Time Mechanics

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Which mathematics is in direct conflict with observed science?

[Time Mechanics]

Which mathematics is in direct conflict with observed science?

 

-Originally Newtonian Math failed to factor in time dilation.

-Currently Relativity fails to describe the Quantified world and Quantum Mechanics fails to describe the cosmological/Newtonian world. The reason we seek a GUT.

-General Relativity fails to describe events past event horizons in what we call the information paradox.

-Quantum Mechanics and Relativity fail to describe the existence of dark matter, however particle models do show its mass.

-ANY math related to singularities and wormholes or attempts to describe black holes lead to any number of physical paradoxes.

-Personally I view the Uncertainty of Prediction as a failure of Quantum Mechanics like Einstein did. But that is definitely subjective.

-The Balmer series attempted to map the elemental(i.e. H, He,Li...etc) electron quantum states but when a function was derived for Hydrogen it failed to describe anything else.

-The fact that we have no less than FOUR string theories at any given time of which all claim to be perfect.

-VERY recently, a paper was published where the Higgs particle was mathematically rejected however for some reason there are two camps who claim flawless math.

-Inflationary and Membrane theory, the math doesn't base its logic on anything but imagination.

-Maybe my math fails to predict, only people are too worried about whether it passes the definition of math.

 

Every letter, number, and operator has a name attached to it. Every series of statements of logic are written by a person. I just don't get, people tend to make mistakes. It's part of being human and our math is not free from this universal concept.

 

In physics there has never been a perfect system of mathematics due to these things called discoveries. But tell that to the mathematicians who are in my field who believe math is flawless and even worse think paradoxes are normal.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You're conflating physics and mathematics. The system of mathematics used by physics has not been changed. The physics has. Mathematics is not magic.

[swansont]

Failed (or incomplete) model ≠ failed math

[Time Mechanics]

You're conflating physics and mathematics. The system of mathematics used by physics has not been changed. The physics has. Mathematics is not magic.

 

This discussion of the philosophy of math is seriously draining the original topic of this thread.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mathematics

 

-In no where on the internet is there a definition of such thing as mathematics without a predefined system. If the "basics" of math exist please post a link.

 

Failed (or incomplete) model ≠ failed math

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

 

-You guys told ME math is a series of logic statements. A paradox is when a logic statement fails. By your definition a paradox is failed math. If Math=logic. And Paradox !=logic. Then Paradox !=Math.

 

We can agree to disagree as I'm a physicist and you guys are mathematicians and as such work in completely different offices. Our philosophies can be different but the conclusions of my Unification need to be challenged.

 

Doesn't anyone wonder why there is so much more energy from a nuclear reaction than a chemical reaction? Well its the same reason why nuclear velocities are so much faster than chemical velocities. They have different scales of time and different definitions of space.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This discussion of the philosophy of math is seriously draining the original topic of this thread.

 

http://www.thefreedi...com/mathematics

 

-In no where on the internet is there a definition of such thing as mathematics without a predefined system. If the "basics" of math exist please post a link.

http://en.wikipedia....nkel_set_theory

http://en.wikipedia....eano_arithmetic

 

-You guys told ME math is a series of logic statements. A paradox is when a logic statement fails. By your definition a paradox is failed math. If Math=logic. And Paradox !=logic. Then Paradox !=Math.

 

We can agree to disagree as I'm a physicist and you guys are mathematicians and as such work in completely different offices. Our philosophies can be different but the conclusions of my Unification need to be challenged.

 

Doesn't anyone wonder why there is so much more energy from a nuclear reaction than a chemical reaction? Well its the same reason why nuclear velocities are so much faster than chemical velocities. They have different scales of time and different definitions of space.

Er. I'm a student physicist. swansont is a professional physicist. I should hope we know what we're talking about.

