Monday, November 28, 2005

Foundations of Mathematic

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beautya beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
--BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

In a Question below, is it worth it, to look at the context of what groups who gather might spark to the rest of society(click on it)? Look at what it has done for myself, and the reasons why such inductive/deductive features seem to be a part of the origins of cognitive functions that mathematically display itself?

Is there a theme in this regard through my blog that I had questioned earlier and links brought forth to raise awareness of what might have been implied in that true "consciousness sense" about the very nature of our involvement in the nature of reality?

But then too, awareness, about the death of such sensations. This is most troubling to me, if such model consumptions had made this impression then what had happened to the views as they exploded into the other realms? Other Realms? Why would I introduce Thales as a culminative vision about what could emerge and the father of geometry? Models make our view culmnative and increase the vision capabilites. Is there no one here that see differently after they had crossed a page to find that in our new tomorrows we see reality a little different now?

You have been touched at a most deep level, that goes beyond the death of such sensations as Toposense, or momentums of curvatures. A microscopic eye now, to the quantum nature, right next to your reading from this screen. It's in the air all around you, this potential? :)

Mathematics(logic?) and experiment?

I respond in that thread, and although it would seems disjointed from the rest of the commentaries, I thought I was talking directly to Sean's opening post. So I have linked the post on the very title as I have done with previous entires, as they have been setting the pace for my thinking about what views they share and what safety net is placed out there for us lay readers.

Would this impede my question as to the relation of philosphy in Sean's opening statement, to find that it had found a trail that leads to reasons why funding and perspective on it, should be thought about most carefully. Held in the esteem, with which one's adventures in physics and mathematics might have benefited society?

I understand this need for determination, and as well, the need to reaffirm what philosophy might hold in regards to truly active memebers of the science community and the projects they are engaged in. Would they have a distain for the philosophy of mathematics?

I left a question mark out there, and this question although never answered did see some slight comment in relation to the philosophy that where such logic might have gained in relation, being mentioned. I'll have to explain this some more so you understand that I am working hard to make sense of what is out there and viewed, whether in the tabloids, or what ever generalizations made by mathematicians, or the physicist who looks that little bit further.

Shall I quickly respond to the thread commetary or should I continue? I thnk it important that I respond to the comments rasied but I'll do this after by highlighting the area that spoke to me in relation to this train of thought.

I linked a quote from Plato on the idea of philosophy in my comment. I wil be moving from that position.

Philosophy of Mathematics

Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.
The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

You have to understand that although I am deficient in the math skills many have, it is not without effort that I am enaging myself in what appears to be beautiful and simplistic design when completed as a model. When we look at what the Wunderkammern had to offer in a revitalizing and dusting off of, models that were concretized for us. Did they lanquish until they were refurbished to the museums of time, so that we may again look at what mathematics has accomplished for us. In ways, that are very abstract and beautiful? What then exist as you gazed into the magnetic field, the dynamcis of brane held issues and the exemplification of design in those branes? It had to follow consistent and progressive developement in the physics of.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner

The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess. However, this is not our present subject. The principal point which will have to be recalled later is that the mathematician could formulate only a handful of interesting theorems without defining concepts beyond those contained in the axioms and that the concepts outside those contained in the axioms are defined with a view of permitting ingenious logical operations which appeal to our aesthetic sense both as operations and also in their results of great generality and simplicity.

[3 M. Polanyi, in his Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1958), says: "All these difficulties are but consequences of our
refusal to see that mathematics cannot be defined without acknowledging
its most obvious feature: namely, that it is interesting" (p 188).]

Social constructivism or social realism

Now here is the part, that while I saw the devloping nature of the tread of thinking and comments how would I answer and stay in tune? I previously spoke of John Nash and the inherent nature of mathematics as it could pierce the bargaining process, that to have this moved t a dynamcial social and constructive pallette developed in the ongoing relations of nations, why would such a scoial construct not be recognized as to the direction and strength of what mathematics might mean from a cognitive and developing brain that we have.

