just keep pushing and demanding evidence, or at a minimum, predictions.
Lots of luck with that! Here's a bit of him complaining about a prior site to chase him off
Bad Astronomy and Universe Today writes:
By that same token, too much narrowed-down emphasis on presenting 'formulae' and 'experimental results' can be counter-productive, as well as highly confusing. For instance, the main difference between the Copernican sun-centred thesis of planetary motion and that of Copernicus' Ptolemaic predecessors was an issue neither of mathematics nor experiment. In fact, mathematically and experimentally, the Ptolemaic system was far more 'elegant' and exact than the system of Copernicus and Galileo, yet it was the latter, for its purely conceptual value, that won out in the end. Moreover, that was a prime case of overstepping the chalk line between 'Astronomy' and the nascent 'Physics' of Galileo, Newton, et al.
What I am saying is that for the sake of a truly adventurous ATM project the main tool of science advance has to be neither mathematics nor experiment (which of course, cannot be entirely ignored) but conceptual analysis – in short, common understanding. For example, what stopped the POAMS thread dead in its tracks toward that goal, was an insistence on providing mathematical and experimental evidence for the seminal choice of interpreting c as a dimensional constant instead of a 'velocity'. In vain does one explain that there are no relevant mathematical/experimental reasons for this choice. The only reason for choosing it is the purely logical one that the choice involves no logical contradiction, hence was, like mountains, just there to be freely explored.
But exploration along the thread in question soon hit a veritable 'brick wall' of negative criticism, based on that irrational demand for producing mathematical formulae and experimental justification for the choice. In vain, also, was it pointed out that the different interpretation of c as a constant not a 'velocity' does not in any way affect either its numerical value or its dimensions. So c remains c in all the existing relativistic and other formulae for which all the 'evidence' can be taken as read. To be bullied into reproducing all the formulae and backup evidence, therefore, for what is already known and accepted could never have been anything but an exercise in tautology.
After reading a hundred pages or so of self-pollution like this I tried to get a straight answer out of him about the existence of the photon. Unlike what he says about Relativity, his sideswipes at the Standard Model at least sound like they might entail something we don't already know. But look more closely, he's still talking about "quantum units" and pointing out that they are massless. If we are willing to waste enough pages I'm sure we can get him to agree that they don't have charges either, or a need for fractional spin.
So while he's happy to pee all over my chart and compare it to turtles-turtles-turtles-all-the-way-down, with a side whiz at classical mythology, he doesn't actually disagree with anything on it! We know that waveforms aren't really waves or particles. We know that spacetime is geometry. We know that light doesn't perceive itself as traveling.
The main selling point for his new paradigm seems to be that, if you hold C and spooky-action-at-a-distance in your head together long enough to realize that they are the same thing, this will give you a big enlightenment experience. Sounds intriguing, huh? But it isn't. If you meditate on a brick and bicycle long enough to experience their innate oneness, you will by definition have a little satori. And not even a useful one, as uniting two objects doesn't get you past dharana, it takes a subject-object experience to do that. So his yoga isn't new or significant, either!
Speaking as a great admirer of Bishop Berkeley on his own terms, I strongly suspect that this man is pretending to smoke imaginary dope ....
not only does it explain, perfectly, without theoretical contrivance, NASA’s ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ (as due to NASA’s neglect of spin angular momentum); it also explains, in the same way, the astronomers’ ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’ without having to postulate the nonsensical and completely undetectable ‘dark matter’. This latter anomaly arises, just like the former, due to the neglect of the spin angular momentum of practically all orbiting bodies, from planets and satellites to spiral galaxies. (Newtonian ‘gravitation’ which NASA uses to track its satellites and which astronomers use to calculate ‘the mass of the universe’, typically neglects the spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.)
More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would love to understand better.
in Machian phenomenalism light is simply what you see – that is, phenomena. All physical phenomena are ultimately reducible to discrete amounts of energy-interaction which Mach called ‘sense-data’.
If light is just perception, why does the sun warm my face? What is happening in a photo-electric cell? Where does solar power come from?