 

Mathematics is a logical system, not a series of logical statements. Physics leverages that system to describe relationships in nature. For example:

 

[math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math]

 

Mathematics explains what the action of squaring a number means, what multiplication is and what its properties are, and how fractions work. Physics claims that this is an equation for kinetic energy. If it so happens that kinetic energy is not equal to [imath]\frac{1}{2} mv^2[/imath], fundamental mathematics will not have changed -- we have not changed the definition of multiplication or the nature of exponentiation.

 

Hence you cannot construct a valid theory by discarding the rules of mathematics and making your own. That's like basing a theory on the idea that 2 + 2 must be 5.

[swansont]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

 

-You guys told ME math is a series of logic statements. A paradox is when a logic statement fails. By your definition a paradox is failed math. If Math=logic. And Paradox !=logic. Then Paradox !=Math.

 

Where is the paradox of which you speak? I see areas where a model fails to hold. And the twin paradox isn't a paradox at all, but you already knew that because you're a physicist.

[A Tripolation]

Mathematics explains what the action of squaring a number means, what multiplication is and what its properties are, and how fractions work. Physics claims that this is an equation for kinetic energy. If it so happens that kinetic energy is not equal to [imath]\frac{1}{2} mv^2[/imath], fundamental mathematics will not have changed -- we have not changed the definition of multiplication or the nature of exponentiation.

 

Hence you cannot construct a valid theory by discarding the rules of mathematics and making your own. That's like basing a theory on the idea that 2 + 2 must be 5.

 

Beautiful Capn. Time Mechanics, you seem to be saying that because some current models cannot account for some discrepancies in said model, that the math is obviously incorrect. This is not true. It's the model itself that is flawed. Not the math that was used to describe it. You're basically saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to prove anything until someone can come up with a Theory of Everything that uses nice pretty math that makes sense to you.

[Time Mechanics]

http://en.wikipedia....nkel_set_theory

http://en.wikipedia....eano_arithmetic

 

 

Er. I'm a student physicist. swansont is a professional physicist. I should hope we know what we're talking about.

 

Mathematics is a logical system, not a series of logical statements. Physics leverages that system to describe relationships in nature. For example:

 

[math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math]

 

Mathematics explains what the action of squaring a number means, what multiplication is and what its properties are, and how fractions work. Physics claims that this is an equation for kinetic energy. If it so happens that kinetic energy is not equal to [imath]\frac{1}{2} mv^2[/imath], fundamental mathematics will not have changed -- we have not changed the definition of multiplication or the nature of exponentiation.

 

Hence you cannot construct a valid theory by discarding the rules of mathematics and making your own. That's like basing a theory on the idea that 2 + 2 must be 5.

The only requirement to be math is that it uses logic, symbols and numbers. Arithmetic math is unfair because it uses a limited set of operators. For example Boolean math is math because it uses numbers in addition to its own operators of which non are arithmetic. On face Time Mechanics uses numbers and symbols with logical conclusion. Computer math uses all sorts of its own logic commands with numbers, kinda messed up to say its not math.

 

[math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math]

 

Under Special Relativity this equation fails under arithmetic operators because as soon as you measure velocity, KE becomes relativistic. That means the act of defining a velocity makes KE undefined. Its actually a paradox. The solution was to add a new operator called gamma to define referenced time or transformed time.

Under Quantum Mechanics this equation falls on its face because its not quantified. Hell 1 apple doesn't equal 1 apple. An apple has a particle and a wave state. One apple = <Apple|w>. If you scroll up the original Dirac function didn't use any math operators(well a minus sign for a grand total of two possibilities) and only qualified as math because he set true=0 and false=1 and ended up using numbers. The only operator was the funny looking d.

 

Where is the paradox of which you speak? I see areas where a model fails to hold. And the twin paradox isn't a paradox at all, but you already knew that because you're a physicist.

 

It was called a paradox because it was counter intuitive logic. You can't quantify the grandfather paradox because you can't travel in time, but its still considered a paradox because its counter intuitive to established logic. BIG difference between a physical paradox and a philosophical paradox.

[math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math] and R_ab - (0.5)Rg_ab + (cc)g_ab = kT_ab bothrepresent a physical paradox.

