|
Author
|
Topic: New Approach to Physis
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 17. February 2006 23:10
"What do you make of the universal probability bound as defined by Bill Dembski?"
I would also like to hear the opinions on this by gentlemen such as yourselves which have such an encompassing grasp on computation.
please accept my apologies if my presence is undesirable. I plead only curiosity.
[ 17. February 2006, 23:12: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 17. February 2006 23:56
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.
-------------
As long as the algebraic equation is well-defined (every concept involved is well-defined in R*)and the solution exists then the latter is also well-defined as an element of R* regardless of the context of the problem. The context might have something to do with what the equation is trying to model which may be a problem in modeling, not computation.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 18. February 2006 11:53
Dear Mel and Chris,
I shall now introduce some concepts and a law of nature that would eventually lead to the structure of the superstring. I define energy as motion of matter and so these two physical concepts cannot be separated. In other words, there is neither pure energy nor pure matter. Heat, for instance, is vibration of matter and light is photon in flight riding on basic cosmic wave. Flux is motion of matter with well-defined direction at each point. In this sense an object in flight is a flux; so is water current. Turbulence is coherent stable fluxes; an important type of turbulence is a vortex such as typhoon, galaxy and planet. In fact, gravity is part of the dynamics of a cosmological vortex, specifically, suction by its eye. We have already identified some common or prevalent or universal configuration or structure of matter. They are universal because they have optimal properties in the sense of energy conservation. We state this as a law of nature:
Energy Conservation Equivalence. Energy conservation has equivalent forms: order, symmetry, economy, least action, optimality, efficiency, stability, self-similarity (fractal), coherence, resonance, quantization, smoothness, uniformity, motion-symmetry balance, evolution to infinitesimal configuration, helical and related configuration such as circular, sinusoidal and spiral, non-redundancy and, in biology, genetic encoding of characteristics, reproduction and order in diversity and complexity of functions, configuration and capability.
Non-redundancy is a recent inclusion inspired by the discovery of a third quark in the nucleus outside the proton. Non-redundancy means that when a physical system does some functions nature does not form another system that does the same functions. Two quarks, the positive and negative quarks, were discovered in 1990. We will find out later that a negative quark joins two positive quarks to form a proton. The third quark does the same thing: it joins two positive quarks, one from each of two protons, to keep them together in the nucleus. Since this quark and the one in the proton do the same thing: join two quarks, they must be the same. So there are only two quarks in the nucleus. Why positive and negative quarks attract and quarks of the same charge repel each other is governed by another law of nature that we shall introduce later.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 19. February 2006 17:05
Eddie and welcome KBC
Here below is the definition of the Universal Probability Bound [UPB] from the iscid encyclopedia:
A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in. Universal probability bounds have been estimated anywhere between 10^–50 [Emile Borel] and 10^–150 [William Dembski]
So that, suppose event E has occurred and we have P[E] < 10^-150. By the UPB we have a better than 50:50 chance that this outcome was designed and did not occur by chance.
Eddie, I agree that the problem with extraneous solutions is a problem with the model not in computation. I presume that you purpose to show that R* fits the universe as a perfect model via the nested structure of the superstrings as fractal sequences of superstrings. I will hold my pestering questions and give you the opportunity to do so.
Sorry, one more pestering question: Are these superstrings designed?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 19. February 2006 20:39
Hi Mel,
The post below was composed before I saw your question but I think it provides the answer.
To answer your earlier question on why there is no smallest superstring I shall provide an overview of its structure and properties. I shall explain later how these properties are obtained using dynamic modeling and the appropriate laws of nature involved.
The superstring is a nested fractal sequence of superstrings. The first term of the sequence is referred to as the superstring. It is the path of its toroidal flux, which is a non-agitated superstring, traveling at speed greater than that of light (this will be clear later). This toroidal flux provides the latent energy of the superstring. It has all the appropriate optimal properties in view of the energy conservation and energy conservation equivalence laws. To be stable this path must be a loop and the figure that satisfies the optimality requirements is a circular loop consisting of helical cycles like a spring bracelet with the toroidal flux traveling through the cycles. Being a superstring, this toroidal flux has toroidal flux and the latter has toroidal flux, etc. This is how the nested fractal superstring is constructed that makes it indestructible since if it is hit by cosmic wave the worst that can happen is for the first term of the sequence to break. Then its toroidal flux remains a non-agitated superstring, in effect, consisting of the tail sequence of its nested fractal sequence of superstrings.