You look out on the world and you observe, as Pythagoras did, that the world has three rectangular dimensions, length, breadth and depth. You wouldn’t know anything, of course
Yes thanks, I do love this stuff. My understanding of n-dimensional geometry is pretty satisfactory to me, I don't see anything in this part of your material that is confusing or improper. But I've picked up a problem student who isn't getting it, who seems to admire your posts; so now I have some hope that he will be able to understand, by hearing it from you, that another dimension is just another orthogonal measurement like length, width and depth, rather than another universe like the one that Captain Kirk and his away team beamed over to accidentally where Mr Spock had a beard.
fee fie foe fum pre-Minkowskian tomayto tomahto Neo-Machian blah blah E = mc2[1 – (1/n2)] yadda yadda yadda
But what I was really hoping to hear more about, whenever you get the chance, is this business of angular momentum. I am currently trying to study fractional spin, and quantized spin in general, and relate it to things we can use as examples in the macro scale or "real world".
In this blurb for example
The classical definition of angular momentum as
L = r x p
depends on six numbers: rx, ry, rz, px, py, and pz. Translating this into quantum-mechanical terms, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that it is not possible for all six of these numbers to be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. Therefore, there are limits to what can be known or measured about a particle's angular momentum. It turns out that the best that one can do is to simultaneously measure both the angular momentum vector's magnitude and its component along one axis.
they seem to be saying that all the variables and measurements can be modeled using some large spinning object in motion. This sounds whatever, vaguely similar to some of the things you are saying. So I was thinking that understanding what your philosophy expects angular momentum to have to do with the measurement of gravity might help me understand these concepts better, or at least see where I might be going wrong.
to your question of the sun warming your face or a photo-electric cell – or, you might say, a rock, a pebble or indeed the earth itself. The answer is that these interactions consist of statistical numbers of quanta transferred from the sun to the object in accordance with the ordinary Second Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of Entropy. Recall that these light-pixels, or quanta, have the dimensions of energy-multiplied-by-time, or action. Recall, also, that in Neo-Machian Normal Realism, these proper-time-instantaneous interactions don’t take place just between objects and human percipients, as in the early phenomenalism of George Berkeley.
That clarifies things. It's not just observation, like God-on-the-Quad or Von Neumann's Catastrophe. It's actual energy, which you are saying (I think) is getting from one point to another without passing through the intervening points.
Let me see if I can talk through it using semantics you might like better than the ones that I would prefer normally. The heat on my face is energy that was part of the sun 8 minutes and change ago. It has jumped from the sun, directly to my face. It hasn't moved through any vacuum at all. Some of its neighbor energy there on the sun, has jumped instead to random hydrogen molecules between the sun and the earth. Some of it has jumped to various parts of the atmosphere between me and the sky. Some of the heat on my face has jumped to me from the atmosphere. But none of it has ever existed in a vacuum, not the unreal vacuum between me and the sun somewhere and not the real vacuum between molecules or particles. There was never any traveling through, there was always a quantum-jumping across. Yeah?
This line of thinking is interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how useful it is. There seem to be some theoretical problems here, too. We know that gravity is subject to the c limit, it doesn't happen instantaneously. Your material seems to be implying that spooky-action-at-a-distance effects like those involved in entanglement would also be subject to the limit, ie there would be a delay between one end of the waveform collapse and the other. This doesn't seem to correspond to the results of the actual experiments, but I will have to do more research to dig out examples and see if I am understanding them correctly.
This whole discussion reminds me of the Ensemble Interpretation, which says that the effects that the Copenhagen is struggling with only apply statistically, never to single particles. They have this same problem with experiments which seem to isolate single quanta and show the same effects. One solution to this might be to say that even these singular quanta are in fact statistical, composed of some even smaller parts in some sub-universal dimensional matrix of some kind.
