modest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Continued from: Re: "So far from being right, it isn't even wrong!" Yeah, if you think about where [imath]v_?[/imath] came from, it's basically an expression of the velocity of defined elements in the [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space, it's meaning obviously tied to the scale of that space and "t". The main difference between classical and relativistic mechanics is that the latter makes time a function of space while the former does not. You are assuming that the scale chosen for space will be related to time via this variable v_{?}. That is not true in Galilean mechanics and should not be assumed true when deriving the Lorentz transformations. That would be circular. It being infinite would lead to, well, infinities; I think that would be quite useless view as nothing could be considered to be "changing" at all in any meaningful way. Again, in classical mechanics time is not a function of space. Unless you're starting from the assumption that spacetime is valid and the scale of t is set by the scale of x (which would be very philosophically weak) then what you're saying is just not true. Note that [imath]v_?[/imath] by itself is not yet conceived as the speed of light per se. It does turn out equal to the speed of defined massless elements, but setting it to infinity is not analogous to the idea of infinite light, as [imath]v_?[/imath] is related to the definitions of all the massive elements as well (via [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] and the smearing of [imath]\tau[/imath]). For the purpose of deriving the transforms, v_{?} is assumed to be a finite invariant speed. It is a postulate. In this respect, DD's derivation is no different from Einstein's. The philosophical question is: "what happens if you don't assume there is a fixed, finite speed which all frames will agree on?". DD's derivation (like Einstein's) doesn't answer that because it assumes it as a postulate, but others have. The answer is found here: Lorentz transformation from the first postulate. We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz transformation by invoking the principle of relativity alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite is borne out by experiment. What you get, it this:[math]x' = \frac{x - vt}{\sqrt{1+ K v^2}}[/math][math]t' = \frac{t - Kvx}{\sqrt{1+ K v^2}}[/math]where K is an open parameter unrelated to v. If K is zero then you get the Galilean transformations, if it is positive then you get something which makes no physical sense and if it is negative you get the Lorentz transformations. Only experiment reveals which is true of our universe. As wikipedia (not that I'm putting my faith in wiki) agrees when doing its derivation:Only experiment can answer the question which of the two possibilities, κ = 0 or κ < 0, is realized in our world. The experiments measuring the speed of light, first performed by a Danish physicist Ole Rømer, show that it is finite, and the Michelson–Morley experiment showed that it is an absolute speed, and thus that κ < 0. Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So, if you don't assume there is a v_{?} and you don't assume that everyone will agree on its value then you are left with an open parameter. The question of whether or not time is a function of space (and hence the scale of one depends on the scale of the other) depends on the value of this parameter. So, you can't rule out the Galilean transformations by that argument. Also, I agree, this has nothing to do with the speed of light. Had Newton known that the speed of light were finite it would have gotten him no closer to relativistic kinematics. What matters is the invariant nature of the speed which I will point out again that both DD and Einstein assumed for their derivation which Newton had no way of knowing. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Continued from: Re: "So far from being right, it isn't even wrong!" The main difference between classical and relativistic mechanics is that the latter makes time a function of space while the former does not. You are assuming that the scale chosen for space will be related to time via this variable v_{?}. That is not true in Galilean mechanics and should not be assumed true when deriving the Lorentz transformations. That would be circular. I'm not "assuming" such thing at all. If you look at the OP, you can see it arises from circumstances that you have not yet examined (they are referred to at the beginning of the post). If you don't want to put in the time to examine them yet, you can take its validity on faith for the purpose of that thread. If you don't want to take it on faith, you need to start from the beginning. And yes everything is in the final analysis circular, that is the crux of the argument; physical laws are true by definition, in a completely circular manner. For the purpose of deriving the transforms, v_{?} is assumed to be a finite invariant speed. It is a postulate. In this respect, DD's derivation is no different from Einstein's. No it is not a postulate, and I really get the feeling you are not concentrating on the matter, so I'm sorry but I just have to opt to spend my time on walking through the rest of the derivation and see if I can help DD communicate this thing properly. Just so this wouldn't be completely useless thread; I've been thinking how funny it would have been if Einstein had been trying to communicate relativity via internet forums... Whoever few people would have been able to follow his definitions and conclude their validity (and see the much deeper meaning than the postulates themselves), would have been drowned in the battery of "lol, everybody knows simultaneity is not relative to inertial frames :lol:" replies from people who never examined the first bit of his argument. (Actually that is probably what would have happened in the physics community also, if Poincare and Lorentz hadn't worked out most of the necessary relationships already prior to this... :shrug:) -Anssi ps. thinking back, I think communicating separately why[imath]v_?[/imath] can't be infinite might just serve as additional obfuscation on the OP, as that issue is already immediately clear to anyone who knows where [imath]v_?