Re: Math & physics.



Steve Bell wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:b7295da4-4052-4d0b-8bee-a0669f21c858@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


What I find is one may write "laws of nature"
in either differential forms "df" or incremental
forms "DELTA f".
Permit me to provide a simple example using a
right angle triangle with S being hypotenuse,
X adjacent side and q opposite side and q is
constant, then

S dS = X dX and S DELTA(S)= X DELTA(X) ,
Eq0 Eq1

are both true.
Which Eq. is 'truer' , oughta to drive the
metaphysical philosopher mathematicians nutz.
Comments invited.

Let the deltas instead be time deltas, and we are talking motion, mechanics. Then if the universe propagates continuously, it's the
differential, but if time jumps from present to present to present, etc., discretely, then it's the DELTAS.

Thanks Bell for taking the time (increment :-)
to consider Eq0 vs Eq1, neatly, with understanding.
Can we use a physical experiment to decide
"Which Eq. is 'truer' "?



If time is discrete, probably the delta-t between "present times" is around Planck time scale, which I think is about 10^-43 sec? We would have to be able to observe time using clocks with at least close to this level of temporal resolution. If that's even possible, that's a long, long way off. Then there is perhaps an unanswerable question. Where does all the matter "go" during these absolute delta-t's between "present times"? In a certain way, if matter simply never ceases "to exist" this demands a continuous flow of time, not discrete.

These time discussions also show how the QM physicists have completely misunderstood their own UP.

No, you are demonstrating how you misunderstand it.

In the energy-time variant of the
UP, some QM people fail to see that they are saying *time itself* is stochastic, it has a "standard deviation" of a "time random variable" which is the delta-t in the "delta-E*delta-t >= some constant" variant of the UP. It is actually this stochastic variability in time that I see why the QM people say a violation of the conservation of energy is allowed. The QM people say the time it takes for a physical system to change energy is *itself,* in the *external world,* stochastic. They have made a very weird jump to saying stochastic time is "physical" and physical systems *all on their own* behave according to this weird UP idea. But (and here is where it becomes immensely apparent to me about the nonsense of jumping from the UP to "physical reality,") the delta-t in the energy-time UP is *not* about some innate stochasticism in time, it's just simply the standard deviation representative of the temporal resolution of some damn clock used by *us* to quantify how much time it takes the system to change energy.

It seems you have no idea what conjugate variables are either.


Using this
"external clock" in no way can change a goddamn thing about how a system behaves own its own. This is the temporal analog of the other gigantic QM mistake, where the "spatial resolution" of a microscope is then insanely thought to be how the external world "is," that is, the physical position of a particle is stochastic in nature, just because *we* can't focus light to a dot.

As soon as you start referring to successful theory as "insane" we
can be sure you are a full blown crank who has no clue what the
theory actually says. QM makes correct predictions, therefore it
is a useful theory.

See how
clear thinking exposes the insanity of QM? These people *do not* understand the simple concept of measurement error.

You have no clue what the UP is about. It has nothing to do with
measurement error. This has been explained to you before but
you have no ability or desire to learn anything.





I see the mistake as confounding QM (and theory
of predicting measurements) with one that intends
to give an actual description of nature, with the
term actual to mean one that provides a measurement
uncompromised by definition.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

As you say, QM doesn't describe nature. It describes some weird ass "we are gods when we measure, because then we actualize
matter
into existence" crap.

I think most phycists know we have measurement
compromises, such as Eq0=/=Eq1 from above.

For me, there are no problems with taking measurements. The external world exists at an instant in time as an array of particles.
There are volumes of space that have these particles (you, me, the sun, etc.) and volumes of space that do not (that's just empty
space to me, a total vacuum there, and I mean total, no QM "foam", but I do believe by now that "empty" volumes have EM flowing
through, no matter there though). In the final evaluation of things, measurements are made by shinning light on these particles. The
electrons jump up if the incoming energy is correct, then jump down, irradiate and we take that irradiation and focus it using, just
generally, a "microscope." The fact that the microscope produces a diffraction pattern is no big mystery to me, you can't focus
light to a dot. This is always true for any microscope no matter why the EM came into it for any reason. Diffraction patterns are
"after the fact," after the physical act of absorption/irradiation on the part of the electrons involved (the ones we're "looking
at"). The fact that diffraction patterns are produced in no way, imo, precludes an electron from being a physically existing,
full-blown "small ball of matter" particle with a fully deterministic state attached to its center of mass at an instant in time.
That's what I think it is at each and every time point we call "the present."
Steve Bell

Ok, IMO it's slovenly to define an 'event' at xyzt,
as it implies a point at xyzt, where at a measurement
occured, it's one hell of a simplification.



