First there was Light (we omit the Darkness). Then there was Amber and Volta. Then there was Maxwell and electromagnetism. Then there was Einstein. When creating the Special Theory of Relativity Einstein did not care to follow the clue, and the clue was already there. Einstein (with Minkowski) looked for symmetries of Maxwell equations. They rediscovered and formulated algebraically Lorentz transformations that lead from one uniformly moving reference to another. But in fact Maxwell equations are invariant under a larger group of transformations - the "conformal group" that was allowing not only for a uniform motion, but also for accelerated one.
Suppose now we follow the clue and look for the treasure. What shall we find?
Here are the illustrations for this post. Mathematica code is simple:
g[i_, j_] := {Re[((i + I*j) - I)/((i + I*j) + I)], Im[((i + I*j) - I)/((i + I*j) + I)]};
igauss2 = ListPlot[Table[g[i, j], {i, -100, 100}, {j, 0, 100}], AspectRatio -> 1, Background -> Black, PlotStyle -> {White, PointSize[0.008]}, PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}}, ImageSize -> 570]
igauss2a = ListPlot[Table[g[i, j], {i, -100, 100}, {j, 0, 100}], AspectRatio -> 1, Background -> Black, PlotStyle -> {White, PointSize[0.008]}, PlotRange -> {{0.75, 1}, {-0.125, 0.125}}, ImageSize -> 570]
igauss2b = ListPlot[Table[g[i, j], {i, -100, 100}, {j, 0, 100}], AspectRatio -> 1, Background -> Black, PlotStyle -> {White, PointSize[0.008]}, PlotRange -> {{0.95, 1}, {-0.025, 0.025}}, ImageSize -> 570]
Export["igauss2.jpg", igauss2]
Export["igauss2a.jpg", igauss2a]
Export["igauss2b.jpg", igauss2b]
The explanations will follow soon
This post will be continued in the coming day or two....
And in the meantime you can also check my animated "continuous Cayley transform" on Wikimedia
P.S. Unfortunately, as of 19:50, Thursday, my calculations misbehave. I am not obtaining expected results, which is a dissapointment. Of course I will continue, but at the moment the time frame of obtaining the desired results is highly uncertain. And the rules of life by Jordan Peterson are not helping in this case. It is not excluded that I am trying to obtain something impossible. But in this case I would like to know WHY it is impossible! And I have no idea as to "why?". Sunday 17:48 - problem solved.
P.S.2. In the meantime on my abandoned Polish blog the following discussion is taking place today:
Logical thinking15 December 2022,
20:58
@Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Do you want to live in the
truth, or do you prefer deception by misconceptions, others' and your
own?
Arkadiusz Jadczyk15 December 2022, 21:22
@Logically
thinking
And more specifically? What is it about?
Logically thinking15 December 2022,
21:44
@Arkadiusz Jadczyk
About the truth. The simple
question is.
Why do you evade answering the most important
question that every human being must ask himself?
Arkadiusz
Jadczyk16 December 2022, 08:18
@Logically thinking
And
more specifically? What is it about?
Logically thinking16
December 2022, 08:55
@Arkadiusz Jadczyk
About living
in truth, in time and in space i.e. always and everywhere, in all
circumstances and on all subjects.
Arkadiusz Jadczyk16
December 2022, 09:09
@Logically thinking
Very nice idea.
The only thing is that every person's "truth" is different.
There is the truth of Zelenski ( if there is one), there is the truth
of the EU, there is the truth of Kaczynski and Morawiecki, there is
the truth of Biden and there is the truth of Trump and there is the
truth of Musk. And every person's truth is different. So "live
in the truth," by itself, does not say anything na m. That's why
I ask for specifics. Because the devil is hiding in them.
Logically
thinking16 December 2022, 10:08
@Arkadiusz Jadczyk
After
all, it's not true that everyone has their own truth. There is only
one truth. What you write about are stories, narratives,
interpretations. Some of them come closer to the truth, more or less,
and some are completely hypocritical.
I believe that there is
only one truth, and a person can reach it, can know it. That is why I
persevere in my quest to know the truth, defend it and preach
it.
