Sue... wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Well, when I think of "complete" disorder, I think that everything must
be up for grabs - including form.

That is mathematics... not physics.


Here's the thing. Yes, it's math. But if you allow trivial space in
physics, then it becomes real, trivially. So, it could very well become
a respectable thing in the real world of atoms and other assorted
flying contraptions.


An absolutely disordered system will have no preference whether it
produces numbers, geometry, waves, particles, text, dimensions, or
anything else. This is what I visualize when I think of absolute and
total disorder. The problem is that it would not be of much use to
anyone.

Order is what a mathematician defines it to be.


You know something Sue, I was thinking about this conversation and I
had an epiphany. About 10 or 15 years ago I was studying fractals and
chaos and could not for the life of me figure out how the Sierpinski
gasket could possibly do what it does. You have an amazing geometric
structure which seems to emerge from simple random processes like a 6
sided die.

I think that I'm beginning to get a hint of an idea. When I said that
even an abstract 6-sided die could not be completely random, it
contains order for various reasons - well, I questioned it a little
myself. But now, considering the Sierpinski gasket, I think that I was
right. An abstract 6-sided die MUST contain a very small amount of
order. After all, just look at the fractals.

Of course, this is math which has yet to be developed. But, I think
that there may be something to it.



So, we have ways to produce constrained disorder with dice, roullette
wheels, etc. But the disorder is not absolute. And I suspect that the
absolute disorder that I'm thinking of can only live in trivial space -
i.e. does not exist.

The concept you just created... does not necessary exist.


True. But if physicists had such a thing as a tangible trivial space,
it would have a place to live very comfortably.


Chaitin points out a dilemna of random numbers, and there are others. I
think that it is a genuine paradox that the act of defining disorder
actually imposes order upon it, thereby negating it. No statistician
wants to hear that - and I dont blame them. They have disordered
sequences and processes which clearly work properly and I'm not saying
that they are wrong.

As for the universe, I dont believe that absolute disorder can exist in
it. I think that you can get very, very close to absolute disorder, but
cannot achieve it. Same thing with order. I dont think that absolute
order can exist. You can get pretty close, but cannot achieve absolute
order.

You are defining order and disorder so you can certainly
pass judgement on what complies.


Well, I could write quite a bit about this, but I think that absolute
and total disorder would be so loaded withparadoxes that the only place
it could possibly exist would be in some type of trivial space, and
that's the most important thing I can say right now. It would be one
big seething mass of paradoxes.

I know that Chaitin et al did some important work on randomness, but
mostly it is an underdeveloped area. I dont think that there are any
proofs regarding randomness per se. Sure, lots of stuff on random
sequences, etc etc, but a proof concerning randomness "in and of
itself" ? No work whatsoever - I think.

Definind absolute disorder and absolute order would be a good first
step - but I dont think that we even have definitions, just philosophy
like what I've been babbling.

Question. Is a coin flip more, less, or equally random to a fair
6-sided die ? Nobody has an analytic answer. All you can do is generate
sequences and use the standard tests on those sequences.



I personally cannot achieve the greek expression descrbing
non-observability of time and length..... : )

For length this seems to work:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html

Mass:
0.511 megaelectron volts = 8.18712172 × 10-14 joules
http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti...1005144616.htm


Time:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...aws/u2l3a.html

Speed of light:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html


Right. But I need to bolt it to the Lorentz Transform. Good thing that
x and y are standard components, should be able to do a simple
substitution with no welding. All I need is the custom parts. I know
where to order from, just cant figure out what parts to buy.



I can get very close, but an absolute solution is impossible ? ...... :
)

Try looking beyond the space between your ears. )


I'm sure that someone will figure it out someday. I'm already satisfied
to think that at least I know what needs to be figured out !!



Sure would be weird if this stuff turned out to be true. Maybe some
highschool kid will figure out the algebra. That would be hillarious.
Physics unified by enterprising 8th grader. I'd probably start drinking
again.


Sue...

LEFTY wrote:
I think that the discussion regarding randomness, whether physical or
abstract, that discussion could get very long.

It's by implicit defintion infiniely long, since the
only thing mathematicans know about either subject is non-existent
explicit finite things.



