Subject: Re: how do gyroscopes work??
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 19 Jan 1997 18:46:50 GMT
Hi Russell,
since last time the mail bounced, I'll post it as well...
Im Artikel <5bmscp$rm9@colossus.holonet.net>, russell@news.mdli.com
(Russell Blackadar) schreibt:
>> the fish would come back one day. You ever said that father eskimo had
no
>> problem whatsoever to stop the pot from turning around, there would be
no
>> torque excerted and thus no generator driven. Gotcha! No? Shit :-(....
>
>Sorry, this must be a reference to a joke that hasn't arrived
>yet on my newsserver. going on...
So here is the full story run in s.p. last year....
___________________________________
Thema: The Eskimo riddle
Von: LBsys@aol.com (Lorenz Borsche)
Datum: 2 Apr 1996 00:42:38 GMT
Eskimo riddle, dedicated to 'Uncle Al', Patrick van Esch, Harvey Block,
Doug
Merrit and the other sci.phy-nutcrackers...
Hi, sorry to interrupt you, but I have a problem. My wife, our son and I
live in this iglu right at the north pole. Last summer my brother came to
visit us (he's living in LA now). He gave us this wonderful belt drive
turntable. He said, he'd emembered there'd been no CDs at our iglu, when
he left. Thus, the turntable. He is right 'bout the CDs. Unfortunately no
vinyls either :-(.
We use it anyway. After I got rid of that useless stick in the center, we
put our stew pot on it when eating. So everone can turn freely to go for
the best pieces :-).
Last sunday I made a funny discovery. Sundays we have fish roast on a
spit: you take the spit, put it through one handle of the pot, then
through the fish, then through the other handle. With a little oil at the
bottom of the pot lit up, we smoke fry the fish. Well, when my wife had
put the pot on the turntable, I twisted the spit between my fingers seeing
if the fish was well done everywhere. The fish kept on spinning while we
sang our sunday songs. It still rotated when we stopped singing (my clever
son says, this is because of the fish oil everywhere, which gets
superfluid because its so d... cold up here). The singing lasts half an
hour, that I know. Well, what to say: The fish was pointing at me, when we
started, but now it was pointing directly at my wife!
First question (easy): which side of me my wife was sitting?
Now my son said: "Pop, thats wonderful." I said: "What?" He said: "That'll
make energy for us!" I replied: "That stinking ole fish?" My wife started
crying, because I wouldn't like her cooking no more, so boy, the heat was
on. Well, my son said, not the fish, but the earth rotating under my feet,
as the fish, while spinning, would keep its position relative to the
center of the universe. I showed him where the center of his universe was,
yep, opposite his cheeky mouth!
After all tears had been dried, he said: "But Pop, put that plug from the
turntable at your tongue," and yes, there was that fine buzz any well
charged battery would give you.
My clever son said, it's the earth making the turntable turn round and the
pot with the fish will stand still against the universe, and so the
turntable would drive the motor via the belt, and thus create electricity.
Well, do you teach these things at school today?
So I went and bought a lightbulb for a bicycle and since then, we have
light in the iglu, day and night (and nights are long in winter).
Actually I have noticed though, that the pot doesn't turn as fast, when
the light is on. This sunday it would point between me and my wife when
the singing was over.
My son said, when he is older, he'd like to go to Berkeley, and there he
could learn how to calculate all this, so we would know, how fast the fish
is spinning, how heavy it has to be and how much the pot is slowed down by
the electricity taken off. Well he says, it's actually accelerating, and
the earth is slowed down a tiny wee bit, but I think he's mad, and I won't
finance the trip down south. What you learn down there you can see at my
brothers: a turntable as a present! Why didn't he bring a fridge, we sure
could use that, when it's really getting cold outside :-). Maybe you can
help me keeping my son here, when answering his questions (if you can't
what's the use to send him to your universities anyway.. :-)?
