|
Author
|
Topic: New Approach to Physis
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. February 2006 13:28
Chris and Eddie,
First of all I concur with the general statements from the abstract offered by Chris; it will take a number of days for me to examine the paper (I will do so with great interest.)
I spent some time reading the thread Contradiction-Free Mathematical Spaces and was not surprised to find many dissenters. Again I say we are all much too comfortable with the idea we live in a continuous space. One commenter stated R* to be “useless” because it is discrete, as though calculus utility is the litmus test for the usefulness of number systems. I agree with your statement: “This is just the right mathematics for computer science and also for physics since matter is discrete.”
I am most interested in d*; and its possible implications for the universal probability bound. I am a new comer to quantum gravity but as I understand its implications; space is granular. Therefore, there is a smallest volume of space. This volume is conjectured to be 10^-99 cm^3. Since we have a smallest positive volume of space, could it be we have smallest possible positive values for all measurements with respect to space and time? Finally, could it be that the space in which we live is restricted with respect to R*. That is, u* is not unbounded as R* applies to the universe. This would imply that d* is distinguishable from zero in physical applications. I have not formally investigated any of these ideas. It is only very recently that I realized that the imagined set of real numbers might not describe reality.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 06:18
I wish to make a correction, again, to my previous statement regarding the search for a complete theory of reality. I think Einstein's search for a grand unified theory was different from what I have in mind. I think he was really looking for a complete discription of reality, not a theory. In that case, it isn't possible for two reasons: (1) description essentially entails computation with all its limitations discussed earlier and (2) as we shall see later, there is another fundamental state of matter that is not observable with present technology and, therefore, beyond description. What is achievable is a physical theory anchored on the laws of nature that explains reality completely. This, when found, qualifies as the grand unified theory.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 06:44
Hi Mel,
I thought I saw your post earlier with your comment on my thread, Contradiction-Free-Mathematics, but when I returned to quote a portion, it was no longer there. Well, may be it will appear again.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
C G Jesudason
Member
Member # 1884
|
posted 14. February 2006 06:50
I have not looked too deeply yet into laws; on the other hand, I do not spend time doing bread and butter things like solving equations, although in the Third World (TW), this type of activity is considered safe. [ Maybe because it keeps people busy with trivia and is a nice distraction? Maybe they might build a bomb if they did not have these trivial distractions, for which they are highly rewarded!!]. There seems to be an intermediate level of creativity and insight that I may have been involved in, that is to discover theorems or laws at the macroscopic level where the equations of motion are all well known and standard; for instance the interaction of 10^23 particles lead to collective phenomena that can be described by interesting laws and properties that do not come from solving yet another set of equations; this type of discovery activity is at the intermediate level; thee are descriptions that can be made which are novel even if the basic interactions are well known.But to discover new relations is a type of funny brainstorming and is for me very exhausting, yet I cannot claim to have discovered a LAW OF NATURE as such although to describe phenomena where the underlying laws or mechanisms are known is also a very beatiful and lovely activity to indulge in.
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 07:14
Hi Mel,
I'm having difficulty responding to your post. I get this statement below.
Sorry, we do not permit this HTML tag: Parenthesis in HTML tag.
Well, I'll log off first and try again later.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 14. February 2006 07:50
Hi Eddie,
I had the same problem. You have to use the UBB code for parentheses in this forum or just use [ ] instead.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 07:56
Hello, Gentlemen,
Can anyone help me overcome this problem? I keep getting this denial of request to post.
Thanks.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 08:50
Hi Mel,
Yes, physical space is granular and consists of its basic constituent, the superstring, filling up all of space. The superstring itself is a nested fractal sequence of superstrings. However, left alone without agitation the superstring shrinks indefinitely, by energy conservation, just like d* = 1 - 0.99... = 0.1, 0.01, ..., that becomes smaller and smaller with its lower bound being 0 but always positive. Given any positive real number x, x > d* but it would be a contradiction to say that d* is the smallest positive real number because there is no such number. Similarly, there is no smallest superstring. As you can see, d* is a mathematical model of the superstring.
Regarding the other point you raised, we have here two kinds of universes. One is the Universe that contains the timeless, boundless universe of superstrings called dark matter and bounded universes like ours. There is evidence of the existence of universes other than ours. Visible matter including our visible universe is bounded, otherwise, Olber’s paradox would arise.