I know that there are probably lots of math folks who think that it's
just plain stupid to say that an abstract 6-sided die is'nt %100
random. Afterall, it's abstract, you defined it to be random, no
succesive digit can be predicted from any previous digit, so it cannot
contain order. I know that there are many who would say this.

It's merely common law stupidty of mathematicians.
Since an abstract six-sided die is iso-morphic to
to an abstract six-sided plastic Jesus on the
dashboard of your 1983 Plymouth Waganerer.

Neither are abstract, and only idiots like
physicists are really up to date on the
high-tech subject anyway.

LEFTY wrote:
Sue... wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Well, when I think of "complete" disorder, I think that everything must
be up for grabs - including form.

That is mathematics... not physics.


Here's the thing. Yes, it's math. But if you allow trivial space in
physics, then it becomes real, trivially. So, it could very well become
a respectable thing in the real world of atoms and other assorted
flying contraptions.

Here are at least 10 types of spaces that *physics* has not slammed
the door on. No on claims any are *real*.



An absolutely disordered system will have no preference whether it
produces numbers, geometry, waves, particles, text, dimensions, or
anything else. This is what I visualize when I think of absolute and
total disorder. The problem is that it would not be of much use to
anyone.

Order is what a mathematician defines it to be.


You know something Sue, I was thinking about this conversation and I
had an epiphany. About 10 or 15 years ago I was studying fractals and
chaos and could not for the life of me figure out how the Sierpinski
gasket could possibly do what it does. You have an amazing geometric
structure which seems to emerge from simple random processes like a 6
sided die.

I think that I'm beginning to get a hint of an idea. When I said that
even an abstract 6-sided die could not be completely random, it
contains order for various reasons - well, I questioned it a little
myself. But now, considering the Sierpinski gasket, I think that I was
right. An abstract 6-sided die MUST contain a very small amount of
order. After all, just look at the fractals.

The only physical significance of this is that you have loosely...
too loosly, mentioned a physical object. So it is metaphysics,
....an acceptable brainstorming tool... but don't call it mathematics
or physics. It lacks the rigour demanded by either discipline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour


Of course, this is math which has yet to be developed. But, I think
that there may be something to it.



So, we have ways to produce constrained disorder with dice, roullette
wheels, etc. But the disorder is not absolute. And I suspect that the
absolute disorder that I'm thinking of can only live in trivial space -
i.e. does not exist.

The concept you just created... does not necessary exist.


True. But if physicists had such a thing as a tangible trivial space,
it would have a place to live very comfortably.

3d + 1t is quite comfortable for those of us that can
make a circle or right angle with simple tools and see
nature using the same principles.



Chaitin points out a dilemna of random numbers, and there are others. I
think that it is a genuine paradox that the act of defining disorder
actually imposes order upon it, thereby negating it. No statistician
wants to hear that - and I dont blame them. They have disordered
sequences and processes which clearly work properly and I'm not saying
that they are wrong.

As for the universe, I dont believe that absolute disorder can exist in
it. I think that you can get very, very close to absolute disorder, but
cannot achieve it. Same thing with order. I dont think that absolute
order can exist. You can get pretty close, but cannot achieve absolute
order.

You are defining order and disorder so you can certainly
pass judgement on what complies.


Well, I could write quite a bit about this, but I think that absolute
and total disorder would be so loaded withparadoxes that the only place
it could possibly exist would be in some type of trivial space, and
that's the most important thing I can say right now. It would be one
big seething mass of paradoxes.

I know that Chaitin et al did some important work on randomness, but
mostly it is an underdeveloped area. I dont think that there are any
proofs regarding randomness per se. Sure, lots of stuff on random
sequences, etc etc, but a proof concerning randomness "in and of
itself" ? No work whatsoever - I think.

Definind absolute disorder and absolute order would be a good first
step - but I dont think that we even have definitions, just philosophy
like what I've been babbling.

Question. Is a coin flip more, less, or equally random to a fair
6-sided die ? Nobody has an analytic answer. All you can do is generate
sequences and use the standard tests on those sequences.

You did not adaquately define the mechanism... so
yes, you are babbling [your word :-) ].



I personally cannot achieve the greek expression descrbing
non-observability of time and length..... : )

For length this seems to work:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html

Mass:
0.511 megaelectron volts = 8.18712172 × 10-14 joules
http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti...1005144616.htm


Time:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...aws/u2l3a.html

Speed of light:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html


Right. But I need to bolt it to the Lorentz Transform.