[/imath] came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Hi Anssi, nice try but I think you are wasting your time. Neither Erasmus nor modest seem to have the intellectual wherewithal to follow any logical reasoning extended past three steps. You know, magic is the art of misdirection of attention. Scientists use it all the time to avoid bringing up the difficulties in their perspective. So long as they can keep everybody thinking in compartmentalized arguments, they do not have to confront the crass inconsistencies in their world view. If you read all of the posts by either Erasmus or modest, you will come to see that their real interest here is in generating reasons for not examining my work in detail; they are little more than Jesuits of the accepted paradigm. At this point I put them with Rade; just two more intellectual incompetents using scientific buzz words to make their complaints look rational. You can fight them if you wish but you cannot win; it is exactly the same as arguing religion, its a total waste of time. I get a kick out of the fact that astrology was shown to be baloney two hundred years ago but there are still professional astrologers making a good living at it. “You can fool some of the people all of the time!” modest quotes me (Notice that, in my derivation of Schrödinger's equation, I set [math]c=\frac{1}{K\sqrt{2}}[/math].) For the moment (since K is actually a totally open parameter) I will set this constant velocity to v?...and then suggests that. Since K is a "totally open parameter" make v_{?} infinite: ... Why, pray tell, does he not just suggest setting K=0; the statements are totally equivalent. I say it is because he wants to bring up the “buzz” concept of an infinite speed of light without bringing up the consequences of self same compartmentalized issue. If one goes back to my original introduction of K, it arises when I bring the four symmetry based relationships [math]\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{Psi}= ik_x\vec{\Psi}\;,\;\;\; \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_i}\vec{\Psi}= ik_\tau\vec{\Psi} \;,\;\;\; \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}= im\vec{\Psi}\;\;\; and \;\;\; \sum_{i\neq j} \delta(\vec{x}_i -\vec{x}_j)\vec{\Psi}=0\right)[/math] into a single unified equation through the use of my alpha and beta operators. In that step, I use “K” to connect the two sides of the resultant equation (no constant on the Dirac delta term is necessary as it is explicitly zero anyway). To set K=0 is to simply say that there is no connection between the time evolution of [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] and the other two components of that equation. That is totally equivalent to hypothesizing a static universe. Go ahead if you want to but it is a pretty worthless solution to the circumstance. You were absolutely spot on the issue when you said, I think that would be quite useless view as nothing could be considered to be "changing" at all in any meaningful way.You know, the utter failure of supposed reasonably intelligent people to think things out absolutely astonishes me. This week there has been a lot on the History channel regarding “Star Wars” and the scientific issues the movie brought up. (I haven't actually watched it but I have accidentally caught a couple of presentations when I was changing channels.) One sequence which caught my attention was the one about sounds not being conducted by a vacuum. They had some professional physicist (a Ph.D. by the way) who said this was a major error in the movie; “obviously, in those battles, there would be no sound, just perfect silence". It reminded me very much of something which happened back in the early 1950's when power steering was first introduced. The original power steering devices yielded no tactile feed back at all and they were absolute bummers to drive. A pharmacist at the drug store where I worked as a “soda jerk” had a one of the first Chryslers to have power steering and I drove it many times delivering prescriptions for him). It was a very short time later that power steering with tactile feed back came on the market. After that, driving a car with power steering was (except for the required effort) exactly the same as driving a car without power steering. What I am getting at is the fact that feed back to our senses is a very important part of dealing with our environment. Sure, a vacuum doesn't conduct sound but that doesn't mean sound would be a useless feedback in a battle. In a battle circumstance, we can use all the information we can get. I am quite sure, with the supposed technology available to them, those Tie fighters, battle ships and, of course, Solo's ship would have surround sound (with directional information) to feed them an accurate impression of what was going on around them, including specific sounds for specific weapons . Consider two ships battling one another, one which had such an auditory presentation and one which did not. Who do you think would have the advantage. I doubt very much that anyone would enjoy being deaf. In fact, our fighter planes today have auditory notification of rocket attacks; with modern computers, one could create a much more informative audio feed without too much trouble; such a thing could be a very valuable asset. I was quite astonished that no one even thought of such a thing in that History channel presentation. Direct evidence that Ph.D. physicists can be (and often are) complete idiots. Well, I guess I got another “rant” in. I have essentially given up on everyone but you Anssi. You drop out and I will be gone. Have fun -- Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Erasmus00 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Hi Anssi, nice try but I think you are wasting your time. Neither Erasmus nor modest seem to have the intellectual wherewithal to follow any logical reasoning extended past three steps. Doctordick, perhaps the reason all our discussions end in me leaving is that after a few rounds of me asking questions, you proceed to insult me. I honestly feel as if I have never gotten a direct, straight answer to any question I have asked, rather some paraphrasing of "if you understood this already, you would understand why that question is irrelevant." This has not been helpful. If you read all of the posts by either Erasmus or modest, you will come to see that their real interest here is in generating reasons for not examining my work in detail; I have spent hours of my limited time examining your work- and this is a web forum, not a scientific journal. If my real interest was not examining your work in detail, I simply would not have examined your work in detail. TheBigDog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