To me, to say an event happens at x,y,z,t has nothing to do with measurement.

Except that is the way it is measured.

It is a physical event that simply occurred all own
its own, and did so even if not measured in any way.




In place of that, I'll use 'occurance' with "D" being
finite such as,

Occurance = Dx Dy Dz Dt DE = DV3 Dt DE = DV4 DE



So, things actually physically occur, even if never observed? That's what I think. In other words, does Dx mean an event actually, truthfully, physically took this amount of space in x to occur, to "pan out"? And it physically took an amount of energy DE to do so? And it physically took a Dt amount of time from the start of the event to its end? And all of this occurs even if not being observed? If that's what you mean by "occurrence," I agree.


where a quantized change in energy "DE" occurred
within a spatial volume DV3 in moment of time Dt.


To me, what you have written contains the left side of QM's energy-time variant of the UP, which is how I interpret your Dt DE. If your D's represent what systems do *all on their own*, then I agree, if a system *physically* changes energy, some particle somewhere had to *physically* change position, and it took some physical amount of time to do so. And it either does or does not change energy even if not being observed. Also, your syntax makes better sense to me if Dt is not a "moment of time" (which is a "dot of time" to me) but is instead an interval of time, a delta-t.


Some fella's go to 5D with Occurance = DV5.



Is it that here you are adding a 4th spatial dimension, like Kaluza? I myself don't think these extra dimension theories are correct. Obviously then, I don't think string theory is correct.

I am sure the theorists are really worried about what you
think.



Einstein reasoned DV5 collapses to DV4 via Guv=Tuv,
with the spacetime geometry DV4 eliminating DE, by
energy expressed as spacetime curvature.



Is this non-zero Tuv from the electromagnetic field that, say, a rotating charged central ball of matter itself generates, and then "fills the space" surrounding it?



Myself, I'm ok with Einsteins Law Guv=Tuv, and I
use nonorthogonal-nonsymmetrical metrics in g_uv
to perform the operation of DV5 => DV4, so energy
is equivalent to spacetime stress.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I've done some research here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf


It is also so in regular 3-D space, 1-D time GR, that any electromagnetic energy resident in space at an instant in time contributes to Tuv. What has to be assumed to get to a Schw or Kerr solution is that there is no energy in the space outside of the central ball of matter, so that there, Tuv = 0. Or if there is electromagnetic energy present, all the balls of matter of concern (the central ball and the idly biddy test particle ball) are electronically neutral, so the geodesic motion is not disturbed by any electricity or magnetism present, and is then just dictated by gravity. If all balls of matter involved are neutral, the Tuv can be set to zero. Newman introduced the effects of the charge of the central body on the curvature of the space surrounding it, and it's effect on time dilation, but I disagree with this result. Also, I intuitively dislike an "asymmetric" geometry as the geometry of space, I think nature is more symmetric than that. In fact, I think orthogonal, symmetric metric tensors are the only ones nature "uses."


So you want to ignore facts because your "intuition" is offended?
That is not science.

Steve Bell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Math & physics.
    ... Where does all the matter "go" during these ... These time discussions also show how the QM physicists have completely misunderstood their own UP. ... the temporal resolution of some damn clock used by *us* to quantify how much time it takes the system to change energy. ... These people *do not* understand the simple concept of measurement error. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Universal grammar
    ... matter is a holographic emanation ... when I do a chore in a clever way, I save energy, ergo ... and again by a group of physicists in the 1990s. ... If the Moon is a cheese, then the sky is green; ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The only true theory of everything would not be discovered by a physicist
    ... Causality has been rejected in the early 1930's by most physicists ... explain quantum wave, spin, and entanglement and how matter can be ... Quantum wave and entanglement are hypotheses based on theories, ... matter and the energy it radiates is the result of a cause that acts ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 1 - 1 # 0. But 1 - 1 = N (nothing)
    ... That is the origin of universe. ... I can show you ball. ... Number system was introduced to count, measure things made of matter. ... then you can grind it up and make free energy ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Using "Since"?
    ... and could release tremendous amounts of energy." ... "Einstein found that energy was formulaically related to matter. ... physicists ever since have recognized that atoms contained and could ...
    (alt.usage.english)