| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
02 Jan 2005 11:31:29 PM |
| Object: |
Different application of mathematical models |
Hello,
Physical theories are expressed as mathematical models.
Since Newton's time the mathematics has advanced, but the general idea
has remained the same:
You have an equation with variables; you can make measurements of
nature and plug those measurements into the equation; you can solve the
equations for the variables you do not know; and the solution should
tell what your next measurement will be.
In other words, the input and the output of these mathematical models
correlate to what is observed in nature.
That's very basic, right?
It might be so basic, that no one has really questioned that approach.
There are alternatives, consider this one:
We have a mathematical model where the inputs are not observed in
nature, only the output.
That means the data being operated on are not values observed in
nature, and thus do not need to adhere to the laws of nature. In other
words, we could build a model that has precisely determined absolute
values as the input, and we would not be violating the principles of
uncertainty or relativity because these values are not observed.
As long as the output of the program is indeterminate and relative, we
still have a valid model to investigate.
This can be accomplished very easily: instead of including an observer
axiomatically, include the observer explicitly.
In other words, don't model what is observed, model the act of
observation.
This is a very simple idea, and it seems to be a logical evolution of
relativity and quantum mechanics, yet it has never been done.
I have done a little work on this idea.
I don't have a theory. I don't have a complete model.
I just have some ideas and prototypes for a different approach to
physics.
You can learn about them here:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
If you've viewed my web page before, make sure to refresh your browser
to see the latest and greatest.
All I'm looking for are constructive comments.
Are the ideas expressed well?
Does it make sense?
Are there parts that sound like gibberish?
Did I spell anything wrong?
Thanks.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Different application of mathematical models |
03 Jan 2005 10:12:05 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hello,
Physical theories are expressed as mathematical models.
Since Newton's time the mathematics has advanced, but the general idea
has remained the same:
You have an equation with variables; you can make measurements of
nature and plug those measurements into the equation; you can solve the
equations for the variables you do not know; and the solution should
tell what your next measurement will be.
Hey stooopid, cite one experiment that Einstein performed in
formulating either Special or General Relativity. You don't even know
how to blow it out your *****.
In other words, the input and the output of these mathematical models
correlate to what is observed in nature.
No, stooopid. What is the "input to Maxwell's equations? To Ampere's
Law? They stand by themselves. Were you to attempt applying any of
them you would scrww up. Their valdity would remain empirically
sound.
That's very basic, right?
No, stooopid.
It might be so basic, that no one has really questioned that approach.
Having erected a straw man, the idiot proceeds to to ignite it.
There are alternatives, consider this one:
We have a mathematical model where the inputs are not observed in
nature, only the output.
[snip crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bourbaki" |
|
| Title: Re: Different application of mathematical models |
03 Jan 2005 10:35:56 AM |
|
|
Hidden variable theory:
Since the 1960s it has been shown than if one assumes a universal
Brownian motion, one may derive non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
The uncertainty principle still applies as the detector itself suffers
Brownian motion. More recent work has derived relativistic quantum
mechanics from the assumption of a universal Brownian motion. All of
these theories rely on hidden variables--the stochastic underlying
Brownian motion. Bell, with his inequalities killed hidden variables
in laboratory experiments. BUT, recent work has shown that Bell's
inequalities are based on terribly unjustifiable assumptions. Hidden
variables are thus back in the game, especially when some research
results show that we may never be able to distinguish in the lab the
difference between a classical, hidden variables theory of quantum
mechanics as an emergent theory and traditional quantum mechanics with
its spooky action-at-a-distance.
Cheers
Alex Alaniz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Different application of mathematical models |
03 Jan 2005 10:25:03 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Hello,
Physical theories are expressed as mathematical models.
Since Newton's time the mathematics has advanced, but the general
idea
has remained the same:
You have an equation with variables; you can make measurements of
nature and plug those measurements into the equation; you can solve
the
equations for the variables you do not know; and the solution
should
tell what your next measurement will be.
....
In other words, the input and the output of these mathematical
models
correlate to what is observed in nature.
No, stooopid. What is the "input to Maxwell's equations?
Maxwell's equations have four variables.
By "input" I meant what is plugged into the equations. (Note that I
described the application of mathematical models so that any concepts
we were dealing with were stated explictly rather than assumed.)
Calling me stupid and then denying the existence of variables of
Maxwell's equations is one of the strangest things I've seen in this
newsgroup. Considering all the goofballs here, that's quite an
accomplishment.
Might I suggest that you learn something about the idea that you are
attacking:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
and *then* formulate a reasonable and less emotional response?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Different application of mathematical models |
05 Jan 2005 04:24:08 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hello,
Physical theories are expressed as mathematical models.
A "physical theory" is an arbitrary pseudo-axiomatic extension of an
axiomatic system (what C++ is to programming, physics is to
mathematics). A good one is intrinsically true. A better one suffers no
empirical falsification. Much like C++, modern physics suffers
contradictions and paradoxes often resulting in new inferenced
pseudo-axioms (e.g. dark matter, parallel universes).
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/missmass.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Unlike mathematics, modern physics is a posteriori knowledge and can
only be falsified, not proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_knowledge
Since Newton's time the mathematics has advanced, but the general
idea
has remained the same:
You have an equation with variables; you can make measurements of
nature and plug those measurements into the equation; you can solve
the
equations for the variables you do not know; and the solution should
tell what your next measurement will be.
In other words, the input and the output of these mathematical models
correlate to what is observed in nature.
That's very basic, right?
It might be so basic, that no one has really questioned that
approach.
There are alternatives, consider this one:
We have a mathematical model where the inputs are not observed in
nature, only the output.
That means the data being operated on are not values observed in
nature, and thus do not need to adhere to the laws of nature. In
other
words, we could build a model that has precisely determined absolute
values as the input, and we would not be violating the principles of
uncertainty or relativity because these values are not observed.
As long as the output of the program is indeterminate and relative,
we
still have a valid model to investigate.
This can be accomplished very easily: instead of including an
observer
axiomatically, include the observer explicitly.
In other words, don't model what is observed, model the act of
observation.
This is a very simple idea, and it seems to be a logical evolution of
relativity and quantum mechanics, yet it has never been done.
I have done a little work on this idea.
I don't have a theory. I don't have a complete model.
I just have some ideas and prototypes for a different approach to
physics.
You can learn about them here:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
If you've viewed my web page before, make sure to refresh your
browser
to see the latest and greatest.
All I'm looking for are constructive comments.
Are the ideas expressed well?
Does it make sense?
Are there parts that sound like gibberish?
Did I spell anything wrong?
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Different application of mathematical models |
03 Jan 2005 04:29:39 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
We have a mathematical model where the inputs are not observed in
nature, only the output.
Like what in nature? Please cite some examples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Different application of mathematical models |
16 Jan 2005 10:13:09 PM |
|
|
Morituri-|-Max wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
We have a mathematical model where the inputs are not observed in
nature, only the output.
Like what in nature? Please cite some examples.
I don't understand your question.
Basically my point with that message was that our application of
mathematical models in physics has not changed despite major shifts in
physics concepts in the last century.
This explains the idea so much better than I would be able to here:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