 

Beautiful Capn. Time Mechanics, you seem to be saying that because some current models cannot account for some discrepancies in said model, that the math is obviously incorrect. This is not true. It's the model itself that is flawed. Not the math that was used to describe it. You're basically saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to prove anything until someone can come up with a Theory of Everything that uses nice pretty math that makes sense to you.

 

http://en.wikipedia....y_of_everything -Time Mechanics is the Theory of everything. It defines time and perception itself and unifies all models. A model with "some discrepancies" is a model with failed logic. Granted, we still use basic mechanics of logic with 99.9999999% success. But to put in terms you should understand, a Newtonian model doesn't have time dilation and hence is a universe without gravity. Not a small detail to me.

 

This is the equation you guys want me to use to fulfill the rules of arithmetic math dx/dt=xdx. The dx however represent observation. Observation in which there is no variability. There is no variability because the rules of observation(Physics) don't change. I had to set dx equal to 1. Which creates d/dt=x. Then it worked.

 

However, dx/dt=xdx does in fact mean something. What do you called a variable or undefined observer?........dead. But to sound less ominous we'll call them defined and undefined observation.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[swansont]

[math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math]

 

Under Special Relativity this equation fails under arithmetic operators because as soon as you measure velocity, KE becomes relativistic. That means the act of defining a velocity makes KE undefined. Its actually a paradox.

 

As soon as you measure velocity, KE becomes relativistic? My car is relativistic when I look at the speedometer?

 

The problem isn't that the math is wrong. The problem is that the math doesn't accurately describe nature when v/c approaches 1. which makes it a physics model issue, not a math issue.

[A Tripolation]

But to put in terms you should understand, a Newtonian model doesn't have time dilation and hence is a universe without gravity. Not a small detail to me.

 

Thanks. Being a physics major, your equation for kinetic energy was quite frightening. Can't say I've ever seen anything like that.

 

The Newtonian Model works quite well for most everything laymen need, and his three laws form the basis for the fundamentals of structural engineering. Bridges are built using a Newtonian model, not a QM model.

 

We know it's flawed. We saw that when modern physics came into existence. And we see that modern physics models have some discrepancies. I don't see how our incomplete models makes the math that we used to build them incorrect.

 

And no, classical mechanics models do not need to account for time dilation. They need to account for forces in the x,y, and z directions. Modern physics models need to account for time dilation. And whaddya know. Look at that. They do.

Edited February 9, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Time Mechanics]

Thanks. Being a physics major, your equation for kinetic energy was quite frightening. Can't say I've ever seen anything like that.

 

The Newtonian Model works quite well for most everything laymen need, and his three laws form the basis for the fundamentals of structural engineering. Bridges are built using a Newtonian model, not a QM model.

 

We know it's flawed. We saw that when modern physics came into existence. And we see that modern physics models have some discrepancies. I don't see how our incomplete models makes the math that we used to build them incorrect.

 

And no, classical mechanics models do not need to account for time dilation. They need to account for forces in the x,y, and z directions. Modern physics models need to account for time dilation. And whaddya know. Look at that. They do.

 

This is indeed an unforeseen roadblock. I understand there are physicists who study and employ purely Classical Mechanics and there's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand there are people who work with nothing but lasers and crystals which require Quantum Mechanics and there's nothing wrong with that. Same goes with Relativism and Cosmology.

 

My goal is to bridge the gaps between the fields. For example as you put with dimensional analysis there is the connection between Classical and Relativistic. But Classical has no bridge to Quantum Mechanics. So I would say the bridge is.....

 

A Quanta is defined by its relationship of its period and energy. Where a period represents a quanta defined by its Planck Scale. In Quantum Mechanics the Planck Scale is a constant just as the Speed of Light is a constant under Special Relativity. However, both the energy of a quanta and the speed of light change when in the presence of a massive field. Making the Speed of Light and Planck Scale as constant as there different amounts of mass in the universe.

