Subject: How impedance, time and space arise from pi
From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 15:15:50 GMT
This article explains how "pi", the "exponential function",
the "impedance of space", time, space, and the other
physical properties arise from simple standing waves, and
how the "wave function" relates to the physical properties.
Reality is basically observed and measured in
in terms of "time intervals" and "time periods".
Time intervals are most fundamentally associated
with radii, and time periods are most fundamentally
associated with circumferences.
Both of these times are quantized by counting
some external reference cycle such as those
obtained from atomic clocks. The reference
cycles that have been historically used to
quantize observations have been "day cycles",
"month cycles", "year cycles" and the cycles
of spring/mass systems and pendulums.
A time period can be defined as:
time(period, system) = cycles(reference)
-----------------
cycles(of system)
A time period is a count of the reference cycles,
between each cycle of a system under observation, as
observed against some assumed stable background,
which is needed to determine when a cycle is complete.
A time interval can be defined as:
time(interval) = cycles(reference)
-----------------
cause to effect
A time interval is a count of the reference cycles,
between when a cause is observed in a body,
and when an effect is observed in the system
the body is associated with.
A constant k1, associated with an isolated entity,
can be defined as:
k1 = circumference / radius
In the case of a perfectly symmetrical, isolated
entity, k1 is equal to "2 pi".
A constant k2, associated with an isolated system,
can be defined as:
k2 = exp(k1)
In the case of a perfectly symetrical, isolated
system, k2 is equal to exp(2 pi) or 535.488....
Whereas the physical expression of k1 is "2 pi",
or the ratio of circumference and radius, the
physical representation of k2 is the ratio
of two interaction distances, or more
fundamentally two interaction times multiplied
by a universal space per time constant "C".
These distances can be radii, diameters or
circumferences as k2 is, like "2 pi", observed
as a dimensionless ratio of distances.
An easy to visualize physical representation of k2
would be the two radii ( Or diameters or circumferences )
of a coaxial transmission line. A transmission
line with a charactistic impedance of 376.733.. ohms
matches the impedance of space.
The physical condition that satisfies the
"impedance of space" can be defined as:
Z = Z0 * ln(exp(2 pi))
------------------
2 pi
Now it is obvious that ln(exp(2 pi)) equals
"2 pi" but this equation is more familiar to
electrical engineers as:
Z = k * ln( outer diameter / inner diameter )
where the ( outer diameter / inner diameter )
for a 376 ohm transmision line equals 535.488,
and k equals ( Z0 / "2 pi" ) or 59.959..
This is commonly expressed as:
Z = 59.959 ln( outer diameter / inner diameter )
As far as I know, this is the first explanation
of how these two constants arise.
( 59.488 and 535.733 )
Note that Z0 is simply a constant used to
scale the numeric value of impedance, and if
Z0 were set equal to one, then the electrical
properties could be defined from the equation:
Z = ln(exp(2 pi)), or one, for pure space, and
Z = ln( outer diameter / inner diameter ) otherwise.
Now, I assert that fundamental reality consists
of standing waves. Ratios of these standing waves
are observed as period times when associated with
cycles ( circumferences), and as interaction times
when associated with time intervals ( radi).
Distance is fundamentally an interaction time
which is multiplied by a constant to differentiate
it from period time. This constant is of course "C",
which serves no purpose other than to differentiate
between the two fundamental kinds of time.
Mass is simply a property used to differentiate between
two interacting bodies. Humans perceive
conserved "objects" having mass, varying in
homogenous "media" such as time, space and magnetic flux.
In the simplist case, we perceive the object Earth
varying in media without considering that the
Earth's media is an expression of the Sun's mass.
In fact, the media associated with objects is a
more complete and fundamental expression of
objects than mass.
This can be expressed as:
mass(A) = (time(interaction B)*C)^3
-----------------------------
( time(period) / 2 pi )^2 * G
mass(B) = (time(interaction A)*C)^3
-----------------------------
( time(period) / 2 pi )^2 * G
Note that "C" is used to express interaction time
as a distance, while "G" is a constant used to
differentiate between object A and object B,
or more fundamentally between media A and media B,
such media fundamentally being standing waves.
