A postulate and three laws.

[studiot]

Why do you choose not to use the conventional definitions?

That makes discussion really difficult and excessively protracted.

 

Because I'm not a conventional person. I read whatever I can find on the subject, then I start reasoning about it myself,

I look at things in original ways, I re-arrange things until I see that they are related to other things, so concepts get

merged with other concepts we already know about.

 

That is perfectly fine and acceptable.

 

However, whilst introducing your own notation and definitions is also fine if it leads to new insights, it is highly counterproductive to misuse existing as you are doing.

 

You have misquoted several well established definitions so far, to the confusion of others.

 

In particular concerning number systems and their applications:

 

I am aware of how to derive more complicated number systems from simpler ones thank you.

 

Then why did you say that all mathematical operations could NOT be defined over the natural numbers?

 

I not only observed that there are mathematical operations that are independent of any number or number system I also provided several examples - although one counterexample would have been enough for disproof.

 

I am perfectly willing to go through the conventional definitions with you. I would then be more than happy if you can then extend them to something useful as everyone would gain.

Edited August 5, 2012 by studiot

[Ronald Hyde]

No. It is NOT clear. I don't know if you intend this statement to sound incredibly haughty and arrogant, but that is how it comes across.

Not really arrogant, but very self confident, I know what I have and will explain it all in time. Just hold onto you hat and be calm.

 

<3> says that everything that happens in Nature can be expressed as a function of time.

If F is a function that describes something in Nature, it is always F(t). If

F = F(t,x,y, z) then ultimately x = x(t), y = y(t) and z = z(t), so that anything that

happens in the World is strictly always a function of time.

 

 

Please show us why 10^-25 is "the minimum amount of time that it takes an interaction to happen".

Your original post does not address this at all. You keep using phrases like "We have to go with what Nature tells us", so why don't you actually cite evidence for this number?

 

Expressed in that unit the age of the Universe is about 10^41, slightly more. Take the logarithm of that to the base 2.

Does that number look familiar? That's one reason.

 

I am perfectly willing to go through the conventional definitions with you. I would then be more than happy if you can then extend them to something useful as everyone would gain.

 

I'm very interested in this, I haven't used that many definitions, so it should be pretty easy to do, and maybe point me to a web resource where I could find out more.

 

I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.

[Bignose]

Expressed in that unit the age of the Universe is about 10^41, slightly more. Take the logarithm of that to the base 2.

Does that number look familiar? That's one reason.

log2(10^41) = 136.199 No, that number isn't all that 'familiar'.

 

Two comments. First, why don't you quit acting coy and just explain something all the way out. Your reply really doesn't answer my question at all. Assume I know nothing and start from scratch. With citations. And in detail describe why 10^-25 and apparently 10^41 are both such sacrosanct numbers.

 

I am sure that you think this coyness is dramatic and full of showmanship. But, if you want people to look over and evaluate your work, this piecemeal posting is rather annoying. Again, may i suggest you explain something all the way out.

 

Secondly, how are you so sure that the age of the universe is 10^41 in your arbitrary units? Estimates of the age of the universe have changed quite a lot, even recently. Our current best estimate is 13-15 billion years. But, it wasn't that long ago our best estimate was around 10 billion. And I suspect that as we probe ever deeper that that estimate will change again.

 

<3> says that everything that happens in Nature can be expressed as a function of time.

If F is a function that describes something in Nature, it is always F(t). If

F = F(t,x,y, z) then ultimately x = x(t), y = y(t) and z = z(t), so that anything that

happens in the World is strictly always a function of time.

 

There is an awful lot of what we call 'state functions' that have worked incredibly admirably in a lot of fields, but in particular thermodynamics. A state function, such as the internal energy or enthalpy or entropy of a fluid is known to be a function only of the current properties of the state, such as temperature, pressure, or volume. These explicitly have no time dependence in them at all, because what it only important is the state of the system, NOT how it got there (which is also sometimes known as a path function). How do you remedy this?

[Ronald Hyde]

log2(10^41) = 136.199 No, that number isn't all that 'familiar'.

