Physics & Math Revised !

[pauln]

I know there are some here that, like myself, have a deep interest in math and physics; especially the interesting parts... the calculus, Cantor and infinities, Russel and set theory, number theory, thermodynanics, relativity, quantum physics, cosmology, gravitation, string theory, and black holes...

I found this web site a few days ago and have read all the articles, some more than once. The author seems to some kind of shade tree polymath with a strong background in logic, math, and general science, especially physics and the history of science.

What initated his writings and the creation of this site was the NASA and JPL announcement a few years back that the Pioneer spacecraft was not where it was supposed to be with no explanation forthcoming (Pioneer Anomaly). He began looking at the problem and in examining the math and physics in current use he found errors! These are errors made by Newton, Einstein, Feinman and many others.

In the course of chasing all this down he found more errors upon errors! These errors were the improper use of algebra and fundamental contradictions in logic leading to wrong math and physics. So he set out to analize the whole field, and this site is a real tour de force, and a great study/

This site is blowing my mind! Definitely worth studying if you like this kind of thing... his site has his 72 articles (692 pages) which comprise his "net book".

http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/index.html

I would be interested in others' impressions of this fellow (Miles Mathis). Is it possible that he is right?

[Islander]

Remarkable stuff! I don't have the math to agree or disagree with what he says, but it seems like he's taking a fresh look at many assumptions and finding them really hard to support. Is he a real-life Will Hunting or what?

[dkp]

I, too, do not have the mathematical background to discern whether his various works are legitimate or not. I did, however, enjoy his (article) on why stars twinkle and the subsequent reaming of the scientific community for being more of a religion than a science in many ways. Many of his points are spot-on, IMHO. If you don't mind me asking, how did you happen across this, pauln?

-David

[BigStewMan]

Years ago, I was more into this topic than today. I studied under the great Maximillian Arturo, a Regents professor of cosmology and ontology at UC Berkeley. But after an experiment went awry, that all changed...we started calling ourselves Sliders after that; in fact they made a t.v. show about us.

Sorry, I can't stay serious for more than seven minutes at a time.

[pauln]

Remarkable stuff! ...Is he a real-life Will Hunting or what?

Maybe more like Leonardo Da Vinci... left handed, multiple prodigy - music, and art, too - check out his paintings!

[Groomlakearea51]

Very interesting; reminds me of when I read a book by Gary Zukav many years ago.

[pauln]

Reminds me of when I found Buckminister Fuller's "Synergetics" in the library and spent the next few days in a cloud like trance...

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html

[Islander]

Hmm, looks like I might have to finally get around to reading Godel, Escher, Bach...

[pauln]

I recommend reading Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, 1989

[Islander]

Sounds interesting, but is it current? Thoughts on string theory are changing, and M-theory wasn't even thought of until 1995 or so. The latest book on physics theory I've read is The Fabric of Reality, published in 1998 by quantum physicist David Deutsch. His argument is that theory should not merely enable accurate predictions, but should explain the phenomena it describes. It makes sense to me that understanding should be as important as measuring.

There may be some overlap with the book you mentioned, in that Deutsch believes that the theories of quantum physics, knowledge, computation and evolution are the main strands of explanation of the fabric of reality. If more thinkers start to look at things in this new way, can a paradigm shift be far away?

[pauln]

Well, the Penrose book is a few years old, but it's currency is not really important to his ideas. He covers a lot of ground before approaching his speculations about linking consciousness with quantum gravity. He starts by building an example of Alan Turing's Universal Machine. Then demonstrates provability of unprovable statements using Godel's proof itself. On to Mandelbrot's fractles, Hawking's cosmology (Penrose is a mathimatical physicist and has collaborated work with Hawking), then quantum theory, thermodynamics, and phase space... all leading up to an idea that small spines that project from the neural dendrites have been observed to change their geometric distance relation to the axons of other neurons from which they receive either excitatory or inhibitory synapse after learning has occured (after decisions have been made and experienced felt). He suspects that the trigger is small enough to work at the quantum gravity level. Surprizingly, a readable and entertaining book.