modest Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Continued from: Re: "So far from being right, it isn't even wrong!" The main difference between classical and relativistic mechanics is that the latter makes time a function of space while the former does not. You are assuming that the scale chosen for space will be related to time via this variable v_{?}. That is not true in Galilean mechanics and should not be assumed true when deriving the Lorentz transformations. That would be circular. I'm not "assuming" such thing at all. Imagine if I claimed that Newton had all the information needed to come to the Lorentz transformations. Imagine if I made this claim: If you followed the steps to relativity, you would see the definitions that lead to relativistic time relationships... already existed at the time of Newton. When someone added that Newton had no way of knowing the invariant speed (if derived) would not be infinite—what if my response was that the properties of Minkowski spacetime do not allow for an infinite v_{?} because v_{?} is a scale factor between space and time in Minkowski spacetime. That would be absurd. How on earth would Newton know that Minkowski spacetime is valid? So, what am I supposed to do with this: Yeah, if you think about where [imath]v_?[/imath] came from, it's basically an expression of the velocity of defined elements in the [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space, it's meaning obviously tied to the scale of that space and "t". It being infinite would lead to, well, infinities You are telling me that Newton would know v_{?} can't be infinite because in some particular [math]x,y,z,\tau[/math] spacetime t is a function of x. I'm sorry, but in classical mechanics t is not a function of x. The properties of any given metric don't change that. If you look at the OP... The OP is this post. There are some subtleties in that statement which might be lost on you. you can see it arises from circumstances that you have not yet examined (they are referred to at the beginning of the post). The beginning of the post to which you refer makes the following declaration:my fundamental equation is a simple linear wave equation in four dimensions with wave solutions of fixed velocity. The constraint spoken of above is exactly the same constraint placed on the conventional Euclidean mental model of the universe by the fixed speed of light in Maxwell's equations. As we all know, if we constrain ourselves to linear scale changes, it turns out that there exists one very simple (and unique) relativistic transformation which maintains a given fixed velocity for all reference frames moving with constant velocity with respect to one another.Newton had no way of making such an assumption. Had he a tested wave equation with fixed velocity in all reference frames then sure he could have derived the Lorentz transforms—exactly as Einstein did. As I put forward in my last post, by means of deduction Newton could have gotten himself to this point:[math]x' = \alpha x - v \alpha t[/math][math]t' = \gamma x + \alpha t[/math] equation 2 from my link yesterday. Without making any assumptions regarding the existence of an invariant speed these lead to:[math]x' = \frac{x - vt}{\sqrt{1+ K v^2}}[/math][math]t' = \frac{t - Kvx}{\sqrt{1+ K v^2}}[/math] where K is an open parameter. Both K=0 and K<0 make good kinematic, physical sense. The former is Galilean mechanics and the latter is relativistic mechanics. If experiment reveals a finite invariant speed then the latter is correct. So, unless you can explain how Newton could have known there was a finite invariant speed, I will retain my presumptive opinion that you were mistaken in your comment. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 If you read all of the posts by either Erasmus or modest, you will come to see that their real interest here is in generating reasons for not examining my work in detail; they are little more than Jesuits of the accepted paradigm. Well yeah I can see that, albeit I don't think there is dishonesty there, my only complaint is that people don't seem to be concentrating enough to follow what is being said. Something I've noticed is that more than once both Erasmus and Modest have seen various results of the analysis and thought they are some initial assumptions or postulates (this issue with [imath]v_?[/imath] and the whole conundum about the dimensionality being an open parameter for a worldview etc...), which of course sparked complaints. So again my complaint is just that they are not concentrating enough to understand what is the premise and what are the results; I think that's the first thing you need to make clear to yourself to talk about some issue (Modest and Erasmus, I think you know the feeling of talking about relativity with someone who's got the postulates and the conclusions completely topsy turvy in their head) I think the reason that misinterpretation arises so often is that people don't expect it to be even possible to arrive at these concepts from the symmetry arguments alone... (The end result is that the complaints sound like the whole argument is dismissed as "impossible" without examining the issue) You guys should just keep in your mind that the premise is the symmetry arguments, and the rest are results from those symmetry arguments, expressed in terms of [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space that has been defined for the sole purpose of being able to express anything at all. Try to get around interpreting everything in terms of defined worldviews (like newtonian or what have you). I.e; When someone added that Newton had no way of knowing the invariant speed (if derived) would not be infinite—what if my response was that the properties of Minkowski spacetime do not allow for an infinite v_{?} because v_{?} is a scale factor between space and time in Minkowski spacetime. That would be absurd. ...try to get around interpreting [imath]v_?[/imath] in terms of Minkowski spacetime or newtonian space or something. The way you mix up concepts shows me clearly that you have no idea what [imath]v_?[/imath] is (or where it is coming from). That is why I already mentioned it is not exactly analogous to what is understood as "speed of light" in common world view (it is underlying parameter to many things, and it is also a result of the symmetry arguments). Yeah, if you think about where [imath]v_?[/imath] came from, it's basically an expression of the velocity of defined elements in the [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space, it's meaning obviously tied to the scale of that space and "t"You are telling me that Newton would know v_{?} can't be infinite because in some particular [math]x,y,z,\tau[/math] spacetime t is a function of x. No, I'm not telling you that. You are interpreting what I am saying in terms of some worldview you have in your head, instead of putting in the time to follow the definitions that were given. Not only is [imath]v_?