My whole series of posts about Science
- Talking about Science: 1 Boys and Frogs
- Talking about Science: 2 Poincaré and The Search for Truth
- Talking about Science: 3 Tony Smith and “arXiv.org”
- Carlos Castro Perelman and the tide
- Bertrand Russell and Independence in Science
- Questions About Science: Is Science rational?
- The Taboo of Subjectivity
- Can Science be just?
- Einstein and Klein, Plagiarism
- Religion and Science – cruel Gods
- Bertrand Russell and “A Way of Feeling"
- Plato and The Value of Myths and Parables
- Cronus and Uranus
- Defining "Science"
- Wrong use of Science
- Curiosity, intellectual freedom and Science
- The Curiosity of Alfred Russel Wallace
- The Encyclopedia Universalis Twists the Truth
- Clifford’s Solution
- Language Barriers Make Knowledge Barriers
- Forbidden Science
- You Shall Know Them by Their Fruits
- No True Science Allowed! A Priori Assumptions Prevail
- William Crookes and the Paranormal: True Science
- Ray Hyman and Modern Apathy: To Explain Away and Dismiss
- Dangerous to be Curious? Quantum Future - Gossip and Censorship
- A Brush With the Dark Side of Science
- Brian D. Josephson on Censorship in Science
- Silence is the greatest persecution
- The case of Grigori Perelman and When bad men combine, the good must associate
- Criticism is easy
- Trinh Xuan Thuan - "The Quantum and the Lotus" - Part I
- Trinh Xuan Thuan - "The Quantum and the Lotus" - Part II
- Trinh Xuan Thuan - "The Quantum and the Lotus" - Part III
- Real Scientists Do Speculate!
- Quantum Magic - Incoherent Decoherence
- Psychological interlude - Authority in Science
- Thinking With a Forked Brain
- Schrödinger’s Cat
- Why algebras?
- Why Algebra, Rudolf Haag?
- Rudolf Haag and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
- The Birth of EEQT
- More is different
- An Open Universe: Heresy?
- EEQT - an eccentric theory
- EEQT: Things Exist and Events Happen!
- Problems in Objectizing
- Wheeler's Second Question: "How come the quantum?” Planck’s Constant
- The Physics of Non-Material World?
- Twelve dimensions of Burkhard Heim
- Why there are any ‘Laws of Nature’?
- Dark Ages and Inquisitions
- Quantum Future?
From now on I will wholly concentrate on my math notes on future physics - the conformal group and its far reaching "Cosmological applications".
P.S. I love this song. My wife likes it too.
'Cause I'm already gone
And I'm feelin' strong
I will sing this vict'ry song
And I'm feelin' strong
I will sing this vict'ry song
Allready Gone - Lyrics
P.S.2. 14-07-23 12:13
It seems to me that, despite being allergic to the paranormal, most physicists have been studying paranormal phenomena all their lives and calling it "quantum theory."L.K-J. (A thought while reading and editing my Science series)
P.S.3. 14:49 Laura sends me the link:
How Can Aliens Time-Travel? Eric Weinstein on the Joe Rogan Experience
Very interesting!
00:01:12,733 --> 00:01:18,900
If time is two dimensional.
You have a whirlpool of time which is
either clockwise or counterclockwise.
00:02:03,866 --> 00:02:08,800
There's one guy in Los Angeles at USC
called Izhak Bars, a Turkish Jew
Itzhak Bars, Geometry and symmetry structures in two-time gravity
Izhak Bars, Gravity in two-time physics
00:04:21,533 --> 00:04:24,100
Gravity is the observer.
00:04:43,566 --> 00:04:46,966
gravity is the observer through
something called a pull-back operation.
Jakoś nie zgadza mi się Remark 3:
ReplyDelete"In fact no such Z exists in N"
Jeśli wybiorę Y = X i Z = X to istnieje.
Probably in the Definition 5 it should be X.Y=1. Will fix tomorrow. Thank you.
DeleteNa stronie pierwszej:
DeleteNotes on Conformal Grouo ->
Notes on Conformal Group
Na stronie pierwszej:
introduced ia ->
introduced in
Fixed. Thanks!