 

In this sense a Quanta only exists because we didn't think about a wave in the context of General Relativity energy field. We never thought about what causes us to measure something in that particular way. And if you can link Classical Mechanics to Relativity, and you can link Quantum Mechanics to Relativity, then you can link Classical to Quantum now. And although the math is impossibly hard to understand, its not necessarily wrong to make that link.

 

Case and point, as I was studying Ph.D Chemistry(ya I didn't stop at physics) a chem student asked how to calculate the half-life of a newly discovered substance. Lucky for him three Ph.D physicists who studied almost exclusively Quantum Mechanics were available to answer. Two of them concluded it was impossible and the third needed to be reminded that there were no charts for a newly discovered substance(he wanted to compare decay rates). At which point myself and others explained that you measure the mass....wait a prescribed time and measure again. Then fill in the half-life equation.

 

Maybe its a problem with how universities define experts these days, but that kind of thing happens all the time. Its my goal to try to prevent that so that we as a whole can advance science instead of confusing others.

 

Physics is unique as it is a field that has a major problem with egos. And before I learned that people get offended when you challenge an idea, when you challenge a math, or when you challenge a belief. Now I have to worry about challenging a field. I just want to advance physics, expect to be challenged.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A Quanta is defined by its relationship of its period and energy. Where a period represents a quanta defined by its Planck Scale. In Quantum Mechanics the Planck Scale is a constant just as the Speed of Light is a constant under Special Relativity. However, both the energy of a quanta and the speed of light change when in the presence of a massive field.

Do you have experimental evidence of this?

 

Physics is unique as it is a field that has a major problem with egos. And before I learned that people get offended when you challenge an idea, when you challenge a math, or when you challenge a belief. Now I have to worry about challenging a field. I just want to advance physics, expect to be challenged.

Then you should write up a coherent mathematical description of your theory (using mathematics as defined by mathematicians, not by making up your own) and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[swansont]

Physics is unique as it is a field that has a major problem with egos.

 

I guess it's a good thing that there are no other professions where the very accomplished members have egos.

[Time Mechanics]

Do you have experimental evidence of this?

 

For Lightspeed- http://imagine.gsfc..../grav_lens.html

For Planck Length- http://www.astro.ucl...ght/doppler.htm

 

If you don't think looking through a telescope an experiment.

 

For Lightspeed- A Prism or Condensate

For Planck Length- http://www.colorado....c/lascool1.html (at the bottom is a simple example of the need to adjust the frequency of a laser in order to match the quantified length as the medium becomes denser)

 

Then you should write up a coherent mathematical description of your theory (using mathematics as defined by mathematicians, not by making up your own) and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Your're the kind of guy who thinks every mathematician can just understand any physics problem don't you? If I didn't use a single number or symbol and just wrote a huge paper, you still wouldn't know what I'm talking about. What on earth makes you think you can determine whether my math statements are coherent if you have no clue what they mean. You aren't asking questions, you're bloviating about the sacred nature of math.

 

I would however like to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal not for approval but to get as many people thinking about it as possible. And in order to write a more "coherent" methodology I do need to know what physics is easy to understand and which is not. If a part of the paper is confusing, write it out and let me explain it sans math. If your issue is that everything is confusing, then pick anything.

 

I'm not so worried about popular opinion because you get a lot of non-sense out of a crowd of "experts". I firmly believe Science is not a democracy or a popularity contest.

 

I guess it's a good thing that there are no other professions where the very accomplished members have egos.

 

Fair point. Although the dichotomy between the various fields is probably a discussion for another time.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For Lightspeed- http://imagine.gsfc..../grav_lens.html

For Planck Length- http://www.astro.ucl...ght/doppler.htm

 

If you don't think looking through a telescope an experiment.

 

For Lightspeed- A Prism or Condensate

For Planck Length- http://www.colorado....c/lascool1.html (at the bottom is a simple example of the need to adjust the frequency of a laser in order to match the quantified length as the medium becomes denser)

None of these provide evidence that the speed of light and the quanta of energy alter under any conditions. Gravitational lensing does not involve alterations to the speed of light.

