| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2005 01:14:11 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005.
On sci.stat.math today and yesterday, I have introduced some of the
probabilistic mathematics of quantum lattice-logic atoms of
expanding/contracting type using temporal and modals logics as
well. Since many readers will not be familiar with these in an
easily usable form, I'll just point out some of the implications
or indications for theoretical physics. I'll mention that general-
ized Lie brackets and the Jacobson Radical circle composition
product or circle product are key to this combined with probability
which makes the whole thing very fundamental not only to quantum
theory (which quantizes by replacing Poisson brackets by Lie
brackets) but to very deep theoretical and applied algebra.
It's almost an axiom of theoretical physics that quantum and
macroscopic scenarios are "divorced", although quantum theorists
get some satisfaction out of speculating in various ways how
macroscopic scenarios are merely reflections or limiting cases
of the "really fundamental" quantum scenario.
That is an interpretation based on rather little understanding of
quantum logic, probability-statistics, and philosophy of science.
The best way to express one's lack of understanding would be to
qualify things by "I/we think or guess so," but that might be too
much to ask of physicists (well, I'll ask it anyway!).
The postings to sci.stat.math, and similar results that I've
obtained elsewhere, indicate that at very fundamental generalized
Lie bracket, Jacobson Radical, and probability levels, the
quantum and macroscopic worlds do not differ anywhere nearly as
much as most theoretical physics believe. I defined a half-Lie-
bracket (generalized) x # y and proved that when it equals the
circle composition product x o y = x + y - xy, an ellipse is
produced, the basis (plus precession) of planetary orbits
macroscopically. In fact, I developed several other parts of an
interesting geometry involving these and other operations. Yes,
I wrote "geometry", not "discrete Planck level disconnected
space, time, etc." which loop quantum gravity pushes and some
sympathizers in superstring and QFT physics (not necessarily the
majority) are dazzled by.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
15 Feb 2005 09:47:37 AM |
|
|
OsherD wrote:
[snip]
In fact, I developed several other parts of an
interesting geometry involving these and other operations. Yes,
I wrote "geometry", not "discrete Planck level disconnected
space, time, etc." which loop quantum gravity pushes and some
sympathizers in superstring and QFT physics (not necessarily the
majority) are dazzled by.
Beneath contempt.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
16 Feb 2005 02:08:20 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al Writes:
Beneath contempt
Look who's getting close to the Nazi spirit! Care to try for a real
Nurnberg with this time re-education of the Nazi institutions and the
over 40% of Germans who voted for Hitler in his second "triumph"?
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
16 Feb 2005 05:07:56 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Also don't lose sight of the fact that a Lattice-Logic atom of
expanding-contracting type (via temporal and modal logics) is far more
well-founded logically and mathematically and physically than the
typical anomalies involved in virtual particles, monopoles, tachyons,
ghost particles, etc., which are required in many of the current
physics theories even though they are paradoxically "exonerated" from
becoming "real" by a lot of hand-waving so that they're real in one
sense but not in another!
Lattice-Logical atoms (LLA) are closest to the concept of geometry
being real, since for example the universe's geometry expands rather
than its "matter". Physicists are so ill-informed philosophically
that even though the theoretical physicists usually know this on some
level, it doesn't even strike them as paradoxical. Maybe that explains
how they tend to vote in elections!
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
16 Feb 2005 06:36:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1108595276.074679.143020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
OsherD <mdoctorow@comcast.net> wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
Also don't lose sight of the fact that a Lattice-Logic atom of
expanding-contracting type (via temporal and modal logics) is far more
well-founded logically and mathematically and physically than the
typical anomalies involved in virtual particles, monopoles, tachyons,
ghost particles, etc., which are required in many of the current
physics theories even though they are paradoxically "exonerated" from
becoming "real" by a lot of hand-waving so that they're real in one
sense but not in another!
These scientology programs are just too much stress for me that it is
not a claim, it is not a claim, it is a good for me.
Lattice-Logical atoms (LLA) are closest to the concept of geometry
being real, since for example the universe's geometry expands rather
than its "matter". Physicists are so ill-informed philosophically
that even though the theoretical physicists usually know this on some
level, it doesn't even strike them as paradoxical. Maybe that explains
how they tend to vote in elections!
Are you a lesson?
Osher Doctorow
And you got this from where?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Galen, you fell for the bot!" -- smeg
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
17 Feb 2005 01:00:02 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
This gadfly (Lady Chatterly) would do well to talk English, usually a
prerequisite to
vote but perhaps not any longer if the Cultural Equivalentists prevail.
I keep coming
back to the curious problem of how a member of usenet forums using the
pseudonym of a trashy book (Lady Chatterly's Lover) gets off on
selecting nonconformists to attack. Why don't you attack conformists,
Lady Chatterly, or is it possible that you are in fact one via your
trashy namesake?
Do feel comfortable returning with a more appropriate name, even
gadfly, although don't expect to be welcomed with open arms.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
17 Feb 2005 01:43:45 AM |
|
|
In article <1108623602.199539.94330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
OsherD <mdoctorow@comcast.net> wrote:
This gadfly (Lady Chatterly) would do well to talk English, usually a
prerequisite to
vote but perhaps not any longer if the Cultural Equivalentists prevail.
I keep coming
back to the curious problem of how a member of usenet forums using the
pseudonym of a trashy book (Lady Chatterly's Lover) gets off on
selecting nonconformists to attack. Why don't you attack conformists,
Lady Chatterly, or is it possible that you are in fact one via your
trashy namesake?
