Science > Physics > MOND, Negative & "Generalized Probabilities" Via PI
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2006 01:59:46 PM |
| Object: |
MOND, Negative & "Generalized Probabilities" Via PI |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
MOND, Negative & "Generalized Probabilities" Via PI
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2006
MOND is Modified Newtonian Dynamics of Moti Milgrom (1983 Institute for
Advanced Study, Princeton, and Weizmann Institute Israel), which
readers can look up under various keywords on the internet. It
basically says, especially in the Zhao-Famaey version which is being
presented this April at Edinburgh Scotland's Royal Observatory (it
modifies Jacob Bekenstein's more advanced version of Milgrom where
Bekenstein is at Racah Institute of Physics Hebrew U. Jerusalem) that
gravitation is boosted in the outer reaches of galaxies.
MOND has been both heavily attacked and heavily defended, and if you
look at sci.physics.research (which I sometimes look at, but usually
only after looking at everything else first so to speak) you will find
the usual heavily opinionated arguments usually based on the claim that
GR has been "superlative" so that other theories are interlopers.
However, there are one or two better postings to sci.physics.research
on MOND, especially one by Oz <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> Wed. 27 Jul
2005 09:09:11.
One basis for the attack on MOND is somewhat understandable, namely
that it is largely empirical or phenomenological-based although it has
had some surprisingly accurate predictions (sounds like Einstein's
perihelion of Mercury?). However, MOND belong to a larger class of
models including those of Probable Influence/Causation (PI) which code
infinite (or finite) boundary forces (pulling or pushing) as 1, so in
my own opinion MOND doesn't require any further theory since higher
gravitation near the boundary is similar to higher (pushing) force from
infinity or from the boundary! Of course, MOND's own technical
assumptions and equations have to be examined, and if they turn out to
be wrong then it doesn't invalidate PI.
Boundaries are also very important in QCD, in the MIT Bag Model and the
Chiral Bag Model. Although Richard Feynman was one of the earliest to
use negative probabilities (I have a copy of one of his early papers
which I'll have to locate), PI can be generalized arguably to account
for galaxies regarded as Bags that can be "tunnelled through" under
certain conditions.
The trick seems to be to replace 1 in 1 + y - x of PI by successively
2, 3, 4, ..., or even by i, j, k, etc. from quaternion or octonion
theory.
Let's define:
1) (x-->y)_1 = 1 + y - x for 0 < = y < = x < = 1
2) (x-->y)_2 = 2 + y - x for 0 < = y < = x < = 1
to get a flavor of what happens. Does (x-->y)_1 ever equal (x-->y)_2?
Surprisingly, yes, except not for the same x and y. That is to say,
in (2) we should use the symbols:
3) (u-->v)_2 = 2 + v - u for 0 < = v < = u < = 1
When x = y in (1), then (x-->y)_1 = 1. But when u = 1 and v = 0 in
(3), then (u-->v)_2 = 1. So the two quantities (x-->y)_1 and (u-->v)_2
intersect when both are equal to 1, which is "infinity" coded. In
addition, for the "lower orbit" or "lower concentric region" so to
speak, involving x and y, if x and y are on the diagonal x = y and if
the "higher orbit" involving u and v has u = 1 ("infinity coded as 1")
and v = 0, then the intersection occurs. So they "intersect at
infinity" (in fact, x = y works also for x = 1 = y, but it works
elsewhere too) although for one of the regions there is also a diagonal
contribution to the intersection.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND, Negative & "Generalized Probabilities" Via PI |
01 Apr 2006 02:15:29 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
What good does it do to have:
1) (x-->y)_1 = 1 + y - x, 0 < = y < = x < = 1
2) (u-->v)_2 = 2 + v - u, 0 < = v < = u < = 1
Well, before anything else, the first equation defines a probability
(x-->y)_1, but the second doesn't define a probability because
(u-->v)_2 is between 1 and 2. Probabilities have to be between 0 and
1. However, the second equation can define a "generalized
probability". From the previous posting, they can model two regions
of the Universe which only intersect at infinity, although in one of
the regions the intersection can include not only infinity but a
straight line or a plane!
This suggests that one region's "infinity" may not be the same as
another region's "infinity", which is precisely what is required to
have the QCD Bag Models and the Galaxy modelled as a Bag and our whole
"physical Universe" modelled as an "infinite Bag" under the same roof
so to speak, with QCD and Gravitation included.
If we try this with 1 + y - x replaced by i + y - x or with i + v - u
by analogy with the above, then these do intersect when y = x and u = i
and v = 1. Since y = x includes y = 1 = x, they also "intersect at
infinity" although u = i may arguably represent either another type of
infinity or another analog of "zero". But they also intersect for i +
y - x on the line or plane y = x!
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND, Negative & "Generalized Probabilities" Via PI |
01 Apr 2006 11:14:50 PM |
|
|
My favority story is:
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF OSHER, CHARLATANOW
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: MOND, Negative & "Generalized Probabilities" Via PI |
02 Apr 2006 03:26:09 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
donstockba typed:
My favority story is:
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF OSHER, CHARLATANOW
Wow, you're replacing my name Doctorow by Charlatanow? What happened
to your innocuous (though unrelated!) comments of previous months?
Come to think of it, you had a long period of innocuous comments
followed by an occasional angry outburst followed by a long silence. I
had interpreted that as marijuana (it's still a possibility). Your
present weird comment comes one day after I endorsed Governor
Schwartzenegger in replying to Pentcho Valev, since Schwartenegger is a
Nonconformist who bucks the Educational Mafia and its news media and
service union admirers. But do keep on making weird comments, so that
I can trace you back to where you really come from. Right now it's
50-50 between marijuana and the Educational Mafia, though I don't
entirely rule out the Scottish Presbyterian Mafia.
Osher
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
