View Full Version : Is Unification really between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics
Mike Helland
Nov22-04, 05:42 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like\nthis:\n\nGeneral Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists\nto make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell\'s equations, needs to\nbe put into agreement with quantum mechanics.\n\nLogically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with\nrelativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum\nmechanics.\n\nIs it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\nunderstand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n\nIf so, what papers and research exist that claim a formulation of QM\ncompletely independent from relativistic mechanics (an udpated version\nof Newtonian mechanics) should be used as the starting point for\nMaxwell\'s equations, free of Newtonian baggage?\n\nAfter all, if the unication problem is between quantum and Newton, it\nwouldn\'t hurt to find out how to view QM completely free of Newtonian\n(and thus relativistic) influence.\n\n--\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like
this:
General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists
to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell's equations, needs to
be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.
Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with
relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum
mechanics.
Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
If so, what papers and research exist that claim a formulation of QM
completely independent from relativistic mechanics (an udpated version
of Newtonian mechanics) should be used as the starting point for
Maxwell's equations, free of Newtonian baggage?
After all, if the unication problem is between quantum and Newton, it
wouldn't hurt to find out how to view QM completely free of Newtonian
(and thus relativistic) influence.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Ilja Schmelzer
Nov24-04, 01:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> schrieb\n> The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like\n> this:\n>\n> General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists\n> to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell\'s equations, needs to\n> be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.\n>\n> Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with\n> relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum\n> mechanics.\n>\n> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n\n> After all, if the unication problem is between quantum and Newton, it\n> wouldn\'t hurt to find out how to view QM completely free of Newtonian\n> (and thus relativistic) influence.\n\nThere is no unification problem between quantum and Newtonian\nmechanics. Classical nonrelativistic Schroedinger theory with\nNewtonian interaction potential is the well-defined unification.\n\nIlja\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> schrieb
> The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like
> this:
>
> General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists
> to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell's equations, needs to
> be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.
>
> Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with
> relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum
> mechanics.
>
> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
> After all, if the unication problem is between quantum and Newton, it
> wouldn't hurt to find out how to view QM completely free of Newtonian
> (and thus relativistic) influence.
There is no unification problem between quantum and Newtonian
mechanics. Classical nonrelativistic Schroedinger theory with
Newtonian interaction potential is the well-defined unification.
Ilja
Arnold Neumaier
Nov24-04, 01:47 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n> The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like\n> this:\n>\n> General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists\n> to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell\'s equations, needs to\n> be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.\n>\n> Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with\n> relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum\n> mechanics.\n\nNewtonian mechanics is nonrelativisitc an hence in agreement with QM.\nSimply use the classical hamiltonian for gravitation and quantize it.\nThere are no difficulties with that.\n\n\n> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n\nNo. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativisitc\nquantum field theory.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like
> this:
>
> General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists
> to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell's equations, needs to
> be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.
>
> Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with
> relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum
> mechanics.
Newtonian mechanics is nonrelativisitc an hence in agreement with QM.
Simply use the classical hamiltonian for gravitation and quantize it.
There are no difficulties with that.
> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativisitc
quantum field theory.
Arnold Neumaier
Doug Sweetser
Nov24-04, 09:26 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nHello Mike:\n\n> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n\nI do not think this is a good characterization of the issue. The\nMaxwell equations of 1865 first of all are amazing. They where the\ntechnical inspiration for special relativity, and did not need to be\nmodified by the advent of special relativity. Quantum mechanics, a\nhuge change in thought, did not modify the EM field equations, but does\nrequire a change in the Lagrange density that is used to generate the\nfield equations. The weak and the strong forces are constructed by\ncribbing off of EM. Special relativity, quantum mechanics, and the\nstandard model, all work with the 1865 set of equations. I view those\nequations as never carrying baggage :-)\n\nThe equations of general relativity are also elegant: pure geometry,\nnothing but geometry. Those second rank field equations have past\nevery test we have given them so far.\n\nThere is a question of what one hopes for in unification. You can today\nwrite a Lagrange density that does both. That equation is not very\nsatisfying for a number of reasons: it cannot be quantized, the two\nterms don\'t share much in common, ...\n\nIf one thinks that general relativity is the place to start, then one\nwould work with loop quantum gravity people. The Einstein field\nequations get rewritten in a way that makes loop solutions appear like\na natural thing to do. Then one plays with that math and its\nimplications for the quantum structure of spacetime. If one thinks\nthat the standard model is the most precise mathematical structure we\nhave (it is), then all the tools quantum field theory are the beginning\npoint. People working there see what they consider to be very elegant\nequations that are defined in ten or better yet, eleven diminsions.\nThose are the string theorists.\n\nThere are other areas people are work in. One example is the work of\nConnes with non-commutative algebra (don\'t know much about his work\nalthough I play with a non-commutative division algebra). As far as I\ncan tell, only people on the fringe of physics think the undeniable\nsuccess of the Maxwell equations will expand to envelop gravity. That\neffort is too old and tarnished to be taken seriously.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Mike:
> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
I do not think this is a good characterization of the issue. The
Maxwell equations of 1865 first of all are amazing. They where the
technical inspiration for special relativity, and did not need to be
modified by the advent of special relativity. Quantum mechanics, a
huge change in thought, did not modify the EM field equations, but does
require a change in the Lagrange density that is used to generate the
field equations. The weak and the strong forces are constructed by
cribbing off of EM. Special relativity, quantum mechanics, and the
standard model, all work with the 1865 set of equations. I view those
equations as never carrying baggage :-)
The equations of general relativity are also elegant: pure geometry,
nothing but geometry. Those second rank field equations have past
every test we have given them so far.
There is a question of what one hopes for in unification. You can today
write a Lagrange density that does both. That equation is not very
satisfying for a number of reasons: it cannot be quantized, the two
terms don't share much in common, ...
If one thinks that general relativity is the place to start, then one
would work with loop quantum gravity people. The Einstein field
equations get rewritten in a way that makes loop solutions appear like
a natural thing to do. Then one plays with that math and its
implications for the quantum structure of spacetime. If one thinks
that the standard model is the most precise mathematical structure we
have (it is), then all the tools quantum field theory are the beginning
point. People working there see what they consider to be very elegant
equations that are defined in ten or better yet, eleven diminsions.
Those are the string theorists.
There are other areas people are work in. One example is the work of
Connes with non-commutative algebra (don't know much about his work
although I play with a non-commutative division algebra). As far as I
can tell, only people on the fringe of physics think the undeniable
success of the Maxwell equations will expand to envelop gravity. That
effort is too old and tarnished to be taken seriously.
doug
quaternions.com
alistair
Nov25-04, 03:37 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n> > The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like\n> > this:\n\nThe problem of quantizing gravity is this:\nquantum mechanics says that there are 10^120 Joules per cubic metre of\nvacuum energy in the universe and yet the vacuum energy has no\nmeasureable gravitational effects, but it should curve space-time\nnoticeably.\nTo understand gravity we need to know why the vacuum energy does not\ngravitate.\nThen we can worry about quantization!\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like
> > this:
The problem of quantizing gravity is this:
quantum mechanics says that there are 10^120 Joules per cubic metre of
vacuum energy in the universe and yet the vacuum energy has no
measureable gravitational effects, but it should curve space-time
noticeably.
To understand gravity we need to know why the vacuum energy does not
gravitate.
Then we can worry about quantization!
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Nov26-04, 01:16 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <861c1b21.0411240842.4ad0dc15@posting.google.com>, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message\nnews:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...\n \n> > Mike Helland wrote:\n> > > The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like\n> > > this:\n>\n> The problem of quantizing gravity is this:\n> quantum mechanics says that there are 10^120 Joules per cubic metre of\n> vacuum energy in the universe and yet the vacuum energy has no\n> measureable gravitational effects, but it should curve space-time\n> noticeably.\n\nIt DOES curve spacetime: vacuum energy has negative pressure and causes\nthe universe to accelerate more than it otherwise would. It also curves\nspace; the curvature parameter is R_0/SQRT(Omega + lambda -1). (Note\nthat in the former case its effect is the opposite of matter, in the\nlatter case the same.)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411240842.4ad0dc15@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...
> > Mike Helland wrote:
> > > The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like
> > > this:
>
> The problem of quantizing gravity is this:
> quantum mechanics says that there are 10^120 Joules per cubic metre of
> vacuum energy in the universe and yet the vacuum energy has no
> measureable gravitational effects, but it should curve space-time
> noticeably.
It DOES curve spacetime: vacuum energy has negative pressure and causes
the universe to accelerate more than it otherwise would. It also curves
space; the curvature parameter is R_0/\SQRT(\Omega + \lambda -1). (Note
that in the former case its effect is the opposite of matter, in the
latter case the same.)
bluechip
Nov26-04, 01:21 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n> The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like\n> this:\n>\n> General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists\n> to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell\'s equations, needs to\n> be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.\n>\n\nGeneral relativity, although it may have come about as a consequence of\nthe existence of special relativity, is *not* based on SR; rather SR is\na well-defined subset of GR.\n\n> Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with\n> relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum\n> mechanics.\n\nYour first statement does not imply validity of this second statement.\nThe crucial difference between pre-relativity physics and GR is the\nassumed existence of some universal notion of simultaneity that existed\nup to the early years of the twentieth century. It is (usually) trivial\nto canonically quantize a theory which rests upon global simultaneity\nthrough the existence of some fixed background, but once one introduces\na metric that couples with the dynamics of the system, as in general\nrelativity, attempts at quantization go to hell in a handbasket very\nquickly.\n\n>\n> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n>\n\nNo.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> The problem of quantizating of gravity can basically be stated like
> this:
>
> General Relativity, which is based on special Relativity, which exists
> to make Newtonian mechanics agree with Maxwell's equations, needs to
> be put into agreement with quantum mechanics.
>
General relativity, although it may have come about as a consequence of
the existence of special relativity, is *not* based on SR; rather SR is
a well-defined subset of GR.
> Logically simplifying this statement: Newtonian mechanics (with
> relativistic revision) needs to be put into agreement with quantum
> mechanics.
Your first statement does not imply validity of this second statement.
The crucial difference between pre-relativity physics and GR is the
assumed existence of some universal notion of simultaneity that existed
up to the early years of the twentieth century. It is (usually) trivial
to canonically quantize a theory which rests upon global simultaneity
through the existence of some fixed background, but once one introduces
a metric that couples with the dynamics of the system, as in general
relativity, attempts at quantization go to hell in a handbasket very
quickly.
>
> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
> understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
>
No.
Mike Helland
Dec3-04, 04:50 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...\n\n> > Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n> > understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n>\n> No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativisitc\n> quantum field theory.\n\nSo the difficulties are in gravity + qft.\n\nFirst, we would agree that qft = qm + special relavitity?\n\nAnd special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian mechanics.\n\nWould you agree on that much?\n\nSo literally, when we say gravity + qft, we are looking at a picture\nthat is:\n\ngravity + qm + Newtonian Mechanics 2.0\n\nBecause, relativity is just a revision to Newtonian mechanics.\n\nSo don\'t you suppose it would be logical to at least question the\nchoice to formulate QM with a Newtonian perspective, and question\nwhether or not this choice is the source of the difficulties in\nunification?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...
> > Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
> > understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
>
> No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativisitc
> quantum field theory.
So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.
First, we would agree that qft = qm + special relavitity?
And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian mechanics.
Would you agree on that much?
So literally, when we say gravity + qft, we are looking at a picture
that is:
gravity + qm + Newtonian Mechanics 2.
Because, relativity is just a revision to Newtonian mechanics.
So don't you suppose it would be logical to at least question the
choice to formulate QM with a Newtonian perspective, and question
whether or not this choice is the source of the difficulties in
unification?
Igor Khavkine
Dec4-04, 03:15 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<11990c07.0412020940.73cad41b@posting.google. com>...\n> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...\n>\n> > > Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n> > > understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n> >\n> > No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativisitc\n> > quantum field theory.\n>\n> So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.\n>\n> First, we would agree that qft = qm + special relavitity?\n>\n> And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian mechanics.\n>\n> Would you agree on that much?\n>\n> So literally, when we say gravity + qft, we are looking at a picture\n> that is:\n>\n> gravity + qm + Newtonian Mechanics 2.0\n>\n> Because, relativity is just a revision to Newtonian mechanics.\n>\n> So don\'t you suppose it would be logical to at least question the\n> choice to formulate QM with a Newtonian perspective, and question\n> whether or not this choice is the source of the difficulties in\n> unification?\n\nPerhaps the following "theory arithmetic" will clear things up:\n\ngravity - relativity = Newtonian gravity,\n\nand\n\nNewtonian mechanics 2.0 - relativity = Newtonian mechanics.\n\nThen what you seem to be asking about is\n\ngravity + qm + (Newtoniam mechanics 2.0 - relativity)\n= (gravity - relativity) + qm + Newtonian mechanics\n= Newtonian gravity + qm + Newtonian mechanics.\n\nHence the first part of Arnold Neumaier\'s post (which you neglected to\nquote) already answers your question. The real trouble comes in when\nyou bring in relativity, or, to be even more precise, background\nindependence. For an explanation of what that means see:\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/background.html\n\nHope this helps.\n\nIgor\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<11990c07.0412020940.73cad41b@posting.google.com>...
> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...
>
> > > Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
> > > understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
> >
> > No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativisitc
> > quantum field theory.
>
> So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.
>
> First, we would agree that qft = qm + special relavitity?
>
> And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Would you agree on that much?
>
> So literally, when we say gravity + qft, we are looking at a picture
> that is:
>
> gravity + qm + Newtonian Mechanics 2.
>
> Because, relativity is just a revision to Newtonian mechanics.
>
> So don't you suppose it would be logical to at least question the
> choice to formulate QM with a Newtonian perspective, and question
> whether or not this choice is the source of the difficulties in
> unification?
Perhaps the following "theory arithmetic" will clear things up:
gravity - relativity = Newtonian gravity,
and
Newtonian mechanics 2. - relativity = Newtonian mechanics.