But I strongly doubt that you subscribe to any such wacky sub-sub-atomic mayhem
In the meantime I have to deal with some cynics who are trying to refute my argument by attacking me personally,
Yes of course, I understand perfectly. Please keep in mind though, that if you have a knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of criticism that is more entertaining than your actual lectures, the foul play is going to escalate rather than subside. A better approach might be to deal patiently with the actual issues that are being confused and accept responsibility gracefully for places where that confusion may be attributable to you. Yes?
For example, the portion of your last substantial post between the n-dimensional geometry and the sun-on-my-face exposition, the middle part, is pretty muddled. I don't mean just the whole math-in-print-wtf-is-latex part, I mean specifically: when you use phrases like "pre-Einstein, pre-Minkowskian, pre-modern" while introducing formulas that turn out to be e=mc2 and t2=-tR2+s2 ...
WELL, that certainly sounds like you are claiming that the bomb-pusher and his nuncle didn't do the work that is credited to them, doesn't it? And this would be a very serious charge, given without evidence, and such things provoke people to outrage. So what someone has cleverly done is, to flip the whole muddle back over on to you, and let you see how it feels. Turnabout is fair play!
Now of course, I didn't interpret what you are saying this way. It's obvious to me that what you mean is to start with Pythagoras, work your way up to Minkowski, and show how all the math works without the language artifacts treating c as a speed. The part of it that is the math, is the math of the people to whom it is attributed. The part of it that is pre-modern et al, is the part that you have already talked out in getting up to the work of those people. The part of it that is your work and/or Mach's and/or that of some other people you have worked with, who are not Einstein and Minkowski, is the philosophy part, the part about light not being a speed and avoiding any phrasing that implies it is, to the best of your ability.
This isn't obvious to most of your audience here, though. The only reason it's obvious to me is because, well, let's not try to go into detail about that, it wouldn't be helpful. Suffice it to say that I am perfectly happy to make tentative conclusions without sufficient facts to justify them. If I'm wrong, I could just guess again. But I'm not wrong, am I?
Can someone tell me please if there is a way to get unsubscribed from this thread?
I believe so, here is what the faQ says
If you create a new topic, you have the option of receiving an email notification every time someone posts a reply to your topic. Just check the email notification box on the "New Topic" form when you create your new topic. If you change your mind about notification you can return later and edit the first message of your topic and check or uncheck this box.
You can also select through the preferences section of your profile page whether you would like email notification each time someone replies to one of your messages.
I'm assuming Percy has already done what he was talking about earlier, and it still hasn't stopped. To get yourself some relief, please consider going into your profile and changing the email address stored there to something like email@example.com until the ownership gets their database back to doing what they tell it to. Don't worry about not being able to get your password, you could always join again and let on who you are, they tend to jump up and merge the id's post haste.
Right, I'm taking a huge beating in the String thread because I dare to post quotes from minority physicists and ask what the hell they are talking about, my job in that thread. I don't care, cost of doing business.
I probably got the 1 you just saw for being off-topic and/or bypassing moderation a little, I still don't care. I'm not here to get a good rating, I'm here to find out what quantum spin may have to do with gravitation, expansion, and duration. The rest is just cake
In my last posing to Iblis I talked about argumentum ad hominem
Attacks ad hominem and "being nasty to the other guy" are not the same thing. For example, suppose you come up to me and say excitedly "I have discovered that e=mc2 !!!"
If I were to say to you "Shut up, your discovery is obviously useless as you are not a real physicist, only a humble patent clerk!" That would be a genuine ad hominem attack. Your occupation or background, or my interpretation of it, has no bearing on the value of your discovery. This is a logic error, which goes beyond a mere violation of good debating style.
On the other hand, if I were to say "Shut up, Urkel, you little homo!" This would be a simple ungrounded attack, having nothing to do with the value of your information at all, entirely on your person. No logic involved, though still very bad form.
However, if I were to respond with "No you didn't! Einstein did!" Then I would be attacking your claim to discovering the information, rather than the information itself. If you were kind of thin-skinned, you might interpret that as a charge of plagiarism. But a charge of plagiarism is not an ad hominem attack in this case.