DeleteStrona 27:
ReplyDeleteNo, since we have ->
Now, since we have
tangent space TpN , we have ->
tangent space TpPN , we have
between TpN and ->
between TpPN and
Strona 27:
ReplyDeleteLet us now recall that, for q ∈ N ->
PN
consists
of all those [[X]] ∈ N ->
PN
according to whether X · Y 6= ->
according to whether X · Y
Thank you. Fixed.
DeleteChyba nie całkiem poprawione bo zostało jeszcze to:
Deleteisomorphism between TpN ->
isomorphism between TpPN
Yes, indeedy. Fixed. Thanks.
DeleteW (136) mamy składnik w którym jest czynnik:
Delete(X · X)
Czy to nie jest 0?
If you look at (132) you see that we assume X is a vector orthogonal to p_0+ and to p_infinity, so X.X will never be zero, except for X=0.
DeleteIn fact I have to think about my previous reply.... I am confused now myself.
Delete@ Bjab Corrected reply to your question:
DeleteIf you look at (132) you see that we assume X is any a vector orthogonal to p_0+ and to p_infinity, it does not have to be a a null vector. It is anull vector if and only if the associated vector in the tangent Minkowski space is a null vector.
At the top of my pdf file there is a new section "What's new". Every day I add a new stuff - I will announce it there.
ReplyDeleteHere is a part of the email I received a while ago from the Author of "Aristotle principles of dynamics", together with my reply:
ReplyDeleteHello!
"Anyway, I just wanted to ask why in the blog post about Aristotle there is generally discussed a different topic? Now it's even if I wanted to throw something in, there's nowhere and no way to do it."
I can't help it. The constant tireless commentator, the only one left (Bjab), is interested in only one topic that I have been developing for many months, and basically nothing else. And I don't know how much longer he will put up with me, either. And I have also currently focused on this one topic. Months ago, the blog was multi-thematic, but somehow it evolved (with my participation) into monothematic. There was a commentator with a philosophical bent (M.S), so I thought she would take an interest in Aristotle, but she evolved heavily into category theory and did not take up the topic. What to make of Susskind and Rovelli? I will think about it. Maybe something constructive will come to my mind.
Regards,
ark
Blogs in general aren't as easy as forums for going back to a previous topic. Your blog has kind of always included being a working blog so whatever you are looking at for a potential paper, including putting things into a paper format, can be found in recent posts or PS's/comments to posts.
DeleteThat Aristotle interpretation allowing rest as eternal motion for a circle approaching radius zero seems quite Feynman Checkerboard-like.
Thanks. To help other Readers:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_checkerboard
Good morning
DeleteFor me, circular motion as R goes to 0 could be a simple simulator of internal energy for a body at rest. This goes beyond Aristotle and goes towards the atomism of Democritus and the modern one.
I was hoping Feynmann had come up with something similar, but I don't see the analogy with his lattice for the Dirac equation.
Regards,
Grzegorz M. Koczan
"For me, circular motion as R goes to 0 "
DeleteWhich circular motion? Which R? The comment sounds rather cryptic to me. Can you elaborate a little bit? Expand?
Nad wzorem (13):
ReplyDeletedet((X')) ->
brakuje u
Dwie linijki nas wzorem (17):
ReplyDeleteX = τ (X). ->
X = τ (x).
Fixed. Thanks.
DeleteQuotation from Daigneaults paper (Ref. [4]):
ReplyDelete"Genesis teaches that : « …et Dieu dit: ‘ Que la lumière soit ! Et la lumière fut. » ; « and God said : Let there be light ! And light there was ».
Some say that at MIT, Caltech, and other trade schools, one often sees engineers wearing T-shirts that display Maxwell's equations as God's real words just before there was light
[ http://wiki.yak.net/591/howto.pdf].
Maybe this is so for the following facts which do not seem to move astrophysicists should not leave any mathematician indifferent especially those like myself who believe that God is Himself a mathematician ! "
Przydałaby się legenda kształtów strzałek w diagramach na stronach 4 i 6.