No. That is built in.

Good thing that
x and y are standard components, should be able to do a simple
substitution with no welding. All I need is the custom parts. I know
where to order from, just cant figure out what parts to buy.

You are going to transform twice?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034



I can get very close, but an absolute solution is impossible ? ...... :
)

Try looking beyond the space between your ears. )


I'm sure that someone will figure it out someday. I'm already satisfied
to think that at least I know what needs to be figured out !!

Right! Figure out how to derive gravity from the Coulomb force. :-)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue...




Sure would be weird if this stuff turned out to be true. Maybe some
highschool kid will figure out the algebra. That would be hillarious.
Physics unified by enterprising 8th grader. I'd probably start drinking
again.


Sue...

If you look at the Sierpinski gasket, or that famous fractal which
looks like nested triangles, you have to wonder where the order comes
from.

This image can be generated from random numbers. Now, either the
numbers are'nt really random, or they contain a small amount of order,
or maybe disordered things can be arranged in such a way that they
appear orderly. I dont know. You could come up with all kinds of
possible explanations. But you would not expect infinite self
similarity from tossing dice - it's very counterintuitive. But after
looking at the fractal, most reasonable people would agree that there
is some type of order in that image. Where does it come from ? Nobody
knows.

I think of absolute disorder as being similar to absolute zero. Perhaps
order and disorder exist on a continuum. Maybe that's wrong. Who knows.
But it's interesting to wonder about it.


Since an abstract six-sided die is iso-morphic to
to an abstract six-sided plastic Jesus on the
dashboard of your 1983 Plymouth Waganerer.

That's not God on a stick, that's God on a brick !

Suppose that this general argument regarding time and existence is
valid. You have points in spacetime which are unobservable and will
"appear" nonexistent.

What effect would that have on trasfinite cardinals in spacetime,
assuming that the manifold really has these properties ?

If existence "appears" relative, then this might do some really weird
things things to infinite sets. Maybe there are other forms of infinity
which only exist in spacetime ? A highly intriguing thing to
contemplate.

I hate to even contemplate things like this because we have'nt even got
the algebra to test these ideas yet. We, I, you, whoever, need to
modify the Lorentz Transform to admit one additional postulate, "Time
and length unobservable on extreme scales". That's the most important
thing at this point.


Just thinkin' about it'll make ya dizzy.

LEFTY wrote:
Suppose that this general argument regarding time and existence is
valid. You have points in spacetime which are unobservable and will
"appear" nonexistent.

What effect would that have on trasfinite cardinals in spacetime,
assuming that the manifold really has these properties ?

If existence "appears" relative, then this might do some really weird
things things to infinite sets. Maybe there are other forms of infinity
which only exist in spacetime ? A highly intriguing thing to
contemplate.

I hate to even contemplate things like this because we have'nt even got
the algebra to test these ideas yet. We, I, you, whoever, need to
modify the Lorentz Transform to admit one additional postulate, "Time
and length unobservable on extreme scales". That's the most important
thing at this point.


Just thinkin' about it'll make ya dizzy.

Standing north of a plywood panel, I may see a
1/2" x 8' stick rising out of the ground.

That in no way prevents your glueing a picture
of a bird on the panel's west face,
walking a few steps west, and finding that the
spread from your new shotgun, falls inside
a 12" diameter circle.

I don't share the same two dimensions that
you do. But matter (reality? ) uses all
three dimensions. You can prove that, with
a whole box of shot-shells by cutting the
panel in half with repeated fire, 'till
I can't see the stick anymore.

You can use this same experiment to find the
flaw (AE says it is a flaw so argue with him)
in Einstein's relativity of simultaniety
argument.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Moving an observer from a valid to
an invalid position during the experiment
invalidates the experiment.

If I walk into a light proof room just
prior to sunrise, my opinion of the
sun's behavior is worth about as much
as a metric Mars probe decelerating
with English thrust calculations.

Sue...

LEFTY wrote:
Suppose that this general argument regarding time and existence is
valid. You have points in spacetime which are unobservable and will
"appear" nonexistent.

What effect would that have on trasfinite cardinals in spacetime,
assuming that the manifold really has these properties ?