Left alone at resonance with dark matter (de-agitation) the superstring steadily shrinks towards infinitesimal configuration and there is no end to it. This is due to energy conservation. Thus, there is no smallest superstring. The total latent energy of the superstring is the sum of the Planck's constant h each term corresponding to a cycle in the nested fractal sequence and this is a staggering amount of latent energy convertible to kinetic energy. A number of physicists have calculated the energy density of space: 10^26 joules per cubic ft according to de Broglie, the equivalent of 10^18 kg per cubic meter using Einstein's conversion formula according to Gerlovin and 8.8 x 10^8 volts per cm according to Seike.
Superstrings are neutral; they neither attract nor push each other. However, when they find themselves in a region of low pressure such as in the eye of a cosmological vortex (e.g., star or galaxy) they form massive cluster called black hole. Every cosmological vortex, being a region of calm, de-agitates and shrinks the superstrings at its boundary and collects them as black hole inside. That would be the destiny of its core.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 19. February 2006 21:01
Hi Mel,
Quote:
"...suppose event E has occurred and we have P[E] < 10^-150. By the UPB we have a better than 50:50 chance that this outcome was designed and did not occur by chance."
I suppose the laws of nature can be interpreted as the design. In this sense the superstring can be interpreted as the result of that design. In a later post I shall show the life-cycle of the superstring from non-agitated, through semi-agitated, agitated or unit of visible matter and back to non-agitated as well as the various scenarios.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 20. February 2006 09:23
Hi Chris and Mel,
I was carried away by your stimulating questions that I missed to acknowledge Chris greetings for me as a professor from the UP. Thank you. I'm moving to India this coming academic year, however, to take the Ramanujan Chair at the new De-Nuo Deemed University where I plan to organize an international research group in math and physics starting with the authors of articles in my new journal, Nonlinear Analysis and Phenomena.
I would like to raise some questions myself:
1) Are there random events in the real world?
2) Are computer-generated random numbers really random?
Let me qualify that a physical principle is a law of nature if it is expressed by some natural phenomenon (visible physical system) directly or indirectly; by this I mean that it plays a role in explaining it. Then I raise this opinion of mine:
3) The laws of nature (in our universe) are transitory; there was no law of nature before the big bang and the laws of nature will vanish as our universe approaches its destiny, a cluster of black holes back in dark matter.
4) Related to question 3) is how a natural phenomenon and the laws of nature governing its motion emerge.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 20. February 2006 21:33
Hi Eddie,
My big congratulations on your new posting in India - it should be an exciting challenge for you.
I am really wondering about the veracity of some of what you say here:
quote:
Non-redundancy is a recent inclusion inspired by the discovery of a third quark in the nucleus outside the proton. Non-redundancy means that when a physical system does some functions nature does not form another system that does the same functions. Two quarks, the positive and negative quarks, were discovered in 1990. We will find out later that a negative quark joins two positive quarks to form a proton. The third quark does the same thing: it joins two positive quarks, one from each of two protons, to keep them together in the nucleus.
It may be that you know something here that I don't - especially I am concerned when you talk about quarks outside the nucleus. As far as I was aware the quark model was essentially complete by 1970 and it is now generally accepted that the proton p is composed of two "up" quarks "u" and one "down" quark "d"
p= uud
and the neutron composed of
n= udd
The up quark has a charge of +2/3 and the down quark a charge of -1/3 giving the proton a charge of 1e and the neutron zero charge.
Could you give us a reference to this 1990s work that I am unfamiliar with? Thanks - Chris
[ 20. February 2006, 21:43: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 21. February 2006 09:15
Hi Chris,
Thank you. Let me first post what I just composed before I respond to your post. I just saw an error in my post that I now correct: The third quark was found early last year inside the nucleus but outside the proton. This was thought, correctly, to be the connector that keeps the protons together in the nucleus.
Since the superstring has specific positive measure and our universe is bounded, the number of superstrings in it is finite. However, the Universe, being finite but unbounded is modeled by R* which is finite but unbounded. That the Universe is finite but unbounded is expressed by a law of nature that I shall explain below. Being finite but unbounded is the well-definition of countably infinite. It simply means that it cannot be contained in a finite set and if one tries to do so there will always be one left out. Note that one cannot construct or well-define a nondenumerable set in R*.
