Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The nature of a "Final Theory"!


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#69 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1071 posts

Posted 28 May 2016 - 01:45 AM

Well, my last post to this topic was almost ten years ago. Three years ago I published a book on my proof. I have discussed that book with a number of people who have looked at it and only recently came to the conclusion that they all misinterpret something I thought was obvious. I thought it might be reasonable to post a rather simple analysis of what is essentially my opening position.

 

My book, (see http://foundationsof...cs.blogspot.com) is actually little more than a logical proof that modern physics is essentially nothing more than the consequences of requiring internal consistency within our explanations. That proof is based upon the fact that explanations must be expressed with a language, essentially a finite collection of concepts designed to provide a representation of one's experiences. 

 

Our knowledge of the universe is built entirely on our personal perceptions. That these perceptions arise from our interpretations of earlier experiences is an issue seldom, if ever, considered by the scientific community. Fundamentally, we must be able to identify what it is that we perceive before we can make use of those perceptions to build a mental model of them. What I am trying to point out is that we are not born knowing what our experiences signify. That is a subject we must learn as children long before we build any real knowledge of the universe. It must also be understood that humanity has through out history developed thousands of different languages. The fact that such a thing can be accomplished opens many interesting issues.

 

Clearly every human (including the most brilliant scientist who ever lived) can be seen as beginning life as a child born without a language. During his life he will experience many interactions with reality, including the many experiences central to "learning the language" which he will eventually use to express his understanding of reality (an issue solved many many years later). The total number of experiences standing behind his knowledge may be unbelievably large but it is nonetheless finite. That means that the entire collection of his experiences (expressed via whatever language he has learned to use) can be seen as a finite collection of known facts.

 

The total number of "concepts" expressible via that language could certainly be listed. Once such a list of concepts were constructed, each and every one could be given a specific numerical index which could be used to refer to that specific concept (think of that index as a secret means of referring to a specific concept). Using that collection of numerical indices, any experience could be specified via the notation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] where each [math]x_i[/math] is the specific numerical index of a required concept.

 

Given the above notation, the scientist's explanation of his experiences (essentially his explanation of reality itself) can be represented by [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math], where P stands for the probability he holds that specific thought being represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] to be true. Note that "internal consistency" is a very simple aspect under this representation. Under the explanation being given, the truth of the specified thought is a function of the explanation and cannot change except by changing either the "thought" (what is being represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]) or the "explanation" itself.

 

One needs to comprehend that the specific collection of numerical indices used is entirely arbitrary. In essence there exists an infinite collection of such "secret codes" every one of which would be capable of expressing exactly the same knowledge expressed by that original collection of thoughts. For the sake of argument, consider a specific second "secret code" where exactly the same the specific concepts are represented by a totally different collection of numerical indices. In order to specify this second set, I will use [math]z[/math] instead of [math]x[/math]. In this case, I will use the notation [math](z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n)[/math] to specify exactly the same thought originally expressed by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] in the original where each [math]z_i[/math] refers to exactly the same concept as does [math]x_i[/math].

 

In that case, the truth of a specific thought in this second "secret code", [math]P(z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n)[/math] will be exactly the same as [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. The actual pattern of those indices has utterly no bearing on the result; however, one specific case stands out as quite interesting. If every [math]z_i[/math] index is exactly [math]x_i +a[/math] it must be true that [math]P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)\equiv P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math].

 

This leads to another very interesting case. Suppose one considered two specific cases, one where [math]a=c+\Delta c[/math] and a second where [math]a=c[/math], another extremely interesting relationship appears.

 

[math]\lim_{\Delta c\rightarrow 0}\frac{P(x_1+c+\Delta c,x_2+c+\Delta c,\cdots,x_n+c+\Delta c,)-P(x_1+c,x_2+c,\cdots,x_n+c)}{\Delta c}[/math]

 

Anyone familiar with calculus will recognize the above expression is exactly the definition of the derivative of P with respect to c, the shift in the position of the origin. However, if [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] is seen as a mathematical function one can make another rather astounding deduction. The derivative of P with respect to c can also be expressed via,

 

[math]\frac{dP}{dc}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{\partial P}{\partial x_i}}\frac{d x_i}{dc}=0.[/math]

 

Since the expression we started with required [math]\frac{d x_i}{dc}=1[/math], this leads to the conclusion that in any internally consistent explanation of reality, expressed via [math]P(z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n)[/math] requires that explanation (when seen as a mathematical function) must obey 

 

[math]\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{\partial P}{\partial x_i}}=0[/math]

 

over the entire range of applicable indices. 