 

Your're the kind of guy who thinks every mathematician can just understand any physics problem don't you?

No.

 

If I didn't use a single number or symbol and just wrote a huge paper, you still wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Indeed.

 

What on earth makes you think you can determine whether my math statements are coherent if you have no clue what they mean. You aren't asking questions, you're bloviating about the sacred nature of math.

Because a mathematical expression of how two factors relate is far easier to understand than poorly-written explanations.

[Bignose]

What on earth makes you think you can determine whether my math statements are coherent if you have no clue what they mean. You aren't asking questions, you're bloviating about the sacred nature of math.

 

Interesting choice -- rather than thinking of ways to perhaps better help others understand your math statements and what they mean, you decide to start name-calling. Rather than attacking, why don't you take some time and try to explain it better -- using terms and symbols everyone else in mathematics and physics have already agreed upon. Or, if you insist on using new terms, defining them very clearly.

 

If you choose to attempt to publish your work, peer-review is a very significant part of the process. And, you're work will be criticized. If you can't take the heat from an Internet forum, you are not ready to try to publish.

[swansont]

For Planck Length- http://www.colorado....c/lascool1.html (at the bottom is a simple example of the need to adjust the frequency of a laser in order to match the quantified length as the medium becomes denser)

 

"Quantified length?" No, that's not why. You adjust the frequency to stay near resonance of the atom. If it's moving you have a doppler shift for which you must compensate as the atom slows down. There's also a trade-off between maximum cooling and minimum temperature, so you can do multiple-stage interactions where you trap atoms and then change the frequency to cool them further.

[Time Mechanics]

Interesting choice -- rather than thinking of ways to perhaps better help others understand your math statements and what they mean, you decide to start name-calling. Rather than attacking, why don't you take some time and try to explain it better -- using terms and symbols everyone else in mathematics and physics have already agreed upon. Or, if you insist on using new terms, defining them very clearly.

 

If you choose to attempt to publish your work, peer-review is a very significant part of the process. And, you're work will be criticized. If you can't take the heat from an Internet forum, you are not ready to try to publish.

 

The people who are peer reviewing are making statements like this.

 

None of these provide evidence that the speed of light and the quanta of energy alter under any conditions. Gravitational lensing does not involve alterations to the speed of light.

 

Although I'm aware peer review is an inevitable process. It's a process that shouldn't be as important as it is when Science is supposed to be blind to anything but facts. Don't get me wrong I'm sorry if I'm sounding offensive, but there is so little physics being discussed in a physics thread.

 

And almost solely because we have difference in philosophy where Science in your eyes must use established methods to describe something new when history and myself are of the opinion that new ideas require new methods. And you guys keeping telling me I'm not allowed to do that because that's what the majority accepted.

 

I have learned a great deal about how ideas are communicated in this thread. And I will re-write my paper with better communication in mind.

 

"Quantified length?" No, that's not why. You adjust the frequency to stay near resonance of the atom. If it's moving you have a doppler shift for which you must compensate as the atom slows down. There's also a trade-off between maximum cooling and minimum temperature, so you can do multiple-stage interactions where you trap atoms and then change the frequency to cool them further.

 

The magnetic trapping method was employed so they wouldn't have to shift frequencies as much such that as an electron fell a level the medium would move to another part of the magnetic field where the same electron would be ripped back up and continued to cool with the same frequencies. This avoided the phenomenon I was alluding to. //Neat fact, MRI machines artificially modify nuclear states in the same way.

 

If you didn't use magnetic trapping you would need to increase the frequency of the lasers(while also chirping) in order to follow them. In other words you would need more energy to move something the lower its state dropped. Same reason you need to modify quanta to make something go faster, you need to modify quanta to make something go slower. However, no one has that many lasers obviously. Or at least probably shouldn't.

