Null Physics anyone?

[Reality Check]

He is only saying that infinity needs to be re-defined surely.
He cant mean the whole of mathematics.

He does not redefine the whole of mathematics - just the bits of it that he needs to support null geometry.
For example he redefines a line as as the one-dimensional space (equation 2.1):

0 = (....+0+0+0+...)

i.e. as a series of geometric points that can somehow be summed up as zero. He conveniently forgets that a line consists of separate points at different locations since a line has an extent. His definition is basically a line with all its points at 1 location (no extent).

He then goes on to redefine two and three dimensional space (planes and volumes) using his unique and confusing notation of powers:

0 = (....+0+0+0+...)²0 = (....+0+0+0+...)³

 

[Reality Check]

So then a quark consists of a quark, as far as the current paradigm is concerned. Some would say it's substructure consists of nothing

My point here was, when someone says and I quote

"This ignores the fact that a point has a location in space and so contains information. Information is not nothing."

and I say

"The location information that a point contains is relative to whose view point.
Ours, inside space or outside space?"

and then you say

"I don't understand the question"

and then I say

"what I am asking is, if you are for example on Mars or 3000 light years away, would your co-ordinate system's point of origin be the same?
ie x,y,z or x1,y1,z1"

and then you say

"I think you may be a little confused about the concept of coordinate system. It's just an arbitrary set of labels for points. You can put the origin wherever you choose, regardless of where you are."

I am not confused about co-ordinate systems, I know that the point of origin can be anywhere.
However,if the point as some would say contains information of location, my question is which co-ordinate system would it be, and if the point of origin moved would it update its information. If not, then how could the point hold its location information.

The point is that there is information about the location. The form of the information is not important. It can be in any coordinate system with any origin (or none) that you like.

This line of points. What do they consist of? Particles? Nothing? What?

A line consists of points.

This is what my argument is about about the 1 cubic metre of golfballs and 100 cubic metres of footballs. When you get to infinity, which you never do, the golfball sets volume is always is smaller because the volumes were different when you started.

How could the golfballs be bigger than the footballs, they were smaller when you started the infinite sets. Its not about the size of an individual golf or football, its about the size of the container 1 cubic metre versus 100 cubic metres. The spatial volume of the initiating sets.

I think you are messing with my brain for your entertainment

So far we have discussed this in philosophical terms and not in mathematical terms.

You are discussing this in philosophical terms (wrong part of the forum for that by the way).
Everyone else including Witt are discussing this in mathermatical terms - note his use of the word axiom, the many theorems and equations.

As far as Witt and Stenger --

Stenger says "Our universe may be no more than re-arranged, re-structured nothingness"

Witt says "Everything is constructed of nothing"

Whats different?

The word "may". Also a citation for Stenger's quote so that it can be seen in context might be useful.

Witt also says the following --

1. Matter and antimatter are always created in equal, yet opposite amounts, whose electrical sum is zero.

2. Positive and negative electrical fields sum to a neutral universe with zero net electrical charge.

3. Energy is conserved in all interactions: the magnitude of of the universes energy has zero change.

4. Space is a collection of points, little bits of nothingness itself, embodiments of the geometric zero.

5. Charge must be conserved in particle interactions, the sum of charge differences is zero.

6. Momentum is conserved, so the universe's net momentum remains constant at zero.

What are your comments on these points as they sound quite reasonable to me.

They are the standard laws of conservation of mass, charge, momentum and energy in physics (except for 4 which is his special bit of nonsense). These have been in use for centuries.

 

[Almo]

Here's a bunch of quotes from Victor Stenger, particle physicist (retired).

"On the face of it, symmetry appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with modern physics"

That is clearly an incorrect statement. One of the fundamental particles was discovered by filling in a missing spot in a matrix to make it symmetric. That predicted a particle, so they looked for it and found it.

Unless he has some funny definition of symmetry, or was referring to something else or...

 

[Skwinty]

Well RC,
I apologise for discussing this philosophically.
I am not a philosopher nor a mathematician. I am just using words here.
Does one have to speak in formulae in this thread.
How else am I supposed to discuss these issues.

