Quantum Gravity 96.0: Built-in Phase Differences in Classical vs Quantum Physics By Using Non-Real Complex Variables vs Reals

**OsherD** · #1 February 21st 07 posted to sci.physics

From Osher Doctorow

Most of us have learned the lesson that if you accept an axiom like
"straight lines never meet," then you probably believe that the earth
is flat (more or less) or are assuming that straight lines are on a
"really really small part of the earth".

Yet classical physics versus quantum physics basically use real versus
non-real complex numbers or variables except in special cases BY
DEFINITION, and yet most physicists don't recognize that the results
and even derivations are arguably in a different phase (phase in the
sense of very different physical state(s) from the ones that physics
originally studied).

Physicists do recognize that gas, liquid, solid, are different phases
because of the "concreteness" of these states or their measurements,
and fortunately they have extended the phases to include
superconductors, superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates and a variety
of other condensates arguably, and at least implicitly black holes and
also plasmas and liquid crystals.

Note very carefully what Quantum theorists and GR theorists do when
they come up with results outside their defined measurement types
(respectively non-real complex and either real or tensors with real
components). They basically declare them "persona non grata" (banned)
with some variations in language. Yet they often continue to use
them mathematically (tachyons and monopoles can't ordinarily be
banished from the theories at least, for example!). Some principle,
occasionally very vague or abstract, is generally invoked to "explain"
this. For example, monopoles "used to exist but can't exist
anymore." Tachyons are either similar or "their existence would
violate some prohibition by the Universe" rather analogously to white
holes.

A recent paper by Jean-Luc Lehner (Cambridge U.), Paul McFadden (ITFA
Netherlands), Neil Turok (Cambridge U.), and Paul J. Steinhardt
(Princeton U.), "Generating Ekpyrotic curvature perturbations before
the big bang," hep-th/0702153 v1 19 Feb 2007, 21 pages, illustrates
this "in consultation with Stephen Hawking", the "Man for All Entropy"
at least in black hole physics. These authors, as Hawking used to
do, dip into the "entropy" quagmire to try to rescue their theory, and
in fact regard it as too easy to start just with entropy - they START
with "entropy perturbations", which are defined by "relative
fluctuations in 2 fields" specifically given by a particular equation
(3.12 in their paper) involving a difference of two products with one
of the factors in each term being a perturbation of form "delta-
phi".

If you try to find "entropy perturbation" as keywords in arXiv or
Front for the Mathematics ArXiv, you may never return from an
"infinite loop" :)

For an amusing exercise in gibberish and lack of communication between
different physicists and engineers, look up entropy, "structure
formation", "entropy perturbation," and similar terms on the internet,
as for example Wikipedia's "Entropy" which just stops short of telling
us that the term is used analogously to the Tower of Babel.

The point of this posting is that you don't really get away from
unscientific methods by taking random samples or making thousands of
observations without obvious sources of interference, if you are
putting definitions and assumptions including measurement classes into
your "science" without examining them thoroughly. And it's not the
job of philosophers to be "passed the buck" (i.e., the
responsibility).

Osher Doctorow

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Quantum Gravity 95.0: Dimensionless Ratios Converted To Differences and Related To Pauli Exclusion Principle and Supersymmetry	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	1	February 21st 07 12:34 AM
Quantum Gravity 95.1: Entanglement in Dimensionless Ratios Converted To Differences and Related To Pauli Exclusion Principle and Supersymmetry	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	0	February 19th 07 08:28 PM
Classical vs quantum grassmann variables	a student	Current Physics Research (Moderated)	2	October 25th 05 04:25 PM
Classical (real) physics predicts gravity-wave	Jos	Physics - General Discussion	7	October 16th 05 07:20 AM
the Reals really have negative curvature built-in and negative-Reals are superfluous	a_plutonium@hotmail.com	Physics - General Discussion	50	July 11th 05 04:10 PM