The instinct of reality is distorted by current physics

[Mordred]

53 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Some clarification on this pliz...what's the issue with adding other particles fields?

As mentioned in my earlier comment its tricky to describe using zero mathematics. However just so you know its not just my personal theory on the matter. Here is the relevant research paper on the topic.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf

 This particular paper is one of the most well known and well quoted papers on the topic. Most research papers on the divergences will refer directly back to this paper. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where words are insufficient to properly explain the issue.

example being the following paper.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02622.pdf

You really have to understand the mathematics to make sense of the paper. Don't worry very few forum members are at this level of understanding. You literally must be very keen on the related gauge groups and well versed in Calculus

 

a very basic level on divergences and convergence is found here

https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Calculus_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Vector_Calculus/16.05%3A_Divergence_and_Curl

this is a general field level that can be applied to any field.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

A diagram illustrating divergence-vector field or a curl and mathematical equations explanation for divergence and curls which one is one is more logical?

[Mordred]

20 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

A diagram illustrating divergence-vector field or a curl and mathematical equations explanation for divergence and curls which one is one is more logical?

In this case if your already familiar with both they are equally logical. How many times have you asked yourself "where is the logic behind this " then once you learn the topic you understand the logic. A curl is much like a vector except its directly related to the angular momentum terms where the vector is the linear momentum terms.

 Now that you understand which each represent are they not equally logical ?

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Define 'accurate logic'.

'accurate logic' can be viewed as a more rigorous causal relationship, which is detailed discussed in this paper. Such a 'accurate logic' no longer adopts mathematical equal sign because mathematical equal sign describe law of nature has a flaw that the two sides of mathematical equal sign exactly equal to each other, which does not rigorously hold true in reality.

 

[Mordred]

31 minutes ago, wei guo said:

'accurate logic' can be viewed as a more rigorous causal relationship, which is detailed discussed in this paper. Such a 'accurate logic' no longer adopts mathematical equal sign because mathematical equal sign describe law of nature has a flaw that the two sides of mathematical equal sign exactly equal to each other, which does not rigorously hold true in reality.

 There is also plenty of formulas used in physics where the equal sign denotes a precise match of the LHS and RHS of an equation. Many times though the author of a given paper will get lazy and use the equal sign instead of the approx sign in papers. Particularly when the relation is to good approximation. ( meaning any difference wouldn't have any relevant or measurable effects)

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 There is also plenty of formulas used in physics where the equal sign denotes a precise match of the LHS and RHS of an equation. Many times though the author of a given paper will get lazy and use the equal sign instead of the approx sign in papers. Particularly when the relation is to good approximation. ( meaning any difference wouldn't have any relevant or measurable effects)

what I mean for this flaw does not limited to the precision of value but involve some other aspects, i.e. the relationship for two sides cannot be treated as completely equal, otherwise their real causal relationship would be artificially distorted. 

[Mordred]

 

26 minutes ago, wei guo said:

what I mean for this flaw does not limited to the precision of value but involve some other aspects, i.e. the relationship for two sides cannot be treated as completely equal, otherwise their real causal relationship would be artificially distorted. 

perhaps you can provide an example where you feel this is the case. Causality has very strict mathematical implications in physics. With causality this also directly relates to local and global symmetries (you would be surprised to learn there are specific math expressions defining each ) particularly in any gauge theory

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

perhaps you can provide an example where you feel this is the case. Causality has very strict mathematical implications in physics.

To some extent, every equal sign in expressing the law of nature has this flaw. For example, the mathematical equal sign in 'F=ma' artificially distort the real causal relationship between force, mass and acceleration by treating them as strictly equal relationship. 

[Mordred]

They are once you apply the correct definition of mass and apply the correct units. There is no deviation between the LHS and RHS. Why would you believe otherwise if your doing the math correctly ? (with the correct terminology Newtons laws of inertia and units ?)

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

They are once you apply the correct definition of mass and apply the correct units. There is no deviation between the LHS and RHS. Why would you believe otherwise if your doing the math correctly ? (with the correct terminology Newtons laws of inertia and units ?)

The mathematical equal sign in Newton inertia law does not strictly hold true. As long as outside a certain phenomena range such as 'macro, low-speed, inertia system'( if temporarily regard this is correct range), this mathematical equal sign does not exist. Such a applied limitation is ultimately caused by the instinct flaw in the mathematical equal sign for expressing law of nature.

[Mordred]

Ah I see so the meaning of effective range of applicability of a theory isn't something you relate to. Well you might be surprised but even GR still applies that equation through the Principle of General covariance for very practical reasons. Of course the primary reason is that it works extremely well for everyday situations (Euclidean space) it isn't until you get changes in geometry via the Gamma factor that the equation is no longer as accurate. However its perfectly accurate when you have no time dilation or length contraction due to spacetime curvature.

I believe I did mention "to good approximation" that directly relates to range of applicability

lol you can certainly apply the gamma factor when you want to calculate how much force is needed to move your car from A to B but why bother when it won't change the numbers to any significant amount. There is an example of range of applicability. Its not practical to apply the gamma correction

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ah I see so the meaning of effective range of applicability of a theory isn't something you relate to. Well you might be surprised but even GR still applies that equation through the Principle of General covariance for very practical reasons. Of course the primary reason is that it works extremely well for everyday situations (Euclidean space) it isn't until you get changes in geometry via the Gamma factor that the equation is no longer as accurate. However its perfectly accurate when you have no time dilation or length contraction due to spacetime curvature

The equal sign in GR also has applied limitation, but some mathematical manipulation in it makes it has a relatively larger application range, which makes it seems to hold true for much more phenomena but not all. Besides, time dilation or length contraction is the same type issue of logical chaos, which cannot be treated as the real reflection of reality. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by wei guo

[Mordred]

When we have measured both it certainly does reflect reality. 

You seem to have a very personal definition of logic. It's far different than what I would consider logical. However that only makes sense. Logic is always an opinion. What may be logical to me may sound like absolute nonsense to you.

Why do think physics requires testability. That never has opinion as a factor.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, wei guo said:

The equal sign in GR also has applied limitation, but some mathematical manipulation in it makes it has a relatively larger application range, which makes it seems to hold true for much more phenomena but not all. Besides, time dilation or length contraction is another issue of logical chaos, which cannot be treated as the real reflection of reality. 

Then you aren't familiar with the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was the original, but it has since been refined with greater precision. If your 'logic' doesn't reflect nature, it doesn't have much practical application.

Edited June 20, 2023 by StringJunky
removed redundancy

[Mordred]

Let's try a little example on the difficulty of fundamental reality. I pick up a ball and we want to describe its fundamental reality.

Here is what I know isn't fundamental reality.

Mass=resistance to inertia change ie a property. Energy=ability to perform work ie a property. Color=how one interprets the frequencies of light. Weight=how much influence gravity has on the ball. Solid=illusion created by our senses to interpret the electromagnetic force. Field a collection of values under a geometry treatment. Particles equals field excitations. Time equals rate of change of events 

Have I hit anything one can define as a fundamental reality of that ball yet ?

 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[wei guo]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Then you aren't familiar with the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was the original, but it has since been refined with greater precision. If your 'logic' doesn't reflect nature, it doesn't have much practical application.

In all such experiments, the measure of time, without exception, relies an artificially-defined equivalence between time and timer. This equivalence, just like the equivalence in 'F=ma', also has the limited application range. The specific measuring behaviour in that experiment or similar experiments makes the measured phenomenon exceeds the application range of time measure method. In the paper, I specially discuss this issue in abstract and also spend a section to discuss it. 

[MJ kihara]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

 Now that you understand which each represent are they not equally logical?

Diagram seem more logical to me...given my math background,of which I expect with more training on math both will become logical... anyway...am still not getting how..

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

The second order equations kick in when you start adding other particle field

Assuming...gravity renormalise through formation of graviton,at the event horizon and at the edges of the universe....those are my assumptions..

I still don't get how adding other particles fields to gravitation fields causes divergence? Are they not suppose to couple?

[wei guo]

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

When we have measured both it certainly does reflect reality. 

You seem to have a very personal definition of logic. It's far different than what I would consider logical. However that only makes sense. Logic is always an opinion. What may be logical to me may sound like absolute nonsense to you.

Why do think physics requires testability. That never has opinion as a factor.

 

There is no difference for the understanding of Logic. For example, why we believe an interpretation that the color on some object does not initially born with but formed by the non-absorbed light reflected by the object and then enter into our eyes even though we cannot directly observe such a detailed process by our eyes is due to the fact that we can observe some bouncy ball rebound after it hits the ground in real life. So if this logic is put on the forming process of color, it at least make sense in normal life. This is the bottom-line to create any so-called science theory.

[Eise]

6 hours ago, wei guo said:

Mathematics is merely a sort of language, which is, in nature, no different from other ways used to describe our world. The advantage of math only lies in fact that the symbolic system behind it is more logic than other forms of expression, i.e, everyday language(English, Chinese) or drawing a picture.

Math is different: it is not just more logic, it is a rigidly logical language. 

6 hours ago, wei guo said:

Viewing the identity of mathematics as a unique abstract product which needs to be cut a line from other ways of expressing or describing our world is no different to treat mathematics as a kind of religion. 

How do you want to make quantitative predictions without math? Example: Eddington's test of special relativity in 1919. According general relativity the bending of light close to the sun is twice as big as a pseudo Newtonian calculation. Without math, it would have been impossible to distinguish between GR and Newton. I am pretty sure, that most physics experiments are quantitatively, no simple yes/no experiments. 

Another nice example might be Dirac's prediction that an anti-electron should exist. He derived that by pure mathematics, by rewriting the Schrödinger wave equation so that it fitted special relativity: by taking his calculations seriously he predicted the existence of the anti-electron, and got the mathematical proof why spin exists. Only a few years later the positron was discovered. On the surface, one could see the experimental evidence by Anderson as a yes/no experiment. But to identify the positive particle as an anti-electron, one has to make sure that it has the same (but opposite) charge as the electron, and also the exact mass, otherwise it might be just another positively charged particle.

You extremely underestimate the function and need of math in physics. It's need is practical: to make quantifiable predictions, to find not yet seen phenomena that logically follow from existing theories (like Dirac's anti-matter prediction). It is not religious at all.

8 hours ago, wei guo said:

I want to pick a name to describe what you say as a short one of 'phenomenon determinism'.

What else can you do if you want to understand the phenomena? 

8 hours ago, wei guo said:

It is not enough to just be compatible with observational evidence because 'observational evidence' is just phenomenon , which may not reflect the truth of reality.

If there even would be a 'reflection of reality', it comes to us through the phenomena. By assuming the existence of, what you call 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', we are able to encompass more and more phenomena under single theories. Do these underlying artificial-defined things inside 'really exist'? Does the wave function 'really exist'? Do virtual particles 'really exist'? But the math, based on them, correctly predicts the phenomena. 

 

[StringJunky]

The closest one can get to the underlying reality is knowing all the scientific properties that describe a phenomenon, and it's usually expressed in some form of maths.

[Genady]

Here is a mathematical statement:

It has a profound meaning in math.

What does it mean in English or Chinese?

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Diagram seem more logical to me...given my math background,of which I expect with more training on math both will become logical... anyway...am still not getting how..

Assuming...gravity renormalise through formation of graviton,at the event horizon and at the edges of the universe....those are my assumptions..

I still don't get how adding other particles fields to gravitation fields causes divergence? Are they not suppose to couple?

Simply adding the graviton won't renormalize gravity. It takes more than simply having a mediator particle. 

It is the couplings with other fields that lead to further divergences. Unfortunately without the math it's near impossible to show.

5 hours ago, wei guo said:

In all such experiments, the measure of time, without exception, relies an artificially-defined equivalence between time and timer. This equivalence, just like the equivalence in 'F=ma', also has the limited application range. The specific measuring behaviour in that experiment or similar experiments makes the measured phenomenon exceeds the application range of time measure method. In the paper, I specially discuss this issue in abstract and also spend a section to discuss it. 

Not too surprised, it's very common to see ppl try to rewrite physics because they disagree or don't understand it.

Unfortunately that never works. There is nothing artificial about time dilation but from your statement above you seem to have missed the meaning behind the interval ct. There is nothing artificial about using ct as a measurement. 

5 hours ago, wei guo said:

There is no difference for the understanding of Logic. For example, why we believe an interpretation that the color on some object does not initially born with but formed by the non-absorbed light reflected by the object and then enter into our eyes even though we cannot directly observe such a detailed process by our eyes is due to the fact that we can observe some bouncy ball rebound after it hits the ground in real life. So if this logic is put on the forming process of color, it at least make sense in normal life. This is the bottom-line to create any so-called science theory.

That makes little sense, you obviously didn't understand the statement "fundamental reality". That is not the same thing as logic.

[wei guo]

27 minutes ago, Mordred said:

5 hours ago, wei guo said:

In all such experiments, the measure of time, without exception, relies an artificially-defined equivalence between time and timer. This equivalence, just like the equivalence in 'F=ma', also has the limited application range. The specific measuring behaviour in that experiment or similar experiments makes the measured phenomenon exceeds the application range of time measure method. In the paper, I specially discuss this issue in abstract and also spend a section to discuss it. 

Not too surprised, it's very common to see ppl try to rewrite physics because they disagree or don't understand it.

Unfortunately that never works. There is nothing artificial about time dilation but from your statement above you seem to have missed the meaning behind the interval ct. There is nothing artificial about using ct as a measurement. 

Here what we talk about is time measure. The most precise measurement of time is atom clock or some mechanism similar as that. The consequence of ignoring the artificial assumption in this measurement of time would mistake the timer dilation for the time dilation. General people may be difficult to recognize that 'There is some artificial assumption in the measurement of time', but I think you have some deep insight in physics, why you can say some surface words like 'There is nothing artificial in the measurement of time'

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Here is a mathematical statement:

It has a profound meaning in math.

What does it mean in English or Chinese?

Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic. 

[Mordred]

What is artificial behind measured radioactive decay rates used in an atomic clock?

Are you stating any measurement is artificial ?

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Mordred

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, wei guo said:

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Here is a mathematical statement:

It has a profound meaning in math.

What does it mean in English or Chinese?

Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic. 

OK, compare with logic.

What does it mean in logic?