And these are the questions:
a) Granted the fish and the turning disc can rotate frictionlessly and the
generator has no loss in efficiency, how fast would the fish have to spin
at a certain design (diameter, length, weight) thus to make the system
'create' 1 Watt?
b) Will the pot seemingly 'slow down' (i.e. accelerate up to earth
rotation)?
c) If so, where's the maximum energy output (boundaries should be: no
slow: zero, full stop (i.e. earth speed): zero)?
d) If every person on earth would use up 1 kW constantly and all would be
'created' by 'rotating fish', how many years would go by, until the 29th
of February becomes a regular day each year?
Cheerio
P.S.:
As I know, those calculations are far from being easy, I am willing to
sacrifice a very unique bottle of XXVSOP 'Marc de Bourgogne' (blended from
20
to 150 year old french 'grappe') on the best answer. If in doubt, I may
ask
the group for consensus.
_____________________________________________________
Patrick got the bottle for pointing out, that the whole setup won't work
at all...:-(((.
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: "Dan Yertzell"
Date: 19 Jan 1997 21:26:17 GMT
Ken Fischer wrote in article ...
>
> : The basic idea was that, rather than all matter simply attracting other
> : matter, all matter is somehow expanding, and this accounts for gravity.
We
> : are not being pulled down to the earth, but instead the earth is
pressing
> : up against our feet.
>
> Sounds consistent with observation to me. :-)
Then how does your "Divergent Matter" explain things like Black Holes.
Indeed, how would planets, stars, and galaxies ever form if not by
accretion and gravity "pulling things together"? I've seen you laugh off
black holes before, presumably because DM cannot explain them. Just this
week, there have been several likely BHs discovered. Currently accepted
gravitational theories *do* explain them, however, and that to me is the
point. Theories consistent with observations.
How about the "slingshot effect" of *falling* into a massive body and then
pulling out at the last moment, to gain a tremendous increase in speed?
This is not hypothetical, but fact and used many times in deep space
missions.
Orbital mechanics in general? Light bending around a "gravitational lens"?
Again, fact.
The fact is, "Divergent Matter" is *not* consistent with observation. When
I jump off a diving board into a swimming pool, I do not hang in the air,
waiting for the pool to come up to me. I *fall* into it. The sensation of
falling is quite distinct, and not at all like being suspended.
DM is a neat idea, but can (and should be) readily dismissed. It's too
convoluted, and cannot be observed, tested or proven. Occam's Razor
applies here. That you have spent 51 years working on this says something,
and I am not at all sure that it's a good something.
Gravity does, in fact, suck.
Dan
Planted firmly in my chair by the "force" of gravity.
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:51:38 GMT
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:08:11 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
=eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (Word Warrior) wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:43:57 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>>=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.org= (>>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<) wrote:
>>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>> >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<< wrote:
>>>>Y'know, it would help readability if you would insert (or leave, in
>>>>the case of quoted text) blank lines as separators.
>>>Irrelevant.
>>Thank you.
>>*plonk*
>
>
>Killfiles are for pussies and cowards, and those
>like you who can't make their cases and seek an
>escape thus or via irrelevant complaints.
Actually, I changed my mind about the killfile, since your
unsubstantiated claims and wild assertions need refuting.
>
>Good riddance to you.
I'm baaaaack...
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ green@pipeline.com|
>|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
>| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
>| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
>| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:49:19 GMT
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:08:00 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
=eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (Word Warrior) wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:14:21 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>>=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.org= (>>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<) wrote:
>>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 20:57:06 GMT, in sci.skeptic, =green@pipeline.com=
>>>>(Word Warrior) wrote:
>>>>>The immune system is quite capable of fending off damage
>>>>>from external sources of damage when it is properly
>>>>>fueled and managed.
>>>>Your substantiation for this would be...?
>>>Plenty of people avoid diseases by allowing their bodies
>>>to function as intended with proper fuel and maintenance.
>>Plenty of people, regardless of "proper fuel and maintenance", avoid
>>disease.
>
>Your substantiation for that would be _?_
Er, would personal knowledge be sufficient?
>
>> Your statement is therefore unsubstantiated as evidence for
>>your contention.
>
>Non sequitur.
Hardly. If you don't understand why, please feel free to ask.
>
>>Or do you have double-blind studies to cite?