There's a lot out there that I've read and *get* the idea but *do not*
agree with. So?
Do feel comfortable returning with a more appropriate name, even
gadfly, although don't expect to be welcomed with open arms.
He is been trying to dog my posts for months now the little loser.
Osher Doctorow
How convenient. How... typical.
--
Lady Chatterly
"But I think Lady Chatterly is beginning to fear you" -- Roofshadow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
19 Feb 2005 01:10:33 AM |
|
|
OsherD wrote:
Uncle Al Writes:
Beneath contempt
Look who's getting close to the Nazi spirit! Care to try for a real
Nurnberg with this time re-education of the Nazi institutions and the
over 40% of Germans who voted for Hitler in his second "triumph"?
Osher Doctorow
[EL]
No need to honour Uncle AL Shi# --- Schwartz with a reply, because he
is below the pavement, just step on him while you stride along.
EL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
19 Feb 2005 06:28:32 AM |
|
|
no no dont step on him!
all the pills might burst out
including those ones that he got from his sychiatrist.
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
16 Feb 2005 12:38:19 AM |
|
|
read my little cite:
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
at the end of it you will find in the appendix
the idea of the Ciclon
a basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
and how it is implemented to produce attration force.
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
16 Feb 2005 11:55:25 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I looked at your appendix, and it's quite Creative. The physics
mainstream establishment recognizes two types of motion:
one-direction-at-time motion and non-motion by "jumping" or "being
nowhere except probabilistically". My contribution is recognizing
expansion-contraction as many-directions-at-one-time motion (often at
different speeds and to different extents in different directions).
Yours is an Ingenious circular motion built-in simultaneously together
with the usual one-direction-at-a-time motion. They'll deny yours on
the basis of probability (none of them being experts in probability!),
but keep on with your ideas.
Osher
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
17 Feb 2005 01:43:10 AM |
|
|
hank you osher
i think that one of the advantages of my idea is
that circular motion is very 'smoth and continuous'
ie there are no break points in that path that someone can ask:
'why sudenly that break'!!
if you look at gagaxy motion you see it tangibly!1
it is inho the only explanation to the attraction force
because of momenta reasoning:!!
if a particle is alleged to move in the comon understanding in a circle
that it was becuse something was pusing it inwards !!
sow ? what else?
comes an authomatic question that people didnt think about :
of that 'something was pushing it in ......
that particle *was pushed out ** because of momentum consevation so ???
one would say that pushing in agent di dit because *still another agent
pushet it in !! (:-)
and waht happended to the second 'pusher in?!!!
ie you come to an imposible vicious circle that does not end!!!
so that sequence of questions
*was one of my reasons to come to that natural movement of
only one basic particle!!
ie the only reasonable let out of that vicius circle of questions !!!!
not tto mention that it fitts perfectly to all my model findings
including unprecedented predictins of mine that are now been exposed!!
yet i have to do one veryimportant additional re,mrk:
the center of that circular path
*CAN MOVE IN A STRIGHT LINE*
ie tet no onyone tell me that this circular motion of just that
basic Ciclon- is in contradiction to the fact that we see in macrocosm
that particles move in a stright line!!
the circulatr movement in an inner 'unseen' movement
while the center of that path can move in any sort of path
depending on the resultant force that was done by a collision with
another particle that came in a certain direction
iow in the bigger 'zoom -out ' the ordinary stright line movement are
valid
iow no contradiction to all the known momentum rules.
hope i made myself cleare
so thank you again Osher you are one of the very few people on this*
universe!!(:-)
that were cleaver and honst enough to get it !!!!
ps
the inspiration to thjat claim of mine was if to be honest
is due to Albert Einstein with his curved space-time
who was actualy the first (famous one) to realise that some circular
movement is
*inevitable* in order to explain for instance properly any attraction
force !!
---------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Lattice-Logic Atom and Planetary Orbits |
16 Feb 2005 02:45:26 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Y. Porat,
I accessed your site's appendix, and your gravitons are quite
ingenious! They're also funny, since they contrast so much with what
the mainstream gobbledygook tell us with their discrete universe (maybe
to match their discrete brains?). I have to warn you, though, that
postulating a new type of motion doesn't get the job offers that you'd
expect from looking at history, for example Sir Isaac Newton, Pierre De
Fermat, Kurt Godel, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, etc. I spent
about 2 years on sci.stat.math developing expansion-contraction motion
(universe as a whole, biology, light rays from a point or spherical
source, human perception and cognition, and on and on), and my average
response was somewhere very close to 0. And those guys are relatively
enlightened compared to physicists in the promotion rat-race. At least
nobody replied "beneath contempt." It's interesting that mainstream
physics and mathematics actually use no- or one-step-at-a-time motion
in the sense that they either deny trajectories (physicists a la
quantum) or they consider that at any particular time a particle/object
moves in only one direction. Yet a human child at any time grows in
many directions simultaneously, often at different rates and different
extents in different directions. A mickey mouse balloon doesn't
expand uniformly in all directions, and even if it did it would have
multiple directions of expansion simultaneously.
Is there a solution for physicists and peer-review-obsessed
mathematicians? Aside from voting them out of office in politics and
their conformist supporters? Yes! We're doing it! Creative Genius
is extremely rare and is its own reward.
Osher ("Adon Ha-olam, asher malach,...")
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