If existence "appears" relative, then this might do some really weird
things things to infinite sets. Maybe there are other forms of infinity
which only exist in spacetime ? A highly intriguing thing to
contemplate.

I hate to even contemplate things like this because we have'nt even got
the algebra to test these ideas yet. We, I, you, whoever, need to
modify the Lorentz Transform to admit one additional postulate, "Time
and length unobservable on extreme scales". That's the most important
thing at this point.


Just thinkin' about it'll make ya dizzy.

In ZF set theory with transfinite cardinals there is no universe. That
is to say, in ZF set theory space-time, and all the things within it,
does not exist.

Thus, you might understand why ZF set theory is not the correct theory
for the continuous and discrete in nature, there are a variety of other
theories variously with or without transfinite cardinals that admit a
universe.

When you have a universe, then you have basically in terms of set
theory and a set-theoretic universe a set of all sets. Cantor's
paradox is that the set of all sts is its own powerset, and that there
exists a bijection between the set and itself, yet according to his
theorem a set should not be able to biject, to have a 1-1 and onto
function, to its powerset. So, the universe is infinite, in terms of
functions between objects being objects, and that's empirical evidence
that infinite sets are equivalent.

This thread is about continuity in space-time or so. One of the
principles that I think holds in physics is that every particle has a
wavelength, de Broglie or so. It is in a way about duality. In the
string theory they are talking about vibrating strings, where the
strings are basically 0- and other dimensional points, mathematical
infinitesimals of a sort. The notion is to use lifting, Hensel, and
boost concerns to correlate gauge theory, to a polydimensional
perspective. (Shrug.)

Ross

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Suppose that this general argument regarding time and existence is
valid. You have points in spacetime which are unobservable and will
"appear" nonexistent.

What effect would that have on trasfinite cardinals in spacetime,
assuming that the manifold really has these properties ?

If existence "appears" relative, then this might do some really weird
things things to infinite sets. Maybe there are other forms of infinity
which only exist in spacetime ? A highly intriguing thing to
contemplate.

I hate to even contemplate things like this because we have'nt even got
the algebra to test these ideas yet. We, I, you, whoever, need to
modify the Lorentz Transform to admit one additional postulate, "Time
and length unobservable on extreme scales". That's the most important
thing at this point.


Just thinkin' about it'll make ya dizzy.

In ZF set theory with transfinite cardinals there is no universe. That
is to say, in ZF set theory space-time, and all the things within it,
does not exist.

Thus, you might understand why ZF set theory is not the correct theory
for the continuous and discrete in nature, there are a variety of other
theories variously with or without transfinite cardinals that admit a
universe.

When you have a universe, then you have basically in terms of set
theory and a set-theoretic universe a set of all sets. Cantor's
paradox is that the set of all sts is its own powerset, and that there
exists a bijection between the set and itself, yet according to his
theorem a set should not be able to biject, to have a 1-1 and onto
function, to its powerset. So, the universe is infinite, in terms of
functions between objects being objects, and that's empirical evidence
that infinite sets are equivalent.

This thread is about continuity in space-time or so. One of the
principles that I think holds in physics is that every particle has a
wavelength, de Broglie or so.

Although electrons were sent one by one,
interference fringes could be observed. These
interference fringes are formed only when electron
waves pass through on both sides of the electron
biprism at the same time but nothing other than this.
Whenever electrons are observed, they are always
detected as individual particles. When accumulated,
however, interference fringes are formed. Please
recall that at any one instant there was at most
one electron in the microscope. We have reached
a conclusion which is far from what our common
sense tells us.
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

So... we must reconsider the experiment and the conribution
the apparatus makes to observed wave properties.

Sue...


It is in a way about duality. In the
string theory they are talking about vibrating strings, where the
strings are basically 0- and other dimensional points, mathematical
infinitesimals of a sort. The notion is to use lifting, Hensel, and
boost concerns to correlate gauge theory, to a polydimensional
perspective. (Shrug.)

Ross

Sue... wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
...
This thread is about continuity in space-time or so. One of the
principles that I think holds in physics is that every particle has a
wavelength, de Broglie or so.