Arkadiusz Jadczyk16 December 2022, 12:27
@Logically
thinking
As logical thinkers, our process of arriving at the
truth is subject to analysis. We note that whoever we would ask -
will answer the same way, that they also want to pursue the truth.
And yet these truths that different people arrive at are sometimes
extremely different. Why? What logically follows from this?
Maybe
because in the process of arriving at the truth, each person decides
for himself what is important and what is less important. Is our own
health important? Is our own happiness important? How important? Is
not harming others important? How important? Etc.
We
additionally note that our own pursuit of the truth is hampered by
the fact that there is a lot of lying around us. The media lies,
people lie, we lie to ourselves sometimes. Why do people lie? Because
they want to get to their truth, and when lying to others helps them
do so, so they do. So, when telling others the truth hinders us from
reaching our own personal truth, does it make sense to tell others
the truth when it will harm ourselves?
Lots of questions. And
a logical person should not leave these questions without scrupulous
analysis.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free
version)
P.S.3. Commenting on the above a Reader kindly sent me a link to the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson "Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)", Publisher: Mariner, Year: 2020, ISBN: 0358329612,9780358329619
I did not read it yet myself (though I am going to), but here is the description of its content:
“Entertaining, illuminating and—when you recognize yourself in the stories it tells—mortifying.” — Wall Street Journal
“Every page sparkles with sharp insight and keen observation. Mistakes were made—but not in this book!” — Daniel Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness
Why is it so hard to say “I made a mistake”—and really believe it?
When we make mistakes, cling to outdated attitudes, or mistreat other people, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so, unconsciously, we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right—a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong. Backed by years of research, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-justification—how it works, the damage it can cause, and how we can overcome it. This updated edition features new examples and concludes with an extended discussion of how we can live with dissonance, learn from it, and perhaps, eventually, forgive ourselves.
“A revelatory study of how lovers, lawyers, doctors, politicians—and all of us—pull the wool over our own eyes . . . Reading it, we recognize the behavior of our leaders, our loved ones, and—if we’re honest—ourselves, and some of the more perplexing mysteries of human nature begin to seem a little clearer.” — Francine Prose, O, The Oprah Magazine
The same Reader is curious about my insights after reading this book. Even before reading it the following question occurred to me: Why is it so that even if silently we may recognize our own error, admit it to ourselves, but we never-never-never admit it to another person? Is such a fear evolutionary justified as Jordan Peterson would try to explain it? From my own experience getting rid of this fear is making us free. On the other hand we should not give freely weapons to those who we perceive as our "enemies". But are we not ever making errors about who is our enemy? Lot of questions here.
From my own experience: one has to find by experiments your own optimal dose, and it is not constant in time.
P.S.5 Started reading "Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)" mentioned in P.S.3. There, in the introduction, I read:
In 2006, with Iraq sliding into civil war and sixteen American intelligence agencies having issued a report that the occupation of Iraq had increased Islamic radicalism and the risk of terrorism, Bush said to a delegation of conservative columnists, "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."1 Of course, Bush had to justify the war his administration pursued in Iraq; he had too much invested in that course of action to do otherwise—thousands of deaths and, according to a conservative estimate from the American Enterprise Institute in 2006, at least a trillion dollars. Accordingly, when he was proved wrong in his original reasons for the war, he found new ones: getting rid of a "very bad guy," fighting terrorists, promoting peace in the Middle East, bringing democracy to Iraq, increasing the security of the United States, and finishing "the task [our troops] gave their lives for." In other words, we must continue the war because we began the war.
And today the story is repeating:
"Congress agreed to provide another $800 million (at least) in defense aid to Ukraine next year via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. The additional $800 million—again, at a minimum—is $500 million more than what President Joe Biden previously asked of Congress for the fund."
BTW: The highlighted sentences (from 2008 edition) were changed in third (2022) edition of the book.
P.S.2a At the end of this discussion I was asked the question if I would sign the petition "A Scientific Dissent from Darvinism". I answered: "No. For adding my name there could bring harm to this idea, which is not without some rationale." To which a Reader of this blog commented:
"The idea in itself can and is not without some rationale. Nevertheless, I consider the adoption of creationism in its classical version to be foolishness. Adopting Darwinism, moreover, I also consider foolishness. This is because Darwinism contradicts many discoveries related to, among other things, epigenetics. Nevertheless, it is a certain approximation of reality, as is Newton's theory."