Of course, all other physical properties can be
defined in terms of the time, distance and mass
thus defined, but the most fundamental expression
of the physical properties is:
property(X) = tan(A)^L * tan(B)^M * time(period)^N * C^(L+M) / G^O
where:
L, M, N and O are integers
C = the speed of light
G = the universal gravitational constant
tan(A) = orbital velocity(A) / C
tan(B) = orbital velocity(B) / C
In other words, what we perceive as velocities
are basically tangent functions associated with
what we perceive as interacting bodies.
Although I mentioned that I would explain how
the "wave function" and quantum mechanics
relates to all this, rather than make this article
too long, I suggest that anyone who is interested
in pursuing this, or wants more graphical details
on these concepts visit my Web site, and
read some of the articles. Read "Potter explains all"
on my main menu, and some of the articles under
"Random thoughts".
In these articles, I assert that Special Relativty
is basically a tangent identity:
tan(A+B) = tan(A) +- tan(B)
-----------------
1 +- tan(A) * tan(B)
and that spectrum of hydrogen-like ions
is basically another trig identity:
sin(A)^2 + sin(B)^2 = 1
which after a little juggling is expressed as:
v = Rydberg's constant * ( 1/M^2 - 1/N^2 )
The bottom line is that all this stuff ( reality )
is just standing waves and geometry.
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:33:29 -0500
From jdaniels@isd.net Fri Dec 13 15:39:33 1996
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:14:57 -0600
From: Jason Daniels
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
Alan Yu wrote:
>>It's now also apparent to this invidual that her
>>three-year-old son is on the receiving end of externally induced
>>auditory input.
>What a god awfully long way of saying the son HEARD SOMETHING.
>Think about it, if you have internally induced auidtory input, it's
>typically phrased as and "auditory hallucination".
>Jason Daniels
Accusing other as insane or hallucination without evidence is the
trademark of mind control operators or cooperators.
Why is your words so similar as them?
Before I answer your question, let's review the original report on this
case first.
(attachment)--Microwave Harassment & Mind Control Experimentation" by
Julliane McKinney
===========================================================
Another individual, during a telephone conversation, was told by an
employee of a local power company that , if she value the lives of her
children, she would drop the her opposition to the company's installation
of high power lines. Since receiving that threat, the individual
11-year-old daughter has been reduced to extrrement of illness which cannot
be diagnosed. It's now also apparent to this invidual that her
three-year-old son is on the receiving end of externally induced
auditory input.
=================================================================
I would ask you that what is the meaning of the threatened words-
which is told by an employee of a local power company during the
telephone conversation.
"If her value the lives of her children, she would drop the
opposition to the company's installation of high power lines".
The anbove words has obviously proven that the vicytim's children
revceived the intentional harassment from mind control equipments.
Now, I would further show readers the information of the microwave
voices equipments in our society below.
(attachment)
====================================================
(New World Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny by C. B. Baker)
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported: "Federal researchers
are now investigating a broad array of non-lethal devices
including...LOW-FREQUENCY 'INFRASOUND' GENERATORS POWERFUL
ENOUGH TO TRIGGER NAUSEA OR DIARRHEA,...electronics-disrupting
pulses of electromagnetic radiation..and biological agents that
can chew up crops." To help promote the U.N. global dictatorship,
Soviet KGB scientist have recently been working at various U.S.
advanced weapons facilities, such as Lawrence Liverpool and Los
Alamos Laboratories.
In November, 1993, a three day top-secret non-lethal weapons
conference took place in the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns
Hopkins University in Maryland. The meeting was attended by Attorney
General Janet Reno, numerous scientist, military weapons experts,
intelligence officials from state and local police departments. The
main purposes of the meeting was to prepare leading law enforcement
officials for the use of psychotronic mind-control weapons.