Mathis' site is quite a different direction. He is very disappointed that science has zoomed off to chase the strings and holes and whatnot when the simple explanations for things like gravity, orbits, tides, light, time, the calculus, relativity, measurement theory and other basic work from the last few centuries is still largely incomplete, incorrect, and unfounded. His analysis of the current string theories is devastating. He demonstrates that all the extra dimensions are actually algebraic redundnet duplicates of a time dimension, not additional curled spatial dimensions...

[stan krajewski]

I love this stuff. It's the "bottom line" as it were.

However, for myself, I am better served to read books and papers by Einstein or Hawking. These two giants are the ones that have set the stage for modern physics. Especially Einstein.

The theory of relativity is really hard to grasp. Yet it's so fundamental to the way the universe works that you can't ignore it. Just as the simplest of examples. If you walk 10 feet inside a train and someone in the car has a stopwatch then they can say you walked 10 feet in 3 seconds. But to an observer outside the train you have traveled 100 feet in 3 seconds. Thats a very simple aspect of relativity. But it's where things start.

As time goes on, scientists keep on proving the validity of various aspects of relativity that Einstein predicted. I know of not one "credible" disproof of the theory of relativity.

This guy (Mathis) is smart enough so that none of us here could really argue with him. However, that doesn't make him right. I think I'll stick with Einstein over Mathis.

I googled away but and couldn't find any backup for what this guy is claiming whatsoever. If anyone does find that he has any credibility, please post a reference here.

Cosmology has become a mixture of math, physics and religion. As human beings, we are stuck with limitations on how much we can grasp and maybe the cosmos is so complex that it cannot be quantified and qualified completely. But as human beings, I believe we do need to follow a logical or scientific path to gain that knowledge. We could not have put a man on the moon without a scientific progression from Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and so many others which cumulatively led us to that achievement. Each of these men had their flaws and shortcomings. But each of them (or someone like them) had to be there for us to get here.

[Gilbert]

Reminds me of when I found Buckminister Fuller's "Synergetics" in the library and spent the next few days in a cloud like trance...

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html

Reminds me of when I was into Origamy, still am, but now with the wife and kids and more and more work, it's been placed aside.

With regards to your the weblink and a brief and painful hour or two of reading, I am convinced that I must be one of his so called NaySayers. The man is trapped in academia land.

[pauln]

This guy (Mathis) is smart enough so that none of us here could really argue with him. However, that doesn't make him right. I think I'll stick with Einstein over Mathis.

I googled away but and couldn't find any backup for what this guy is claiming whatsoever. If anyone does find that he has any credibility, please post a reference here.

The degree to which Mathis is smart has nothing to do with whether one can argue with his ideas. It is all about his logic (which includes 7th grade algebra), consistency, and freedom from contradiction. Anyone is free to argue with him. If he is correct, it is not because he is smart (appeal to authority), it is because his conceptual analysis is clear and persuasive. Mathis writes much more clearly than Einstein and provides a more detailed analysis of the important aspects of relativity - especially those that Einstein and others gloss over, omit, hide, or deny have importance to the critical ideas.

Couldn't find any backup? Why appeal to the authority of others? Analyze the arguments yourself. Seventh grade algebra is not beyond a general reader, nor the logical flow of his thinking - he goes to a lot of trouble to formulate his arguments, critiques, and corrections so that all the steps are available for analysis and all the math is easy for checking.

How would anyone find that Mathis has any credibility? Not by finding a reference but by evaluating his writings, arguments, reasoning, demonstrations, proofs, etc. You have to do this yourself. If someone does present links to references, will you need to Google them and request references for them as well, ad infinitum? Where does the buck stop?

You are very correct when you say, "It's the "bottom line" as it were." The acceptance of any argument (Mathis' or Einstein's) is the result of a personal analysis and evaluation, not how many references agree with them. Truth is approached with critical thinking, not weighing the proponents against the opponents... Almost all current accepted ideas began as revolutionary thoughts that had to fight for ground. Especially when the ideas came from non-professional people like Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein.