The next law was inspired by a simple high school experiment many years ago. Put two thick books of the same thickness on the desk, two edges parallel and three inches apart. Put a piece of paper on top of the books over the space between them. Blow through that space, i.e., introduce a flux, and the paper will be sucked by it and blown away. Conversely, when there is low pressure, say, tropical depression, it will suck the molecules of air around and throw it into initial chaos that stabilizes, by energy conservation, into a coherent vortex flux called hurricane. I state this law formally as follows:
Flux-Low-Pressure Complementarity. Low pressure sucks matter around it and the initial chaotic rush of dark matter towards it stabilizes into local or global coherent flux; conversely, coherent flux induces low pressure around it.
This law explains the formation, progress and termination of a cosmological vortex as well as typhoon and tornado. It can explain how the superstring converts to visible matter, say, an electron that catapults the superstrings into and forms a local vortex around it measured as charge.
It’s this law that precludes any boundary for the Universe. For, if there were such a boundary, i.e., there is dark matter on one side and empty on the other, the latter is low pressure and dark matter in the former will rush into it.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 21. February 2006 10:25
Dear Chris,
I stand corrected on the date. But I read somewhere that the up quark was verified at the Fermi Lab in Chicago.
I look at the quark as a discular vortex which is, objectively, a magnet with the poles at the two extremities of the eye. Using the right hand rule the thumb points to the north pole. Your up quark corresponds to my positive or right quark and, looking at it from the north pole, its flux is counterclockwise. For a negative or left quark, the vortex flux is clockwise. The reason for my terminology is, it gives me a graphic sense of the flux direction. I call the rim of this discular vortex the equator. It is extended and thin because of the centrifugal force due to vortex flux spin [different from the spin of quantum mechanics is is the spin of the quark as a unit of visible matter].
My generic term for any of these vortices is primum. I think we agree on the charges, +2/3 for the positive quark and -1/3 for the negative quark. A simple primum like either of these two quarks has charge. Now, how do they interact? I propose the following law of nature.
Flux Compatibility. Two fluxes of the same direcion attract and two fluxes of opposite direction repel.
In terms of prima, this translates into:
Flux compatibility. Two prima of opposite flux spins attract each other at their equators but repel at their poles; Two prima of same flux spin repel at their equators but attract at their poles.
Since two positive prima repel at their equators we can connect them equatorially by a negative quark as connector. This is exactly what a proton is. Energy conservation requires that they lie along a straight line. So if we compute the charge of the proton we have:
Proton's Charge = +2/3 -1/3 +2/3 = 1.
This means that the proton has a net positive charge of 1 around it [counterclockwise] and the negative quark, i.e., its vortex, is an eddy in it of opposite direction. The proton's interaction is determined by the net flux around it.
I have slightly different model of the neutron but it has the same neutral charge, meaning, the net flux around it is 0. I need to complete the chain of construction from the superstring to the primum before I can discuss the neutron. That would be my next post.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 21. February 2006 13:08
Hi Chris and Mel,
Let me continue the journey of the non-agitated superstring. When non-agitated superstring is hit by suitable cosmic wave one of these scenarios occurs: [1] the first term of its nested fractal sequence expands to become semi-agitated superstring or [2] it is thrown off, bounces among the similarly non-agitated superstrings until the energy imparted by the cosmic wave is dissipated, stops and remains as non-agitated superstring, or [3] it gets near its early path and gets sucked by it, by flux-low-pressure complementarity, and forms a loop. Then energy conservation induces it to shrink its path and assume optimal configuration, i.e., circular helical loop [like spring bracelet] as semi-agitated superstring with itself as toroidal flux. This is a new semi-agitated superstring with an additional term containing the first term of the original non-agitated nested fractal sequence of superstrings.
When suitable cosmic wave hits a semi-agitated superstring [1] it [the first term of the nested fractal sequence] breaks, its toroidal flux remaining non-agitated in dark matter or [2] a segment bulges, i.e., its cycles expand to agitated sizes so that their cycle lengths become greater than 10^-14 meter. This is now a simple primum that has optimal configuration, meaning, its graph is generated by rotating a full sinusoidal arc of even power, that is, having the form f[x] = a(sinbx)^n, where n is even, in the interval [0,pi], using suitable units. The toroidal flux goes through these cycles at uniform speed, by energy conservation equivalence.
The toroidal flux is hit by cosmic wave from all directions giving it local infinitesimal motion called “spike”but remains in motion at great speed in the general direction through the cycles. We shall have a sense of this speed later. This spike pulls the superstrings around the primum into a vortex flux engulfing it, its eye containing its axis. This is energy measurable as charge.
