You say that the cutting edge of physics is currently the Unified Theory, George. And I believe that we both distrust efforts to come up with a single theory to explain all phenomena. The 10-dimensional model is purely theoretical, and it's an extension of conventional dimensions, which is probably why it's welcomed by conventional physics. But let's face it, QM does not fit in easily with conventional physics, if at all. In your case, George, I believe that you prefer to ignore QM.
Having said that, I should explain. I believe that you're not ignoring QM for as far as it can be explained in terms of conventional physics. I believe you're ignoring the importance of entanglement as a phenomenon, Georges. You say that Phenomena happen in Reality and that they must be verifiable. But entanglement can hardly be described in terms of conventional physics, if at all. You say that entangled particles just have opposite spins. But their spin is no coincidence and the FACT that if one changes, the other one, even when miles away, will also change THAT VERY INSTANT, that is what baffles conventional physics. You say that the claim is that by measuring one I know the other, but if by measuring you mean unleashing an apparatus of physical forces upon the entangled particles, you shouldn't be surprised that this will change the bond (Heidegger). We don't need to measure the status of entangled particles through a battery of tests, because it's is of a simple yes/no type. If measuring means making something comply to conventional physics, then QM is indeed hard to measure. If we trust the qualities of the entangled pair, then we don't need to measure, we can presume their relationship on the basis of QM. So, can we make such presumptions? Can we have any presumptions? I believe we always presume some things, whatever we state, so let's just try and identify our presumptions, rather than argue about what follows from that. The point is that QM contradicts conventional physics, which is precisely why it can hardly be described in terms of conventional physics. The basic problem of conventional physics is that it starts from a basis of presumed certainty. QM challenges this presumption. When one's calculations don't add up, one can keep checking one's calculations for errors, OR if that doesn't help, one can revise one's presumptions. Some delve into Chaos Theory, others fabricate further dimensions. By contrast, I prefer to presume that there is diversity, before certainty Cheers! Sam Carana On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Due to the general interest of the topic, I copy this > discussion with Sam to additional lists. > > ============================= > G: > Epistemology sees one of the cornerstones of cognition > in the polarity of "subjective" continuity and > "objective" discreteness. Physics, the fundamental > science, embodies the continuity in SPACE-Field and > discreteness in its singularities appearing as > observable Events. Consequently, physical Models are > based upon the polarity SPACE-Field/Events. > NOTE: "SPACE" is a mathematical construct, capitalized > to be distinguished from its homonym, the "space" > of direct perception. > > Epistemology sees the scientific method as follows: > > 1.Definition of "interest area" and getting expertise > in its existing MODELS. > > 2.Observations of events pertinent to the > interest area. > > 3.Endeavor to falsify existing MODELS. Next steps > only if falsification succeeds. > > 4.Definition of Axiom(s) intuitively believed to > found an improved MODEL. > > 5.Deducing Theorems from Axiom(s), thus creating a > Theory. A Theory bottomed with observable Theorems > becomes a rational, factually falsifiable MODEL > (eg Extended Relativity or Quantum Field Theory). > Otherwise it stays a "pure" Theory, like Spinoza's > "axiomatic(?)" Ethic, or String Theory. > > 6.Endeavoring to verify/falsify the MODEL inductively, > proceeding bottom-up from observed facts specified by > the bottoming factual (or empiric) Theorems. > A verified MODEL is not proved, but not (yet) > falsified and, as such, provisorily represents > the state of the art of the interest area. > Once falsified, it calls for a successor. > > This is an axiomatic view which underlies science > and epistemology since Descartes and which I entirely > accept, BTW with Popper. If you prefer to be a new > Descartes and Popper and define some other axiomatic, > please state it and it may perhaps seduce me. But we > have first to agree on some axiomatic before we discuss. > I'll shortly comment your post in the light of > Descartes/Popper. > ============================= > S: > > as long as no conventional physics phenomenon takes > place > ============================= > G: > 1.There is no "conventional physics", but Field- and > Quantum Models, i.e. Models focusing on continuity > or discreteness, but always based upon both.. > 2.There are no "conventional physics phenomena". > Phenomena happen in Reality and are totally independent > from abstract Models. > ============================= > S: > But from the perspective of QM, something does take > place when there are changes in entangled particles, > and it takes place at both ends of the entangled > particles, > ============================= > G: > That's Sam's perspective. Entanglement consists in > opposite spins resulting from momentum preservation > at the moment of decay/creation. They are not > connected by any transcendental cordon ombilical, but > just have opposite spins. The claim is that by > measuring one I know the other, which is false, as I > can only surmise it. > ============================= > S: > As I see it, George, you choose to ignore the > calculations that QM can make, and you do so because > you prefer to stick to conventional physics, which is > your prerogative. > ============================= > G: > 1.I never discussed QM, which - I said it frequently - > I consider as a brilliant, if not genial mathematical > recipe, but not a physical Model due to its lack of > SPACE. I was talking about the asinine C-I. > > 2.There is no conventional physics, but Field and > Quantum Models and I am perfectly happy with the > Quantum Field Theory, which is on the one hand > a full fledged Model and, on the other hand a next > step after QM on the quantal way. > Actually, my daughter who described three new stars > did it with QFT and GR. (how many did you describe > with your QM expertise?) Her colleagues from > Heidelberg and several researchers from CERN whom > I know, also use exclusively the QFT for particle > research. > ============================= > S: > there can be at least two arguments for rejection of > a theory: > #1. The theory is inconsistent with what testing > suggests is real. > ============================= > G: > Clumsy way of saying: "inductively falsified by facts" > ============================= > S: > #2. The theory is internally inconsistent. > ============================= > G: > Then it's no theory at all, so there is nothing to > reject. > ============================= > S: > #3. There appears to be a better theory. > This latter point is not so much an argument to REJECT > a given theory. Instead it's more an argument to PREFER > another theory. > ============================= > G: > Not "better" but more precise and not "prefer", but > partially replace. SR was standing on the shoulders of > Newton Model and did not reject it but replaced > for about 10% of subluminal phenomena, leaving it as > a perfect approximation for low speeds including the > space travel. Similarly GR extends SR over 1% of > strong Field phenomena, leaving the rest to SR and NM. > QFT extends SR over the area of particle research, > marking BTW a step backwards with respect to the GR. > > BTW, the cutting edge of physics is currently the > Unified Theory, by definition concerning the > unification of the four known Fields and thus, by > definition ignoring the QM. One of the UT ideas > suggests to extend QFT over the GR SPACE/Field. > Another could perhaps stem from my embryonic theory > of the Dark Matter > http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0h_dark_matter.html > > Sad to see in this fascinating context, grown up and > intelligent people turning their back to it and > seeking the wisdom in village idiots almanacs such as > the C-I. > ============================= > S: > This point is often overlooked by conventional physics, > because conventional physics is so much entangled in > verification efforts that it can only think in terms > of black or white, thus failing to see color, or - as > QM is sometimes presented - multi-dimensionality. > ============================= > G: > I don't scrap that pile of nonsense due to its > unintended gag: > 1.QM has no dimensionality at all, because it does not > define any SPACE. > 2.GR is founded in 4d curved SPACE embedded in a 10d > SPACE (which I associate with the Dark Matter). > > Not enough dimensions? The perfectly "conventional" > Genetics involves 6000. > > Georges. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