Then what you seem to be asking about is
gravity + qm + (Newtoniam mechanics 2. - relativity)
= (gravity - relativity) + qm + Newtonian mechanics
= Newtonian gravity + qm + Newtonian mechanics.
Hence the first part of Arnold Neumaier's post (which you neglected to
quote) already answers your question. The real trouble comes in when
you bring in relativity, or, to be even more precise, background
independence. For an explanation of what that means see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/background.html
Hope this helps.
Igor
Arnold Neumaier
Dec4-04, 03:21 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...\n>\n>\n>>> Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to\n>>>understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n>>\n>>No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativistic\n>>quantum field theory.\n>\n>\n> So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.\n\nThe difficulties are in gravity + _relativistic_ qft.\n\n> First, we would agree that qft = qm + special relavitity?\n\nNot quite. There is also nonrelativistic QFT, needed for solid state physics.\nCorrect is the equation:\nqft = qm + fields\n\n> And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian mechanics.\n> Would you agree on that much?\n\nNo.\nspecial relativity = mechanics + Poincare group (in place of Galilei)\n\n\n> So literally, when we say gravity + qft, we are looking at a picture\n> that is:\n>\n> gravity + qm + Newtonian Mechanics 2.0\n\nThis is still nonrelativistic, and poses no problems.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...
>
>
>>>Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the quest to
>>>understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
>>
>>No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativistic
>>quantum field theory.
>
>
> So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.
The difficulties are in gravity + _relativistic_ qft.
> First, we would agree that qft = qm + special relavitity?
Not quite. There is also nonrelativistic QFT, needed for solid state physics.
Correct is the equation:
qft = qm + fields
> And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian mechanics.
> Would you agree on that much?
No.
special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group (in place of Galilei)
> So literally, when we say gravity + qft, we are looking at a picture
> that is:
>
> gravity + qm + Newtonian Mechanics 2.
This is still nonrelativistic, and poses no problems.
Arnold Neumaier
Mike Helland
Dec9-04, 02:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n> > Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message\nnews:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...\n > >\n> >>>Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the\nquest to\n> >>>understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?\n> >>\n> >>No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativistic\n> >>quantum field theory.\n> >\n> >\n> > So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.\n>\n> The difficulties are in gravity + _relativistic_ qft.\n\nOk, I mispoke.\n\n> > And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian\nmechanics.\n> > Would you agree on that much?\n>\n> No.\n> special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group (in place of\nGalilei)\n\nI was saying that Special Relativity is really an evolution of\nNewtonian mechanics to agree better with Maxwell\'s equations.\n\nYou\'re saying it really for the agreement between an unspecified\nmechanics and the Poincare group.\n\nWhat mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?\n\nIn either case, my original question was about the unification taking a\nwrong turn by fusing Quantum Mechanics with an incompatible type of\nmechanics (I specificially said Newtonian, but if that is technically\nnot the case, it isn\'t the most important aspect of my claims).\n\nSo, back to my original claim: does it not seem reasonable to\ninvestigate whether or not we should revisit the work of Einstein and\nwhere he aimed for:\n\nspecial relativity = mechanics + Poincare group\n\nlike you said, we should instead aim for:\n\na new special relativity = quantum mechanics + Poincare group\n\n? Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an interpretation of QM\nwhere Maxwell\'s equations and the other transformations are implicitly\npresent?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:<41A33950.1080907@univie.ac.at>...
> >
> >>>Is it fair to say the the quest for unification is really the
quest to
> >>>understand quantum mechanics from a Newtonian perspective?
> >>
> >>No. The difficulties are in unifying gravitation with relativistic
> >>quantum field theory.
> >
> >
> > So the difficulties are in gravity + qft.
>
> The difficulties are in gravity + _relativistic_ qft.
Ok, I mispoke.
> > And special relativity is really an evolution of Newtonian
mechanics.
> > Would you agree on that much?
>
> No.
> special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group (in place of
Galilei)
I was saying that Special Relativity is really an evolution of
Newtonian mechanics to agree better with Maxwell's equations.
You're saying it really for the agreement between an unspecified
mechanics and the Poincare group.
What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?
In either case, my original question was about the unification taking a
wrong turn by fusing Quantum Mechanics with an incompatible type of
mechanics (I specificially said Newtonian, but if that is technically
not the case, it isn't the most important aspect of my claims).
So, back to my original claim: does it not seem reasonable to
investigate whether or not we should revisit the work of Einstein and
where he aimed for:
special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group
like you said, we should instead aim for:
a new special relativity = quantum mechanics + Poincare group
? Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an interpretation of QM
where Maxwell's equations and the other transformations are implicitly
present?
Arnold Neumaier
Dec10-04, 10:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nMike Helland wrote:\n\n> You\'re saying it really for the agreement between an unspecified\n> mechanics and the Poincare group.\n>\n> What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?\n\nHamiltonian mechanics. Also contains electromagnetism, for example,\nand many models on a phenomenological level.\n\n\n\n> So, back to my original claim: does it not seem reasonable to\n> investigate whether or not we should revisit the work of Einstein and\n> where he aimed for:\n>\n> special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group\n>\n> like you said, we should instead aim for:\n>\n> a new special relativity = quantum mechanics + Poincare group\n>\n> ? Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an interpretation of QM\n> where Maxwell\'s equations and the other transformations are implicitly\n> present?\n\n\nI do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code\nyou don\'t go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence\navailable and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the\nbug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it\nwill be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,\nnot by the dreamer.\n\nLearn as much as you can about how and why the good theories work,\nand if you have the calibre to be an innovator, you might be able\nto spot what went wrong. But not by searching in the mist...\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> You're saying it really for the agreement between an unspecified
> mechanics and the Poincare group.
>
> What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?
Hamiltonian mechanics. Also contains electromagnetism, for example,
and many models on a phenomenological level.
> So, back to my original claim: does it not seem reasonable to
> investigate whether or not we should revisit the work of Einstein and
> where he aimed for:
>
> special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group
>
> like you said, we should instead aim for:
>
> a new special relativity = quantum mechanics + Poincare group
>
> ? Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an interpretation of QM
> where Maxwell's equations and the other transformations are implicitly
> present?
I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code
you don't go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence
available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the
bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it
will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,
not by the dreamer.
Learn as much as you can about how and why the good theories work,
and if you have the calibre to be an innovator, you might be able
to spot what went wrong. But not by searching in the mist...