Although electrons were sent one by one,
interference fringes could be observed. These
interference fringes are formed only when electron
waves pass through on both sides of the electron
biprism at the same time but nothing other than this.
Whenever electrons are observed, they are always
detected as individual particles. When accumulated,
however, interference fringes are formed. Please
recall that at any one instant there was at most
one electron in the microscope. We have reached
a conclusion which is far from what our common
sense tells us.
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

So... we must reconsider the experiment and the conribution
the apparatus makes to observed wave properties.

Sue...
...

Maybe, the gluon just represents the wave of energy trapped in a
pattern that is localized basically to the particle where the apparent
mass or inertia is a consequence of the lightspeed wave trapped in the
pattern, observing itself.

Nah, that's ridiculous.

The notion that the energy at given waveforms basically makes its own
interference pattern, tuning it on itself, might in one sense have the
pattern observing itself go the other way at 2c, or with it restricting
itself to 1/2 c so observing itself at c, and in another sense going to
zero.

That's pretty much nonsense.

I wrote that before reading your post.

Ask Nyquist.

http://www.hyperflight.com/primer.htm

Quantization is denormalization. Quantum mechanics is not yet my
field. Ha ha ha. Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)

So, an electron goes barreling out of an emitter, and a dot of phosphor
glows on the screen. It's position seems random. The next one
follows, then another and another, the samples of the relatively random
process exhibit the characteristics of having a probability
distribution.

What's the problem?

Toss the electrons through a polarizing filter, you know, that filters
by wavelength, at various energies so they have various wavelengths.
Which ones come through? If the electrons are selectively blocked by
wavelength or frequency selective filtering, then they have a
wavelength or frequency, like photons do.

I must admit I really know very little about it. Thanks, that's
interesting.

Infinite sets are equivalent. Well-order the reals.

Ross

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
...
This thread is about continuity in space-time or so. One of the
principles that I think holds in physics is that every particle has a
wavelength, de Broglie or so.

Although electrons were sent one by one,
interference fringes could be observed. These
interference fringes are formed only when electron
waves pass through on both sides of the electron
biprism at the same time but nothing other than this.
Whenever electrons are observed, they are always
detected as individual particles. When accumulated,
however, interference fringes are formed. Please
recall that at any one instant there was at most
one electron in the microscope. We have reached
a conclusion which is far from what our common
sense tells us.
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

So... we must reconsider the experiment and the conribution
the apparatus makes to observed wave properties.

Sue...
...

Maybe, the gluon just represents the wave of energy trapped in a
pattern that is localized basically to the particle where the apparent
mass or inertia is a consequence of the lightspeed wave trapped in the
pattern, observing itself.

Nah, that's ridiculous.

The notion that the energy at given waveforms basically makes its own
interference pattern, tuning it on itself, might in one sense have the
pattern observing itself go the other way at 2c, or with it restricting
itself to 1/2 c so observing itself at c, and in another sense going to
zero.

That's pretty much nonsense.

I wrote that before reading your post.

Ask Nyquist.

http://www.hyperflight.com/primer.htm

Quantization is denormalization. Quantum mechanics is not yet my
field. Ha ha ha. Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)

So, an electron goes barreling out of an emitter, and a dot of phosphor
glows on the screen. It's position seems random. The next one
follows, then another and another, the samples of the relatively random
process exhibit the characteristics of having a probability
distribution.

What's the problem?

You left out the prism.
Which logically is the only structure will all the
information to produce the pattern.

BTW electron-Young experiments are not as old as
many think. They have been in textbooks for decades
but in laboratories, only recently. Ahhh Hitachi
I think. The double-slit experiment
Editorial: September 2002

This article is an extended version of the article "The double-slit
experiment" that appeared in the September 2002 issue of Physics
World (p15). It has been further extended to include three letters
about the history of the double-slit experiment with single electrons
that were published in the May 2003 issue of the magazine.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1



Toss the electrons through a polarizing filter, you know, that filters
by wavelength, at various energies so they have various wavelengths.

I built a computer once with a large cardboard box and
a vacuum cleaner. When I hid inside the box it did
what my playmate tho't computers did. )

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ffraction.html

Which ones come through? If the electrons are selectively blocked by
wavelength or frequency selective filtering, then they have a
wavelength or frequency, like photons do.

The Hitachi experiment seems to suggest they are not
always blocked and seems very sensitve to the blocking
structure. (apparatus)

Sue...


I must admit I really know very little about it. Thanks, that's
interesting.

Infinite sets are equivalent. Well-order the reals.

Ross