not enough! We must also maintain the connection of our ideas with our 'senses'. Who do you trust to know the truth about time-travel. The 'man in the street' or the 'theoretical physicists'?

      Simply put, all my efforts are to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. I have done that successfully with Planck's Law; showing that the counter-intuitive concept of 'energy quanta' and 'bundles of energy' is not necessary. In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is a 'mathematical truism' and not a 'physical law' and can be derived continuously without statistics.

      Have you discussed your ideas with Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe? They may be more in tune with this than I.

      Best wishes,

      Constantinos

      Dear Constantinos,

      You are more focused in your approach to physics than my rather swashbuckling forays into imagined worlds of nodes gyrating to create us and our universe!

      Perhaps both our approaches are necessary, considering how mainstream physics seems to hover between the entrenched even ossified positions of many physicists, with the wild quantum-weirdness-many-universes infinite dimensions where 'anything goes' seems to be the slogan. Both Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe have already kindly encouraged me with their stimulating responses. I should spend more time on physics and hope to do so. More power to them and to you.

      Vladumir

      6 months later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #101

      lightness and purity of one of the three also because the successful operation of generation Mido Mido beauty lies in .

      3 years later

      Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

      Our opinions about 'mathematics' and 'modern physics' converge: 'Writing bad physics using good mathematics leads to counter-intuitive physical explanations', and 'modern physics does not provide physical explanations that make sense'. As you have stated somewhere above, physical realism is necessary, and is possible; and I would like to add, physical realism is the truth.

      The existing convention is that we arrive at certain 'mathematical relations', verify these with experimental results, and based on these arrive at conclusions regarding 'the nature of the physical world'. This may appear to be the right path. But mathematics can trick us. A unique mathematical relation can have different physical interpretations, from which we have to select the right one. But from the time of Newton, physicists habitually selected the interpretation that looked 'mathematically simple and beautiful'. They did not care whether there can be other interpretations. The net result is that we have arrived at wrong conclusions that does not make any sense.

      What is required is a 'physicalist' approach: Out of the possible interpretations based on a certain equation, select 'one' that has a clear physical meaning. And it is possible to do so. The equations of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity mechanics can be interpreted in alternate ways to obtain physical explanations having sense. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

      Regarding energy I would like to ask a question: What is energy? My answer is that fundamental particles of matter move at speed 'c', or motion is a fundamental property of matter. Energy is a measure of this motion, and is always discrete. If you feel interested, please visit my site: finitenesstheory.com.

      Write a Reply...