*
Amongst the subjects covered at the conference were "RADIO-FREQUENCY
WEAPONS, HIGH POWERED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY, ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY" (used
to transmit subliminal voices into a victims head), VOICE SYNTHESIS, and
APPLICATION OF EXTREME FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS TO NON-LETHAL
WEAPONS." Col. John B. Alexander, Program Manager for Non-Lethal
(psychotronic) Defense, Los Alamos National Laboratory, served as
PRESENT DAY, U.S.Government use of electromagnetic weapons was described
conference chairman.
in the Oct-Nov., 94 NEXUS MAGAZINE: "Directed-energy weapons currently
being deployed include, for example, a micro-wave weapon manufactured by
Lockheed-Sanders and used for a process known as 'Voice Synthesis' which
is REMOTE BEAMING OF AUDIO (i.e., VOICES OR OTHER AUDIBLE SIGNALS)
DIRECTLY INTO THE BRAIN OF ANY SELECTED HUMAN TARGET. This process is
also known within the U.S. Government as "Synthetic Telepathy ( Microwave
voices device -- Alan Yu note)."
This psychotronic weapon was demonstrated by Dr. Dave Morgan at the Novem-
ber, 1993 Non-Lethal weapons conference.
===============================================================
The above information not only has proven that US government has
developed such kinds of microiwave voices equipments in the society,
but also proves that the local law enforcement units should havec such
kinds of microwave-voices equipments in hands.
Therefore, comparing the threatened words of the local power copany
employee with above equipments, it does prove that the mind control
operators or cooperator can use the microwave-voices equipment to
harass the child.
That's why the child can end of this kind of harassment after the
victim (child's mother) drop her opposition to the installation of the
high power lines.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Yu
The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies
secretly (die as if natural cause).
The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
countries (In Taiwan, the mind machine is translated as "Psychological
Language Machine." In the Mandarin sounds as "Sin_Lee_Yue_Yan_Gi")
Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
control organization.
(If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and
the social security department do not put these individual in the
welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
control)
The shorter the lie is, the better it is. So, the liar can avoid
inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: BASIC geometry problem
From: Peter Mott
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 12:01:49 -0500
Shawn Maddock wrote:
>
> Here is the problem:
>
> Below is a tiling of a plane by squares. What regular n-gons will tile
> the plane? What non-regular convex n-gons will tile the plane? What
> combinations of regular polygons will tile the plane? What cominations
> of any type of polygon will tile the plane? Generalize to any type of
> polygon.
> | | |
> -+-+-+-
> | | |
> -+-+-+-
> | | |
>
> The regular polygons are easy: 3, 4, and 6 sided n-gons will tile. The
> part I need help on are the generalizations, and any patterns you find
> in any of the sub-questions. Of course, an equation would be wonderful,
> as long as it is explained.
My experience with these issues came about when I had to carry out
Voronoi and Delannay tessellations of 3-space. You might check
back into the literature on these subjects, as I am sure the geometry
was worked out long ago, probably the last century--I believe that
both Voronoi and Delaunnay were 19th century mathematicians.
Lets say you have a collection of points in 2-space that form
a certain structure--call these points "atoms" to distinguish
them. A Voronoi polygon (polyhedra in 3D) is the regon is space nearest
to an atom. If you connect any two points that share a common boundary,
the boundary between the VP will be the perpendicular bisector of the
line connecting these two atoms. If you connect all neighboring atoms,
you get a network of triangles (tetrehedra in 3D)--these are the
Delaunnay
triangles. The center of any circle drawn through the three atoms of
a Delaunnay triangle is equidistant to all three atoms, an hence forms
a corner of the Voronoi polygons. A Voronoi polygon can have any number
of sides, but as you can see, the basic unit of tessellation is the
Delaunnay triangle.
Getting back to your problem, The basic issue here is the corner,
where three or more polygons meet. Since the intersection of any three
polygons form a corner, if FOUR (or more) polygons form a corner, you
have a special case, a degeneracy. Let us take the two cases
separately.
