Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 45: The "Push" of "Space/Time"
- From: "OsherD" <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 May 2006 23:56:59 -0700
From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx
of (Probable) Causation. This is also in accordance arguably with mostFrom section 44, it is plausible that Force is the physics "operation"
physicists' intuition about Forces, but not with formalities of General
Relativity or even with much of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field
Theory in which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) and the
Schrodinger equation and so on tend to gloss over the role of Force.
Since I am rather fond of the Schrodinger equation and consider General
Relativity to be at least an approximation to the real world, I will
choose to attack the HUP as the weakest link of
theoretical/mathematical physics.
The history of the HUP is still ongoing, with a remarkably cyclic
history of repeated attempts to not only resurrect it but to claim its
foundational status. While I do not enjoy arguing with some of the
more Obsessive-Compulsive Ingenious Imitators on this question, I
should tell readers who may not be as old as me (I'm 67) that every
time HUP is resurrected, it loses the argument. The most influential
resurrections of the HUP occurred during the post-Nazi period after
WWII, from about 1945 to 1974. In 1974, Professor Max Jammer of
Bar-Ilan University in Israel and CUNY in his Philosophy of Quantum
Mechanics, Wiley: N.Y. 1974 issued the most comprehensive analysis of
the philosophical basis of QM up to that date, an analysis which has
never been superceded except with regard to the Stochastic vs
Statistical Schools which do not concern us here.
Roughly speaking, the HUP does not make sense. Its most deep
mathematical formulation is in probability-statistics terms as
variances/standard deviation inequalities representing "uncertainties".
However, it makes no sense either as a probability-statistics
inequality in mathematical probability-statistics or as a claim about
behavior of individual objects in Quantum Theory. Concerning the
latter, there is no way to obtain arbitrarily precise uncertainties
with present day or foreseeable technology. Concerning the former, a
"constrained variance" (constrained above, say by a fixed or variable
upper bound) is much less plausible in science than a finite fixed
upper bound for velocities/speeds such as the speed of light (which is
generally agreed not to hold for geometry as in inflation but also for
group velocities and so on).
Doesn't something "look like it's happening" in the HUP, especially in
the engineering frequency domain? Yes and no, so to speak. The
engineering frequency domain is one of the least likely places to seek
clarification in terms of mathematical foundations - roughly speaking,
it's about as clear as complex variables in the real world, which so
far have resisted real direct interpretation.
HUP is often used as justifications for quantum entanglement and for
quantum fluctuations in vacuums and so on, but these are where Probable
Influence/Causation (PI) gives remarkably simple alternative
interpretations. In the case of quantum fluctuations, PI considers
according to the previous section of this thread and others that the
Universe simply has a fundamental Force-exerting (Probable)
Influence-Causation anywhere and everywhere in its extent. If HUP
claims to be ahead of PI in that its fluctuations are "random", then
its adherents are apparently unaware that PI is a fundamentally
Probability-Statistics theory with far more and better defined
machinery than HUP including Causal/Influence Sets of form (A-->B).
Osher Doctorow
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Double slit experiment -- and the spooky results
- Next by Date: Re: How hard can a human suck?
- Previous by thread: The Pattern of Tiny Feet
- Next by thread: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 45: The "Push" of "Space/Time"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