This theory sees mathematics primarily as a social construct, as a product of culture, subject to correction and change. Like the other sciences, mathematics is viewed as an empirical endeavor whose results are constantly compared to 'reality' and may be discarded if they don't agree with observation or prove pointless. The direction of mathematical research is dictated by the fashions of the social group performing it or by the needs of the society financing it. However, although such external forces may change the direction of some mathematical research, there are strong internal constraints (the mathematical traditions, methods, problems, meanings and values into which mathematicians are enculturated) that work to conserve the historically defined discipline.

This runs counter to the traditional beliefs of working mathematicians, that mathematics is somehow pure or objective. But social constructivists argue that mathematics is in fact grounded by much uncertainty: as mathematical practice evolves, the status of previous mathematics is cast into doubt, and is corrected to the degree it is required or desired by the current Mathematical Community. This can be seen in the development of analysis from reexamination of the calculus of Leibniz and Newton. They argue further that finished mathematics is often accorded too much status, and folk mathematics not enough, due to an over-belief in axiomatic proof and peer review as practices.

This gets very comlicated for me. Yet I recognize the inhernet pattern at the basis of these negotiatons and the games involved. More to follow, and short on time.


  1. Dear Plato,

    Take a look at the failures of Maxwell's mathematical 'wave theory' of light. First it failed to get the spectrum, and the falsely predicted continuous waves of Maxwell had to be replaced, ad hoc, by Planck. Next, Maxwell's theory failed to predict what happens to an electron accelerating in at atom as it orbits.

    Now remind me of Wigner's unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences? Are you totally mad?

    Catt shows that Maxwell got his interpretation of this ‘displacement current’ wrong, by ignoring the time it takes light speed electricity to flow along the capacitor plates. His co-authors Drs. Walton and Davidson mathematically worked out how the transmission line theory of Heaviside can be applied to explain the charging curve of a capacitor, which is compared to reality and is a correct prediction. Catt's error follows from Heaviside’s false idea that the light speed electricity Poynting-Heaviside vector is the same as light, with the two conductors guiding the light which travels in the insulator between them. This is false, as we know electricity originates as electrons in conductors and such like, although it is true that the measured speed is that in the insulator not the wires. What is going on is plain from quantum electrodynamics, gauge bosons/photons are being exchanged via the insulator between the two conductors. This is why parallel wires carrying currents attract/repel. In addition, the radio transmitter and receiver aerial form a capacitor with air as the dielectric. The radio waves are displacement current energy, detectable just when the varying current varies the electric field across the transmitter aerial. In the same way, the displacement current flows in the capacitor only while the field in the capacitor plate is varying, due to its charging up or discharging. Maxwell's error was fiddling a theory to fit Weber's 1856 observation that 1/(root of product of permittivity and permeability) = c. This fiddle is like the application by Rayleigh of a wave equation to sound without understanding the pressure and force mechanisms involved in particulate (molecular) sound waves. Planck showed the resolution to the problem with the wave model of light by the quantum theory, while Bohr had shown that Maxwell's light theory was incompatible with the atom. Nobody corrected Maxwell's false theory, however. In reality, ‘displacement current’ is the gauge boson, causing electromagnetic and gravitational forces, and all radio and light waves. Emitted by due to the centripetal acceleration of continuous, uniformly spinning charges (fundamental particles) with no oscillation, it is undetectable radiation, but still carries pressure and force (pressure times area), causing fundamental forces.

    Best wishes,


    Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

    Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

    Am I mad? LOL

    You reach backwards and in the face of the accomplishments you see something wrong with the way experiment and society developed?

    Lundsford becries any "negative approach" as wrong(?), yet you are using this process in your reassessment of reality? :) So what role does Godel Play?

    Geometrically there is a negative side in recognition of hyperbolic realities, from a positive developement from Riemanns inclusion in the unification of Maxwell's theory, in General relativity.

    Please correct me as I am learning here.

    A big crunch when the distance of the universe's expression, has run it's course, collapse's upon itself? Schwarchild radius and Inverse square law do fine here to measure those limits, yet the feasibility exists that such a collapse will rejuvenate as such, by geometrical proportions.

    Identify these for me?:) How your views of the correct Maxwell, demonstarte what you have for me as the unfoldment of this new reality?


  3. Dear Plato,

    Danny Ross Lunsford, the failed astronaut who is now a computer consultant, has PRINCIPLES. He doesn't complain about negative approaches, but works out solutions that work.