Arnold Neumaier
Mike Helland
Dec11-04, 03:07 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n>\n> > You\'re saying it really for the agreement between an unspecified\n> > mechanics and the Poincare group.\n> >\n> > What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?\n>\n> Hamiltonian mechanics. Also contains electromagnetism, for example,\n> and many models on a phenomenological level.\n>\n> > So, back to my original claim: does it not seem reasonable to\n> > investigate whether or not we should revisit the work of Einstein and\n> > where he aimed for:\n> >\n> > special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group\n> >\n> > like you said, we should instead aim for:\n> >\n> > a new special relativity = quantum mechanics + Poincare group\n> >\n> > ? Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an interpretation of QM\n> > where Maxwell\'s equations and the other transformations are implicitly\n> > present?\n>\n> I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code\n> you don\'t go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence\n> available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the\n> bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it\n> will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,\n> not by the dreamer.\n\nFor nearly a decade I\'ve been working on a computer system that has\nwell over a quarter million lines of code. I spend my days extending\nthe system and fixing bugs. I think I know what is involved in fixing\nthe problems.\n\nWild guesses and imaginative speculation play an equally important role\nas a detailed analysis of the code in solving these problems.\n\nAnyone who says otherwise has never fixed a non-trivial bug.\n\n\n> Learn as much as you can about how and why the good theories work,\n> and if you have the calibre to be an innovator, you might be able\n> to spot what went wrong. But not by searching in the mist...\n\nAnd also not by limiting ourselves to investigating certain questions.\n\nI\'ll give you a little more information regarding what I\'m thinking\nabout.\n\nLet\'s take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you\nhave a stadium, and there are four people sitting in a single row:\n\nA1 A2 A3 A4\n\nAnd in the next row, are four more people, but sitting one seat to the\nleft, so we have:\n\nA1 A2 A3 A4\nB1 B2 B3 B4\n\nFinally, there is a third row, and they are sitting one seat to the\nright of the original row. This is our picture:\n\nA1 A2 A3 A4\nB1 B2 B3 B4\nC1 C2 C3 C4\n\nWe now make the following rules:\n\n1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete\n\nWe know that from quantum mechanics and Planck\'s Constant, such a\nsuggestion might actually apply to nature\n\n2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible\ninterval of time is the time it takes to move one seat\n\nOk. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right, and\nC one seat to the right, so that after an instant we have:\n\nA1 A2 A3 A4\nB1 B2 B3 B4\nC1 C2 C3 C4\n\nIn this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would have\nseen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our\nrules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of\ntime, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.\n\nBut what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A move a\nsingle seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the\nsmallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one seat\nis possible, can this be true?\n\nEinstein told us that there is such a thing as time dilation. That was\nhis suggestion to understanding what is happening.\n\nBut as others have suggested, this can be explained in a seeminly more\nelegant manner. How is that?\n\nFirst, we need to get back to basics. And that is, how does motion\noccur in time? If you\'ve understood Peter Lynds\' arguments recently,\nyou\'ll know that motion doesn\'t occur in time. Instead, time is really\noccuring in motion.\n\nThat means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed\nmotion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are\nmoving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight\ninstants, not just one like we had previouslly assumed.\n\nTherefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look like\nthis after one instant:\n\nA1 A2 A3 A4\nB1 B2 B3 B4\nC1 C2 C3 C4\n\nand this after two:\n\nA1 A2 A3 A4\nB1 B2 B3 B4\nC1 C2 C3 C4\n\nIf you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving more\nthan one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative\nmotion is involved.\n\nIf you\'ll notice, this is time dilation too, but instead of describing\nit with the postulates of relativity, we use a single simpler postulate\n(that time is the result of motion) to produce time dilation as a\nconsequence.\n\nSo when I say perhaps we should starting trying to devise an\ninterpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is\nimplicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an\nafterthought, this is what I have in mind.\n\nI think Peter Lynds\' notions on time eliminate the need for special\nrelativity on the basis that the "right" view of mechanics already\naccounts for the effects of special relativity.\n\nHe just doesn\'t know it yet, and ya\'ll seem to be late to the party :-)\n\nI\'m not sure if Google Groups is going to be posting my stadium seats\nwith the correct whitespace and fixed length fonts, so this web page\nwill format the problem correctly if that is a problem:\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
>
> > You're saying it really for the agreement between an unspecified
> > mechanics and the Poincare group.
> >
> > What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?
>
> Hamiltonian mechanics. Also contains electromagnetism, for example,
> and many models on a phenomenological level.
>
> > So, back to my original claim: does it not seem reasonable to
> > investigate whether or not we should revisit the work of Einstein and
> > where he aimed for:
> >
> > special relativity = mechanics + Poincare group
> >
> > like you said, we should instead aim for:
> >
> > a new special relativity = quantum mechanics + Poincare group
> >
> > ? Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an interpretation of QM
> > where Maxwell's equations and the other transformations are implicitly
> > present?
>
> I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code
> you don't go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence
> available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the
> bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it
> will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,
> not by the dreamer.
For nearly a decade I've been working on a computer system that has
well over a quarter million lines of code. I spend my days extending
the system and fixing bugs. I think I know what is involved in fixing
the problems.
Wild guesses and imaginative speculation play an equally important role
as a detailed analysis of the code in solving these problems.
Anyone who says otherwise has never fixed a non-trivial bug.
> Learn as much as you can about how and why the good theories work,
> and if you have the calibre to be an innovator, you might be able
> to spot what went wrong. But not by searching in the mist...
And also not by limiting ourselves to investigating certain questions.
I'll give you a little more information regarding what I'm thinking
about.
Let's take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you
have a stadium, and there are four people sitting in a single row:
A1 A2 A3 A4
And in the next row, are four more people, but sitting one seat to the
left, so we have:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
Finally, there is a third row, and they are sitting one seat to the
right of the original row. This is our picture:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
We now make the following rules:
1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete
We know that from quantum mechanics and Planck's Constant, such a
suggestion might actually apply to nature
2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible
interval of time is the time it takes to move one seat
Ok. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right, and
C one seat to the right, so that after an instant we have:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
In this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would have
seen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our
rules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of
time, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.
But what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A move a
single seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the
smallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one seat
is possible, can this be true?
Einstein told us that there is such a thing as time dilation. That was
his suggestion to understanding what is happening.
But as others have suggested, this can be explained in a seeminly more
elegant manner. How is that?
First, we need to get back to basics. And that is, how does motion
occur in time? If you've understood Peter Lynds' arguments recently,
you'll know that motion doesn't occur in time. Instead, time is really
occuring in motion.
That means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed
motion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are
moving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight
instants, not just one like we had previouslly assumed.
Therefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look like
this after one instant:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
and this after two:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
If you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving more
than one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative
motion is involved.
If you'll notice, this is time dilation too, but instead of describing
it with the postulates of relativity, we use a single simpler postulate
(that time is the result of motion) to produce time dilation as a
consequence.
So when I say perhaps we should starting trying to devise an
interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is
implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an
afterthought, this is what I have in mind.
I think Peter Lynds' notions on time eliminate the need for special
relativity on the basis that the "right" view of mechanics already
accounts for the effects of special relativity.