Reader asked me about my opinions about some books on "quantum groups". However I do not even know what they are. I am ignoring this subject by my own choice. I know I should not ignore anything without first researching it. But, on the other hand, my resources are finite and I have to select infinitely many subjects, otherwise nothing will be done. As they say: you can't please everybody. Impossible. Quantum groups is one of the many subjects that are not on my list of those themes that need my pleasing.
ReplyDeleteI knowit is "avanguarde". Let it stay so. It attracts many smart people, they will certainly made great discoveries in this difficult to deal with domain.
And here is still actual paragraph from my internet page:"Physics of the Mysterious"
Delete"...Thus, nontrivial relativistic quantum field theories in four space-time dimensions are divergent - they lead to infinities, and are mathematically inconsistent. Searching for the cure in fancy formal math (supersymmetry, superstrings, quantum groups) just does not work. New - fundamentally new - ideas are needed. Quantum theory is not understood at all - everyone is trying to "cook" by "changing" the recipes to suit the ingredients they have on hand, and this very often results in "Rock Soup.""
Perhaps I should add: even if I have listed supersymmetry as a subject I am not interested in, nevertheless I devoted considerable time to studying this subject and my paper on superspaces and supersymmetries (with K. Pilch) became a "classical" in the domai. Though today I consider it being a lost time. A mistake.
Delete...What's great about Peterson. For example, such an universal truth given in his characteristic (for him) charismatic way, that I support completely. https://youtube.com/shorts/2yJg-Kx5hHw?feature=share
ReplyDeleteI also saw mention of melatonin. I take melatonin every night and I think it has an overall good effect on me. Not only that, I sleep better! I feel less stress and have better concentration. Maybe it's because I sleep better.... Or maybe it's just the result of melatonin. Currently, also a lot of people are ill around me, I somehow miss it, maybe it's also because I take melatonin (I mean maybe it's a direct or indirect side effect of it).
"Logically thinking16 December 2022, 08:55
@Arkadiusz Jadczyk
About living in truth, in time and in space i.e. always and everywhere, in all circumstances and on all subjects.
Arkadiusz Jadczyk16 December 2022, 09:09
@Logically thinking
Very nice idea. The only thing is that every person's "truth" is different. There is the truth of Zelenski ( if there is one), there is the truth of the EU, there is the truth of Kaczynski and Morawiecki, there is the truth of Biden and there is the truth of Trump and there is the truth of Musk. And every person's truth is different. So "live in the truth," by itself, does not say anything na m. That's why I ask for specifics. Because the devil is hiding in them."
Well, it depends how we define Truth. To me. Absolute Truth are like bits of information that are setted to "1". "God" is like full set of all information that exist. Information is all that create our reality. So knowing Truth is the best way we can live. It is of course hard heavily simplified, however, I don't mean to elaborate on it at this time.
As for being wrong, if anything, I subjectively believe that I am wrong nonstop. I'm constantly wrong, in one way or another (which doesn't mean I'm not right sometimes). What gave me food for thought was learning computer programming, where many small mistakes can be made.
I think that outside of computer programming I am wrong in the same way, only that the structure of reality is different, where we move between things and people more or less in a consistent way, and we are taught from the cradle to guide ourselves through this path. Most of our path, they are not continous sinkholes that open up and we have to climb out of them.
Bjab - -Ark Jadczyk
ReplyDeleteWnioskuję, że czarna dziura to obraz zewnętrza prostokąta
(-100, 0i) , (100, 100i)
Looks right to me, And the three stright sides become arcs of the three circles. The top two edges become intersections of the arcs. The angles at the intersections are still 0 degrees, because the Cayley transform is a conformal map, it preserves the angles.Good student!
ReplyDeleteBjab -> Ark
DeleteOr even four stright sides bercome arcs of the four circles.
90 degrees not 0 degrees!
ReplyDeleteOr even 270 degrees.
DeleteBjab
ReplyDeleteFor better understanding:
edges -> vertices
It looks like the Cayley transformation is similar to an infinitesimal special conformal transformation, although I didn't double check.
ReplyDelete