    1) it is the the most simple way to mathematically unify general relativity and Maxwell's equations (it says both are just approximations to Lunsford's deeper stuff),

    (2) it breaks down string theory, disproving the mainstream 10/11 dimensional spacetime,

    (3) the extra 3 dimensions are introduced rationally - Lunsford begins by reviewing the failure of 3, 4, 5 dimensional theories and obtains 6 dimensions because it works, achieving unification mathematically,

    (4) Lunsford's analysis finds that 'One striking feature of these equations ... is the absent gravitational constant - in fact the ratio of scalars in front of the energy tensor plays that role. This explains the odd role of G in general relativity and its scaling behavior. The ratio has conformal weight 1 and so G has a natural dimensionfulness that prevents it from being a proper coupling constant - so this theory explains why ordinary general relativity, even in the linear approximation and the quantum theory built on it, cannot be regularized.'

    Astronaut-physicist-programmer Dr Lunsford has proved that the simplest mathematical system which gives Maxwell’s equations and general relativity is 6 (SIX)-dimensional. Notice that he got it published in a theoretical physics journal last year but it was removed from, since mainstream physics uses only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11 dimensions. They used to also have 26, but that is replaced by Witten’s string theory breakthrough of 1995, ‘M-theory’ in which 10 dimensional superstrings are proved to have 11-dimensional supergravity as a limit. M-theory is crackpot, Dr Peter Woit says, because it produces no testable numbers. It is defended by the establishment as it involves 6 dimensions curled up into ‘beautiful’ Calabi-Yau manifold, which Woit describes as being mathematically vulgar and ugly.

    All subjective philosophy is valueless and arrogant, contrary to science. Yes, there is a conflict! Speculations by the high and mighty must be right, or they are patronising abuses of the work of other people who are not so famous. As a case in point, Brian Josephson since winning a Nobel prize for equations predicting a new kind of computing which has not saved peoples lives yet, but he refused rudely to check my article proof about Ivor Catt's genuine computer innovation (based on empirical science, getting dirty with oscilloscopes and finding out about nature the HONEST way unlike the sneering mathematicians who don't know anything that isn't in some book or official paper that's been 'peer-reviewed' by a fanatic friend in a mutual-help deal), sending me an abusive email when I was at Glos University in 2002.

    I wrote the article myself because Joesphson wouldn't help try to save people's lives. It would have been better if he would have helped.

    He is free to do what he wants, but does that include kicking people who don't have the benefit of a PhD education.

    However, the world is based on intolerance. Hawking leads the way, proudly stating that:

    ‘I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.’ – Dr Stephen Hawking in S. Hawking and R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996, p. 121.

    But he ironically has the brass face to promote his own untestable speculations, Hawking radiation from blackholes (gamma rays undetectable because of the high natural background gamma radiation in outer space).

    Nobody dares call Hawking a charlatan for saying he is only interested in experimental checks when he does the opposite: 'All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.'

    But in all debates, I just get personal sneers. The only people who want to discuss testable factual mechanisms are people who want to copy egotistical nefarious sneerers by saying it is obviously wrong and that special relativity denies absolute motion, and when you patiently explain to them that general relativity is the correct theory and that deals with absolute motion (acceleration) they pretend they don't understand how acceleration differs from inertial motion. You just can't have a scientific discussion with them, there is no mechanism for getting a paper published on its own merit. Only on affiliation, on friends in the right places. Since string theorists are so intolerant of others, I have no chance. I realised that from Stanley Brown's emails from the office of PRL while I was at university. The only option is working alone, because they are too paranoid to allow open discussion, thinking because you aren't famous, your proof must be wrong without checking it. Fortunately, I'm used to intolerance, but it still makes me angry that people just want to sneer and can't let science progress constructively. Newton, for example, had the wit to be constructive. He didn't write about Kepler's errors, but about his what he did right.

    Today, the mentality of the establishment is the other way: it tries to ridicule people who work on unorthodox. It is uncooperative. It is suppressive. It is paranoid. It tries to censor "alternatives" as speculation, while promoting its own speculation. It dismisses work as crackpot without having read it. It is proud of its mathematical competency, much as the medieval scholars were proud of knowing the 13 books of Euclid, but never having been in a lab.

