[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

James, one paragraph of your post resonated with me. You said :- "I am a continuum-ist (to coin a cumbersome alternative label~word) .. who has arrived at the view that where conventional science has gone off the rails, is that we~they have lost track of mathematics as a language tool, and that it is NOT necessarily a reliable one-to-one map of phenomena, events and behaviors.    Yes, the statistics equations do an excellent job of corresponding with experiments~results, but that doesn't mean the QM math describes, explains, or accurately describes and justifies the phenomena involved."
This is a neat saying to sum up the problem  :- 
"The real world can always be expressed by mathematics, but mathematics doe not always represent the real world. Maths is the servant of physics, not its master" Einstein (and others) turned this on its head, and made physics subservient to maths. That is when it all started to go horribly wrong.
Tom Hollings.




----Original Message----

From: integrity at prodigy.net

Date: 29/11/2018 20:23 

To: "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5




        Doug,  :-)
I enjoyed reading your post here -- though for me -- you gave your fair share of 'jargon' also.  ;-)
I am 71 - a general systems theorist/analyst (original academic time spent as a biologist) - but because my parents had some encounters with Einstein (through a friend of theirs who was a statistician (Hilbert Space specialist) - who worked with Albert for several years at IAS --- they set me on a path to try resolving the different (conflicting) physics and science models that humanity has built ... through math, experimentation, .. the hard and soft sciences .. and even 'systems behaviors' that are higher level organic .. where it gets complicated, messy, and damned difficult to dissect and evaluate.
I took a few minutes just now to look up your CV and background.  :-)   Some day we might have a fine conversation about sonoluminescence.  :-)   (it is connected with all this other stuff too, as I'm guessing you already have a sensibility about.)
I enjoyed the youtube videos you recommended.   What struck me was not the results that showed up with the different variants of the experiments .. but the different results that might have been caused by whether the measuring apparatus was in motion or not (relative not to the EM fields evaluated as they were shown - but I don't think the additionally present external earth's EM fields were taken into account).  

ANYWAY ...   I abhor the 'many-worlds' hypothesis .. which is the standard deduction of the QM theorists who read too much Sci-Fi.  :-)))).     I think you discount it as well, by your remarks.   

I am a continuum-ist (to coin a cumbersome alternative label~word) .. who has arrived at the view that where conventional science has gone off the rails, is that we~they have lost track of mathematics as a language tool, and that it is NOT necessarily a reliable one-to-one map of phenomena, events and behaviors.    Yes, the statistics equations do an excellent job of corresponding with experiments~results, but that doesn't mean the QM math describes, explains, or accurately describes and justifies the phenomena involved.
I work separates them all out and arrived at a different viewpoint ... where gradients are fundamental, entropy is NOT restricted to thermodynamics, but instead is a found in many other non-energy relations .. as a pattern of real -and- likely behaviors.
Information relations precede the so-called '4 fundamental forces' ; Godel's incompleteness theorems were built on a a core logic mis-step, that everybody overlooks and doesn't recognize; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was over simplified by one crucial step (he removed an important factor ... pi) so that no one recognizes the uncertainty equation as the key link that is the natural translation algorithm binding relativity and QM together.    (I won't detail my reasoning in this email .. maybe another time if you are interested).
I analyzed Maxwell's Demon and discovered that it embodies Turing Machine components, and had associations with Shannon's information theory  - AND -   a better specification of entropic relations when understood as navigating nested levels of dimensions.   In other words, complex phenomena do not embody one and only one entropic gradient .. but have to be appreciated as ensembles of many entropic phenomena -interacting-.      Some of them dominate overall consequences, and some are simply bridging mechanisms.  And some are simply math-maps, not the continuum ;;  easier to discuss (compute), rather than account for -all- details involved.
Isn't it fascinating .. that Prigogine is noted for 'explaining' complexity and emergence using -only- statistics.And Mandelbrot is noted for 'explaining' complexity and emergence using -no- statistics.

Now how the hell did -that- happen?    How can BOTH be correct?
(Clue:   the answer to -their- connection is exactly the same as the answer that ties QM with continuum~relativity).  :-)
James  (aka to friends as: Jamie)   {ie, you can call me Jamie  :-)))  }
integrity at prodigy.net2018 Nov 29




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181201/f32ba905/attachment.html>