If there are no degeneracies, I recall that there is a mathematical
theorem that states that the number of sides must average to six, for
any configuration. My experience with random structures proved this
to be true. This is obvious because the number of lines meeting
at the corner are three, dividing into three angles of an average of
120 degrees, and the inner angle on a hexagon is also 120 degrees.
If there are degeneracies, as in tiling 2-space with squares, you take
360 divided by the number of lines that meet to get the inner angle
of the polygon. E.g., 4 lines ==> 360/4=90==>square as the inner
angle of a square is 90 degrees; 360/6=60==>triangle etc.
The situations is considerably more complicated in three dimensions.
FWIW
Peter Mott
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 22:59:31 GMT
In article ,
Charles Cagle wrote:
>In article
>, Gregory
>Loren Hansen wrote:
>>I'm not sure I can at all agree with your disagreement. I think your
>>standards are too high.
>
>Then I must reply that I think yours are too low.
>
>> For what you want, it seems you would need
>>complete knowledge of the universe before you can even begin to formulate
>>theories.
>
>You are right. I think those who make significant advances have a sort of
>Gestalt experience or vision of the universe. You can't get to the whole
>through the parts but instead one becomes aware of the wholeness of it all
>(perhaps through what you might refer to as a 'mystical' experience) and
>then attempts to fit the parts into the implicate form or idea of the
>universe of which having received it one forever after carries with him as
>a pattern. This is the a priori form which becomes the cognitive filter
>through which the rest of the universe becomes coherent.
I think you're only half right, here. Physics is as much a creative
endeaver as anything else, and great advances were often caused by flashes
of insight that were likened to a mystical experience. As you suggested,
they can find a new way of looking at the universe, and suddenly their
problem makes sense. But the scientists in question were bringing
together facts and experience they had been mulling over for some time.
That's not to say they become aware of the wholeness of the entire thing.
Just a new, sensible view of the problem they're working on. If it's
anything more than that, it must just be useless to the unprepared mind.
>>I also need to pull out my cosmic blueprints. It seems that you think a
>>theory isn't "correct" unless that's how the universe "really" works.
>>But the Nature is a black box. We can build theories and models that
>>mimic Her, but we can never peer at the cosmic blueprints to see if
>>that's how She really works.
>
>Of course then we must disagree here because what I am referring to above
>as the implicate form you are referring to as the 'Cosmic Blueprint'. I
>think that all of the universe is a witness to this 'Cosmic Blueprint'.
>It is the essence of beingness. To be successful on this quest a person
>must be physicist, philosopher, and priest (PPP) all rolled into one - and
>his physics, philosophy and religion must all be one thing.
But how will you know if you've hit the correct "implicate form", if
that's analogous to my Cosmic Blueprints? The only way is to make some
predictions and test them, to see if observation matches your theory.
What if two or more theories, starting from different assumptions, make
identical predictions, how can you choose which one is "correct"? You
can't. You can make an essentially arbitrary decision based on things
like simplicity, beauty, and personal prejudice. But the only objective
test of which one is "more correct" is experiment.
And what if you've experimentally narrowed the race to your favorite
theory? You can never be certain someone won't devise a better theory (in
the matter of being simpler or more unifying), or that some experiment
will uncover disasterous data proving you're wrong. You can never know if
you have the "right" theory.
>> A nice example is gravity, it has been
>>described as curvature of space-time and also as a non-Newtonian force.
>>They'll both give you the right answers, but we can't say one is right
>>and the other is wrong. Probably they're both wrong in some way, but we
>>may never know.
>
>Of course. This is agreeable to me except the part where you posit that
>'we may never know'.
If all predictions are identical and experimental evidence does not favor
one over the other, your only recourse is into metaphysics, seeking
meaning beyond the physics. But the reason Plato's metaphysics are still
discussed in modern philosophy is because when you have multiple
metaphysical theories, there is no objective way to choose one over the
other. Even some criterion like "simplicity" is a value judgement here.