Finally, if I were to ask "Where did you discover that? In class, or on tv, or in a book, or where?" Then I would be showing insight into your conditional use of the word "discovered" in this particular instance. The only one of these 4 situations that is a genuine ad hominem attack is the first, the one where I disparage your information based on unrelated facts about you.
We run into this all the time in this forum. Normally it comes in the form of fundamentalists advancing the claim that because someone is an unbeliever or heretic, none of their insights into scripture or theology (or biology! or physic!) should be given any credence. But it goes the other way too sometimes, the examples I have seen lean toward pushing the idea that having a degree is more convincing than making sense. Simply untrue, either way.
Anyway, I'm not seeing these attacks you claim to be experiencing. What I'm seeing is someone asking you questions, that seem hard for you to answer. Maybe it will be easier if I ask one of them.
Taking t as the coefficient of the formula, and expressing tR in integer multiples n of t
I'm having trouble understanding what could justify expressing tR as integers. Assuming I followed your derivation correctly, the math we are doing here is essentially a reformulation of the Pythagorean Theorem, which takes the form a2+b2=c2 in modern terms. Yes?
But this is the exact equation where we start learning about irrational numbers! If a and b happen to be equal, and are expressed as an integer, then there is no way that c can be expressed as an integer no matter what numbers you use! Exponential roots are where irrational numbers come from!
If I change it so that c is an integer, a and b go irrational. It can't be helped, if we are using real right angles. Thankfully, in quantum mechanics we aren't, our angles are bent in a curved spacetime and we have no perfect circles, only very good ellipses. But this takes a lot more work than just poofing it so on the chalkboard, half the people I talk to still think pi is something we really have in the world that is. *shrugs*
If you are just using integers here because you already know what you are going for is quantum mechanics, that's not science or education, it's apologetics. If I am missing some important point well, imagine how many other people must be missing it too then, all things considered.
I've seen the LOGIC that evolution is impossible because of the 1st law of thermodynamics
I expect you mean the second law (increase of entropy). The first law (conservation of energy) is the one used to prove that A-bombs are impossible.
The third (absolute zero) shows a finite limit to decrease in temperature. Heat of the moment, I'm sure, but it gives me an excuse to talk about Laws in science and philosophy, which are subject to a lot more misinterpretation and misunderstanding than even Theories.
Various Laws often tend to be confused with others, both in the same set and in similar groupings. This usually isn't a problem for sane people, as they tend to be the same principles, and correlaries thereof, applied to different fields and conditions.
For example Newton's third law of motion, "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction", which gives us rocketry
LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. — Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other ... If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies
is functionally equivalent to the first law of magic, "as above so below", attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, which gives us relativity ...
Newton translation writes:
1. Tis true without lying, certain most true. 2. That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing. 3. And as all things have been & arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.
In all these cases, we are pointing at conservation / symmetry and applying it to apparent asymmetries in nature on the principle that all such appearances must balance out somewhere.
This relates to the difference between an equation and a function, and the Boolean representation of logic. All proper equations, like 2+2=4, must be balanced. The difference between the two sides, in other words, must be 0, producing a Boolean value of 1, or True. For a function, however, such as A=A+1, to be effective, it must be imbalanced. The two sides must be unequal, a positive (or negative) difference, producing a value of 0, or False.
Thus all equations, or Laws, are true or balanced, and show symmetry. All functions or Theories point at something that is unbalanced or shows asymmetry, and describe how this state is balanced out over time and space to be true. The second law of thermodynamics vs the theory of evolution is an excellent example of this process in action: On the one hand, entropy always increases, overall. On the other hand, on earth we have artifacts like life and stupidity, which seem to increase their energy-levels in ever-more-complex ways over time.
Obviously, energy must be being added to the system from some outside source. As it happens, this source is the sun, the energy comes in the form of light, and it seems to make the trip extremely quickly. It never travels "through a vacuum" however, as there is no such thing. The area between the sun and the earth is occupied by diffuse hydrogen. The area between atoms, molecules, and particles is occupied by fields, forces, waveforms, or "virtual particles" of some kind.
