Re: johnreed take 1.2
From: |-|erc (gotch_at_beauty.com)
Date: 09/11/04
- Next message: Aratzio: "Re: [|-|erc] Re: [PO] Halting Problem Final Conclusion"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: [|-|erc] Re: [PO] Halting Problem Final Conclusion"
- In reply to: johnlawrencereed: "johnreed take 1.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:32:38 GMT
> Today the mathematical descriptions of the universe on the blackboard
> and in the published papers, are abstract and devoid of any conceptual
> connection to OUR physical reality
Herc
"johnlawrencereed" <randamajor@yahoo.com> wrote in
> Today the mathematical descriptions of the universe on the blackboard
> and in the published papers, are abstract and devoid of any conceptual
> connection to physical reality. The American physicist, Steven
> Weinberg, wrote, "... it is always hard to realize that these numbers
> and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the
> real world." With the phrase, "...something to do with the real
> world", Weinberg reveals that the mathematician has an unformed idea
> as to what his abstractions represent conceptually. Consider the
> words of the late Hungarian mathematician and physicist, Eugene P.
> Wigner, "...the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural
> sciences is something bordering on the mysterious... there is no
> rational explanation for it." It is in the contemplation of the
> mathematics and the operation of the stable systems in the universe,
> that I found the rational explanation for it. Galileo may have been
> the first to formally assert that, "...the laws of nature are written
> in the language of mathematics." Today we may elaborate. Stability
> in the field requires economy in cyclic motion. The invariant aspects
> of the stable systems within the physical universe, toward which we
> necessarily direct our investigative efforts, derive from least action
> functions*. It is illuminating to note that the action stable systems
> must follow to maintain perpetuity in the field, is precisely an
> action that mathematics represents well. The mathematics fits the
> stable universe because mathematics easily represents the economic
> properties of stable systems. Consider the continuing words from
> Eugene Wigner, "... it is just this uncanny usefulness of mathematical
> concepts that raises the question of the uniqueness of our physical
> theories."
>
> The uniqueness of our physical theories is defined by the properties
> they retain after reduction to their most basic state. In this form
> they are consistent with, or reduced to, the orders of form attendant
> to an instant or complete cycle of stable system action, be it as in
> the inverse square property of an economic sphere, the circumference
> line segment ratio to its radially enclosed area in the Euclidean
> circle, or the planet's trajectoral time interval ratio, and its swept
> out area of the orbital conic.
>
> Wigner approaches the idea that we can experimentally isolate a
> quantity with a local numerical magnitude and if that quantity
> operates within least action parameters, without influence, or effect,
> it can be proportionally applied to other stable systems, by virtue of
> the invariant, economic, time-area, or frequency-wavelength aspects,
> common to each stable system. In fact, mathematical models of stable
> physical systems are conceptual creations of the observers. The laws
> that result from mathematical abstractions derive from a physical
> system's potential for stability and not from its experimentally
> isolated operational quantities. This is not to say that there are no
> underlying reasons for the order we observe in the universe, beyond a
> principle of least action. Rather, it is to say that our classical
> laws are derived solely from the principle of least action and beyond
> this we know nothing.
>
> Aside from the kinematic quantities common to stable systems, our
> operational quantities are limited by our sense perceptions. The
> quantity of mass is clouded by our sense of weight and force. Mass is
> not acted on by the Earth attractor** and operates within the least
> action environment without influence or effect***. Therefore the
> proportionality of the quantity mass, can be universally extended
> beyond its local value to obtain a superficial fit with the non-local
> observed system. Devising an operationally effective mathematical
> scheme based on the quantitative notion of mass, OR high energy
> particle collision data and principles of symmetry, does not raise the
> operational quantities to the level of a physical reality.
>
> The fact that we can alter the energy of a proton into transient
> energy states we call bosons and fermions causes us to conclude that a
> physical proton object is composed of physical quark objects, whereas,
> this does not reasonably follow. The quarks have a physical
> justification that is dependent on the trails of transitory atomic
> fragments created by high energy collisions in the laboratory. I
> introduce the question here. Of what significance is an unstable
> energy state? Murray Gell-Mann put the theory together from the
> particle data available, but he did not believe that it truly
> mirrored, real world quantities. Consider Steven Weinberg's words
> again "... it is always hard to realize ."
>
> Before the publication of The Physics Preview for the 21st Century,
> the "... something to do with the real world" aspect of the
> mathematics, had not been clearly articulated. As a result we assume a
> too literal interpretation for the operational quantities within our
> theoretical constructs, and the mathematicians and physicists are
> taught, and accept the physical reality of the theories they learn.
> What this means for the rest of humanity is: as long as the physicist
> has something that works as a mathematical model for a physical
> system's action, humanity is stuck with the operational quantities
> used within that model. We are given these quantities as real, and we
> are told that they are fundamental aspects of the universe. The most
> recent additions are the logical result of an unquestioned, never
> verified, one hundred year old seminal assumption***** Colored quarks
> have no real existence in the universe, yet, today the academic
> humanist must reason from a theoretical reality, composed of colored
> quarks, joined together with gluons, within a time dilating, curved
> space universe. Why? Because mathematics has something to do with the
> real world.
>
> * A simple example of an economic or least action function, in terms
> of its form, is a Euclidean circle. The circumference is the shortest
> line length to contain the greatest area. ** The Earth attractor is
> the phenomena that we presently assume and call gravity, our feel
> force. *** The Earth attractor does not act on mass during free fall
> acceleration, during orbit, or in escape velocity from the Earth. ****
> See Takes 2, 3 and 4 for discussions on mass. ***** The assumption
> was that the electron manifests as a particle inside the atom.
>
> If you want a response please reply to randamajor@yahoo.com
- Next message: Aratzio: "Re: [|-|erc] Re: [PO] Halting Problem Final Conclusion"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: [|-|erc] Re: [PO] Halting Problem Final Conclusion"
- In reply to: johnlawrencereed: "johnreed take 1.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