In my next post, I shall proceed to establish what I have stated here and the existence and properties of these physical concepts.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 14. February 2006 09:19
Eddie,
I understand how d* is not the smallest positive number in R*. But I do not understand the superstring as a nested fractal sequence of superstrings. Is the basic constituent of space indivisible or is it not? I look forward to your next post.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 12:35
Hi Mel,
I'll develop the fractal structure it to say, it's this fractal structure that makes it indestructible because when the first term in the sequence is broken by cosmic waves, its toroidal flux inside which is a non-agitated superstring is intact as a nested fractal sequencne of superstrings. This indestructibilty is one of the requirements that qualifies it as basic constituent of matter. Later I'll also show that when a segment of a semi-agitated superstring (the first term in the fractal sequence whose cycle length lies between 10^(-16) and 10^(-14) meters) is hit by suitable cosmic wave it expands into a unit of visible matter called primum such as electron or positive quark, etc. This is the second requirement for basic constituent.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 14. February 2006 12:42
The first sentence of my previous post should read: I'll develop formally the fractal stuture of the superstring later; suffice it to say that it is this fractal structure...
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 16. February 2006 12:46
The science of spectroscopy allows us to look into the immediate and distant past and study the Cosmos using light as medium. Only object as large as or larger than the finest wavelength of visible light – 10^(–14) meter – is observable. This follows from the resonance principle that we shall take up later.
Observation by the Hubble reveals that matter is steadily being formed in the supposedly empty Cosmos (empty, according to relativity) at the rate of one star per minute. Very recently scientists even discovered a nascent galaxy. What we know is cosmic dust appears in the cosmos. Then it gets entangled into some nested fractal sets of vorices and collect around their eyes as stars, planets, moons, etc. The cosmic dust itself consists of little bodies that are oblong and have crust and mantle like Earth. We shall explain all of these as soon as we have already disovered enough laws of nature to anchor an adequate theory for this purpose.
How do we reconcile these phenomena with energy conservation? We can only conclude that the Cosmos consists of pieces of matter so small it is not observable. We state this as a law of nature.
Existence of Two Fundamental States of Matter.
There exist two fundamental states of matter: visible and dark matter; the former is directly observable and the latter is not.
Dark matter is verified indirectly by its impact on visible matter. This law paves the way for the discovery of the basic constituent of matter. With the existence of dark matter assured we can now ask this question: what does dark matter consist of? The answer – the superstring – resolves the 5,000-year-old search for the basic constituent of matter by the Chinese and the Greeks. It would take more laws of nature that we shall identify later to provide the right structure to it and another law that converts it to a unit of visible matter called the primum.
E. E. Escultura
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 16. February 2006 14:51
Eddie,
Is the dark mater indistinguishable from empty space or is it empty space. Is it comparable to the luminiferous aether?
You wrote:
quote:
Regarding the other point you raised, we have here two kinds of universes. One is the Universe that contains the timeless, boundless universe of superstrings called dark matter and bounded universes like ours. There is evidence of the existence of universes other than ours. Visible matter including our visible universe is bounded, otherwise, Olber’s paradox would arise.
If we restrict our attention to the bounded type of universe, is not R* restricted in this type of space? For example, there may exist real valued solutions to an algebraic equation that do not fit the constraits of the problem. These solutions are ignored because they do not fit the context. Could there be numbers in R* that do not fit the context of our bounded observable universe?
What do you make of the universal probability bound as defined by Bill Dembski?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 16. February 2006 20:01
Hi Mel,
Quote:
If we restrict our attention to the bounded type of universe, is not R* restricted in this type of space? For example, there may exist real valued solutions to an algebraic equation that do not fit the constraits of the problem. These solutions are ignored because they do not fit the context. Could there be numbers in R* that do not fit the context of our bounded observable universe?
--------
Yes, dark matter is distinguishible from empty space and is the same as the ether conceived of before relativity. Its existence is deduced from energy conservation and formation of matter in space which is conversion from latent to kinetic or observable energy. We define energy as motion of matter and they are inseparable. In the next post I'll begin to discuss the structure of the superstring and its conversion from non-agitated to semi-agitated and to agitated which is a unit of visible matter called primum.
Yes, R* is adequate model for our universe which is finite, discrete and bound. Scientists have calculated the diameter of our our universe, as a a nested super...super galaxy at or der of magnitude 10^(10) light years. Its core was discovered by French astronomers in 1994 as tightly-packed, cocoon-shaped galaxy cluster, the collected mass around its eye at its core like the metropolis of our Milky Way. Since R* id finite but unbounded, it is also a model of the unbounded Universe.
We need a new calculus appropriate for R* and Prof. B. Zeigler of the University of Arizona has embarked on it for purposes of simulation.
Quote:
What do you make of the universal probability bound as defined by Bill Dembski?
---------
I'm not familiar with it; could you please explain?
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 17. February 2006 20:07
Dear Colleagues,
I just wanted to add that the well-defined real numbers as well as the well-defined nonterminating decimals including the well-defined irrationals belong to R*. Recall that a well-defined nonterminating decimal (every digit is known or computable) is approximated by its nth Cauchy term at margin of error 10^(-n).
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic