Wednesday, November 30, 2005

What First principle was-- was it the geometry

I thought I would contrast this quote of Dirac's with the one of Feynman's.

You see the very idea of a constancy that spread through all Maxwell's equations was a necessary one which allowed Einstein to move into positive and negative valuations within the geometries? So did Dirac know how this was to be approached?

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on Physics, v3, c18, p2.

Paul Dirac Talk: Projective Geometry, Origin of Quantum Equations Audio recording made by John B. Hart, Boston University, October 30, 1972

The quote below is in response to Dirac's comments


"One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER] the fact that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and because of the general way in which things at that time had to be explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him. Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps. This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."

So the question might have been, how this was viewed and what the result was through such a axiomization? What was the first principe here? Was there one that became the guiding principal?

I mentioned the compass for Einstein, as a modelled perception that grew into the later years, but here, we might have seen the beginnings Feynmans toys model for such geometries?


  1. The first principle was censorship, to stop common sense asking how fast the electron spins, how the gauge bosons deliver force, to stop Feynman's diagrams from turning completely arcane mathematical physics into a physical mechanism.

    The first principle, censorship, turns away kids from physics. Each year in the UK, 4% fewer students take up A-level physics, due to the leadership of physics by crackpot professors who believe multiple branes, 10^500 vacuu universes in a landscape of possibilities, and fairies.

    I wrote the leader about this in Electronics World, I think October 2003 issue.

    The first principle is hiding in the mirror and coming out only to allow the kicking everyone else. The first principle is worshipping nonsense, being paranoid.

    Frederick Forsyth’s essay in the Daily Express (7 Oct 05, p11): ‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived, but not abandoned.’

    Click HERE to see Brian Josephson exposed as a crackpot

    And then click HERE for a sympathetic article about Edward Witten's sad string theory crackpotism (with name changed to avoid legal action)

    The first principle is dictatorship, suppression, etc.

    The Jews were dismissed as paranoid when they feared Hitler. This is why the US turned back shiploads to Germany, where they perished.

    You seem to live in fairyland, where bad things only happen AFTER they become widely accepted as having happened. In the real world, string theory is doing bad things now, please tell us all again how wonderful it is.

    How much it predicts. How much money it consumes. How much worship it requires. How many kids it turns off physics. What a laughing stick it makes of physics.

    Go on, Plato. Excel yourself. Please?

  2. I wrote the leader about this in Electronics World, I think October 2003 issue

    and ? :)

    Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ...

    I thought the bold would ring some bell when speaking about Holography.

    As to the beginning of the paraphrase, if you had believed you held the answer and thought those lessor for not listening, could one have been under the delusion that he was speaking about other peoples "Fascism" or that he recognized this in himself?

    Such phrases serve us well don't they?

    Alice in Wonderland is a beautiful example of what comparisons had lured the wondering mind to the possibilties of these other worlds?

    Inexperience raised the issues of strange world that the photon could trvael in and it does not seem so unlikely that all these path ntegrals needed some toy model to describe all possibile sequences, as we wondered about Thomas Young's experiments. Tank you Feyman and thank you Dirac for the matrices.

    Spookiness now becomes real when we talk about entanglement, or possible roads to encription in computerization.

    That we still hold these stories with wonderment or appealing gaze, does not lesson the contributions that young minds can be lured into. After all, the modest gift of a compass did wonders didn't it?


  3. ‘It always bothers me that, according to the [path integral] 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.’ – Professor Richard P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, Penguin, 1992, pp 57-8. (In the same book Feynman discusses the pushing gravity mechanism as of November 1964, when it was in crisis.)

    My weblog deals with entanglement, which is an invention due to the false Bell inequality test of the EPR paradox. The whole thing is like the Michelson-Morley test of the spacetime fabric.

    Einstein and Eddington in 1920 both expressed the fact that the ether is in some sense real, and wasn't detected because its own resistance shortened the length of the detection instrument.

    For entanglement, the error was tested Copenhagen and Bohm. Both are wrong (Bohm because his hidden variables theories were crackpot, just maths with infinities), but that does not validate nonsense.

    I've got a lot of analysis there, but I don't really want to attack existing prejudices, just to be positive and publish a constructive theory. You are paranoid for your whole response to it. You won't discuss it, simply because I'm not credible in a political context, and you're not truly searching for objective knowledge. You highlight occult ideas, which have no testable predictions. This is very good for the Star Trek generation. How exactly do you decide how far to go into the occult, Plato? As you get older, will you go further? Will the Lock Ness Monster appear credible? Or ESP?


  4. ‘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).

  5. when you look at it objectively, for N decisions involving wavefunction collapses that create an infinite number of universes of which ours is one, you have (infinity).N parallel universes, which exceeds infinity!

    I'd be prepared to stake my life on the fact that the photon spins correlate because Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle doesn't apply to measuring photon polarisations: you can't apply indeterminancy to light, only to electrons. This is because when you measure light, the measurement can't change it as its going at light speed.

    For the measurement process to affect a light photon, changing its polarisation or whatever, you have to assume that the effect goes faster than light so that the whole photon is influenced. This assumption is metaphysics. Indeterminacy doesn't apply to photons. If you stick to mechanisms, there is no reason why it should. (Of course, now I have to be written off by Lumos as a crackpot with a 'personal pet theory' instead of taken seriously.)

    The way officialdom interprets experimental results, I'm sure string theory will be experimentally validated soon. Peter Woit admitted a few days ago on this blog that he validated some of Edward Witten QCD theory work, so I'm waiting for Woit to come up with a validation of Witten's string theory. Woit could do it very easily, by observing an apple drop. Witten in April 1996 wrote that string theory 'has the remarkable property of predicting gravity'. Notice: no prediction of numbers, so it can't be falsified. Therefore, it is accepted!

  6. Measuring the spin of photons doesn't necessarily change then like measuring the spin of molecules that Einstein suggested.

    It is clearer to think of 1 m wide (transverse wavelength) radio waves, than photons. One electromagnetic pulse to the aerial gives you "one photon".

    You can measure the polarisation by means of a field strength meter connected to a straight aerial.

    You don't need an aerial as long as the wavelength of the radio aerial, because you can vary the resonate frequency of the receiver aerial by adding a loading coil.

    If you do that, you are detecting radio waves by affecting only a small part of the transverse wavelength!

    If you measure the spin of a photon (going at light speed), for any change to be caused by the act of measurement, you have to assume that an effect can pass throughout the photon's transverse extent instantaneously, otherwise the "remainder" of the photon will have passed by before the rest of it can be affected.

    The assumption used in the theory behind the Bell test is crackpot. Therefore the result is crackpot.