Science > Physics > Independent/Dependent Phases 20: The Reasons For 1/2 As Phase Boundary
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2005 06:43:45 AM |
| Object: |
Independent/Dependent Phases 20: The Reasons For 1/2 As Phase Boundary |
From Osher Doctorow
Although there are many reasons for 1/2 as a phase boundary, the
simplest ones are:
A. All univariate probability distributions FX(x) of continuous random
variables X are themselves expressible as random variables FX(X) or
F(X) where F(X) is uniformly distributed on (0, 1), and 1/2 (the
uniform mean on (0, 1)) is the "natural" uniform division point of (0,
1) and [0, 1].
B. The Logistic Differential equation in proportion or probability form
dy/dt = ky(1 - y) where y is between 0 and 1, which aside from
exponential growth/decay is the most common form of the Riccati
Differential equation of expansion/contraction, has its right hand side
with a formal critical point with respect to change in y at y = 1/2.
For A above, see Introduction to Probability Theory by Paul G. Hoel,
Sidney C. Port, and Charles J. Stone (all of UCLA), Houghton Mifflin:
Boston 1971 page 131.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Independent/Dependent Phases 20: The Reasons For 1/2 As Phase Boundary |
14 Oct 2005 07:05:03 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Arguments against continuous random variables are rather implausible
from .01 second to a few hundred seconds after the Big Bang. See G.
Lambiase (U. di Salerno and INFN, Italy), "Lorentz invariance breakdown
and constraints from big-bang nucleosynthesis," astro-ph/0510386 v1 13
Oct 2005, as well as "Necessary an sufficient conditions for big bangs,
crunches, rips, sudden singularities, and extremality events," Celine
Cattoen and Matt Visser (both of Victoria U. of Wellington, New
Zealand), gr-qc/0508045 v2 30 Aug 2005, and "Big bang nucleosynthsis,"
Edward L. Wright (UCLA), 2002-2004 (last modified 12 Sep 2004),
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html, and Gary Felder's "Beyond
the big bang," 2002,
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/inflation.html.
The paper of Cattoen and Visser especially appears to indicate that
even outside a Big Bang scenario there are considerable similarities to
the Big Bang "necessary and sufficient conditions".
For arguments about whether the Universe is nondeterministic or
deterministic, see my various previous postings here and on
sci.stat.math and geometry.research for example. Although even Max
Jammer (1974) thought that the Statistical School had won over the
Probabilistic or Stochastic School in quantum mechanics, not only is
this argument logically defective (mathematical statistics uses
probability as its main tool) but the Stochastic School is currently at
least as productive in research as the so-called Statistical School.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Independent/Dependent Phases 20: The Reasons For 1/2 As Phase Boundary |
14 Oct 2005 04:23:15 PM |
|
|
Sorry Kook, but as a physicist I have absolutely no idea about what you
are posting or what you are trying to say.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Independent/Dependent Phases 20: The Reasons For 1/2 As Phase Boundary |
14 Oct 2005 05:15:39 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Harry C. hhc typed:
Sorry Kook, but as a physicist I have absolutely no idea about what you
are posting or what you are trying to say
This response of Harry C. is interesting because while disguising his
identity (who's he going to get in trouble with - an Academy
Bureaucracy that loves criticizing Nonmainstream ideas, or a Corporate
or Government Bureaucracy that hires most Mainstreamers from Academic
Bureaucracies?), he identifies himself as a physicist for the presumed
purpose of establishing his "credentials" to issue his subsequent
words. He begins by "Sorry Kook" which suggests that
sci.physics.research extremists who held a summer holiday have finally
returned to mislabel people who don't follow bureaucratic lines. He's
obviously not addressing me, or he wouldn't type "Sorry Kook." So he's
grandstanding for the sci.physics "uncommitted," having concluded
presumably that no rational argument would work. This is how State
College faculty typically work - grandstanding, propaganda against the
out-group, labelling people as "child-haters" who refuse to raise their
overinflated salaries and perks, imitating the mainstream and
conformists, focused on publish-or-perish as a way of raising their
tenured status and thereby power and greed, and defending "academic
freedom" as a way of non-accountability to anybody but themselves.
This is also (mainstream State College academia) where the crank and
crackpot lists originate rather than simply signing their names to
clear disagreement on specific points.
Speaking of crackpot and crank lists, if Einstein had simply written
that in his opinion there was no scientific merit in somebody's claim
and specified why, most people would have believed him without
requiring a "crackpot" or "crank" list. But these State College
imitators don't have a Creative bone in their body, so the only way
they can criticize is to impugn the person without specifics.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Independent/Dependent Phases 20: The Reasons For 1/2 As Phase Boundary |
14 Oct 2005 05:23:27 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Actually, I should add "Community College" to "State College" in my
reply to hhc, and of course high school teachers too. And there are a
few exceptions, but you wouldn't know that if I were to label them all
"Kooks".
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