Mathis does not disbeleive in relativity, he has only presented fundamental errors in the way it has been worked for the last hundred years. By the way, if you are looking for a possible credible evidence of a problem with present relativity, look at the Pioneer anomoly reported by the JPL and NASA. It is this very divergence of the spacecraft's position from those calculated using present relativity that got Mathis started into analyzing all this stuff in the first place.

Read the Relativity as a Concept article to see how Einstein was almost correct in his analysis of the movement and observer problem, but did not carry the logic far enough to complete (and correct) the analysis.

[Islander]

You're right, pauln. Einstein found the limitations in Newton's work and for some time now people have been finding the limitations in Einstein's work. No theory of physics or anything else is cast in stone and none so far explains everything. New discoveries, and more importantly, new insights, continue to advance our knowledge.

Which is correct, the Big Bang theory or the Ekpyrotic theory? We don't know at this point, but fresh thinking will be required to find out. Maybe neither theory is correct. Time will tell.

Turner, the University of Chicago cosmologist, said inflation theory has been so successful that it has killed all competing theories. But inflation doesn't address the idea that there might be other dimensions. Interest in this wild notion has grown among cosmologists in recent years.

In textbooks a century from now, Turner believes there will be one of the following two paragraphs:

"A hundred years ago, people were so desperate to try to understand how to put it all together, they invented additional spatial dimensions. What were they smoking?" Or: "A hundred years ago, people were so provincial that in spite of much evidence that there should be extra dimensions they refused to accept it."

[maxg]

Read the first few papers and I have written to him (god knows if he will respond). Like the site but I think I have a hole in his thinking - probably not but something doesn't seem quite right.

Just so you can laugh - here is the letter I sent to him:

"

Hello Miles,

I am taking you at your word that if you get this email you will respond. First off apologies in advance I am neither a scientist, nor mathematician and am frankly not familiar with many of the works you reference.

I am trying to read and understand what you have written. I am not helped by the fact that my mind tends to go off in strange directions. For example when you define time as, in effect distance I immediately think of the converse that therefore distance is actually time.

This means that x, y and z are merely coordinates for time in as much as they are for distance. Probably nothing new here using your vector of travel through x,y and z the passage of time allows me to pinpoint your position.

OK so far and I followed the whole argument in the preface up to:

So the basic assumption of a velocity equation is that the object and the clock are related. They are in the same co-ordinate system. Or, to put it another way, space is continuous from the object to the clock. If it were not, there could be no velocity equation.

If time is actually a measurement of distance, then wherever space is continuous, time is also continuous.

Now here I have a basic problem. Space is continuous from the object to the clock. From my above reversal of your definition (defining distance as time rather than the other way around) I would have to say that The relationship between space and time is the same between object and clock. In other words if one varies the other varies too so that the relationship remains the same.

So the last line now reads wherever space is continous, time is also continuous and wherever it is not time is not to the same degree. Therefore there is no assumption of the continuity or otherwise of time merely of the relationship between time and space.

Like I said strange directions.continuing on:

The constancy of the speed of light. But if the speed of light is the same in every co-ordinate system, then that, by itself, assures that the local time of every co-ordinate system is equal to that of every other. If light goes 300,000 km/s in every system, then the ratio of kilometers to seconds in every system must be equal. Either that, or the statement "light has a constant speed" has no meaning.

Yes the ratio of Kilometers to seconds locally is constant but neither are necessarily the same as in a different location. In other words the speed of light is constant for any given local reference but not when observed from afar with a different frame of reference. Local time is not, therefore equal to that of every other local time but the relationship between space and time is.

At this point I am not sure if we are actually agreeing or not now desperately trying to keep my head above these unfamiliar waters.

Moving on to Relativity as a concept:

x=ct

Agreed.

x=ct

What I mean is that x and t are how the spacecrafts lengths and times look to us.

Ah erm no. If x and t are our observations then surely we have to use c. The speed is not c it is our observation of c which is c

If we were local to the other field then we would see x=ct just as we do here, surely and they would see x=ct for us which might be the same as x=ct but I am not sure at the moment.