 

Now this assertion has a few flaws which are discussed in detail and resolved in my book. The result of that analyisi yields almost exactly the entire body of modern physics including some very interesting differences which I think amount to evidence that modern physics contains some serious errors.

 

Have fun --- Dick



#70 exchemist

exchemist

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 660 posts

Posted 28 May 2016 - 10:16 AM

 

Well, my last post to this topic was almost ten years ago. Three years ago I published a book on my proof. I have discussed that book with a number of people who have looked at it and only recently came to the conclusion that they all misinterpret something I thought was obvious. I thought it might be reasonable to post a rather simple analysis of what is essentially my opening position.

 

My book, (see http://foundationsof...cs.blogspot.com) is actually little more than a logical proof that modern physics is essentially nothing more than the consequences of requiring internal consistency within our explanations. That proof is based upon the fact that explanations must be expressed with a language, essentially a finite collection of concepts designed to provide a representation of one's experiences. 

 

Our knowledge of the universe is built entirely on our personal perceptions. That these perceptions arise from our interpretations of earlier experiences is an issue seldom, if ever, considered by the scientific community. Fundamentally, we must be able to identify what it is that we perceive before we can make use of those perceptions to build a mental model of them. What I am trying to point out is that we are not born knowing what our experiences signify. That is a subject we must learn as children long before we build any real knowledge of the universe. It must also be understood that humanity has through out history developed thousands of different languages. The fact that such a thing can be accomplished opens many interesting issues.

 

Clearly every human (including the most brilliant scientist who ever lived) can be seen as beginning life as a child born without a language. During his life he will experience many interactions with reality, including the many experiences central to "learning the language" which he will eventually use to express his understanding of reality (an issue solved many many years later). The total number of experiences standing behind his knowledge may be unbelievably large but it is nonetheless finite. That means that the entire collection of his experiences (expressed via whatever language he has learned to use) can be seen as a finite collection of known facts.

 

The total number of "concepts" expressible via that language could certainly be listed. Once such a list of concepts were constructed, each and every one could be given a specific numerical index which could be used to refer to that specific concept (think of that index as a secret means of referring to a specific concept). Using that collection of numerical indices, any experience could be specified via the notation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] where each [math]x_i[/math] is the specific numerical index of a required concept.

 

Given the above notation, the scientist's explanation of his experiences (essentially his explanation of reality itself) can be represented by [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math], where P stands for the probability he holds that specific thought being represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] to be true. Note that "internal consistency" is a very simple aspect under this representation. Under the explanation being given, the truth of the specified thought is a function of the explanation and cannot change except by changing either the "thought" (what is being represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]) or the "explanation" itself.

 

One needs to comprehend that the specific collection of numerical indices used is entirely arbitrary. In essence there exists an infinite collection of such "secret codes" every one of which would be capable of expressing exactly the same knowledge expressed by that original collection of thoughts. For the sake of argument, consider a specific second "secret code" where exactly the same the specific concepts are represented by a totally different collection of numerical indices. In order to specify this second set, I will use [math]z[/math] instead of [math]x[/math]. In this case, I will use the notation [math](z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n)[/math] to specify exactly the same thought originally expressed by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] in the original where each [math]z_i[/math] refers to exactly the same concept as does [math]x_i[/math].

 

In that case, the truth of a specific thought in this second "secret code", [math]P(z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n)[/math] will be exactly the same as [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. The actual pattern of those indices has utterly no bearing on the result; however, one specific case stands out as quite interesting. If every [math]z_i[/math] index is exactly [math]x_i +a[/math] it must be true that [math]P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)\equiv P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math].

 

This leads to another very interesting case. Suppose one considered two specific cases, one where [math]a=c+\Delta c[/math] and a second where [math]a=c[/math], another extremely interesting relationship appears.