[/imath] not a "speed of light" plugged into newtonian worldview, [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] is also not a "spacetime", nor is "t" a function of "x". I'm sorry, but in classical mechanics t is not a function of x. I'm still not talking about classical mechanics. The properties of any given metric don't change that. That is not even the argument; no one is saying that the relativistic time relationships would arise from the metric of [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space. Both K=0 and K<0 make good kinematic, physical sense. Yes, if you plug them into your newtonian/relativistic worldview without any regards as to what K is related to in the actual analysis we are talking about. No, if you follow the definitions that were given. Following the analysis, it is clear that K=0 makes it impossible to have any chance. Seems like you asked about that in the relativity thread and DD explained the issue to you. Then you asked about it again, and I tried to explain it to you. Just few posts above, DD explains it to you once again. I can't use my time explaining it if you are not really even interested to hear the explanation. So, unless you can explain how Newton could have known there was a finite invariant speed, I will retain my presumptive opinion that you were mistaken in your comment. That comment had to do with newtonian worldview containing some self conflicts that would inevitably lead to a model completely analogous to relativity. Not that there would exists "finite invariant speed". (that is also your interpretation made from your worldview) Look Modest, I can understand if you feel like you don't have time to look at such an involved deduction from the ground level. If you choose to view just some parts of it (which I think can be beneficial), you will have to use some faith on the validity of certain arguments, but that's simply by your own choice. I just can't spend much more time talking about these issues that should be clear to anyone interested of following the work, so I just hope this has been helpful. (But I have a bad feeling you prolly did not concentrate on what I said at all :( ) -Anssi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Erasmus00 Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Here is my problem- there are mathematical proofs that classical mechanics IS a consistent system. It is axiomatic, and mathematicians have proven that the system is self-consistent. This is a deductive truth. Classical mechanics does not obey Doctor Dick's fundamental equation. Yet, apparently, it IS an explanation. Hence, this appears to be a counter-example to the original claim (all consistent interpretations of data obey Doctor Dick's equation). I can further think of dozens of sets of data that do not appear to have potential explanations anything like Dick's equation. Much of this could be clarified with a set of specific examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

modest Posted August 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Note that [imath]v_?[/imath] by itself is not yet conceived as the speed of light per se...That is why I already mentioned it is not exactly analogous to what is understood as "speed of light" in common world view (it is underlying parameter to many things, and it is also a result of the symmetry arguments). ...Not only is [imath]v_?[/imath] not a "speed of light" plugged into newtonian worldview...Before we continue, if you could please show where I've mentioned the speed of light except to say that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? Perhaps this will force you to read what I've written thus far. ~modest EDIT: and, to be clear, here is a quote from the paper I've been quoting: The transformation derived has the exact form of the Lorentz transformation with the exception that the velocity of light c is replaced by a universal constant [math]\sigma[/math] which is not necessarily the same as c. The Galilean transformations (the case of [math]\sigma = \infty[/math]) is ruled out by experimental evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 I had already decided I shouldn't use time on this thread, but since there wasn't reply to Dirac thread yet, I thought I might as well give a quick comment. I hope it is not completely wasted effort. Before we continue, if you could please show where I've mentioned the speed of light except to say that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? Perhaps this will force you to read what I've written thus far. I've got that implication few times by now, for example from your comment "You are telling me that Newton would know v_{?} can't be infinite because in some particular [math]x,y,z,\tau[/math] spacetime t is a function of x.". I don't know what you are thinking when you imply Newton having some idea of what [imath]v_?[/imath] means (it's just a parameter in DD's equations, after all), so I assumed you are thinking about speed of light. To go back to your comment "Setting v_{?} to infinity gives the Galilean transformations. Experiment rules out this possibility while DD's derivation does not.", I hope you now understand that DD's derivation does in fact rule out that possibility, via [imath]v_?[/imath] being tied to the kinematics of all the defined elements (not just massless elements). Aaaand also it is not something that an "experiment" could measure, it is just something that is true by definition. I don't expect such a short explanation to actually explain it to you without faith; the proper explanation is the analysis itself. The last paragraphs of your post #5 are also giving me the implication that you are thinking about a measurable variable or something that actually exists in some way. There are quite many ways how the "circumstance represented by invariant [imath]v_?[/imath]" could manifest itself in a practical world view. Relativity is just one of those ways. Lorentz's solutions with aether are other. Now that serves as a nice segway to: Classical mechanics does not obey Doctor Dick's fundamental equation. Yet, apparently, it IS an explanation. Hence, this appears to be a counter-example to the original claim (all consistent interpretations of data obey Doctor Dick's equation). I can further think of dozens of sets of data that do not appear to have potential explanations anything like Dick's equation. It is not trivial to work out how exactly an explanation transforms into the terminology where it becomes obvious they fit into DD's equation. Look at the derivation of Schrödinger's Equation or Dirac's Equation. I very much doubt you can just see effortlessly in your mind that there is no possible route from any of those "dozens of sets of data" to fundamental equation. The route to classical mechanics is not trivial either (just the fact that it is at its easiest seen via Schrödinger's Equation means it is very far from immediately obvious) There are many examples in the history of physics, where multiple representations of something were much later shown