Metaphysics has its place in physics. Look at the Copenhagen conference,
for an example. They examined the question of what quantum mechanics
really means. Many worlds, hidden variables, the role of the observer...
All we really know is there is a direct correlation between what you
predict with QM and what you observe.
>>All you can really say about special relativity is that it deals with
>>macroscopic unaccelerated motion. And you can do some melding with
>>relativity and quantum mechanics. Within those limits, it has never
>>given us a wrong answer. Never. That's why it can and should continue
>>to be used with confidence, until we start to see some contradictions
>>with reality.
>
>Well we're talking about the Cartesian idea of tearing down structures
>because of some fault in their foundations. Even Descartes recognized the
Tear down as much as you want, but the equations must remain intact
because within their realm of validity, they are correct.
>>> >Now tell me why you think black
>>> >hole theory is bullshit, and why there is no evidence of black holes.
>>>
>>> It is a matter of philosophical and epistemological preferences which
>>> cause me to conclude that physics which isn't grounded in a consistent
>>> philosophy isn't worth spit.
>>
>>I think this is where you and mainstream physics parts ways. Philosophy
>>and epistemology have their place as guides to research and
>>interpretation. But in the end there is one and only one final word;
>>evidence.
>
>Please. Evidence you say? Evidence is nothing more than the
>interpretation of data with regard to a particular paradigm.
>Stochastically, a million men might have blood on their hands at the
>moment a particular murder takes place but there may be a million reasons
>(one for each) why none of them did the crime.
Um... I don't catch your meaning here.
>> The concept of the black hole was around for a long time,
>>simply defined as how small a gravitating body has to get before the
>>escape velocity is equal to the speed of light.
>
>This is loaded with assumptions one of which is that gravity is a
>continuous force which is applied constantly in time and space to all the
>particles of a mass.
This is loaded with the assumptions of Newtonian physics. We both know
they're wrong, but they're also easy to use, easy to think about, and very
useful within their realm of validity.
>> If the escape velocity
>>is greater than light, than light won't escape. And if light is the
>>speed limit of the universe, that means nothing will escape. Very
>>simple.
>
>With the assumptions I mentioned before and above it turns out not to be
>simple at all.
So when is escape velocity not an escape velocity?
> >General relativity made some considerable refinements to black
>>hole theory, but the basic idea is still the same. For direct evidence
>>of black holes we only have a few X-ray sources and gravitating bodies that
>>match predictions of how black holes should behave (or rather, how the
>>things surrounding them should behave).
>
>There you go. Making statements such as: 'for *direct* evidence...' as if
>somehow the emission of x-rays from a location in the cosmos makes the
>case. It doesn't, so it is not *direct* evidence in the same way that a
>direct frontal photo of a robber from a video tape of a convenience store
>hold up makes the case for the district attorney.
We don't have direct evidence of electrons, either! Have you ever *seen*
an electron? Of course not! You may have seen evidence of the flow of
electrical fluid, such as sparks, or simple electromagnets you may have
made as a kid. There is some evidence of quantized electric charges, like
Millikan's experiment or the picture on your monitor. But you can't pick
up an electron with a tweezers, look at it through a magnifying glass, and
say "Aha! I see it is a discrete unit!"
Strictly speaking, philosophically, even the evidence of your senses is
indirect. You see a photo of a robber. The light entering your eye forms
a pattern that your brain interprets as the likeness of the man sitting
next to you. When shown the camera that took this picture, you make the
assumption that the pattern of light the lens focuses onto the paper is
the image of whatever it was pointing at, invisibly captured by the
chemicals on the film. You assume that this image is made visible through
the process of developing the film. And what's more, you assume someone
didn't fire up Photoshop and doctor two or more pictures to make the one
you see. Does this man have a twin brother? Is he the spittin' image of
a visitor from Peoria?
All evidence requires interpretation. A photograph is especially
convincing because we've learned through long experience that the camera
never lies (even though sometimes it does). And we likewise build
confidence in our theories when they're consistently on-target.
>>But we also have tests of the
>>foundation of black hole theory, general relativity.