 

E=hf shows the frequency and energy changing, but not planck's constant. This incorrectly defines a quanta and creates a constant because frequency(1/s) is only in 1 reference frame or energy tensor. Vacuum space. Planck's constant changes when the energy field changes. Whether you add mass or just straight up cool a substance, taking out energy(or adding) changes the distance between points such as quantum states. It changes the resonance frequency or period for a wave.

 

As for my use of Quantified Length, an electron at the at a p level or a d level have two different frequencies. Frequency=c/Wavelength. The wavelength of those electrons represents the quantified wavelength.

 

This is a perfect time to stop and re-write my paper. Because my example of laser cooling is a classic mistake I'm making. Under Time Mechanics(for what its worth) I united all forces under referenced time dilation. It's accepted that quanta modification occurs due to a massive energy field but length contraction does not occur in an electromagnetic energy field. But it ended up recognizing the act of an electron moving to and from a proton as electric field length contraction which is not accepted. So to use it as an example on my part is just silly.

 

My next paper will use only established equations and methods while the only new thing will be the equation which defines the constants in said equations.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[swansont]

The magnetic trapping method was employed so they wouldn't have to shift frequencies as much such that as an electron fell a level the medium would move to another part of the magnetic field where the same electron would be ripped back up and continued to cool with the same frequencies. This avoided the phenomenon I was alluding to. //Neat fact, MRI machines artificially modify nuclear states in the same way.

 

What alluded to was some density-dependent effect. Which animation were you referring to, anyway? The one on the linked page has nothing to do with magnetic fields, and the magnetic field demo has nothing to do with lasers.

 

If you didn't use magnetic trapping you would need to increase the frequency of the lasers(while also chirping) in order to follow them. In other words you would need more energy to move something the lower its state dropped. Same reason you need to modify quanta to make something go faster, you need to modify quanta to make something go slower. However, no one has that many lasers obviously. Or at least probably shouldn't.

 

Chirping is changing the laser frequency. And you would chirp toward the red as the atoms slow down; since they are moving toward the laser the resonance is shifted to the blue, and that decreases as they slow down.

[Time Mechanics]

What alluded to was some density-dependent effect. Which animation were you referring to, anyway? The one on the linked page has nothing to do with magnetic fields, and the magnetic field demo has nothing to do with lasers.

 

Chirping is changing the laser frequency. And you would chirp toward the red as the atoms slow down; since they are moving toward the laser the resonance is shifted to the blue, and that decreases as they slow down.

 

All I was trying to say was frequency changes with temperature. Like you said one laser goes toward blue and one goes toward red no matter what. It was a bad example because position isn't considered relativistic and I didn't think about that when I used it as an example.

 

However I need some help because I decided to re-write my paper. I approached it from a purely graphical perspective and instead of using my own operators I just wrote out statements from the graphs that I could use to cancel them out. And it worked like a charm. But I need an additional transformation function.

 

I need to know the function for determining tau for a massive system at a radius. Example of a problem:

 

There is an object of 1000000kg, find tau @ 10m, 100m, and 10000m from the center of mass. Whatever function is used to solve that is what I need.

[swansont]

All I was trying to say was frequency changes with temperature. Like you said one laser goes toward blue and one goes toward red no matter what. It was a bad example because position isn't considered relativistic and I didn't think about that when I used it as an example.

 

Still not making sense. When chirping you are compensating for doppler, not temperature; you can trap out of a vapor at a fixed frequency. The atoms you trap get cold without changing the frequency.

 

However I need some help because I decided to re-write my paper. I approached it from a purely graphical perspective and instead of using my own operators I just wrote out statements from the graphs that I could use to cancel them out. And it worked like a charm. But I need an additional transformation function.

 

I need to know the function for determining tau for a massive system at a radius. Example of a problem:

 

There is an object of 1000000kg, find tau @ 10m, 100m, and 10000m from the center of mass. Whatever function is used to solve that is what I need.

 

 

By tau do you mean the gravitational time dilation (the fractional frequency shift)?