 

Two comments. First, why don't you quit acting coy and just explain something all the way out. Your reply really doesn't answer my question at all. Assume I know nothing and start from scratch. With citations. And in detail describe why 10^-25 and apparently 10^41 are both such sacrosanct numbers.

 

I've only got this one post up about this, more or less to test out peoples views on it, and you're all acting like it's the crisis of the Century.

Honestly, I am writing stuff down, but it involves a lot of notation, and simple as the three laws are, they involve a lot of possibilities,

and things get complicated very fast. I have, right now, three ways of starting out, one is just to derive everything from Boolean logic & math,

another is to use Heavisides Unit Step Function and treat the Universe as an initial value problem ( that's how I found it ), and another is to

start with representations of the Lorentz group, and I've started on all three, by gosh.

There is an awful lot of what we call 'state functions' that have worked incredibly admirably in a lot of fields, but in particular thermodynamics. A state function, such as the internal energy or enthalpy or entropy of a fluid is known to be a function only of the current properties of the state, such as temperature, pressure, or volume. These explicitly have no time dependence in them at all, because what it only important is the state of the system, NOT how it got there (which is also sometimes known as a path function). How do you remedy this?

 

These state functions have no time dependence because they are averaged over statistical representations, and I'm well aware of their existence,

and they don't in any way negate <2> or any of the other laws. And they and all the other statistical representations of Nature will continue to be

needed in the future, for practical calculation reasons, if no other.

 

So please, just be a little patient here, I probably won't be able to post any results here because of the notation limitations, so I'm making a web site,

yeah, I can do that too, as fast as I can.

[Bignose]

don't really know what you mean by 'notation limitations'. If you mean posting math symbols that look like math, use this forum's LaTeX capabilities: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

 

Also, I am not 'acting like it is the crisis of the Century' -- I am asking questions and providing feedback. This is the scientific process. You present your idea, and then others look it over and critique it. If you can't handle being asked some questions in an informal Internet forum, you certainly aren't ready to try to publish in a journal or present at a conference.

 

Also in the scientific process, we cite things so that the reviewers can look at the cited sources, and read them for ourselves.

 

So, you make the claim that the basic unit of time is 10^-25 seconds, making claims about how that is the shortest duration of an interactions. Some of us disagree, and want to know how you drew that conclusion. Is this really too much to ask? Again, people critique others' ideas. At this moment, I disagree with that assertion. But, if you provide evidence for it, I can be swayed. I am certainly not just going to take your word for it, any more than you'd take my word that I have a pet unicorn I keep in my garage. You'd demand evidence of that, rightly so, as I am asking for evidence of your claims.

 

It really isn't personal; it's just reviewing others' work based on the principles of modern science.

[Ronald Hyde]

don't really know what you mean by 'notation limitations'. If you mean posting math symbols that look like math, use this forum's LaTeX capabilities: http://www.sciencefo...latex-tutorial/

Also, I am not 'acting like it is the crisis of the Century' -- I am asking questions and providing feedback. This is the scientific process. You present your idea, and then others look it over and critique it. If you can't handle being asked some questions in an informal Internet forum, you certainly aren't ready to try to publish in a journal or present at a conference.

Also in the scientific process, we cite things so that the reviewers can look at the cited sources, and read them for ourselves.

It really isn't personal; it's just reviewing others' work based on the principles of modern science.

 

Thank you for the LaTex link, I was wondering how you did that.

 

I don't mind the feedback, that's what I posted for, but I'm not in a position to answer every question you might ask right here and right now,

yet I do know how to connect a lot of dots, too many to handle all at once and the same time. The connection between Boolean logic and

the Beta function used in four particle scattering, which is a perfect fit, for example. As for citations, should I cite Wigner for his

'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences', which encouraged me to believe that my notion that all physics

was really math with certain rules, or maybe Feynmans statements along similar lines? I certainly should, along with George Booles' 'The Laws

of Thought', for this is really where I get ideas and important feedback, for you see I've had this notion that the world was essentially a

mathematical construct since I was a teenager. I'm not a great reader of the literature, in fact I consider it mostly a great waste of time, between

the pressure of publish-or-perish and a largely failed system of peer revue, it abounds with unimportant papers, with no attempt to find first

principals, which is what I seek and have found.