The basic process goes something like "If our theories are correct, and
black holes exist, then we should see this type of X-ray emission, which
can't be accounted for by anything else we know of. We should see this
distribution of Doppler shifts in light from objects orbitting a black
hole and this pattern of light caused by a gravitational lensing, which
cannot be caused by a less dense object." Then turn our augmented eyes
to the heavens and see what we can find. To disprove, for example but
this process also applies in general, black holes, you must break the
chain of reasoning somewhere. You must say these X-rays could have been
caused by something else, and give a convincing argument. Or show that
the underlying theory is wrong. Or show that the data was somehow
corrupted. Philosophical inclinations do not hold much weight in physics
unless they're backed by data and theory.
>>They've measured
>>things like the precession of Mercury around the sun, the bending of
>>light as it passes a star, the gravitational time dilation of us compared
>>to a clock in orbit. General relativity hasn't been nearly as thoroughly
>>tested as special relativity, but it's important to note that it has been
>>tested and never proven wrong.
>
>Just as the atheist submits that he has never been proven wrong.
There's an important difference. An atheist cannot test his belief. He
cannot say "If God does not exist, this will be the inevitable result" and
see if it's true. He cannot say "If God exists then this must happen, but
it doesn't, so He doesn't." At least, I have never seen a condition that
doesn't break down under examination.
In general relativity they can say "If Mercury does not precess in this
fashion, then GR is wrong." But it does. They can say "If light does not
bend around the sun in this manner, then GR is wrong." But it does. They
can say "If a clock in orbit does not run faster than a clock on earth,
then GR is wrong." But it does, and it turns out you need to account for
that in the most accurate navigational satellites. They could say "If GR
is wrong then we won't measure a Doppler shift when we shine light from
the top of the tallest tower we can find." But it is shifted.
Just because GR hasn't been tested as thoroughly as special relativity
doesn't mean it hasn't been tested at all.
>>What all this means is no matter what theory you can come up with, no
>>matter where it comes from, it must match the verified predictions of
>>general relativity, at least in the realm where GR is applicable.
>
>Actually a theory with more heft will predict things which GR could not
>while subsuming data which was thought to confirm GR under its own wing.
You're going to have put a lot of tricky math in there somewhere. If it
makes the same predictions in the realm that GR has been tested in, those
must somehow reduce to the same final equations.
>>> My arguments are not very sophisticated so they should be easy to follow.
>>> I have several reasons but among them is the idea that the universe is
>>> innately interconnected, each particle to every other particle.
>>
>>Connected how? The electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are
>>already recognized.
>
>Through the vector potentials, which themselves compose the substance of
>particles, since you ask. Through momentum space relationships extended
>in ways I have not seen described like the implicit idea that even prior
>to any interaction two particles have equal and opposite momentum.
You can always show this by a change of reference frame. It's a useful
trick.
>This
>implies that in a universe of n particles each particle has n-1 momentum
>states or moves nonclassically along n-1 trajectories at all times. The
>emergence of a single trajectory in the classical sense to the exclusion
>of n-2 others is mediated by the act of measurement or observation (which
>is the same thing). The other states are still there, just unobservable
>in principle.
I didn't catch this. What do you mean by "momentum state"?
>>What if black holes can be experimentally verified?
>
>Look, I'm not saying there aren't points in the cosmos, indeed, within
>each and every bit of matter, where time ceases to be manifested in a
>linear manner. In fact, I would argue that such is the case. So what I
>would be saying is that a black hole isn't formed by the principles that
>are normally thought to form them and hence black holes are not black
>holes in the way that black holes are normally thought to be black holes.
Uh... is there another way?
>I think it is presumptious to name manifestations of gravity when gravity
>itself is so poorly understood.
How else are we going to talk about them?
>The point is that everything which depends upon a continuum is necessarily
>wrong even if it appears to yeild reasonably correct answers. People can
>get the right answers, you know, for the wrong reasons.
Maybe I should ask what you mean by a continuum. Is it just the
well-known approximation of treating electric charge as continuous, water
as a fluid, and so on? Or is there something more?