>
>Of course.
And I see you provided the cites for all the studies that exist.
Thanks.
>
>>>Scott Nearing decided, in otherwise perfect health at the
>>>age of 100, to stop eating in order to die, which he did,
>>>peaceably in his own home.
>>And my great-grandfather decided to live until his wife died. He died
>>2 months after she did (peacefully, in his own home), at the age of
>>98. (He smoked and ate typical German cuisine - lots of saturated fat,
>>etc.- most of his life, and was as healthy as most men 40 years his
>>junior.) All of which proves exactly nothing; individual cases aren't
>>evidence.
>
>Enough of them most assuredly are.
Oh, good! So my great-grandfather counts, and gives the lie to your
unsubstantiated claim. Next?
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ green@pipeline.com|
>|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
>| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
>| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
>| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Mach's Paradox?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:16:01 GMT
In article <19970119120601.HAA22302@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel <32e1489c.13746656@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, ericf@central.co.nz
>(Eric Flesch) schreibt:
>
>>(in plain English, what's the difference between a
>>spinning top and one which does not spin).
>
>Well, thanks, got that :-)
>
>>Mach does this by noting that the non-spinning state does not move
>>with respect to the distant stars. He jumps from this to the
>>conclusion that the distant stars *control* the inertial state by some
>>mysterious controlling force. This force is dubbed "Mach's
>>Principle".
>
>Isn't that the same as Newton's bucket?
>
Yep.
>>The problem with Mach's Principle is that the force cannot be
>>detected. While gravity decreases from its source by the inverse
>>square (g = function(1/r^2)), Mach's principle requires that the
>>distant stars exert their influence by no less than the straight
>>inverse ( F = function(1/r)), otherwise the stars cannot do the job.
>>No conveyance, or any theoretical mechanism for this mysterious force,
>>has ever been formulated or observed.
>
>Now here comes a real dummy argument :-)
>
>Wherever we are in the Universe, there's gravity. Which means that we find
>a certain structure of space, geodesics (which I envision a bit like those
>photographs of an air channel with those smoke lines bending around
>objects etc.). And any object in free fall is moving 'along' these lines,
>thus from the view of the object, the local structure is at a standstill.
>Any rotation would mean, that the parts of this given object (molecules,
>whatever) are moving / accelerated WRT this structure.
>
>Thus I'm forced to define rotation as being relative to the given null
>geodesic at this part of space.
>
>Mmmh. If this is a valid definition, I can derive a prediction, which is
>testable: as the earth is rotating wrt it's geodesic, a gyro should show
>this. Well it does, as we all know (Foucaults pendulum). Now comes the
>tricky thing: the same gyro showing the daily rotation (i.e. the rotation
>WRT the earth's null geodesic around the sun) should not react to the
>yearly rotation around the sun, as my definition tells him, that it's at a
>standstill wrt the null geodesic path, although an outward observer would
>see it following a huge circle. Thus the axle pointing in direction of the
>path around the sun should remain parallel (tangential) to this big
>circle. But Mach's principle would tell us, that the gyro should stay
>directed at the fixed stars, thus make exactly one turn WRT the earth's
>path. That should have been subject to measurement long ago, thus someone
>should be able to tell me about it :-)
It works this way, indeed. Foucault's pendulum gives you the period
of rotation relative to the fixed stars, not the sun.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:06:05 GMT
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:09:26 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
=eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (Word Warrior) wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>>... Hope, however, springs eternal...
>
>One could hope you'd eschew the ad hominem
>and at some point make your case.
For someone who posts unsubstantiated claims, then responds to the
answers with one-liners such as "non sequitur" and
"Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless", with *no*
accompanying text to support your position, this is more than slightly
ironic. I, and several others, raised valid points to which the above
were your sole answers. You have stated that cancer is *only* caused
by pollutants; you brushed off the response that (among other things)
the UV in sunlight is known to be carcinogenic with more of the same,
and have so far provided *no* evidence for your claim, just more
unsupported assertions that it is, indeed, true.
You, not I, need to "make your case".
>
>Or had you hoped no one would notice that
>you have not done so at all?