[Bignose]

Look,

 

It's okay to say "I don't know" to questions being asked. But again, the coyness & showmanship I was reading into the replies was becoming irritating. Probably just as irritating as my apparent crises of the century. Lesson learned for both of us, tone is very difficult to convey in this medium.

 

Now, that said, you really made it seem like 10^-25 seconds had a substantive reason why you chose it. Again, phrases like "minimum amount of time that it takes an interaction to happen" sure seem like they should be backed up by evidence. And you never explained why the calculation of base 2 log of 10^41 is important.

 

These are statements you made, and I want to know what led you to think they were right. There must have been something you read or derived or thought of or considered to find those numbers.

 

Again, "I don't know" is a fine answer, or "I need time" is a fine answer. But, as a courtesy, you should tell us when you expect to be able to post an answer. I have several questions I asked above that I would like to know answers to, so please post when you think you'll be able to get to them.

[Ronald Hyde]

Look,

 

It's okay to say "I don't know" to questions being asked. But again, the coyness & showmanship I was reading into the replies was becoming irritating. Probably just as irritating as my apparent crises of the century. Lesson learned for both of us, tone is very difficult to convey in this medium.

 

Now, that said, you really made it seem like 10^-25 seconds had a substantive reason why you chose it. Again, phrases like "minimum amount of time that it takes an interaction to happen" sure seem like they should be backed up by evidence. And you never explained why the calculation of base 2 log of 10^41 is important.

 

These are statements you made, and I want to know what led you to think they were right. There must have been something you read or derived or thought of or considered to find those numbers.

 

Again, "I don't know" is a fine answer, or "I need time" is a fine answer. But, as a courtesy, you should tell us when you expect to be able to post an answer. I have several questions I asked above that I would like to know answers to, so please post when you think you'll be able to get to them.

 

I really can't give you any exact answer on the time, I've only had the three laws for a couple of months, and only in the last couple of weeks found

a 'hook', three actually, into formulating the math. Maybe two weeks, maybe two months. The fact that everything has to be an explicit function of the

time means it has to be built from the ground up, you can't just start anywhere you want to, you can only do it one way and you only get one result,

no matter how you start.

 

BTW, one of my goals is to run it as a computer simulation, I will probably need some help on this, even if I wrote it, my little machine here would

not get very far in time, so a bigger machine would be in order. Any simulation run on any machine should give exactly the same result, up to the time.

you might appreciate the philosophical implications of that.

 

So let's hold off on this thread for a while, it's reached the end of any useful result it will have for now.

[juanrga]

Planck time is something someone pulled out of a hat. I have reasons beyond any stated that support the value I gave

as the 'natural unit of time', but I will make it all clear in time. You shouldn't believe everything you read in a textbook.

Some of it may be just plain wrong. Like it was before Planck discovered the Quantum.

 

In the meantime keep reading my original post until you understand every word of it. I think I made it quite clear how

everything that happens is function of time alone, and that time us just a number, and you will see that it all leads

to a logically consistent description of the World we live in.

 

Dimensional analysis is not a "hat", it is part of standard physicists' toolkit (check the link given to you before for basic stuff about dimensions and units). Moroever, Planck units arise naturally in quantum gravity models.

 

Who said you that everything in textbooks is right? Do you know that further editions contain corrections to mistakes in previous editions?

 

I think that I already said to you that your original post is wrong, but I can say you again.

 

P.S.: I notice that you did not answer my question in #22.

Edited August 6, 2012 by juanrga

[Ronald Hyde]

Dimensional analysis is not a "hat", it is part of standard physicists' toolkit (check the link given to you before for basic stuff about dimensions and units). Moroever, Planck units arise naturally in quantum gravity models.

 

Who said you that everything in textbooks is right? Do you know that further editions contain corrections to mistakes in previous editions?

 

I think that I already said to you that your original post is wrong, but I can say you again.

 

P.S.: I notice that you did not answer my question in #22.

I know about Dimensional analysis too. I also know that it's easy to make up quantities that have no physical significance. I think Planck time is one of those.

 

As for the unit of time, for now that is my very best guess, subject to revision. But there has to be one for a logically consistent Nature.

 

You're the one who keeps citing textbooks, not me.