to be equivalent via very concentrated effort of very bright individuals, and their results were not apparent to anyone prior to the actual logical proof. So I think when you made that comment, you must have made a similar mistake as Modest; you are thinking about one little part of the work that to you looks like something from modern physics, and you try to align some conception of something in your head into that view in very superficial way. That is what is taken as "generating reasons for not examining the work in detail". Really I would not even imagine to investigate the validity of his argument via trying to map every explanation I know of to his fundamental equation (that would be quite difficult thing to do properly). You have to start from the beginning, and think about whether the premise is valid, then think about whether the deduction to fundamental equation is valid, then think about whether the deduction to Schrödinger's equation is valid, and if you find out it is valid, then think about what that means. Second point related to your comment is that what one refers to as a "set of data" is often something for which there already exists definitions or assumptions as to what that set of data means. You have to remember that the fundamental equation is valid in so far that no undefendable assumptions about the meaning of the data have been made (that yields the requirement that the explanation allows for symmetrical transformations between coordinate systems, for instance), i.e. the data patterns that the definitions are based on, are completely of unknown nature. That is kind of the point, that ignorance makes us build the kind of worldview that we have built. EDIT: and, to be clear, here is a quote from the paper I've been quoting: Well it is once again talking about setting the speed of light into infinite and its consequence to Lorentz transformation. I hope you already understood that that is quite different issue from setting the [imath]v_?[/imath] as infinite (even if it superficially seems like the same thing), and once again I got the implication that you are thinking about the speed of light. I hope you guys don't take this as an insult, but this is exactly the kind of situation why "So far from being right it's not even wrong" was invented. You are not even wrong until you know what the parameters and concepts under discussion mean. -Anssi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Erasmus00 Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Look at the derivation of Schrödinger's Equation or Dirac's Equation. I very much doubt you can just see effortlessly in your mind that there is no possible route from any of those "dozens of sets of data" to fundamental equation. The route to classical mechanics is not trivial either (just the fact that it is at its easiest seen via Schrödinger's Equation means it is very far from immediately obvious) Your whole post is completely non-responsive to my point. Again: 1. Classical mechanics IS a self-consistent explanation, which can (and has!) be shown mathematically. 2. Classical mechanics DOES NOT obey Doctor Dick's equation, further, because classical mechanical probabilities are delta functions (no way around it), it would seem there is no mapping in which they would solve Doctor Dick's equation. 3. Therefore- not ALL explanations of a given data set must obey Doctor Dick's equation- therefore his analysis is flawed. I agree with you that trying to fit every idea into Dick's model is probably a waste of time- HOWEVER, one counterexample means the proof must be false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

modest Posted August 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 EDIT: and, to be clear, here is a quote from the paper I've been quoting: The transformation derived has the exact form of the Lorentz transformation with the exception that the velocity of light c is replaced by a universal constant [math]\sigma[/math] which is not necessarily the same as c. The Galilean transformations (the case of [math]\sigma = \infty[/math]) is ruled out by experimental evidence. Well it is once again talking about setting the speed of light into infinite and its consequence to Lorentz transformation. I've run into this problem before on forums usually with people whose first first language is not English. First off, you've completely misinterpreted all of the "implications" you attribute me and I honestly don't have the time to go through each and try to explain. I use this one example to suggest you revisit everything written in this thread and consider the literal words and their meaning. You read a quote which said this:a universal constant [math]\sigma[/math] which is not necessarily the same as cthe case of [math]\sigma = \infty[/math]and concluded that it said this:it is once again talking about setting the speed of light into infiniteNow, that is just a failure to understand English words. I can't fix that. I'll be extremely preoccupied for the next few days, so I would take as a kindness if you responded to Will. I also consider that topic (if Newtonian mechanics is an explanation and it is proven to be internally consistent then why is it a counterexample to DD's fundamental equation) a fine addition to this thread. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Your whole post is completely non-responsive to my point. Believe me, I'm trying to reply in as straightforward manner as I can, without being overly blunt. It's an issue where you have to be quite careful and analytical, and those one-liner replies that people sometimes revert to couldn't really amount to useful communication at all 1. Classical mechanics IS a self-consistent explanation, which can (and has!) be shown mathematically.2. Classical mechanics DOES NOT obey Doctor Dick's equation, further, because classical mechanical probabilities are delta functions (no way around it), it would seem there is no mapping in which they would solve Doctor Dick's equation. 