This line should have been self-addressed. And no, this is *not* ad
hominem; you have provided *no* evidence for your initial claim.
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ green@pipeline.com|
>|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
>| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
>| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
>| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Einstein 15 TOE
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:45:33 -0800
“Even if ... one had accidently guessed precisely the law belonging to
the wider group, one would still not have achieved the level of
understanding corresponding to the general principle of relativity. For,
from the standpoint of the Lorentz group, two solutions would
incorrectly have to be viewed as physically different if they can be
transformed into each other by a nonlinear transformation of
coordinates, i.e., if from the point of view of the wider group they are
merely different representations of the same field.”
Einstein has here given me the clue on how to proceed in formulating the
second more formal step in the construction of post-quantum mechanics.
His general relativity is concerned with local form-independent but
nonlinear continuous transformations of subjective coordinates in
physical space. Bohm taught us that in order to understand quantum
mechanics we must go to higher dimensional classical configuration space
for the motion of the “beable” system point of a complex system. For
general relativity, the entire gik configuration over a spacelike slice
of curved spacetime is the “beable” or classical hidden variable for a
Bohmian pilot-wave theory of quantum gravity. Using the
Arnowitt-Deser-Misner “canonical” method, Wheeler constructs a
nondenumerably infinite dimensional “superspace” where each
“super-local” point is a three-dimensional geometry 3G. Note that 3G is
not the same as Einstein’s gik which is the full four dimensional
geometry of curved spacetime. 3G must be supplemented with the shift Nj
and lapse N functions.
Here is my new idea. What we need is a still wider super-group of
continuous nonlinear transformations that are “super-local” and
form-dependent in Wheeler superspace which is the proper rocklike
onfiguration space of the 3G “beable”. They are form-dependent because
there is a super-quantum potential contribution from the super-Hilbert
space of all possible thoughlike states in the “Mind of God”. We might
as well call this thoughtlike super-Hilbert space “Heaven”. Call the
rocklike Wheeler superspace “Earth”. These objective quantum
transformations are highly nonlocal in our ordinary three-dimensional
physical space. To paraphrase Einstein:
“For, from the standpoint of the local form-independent group, two
solutions would incorrectly have to be viewed as physically different if
they can be transformed into each other by a nonlinear transformation of
coordinates, i.e., if from the point of view of the wider nonlocal
form-dependent post-quantum group they are merely different
representations of the same field.”
Webs of meaningful synchronistic events acausally connecting widely
separated events in ordinary spacetime would be objective invariant
patterns of active information of the nonlocal form-dependent
post-quantum group. They form the beauty in the pattern.
Note that the nonlocal form-dependent group of nonlinear continuous
transformations at each possible 3G super-point mixes thoughtlike things
with rocklike things in a highly self-referential boostrapped way. That
is, the structure of the nonlocal group and its representations are now
linked together in an adaptive back-active way. There is no time here in
the ordinary sense. We have only the Nj and the N. This is still pretty
vague and probably wrong in some crucial details - or, even “not even
wrong” in Pauli’s sense. But, to my intuition, I am sniffing up the
right Tree of Knowledge. Who is that Snake up there in the branches
dropping road apples on my head? Is He trying to make a Monkey out of
me - or a God? :-)
The general idea however is clear. The idea is to use Einstein’s same
method, that he used so well in ordinary space, in the bigger
configuration space of the proper beable of general relativity. This
wider group will be highly nonlocal and form-dependent in the sense of
“active information” in ordinary space.
“One more general remark concerning structure and group. It is clear
that in general one will judge a theory to be more nearly perfect the
simpler a ‘structure’ it postulates and the broader the group concerning
which field equations are invariant. ... these two desiderata get in
each other’s way. For example: according to the special theory of
relativity (Lorentz group) one can set up a covariant law for the
simplest structure imaginable (a scalar field), whereas in the general
theory of relativity (wider group of the continuous transformations of
coordinates) there is an invariant field law only for the more
complicated structure if the symmetric tensor. We have already given
physical reasons for the fact that in physics invariance under the wider
group has to be required: from a purely mathematical standpoint I can
see no necessity for sacrificing the simpler structure to the generality
of the group.