 

You didn't ask any questions in #22, you made two statements.

 

You keep saying my original post is wrong, but you offer no line of reasoning or any facts at all in support, so it's just an empty assertion.

[juanrga]

I know about Dimensional analysis too. I also know that it's easy to make up quantities that have no physical significance. I think Planck time is one of those.

 

Planck time has a precise physical meaning.

 

As for the unit of time, for now that is my very best guess, subject to revision.

 

There exists a unit of time in the SI. It is named "second" and denoted by s.

 

You're the one who keeps citing textbooks, not me.

 

Although you evade my question I will ask it again: "Who said you that everything in textbooks is right?"

 

You didn't ask any questions in #22, you made two statements.

 

Take a look to #22. Where you see a "?" it denotes a question. You know why this same question in #22 has been posteriorly asked to you by another poster but you insist on avoiding it.

 

You keep saying my original post is wrong, but you offer no line of reasoning or any facts at all in support, so it's just an empty assertion.

 

In my first reply I offered you reasoning on why your <2> is wrong and give you a link with some basic material that you would revise before posting further nonsense. The rest of your 'laws' are also wrong as stated before. Any student of QM knows one typical QM example of why <3> is wrong, but a discussion of this example would imply that you know basic QM and can follow the discussion, and you already showed us that you lack understanding even of most elementary aspects of science such as dimensional analysis, units...

Edited August 6, 2012 by juanrga

[Ronald Hyde]

In my first reply I offered you reasoning on why your <2> is wrong and give you a link with some basic material you would revise before posting further nonsense. The rest of your 'laws' are also wrong. Any student of QM knows a typical QM example of why <3> is wrong, but a discussion of this example would imply that you know basic QM and you already showed us that you lack understanding even of most elementary aspects of science such as dimensional analysis, units...

 

The 'reasoning' you gave is spurious, since 10^25 = the number of unit times per second, and in that form is a dimensional expression. And all your other reasons are spurious too.

 

I gave a very good example of the meaning of <3>, which anyone can understand.

[juanrga]

The 'reasoning' you gave is spurious, since 10^25 = the number of unit times per second, and in that form is a dimensional expression. And all your other reasons are spurious too.

 

You would read your own 'law' "<2> Time is just a number, an integer" and the response to that.

 

I also notice that by nth time you avoid to answer the question about 10²⁵.

 

I gave a very good example of the meaning of <3>, which anyone can understand.

 

Effectively, anyone can understand that your <3> is incorrect.

[studiot]

I am not arguing the validity of your 3 'laws' you seem to have enough discussion with others over that.

 

What I am discussing is twofold.

 

Firstly the idea that any 3 or 5 or whatever number of laws will be complete a set.

 

Secondly your statement that all mathematical processes can be reduced to the integers. This is all I am going to address in this post.

 

I know the famous statement "God created the integers and all else is the work of Man" and the idea that all we really have are the counting by adding one at a time are very persuasive but there are other processes in mathematics.

 

Here is an expansion of the example already given.

 

Say I have a bag of coloured balls with names painted on them.

 

emily red

fred red

bob green

william blue

susan yellow

peter green

mary red

 

and so on

 

In mathematical terms the above list is technically a relation and moreover a particular type of relation called a function.

 

It can be used to demonstrate the reflexive, transitive and symmetric properties of relations and functions.

 

If we want a red ball we can choose emily or fred or mary.

 

We can say for this purpose emily = fred and fred = mary therfore emily = mary thus demonstrating the transitive property of redness

 

We demonstrate the symmetric property by noting that if emily = mary then mary = emily

 

and so on.

 

Not a number anywhere and note for instance that, unlike numbers, it does not matter whether mary comes at the top or bottom of the list ie order is unimportant.

 

In case you feel that this is not mathematics try looking at the maths of fundamental particles (juanrga please don't get to clever here)

[Ronald Hyde]

I am not arguing the validity of your 3 'laws' you seem to have enough discussion with others over that.

 

I'm going to disregard for now your question about the reflexive property etc., because I'll show you something

that I've already written that may explain better what is meant. As for the three laws, they are laws that govern

the construction of mathematical representations of Nature, and you can construct an infinite number of

representations, in infinite time, and they will apply to Nature if you follow the three rules. If you just follow <1>

then you are doing pure math and not Physics, but everything you do will be valid in a math context.

