Solar Wave

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by akabrutus, Oct 5, 2018.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    Here's one for you.

    Do you think √-1 really exists?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    The universe does not "predict". That is a human activity.

    The universe does not "know" the forces. That is a human quality.

    No it can't. The path of a planet is due to the effect of every other body in the universe.
    The only way they could be "accurately" represented is if the map were the size of the universe and were dynamical, so that it evolved over the course of 5 billion years.

    Where would you put this universe-sized map?


    A formula that used every particle in the universe as input parameters would literally take up more room than the universe itself.

    Where would you go to look for this universe-sized formula, I ask?

    Well, it's contained in the particles themselves
    , you respond.

    Except it isn't. An electron does not have an internal structure. An electron does not calculate its trajectory with the rest of the universe as its input, and then decide, based on the output, which way to go.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It matters.

    The way loss of detail and compression works is by making patterns where there were none.

    An infinitely varying orbit is reduced to a single orbit, leading you to believe that it's "precise" and "predictable". It's neither.

    You're seeing artifacts on the map - of the map - and misinterpreting them as parts of the territory.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    According to David Bohm it does, in a sense. He calls it the "implicate" or "enfolded" order. David Bohm;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Not IMO.
    Doesn't make any difference. You never start with a pattern. Patterns "emerge" from chaos. Enfolded order becomes unfolded in reality.
    Neither is an infinitely varying orbit random, each orbit was/is mathematically deterministic, just not observable to us mere mortals, without measuring toys (Google Maps).
    Use the zoom feature in Google Maps (compressing or expanding your Field of View) and you can see the territory and plenty emerging (and disappearing) macro patterns on the map in exquisite detail down to a few feet. [/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps

    In the micro world this perspective reverses. The greater the magnification the greater the detail, but less field of view. Patterns replacing patterns. An infinitely variable dynamic field of patterns coming and going, reducing in complexity, until we reach a singularity, like a Planck Unit?
    http://scaleofuniverse.com/
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Ah, imaginary numbers. Is it important? When does one encounter the symbolic value contained in i^2 = -1, V^-1 = i ? Never studied it in-depth.

    This is what interests me in the field of mathematics. Brian Greene:
    https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-greene-solve-infinity-renormalization-2017-5

    So, we solved for "infinity renormalization".
    Cool.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    He says nothing of the sort.
    That is you, mangling the words of a scientist - what you call "in a sense".
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And the Implicate is a property of what?
    Bohm writes about the universe; "Wholeness and the Implicate order"

    If with that title he does not say what I posted, what does he say that I should have posted?

    This is what David Peat said about Bohm.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._David_Peat
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    i.e. the real world - the territory - does not have that pattern.

    i.e. when the territory is processed into a map, artifacts appear as part of the compression technique. They're artifacts. That means they're not representative of the underlying data.

    Example:
    orbital point at X is 27.0000000001(without limit),
    next time around X is 27.0000000003(without limit),
    but since we can only represent a finite number of points, 27.0000000001 and 27.0000000003 become 27.000.
    And now, W4U comes along and sees three '27.000's and calls it a precise orbit. But he's talking about the map, not the territory.

    Oh great. Write4UBot has discovered a new buzzword. He doesn't know what it means but that won't stop him from using it 47 more times.

    You shouldn't have posted. Your reference to Bohm is nonsense.

    Great. More buzzwords you can mangle.


    This is appropriately in Free Thoughts. Carry on.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Your talking relativity. Might also say that the Doppler effect is an artifact.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    So do you think √-1 existed before human mathematicians "discovered" it? Or do you agree with the rest of us that mathematicians invented it?
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I only said that each orbit was mathematically precise, not that they were consistent with each other. And I don't mean human mathematical approximations via symbols.

    Yes, we have that problem, the universe does not. Your 27,000000... example stops at Planck length deviations, doesn't it? Don't blame the universe for man's shortcomings.
    Do check out this wonderful variable map, the number of patterns (compressed and expanded) found in just a few samples staggers the mind;
    http://scaleofuniverse.com/
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    They are not.

    1] How do you even determine what a single orbit is? Because the planet lines up by sight with the sun and a certain star? That's a human convention.