He just doesn't know it yet, and ya'll seem to be late to the party :-)
I'm not sure if Google Groups is going to be posting my stadium seats
with the correct whitespace and fixed length fonts, so this web page
will format the problem correctly if that is a problem:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
jcgonsowski@yahoo.com
Dec11-04, 03:08 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n> > What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?\n> Hamiltonian mechanics. Also contains electromagnetism,\n> for example, and many models on a phenomenological level.\n>\n> > Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an\n> > interpretation of QM where Maxwell\'s equations and the\n> > other transformations are implicitly present?\n> I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a\n> computer code you don\'t go around speculating, but you\n> carefully compare evidence available and stay as close as\n> possible to the code. We need to find the bug in the\n> foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it\n> will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful\n> investigator, not by the dreamer.\n> Learn as much as you can about how and why the good\n> theories work, and if you have the calibre to be an\n> innovator, you might be able to spot what went wrong. But\n> not by searching in the mist...\n\nApple and IBM may have had better operating systems than\nMicrosoft but that did not keep the bandwagon from\nfollowing Microsoft. Some very good physics ideas can get\nlost in the mist. For example, I think the following ideas\n(from Irving Segal and Tony Smith) are very good even if they\nare not particularly "close to the current code":\n\nI. E. Segal, H. P. Jakobsen, B. Oersted, S. M. Paneitz, and B. Speh, in\ntheir article Covariant chronogeometry and extreme distances:\nElementary particles (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 78 (1981) 5261-5265, at\npage 5261), say: "... the energy of a photon in ...[ Conformal Unispace\n]... splits Lorentz-covariantly into a local and delocalized part. The\nlocal part is represented by the conventional energy operator in ...[\nMinkowski space-time ]... , which can be regarded as a submanifold of\n....[ Conformal Unispace ]... ; the delocalized part drives, essentially\nas an interaction hamiltonian, a redshift in very good agreement with\nobjective observations on galaxies and quasars. ...".\n\nIn other words, 26-dim String Theory can be interpreted as being the\ntheory of movement of a "Bohm Point" in configuration space. ( Since I\nlike to use a Lagrangian formulation using spacetime as opposed to a\nHamiltonian spatial formulation with time as an "outside" variable, the\nconfiguration space is not particle positions (points) in fermion\nrepresentation spaces, internal symmetry space, and spatial space but\nis particle world-lines (strings) in fermion representation spaces,\ninternal symmetry space, and spacetime including both spatial\ndimensions and time dimension. )\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > What mechanics are you refering to, if not Newtonian?
> Hamiltonian mechanics. Also contains electromagnetism,
> for example, and many models on a phenomenological level.
>
> > Or, perhaps, more realistically, try to find an
> > interpretation of QM where Maxwell's equations and the
> > other transformations are implicitly present?
> I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a
> computer code you don't go around speculating, but you
> carefully compare evidence available and stay as close as
> possible to the code. We need to find the bug in the
> foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it
> will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful
> investigator, not by the dreamer.
> Learn as much as you can about how and why the good
> theories work, and if you have the calibre to be an
> innovator, you might be able to spot what went wrong. But
> not by searching in the mist...
Apple and IBM may have had better operating systems than
Microsoft but that did not keep the bandwagon from
following Microsoft. Some very good physics ideas can get
lost in the mist. For example, I think the following ideas
(from Irving Segal and Tony Smith) are very good even if they
are not particularly "close to the current code":
I. E. Segal, H. P. Jakobsen, B. Oersted, S. M. Paneitz, and B. Speh, in
their article Covariant chronogeometry and extreme distances:
Elementary particles (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 78 (1981) 5261-5265, at
page 5261), say: "... the energy of a photon in ...[ Conformal Unispace
]... splits Lorentz-covariantly into a local and delocalized part. The
local part is represented by the conventional energy operator in ...[
Minkowski space-time ]... , which can be regarded as a submanifold of
....[ Conformal Unispace ]... ; the delocalized part drives, essentially
as an interaction hamiltonian, a redshift in very good agreement with
objective observations on galaxies and quasars. ...".
In other words, 26-dim String Theory can be interpreted as being the
theory of movement of a "Bohm Point" in configuration space. ( Since I
like to use a Lagrangian formulation using spacetime as opposed to a
Hamiltonian spatial formulation with time as an "outside" variable, the
configuration space is not particle positions (points) in fermion
representation spaces, internal symmetry space, and spatial space but
is particle world-lines (strings) in fermion representation spaces,
internal symmetry space, and spacetime including both spatial
dimensions and time dimension. )
Arnold Neumaier
Dec14-04, 12:42 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>it\nmay be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real,\npractical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being\ngiven relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example,\nthat a great development of the service of industries might provide\nwork for human beings. Thus people will would spend their time\nshinning each others shoes, driving each other around inn taxicab,\nmaking handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other\'s tables,\netc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race\nto end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives\nin such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets\n(drugs, , crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were biological or\npsychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.\n\n177. Needless to day, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all\nthe possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem\nto us mots likely. But wee can envision no plausible scenarios that\nare any more palatable that the ones we\'ve just described. It is\noverwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system\nsurvives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed\ncertain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the\n"bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,\nand who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever\non large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and\ntheir physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly\nto a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them\nrather than being the results of chance (or of God\'s will, or\nwhatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to\nremnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision\nand mana\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>it
may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real,
practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being
given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example,
that a great development of the service of industries might provide
work for human beings. Thus people will would spend their time
shinning each others shoes, driving each other around inn taxicab,
making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other's tables,
etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race
to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives
in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets
(drugs, , crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were biological or
psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.
177. Needless to day, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all
the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem
to us mots likely. But wee can envision no plausible scenarios that
are any more palatable that the ones we've just described. It is
overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system
survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed
certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the
"bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,
and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever
on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and
their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly
to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them
rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or
whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to
remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision
and mana
Arnold Neumaier
Dec14-04, 10:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nMike Helland wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>>I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code\n>>you don\'t go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence\n>>available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the\n>>bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it\n>>will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,\n>>not by the dreamer.\n>\n> For nearly a decade I\'ve been working on a computer system that has\n> well over a quarter million lines of code. I spend my days extending\n> the system and fixing bugs. I think I know what is involved in fixing\n> the problems.\n>\n> Wild guesses and imaginative speculation play an equally important role\n> as a detailed analysis of the code in solving these problems.\n>\n> Anyone who says otherwise has never fixed a non-trivial bug.\n\nWell, I spent much time with bug-fixing, too. I agree that a certain amount\nof creativity is needed. But it must be guided closely by general knowledge\nof similar problems already solved and on the structure of the system,\ntogether with the information turned up by a detailed analysis of the code.\nThus imaginative speculation works only if checked and confirmed by detailed\ncode analysis. And most of the wild ideas are useless. Not a procedure\nI\'d recommend for research, though, unfortunately, it has become fashionable\nin some quarters of theoretical physics...\n\n\n\n> So when I say perhaps we should starting trying to devise an\n> interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is\n> implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an\n> afterthought, this is what I have in mind.\n\nWell, this is just a dream. To make it reality (or, more likely,\nto see that it cannot work), you need some formal approach relating\nyour vague idea to formal substance.\n\nThe problem in relativistic QFT is not that there are too many possiblities\nbut that the known facts are so restrictive that almost nothing works.\nTrying to find a solution by wild guesses and imaginative speculation is\nlike trying to solve a complicated system of nonlinear equations by\nmultiple guessing instead of by carefully investigating the consequences\nof the equations...\n\n\n> I\'m not sure if Google Groups is going to be posting my stadium seats\n> with the correct whitespace and fixed length fonts, so this web page\n> will format the problem correctly if that is a problem:\n> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm\n\nI found neither intelligible.\nThe correct way in email is to use unserscores for blanks.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>>I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code
>>you don't go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence
>>available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the
>>bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it
>>will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,
>>not by the dreamer.