    It thinks the rigorous scientific process is pointing out the incompleteness or the errors in non-mainstream work, and ignoring the incompleteness and errors of its own work.

    These charlatans ever grasp the fact that science proceeds by way of constructive behaviour, and that Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, and the other "heroes" were mortal and occasionally made errors, which in no way impaired the things they got RIGHT.

    The sneering "cleverness" of fault-finding is easy to do, like pulling a trigger. It is harder to be constructive, and the philosophers of mathematics need to get a grasp of Woit's work on spinor geometry, and other "alternatives", and stop waxing lyrical about their personal pet theories, strings, as if they were scientific or useful.

    Best wishes,

  4. If you want demonstrations of the sort of maths that works, see mechanisms with accurate predictions

  5. Hi Nigel,

    I can relate to a degree about what anger can do when the values with you might wished espoused in society, sees society going in another direction.

    It is not very healthy for such anger to vestor. You are only 33 years old, and a whole life ahead if you.:)

    Mine is a exploratory journey, and I have nothing other then what is developing in my insights to the strange world that I am seeing. It needs a common lanuage of expression from all those different types of math which will lead to some kind of explanation.

    I may be a simple man, but I am not mad.:)

    You have to trust that I have no position with which to confront you other then my inquistiveness and a understanding about the nature of reality.

    I am so far back of the pack it's not funny, I ask a simple question about axiomization becuase I needed to interpet what dirac gave to us and what Feynman further elaborated on under that term.

    It not only reveals my thinking in what is initiated as "first principles, and Robert Laughlin as a condensed matter physicist doesn't like to refer to this, yet what tell tale math would explain any negative expression at the same time a positve one is created.

    So you look for this beginning and as a xiom, this is the beginning of the theorom, is it not?

    Just as Dirac demonstrated the thinking in terms of what photon can do, Feynman comes along and draw maps for us.

  6. Dear Plato,

    Dr Peter Woit, as a mathematician, has stated that he would like to proceed from axioms in quantum field theory. He is interested in representation theory, and developing an axiomatic approach to quantum field theory. This is certainly an important area of study. However, I follow Feynman also on what path integrals mean:

    "It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities." - Richard P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, Penguin, 1992, pp 57-8.

    You see, you can use wave equations to model many things without knowing the deep reality. You can describe sound, light, atomic electron behaviour, etc., using a wave equation with various modifications to make it work. It is then a good model, and can predict other things which are testable.

    Quantum field theory is the most complex applied mathematical system which makes correct testable predictions in science.

    All wave equations are statistical models for discrete behaviour: H2O molecules in water, electrons in the atom (see my page for Schrodinger wave equation derivation), air molecules in air, etc.

    So the axioms to produce the equations of QFT will deal with statistical effects for complex scattering or 3+ body Poincare chaos phenomena as occur in the atom.

    The problem with QFT is spin, which is tied to magnetism. There is no official heuristic model of spin. This needs to be addressed. Spinning electron mechanism.

    I discussed electron spin by correspondence between 1996-2002 with Dr Arnold C. Lynch who worked on microwave theory and designed the card reader for the computer used to break a German code in WWII.

    I was writing articles for Electronics World mag and send Lynch my calculations for Catt's theory, and later Lynch gave a joint paper to the IEE with Catt on A Difficulty in Electromagnetic Theory. I later wrote an article on Catt's computer inventions which can save lives and two articles which apply the empirically-based wave "Heaviside energy current" electricity theory theory of Ivor Catt, Dr David S. Walton, and Malcolm Davidson to Feynman's basic heuristic ideas of quantum field theory.

    There is a lot of damage done to physics by mathematical models which are in error. Maxwell fiddled his theory in Part 3 of his paper, “On Physical Lines of Force” (January 1862), getting the right answer (light speed) from wrong working. His elasticity theory is wrong and the predicted speed is really c/2^(1/2). Maxwell quietly corrected the error in a new paper in 1865, getting the same answer, but without the flawed theory. A.F. Chalmers’ article, ‘Maxwell and the Displacement Current’ (Physics Education, vol. 10, 1975, pp. 45-9): “the change was not explicitly acknowledged by Maxwell”. All Maxwell did was to play with equations because Weber had already shown empirically in 1856 that the root of the ratio of electric to magnetic force constants was the speed of light. Maxwell just had to fit a wave equation to this and Faraday’s law, using Faraday’s own theory of 1846, “Thoughts on Ray Vibrations”, and Maxwell had complete flexibility to choose any equation for “displacement current” he liked to get the right answer, but took 3 years to get it.