 

[math]\lim_{\Delta c\rightarrow 0}\frac{P(x_1+c+\Delta c,x_2+c+\Delta c,\cdots,x_n+c+\Delta c,)-P(x_1+c,x_2+c,\cdots,x_n+c)}{\Delta c}[/math]

 

Anyone familiar with calculus will recognize the above expression is exactly the definition of the derivative of P with respect to c, the shift in the position of the origin. However, if [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] is seen as a mathematical function one can make another rather astounding deduction. The derivative of P with respect to c can also be expressed via,

 

[math]\frac{dP}{dc}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{\partial P}{\partial x_i}}\frac{d x_i}{dc}=0.[/math]

 

Since the expression we started with required [math]\frac{d x_i}{dc}=1[/math], this leads to the conclusion that in any internally consistent explanation of reality, expressed via [math]P(z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n)[/math] requires that explanation (when seen as a mathematical function) must obey 

 

[math]\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{\partial P}{\partial x_i}}=0[/math]

 

over the entire range of applicable indices. 

 

Now this assertion has a few flaws which are discussed in detail and resolved in my book. The result of that analyisi yields almost exactly the entire body of modern physics including some very interesting differences which I think amount to evidence that modern physics contains some serious errors.

 

Have fun --- Dick

 

Have any reviews of your book been published? I couldn't find any. 



#71 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1071 posts

Posted 31 May 2016 - 12:53 AM

No! As far as  I am aware, there have been no reviews whatsoever. What you have to understand is that I am not very well appreciated by the "professional" physics community. I was very disappointed by the graduate faculty I experienced as a graduate student. I had expected intelligent people who thought about things. Instead I found people who were more interested in obtaining recognition of their academic authority with little or no concern with the validity of their beliefs. In my opinion, modern physics is a religion, not a science!

 

I also had a habit of reading journals from cover to cover whenever I had the the time. That experience was quite different from what I expected. Journal articles which were often quoted were quite different from the other articles. If you only read the quoted articles, you get the impression you are dealing with intelligent people. But, if you read them all, you get the impassion that most are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

Even my Ph.D. thesis was a rather worthless publication. It consisted of a scattering calculation desired by Oak Ridge National Laboratory which anyone familiar with the current theories could have done. I was left with the impression that "experimentalists" performed experiments where the supposed theoretical results were calculated by "theoreticians" who assumed the theories were correct. No one had any interest whatsoever in comprehending what these theories were built on.

 

At any rate, I had no desire to publish until I had something worth while to say.  As a result, I started a business and earned my living totally outside physics. I had an idea when I was a graduate student (see the above) and some ten years after I received my Ph.D. I wrote an article which I thought was very interesting. I tried to publish it in three different Physics Journals and was rejected each time. I don't think any of those attempts even reached a referee as they were returned to quickly.

 

All three were returned with exactly the same comment: "This is philosophy and is of no interest to physicists!". I went to my thesis advisor (who by that time was chairman of the Physics department) and he refused to even look at what I had written. What he said was that "I would never get anyone to publish anything I wrote as I had not paid my dues!" When I asked him what he meant he said I took the wrong path when I dropped out of Physics. (Seriously, I think his real difficulty was that my income was more than ten times what his was!)

 

So, having nothing better to do, I submitted the thing to a number of Philosophy journals. Their response was quite similar to the Physics journal responses: "This is mathematics and is of interest to philosophers!".  So I showed it to some mathematicians who all said the mathematics were of no interest to mathematicians as everything I said was well known at the undergraduate level. So I forgot about the thing.

 

Some ten years later (after I had closed down my businesses) I was cleaning the attic one day and ran across the original document I had tried to publish. I had not even thought about the issue for many years and I read that old document with a rather different perspective. It seemed to me to be something others should consider so I took that old 1982 document and had it typed out as a decent looking document. I then had a local printer print up some forty copies which I stapled and bound in 2003.  (I still have several copies).

 

I sent most off to various Physics departments but received no responses from anyone. Except for one college who sometime a few years ago asked me for a financial contribution and mentioned that they had a copy of my "Foundations of Physical Reality" in their Physics Library. (Sorry but I didn't respond.)

 

So, in 2013, (after I had retired and had substantial free time) I hired a professional publishing company to publish the thing. They are the people who put the latest version on Amazon.com. I personally sent about ten copies to various important people I thought might be interested but received absolutely no response. One of the things I noticed was that the book did not appear as a "Physics" book. In fact, about two years ago I discovered that it was categorized with books about "Foundation" construction.