Relativity is seems applies to both time and space. As time gets bigger to the outside observer space necessarily gets smaller otherwise the local speed of light varies.

Or did I miss something critical?

To be honest I rather gave up at that point.

Any help you can give someone more reminiscent of Winnie the Pooh than a scientist would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Max Goodman

BTW Love the site makes me think even if the thoughts are way off course.

[Islander]

Good one, Max! I applaud your effort to poke holes in a theory that pokes holes in other theories.

As I understand it, relativity states that C is a constant in any given location, but not necessarily between locations. However, recent experiments have been able to slow down light to very slow speeds, something long thought impossible.

As well, there are instances of faster-than-light travel, if only for extremely brief intervals. This occurs when cosmic rays (which are also particles) enter the Earth's atmosphere. They travel at the standard speed of C in the vacuum of space, but C in atmosphere is a little slower. Since the particles have some mass, however slight, it takes a little time and space to slow down, during which they travel in excess of the speed of light.

I have to ask about your y and z vectors for time. In my experience, time only moves forward, although I can visualize it going backwards. So far, though, I'm unable to visualize time going sideways or up and down. It seems like a novel concept.

As for continuity, space may be described as non-continuous on the tiniest of scales, like quantum-level scales, but aren't time and space generally continuous, other than in sci-fi stories or maybe near black holes? I'm not sure whether that question is for you or for Miles.

[pauln]

Max,

Nice
letter. I hope he responds and you post it here for us. I am also thinking of
writing him a note after I gather my thoughts

As
far as time, distance, and continuity if two objects are so far apart in
distance that light has not completed a journey from one to the other the space
between them is not continuous, and thinking in terms of time, likewise if
there has not been enough time for light to journey from one to the other. This
distance is also a time and is usually described as a light cone in flat models
although the expansion of light is a sphere. Everything moving slower than
light is within the light cone and subject to mutual observation and
measurement. Objects outside the light cone are unobservable and their
space/time is discontinuous with ours. There are light cones within light
cones, and they each form a frame of reference. When we observe a distant frame
of reference in motion we think of their light cone as being at a different
angle to ours. Since light cones have a time orientation, this is interpreted
as the altering of lengths and time in the distant others frame of reference
when measured from our frame of reference.

Yes,
the ratio of kilometers to seconds is locally constant both for us locally
and for the other moving far away for themselves. The constancy of all frames
measures of light speed means just that. It is only when we measure the others
from where we are that the relations get skewed they have to in order for our
measure of light speed to remain constant to us. The idea that local time is
the same for us and them means that each frame makes the same light speed
measurement for themselves and when measuring time and distance locally, these
too are the same. It is only when either frame measures the time and distance
of far others that those measures look to be skewed. But it is the data of the
measures that is skewed not the time and distance of the far others frame.
This is what it means to say that the distance and time are continuous.

x =
ct is our local measure of length and time of ourselves, and c is the speed of
light.

x
= ct is our local measure of the length and time of a distant others frame
the light is here local with us making the measurement so it is constant like
always and just c. You can only see light when it is local to you, you cant
see far away light.

The
central premise of relativity is that c is always c from any frame moving in
any way possible to imagine light is always measured to be c. Our measurement
of the distant others c is still c, not c.

Islander,

c
is constant at all locations, between locations, among, around, under, and
through all locations. That is in vacuum, in media light does slow down and the
different frequencies angles of diffraction are different amounts this makes
rainbows and prisms.

There
are no instances for faster than light travel in vacuum; cosmic rays travel
close to the speed of light in vacuum and may exceed the slower speed of light
in the medium of the atmosphere for a little while. Cerenkov radiation will be
emitted as a result, but this is not the same as really exceeding light speed
in vacuum.