    There is no physics going on here, as the capacitor plates in this article (click here) represent a radio transmitter aerial and receiver aerial, so radio waves are really displacement current".

    We already know that radio electric field strength (volts/metre) falls off inversely with distance from a radio transmitter aerial, whereas for gamma rays and visible light the energy per quanta is discrete.

    There is a qualitative difference betwen radio waves emitted by the group behaviour of many electrons in an aerial, and light emitted by atoms or gamma rays from the nucleus, which are due to discrete quantum transitions.

    For radio waves, the emission is not Planckian or Bohrian quantum jumps, but gradual emission.

    The 'displacement current' radiation is also going to cause fundamental forces by exchanging energy as the gauge boson of electromagnetism.

    Best wishes,

  7. Dr Peter Woit, as a mathematician, has stated that he would like to proceed from axioms in quantum field theory. He is interested in representation theory, and developing an axiomatic approach to quantum field theory.

    I think I understood this , and why I introduced Dirac into the picture.

    The axiom as a theoretcial approach would need a guding principal would it not?

    So while I might have been inmmature in the ways of science, I ask what the underying basis of procedure that while infantile to the degree of mathematcians and those of the know like Clifford, it also recogizes the developement of scientific procedure in terms of the responsibilies one can have from developing perspective and sharing.

    For instance following post:

  8. So he had made his blog for mathematicians and physicists?

    While he thought he might have been doing them a favour, there are some better edcuated then himself in that regard who might seem him as a crank?

    It's not that he is by virtue of my placement in the pack, but he under estimates the level of understanding so might have himself said okay, like myself, in relation to those better educated in string/M theory, had been marred by the experience of having his/mine views moderated?

    Now that it is clear what you have in mind, I’ll go back to my original version of the comment, and elaborate. Over the last twenty years of absurd overselling of the theory I haven’t seen any string theorist publicly complain about this. Now that critics are getting more equal time, all of a sudden they see the press discussion of this topic to be problematic. Funny how that works.

    As for the extent to which I’ve personally made spectacles in or appeals to the popular press, I should explain some history. About five years ago I first finally decided that, given the overwhelming hype surrounding string theory, someone should write up an account explaining the problems of the theory for an audience of physicists and mathematicians. The result was posted on the arXiv and submitted to Physics Today (where it was more or less treated as the work of a crank). I made no further attempts to publish it, but was contacted by an editor of American Scientist who had seen it on the arXiv and asked if they could publish it, which I agreed to. I then started work on a book manuscript, containing both criticisms of string theory as well as history and more positive material, again aimed at physicists and mathematicians, hoping to publish it with an academic press. When I had nearly finished it, an editor from Cambridge University Press stopped by my office when he was visiting Columbia, so I gave him a copy to look at. Publication by Cambridge was ultimately thwarted by two anonymous string theorist referees.

    Other editors at a couple of academic presses then advised me that an academic press would not be able to publish my manuscript since it was “too controversial”, i.e. there would be too much heat from string theorists. Only then did I start exploring publishing with a trade publisher. A literary agent advised me that the best thing to do was to remove much of the more technical material, after which it would be quite salable, something I was loathe to do. Finally Roger Penrose put me in touch with the British publisher Jonathan Cape, and they were willing to publish the book despite the inclusion of more technical material.

    I don’t have an agent or publicist, and don’t spend any time contacting people in the press trying to get them to write articles criticizing string theory. Instead I write a blog not intended for the general public, one where I put up material I think other mathematicians and physicists might find interesting. I’m gettng more and more phone calls and e-mail from people in the press who are writing something about string theory and want to get both sides of the story. If they seem to be responsible and have some idea of what is going on, I talk to them and tell them what I think about the scientific issues as honestly and clearly as I can. You’re welcome to your opinion that this behavior is “making spectacles in, and appeals to, the popular press”, but it’s out of line.