 

About a month ago, I found out that the picture of the cover which the publisher sent to Amazon (which,by the way, was not the actual cover on the published book) had a misspelling of Reality on it (they had left out the "i". The cover displayed on Amazon,com said "The Foundations of Physical Realty". Which totally explains their error in category.

 

So that is the story behind my work. If you would like to read it and want any subtle issue explained, just let me know. I doubt any professional will ever publish a review.

 

Thanks --  Dick 



#72 exchemist

exchemist

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 660 posts

Posted 31 May 2016 - 03:15 AM

No! As far as  I am aware, there have been no reviews whatsoever. What you have to understand is that I am not very well appreciated by the "professional" physics community. I was very disappointed by the graduate faculty I experienced as a graduate student. I had expected intelligent people who thought about things. Instead I found people who were more interested in obtaining recognition of their academic authority with little or no concern with the validity of their beliefs. In my opinion, modern physics is a religion, not a science!

 

I also had a habit of reading journals from cover to cover whenever I had the the time. That experience was quite different from what I expected. Journal articles which were often quoted were quite different from the other articles. If you only read the quoted articles, you get the impression you are dealing with intelligent people. But, if you read them all, you get the impassion that most are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

Even my Ph.D. thesis was a rather worthless publication. It consisted of a scattering calculation desired by Oak Ridge National Laboratory which anyone familiar with the current theories could have done. I was left with the impression that "experimentalists" performed experiments where the supposed theoretical results were calculated by "theoreticians" who assumed the theories were correct. No one had any interest whatsoever in comprehending what these theories were built on.

 

At any rate, I had no desire to publish until I had something worth while to say.  As a result, I started a business and earned my living totally outside physics. I had an idea when I was a graduate student (see the above) and some ten years after I received my Ph.D. I wrote an article which I thought was very interesting. I tried to publish it in three different Physics Journals and was rejected each time. I don't think any of those attempts even reached a referee as they were returned to quickly.

 

All three were returned with exactly the same comment: "This is philosophy and is of no interest to physicists!". I went to my thesis advisor (who by that time was chairman of the Physics department) and he refused to even look at what I had written. What he said was that "I would never get anyone to publish anything I wrote as I had not paid my dues!" When I asked him what he meant he said I took the wrong path when I dropped out of Physics. (Seriously, I think his real difficulty was that my income was more than ten times what his was!)

 

So, having nothing better to do, I submitted the thing to a number of Philosophy journals. Their response was quite similar to the Physics journal responses: "This is mathematics and is of interest to philosophers!".  So I showed it to some mathematicians who all said the mathematics were of no interest to mathematicians as everything I said was well known at the undergraduate level. So I forgot about the thing.

 

Some ten years later (after I had closed down my businesses) I was cleaning the attic one day and ran across the original document I had tried to publish. I had not even thought about the issue for many years and I read that old document with a rather different perspective. It seemed to me to be something others should consider so I took that old 1982 document and had it typed out as a decent looking document. I then had a local printer print up some forty copies which I stapled and bound in 2003.  (I still have several copies).

 

I sent most off to various Physics departments but received no responses from anyone. Except for one college who sometime a few years ago asked me for a financial contribution and mentioned that they had a copy of my "Foundations of Physical Reality" in their Physics Library. (Sorry but I didn't respond.)

 

So, in 2013, (after I had retired and had substantial free time) I hired a professional publishing company to publish the thing. They are the people who put the latest version on Amazon.com. I personally sent about ten copies to various important people I thought might be interested but received absolutely no response. One of the things I noticed was that the book did not appear as a "Physics" book. In fact, about two years ago I discovered that it was categorized with books about "Foundation" construction.

 

About a month ago, I found out that the picture of the cover which the publisher sent to Amazon (which,by the way, was not the actual cover on the published book) had a misspelling of Reality on it (they had left out the "i". The cover displayed on Amazon,com said "The Foundations of Physical Realty". Which totally explains their error in category.

 

So that is the story behind my work. If you would like to read it and want any subtle issue explained, just let me know. I doubt any professional will ever publish a review.

 

Thanks --  Dick 

Thanks for the summary.  I won't be reading it either, I'm afraid.  



#73 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1071 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 10:01 AM

Thanks for the summary.  I won't be reading it either, I'm afraid.  

 

Ah, ignorance is indeed the preferred state of humanity!