>
> For nearly a decade I've been working on a computer system that has
> well over a quarter million lines of code. I spend my days extending
> the system and fixing bugs. I think I know what is involved in fixing
> the problems.
>
> Wild guesses and imaginative speculation play an equally important role
> as a detailed analysis of the code in solving these problems.
>
> Anyone who says otherwise has never fixed a non-trivial bug.
Well, I spent much time with bug-fixing, too. I agree that a certain amount
of creativity is needed. But it must be guided closely by general knowledge
of similar problems already solved and on the structure of the system,
together with the information turned up by a detailed analysis of the code.
Thus imaginative speculation works only if checked and confirmed by detailed
code analysis. And most of the wild ideas are useless. Not a procedure
I'd recommend for research, though, unfortunately, it has become fashionable
in some quarters of theoretical physics...
> So when I say perhaps we should starting trying to devise an
> interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is
> implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an
> afterthought, this is what I have in mind.
Well, this is just a dream. To make it reality (or, more likely,
to see that it cannot work), you need some formal approach relating
your vague idea to formal substance.
The problem in relativistic QFT is not that there are too many possiblities
but that the known facts are so restrictive that almost nothing works.
Trying to find a solution by wild guesses and imaginative speculation is
like trying to solve a complicated system of nonlinear equations by
multiple guessing instead of by carefully investigating the consequences
of the equations...
> I'm not sure if Google Groups is going to be posting my stadium seats
> with the correct whitespace and fixed length fonts, so this web page
> will format the problem correctly if that is a problem:
> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
I found neither intelligible.
The correct way in email is to use unserscores for blanks.
Arnold Neumaier
Mike Helland
Dec15-04, 12:36 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n> > Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n> >\n> >>I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code\n> >>you don\'t go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence\n> >>available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the\n> >>bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it\n> >>will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,\n> >>not by the dreamer.\n> >\n> > For nearly a decade I\'ve been working on a computer system that has\n> > well over a quarter million lines of code. I spend my days extending\n> > the system and fixing bugs. I think I know what is involved in fixing\n> > the problems.\n> >\n> > Wild guesses and imaginative speculation play an equally important role\n> > as a detailed analysis of the code in solving these problems.\n> >\n> > Anyone who says otherwise has never fixed a non-trivial bug.\n>\n> Well, I spent much time with bug-fixing, too. I agree that a certain amount\n> of creativity is needed. But it must be guided closely by general knowledge\n> of similar problems already solved and on the structure of the system,\n> together with the information turned up by a detailed analysis of the code.\n> Thus imaginative speculation works only if checked and confirmed by detailed\n> code analysis. And most of the wild ideas are useless. Not a procedure\n> I\'d recommend for research, though, unfortunately, it has become fashionable\n> in some quarters of theoretical physics...\n\nI don\'t know how complex the software systems you work on are, but\nthere is a difference between minor incremental changes to software\nsystems and considerable rewrites. The latter is necessary when you\nfind a bug in the software that cannot be fixed without a drastic\nchange in the existing architecture.\n\nThis situation occurs in software, and in the evolution of physics.\n\nI\'m suggesting that the unification "bug" is one of these situations.\n\nWith that cleared up, let\'s get to the real issues:\n\n> > So when I say perhaps we should starting trying to devise an\n> > interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is\n> > implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an\n> > afterthought, this is what I have in mind.\n>\n> Well, this is just a dream. To make it reality (or, more likely,\n> to see that it cannot work), you need some formal approach relating\n> your vague idea to formal substance.\n\nI think I am using a formal approach.\n\nI\'ll demonstrate it in the context the relative motion of moving\nbodies, this time using underscores, so hopefully you can read it. :-)\n\nLet\'s take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you\nhave a stadium, and there are four people (A1-A4) sitting in a single\nrow:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\n\nAnd in the next row, are four more people (B1-B4), but sitting one seat\nto the\nleft, so we have:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3_B4\n\nFinally, there is a third row, and those people (C1-C4) are sitting one\nseat to the right of the original row. This is our picture:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3_B4\n______C1_ C2_C3_C4\n\nWe now make the following rules:\n\n1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete\n\nWe know that from quantum mechanics and Planck\'s Constant, such a\nsuggestion might actually apply to nature\n\n2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible\ninterval of time is the time it takes to move one seat\n\nOk. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right, and\nC one seat to the right, so that after an instant we have:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\n___B1_B2_B3_B4\n___C1_C2_ C3_C4\n\nIn this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would have\nseen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our\nrules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of\ntime, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.\n\nBut what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A move a\nsingle seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the\nsmallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one seat\nis possible, can this be true? And doesn\'t that mean that if the\nsmallest indivisible unit of time corresponds to the movement of one\nseat, that by moving two seats, we\'ve actually managed to divide the\nindivisible unit of time?\n\nThe existing formal description comes from Einstein. He told us that\nthere is such a thing as time dilation. That was his suggestion to\nunderstanding what is happening.\n\nBut as others have suggested, this can be explained in a seeminly more\nelegant manner. How is that?\n\nThere is an assumption here that all eight seats (four from row B, and\nfour from row C) can move in a single instant. The assumption is\nmultiple things may happen in a single instant.\n\nWhat if that assumption is not correct? In fact, let us assume it is\nwrong.\n\nFirst, we need to get back to basics. And that is, how does motion\noccur in time? If you\'ve understood Peter Lynds\' arguments recently,\nyou\'ll know that motion doesn\'t occur in time. Instead, time is really\noccuring in motion. In other words:\n\nIf something moves, there is time. Not the other way around. (Note that\nthis is totally consistent with the definition that "time is what a\nclock measures"; as the hands on a clock move, time is the result.)\n\nThat means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed\nmotion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are\nmoving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight\ninstants, not just one, which was the previous assumption.\n\nTherefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look like\nthis after one instant:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3____B4\n______ C1_C2_C3_C4\n\nand this after two:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3____B4\n___C1____C 2_C3_C4\n\nIf you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving more\nthan one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative\nmotion is involved.\n\nIf you\'ll notice, this is time dilation too, but instead of describing\nit with the postulates of relativity, we use a single simpler\npostulate: that time is the result of motion.\n\nSo when I say perhaps we should start trying to devise an\ninterpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is\nimplicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an\nafterthought, this is what I have in mind.\n\nI think Peter Lynds\' notions on time eliminate the need for special\nrelativity on the basis that the "right" view of mechanics already\naccounts for the effects of special relativity.\n\nHe just doesn\'t know it yet, and ya\'ll seem to be late to the party :-)\n\nMake sense this time?\n\nBy the way, this puzzle is Zeno\'s fourth puzzle on time and motion. In\n2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that\n"many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that\nassumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely\nelegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly\ncontains the effects of special relativity.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> >
> >>I do not think this is fruitful. To find bugs in a computer code
> >>you don't go around speculating, but you carefully compare evidence
> >>available and stay as close as possible to the code. We need to find the
> >>bug in the foundations of physics, and as with computer programs, it
> >>will be very subtle and will be found only by the careful investigator,
> >>not by the dreamer.