>I'm familiar with it but if Kuhn was so insightful don't you suppose he
>should have been able to bring about a revolution himself?
Why? He was writing *about* scientific revolutions, not trying to create
one himself. Except in the area of the philosophy of science, where he is
well known and debated.
>> On the other hand, maybe we simply don't have the body of
>>knowledge and experience to launch the unifying theory that you want.
>>Maybe that has to wait for a hundred more years of research.
>
>Here you are presupposing that enough data will eventually imply the end.
>There's never enough because the complexity of the theories which can be
>devised (but which have no relationship whatsoever to the real physics) is
>endless. Ever heard the phrase "ever learning but never coming to the
>knowledge of the truth"?
I must have misunderstood you in some way. I don't think I've ever said
anything that disagrees with that paragraph, but I thought that was
exactly what you're trying to do.
>>And I don't see physics as a quest to duplicate the Cosmic Blueprints.
>>That's an impossible goal. I see physics as a way to reduce the
>>phenomena of Nature into a formal structure that can be manipulated to a
>>variety of useful ends. I think you're more into metaphysics.
>
>Don't be snobbish now. If I am into 'metaphysics', which I suspect came
>off of your tongue rather pejoratively, then from a historical
>perspective, I'm in damn good company.
Grab an encyclopedia and look up "metaphysics". "Beyond physics". It
examines the underlying structure of reality, and how that structure is
manifested in what we see. Metaphysics is not very concerned with
empirical evidence, but in sneaking a peak at those Cosmic Blueprints.
The physicist, on the other hand, is more interested in how well the data
match his equations. The interpretation, the metaphysics, comes later at
his conveniance.
>>They were also experts of contemporary theory. I can't think of even one
>>person who revolutionized any field, even non-science, who didn't
>>understand the contemporary views.
>
>The point I make above fits well here because there is no end to possible
>complexities of theories and who should be expected to first become
>immersed in falsehood before they can grasp the truth. There is another
>pathway to the truth which can avoid the errors.
Well, some folks call it The Holy Bible...
>>Eh? I thought you were designing a theory a priori.
>
>No. I don't design the theory so much as find confirmation for it. I'm
>not the designer.
Oh. Who designed it?
>Well, let's go beyond your challenge and start by talking about something
>simple like Coulomb's law.
>
>I would offer the following challenge to get us going:
>
> Find a single experiment on record anywhere which confirms that
> Coulomb's law holds true for fundamental charged particles which do
> not have relative motion with respect to one another.
>
> p.s. (Hint: you won't find one.)
>
>The reason is simple; Coulomb's law is a 'special case' which is
>applicable only to fundamental charged particles which have a significant
>relative motion with respect to one another. Quantifying this: Only when
I thought it was because you can't measure Coulomb's law by holding two
elementary particles stationary and measuring the force between them. How
can you do that? Applying QM to the problem, this experiment can't be
done even in principle because if we were to hold two particles completely
still we would have no idea where they even were, and the act of measuring
their position would give them velocity.
>charged particles have a 'common' de Broglie wavelength which is less than
>the interparticle distance will their interaction conform to Coulomb's
>law.
I believe quantum electrodynamics already deals with this matter. When
particles get close enough the force starts to deviate from the 1/r^2
form.
>Now before you reject this out of hand, I suggest that this analysis
>actually will solve more problems in physics than it may, at first, appear
>to produce. Out of it can proceed all known forces (weak interaction,
>strong, Cooper Pairing, Bose-Einstein Condensate attraction/dispersion
>force) even including a quantum gravity without large objects.
Well, I'm going to have to let you work on it yourself, because finals
are coming up, and then I'm going home for winter break. I'm leaving my
computer at school because it would cost too much to bring it home and
back. So if you don't write back by Tuesday, I won't see you again until
the middle of January at the earliest.
But it's been interesting. Thanks.
--
"Knock off all that evil!"
Subject: Re: Should a theory explain why?