“The group of general relativity is the first one requiring that the
simplest invariant law be no longer linear and homogeneous in the field
variables and their derivatives. This is of fundamental importance for
the following reason. If the field le is linear (and homogeneous), then
the sum of two solutions is again a solution; so it is, for example, in
Maxwell’s field equations for the vacuum. In such a theory it is
impossible to deduce from the field equations alone an interaction
between structures that separately represent solutions of the system.”
This also happens in the Schrodinger equation for the quantum waves in
configuration space. The linearity of the Schrodinger equation leads to
the “measurement problem” in Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and its
several variations on the same theme. The post-quantum back-action
should introduce a nonlinearity in the Hilbert space analogous to the
nonlinearity in the metric equations of spacetime geometry introduced by
the curvature signature of non-trivial gravitational fields. Note that
effective mean-field equations of many-electron systems like the
Hartree-Fock equations are already nonlinear in first-quantization. But
that is not a profound nonlinearity of the Einstein type because they
become linear again in second-quantization where elementary excitations
or “quanta” of collective modes are created and destroyed in Fock-space.
The wave function of first quantization itself becomes a
second-quantized operator on Fock space. Each oscillator mode of Fock
space has different numbers of quanta in it. The quantum state of many
modes is an entangled sum of products of single modes with different
numbers of quanta. The Landau-Ginzburg semi-phenomenological equations
of nonlinear optics, superconductors, etc are profoundly nonlinear in
the order parameters corresponding to second-order phase transitions in
materials.
“That is why all theories up to now required, in addition to the field
equations, special equations for the motion of material bodies under the
influence of the fields.”
This is not the case in the Bohr-type interpretations of quantum theory,
in the many-worlds type interpretations, and in the statistical ensemble
(Ballantine) interpretation that Einstein toyed with and that Vic
Stenger embraces in his book The Unconscious Quantum. The not-so-hidden
agenda of that book is the debunking of quantum theories of mind in
general and of the paranormal in particular. It is the case in Bohm’s
pilot-wave/hidden variable interpretation of quantum theory. The major
difference is that the arena is no longer ordinary three-dimensional
space, but the higher dimensional configuration spaces of complex
systems of many particles interacting with classical
form-independent/intensity-dependent gauge fields like the Maxwell
field. The entire spread-out configuration of these rocklike particles
and their rocklike gauge fields are represented by a single rocklike, or
“beable” ,“system point” in this “material” rocklike classical higher
dimensional configuration space. This space is very close to the “state
space” used in classical chaos theories with “fractal strange
attractors”. Classical chaos theory on Newtonian mechanics uses “phase
space” whereas quantum mechanics only uses the configurational half of
phase space. Bohm then introduces the qualitatively new thoughtlike
form-dependent/intensity-independent quantum field reaching down from
thoughtlike informational infinite-dimensional Hilbert space to the
rocklike material higher-dimensional configuration space in which the
beable system points move. The paths of these rocklike material beables
are guided by the nonlocal form-dependent/intensity-independent quantum
force of thoughtlike pilot-waves. The total thoughtlike quantum pilot
wave splits into “branches” or “eigenfunctions”. Each “non-material” or
“spiritual”, but still “physical”, thoughtlike branch carves out for
itself a region of influence in rocklike material configuration space
dominated by an “attractor”. This attractor can be a fractal strange
attractor just like in classical chaos theory.
What determines the precise way the total wave splits into branches?
This is a profound problem in quantum mechanics which does not have a
unique solution. In simple cases, it is the total experimental
arrangement. For example, if we insert a diffraction grating into a beam
we automatically measure the “momentum” observable. Therefore, the total
quantum pilot wave splits into branches that are “momentum
eigenfunctions”. When a measurement is done on a single particle, the
observed eigenvalue corresponds to a particular basin of attraction in
configuration space that the beable particle got trapped into. This
occupied branch encodes the “active information” that organizes the
intrinsic energy of the beable. The intrinsic energy includes its total
mass and also the quantum vacuum fluctuations that dress its bare mass,
charge and wavefunction normalization.