> >
> > For nearly a decade I've been working on a computer system that has
> > well over a quarter million lines of code. I spend my days extending
> > the system and fixing bugs. I think I know what is involved in fixing
> > the problems.
> >
> > Wild guesses and imaginative speculation play an equally important role
> > as a detailed analysis of the code in solving these problems.
> >
> > Anyone who says otherwise has never fixed a non-trivial bug.
>
> Well, I spent much time with bug-fixing, too. I agree that a certain amount
> of creativity is needed. But it must be guided closely by general knowledge
> of similar problems already solved and on the structure of the system,
> together with the information turned up by a detailed analysis of the code.
> Thus imaginative speculation works only if checked and confirmed by detailed
> code analysis. And most of the wild ideas are useless. Not a procedure
> I'd recommend for research, though, unfortunately, it has become fashionable
> in some quarters of theoretical physics...
I don't know how complex the software systems you work on are, but
there is a difference between minor incremental changes to software
systems and considerable rewrites. The latter is necessary when you
find a bug in the software that cannot be fixed without a drastic
change in the existing architecture.
This situation occurs in software, and in the evolution of physics.
I'm suggesting that the unification "bug" is one of these situations.
With that cleared up, let's get to the real issues:
> > So when I say perhaps we should starting trying to devise an
> > interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is
> > implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an
> > afterthought, this is what I have in mind.
>
> Well, this is just a dream. To make it reality (or, more likely,
> to see that it cannot work), you need some formal approach relating
> your vague idea to formal substance.
I think I am using a formal approach.
I'll demonstrate it in the context the relative motion of moving
bodies, this time using underscores, so hopefully you can read it. :-)
Let's take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you
have a stadium, and there are four people (A1-A4) sitting in a single
row:
__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
And in the next row, are four more people (B1-B4), but sitting one seat
to the
left, so we have:
__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3_B4
Finally, there is a third row, and those people (C1-C4) are sitting one
seat to the right of the original row. This is our picture:
__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3_B4
__{____C1_C2_C3_C4}
We now make the following rules:
1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete
We know that from quantum mechanics and Planck's Constant, such a
suggestion might actually apply to nature
2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible
interval of time is the time it takes to move one seat
Ok. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right, and
C one seat to the right, so that after an instant we have:
__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
__{_B1_B2_B3_B4}
__{_C1_C2_C3_C4}
In this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would have
seen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our
rules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of
time, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.
But what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A move a
single seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the
smallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one seat
is possible, can this be true? And doesn't that mean that if the
smallest indivisible unit of time corresponds to the movement of one
seat, that by moving two seats, we've actually managed to divide the
indivisible unit of time?
The existing formal description comes from Einstein. He told us that
there is such a thing as time dilation. That was his suggestion to
understanding what is happening.
But as others have suggested, this can be explained in a seeminly more
elegant manner. How is that?
There is an assumption here that all eight seats (four from row B, and
four from row C) can move in a single instant. The assumption is
multiple things may happen in a single instant.
What if that assumption is not correct? In fact, let us assume it is
wrong.
First, we need to get back to basics. And that is, how does motion
occur in time? If you've understood Peter Lynds' arguments recently,
you'll know that motion doesn't occur in time. Instead, time is really
occuring in motion. In other words:
If something moves, there is time. Not the other way around. (Note that
this is totally consistent with the definition that "time is what a
clock measures"; as the hands on a clock move, time is the result.)
That means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed
motion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are
moving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight
instants, not just one, which was the previous assumption.
Therefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look like
this after one instant:
__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3____B4
__{____C1_C2_C3_C4}
and this after two:
__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3____B4
__{_C1____C2_C3_C4}
If you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving more
than one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative
motion is involved.
If you'll notice, this is time dilation too, but instead of describing
it with the postulates of relativity, we use a single simpler
postulate: that time is the result of motion.
So when I say perhaps we should start trying to devise an
interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is
implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an
afterthought, this is what I have in mind.
I think Peter Lynds' notions on time eliminate the need for special
relativity on the basis that the "right" view of mechanics already
accounts for the effects of special relativity.
He just doesn't know it yet, and ya'll seem to be late to the party :-)
Make sense this time?
By the way, this puzzle is Zeno's fourth puzzle on time and motion. In
2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that
"many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that
assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely
elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly
contains the effects of special relativity.
Arnold Neumaier
Dec17-04, 07:50 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> there is a difference between minor incremental changes to software\n> systems and considerable rewrites. The latter is necessary when you\n> find a bug in the software that cannot be fixed without a drastic\n> change in the existing architecture.\n>\n> This situation occurs in software, and in the evolution of physics.\n> I\'m suggesting that the unification "bug" is one of these situations.\n\nMaybe. But even if you reprogram things almost from scratch, you need to\naccount for everything good that was in the old code. Which means that\nin a ny proposal for the bug fixing, one must be able to recognize all\nstructure that one knows is there.\n\nI failed to find this in your analysis of the occupation of stadium seats.\nIt resembles too little the structure needed in QFTs.\nYou\'d need a much more detailed bug fixing plan to get it funded.\nPeople rather live with a bug and the workarounds they have than having\ntheir code revised by a programmer who wants to make considerable rewrites\nwithout having a very clear view of how to do it, and a convincing analysis\nthat it will really fix the bug.\n\n\n> If you\'ll notice, this is time dilation too, but instead of describing\n> it with the postulates of relativity, we use a single simpler\n> postulate: that time is the result of motion.\n>\n> So when I say perhaps we should start trying to devise an\n> interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is\n> implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an\n> afterthought, this is what I have in mind.\n\nIn 2 and 3 dimensions, flat QFT and special relativity live together in\nharmony. In 4 dimensions probably too, except that we still lack the\nanalytical tools to prove the necessary estimates. But the practical success\nof renormalization theory suggests the absence of real problems at\nrealistic energies.\n\n\n\n> I think Peter Lynds\' notions on time eliminate the need for special\n> relativity on the basis that the "right" view of mechanics already\n> accounts for the effects of special relativity.\n>\n> By the way, this puzzle is Zeno\'s fourth puzzle on time and motion. In\n> 2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that\n> "many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that\n> assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely\n> elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly\n> contains the effects of special relativity.\n\nI prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown\nto reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.\nChances are high that I\'ll have to wait forever...\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> there is a difference between minor incremental changes to software
> systems and considerable rewrites. The latter is necessary when you
> find a bug in the software that cannot be fixed without a drastic
> change in the existing architecture.
>
> This situation occurs in software, and in the evolution of physics.
> I'm suggesting that the unification "bug" is one of these situations.
Maybe. But even if you reprogram things almost from scratch, you need to
account for everything good that was in the old code. Which means that
in a ny proposal for the bug fixing, one must be able to recognize all
structure that one knows is there.
I failed to find this in your analysis of the occupation of stadium seats.
It resembles too little the structure needed in QFTs.