3. Therefore- not ALL explanations of a given data set must obey Doctor Dick's equation- therefore his analysis is flawed. I agree with you that trying to fit every idea into Dick's model is probably a waste of time- HOWEVER, one counterexample means the proof must be false. Consider that self-consistency of an entire worldview is not really trivial thing to prove. "Entire worldview" aside, classical mechanics in various compartmentalized senses can certainly be shown to be self-consistent, and I suppose that is what you are referring to. I guess what you are thinking is that, (for instance) relativistic time relationships cannot be arrived at via self-consistency requirements alone because there are self-consistent descriptions that are not using relativistic time relationships. You should not fail to take into account that classical mechanics contains very many assumptions that can't be just taken at face value. The derivation of special relativity works via the specific definitions of mass, momentum, space, the works. (My comment about the history of physics was just pointing out that it was the subtleties having to do with associated and underlying definitions that yielded the route to relativity. Einstein has said he was quite convinced about its validity far before the experimental verification came through (apart from observations that already existed of course). Otherwise he would not have put the paper out. I think that confidence arose simply from him seeing the underlying definitions absolutely requiring the relationship (never mind what it might mean ontologically; that can be thought of separately). After a lot of kicking and screaming people had to agree it was indeed valid. The exact same thing goes for QM. After a lot of kicking and screaming Einstein would have to agree it's valid ) At any rate, I think the only way for you to actually see what is going on there is to really examine the whole thing from the beginning. When you are saying that classical mechanics can't be made to fit into the mould of DD's fundamental equation, that is exactly similar to saying that quantum mechanics cannot be used to explain classical mechanics. At first glance they are quite different, but to really understand whether QM explains what we see in the macro level, you have to actually analyze the situation quite a bit more analytically. The exact same thing goes to DD's derivation, I have no idea how it would even be possible to directly see that "classical mechanics cannot arise" from the given premise (as you seem to be quite convinced without much work at all). The issue is very far from simple in a proper analysis. In some ways this reminds me a bit of all those debates about how in some people's minds the existence of "human creativity" proved that materialism cannot explain human behaviour, i.e. that we cannot be fundamentally deterministic nor fundamentally "random" (in QM sense). That is simply a result of them following their intuitive feel about the issue, and their inability to think about the issue analytically. There are hidden assumptions in their head that just block them from thinking about the issue. -Anssi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Erasmus00 Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Consider that self-consistency of an entire worldview is not really trivial thing to prove. Define what you mean. A given "worldview" consists of axioms (statements that cannot be proven), AND statements derived from those axioms. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a system to have no axioms (see Godel incompleteness), and a self-consistent system is one where you cannot derive contradictory statements with those axioms (both A and not A). "Entire worldview" aside, classical mechanics in various compartmentalized senses can certainly be shown to be self-consistent, and I suppose that is what you are referring to. No, classical mechanics AS AN AXIOMATIC SYSTEM is self-consistent. Entirely. You should not fail to take into account that classical mechanics contains very many assumptions that can't be just taken at face value. Classical mechanics as an axiomatic system has very few axioms. When you are saying that classical mechanics can't be made to fit into the mould of DD's fundamental equation, that is exactly similar to saying that quantum mechanics cannot be used to explain classical mechanics. This is not at all true. Quantum mechanics is AXIOMATICALLY REQUIRED to reproduce classical mechanics. Doctor Dick's system does not include the necessary axioms (essentially the correspondence principle + measurement). Quantum mechanics is MORE than just an equation- reproducing Schroedinger's equation DOES NOT mean you have reproduced quantum mechanics. The exact same thing goes to DD's derivation, I have no idea how it would even be possible to directly see that "classical mechanics cannot arise" from the given premise (as you seem to be quite convinced without much work at all). Perhaps it is a lack of familiarity with physical theories as axiomatic systems. Try this- work out the probability distributions associated with classical mechanics- they MUST be delta functions. Regardless of how you map the classical mechanics space to the explanation space, you will still have a delta function distribution. Delta functions cannot solve Doctor Dick's equations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 I thought I replied to this already but I guess the post never came through (I must have closed the browser before it was submitted, doh!) Anyway, it was a simple reply, something like; Consider that self-consistency of an entire worldview is not really trivial thing to prove.Define what you mean. A given "worldview" consists of axioms (statements that cannot be proven), AND statements derived from those axioms. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a system to have no axioms (see Godel incompleteness), and a self-consistent system is one where you cannot derive contradictory statements with those axioms (both A and not A). I mean simply that entire worldview contains very many things (concepts, definitions), and it is not trivial thing to prove the self-coherence of "very many things". What I meant by "self-coherent in a compartmentalized sense" is that the relatively small set of definitions that are shown to be self-coherent (which I take it is what you are referring to), contains many things assumed to be true (about reality). i.e. things like mass and momentum are arrived at somehow from patterns whose meaning is unknown, but in those examinations about self-coherence they are taken to be "true" (as oppose to good approximations in some sense, and note that DD's analysis to relativity moves through these definitions). What my comments about the history of physics have to do with this is that, it was careful examination and arrival at better explanations of various associated phenomena (like electromagnetism) that forced us to change our view on things like newtonian kinematics. I think it's fair to say; more analytical examination of underlying issues lead to the uncovering of subtle problems, and more accurate (self-consistent) definitions. That of course is not to say that those problems are apparent in that limited set of axiomatic definitions themselves, and likewise it is not what DD's work points at. When he says "self-consistency alone leads to modern physics", that does not mean that all self-coherent sets of definitions are modern physics. It is referring to self-coherence