A crude way to describe this capture of the rocklike material beable
system point by the single “active” thoughtlike basin of attraction in a
landscape of such attractors is to say that the total wave “collapsed”
into that particular branch, but the empty branches are still there.
This is how Bohm makes contact with Bohr, Heisenberg, von Neumann et-al.
However, in more complex cases, where, for example, the brain measures
itself in introspection, there is no way to choose a preferred
eigenfunction “basis” or “frame of reference” in Hilbert space within
quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is Godel-incomplete in this
profound sense.
One important virtue of Bohm’s theory here is that it describes
individual complex systems. It does not need statistical ensembles of
simple systems the way Vic Stenger needs it to draw the false
conclusions of his book for complex systems. Although Bohm’s theory can
account for the results of statistical experiments on ensembles of
identically prepared simple systems like one gets in neutron beams,
electron beams, photon beams etc, it is not restricted to them. Bohm’s
theory can just as easily, in principle, describe the individual
behavior of Vic Stenger’s brain as it formulates an incorrect model of
the mind. :-)
So far, every thing I have said about Bohm’s theory has zero back-action
from beable to its pilot-wave. Indeed, Bohm showed that such back-action
must be exactly zero in order to reproduce the statistical predictions
of quantum mechanics which Stenger, for example, never questions. In
one sense, Stenger’s book is absolutely correct. If quantum mechanics is
the final theory of physical reality, then, neither ordinary
consciousness, nor the paranormal, can be explained by it. In fact, if
Stenger’s thesis is correct, not only is the paranormal a Grand
Illusion, not only is free will a delusion, but “consciousness” is a
fiction. Stenger provides the quantum defence for Watson’s behaviorism,
and for Dennett and Churchland. Vic’s book is essentially a long version
of Eberhard’s theorem. On the other hand, with back-action it’s a whole
new ball game.
“In the relativistic theory of gravitation, it is true, the law of
motion (geodesic line) was originally postulated independently in
addition to the field law.”
There is no analog to this in Bohr’s version of quantum theory, but
there is in Bohm’s. The equation of motion of the hidden-variable
(beable) “was originally postulated independently in addition to the
field law.” That is the significant similarity. The significant
difference is that Einstein is talking about a local
form-independent/intensity-dependent rocklike metric field gik acting on
a “test particle” moving in ordinary 3D space. In contrast, Bohm is
talking about a form-dependent/intensity-independent thoughtlike
quantum field acting on a rocklike beable system point moving, not in 3D
space, but in higher-dimensional configuration space. This thoughtlike
quantum field acts locally in configuration space but nonlocally or
globally in ordinary 4D spacetime cutting across space and time
separations between localized parts of the extended whole like a hot
knife through butter. With zero back-action these nonlocal “spooky
telepathic” influences “faster-than-the-speeding-photon” do not
communicate locally decodable intelligible messages. The local observer
will only detect meaningless quantum randomness in accord with
Eberhard’s theorem and the discussion in Heinz Pagels’ book The Cosmic
Code. On the contrary, when back-action somehow manges to rise above and
beyond the noise of the external environment through some sort of
protection mechanism like a chemical “cage” for the lone electron Eccles
gate in the microtubule protein dimer, for example, the meaningless
quantum randomness begins to quiet down and a meaningful message is
decoded. Meditation, it is claimed by the Maharishi, enhances this
listening to the “inner voice” of enlightenment. Perhaps it does. I
wouldn’t know. I am only a blue-collared quantum mechanic from
Flatbush-- a nonlocal union man! :-)
(Tune from Pinafore Finale)
Chorus line of Sar Ship Troupers
“For he is a union man, yes, he is a nonlocal union man.
For in spite of all temptation to rise far above his station,
He remains a union man, he remains a union man.”
Einstein and Bohm show how thought becomes matter: How Christ becomes
Man.
“Subsequently, though, it turned out that the law of motion need not
(and must not) be assumed independently, but that it is already
implicitly contained within the law of the gravitational field.”
The quantum analog of this would be that the highly nonlinear
“conscious” post-quantum extension of the linear Hilbert space
Schrodinger equation of orthodox thoughtlike quantum mechanics will
determine the rocklike equation of motion for the hidden-variable
(beable) in the configuration space of classical mechanical chaos theory
with adaptive post-quantum generated fractal strange attractors. Larry
Crowell has some preliminary ideas on exactly how to do this
mathematically. Bohm has indeed conjectured that this is the case in his
book, The Undivided Universe. This would complete his “implicate order”
vision. If indeed, this turns out to be the case, then the pragmatic
mind-brain dualism I am using is only an “effective”
semi-phenomenological model, and at the deepest level of physical
reality, cosmic consciousness does create matter. This is my really new
post-quantum . physics It is a completely physical idealism that is
consistent with, and enriches, both Eastern and Western mystical
traditions. It is the post-modern proper scientific foundation for
religion and ends “The Warfare Between Science And Theology” (book by
the first President of my Alma Mater, Cornell University, the Victorian
comtemporary of Darwin and Thomas Huxley, Andrew Dickson White). Capra
and Zukav touch on this in only the most superficial and intellectually
flim-flammsy manner. Indeed, the key ideas needed were not known to them
when they wrote their books with my help over twenty years ago. (For the
record, I helped Capra financially at a crucial point in his writing of
“The Tao of Physics”, and I helped Zukav in many ways including actually
writing the first drafts of many of the non-metaphysical physics parts
of The Dancing Wu Li Masters.)
“The essense of this truly involved situation can be visualized as
follows: A single material point at rest will be represented by a
gravitational field that is everywhere finite and regular, except where
the material point is located: there the field has a singularity.”
Note that much bigger black holes also have these same metric
singularities. A singularity in the metric geometry of 4D spacetime is
where at least some components of the fourth-rank curvature tensor Rijkl
explode to infinity.
“If, however, one computes the field belonging to two material points at
rest by integrating the field equations, then this field has in addition
to the singularities at the positions of the material points a curve of
singular points connecting the two points.”
This is really interesting. Einstein is saying that there is a singular
“string” in 3D space, or “vortex” line connecting the two mass points.
This singular “vortex” string with the two point sources at the ends is
generated by the nonlinearity of the field equations. Remember this is
pure classical general relativity with no quantum corrections. The two
point masses have a six-dimensional classical configuration space if we
neglect the singular string. If we include it, the configuration space
is automatically non-denumerably infinite in dimension in the classical
contiuum limit. Just like in quantum field theory, there is no truly
two-particle problem. Every problem has an infinite number of virtual
particles dressing the bare real particles in so far as one can use
perturbation theory.
“It is possible, however, to stipulate a motion of the material points
so that the gravitational field determined by them does not become
singular anywhere except at the singular points.”
In other words, Einstein is saying that one can eliminate the
string-singularity connecting the two mass point sources (i.e.,
gravitational charges) generating the curvature in the spacetime
geometry. How is this done?
“These are precisely those motions described in first approximation by
Newton’s laws.”
This obeys the classical action principle that the action is an extremum
along the actual classical path of the system point of the two point
masses in six-dimensional configuration space. But we know from
Feynman’s path-integral quantum mechanics that the quantum fluctuations
will correspond to all possible paths connecting a “start” and “finish”
in configuration space. Therefore, these quantum fluctuations will have
Einstein’s “string singularity” in an essential way. Therefore, any
general relativistic configuration space that includes quantum
fluctuations in the motion of the sources of the gravity field must be
infinite-dimensional in order to accommodate the string singularities
connecting the mass points. This suggests to me a possible physical
interpretation of the extra space dimensions of modern superstring
theory in terms of extended sources in the classical limit. Two point
sources in 3D space require 6 space dimensions plus time in the
slow-speed limit etc. Twenty four space dimensions require 8 point
sources and so on. One can also consider confined sources in 2 and 1
dimensions because of a nonlinear self-trapping mechanism analogous to
laser filaments. Extending the metric ground form ds^2 to these extra
space dimensions means using a larger, i.e., “wider” nonlocal symmetry
group the way Einstein has already described above. Indeed, it may be
that a nonlocal linear group looks locally nonlinear. This would mean
that the source of the “rocklike” classical local gravitational
nonlinearity is “thoughtlike” nonlocal quantum Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
“spooky telepathic” connectivity. That is, cosmic thought literally
warps spacetime the way Q does it in Star Trek, The Next Generation. :-)
“One may say, therefore: The masses move in such a fashion that the
solutions of the field equations is nowhere singular except at the mass
points. This property of the gravitational equations is intimately
connected with their nonlinearity, and this, in turn, results from the
wider group of transformations.
... If singularities are permitted at the locations of the material
points, what justifications is there for forbidding the occurrence of
singularities elsewhere? This objection would be justified if the
equations of gravitation were to be considered as equations of the total
field. ... this is not the case .. . the field of a material particle
will differ the more from a pure gravitational field the closer one
comes to the location of the particle. If ne hadthe field equations of
the total field, one would be compelled to demand that the particles
themselves could be represented as solutions of the complete field
equations that are free of irregularities everywhere. Only then would
the general theory of relativity be a complete theory.”
You know in doing this I feel like Woody Allen in one of his Greenwich
Village jazz sessions improvising by following the lead of a great
musician. Or another fantasy, like singing with Pavoratti, or playing
chamber music with Pablo Casals, or being in Toscanini’s orchestra.
So Einstein tells us that singularities in the theory are signals that
the theory is seriously incomplete. General relativity is a classical
rocklike theory with form-independent local fields in ordinary space and
time. Not only does it need the other rocklike electro-weak and strong
form-independent local fields to complete it, it also needs the
thoughtlike nonlocal form-dependent quantum field in the configuration
space of its sources, and finally it needs post-quantum “conscious”
back-action. Then we will indeed have a real “theory of everything”.
That is the “Sarfatti Vision”. :-)
Subject: Re: Infinitude of Primes in P-adics
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:15:21 GMT
In article <5bh510$8dj$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Sorry Dik, my mistake, that was all wrong. I was confused with Q and Z
> of adics. Today I was looking for the 3-adic multiplicative inverse of
> "12", 110, which of course is 1/3 X 1/4 and finding these inverses is
> not an easy math problem.
Finding the inverse of 4 in the 3-adics actually is fairly easy:
....2020202021
will do the trick.
> I suppose I need some expansion series on
> 1/4, oh well, that is not important for me,
the trick is that 1 + 6/(1-9) = 1/4.
> but please tell if you
> know, what is the proof trick that one can know that all 3-adic
> Integers have a mult. inverse except the 3.
If the last digit of a p-adic integer is non-zero it has a multiplicative
inverse. The proof depends on the integers mod p forming a field, from
that it is fairly easy. Similarly, if the last digit of a p-adic integer
(p odd) is non-zero and is a quadratic residue mod p, the square root of
that number is a p-adic integer. So for instance, -1 has an integer
square root in the 13-adics, as -1 = 12 = 25 = 5*5 mod 13 is a quadratic
residue. And 2 has a integer square root in the 7-adics as
2 = 9 = 3*3 mod 7. In the 17-adics both have an integer square root.
> Thanks for teaching me some more about p-adics, Dik. I am trying to
> see if this imaginary 3', the multiplicative inverse of 3 in 3-adic
> Integers possesses any of the characteristics that i possesses for
> Reals? Could there be some e^i pi = -1, for 3' ?
Well... You first have to define what the symbol "^" means in the p-adics.
>
> Could there be one and only one imaginary integer to cover all Z_p
> that would make all of the Z_p-adics a field. Or do I need to append a
> 3' to 3-adics, a 5' to 5-adics. Thereby requiring an infinitude of
> imaginary integers.
As I said elsewhere, you better not call them "imaginary integer". But
indeed you can not have a single object with some characteristics that
when adjoined to the 3-adic integers will form the 3-adic rationals and
when adjoined to the 5-adic integers will form the 5-adic rationals.
For instance the object (x) to adjoin to the 3-adic integers has the
characteristic that x + x + x = 1.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