The positive and negative quarks, the electron and the positron are among the familiar simple prima. Every simple primum has charge and that determines its interaction with other prima, by flux compatibility. Thus the positive quark can only connect equatorially with a negative primum such as the negative quark or the electron. We have already discussed how the proton is formed.
When we find a neutral primum like a neutrino then it must coupled primum and, being light, the most likely scenario is it is equatorially coupled pair of prima of opposite but numerically equal charges, say, +q and –q, so that there is no net charge around it. The component prima cannot be mirror image of each other, otherwise, they would be anti-matter and the momentum of their attraction would force their cycles to overlap, their vortex fluxes colliding, and throwing their respective cycles in opposite directions as photons. We shall discuss the photon later. My next post will construct the neutron.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 22. February 2006 03:44
Hi Chris,
This much is known about the familiar coupled prima, neutron and proton, and the simple primum, electron, of charges, 0, +1 and -1, respectively:
Mass of neutron: 1.0087 amu
Mass of proton: 1.0073 amu
Mass of electron 5.486 ´ 10−4 amu.
Based on this information I make my model of the neutron from which I compute the mass of the neutrino: The neutron consists of a proton, electron and neutrino. Starting with the proton I apply the flux compatibility and flux-low-pressure complementarity laws to put the neutron together. Note that although the magnetic polarity of the simple primum is fixed by the Earth’s gravitational flux, by flux compatibility, equatorially coupled prima may alter position in any way and still retain the individual clockwise or counterclockwise flux of the component primum. This is also the reason I identify the quarks by their flux spins.
Flux compatibility allows the electron to attach itself to either of the positive quarks of the proton but energy conservation requires it to attach itself equatorially between and connect the two positive quarks near the negative quark where it would be most stable. Elsewhere on the rim of either positive quark it would be unstable. However, since the electron and the negative quark repel, the former pushes the latter as far as it can but will remain attached to the positive quarks. Their centers form the vertices of a quadrilateral [visualize the electron to be above the negative quark]. Note the four coherent fluxes at the center coming from: the electron, positive quark, negative quark and positive quark. By flux-low-pressure complementarity this center is a region of low pressure that sucks suitably light neutral primum, by flux compatibility, and stays there and the best candidate for this is the neutrino. Charged primum will be repelled by the charged prima already in the coupling. Adding the masses of the proton and electron and subtracting it from the mass of the neutron yields the mass of the neutrino which is 1.55 times the mass of the electron. We now have the charge of the neutron: +2/3 -1/3 +2/3 -1 + 0 = 0.
Note that the negative quark was the gluon physicists looked for to keep the nucleus stable. Moreover, by flux compatibility, any negative primum can attach itself to a positive quark of the neutron. However, energy conservation rules this out because the most stable primum is neutral since it does not interact with other prima. This is an instance where energy conservation asserts itself as the most fundamental law of nature; all others must be consistent with it.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 22. February 2006 03:48
Sorry, there was an error in the statement of the mass of the electron; it should be 5.486 x 10^−4 amu.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 22. February 2006 14:35
Eddie,
Bill Dembski has written an interesting paper “Randomness by Design”.
http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_randomness.html
It does seem a contradiction that one could write an algorithm to generate a random number.
At present, I do not believe there are any stochastic elements at work in the real world. There are certainly events, such as the double slit experiment with electrons, for which a deterministic cause is very elusive. In such cases, the probability and statistics is useful for making predictions. However, using these maths to explain how the events occur is short sighted. For example, I believe we confuse the issue when we use Maxwell’s demon to explain the second law of thermodynamics as a statistical law of nature.
Probability is used to predict the unpredictable not explain the unexplained. Just because the cause is not understood today does not mean there is no cause.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Edgar E. Escultura
Member
Member # 1878
|
posted 23. February 2006 09:49
Mel,
I agree. If we allow the laws of nature to be suspended anywhere pretty soon our universe would plunge into disorder. That is why I find the definition of the black hole as physical singularity, i.e., the laws of nature are suspended, unacceptable. The seeming uncertainty comes from the limitation of computation and measurement in dealing with the very small and very large.
By the way the source of my physical data in my posts is Gerlovin, I. L. [1990] The Foundations of United Theory of Interactions in a Substance, Leningrad: Energoattomizdat.
Eddie
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic