Mike Smith Cosmos

Personally I do not find most of what you say unpalatable . You have taken my opening comments about 'desire' and ' possibles' slightly out of the setting I gave it. i was not talking about general 'desires' or general 'possibles ' I said The main context being a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works. and . B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be. Hence , rather than trying to make a name for themselves, some genuine scientists get uncomfortable with certain current explanations of observations. Perhaps they feel it weak, ill defined or defined as ' you cant see it because it can not be imagined,' or ,'only the maths explains' or down right counter intuitive . None of these is due reason to abandon the so far established theory. However, many harbour nagging doubts with current theory and DESIRE to seek a more fulfilling explanation of how the universe works. Genuinely , some time later such scientists, by one means or another ( cross descipline observation, plain observation, inspiration, mental functioning, anominal results, whatever ) feel they would like to try it out in the public arena. Being aware that such individuals have carried their 'baby' for some time , I would have thought a bit of common decency , respect , and courtesy would win the day rather than " beat the living daylights out of each other" or the baby for that matter. I can appreciate the need to thoroughly analyse the idea , critically examine, etc etc but not by . " beating the living daylights out of each other "

If you look at a comparison of Replies numbers. Physics, Politics,Lounge, Speculations rank among the highest. If one puts Politics and lounge as the desire to relax, yarn and pontificate, then that leaves Physics and Speculation in the Big Numbers League. WHY ? Surely this demonstrates a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works. B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be. So why beat the living daylights out of each other for having a genuine Desire and offering only Possibles. ?

Fairly wise words I would say. Most of it. Not too sure what you mean by the last bit :- Cladking said I for one am constantly trying to model nature from both current understanding and observation. Not sure what is wrong with that. Or why I need to reach a limit until the last vestige of the cosmos is modeled ? elfmotat said Molecule Senior Members I have learned Physics,or at least up to a certain level. I do and have read many books on quantum physics. I am not sure what you mean by 'obscure philosophy and blatant crackpottery' A number of years ago I descided that as physics and quantum physics was developing many mysteries, wierdness and unexplained areas. That I would read right across the spectrum of many sciences , but particularly always focusing on physics/quantum physics. What I saw, see, and found is : What you hear me say or write or think or speculate or touch on as absolute fact is what I saw as patterns , observations, ideas , possibly correct facts. Now if this is judged as 'obscure philosophy and blatant crackpottery' , that is how you judge what I have seen, heard, experimented with, interpreted, and written about. I personally think this is the all good stuff, or I would have wasted valuable time. However that is your choice.

Zeal for his life long work , he is bound to be enthusiastic , I would be if I thought I was supporting Einsteins idea. I am not necessarily agreeing with everything he says. I actually think there is a lot of probability based bits in the systems. But I still think and support Wolfhart and his publishing of his ideas. In a civil way. By discussion.

Reading the last few posts, what ever Wolfhart is proposing, how he is being treated at this juncture is a bit over the top. He is trying to have a sensible scientific discussion, but clearly by attacking something , even if not him personally is not really very pleasant. ................... I suggest a public apology is in order .

I suppose , seeing as I started the thread, I should explain what I meant. However I must say my thoughts were prompted by Ajb's refs ( not that I am blaming him ). Firstly, whether rightly or wrongly, I do not automatically think an hypothesis needs to include maths. ( aware as I am of a previous post that I made about skeletons making up structure. I may need to eat my words. ). So to me , an Hypothesis is as a result of a series of observations, noticing threads, patterns and outcomes . This followed by a fair amount of thinking , reflection, possibly experimentation and possibly discussion with colleagues. Then if there is the making of an idea that just won't go away : Then an Hypothesis can be proposed which may or may not include any maths. ! Unlike Tegmark I personally do not believe that maths is at the root of everything. I think ( only think ) that something far more fundamental is at the root. Both mathematics which we 'construct' and 'language ' that has historically been changing.are not the root. Concepts that can be described by words and/or/both Maths, are a woolly image of Bedrock. I am not sure what bedrock is yet . I would love to know , and will go on looking. ( I think Plato had this problem with shadows on cave walls and perfect geometric shapes existing in some protected zone ). i am not suggesting this , but i think maths ( as it stands ) may limit our progress to expanding discoveries. So I was proposing that hypothesis from observation might be more suitable to LEAD IN FRONT . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Elfmotat : I think you must have been writing at the same time as me. I will need to respond to you separately . Ok. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What you are saying would tend to support the original proposal of the thread as well as Post 1 quoting ajb's reference. If this is the case , could this be a problem with STRING Theory and MULTIVERSE Theory . Mathematically possible yet no way of knowing if either or both are REALITY ( UNLESS PROOF BY EVIDENCE/ EXPERIMENT ) ? ? ?

Now you have finished publishing your explanation of the indecision of electrons in the metastable State in English. And how this relates to Causality , could you possibly send me the Full complete English Translation Wolfhart , as an Attachment as I only have Half the translation, as I think you were doing it as the discussion progressed. . Thanks You seem to have had quite a debate with Swansont about it. ( Not too much bloodshed I hope ). . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I now need to discuss with you , when you have time, whether you feel your ideas agree or conflict with my ideas on a ' theory of everything '. OR whether there is any synergy ( if that is the right word ) It is all good stuff ! I look forward to that. Mike . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like it. You are a perceptive contributor ! Mike

You did it Wolfhart. You Published. Its out there now. May I be the first to Congratulate you! Mike

There are some Blogs on at the moment by Swansot & Ajb about Maths in relation to everything else. Quite interesting . A way I can visualize the coexistence of the dreaded maths with everything else is. The maths is like the Skeleton in the human body. Ridged . Holds everything else in some form of useful and attractive form. But the skeleton is not very attractive or pleasant to most people, and a bit scary . I prefer looking at the whole person and what they do , aware as I am that they would be a Blob of useless something without their skeleton. However prefer to not dwell on it (Maths as Skeleton) too long, lest I get -Scared - If my Analogy is right, or how most people including a lot of other scientists would prefer to work, Then my original Question Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? Is answered. Generally ( recognising that down inside is some unattractive, yet essential maths , skeleton ) most people would prefer this accepted, but left to the bone and skeketon specialist, The rest of us, possibly might like to work with the more palatable person . ( at all times aware and appreciative that the bones are not far away beneath. Its probably fair to say we must have both, but lets keep the scary bit covered up ! Certainly while the Blue Sky Researchers are enjoying their lovely Blue Sky.

Could you spell those ( A and B ) out a bit for me ,in more simplistic terms . Thanks in anticipation . Mike

WoW ! I managed to duck the bullet but got mauled by the claws. Ouch ! I need to go and lick my wounds.

Interesting video clip a) as I have been and am a motorcyclist and B) because I am an advocate of the hidden qualities of centrifugal forces. I really would like to visit this subject, as I had some interesting contact with Professor Laithwaite of Imperial college London some years ago before he died. This, concerning Centrifugal force. He invented the linear motor, and magnetic levitation. But he also was a passionate advocate of the hidden potential of centrifugal forces.

Put that gun away ! Your Question ! I don't. think it isn't. With many of my comments on these sort of matters, I am trying to 'inspire' if that is not too strong a word,( probably is , maybe ' encourage' might be more fitting, though I do want to put a bit of urgency behind it. ) toward breaking ( occasionally )( or by some individuals ) the traditional loyalties to the status quo . Why, because it is endemic in the discipline of science. namely to progress slowly and cautiously, making sure we don' t say anything that is not proven, supported by fact and experiment etc etc. Absolutely necessary when designing a Bridge , or Air liner, or medical equipment etc etc. BUT I must restate that if we had not had some adventurous thinkers, like Marconi, Tesla ,Bohr ,etc etc Einstein for that matter ( although he seems to be getting a battering lately ) , even though often wrong in some of their ideas. Surely we can see with all the vastness before us, the gap of unknown-ness widening , as we speak , the NEED to have some individuals ( like scouts on horseback in the days of the wild west) going before the main body of science and looking over the horizon for ' pastures greener ' ( I do like that word ...HORIZON )

The loyalty to mathematics as the language of physics is clearly at the center of your Paradigm, which is to be admired from a loyalty point of view. But my reason for the original question, was:- What if an extended paradigm is possibly required, in order to make further discoveries , which are NOT ATTAINABLE by the predictive, repeatable, causative way that most Maths relies on. This , in the way that flight required a whole new approach to movement. This when land based motion , to air based motion is required, or water based motion for that matter. Could it be that statistical , and emergent principles need to be enlisted to make progress, or some yet unused methodology ( if that is not a contradiction in terms. Please do not interpret this as an all one or all the other attitude on my part. Clearly Maths has been, and is, a serious bedrock to science. I am merely posing an avenue which may have an enhancement to future discoveries.

EEk ! We were having a good discussion here , but a visitation of a Meteor and an Asteroid , all on the same day. Going off like half a dozen Nuclear bombs, rather deviated my concentration, on the discussion on hand. Now where were we. "The man with the pistol" was saying how semantics were causing a bias. And Michel and consistency ( who seems to have gone missing ) were extolling the virtues of creative ideas. What say you !

Good Stuff WOLFHART. ! Well done ! Keep going ! . Mike BeWare ! Watch out for " the man with the pistol " . He shoots cool, mean and straight. . And I should Know , I have wounds to prove it !

Hi Split Not sure which one you mean. Do you mean the Pre- Big bang and current Big Bang onward 4 D Box Picture.? If so , why do you say do not make it public. Surely it is already public on this Science Forum. Or are you meaning about Formal Publishing. All I mean about publishing is making available, say on the Science forum or on my Web Site that I have recently started to set up www.thenatureofthecosmos.com . I would not get a look in, at Nature or any of those publishing journals as I am too controversial and a maveric ! However I would be interested WHY , you say don't include this post. Is it because I dare to poke through the Bib Bang / Pre big Bang Boundary.

I am more than happy to Publish on my web site. I can not promise to be like the Journal " Nature " but I do hope to build up some " Blue Sky Ideas / Blue Sky Research " for those of us who sometimes have some good ideas, but do not get air space due to often being too controversial . If so English version please. However if not , that is O.K. I know I am only 'small beer' . By the way I have tried to download your deeper , explanation in German and translate. But can not get it to translate .

O.K. I get it. Well I have run a series of tests over the years.( To endorse my mental model ) I will get them together , and pop them up here. See what you think or anybody else thinks .

That was Quick.! I will have to think about that ! How about this sine wave. Generated by a point /electron/ planet going in a circle at so many degrees/second or radians. . The point prescribes a circle. But the situation on a piece of graph paper shows a sine wave being generated. Not sure what you are getting at here. Surely " declaring victory because you seem to have identified some underlying pattern" is science ( half way house). In other words , one has believed to have made a science related Observation. Thence one can make a postulation, test and possibly verify,or not . Science ( other half ). AS the case may be. No ? Seeing underlying patterns is surely at the cutting edge of new discoveries . No ?

I watched Walter Lewins Final Retirement Lecture ( 75 Years old ) at MIT a few days ago . Just ACE. It has been said ( probably not in these exact words) . Any Mathematician or Scientist, should be able to step off the back of a bus , and go up to the first person he/she sees and explain their ideas succinctly and understandably !

Yes . I Think There is a serious link between causing several probabilities to'firm up' their choices into ONE CHOICE, and . THAT IS WHAT BECOMES WHAT WE CALL REALITY .

"Now, what that means is that there is fundamental indeterminacy from quantum mechanics, but besides that there are other sources of effective indeterminacy" Murray Gell-Mann (1929-), received the 1969 Nobel Prize in physics. "The true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities" James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879), Scottish physicist