against the exact premise that was given in the very beginning; Given a set of undefined information (let me just call it "patterns"), our definitions on that information will obey certain symmetries simply due to the fact that we are ignorant about their meaning. Those few specific symmetries, when they are obeyed in self-coherent fashion over all the definitions, lead to the relationships given by modern physics. I'm sorry if the communication appears quite sloppy to you, and I don't think this post is very clear either... I just have to say that you need to examine the work from the beginning and think about the meaning of the steps yourself. It is very hard to avoid all sorts of semantical pitfalls otherwise. And you can certainly get the wrong idea if you skim some parts from the middle (like, remember the conundrum regarding the meaning of "scale invariance" in the context of this analysis?). I think your best bet is just to remain absolutely analytical and follow the logic, and remember that there is no ontology to it whatsoever. One interesting anecdote that popped into my mind; Not only did Einstein think that Minkowski's spacetime formulation of special relativity was unnecessary, he thought it was "overly complicated" and not "fundamental" or "elementary" or whatever. That sounds to me that he felt his own terminology (his own presentation form) was "more correct" somehow. That is not analytical thinking; obviously reality is not in the presentation form. Einstein's definition of relativistic simultaneity was very nice piece of analytical thinking in my opinion (as it arose from other valid definitions), but then he let the intuition block his view. It should be plain to see, that the chosen presentation form is quite immaterial. The chosen presentation form does imply all sorts of things about reality in undefendable sense, and those ideas can constrain your thinking. I view theoretical physics as an attempt to arrive at analytical conclusions from given definitions, without letting the intuitive ideas block your view, and in that sense DD's work is about as analytical as it gets. That is also why it is notoriously difficult to give an intuitive view about it (which is what everyone is asking for because they want it to say something about "how reality is". It does IMPLY something about reality, but you need to look at it to understand what, and how)... ...but don't you think it is quite interesting, that Schrödinger's equation is shown to represents the probabilities of the future of a given defined element, when the definitions are inductively arrived at (and based on unknown data patterns). Consider that the probabilities re-distribute themselves upon addition of information in exactly quantum mechanical sense. We don't know what reality is like behind those patterns. What we do know is that a model based on random patterns works that way. Hmm, this turned out a bit longer than I intented. Forgive my rambling, I hope it explained you something about DD's analysis... If you feel it only raised more questions, I think we should conclude it is wasted effort to talk about it this way. I really do think you would have the chops to follow it if you had time/motivation, so what's the point of this discussion... :I -Anssi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Erasmus00 Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 I mean simply that entire worldview contains very many things (concepts, definitions), and it is not trivial thing to prove the self-coherence of "very many things". Most axiomatic models contain remarkably very fwe axioms, and everything else are derived statements. Classical mechanics has been proven by mathematicians to be self-consistent (see the work of Lagrange, for instance.) Because it is a system that proceeds deductively from a small number of axioms, this is possible. I think you are confusing the connection of classical mechanics to reality with the model of classical mechanics itself. Also, the rest of this post is essentially not responsive to the questions being raised. Please, in your next post answer this question- IF (just if) classical mechanics is self consistent AND generates probability distributions that do NOT solve Dr. Dick's equation what does this mean? I'm sorry if the communication appears quite sloppy to you, and I don't think this post is very clear either... I just have to say that you need to examine the work from the beginning and think about the meaning of the steps yourself. It is very hard to avoid all sorts of semantical pitfalls otherwise. And you can certainly get the wrong idea if you skim some parts from the middle (like, remember the conundrum regarding the meaning of "scale invariance" in the context of this analysis?). I have read the analysis all the way through more than once. It is simply not corect, as I have tried to point out a number of times. I have never retracted my point on scale invariance- the observable data we have is trivially NOT scale invariant in the way Dick claims it is, which is simply a question neither you or Dick have thought seriously about. The fact is that neither you nor Dr. Dick seem to want to address criticisms or questions about this model- I thought the scale invariance would be a simple way to demonstrate that something must be wrong with Dick's analysis, but it was shouted down without serious attempts to reason out the point. I really do think you would have the chops to follow it if you had time/motivation, so what's the point of this discussion... :I I have read the entire analysis, I have followed along, and have tried to point where I think it went wrong. No question I have asked about this presentation has ever been concretely answered! Sidestepping direct questions with lengthy posts about "what Dick is tryng to do" is a waste of everyone's time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 I think you are confusing the connection of classical mechanics to reality with the model of classical mechanics itself. No, but I am talking about slightly different issue than you are. Which is that if you take the definitions of classical mechanisms at face value, they contain assumptions that can be shown to arise from undefendable approximations to the premise that DD gives in the beginning. My lengthy post is not because I'm trying to point you are wrong about the exact assertion that you give, it's just because I'm trying to point out what I've been talking about in the first place. Also, the rest of this post is essentially not responsive to the questions being raised. Please, in your next post answer this question- IF (just if) classical mechanics is self consistent (and btw I'm sure it is, in the compartmentalized sense) AND generates probability distributions