ReplyDeletePrzekształcenie h na diagramie (strona 6) Proposition 1 to chyba nie tylko strzałka onto ale jakaś strzałka izomorfizmu.
Indeed. The double arrow head and a bent at the end means onto and injective - that is an isomorphism.
DeleteCo to znaczy, że w Proposition 1 diagram jest commutative?
ReplyDeleteThat means that following arrows one way or another way you get the same result. In this case going from M to U(2).
DeleteRecently discovered:
ReplyDeleteFundamental domains in the Einstein Universe
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166864114002648
A primer on the (2 + 1) Einstein universe
https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3055
A quantum cosmological model based on Einstein's universe
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00769869
The geometry of conformal timelike geodesics in the Einstein universe
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346431830_The_geometry_of_conformal_timelike_geodesics_in_the_Einstein_universe
So it occurs that most of what I am writing about is a well known stuff for the experts. Which is on one hand somewhat depressing, on the other hand it can be perceived as encouraging. Will have to sip through all those papers, they can give me some new ideas for time travel.
Strona 7:
ReplyDeleteequivalence classes so that μ(X) = μ(X0
) = 1.. ->
dwie kropki
Strona 7:
orthogonal rotation from
SO(4) ⊂ S(4, 2) acting ->
SO(4,2) ?
Strona 7:
The group SO(2) acts transitively on the sphere S
2 ->
S1 ?
Strona 7:
orthogonal rotation from SO(2) ⊂ S(4, 2) acting ->
SO(4,2) ?
Adding now stuff to Sec. 8.5. This section is in fact almost completely independent of the rest of these notes.
ReplyDeleteI love the statement "gravity is the observer" in the video by Eric Weinstein linked to in P.S.3. EEQT will do it! But first I need two "time" dimensions. This is being developed right now in my notes.
ReplyDeletePrzypominam się z moimi poprawkami i pytaniami z godz. 3:09
ReplyDeleteDone. Thanks!
DeleteI jeszcze strona 7:
DeleteThe group SO(2) ->
the group SO(2)
S(4, 2) acting ->
SO(4, 2) acting
Proposition 2 mówi o własności SO(4,2) a co jeśli chodzi o O(4,2)?
ReplyDeleteTakże:
Proposition 4 mówi o własności SO(4,2) a co jeśli chodzi o O(4,2)?
Strona 10:
ReplyDeleteembedded in S(4, 2) ->
SO(4,2) czy O(4,2) ?
Done. The logic with transitive actions is as follows.
DeleteIf A is a set and G is a group acting on A (from the left), then G acts transitively if for any two points a,b in A there exists g in G such that ga=b.
If G is a subgroup of another group H, then of course g is a also in H. Thus if G acts transitively, then H acts also transitively. Thus stating that G acts transitively is a stronger statement than that H acts transitively.
Thank you for corrections and for the question.
Thank you for the explanation of transitivity.
DeleteStrona: 13
Deleteexists a smooth curve ̃γX(s), ->
exists a smooth curve ̃γX(s), ̃γX(0) = X,
Czy nie warto byłoby dodać we wzorze (53) Xsów w indeksie przy gammach? (i niżej w drugim wierszu od dołu strony)
Strona 14:
be the coordinate expressions of lifts of γ1(s) and γ2(s). ->
be the coordinate expressions of lifts of γ1(s) and γ2(s) through (the same) X.
Zamieniłbym strony wzoru (59).
DeletePod wzorem (53)
Deleteis another lift of γ through p. ->
lepsze by było:
is another lift of γ through X.
I believe I fixed it all. Thanks!
DeleteTak.
DeleteCzytając dalej,
w wierszu pod (62) jest zbędny nawias.
Thx.
DeleteAdded sections 9.3 and 9.4.
ReplyDeleteAdded links under Weinstein's interview.
ReplyDeleteTemporary break in adding new stuff. Have to read/learn new stuff.
ReplyDelete@ Grzegorz Koczan https://ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-science-series.html?showComment=1689445035421#c4291194424012660005
ReplyDeleteIn an (unpublished because of inappropriate format) comment Mathilde S. responded to Aristotle's Physics as follows:
" And regarding Aristotle, I appreciate that he created a certain current in metaphysics, nevertheless Aristotle is not an idealist philosopher, so I much prefer the philosophy of Plato, Plotinus or Hegel.
At the same time, I believe that physics is essentially Platonic and should be developed in that direction, whereas I consider the introduction of Aristotelianism to be pointless. Physics constructed in this way will go no further for a number of reasons that I could discuss ...."
While extending my collection of mathematical tools I came across this interesting paper Bekaert, Universal enveloping algebras and some applications in physics, 2205
ReplyDeleteI like universal tools, and the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie agebra is one such tool.
"In an (unpublished because of inappropriate format) comment Mathilde S. responded to Aristotle's Physics as follows: (...)".
ReplyDeleteSince I have been called to the board, I will be more specific. With questions from other commentators or the author, I can gradually make my statement more detailed.
There are a few philosophic and scientific arguments that could support the idea that physics is essentially Platonic and should continue to be developed in that direction, while an Aristotelian approach might be limited.
One of them is the mathematical structure of the Universe. This is a strong argument for a Platonic viewpoint in physics. Many physicists, including Max Tegmark with his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, argue that the universe is not just described by mathematics, but it is a mathematical structure. This idea reflects Plato's Theory of Forms, which posits a world of perfect, unchanging ideals beyond our sensory experience.
The next one is connected to physical laws and universality. The laws of physics as we know them, like gravity and electromagnetism, are unchanging and universal. They apply regardless of time or space. This is similar to Plato's Forms, which are timeless and universal. If the ultimate laws of physics exist in a similar Platonic realm, this could provide the theoretical unity that many physicists seek.
Moreover, quantum mechanics and related theories have been interpreted in ways that are favorable to a Platonic interpretation. For instance, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posits an infinite number of parallel universes to explain quantum phenomena. This seems more in line with the Platonic metaphysical idealism than with Aristotelian material realism.
Now let's consider a few reasons why you might view Aristotelian approaches as limited:
Aristotelian physics is largely empirical, grounded in what we can observe and experience. While this has led to the development of the scientific method and the accumulation of knowledge, it does not necessarily help in areas where direct observation is not possible, such as quantum physics or cosmology.
At the same time Aristotle's approach is less amenable to abstract mathematical reasoning, which is essential to modern physics. While Aristotle believed in the use of logic and reasoning, he focused more on concrete, observable phenomena, rather than the abstract entities that dominate modern physics, such as fields, forces, and particles.
Of course, this is a simplification of both Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies, and their applicability to physics. There are aspects of each that can be beneficially incorporated into scientific thought, as both have already influenced the development of physics in profound ways.
Nevertheless, physics is becoming more and more abstract and, consequently, should be developed more in the direction of Platonism. This does not change the fact that in some specific cases Aristotle's approach can be useful, but I think that these are only concrete models, not theories that will actually significantly influence the development of the so-called 'new physics'. This subject has also been addressed by Michał Heller in many books and publications, quoting numerous arguments for the Platonic approach.
At the same time, for Polish speakers and those interested in this topic, I can also recommend a lecture by Krzysztof Meissner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LefNRwiTJw&ab_channel=Archidiecezja%C5%81%C3%B3dzka.
ReplyDeleteI do not like all of Meissner's statements, but I nevertheless agree with him on the core issue - Platonism.
G.K. replied to me in a private message as he is having trouble seeing comments on his PC:
ReplyDelete"I, for one, can't get into the discussion now, as I am finishing editing the monograph. However, I see that there is a dispute emerging on the Plato-Aristotle line.
I may know Plato poorly, but Aristotle is undoubtedly closer to physics - and not just ancient physics, but also quantum physics, as Rovelli shows. The infatuation of physicists with Plato, I believe, is a misunderstanding of what "infatuation" with one idea is. Aristotle trumps Plato in every scientific respect, except one: Aristotle did not have an outstanding student 🙂 ."