You'd need a much more detailed bug fixing plan to get it funded.
People rather live with a bug and the workarounds they have than having
their code revised by a programmer who wants to make considerable rewrites
without having a very clear view of how to do it, and a convincing analysis
that it will really fix the bug.
> If you'll notice, this is time dilation too, but instead of describing
> it with the postulates of relativity, we use a single simpler
> postulate: that time is the result of motion.
>
> So when I say perhaps we should start trying to devise an
> interpretation of quantum mechanics where special relativity is
> implicit, instead of combobulating QFT with special relativity as an
> afterthought, this is what I have in mind.
In 2 and 3 dimensions, flat QFT and special relativity live together in
harmony. In 4 dimensions probably too, except that we still lack the
analytical tools to prove the necessary estimates. But the practical success
of renormalization theory suggests the absence of real problems at
realistic energies.
> I think Peter Lynds' notions on time eliminate the need for special
> relativity on the basis that the "right" view of mechanics already
> accounts for the effects of special relativity.
>
> By the way, this puzzle is Zeno's fourth puzzle on time and motion. In
> 2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that
> "many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that
> assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely
> elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly
> contains the effects of special relativity.
I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown
to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.
Chances are high that I'll have to wait forever...
Arnold Neumaier
jcgonsowski@yahoo.com
Dec17-04, 07:52 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> By the way, this puzzle is Zeno\'s fourth puzzle on time and motion.\nIn\n> 2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that\n> "many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that\n> assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely\n> elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly\n> contains the effects of special relativity.\n\nTo really be a model you would need to add things like particle mass\nand force strength calculations. Your idea seems vaguely like a\nsuperposition of Feynman paths on lattices. People do use lattices for\nforce strength calculations. Your idea could also be like stacks of\nuniverses in a Deutsch many-worlds interpretation or could be like\nPlanck length strings connecting branes. The idea in these models that\neach individual path has its own time is kind of like what you describe\nalthough the overall time that you talk about is more like the timelike\ndegree of freedom added by M-theory to string theory. The time of\ngravity would still exist as a subalgebra. So even if there is special\nrelativity in your model you would not necessarily be getting rid of\nspecial relativity in the conventional sense since it could still exist\nas a subalgebra.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> By the way, this puzzle is Zeno's fourth puzzle on time and motion.
In
> 2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that
> "many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that
> assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely
> elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly
> contains the effects of special relativity.
To really be a model you would need to add things like particle mass
and force strength calculations. Your idea seems vaguely like a
superposition of Feynman paths on lattices. People do use lattices for
force strength calculations. Your idea could also be like stacks of
universes in a Deutsch many-worlds interpretation or could be like
Planck length strings connecting branes. The idea in these models that
each individual path has its own time is kind of like what you describe
although the overall time that you talk about is more like the timelike
degree of freedom added by M-theory to string theory. The time of
gravity would still exist as a subalgebra. So even if there is special
relativity in your model you would not necessarily be getting rid of
special relativity in the conventional sense since it could still exist
as a subalgebra.
Mike Helland
Dec19-04, 06:47 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n\n> I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown\n> to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.\n> Chances are high that I\'ll have to wait forever...\n\nIn other words, you wouldn\'t take an interest in a hypothesis until\neveryone else accepted it and fleshed it out into a complete theory?\n\nLet me just say that I\'m glad there are scientists with a little more\nambition and creativity and don\'t accept this passive, political\napproach to seeking truth and understanding.\nIf only there were a little more...\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown
> to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.
> Chances are high that I'll have to wait forever...
In other words, you wouldn't take an interest in a hypothesis until
everyone else accepted it and fleshed it out into a complete theory?
Let me just say that I'm glad there are scientists with a little more
ambition and creativity and don't accept this passive, political
approach to seeking truth and understanding.
If only there were a little more...
Mike Helland
Dec19-04, 06:47 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n\n> I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown\n> to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.\n> Chances are high that I\'ll have to wait forever...\n\nMaybe you should read the solution in its entirety before you dismiss\nwhat I\'ve been able to state in a single usenet post:\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown
> to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.
> Chances are high that I'll have to wait forever...
Maybe you should read the solution in its entirety before you dismiss
what I've been able to state in a single usenet post:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Arnold Neumaier
Dec20-04, 10:04 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>\n>>I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown\n>>to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.\n>>Chances are high that I\'ll have to wait forever...\n>\n> In other words, you wouldn\'t take an interest in a hypothesis until\n> everyone else accepted it and fleshed it out into a complete theory?\n\nNot quite. If something is outside my immediate range of interests,\nI listen to what I happen to hear, but wait with own activities until\nthere are strong indicators of some sort that what happens is going to\nhave a significant effect on what I am already trying to understand.\n\nThis is necessary since my time is limited and the number of potential\nideas is infinite. Being able to concentrate on essentials is part of\nsuccessful living.\n\nNote that I lack interest not because your work is incomplete\nbut because I don\'t see that chances are high that you\'ll succeed.\nI have seen many, many ideas that sound good on a superficial level\nbut have difficulty connecting to the details necessary to make them\nwork. Progress lies in surmounting these difficulties, not in coming up\nwith new ideas - except if these new ideas make the difficulties go away.\nAnd this requires not pieces of poetry (like what you pointed to in your\nother mail) but a detailed analysis of the mathematical side of the\ndifficulties.\n\n\n> Let me just say that I\'m glad there are scientists with a little more\n> ambition and creativity and don\'t accept this passive, political\n> approach to seeking truth and understanding.\n\nI have nothing against these - science needs all kinds of people to\nexplore the possiblilities. But I regard it as my responsibility\nto be selective and to understand and discuss the best.\n\nThere are others with a different responsibility, and you can discuss\nyour ideas with them...\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>
>>I prefer to wait till your extremely elegant solution is shown
>>to reproduce what is known and shows promise for going beyond.
>>Chances are high that I'll have to wait forever...
>
> In other words, you wouldn't take an interest in a hypothesis until
> everyone else accepted it and fleshed it out into a complete theory?
Not quite. If something is outside my immediate range of interests,
I listen to what I happen to hear, but wait with own activities until
there are strong indicators of some sort that what happens is going to
have a significant effect on what I am already trying to understand.
This is necessary since my time is limited and the number of potential
ideas is infinite. Being able to concentrate on essentials is part of
successful living.
Note that I lack interest not because your work is incomplete
but because I don't see that chances are high that you'll succeed.
I have seen many, many ideas that sound good on a superficial level
but have difficulty connecting to the details necessary to make them
work. Progress lies in surmounting these difficulties, not in coming up
with new ideas - except if these new ideas make the difficulties go away.
And this requires not pieces of poetry (like what you pointed to in your
other mail) but a detailed analysis of the mathematical side of the
difficulties.
> Let me just say that I'm glad there are scientists with a little more
> ambition and creativity and don't accept this passive, political
> approach to seeking truth and understanding.
I have nothing against these - science needs all kinds of people to
explore the possiblilities. But I regard it as my responsibility
to be selective and to understand and discuss the best.
There are others with a different responsibility, and you can discuss
your ideas with them...
Arnold Neumaier
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.