Re: Math & physics.

On Jul 7, 11:49 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:f7e8094b-377c-4c31-a960-0294b1518f07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Hi Steve (and glird).

On Jul 6, 11:34 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:d325424f-6b44-4e32-8da3-20601d87898f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To Mike.

On Jul 4, 3:04 pm, Mike <mj...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Please keep in mind that physics has always been motivated by trying
to
explain our observations, the physical quantities that we encounter.
So
physics will never be complete by explaining physical quantities in
terms of
other physical quantities. For the question will then remain as to how
you
explain these new physical quantities. My best understanding is that
explanations about ANYTHING (including physics) will not be complete
until
they are derived from reason itself. For if you derive things from
logic
itself, then there is nothing left to question except reason itself.
And it
is difficult to question the validity of logic since it is just the
simple
algebra of existence and non-existence in the form of true and false.

I've thought about and debated these things for many years. And now,
finally, I feel I'm on the verge of just that - deriving physics from
logic
itself. All that is needed is to label propositions (or events if you
prefer) with coordinates - a parameterization of logic, if you will.
And the
path integral of quantum mechanics can be derived rather easily, and
soon a
form of general relativity as well, I have reason to believe. If you
are
interested in seeing this derivation, it can be viewed on-line at:

http://hook.sirus.com/users/mjake/QMfromlogic.htm

It should only be a 10-15 minute read for those skilled in
propositional
logic, set theory, and first year calculus.
Good luck,
Mike

I've had the good fortune to discuss math with matheticians
face to face, and always tried to listen very carefully for the
ineundo within their philosophy, from which a generalized
impression is created suggesting math is an infinite number
of logical systems each within it's domain of applicability,
with the application to physics being one highly specialized.

I agree there may be an infinite number of logical systems possible to invent, but mathematical logical systems are invented by
conscient beings, like humans, and there may not be an infinite number of us.

I'd even go further and suggest there are an infinite number
of mathematical models able to describe the universe, such
as there is an infinite number of ways to hammer in a nail.
Much of the choice is subjective, such as, ease of use and
easy to teach and learn, provided it's in reasonable agreement
with known (empirical) measurement.

To me, to think that a model describes the universe demands that there is an independent exterior universe to describe. If not,
what
is the model a model of? And if there exists a single, completely independent external universe (i.e., matter physically exists
in a
physical extended space at an instant in time *independent* of any consciousness), there is then only "one truth" and presumably
only *one* of our models is "the best." There may be a tie between models, but if there really is only one independent external
universe, these ties probably will eventually be broken. One theory, one model of all the ones possible to invent, will probably
win
out, if there is indeed an independent external world.

The exception is when a mathematical form is adopted that
produces new predictions, that vary from the conventionally
accepted theory, that can provide a paradigm shift, and in
that way, guide us into a higher plateau of knowledge.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Will also post to spf.

A big problem now, to me, lies with QM. This theory basically has "given up" in trying to describe an independent external world.
The QM physicists say there is no independent external world. But I really think almost every learned scientist rejects that in
their gut. If there really does exist an independent external world, I predict one day QM will be abandoned. Not just
incorporated
as a limiting or special case of some more general theory, but out right abandoned. This issue of an independent external
world/universe appears to me to be that important to get right. If we have gotten it wrong, like I think the QM physicists have
done, we may have painted ourselves into a corner that we may never get out of. There may never be a logically consistent merger
of
GR and QM, and if so, it will be because of QM, not GR, imo.
Steve Bell

I'm ok with QM, if this ref is ok with you,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
I also find unification of QM and GR to be
moderately straightforward.

I have major problems with any QM description of one its foundational ideas, the uncertainty principle. Here is what the ref says:

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and
momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the
other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree
of accuracy or certainty.

To me, this absolutely demands one accepts that a particle does in fact have a definite position and a definite velocity at an
instant in time.

Whoa, where's a fart? Your thesis presumes some
undefined invention called a particle, with hard
surface, that has never been proven.
At the nuclear (sub-atomic and quantum) level, we're
bouncing nerf balls off nerf balls.

I say this because exactly what are the things that this principle says we can't know with precision and accuracy?
If it's not the definite position and velocity of the particle, then what is it?

Since most QM physicists then make the insane jump to saying a particle *does not physically have* a time concurrent definite
position and velocity, I conclude they can't even correctly interpret their very own principle that *demands* particles do have
definite positions and velocities, by its very own wording. QM people seem immensely confused, to me, and very ambiguous.

Take a pot lid, hit it with a spoon, and you will
hear a ringing sound, right? That's true, therefore
a Wave Mechanical reason can be formulated to predict
that sound, and I respect anyone who does the math.

Steve, in your post above you use these terms,
"independent exterior universe"
"external world/universe"
are those some kind of ying-yang existential zen
philosophy? A ref would be helpful ;-).
I come from a sci-tek background, and have problems
with advanced philosophy.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Yes, absolutely one could go into ying-yang, good-evil existential ideas about the true nature of the universe. But I think one
needs to come to grasp with the physical facts first. To me, the physical facts are these. "Out there," i.e., in the physical space
outside of my body (and inside my body, for that matter), I think that particles exist, not waves, at an instant in time. These
particles are particles, simply and plainly, they are small balls of matter that have definite centers of mass and definite
velocities. Once we finally accept that the external world consists of physical particles, balls of matter distributed "out there"
in a physically existing (and probably flat) external space, with definite states at instants in time, we will abandon all this QM
nonsense.

What is nonsense? Are you worried about infinitely
accurate measurement?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Relevant Pages
Loading