"I, for one, can't get into the discussion now, as I am finishing editing the monograph. However, I see that there is a dispute emerging on the Plato-Aristotle line.
ReplyDeleteI may know Plato poorly, but Aristotle is undoubtedly closer to physics - and not just ancient physics, but also quantum physics, as Rovelli shows. The infatuation of physicists with Plato, I believe, is a misunderstanding of what "infatuation" with one idea is. Aristotle trumps Plato in every scientific respect, except one: Aristotle did not have an outstanding student 🙂 .".
I am in a position to undertake an argument, so if any specific arguments are made I am happy to discuss.
For the moment I would certainly agree that Aristotle is closer to classical mechanics. I am not going to debate here, I think we both agree.
As for quantum mechanics, on the other hand, I would need to see the arguments. In terms of what I think physics should aim for, I'm unlikely to be persuaded by Aristotle's approach, but I'm curious to try to convince me.
And what is the infatuation with one idea? Well, physics was largely born out of aesthetics. I am very curious about this discussion.
I have one more question: what is the position of the blog author? Platonism or Aristotelianism?
ReplyDeleteAlready answered:
Deletehttps://ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-science-series.html?showComment=1689317612306#c1761098183815488778
The "Aristotle" discussed here is certainly a different than usual interpretation of Aristotle. Most people would not see atomism as an extension from Aristotle. Going from atomism to a pluralistic idealist Leibniz monad might not be difficult. Aristotle did have the elements and thus via Ark's wife Laura, information. I got to physics math via personality models where the elements have been rather directly used as personality factors. Clifford algebra is rather directly information with its 2^n dimensions. You don't work with very high n's either. Even if you go up to n=8, you work a lot with 4s, 5s and 6s as Ark has shown recently.
ReplyDeleteNot getting too far away from classical is perhaps a common problem for the quantum researchers. One of the main points of EEQT is to get some classical into the quantum. I didn't understand EEQT in even my usual not very detailed math way until I added some general understanding of differential geometry which has classical origins. Feynman paths are perhaps a more classical visual for quantum than the wave function.
Received from Bjab:
ReplyDeleteStrona 24 poniżej (115):
Let p and q are two points in N ->
Let p and q are two points in PV
Thanks. Fixed.
Wzór (124) jest chyba błędny.
DeleteThanks. Will check and correct.
DeleteWhy would be (124) incorrect? Am I not seeing something?
Deletep⊥ ma punkty ∈ V
DeleteA teraz widzę, że i wzór (120) to jakieś odejmowanie zbiorów różnych przestrzeni.
A może Definicja 2. powinna być inna - ograniczona do X,Y należących do N a nie ogólnie do V ?
DeleteI have made Definition 2 more clear. Is it better now?
Delete@Ark:
Delete"I have made Definition 2 more clear. Is it better now?"
It is different now.
Definition 5. With p = [[X]], q = [[Y ]], Y ∈ N ->
DeleteDefinition 5. With p = [[X]], X ∈ N, q = [[Y ]], Y ∈ N
Fixed. Thanks.
DeleteDefinition 5. With p = [[X]], q = [[Y ]], Y ∈ N ->
ReplyDeleteDefinition 5. With p = [[X]], X ∈ N, q = [[Y ]], Y ∈ N
(bo czy X ∈ N czy raczej ogólnie X ∈ V)
X ∈ N is correct.
DeleteMoże przydałoby się aby przy wzorach (126),(127),(128),(129),(130),(131),(132) była wzmianka o wymiarowości wyrazów.
ReplyDeleteNp. że lewa strona wzoru (129) jest dziewięciowymiarowa.
OK. Will add dimensionality. Thanks.
DeleteAdded comments on dimensionalities, and also expanded Remark 3. Thanks.
DeleteInserting new sec. 4.1: The group SO_+(4,2). Then will adjust following statements and references. Should be ready later today.
ReplyDeleteAdded/inserted Exercise 1 on p. 8
ReplyDeleteAdded a little to Sec. 10.
ReplyDeleteRewriting section 10. Will post the rewritten version tomorrow.
ReplyDelete