If there ever were a real vacuum, that is if the hydrogen molecules acquired a distance and velocity such as to no longer have any effect on one another, for example in the Big Freeze scenario; then the space between them, being unmediated and resolving to genuine flatness, would become a genuine zero-pressure vacuum and innumerable such "virtual particles" would come swarming out of it into reality, competing to see which field could supersede one another in the first 10^-43 second of the new spacetime, and presumably resolving thereafterward into an immeasurably large, not quite flat, widely dispersed, thingamajig
. . .
Stoop not down, therefore, unto the Darkly-Splendid World; wherein continually lieth a faithless Depth, and Hades wrapped in clouds, delighting in unintellible images, precipitous, winding, a black ever-rolling Abyss; ever espousing a Body unluminous, formless and void.
Fortunately, there is no quantum instantaneity to explain in the first place, nor any spooky action at a distance. There is "merely" the existence of quantum variables (something that Einstein did not want to consider) that behave unlike their classical counterparts.
More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would like to understand better.
As we discovered when we looked at the EPR experiment the other year, considerations of instanteous information exchange only arise when we try to mimic the statistical results of the EPR experiment using classical variables.
If there is no spooky-in-the-sky, why do so many people seem to believe that they can rub two particles together, evoke an equation or two, and then do read-a-lot-of-Frazer-but-never-seemed-to-get-the-point kind of things with them?
This seems pretty spooky after all. You appear to be demonstrating that the results at the other end will differ statistically depending on whether we observe our end or not. This implies that superposition and the collapse of the wave function are real things and they aren't bound by the speed of light. Am I getting this right?
If so, this seems to defeat Wheeler's idea that each possibility is true in some world and all our observation is doing is telling us which one happened to be true in our own world.
If this business about affecting the statistics is correct, why can't we use it to send messages FTL? What I mean is, send pulses of large statistical groups of entangled particles off to Alpha Centauri (some day) to some future human colony there. Then later, just before the wavicles arrive, observe all the groups we want to mean "1" and fail to observe all the groups that we want to mean "0"? Then when the colonists get them they can see which groups are 50/50 and which are 55/45 and decrypt them into letters from home telling them how the folks are doing just last week?
We are here to debate. If every time someone debates you, instead of offering any refutation you just throw a tantrum and accuse people of persecuting you and threaten to take your bat and ball and go home, then guess what? You lose the debate.
This part isn't rocket science, is it? You have a hypothesis, for example, that limiting yourself to integers in an equation involving exponents will work. When I insist that it doesn't work, because solving for the roots leads to irrational numbers, you call me a bonehead and claim that the result of your hypothesis is a lovely picture of the spectrum. You jump from the hypothesis, to the result, without passing through the vacuum (real experiments, explanations, specification of these "certain algebraic" thingies) in between.
It is the correlations between the TWO ENDS that are spooky.
Ok, I think I get it. I don't know how I missed it the first few dozen times I read that thread, maybe it was all those gyroscopes in plain brown envelopes that distracted me. But I read it again in light of what you've said, and meditated on it for a while, and now I've read it again, and I do think I get it.
There isn't any information jumping from one end to another. The information is at both ends, and only at both ends. There aren't two events, in different places, happening at one time. There is only one event, happening once. Until we see this whole event, however far away the farthest part of it is, we don't know about it.
You, may be giving me more credit than I am due. What I managed to finally get was something about a series of experiments cavediver had linked me to, and why even the statistical anomalies used to demonstrate "quantum leaps" cannot be used to communicate or otherwise break causality.
I still don't understand what this has to do with c. In a previous message I believe you indicated that one end of such a quantum event would be separated from the other by a minimum time interval. That doesn't appear to be what the math that predicts the quantum events says, nor what the experiments that confirm the math say. But no one appears to have done these tricks at a great enough distance to be really sure.
So perhaps that would be a good place to start up again. Why do you think quantum leaps take place limited by c, rather than "instantaneously" as the math seems to imply. By this I mean, they are predicted to take place, for example, one end on the earth and the other at the sun, at say 3 pm period full stop, rather than from 3 to 3:08:20ish.