Using
quantum arguments can be very tricky because there are many contradictions of
logic that cause many to go astray. The presumed non-continuous space at the
very smallest scales is a case in point. The basis is that the uncertainty
principle makes it impossible to indicate a precise position, velocity, mass,
energy, momentum, etc in certain pairs of attributes. For example, the exact
location of a simple hydrogen atom has a fundamental uncertainly of position
that is a couple of atomic diameters. If apples were the size of the Earth,
atoms would be the size of apples. At the classical level this is the
equivalent of reaching for your beer and finding it a hands width away. When
you go down to the Planck length of things, the uncertainty is extreme. This is
one of the reasons that the string theories are so troublesome. The size of the
string is on the order of the Planck length, negative thirty-third exponent. If
a string were as tall as you, the diameter of a proton would be the distance
from here to the Andromeda galaxy (M31 our near neighbor only 2,360,000 light
years away). Since the uncertainty of position is completely lost, how is it
sensible to characterize their behavior in terms of vibration? How is it
possible to have them split and combine?

[Islander]

Thanks for the clarification, pauln. I was under the impression that almost everything (space, energy, light, but not time (at least so far)) comes in quanta. Light comes in photons and not any smaller units. Space comes in tiny units too (sorry, I don't know what the smallest voxels, or volume elements are called), maybe the Planck length or some multiple of it. So small, at any rate, as to make space appear continuous on most usable scales. That's my understanding, but I'm happy to update it to current thinking.

On the other topic, if an object, however briefly, exceeds the speed of light in the medium it's travelling through, is that not FTL travel?

UPDATE: Just got back from a local bookstore, where I noticed a book called The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin. He also argues that the current theories are too esoteric and that string theory in particular is probably not testable in any way. Looks like physics is in a state of ferment, after years of little advancement.

[pauln]

On the other topic, if an object, however briefly, exceeds the speed of
light in the medium it's travelling through, is that not FTL travel? Technically yes.

But it makes me wonder... when light is traveling through a medium, say air or even glass or water, it is traveling in a vacuum between the molecules. I'm guessing that while the light is doing that it is actually traveling at the same speed as it does in vacuum because it is in vacuum. If a molecule of air gets in the way, an electron in the molecule may absorb a photon and bump the electron up to a higher energy level, then emit a photon as the electron goes back down to a lower energy level. There is a delay, but what's worse, the emited photon has little chance of taking off to resume the same heading as the original absorbed photon. Air tends to diffuse light, but lots of it gets through, although not all of what is left can be said to be the same that started through.

When objects approach light speed their observed time slows down as measured from another frame of reference. The actual duration of time experienced by the mover becomes shorter than that measured by another. This is basis of the twins paradox where one goes on a fast trip and returns younger than the other. At light speed the reduction of time duration goes completely to zero. One of the interesting consequences of light traveling at light speed is that because of the slowing of it's time to zero, the photon experiences no passage of time from the moment it is emitted to the moment it is absorbed, whether that distance is to the next atom or across the universe. The self experienced life span of a photon is zero. They don't "age", in a sense they don't exist while going from one place to another... now that is peculiar.

There is still plenty of physics to keep everyone busy for a long time. All the areas that resort to statistical analyses (thermodynamics, turbulence and viscosity, quantum theory, etc) are using aggregate methods to infer principles of individuals. This means we don't understand enough about the individuals and have used math to overlook that. Statistics and probability theory have logical contraditions of their own to work out without interfering with physics. Since you mentioned imagining time, here is an example: The fundamental laws on the tiny scale work both forward and backwards in time. Looking at this, and how everyday things don't led to thermodynamics and entropy theories. What is the probability of getting a "heads" by flipping a fair coin? Probability will indicate that it is .5 or 50%. But that is only before the toss... if you ask what was the probability of heads after a toss that yields heads, the answer must be 1.0 or 100%. Clearly because it happened. Probability gives two answers depending on if it is before or after the toss. What kind of theory is that? The probabiliy changes when you look to see the result (like Schrodinger's Cat). I wonder what Mathis thinks about probability? If an answer depends on the idea of before and after in time, then is looks like different frames of reference in relativity where the loss of synchrony causes similar puzzels as to just what happened and who saw it when...