From: Marty Tysanner
Date: 13 Dec 1996 12:47:19 -0800
[Moderator's note: this article was posted at least twice
to sci.physics.research. Let me take this opportunity to
remind people that when you post an article to sci.physics.research,
even if it is also crossposted to other groups, it will need to
be read by the moderator before it appears. Please don't
think something has gone wrong and repeatedly post the same
article. - jb]
wetboy wrote:
> It's nice when a theory explains all of the good things one
> learns in first year journalism: who, what, where, when, why,
> how, and so what; but, in my view, the only requirement of
> a good scientific theory is that it make specific,
> quantifiable, valid, and unambiguous predictions.
I agree with you. The requirement of a good scientific theory
is that it makes quantifiable, unambiguous predictions that
are testable and borne out by experiment. What I was trying
to argue was that a complete theory _should_ (not "must") do
more than just classify and quantify phenomena; it should
also also give the underlying mechanisms that form the
foundation of the theory. These mechanisms will either take
the form of even more fundamental theories or of postulates.
In the case of fundamental postulates, there is no physical
"why" because fundamental postulates are the starting point
for physical theory rather than an intermediate point.
I apologize if I am being overly abstract. To hopefully make
it more clear, let me briefly describe what I consider the
desirable form of a final, complete theoretical framework. At
the foundation layer, there will be a set of fundamental
postulates. There is no "why" for these; they are merely
the minimal set of independent statements about properties (or
whatever) of matter that are necessary as a starting point for
the most basic, fundamental physical theories. The fundamental
theories will transform these postulates into predictions about
the behavior and properties of the most fundamental forms of
matter (properties and behavior that has not been explicitly
postulated, that is). Less fundamental theories will build on
these fundamental theories, but the fundamental theories will
form the "why" for them. In the end, the complete theoretical
framework should be (in my view) a kind of inverted pyramid of
theories, with the fundamental postulates at the bottom. Of
course, the framework must make quantifiable, unambiguous
predictions that are testable and borne out by experiment.
Obviously, we are a long way from this kind of "ideal" complete
theory. Probably many (if not most) physicists would question
whether this is even achievable. Are there answers to the
"why" behind electric charge, inertia, space curvature by mass,
quantum uncertainty, spin and mass of elementary particles,
electric and magnetic fields, and so on, or can these properties
only be postulated? Time will (hopefully) tell.
So, what is the reason behind my discussion of "why" in this
thread? It is not to criticize the progress of physical
knowledge; many smart people have made and continue to make a
great amount of progress in understanding the physical world.
In fact, I believe that most if not all physicists would be
very happy to have as complete a theoretical framework as I
outlined above. Probably much more than the general
population, scientists want to know the "why" behind the way
things are. I don't think it would be fair for me or others
to demand from science those explanations it does not yet have.
What I am questioning is the presumption of those people who
think we are getting close to a final physical theory ("all we
need to do is unify gravity with quantum mechanics and explain
some elementary particle masses") but are not prepared to
explain the "why", or "how" if you prefer, of basic properties
of matter. Or if they believe that basic material properties
must be postulated and hence cannot be explained, I question
why they have not made a convincing case for it based on logic
rather than presumption.
I see no shame in admitting "We don't know yet." This seems
far preferable to saying "We can't know why" or "It is not
important." While still in school I had a physical chemistry
professor who seemed to typify this attitude. In more than one
lecture he said "We can never know why..." It seemed to me he
was taking the current state of knowledge and extrapolating it
to what is actually possible. What he was really doing was
making a fundamental postulate about what is possible and
stating it as a fact. Anybody can state postulates, but does
merely stating them make them true?
I likely will not pursue this thread much more at this time.
It seems most of the responses are not really digging in to
what I am trying to get at, which is a discussion of how far
we can or should go in explaining physical phenomena with a
complete theory. Of course, if some people want to have a
logical discussion of that, it remains an interesting topic
to me. But merely exchanging opinions without giving reasons
does not seem particularly enlightening.
Regards,
Marty