    2] And, when it does come around to your arbitrarily human-chosen point, it's not at the same distance or inclination or velocity. The two arbitrarily-chosen "ends" don't meet up. Ever. Either in space, or in spacetime.

    3] And, because of 1] and 2], you can see that bodies don't have orbits in the real world. There is no property of a moving planet that tells it that it's in any kind of orbit. They are, quite simply, pulled - moment by minuscule moment - by the infinitely variable influences within gravitational reach - at each specific point in time. No past, no future. No pattern. Orbits are a human approximation. A simplification.


    This is a good phrase. In a nutshell, it is the counterargument to your entire thesis.

    Don't blame the universe for man's shortcomings.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I get the point that you're all making to Write4U, but at the risk of throwing a spanner in the works...

    It sure seems like complex numbers were kind of "out there" in the Platonic world, waiting for mathematicians to discover them. A lot of results in complex analysis are mathematically quite beautiful and unexpected. It also, unexpectedly, turns out that you can solve a lot of otherwise intractable problems concerning real numbers by taking a detour through the complex plane.

    A famous physicist (Wigner, was it?) wrote a well-known essay on the surprising usefulness or applicability of maths to the physical sciences. The point is that, although there's no a priori reason why the universe should follow nice mathematical laws, that's what it appears to do.

    "But what about Dave's planetary orbits?" I hear you cry. Well, if we could know all of the other masses and things that are perturbing the orbits, then we could use the known laws of gravity to predict them, exactly. But we can't and don't. The problem is not that Newton's (or Einstein's, if you prefer) law of gravity is wrong, but rather that we don't know the "initial conditions" of the problem with sufficient accuracy. This is a problem that is common to virtually every physical system that shows chaotic behaviour (chaotic as in chaos theory).
     
    Write4U likes this.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Right, and at each instant in time the mathematics (values and functions) of attendant potentials determine what trajectory is physically allowed (the enfolded implicate) and if so, how it may become expressed (the unfolded explicate).

    "God does not play dice" (A. E.) (please do not comment on this quote....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    "The universe is responsible but blameless for the evolution of the universe and everything therein".
    "It's the universal probabilistic but deterministic mathematical dynamics of evolution and natural selection that rule today's patterns in physical behavior of all things, from atoms to galaxies."
    "But never fear, we are still learning the mathematics of the universe and then we'll be really smart, but will we ever be wise?"..........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Anyway, what do you think of Bohmian Mechanics and the concept of a universal guiding wave equation?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    You mean like Euler's relation?

    Yes, I see what you mean, but I think all this shows is that the laws of logic are fundamental. After all maths is an extremely highly developed system of quantitative logic, is it not?

    So really, what we are saying is that logic is absolute, not relative: in other words there is such a thing as absolute truth.
     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    = an area that has different things happening in it where objects like particles or waves are interacting

    = in a given frame of interaction(see above) there exists particles AND waves transiting the frame, some of these are interacting.
    some are not.
    some interact with particles
    some interact with waves
    others only interact with 1 or none or both.
    thoery suggests all happen at the same time to throw it out into theory, however im refering to mechanics, not theory(im guessing your a quantum mechanic type person rather than theory though im not pandering to a lean in that?).
    = specifically inside the frame, that which interacts directly with the waves, EVEN IF they are particles.
    The specificity is to the interaction of the wave function rather than a speculative point of origin to something being projected thrugh it(i ponder this is the 2nd point ive post you but im pressing on hoping i have explained it enough)
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    a particle or wave having its medium of force ...
    the particle or wave having an ability to exert energy...
    the medium being the energy be it, wave or particle.
    the medium of force being the applied interactive energy point of the wave or particle exerting force/energy on to something else(another wave or particle).

    the "medium of force" being suubject to what ever force is enacted at that point of interaction
    the medium may be a particle or a wave(or [quantum theory]quantum-duality-positioning real time particle duality interaction).

    each particle or wave has an ability to interact with others, or no ability.
    space-time may well be blinkering the conversation as the "medium of force" however...(im ignoring that for now)
    im a little over tired, please excuse any terse tone it is not intended,
    and my lateral cognitive linguistic formatting is at an artificial circadian & biological low energy point.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018

Share This Page