    So his history and explanation helps in this regard.

    Some might of thought my short burst of comments frustrating through the length of that comment section on cosmic varianc.

    I was able to dreive from the conversation the essence of and the approach that I think is essential from a theorectical standpoint.

    How does one begin to derive such a guiding principal?

    Lubos Motl was held in this regard as well in terms of the position you mention Peter starts from, from your last post above.

    Not just these two either , but from what the Lee Smolins ask from a responsible standpoint as well.

    You see where I am going here?

    So the question of "Calorimetric design" plays a role in what they espouse and where the science has been leading us. For Smolin and the glast group, this procedure is aviable route to historical definitions and scientific consistent ones.

    While they may see to moderate my views I wil no feel the same wayy you or Peter might feel, but know that what is the guiding principal although began fromt he views of Dirac are highlight in experimental validation points I have linked for you in perspective.

    I called them the Onion People

  9. In regards to this article you linked tried as I might, I failed to see how Josephson would have some how been at the fault of these deaths?

    So should I from this derive Josephson and assign him to the dogpile?

    By virtue of the connection to string theory, and his further speculations about ESP, that this would be his final nail in the coffin?

    I am more forgiving, and how such technlogies take their role in applications and prodceedures.

    Were they timely? His nobel prize for, having failed this application?

    This is very hard for me to predict retrospect.

    I will not ever form such opinions about Peter, or any who might have saved, if the technologies been rightly applied. This is way to much of a burden, to put on ones shoulders would you not think?


  10. Dear Plato,

    I never said Josephson killed anyone, just that he COULD have helped with it by proof reading or something, not being rude. I've not seen Josephson ESP, Kaku UFOs, Sheldrake Morphic Resonance or the Lock Ness Monster. Just science!

    Science can perhaps start to deal with "religion" and ivory tower quantum computing after there is some understanding for the more immediate problems of forces and real computers, which DO EXIST!

    I wish you would take a look at the error in Maxwell's "displacement current" interpretation which I linked to above, and comment on that, as that is vital. Spinning fermions have centripetal acceleration a = (c^2)/R, where R is black hole radius 2MG/c^2 if we are dealing with a fermion as a trapped Heaviside_poynting energy current.

    This acceleration is then

    a = (c^2)/R = (1/2)(c^4)/(MG)

    So fundamental spinning particles accelerate all the time, radiating energy as "displacement current" like radio waves. This is the "gauge boson" of electromagnetism, giving attraction and repulsion.

    I've revised my home page again to make the position clearer and more reasonable-looking.

    Best wishes,

  11. Nigel said:I wrote the article myself because Joesphson wouldn't help try to save people's lives. It would have been better if he would have helped.

    I mistook this statement then?

  12. I emailed Brian Josephson and asked if he would co-author or help. If he didn't want his name involved, he could just have proof read it. Instead he sent back a less than polite response!

  13. Hi Nigel,

    There Are reasons I like the time travel scenarios.

    On a human level, we do not pay to much attention to the way we do things in our lives.

    One of them I had noticed is that having accomplished somthing at one point, time passes, that we could projected ourselves forward in that past of our memories, as to what could have been different in a future called, "now."

    This same scenario is presented in the cases, where we go back towards historical perspective and leading from that, had they recognized this and that then, how different would our world be on a fictional level? See this is the projection part we are concretizing in our matters of opinion.

    Hence the term "retrospect" is valuable insight, in that we recognize what we are doing when we create our worlds of dissapointment, in things, that we wished we would have been done different.

    This is no ones fault , but points to recogition of the valuableness of growth and understanding, when tackling different experiences we had.

    This does not lesson the roles that you had play in that historical context.

    Do you see?


  14. Dear Plato,

    I'm not really interested in this time travel. It makes popular films, but I'd also like to see films showing real physics.

    I wish someone would bring out Feynman's lectures as DVD films, especially the November 1964 ones on "Character of Physical Law".

    Best wishes,

  15. Hi Nigel,

    Could you give some inkling how you might have thought Josephson might have help you in the article you linked.

    As to historical resources this would be very educational I think.

    Sometimes people are out there who do have the links for this. Among my own resources, I will have to look.