that do NOT solve Dr. Dick's equation what does this mean? I think it can mean at least couple of things. It can mean that one has not found the proper transformation between DD's definitions and the definitions of classical mechanics. Or that classical mechanics contain undefendable assumptions/approximations that lead to subtle inconsistencies when they are worked on further (and this is very hard thing to spot). It is hard to try and figure out its validity from that point of view because it is incredibly non-trivial to trace the transformation between a specific model and his constraints (and recognize the role of assumptions) I have read the analysis all the way through more than once. It is simply not corect, as I have tried to point out a number of times. Considering that I think you are misinterpreting its purpose almost completely, I would just like to know of the errors you might have spotted in the algebra. I have never retracted my point on scale invariance- the observable data we have is trivially NOT scale invariant in the way Dick claims it is, which is simply a question neither you or Dick have thought seriously about. This is a clear example of misinterpreting the analysis. The "observable data" that you are referring to is an interpretation of the raw data, and it is once again a feature of a worldview what and in what sense is considered scale invariant. To say that DD's analysis is not scale invariant is kind of crazy assertion, because you can view it simply as a plotted picture of information, and to change its scale is just as immaterial as taking a step closer to the picture, or scaling the entire universe up or down. Nothing changes for anything that is part of that universe, of course. That is entirely different issue than the meaning of scale invariance in physics. The fact is that neither you nor Dr. Dick seem to want to address criticisms or questions about this model- I thought the scale invariance would be a simple way to demonstrate that something must be wrong with Dick's analysis, but it was shouted down without serious attempts to reason out the point. I'm really sorry if you feel that way, but I feel the problem is that people bring in definitions of modern physics in a mixed way, and it is very unapparent as to how they align in DD's work. I don't think it can be investigated from that perspective very meaningfully, and I think the assertions "thus his work is false" demonstrate clearly that the purpose has been misunderstood (don't you think DD would realize quite readily if the problems were actually that simple?) So I would just like to know, if you think there is an error in the algebra from the 4 symmetry constraints onwards. -Anssi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Erasmus00 Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 Which is that if you take the definitions of classical mechanisms at face value, they contain assumptions that can be shown to arise from undefendable approximations to the premise that DD gives in the beginning. This isn't true- you are AGAIN confusing classical mechanics as a model with an INTERPRETATION of classical mechanics. What definitions or axioms do you feel arise from undefendable approximations? I'm becoming certain that while you are familiar with DD's analysis, you are unfamiliar with classical mechanics as an area of MATHEMATICS. It can mean that one has not found the proper transformation between DD's definitions and the definitions of classical mechanics. Or that classical mechanics contain undefendable assumptions/approximations that lead to subtle inconsistencies when they are worked on further (and this is very hard thing to spot). I specifically ruled out these possiblities in my question. Further, you can show that classical mechanics leads to no inconsistencies-see the work of mathematicians (not physicists- mathematicians work solely in the context of the MODEL, they do not connect it to the real world in any way), specifically Lagrange,Hamilton and the work that came after. This is not an open question- mathematicians have shown classical mechanics self-consistent. Further, I've outlined a proof the probabilities generated by the field can never satisfy DD's equation, regardless of the mapping. To every assertion that classical mechanics is self-consistent, you bring up approximations, which cannot exist WITHIN the model, ONLY when applying the model to reality. Further, you seem to think the model is built on thousands upon thousands of assumptions, which is also not true. Considering that I think you are misinterpreting its purpose almost completely, I would just like to know of the errors you might have spotted in the algebra. I'm not misinterpreting the purpose- I am attempting to show by counter-example its incorrectness. As to the major error- dick takes his symmetry constraints and moves to his "dirac-type" equation as if this is the only way to implement these symmetries. This is simply not true- there are many equations (with very different solutions) that obey the symmetry constraints that are not dirac type. To say that DD's analysis is not scale invariant is kind of crazy assertion, because you can view it simply as a plotted picture of information, and to change its scale is just as immaterial as taking a step closer to the picture. If you think the description of pixels in an image will have the same description as if you take a dozen steps back and see the image as a whole (analog vs. digital), you are mistaken. Further, Dick is talking about ANY data and ANY self-consistent models that attempt to explain that data- and his analysis implies (via his equation) that any self-consistent explanation of any set of data should have some scale invariance. The problem is that you and dick cannot fathom the idea of what NOT having scale invariance would mean- and so you assert its impossibility. I don't think it can be investigated from that perspective very meaningfully, and I think the assertions "thus his work is false" demonstrate clearly that the purpose has been misunderstood (don't you think DD would realize quite readily if the problems were actually that simple?) I don't assert that the counter-examples I have indicated are particularly obvious, and often an outside perspective will see things the creator of the work will not. I spent several years of my life working on a model I thought was brilliant, when I went to publish, a reviewer pointed out several (as it turns out insurmountable) flaws. c'est la vie. If DD wants his work to be taken seriously, he needs to figure out a way to answer direct questions with direct to-the-point answers. Responding over and over again by paraphrasing the work is a bit silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.