 

 

Computers and Nature (incomplete)

You might think that computers and Nature have nothing in common. A computer is this metal box made in a huge factory, with not so much as a piece of wood in it. And Nature is, well, all natural! But they have very much in common. Both are mathematical-logical constructs, both have 'clocks' which govern their operation, and surprisingly, both use binary arithmetic. There are important differences however. The computer is single threaded or can only run a limited number of threads or processes, and it has very limited speed, memory and precision compared to Nature, which can run as many threads as are required. Still, within its limitations, the computer is the ideal tool to simulate Nature, and can, within its limits, mimic Nature exactly.

 

Other computer generated models of Nature have, in my expression, 'too many knobs and not enough lights', that is too many free parameters in and not enough data out. The model we will build has only one knob, it sets the time in natural units when we want to stop running the code. And because the amount of data produced increases with the time, as the Universe gets larger and older, there is no limit to the amount of data.

 

Imagine that you're sitting on a rock in a park, with people around you, and everyone is watching a distant thunderstorm, with lightning flashing, rain pouring down and thunder rolling. Everyone hopes the storm passes them by. After a while the storm stops and a beautiful rainbow appears. You marvel at Nature and her ability to put on such a wonderful show. But Nature sees none of this, Nature only sees numbers and the relations among numbers.

 

You go down the hill to leave the park and on your way you come across a young man in a clearing, he's painting a picture of a bird on his canvas. After a while he steps back and something amazing happens. The bird flaps its wings and flies away. The artist has painted the picture until it becomes the thing being depicted.

 

When you reach the park entrance you see a group of people standing around chatting. You want to ask them all a question which has intrigued you for a long time. You go up and ask them 'What exactly is Time?'. Five of them give ten different answers, two of them give none. None of the answers seem very meaningful. Then as you start to walk away a little old lady in a grey-green sweater walks up to you and says, 'Mister, those people all have it wrong. Time is what changes things.'. That's about as succinct and precise a definition of Time as you will ever receive.

 

You arrive home and turn on your computer. It boots up and you log in to your desktop. Your nice desktop picture appears and all the icons that let you access applications show up. You click on the one for your email. Your friend Gladys has sent an email with a photo of the thunderstorm and the rainbow. You read her message. You marvel at the computers ability to make such beautiful pictures and send you words and sounds. But the computer sees none of that. The computer only sees numbers. Numbers that supply it with information to process, and numbers that tell it how to process that information.

 

The analogy goes much deeper. The rock you sat on was an object, it can be manipulated and changed. The computer uses Object Oriented programming languages. Object is meant in the same sense. You are a process which runs within the much larger process called Nature, your brain is a process that runs inside your body, and your mind is a process that runs inside your brain. In the computer a running program in referred to as a process, and it runs inside other processes, and other processes may run inside it.

 

 

 

 

PS: Read Eugene Wigners: My link

 

 

 

 

[studiot]

I'm going to disregard for now your question about the reflexive property etc

 

Well since I was the only one to take you even half seriously and offer constructive discussion that is a strange reply.

 

More especially since it is a direct violation of the rules of this forum;

 

You are wasting your time and more especially my time.

 

go well.

Edited August 7, 2012 by studiot

[Ronald Hyde]

Well since I was the only one to take you even half seriously and offer constructive discussion that is a strange reply.

 

More especially since it is a direct violation of the rules of this forum;

 

You are wasting your time and more especially my time.

 

go well.

 

What really puzzles me is why someone would get upset that I wanted to describe something in a way

that was different than they asked for. There might have been a reason for that, like the fact that this

model of the World is all about numbers, and the possible relations among numbers, and the building

of mathematical representations of what happens in Nature, and that is the context in which it is all

to be understood in, and not bob, jane, ted or alice.

 

And this post has had nearly 600 reads, so it may well be that others have taken some of the ideas and

run with them. Many people have stated the postulate and <1> in some way or another, others, including

Werner Heisenberg, have floated <2>, my only real addition is <3>, which is crucial as it removes the

random element and makes the world a completely logical structure.