    As to Josephson, you would not be alone to critize him, as Lubos had done a good job as well. From a computer standpoint, you raise interesting questions as well as Gerard t' hooft you rightfully recognized comarisons through my work here. Although, you also realized now I am not him:)

    The foundations of Mathematics is rasied here for further introspections about the developement of theoretical positions.

    Clearly these ideas are built on the basis of other ideas that had gone through the process of science, or it would not have meant anything would it?

    What is Your Law? If you start from a differnet psotion how would change the way you'd always seen? You say that we only access so much of the brain, while computer access is being greatly enhanced. Can it supercede the human capability?

    So I'll post this link following and say this has me wonder about the very basis of mathematics itself.

    String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

    The point in regard to mathematical thinking, which motivates our model, is the following. Consider first of all what the brain does in visual perception. Here the primary information from the visual receptors goes through various levels of processing until it ends up as a high-level representation of the content of the visual field. It is not unreasonable to identify mathematics as a similar process, except that higher levels of abstraction are involved in this case. With the visual case, the mechanics are straightforward: the visual field typically contains for example edges, for which abstraction a dedicated neural system has evolved, related to our ability to perceive edges. It is hard to see why we should have such ready access to higher mathematical abstractions having little connection with experience (Penrose 1994). One resolution of the problem would be for mathematical concepts to be in some way ‘in the physics’, rather than being emergent properties of brains. In case it is felt that such a drastic solution is not necessary to explain our ready access to mathematical ideas, and that neural networks can provide an adequate explanation, a stronger argument for the existence of some kind of Platonic realm can be made on the basis of the aesthetic aspect of music (Josephson and Carpenter 1996).

  16. Dear Plato,

    My law? Maxwell didn't really do much, the vector calculus was by Heaviside, but one valuable Maxwell equation is:

    Total current = electric current + displacement current

    Really atoms are capacitors themselves, not solids as Maxwell thought in 1873 (X-rays and radioactivity only confirmed the nuclear atom in 1912). So the light speed mechanism of electricity is associated with "displacement current" and electric current results from the electric field induced by "displacement current".

    In March this year, Electronics World carried a longish letter from me pointing out that the error in the Heaviside/Catt model of electricity is the neglect of the energy flowing in the direction of displacement current.

    We know energy flows between the conductors from Feynman's correct heuristic interpretation of Dirac's quantum electrodynamics. Gauge bosons, photons, are exchanged to cause forces, and we know that energy flows "through" a charging/discharging capacitor, appearing on the opposite side of the circuit. Catt/Heaviside proclaim, nothing (including energy) flows from one plate to the other, which is false, like their ignorance of electrons in the conductors.

    A radio transmitter aerial and receiver aerial form a capacitor arrangement:


    Catt is right at to point out that Maxwell ignored the flow of light speed energy along the plate connected to a charge. He is wrong to ignore my statement to him, based on Feynman's heuristic quantum mechanics and my fairly deep mechanistic knowledge of radio from experimenting with it myself instead of reading equations and theories from armchair experts in books (I read the books after experimenting, and found a lot of ignorance).

    Radio transmitter aerial: |

    Radio receiver aerial: |

    Transmitter aerial and receiver aerial arranged for strong reception: ||

    Transmitter aerial and receiver aerial arranged for zero reception: --

    Transmitter and receiver aerial in a more usual situation (receiver picking up a much weaker than transmitted field):
    | |


    It was Prevost in 1792 who discovered that if a cooling object is also receiving energy in equilibrium, you don't measure a temperature fall.

    Charges radiate continuous displacement current energy and receive energy, there is equilibrium. Where equilibrium doesn't occur, you have forces resulting, potential energy changes, and so on.

    Displacement current as Maxwell formulated it only occurs while
    "charging/discharging". In any case, it is not the flow of real charge, only energy. The electromagnetic field of displacement current is really energy, and this is what propagates through space, causing the long range fundamental forces.

    Best wishes,

  17. ‘Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together! Here at Padua is the principal professor of philosophy [Professor Cremonini] whom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And to hear the professor of philosophy at Pisa [Professor Giulio Libri] labouring before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky.’

    – Letter from Galileo to Kepler, 1610 (Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, London, 1913, Chapter 4).