If the general consensus here is that I should remove myself, please say so and I will.

Please define point as in line of points. Is the point a dimensionless object as per the link I supplied in an earlier post. Please clarify how the point contains location information.

The Stenger quote comes from "The never ending days of being dead" by Marcus Chown Chapter 7 "Patterns in the Void" pages 144 and 145.

Also check Stengers website and the powerpoint presentation called "Lawhigh".

Please understand I am also skeptical of Null Physics, but then to be honest, I am also skeptical of the opinions of posters on this forum. (given that most do not disclose their credentials)
I like to work things through by looking at a cross section of opinions before forming ad hominem opinions.

 

[Almo]

I like to work things through by looking at a cross section of opinions before forming ad hominem opinions.

As has been stated before: If someone comes to you saying "I know medical science! Diseases are caused by triangles." It's pretty safe to ignore anything he says related to medical science.

Witt does not seem to understand the very fundamentals of physics or math. Hence anything else he says about these fields is suspect.

 

[Skwinty]

That is clearly an incorrect statement. One of the fundamental particles was discovered by filling in a missing spot in a matrix to make it symmetric. That predicted a particle, so they looked for it and found it.

Unless he has some funny definition of symmetry, or was referring to something else or...

My apologies, I missed the second part a few lines down the page.

The missing bit is "However it turns out to be crucial"

I relied on the "On the face of it" bit.

It doesnt change this statement however

"Now , I understand that "nothing" the "void" is the very epitomy of symmetry." which was made by me.

 

[Skwinty]

As has been stated before: If someone comes to you saying "I know medical science! Diseases are caused by triangles." It's pretty safe to ignore anything he says related to medical science.

Witt does not seem to understand the very fundamentals of physics or math. Hence anything else he says about these fields is suspect.

Yes, point taken. But as a non physicist and non mathematician, i dont know that until I explore it.

As far as the medical example you give, only a moron would believe that.

 

[sol invictus]

So then a quark consists of a quark, as far as the current paradigm is concerned. Some would say it's substructure consists of nothing

Whatever.

I am not confused about co-ordinate systems, I know that the point of origin can be anywhere.

I might have believed you, had it not been for the next thing you asked:

However,if the point as some would say contains information of location, my question is which co-ordinate system would it be, and if the point of origin moved would it update its information. If not, then how could the point hold its location information.

??

Coordinate systems are like words. They are totally arbitrary labels for real physical things. Your question makes as much sense as asking: "Well, if cows are called "cow" in English, and you move to Spain where they're called "vaca", what happened to the cow in the field near my house?

Answer: nothing.

This line of points. What do they consist of? Particles? Nothing? What?

What does your current location consist of?

This is what my argument is about about the 1 cubic metre of golfballs and 100 cubic metres of footballs. When you get to infinity, which you never do, the golfball sets volume is always is smaller because the volumes were different when you started.

You missed the point again. Build your collection using units of 100 cubic meters of golfballs and 1 cubic meters of footballs. In the end you have infinity of each, but your conclusion about which is bigger is reveresed.

Point being, you must know how an infinity is defined before you can compare it to another.

I think you are messing with my brain for your entertainment

Well, yes... but what I'm saying is true.

My apologies, I missed the second part a few lines down the page.

The missing bit is "However it turns out to be crucial"

I relied on the "On the face of it" bit.

That's what happens when you take quotes out of context. Symmetry is the central idea of modern particle physics.

 

[Almo]

As far as the medical example you give, only a moron would believe that.

That may be true, but the number of mathematically inclined people on this board who say Witt is wrong should be enough, especially coupled with Witt's inability to get any traction in peer-reviewed physics and math journals.

At some point, with fields you're not an expert in, you just have to let go or you're going to be stuck chasing up all sorts of goofball theories. Let go of Null Physics. It's not going anywhere anyway.

Spend your time reading up on what's going on with the LHC instead. That's much more interesting.

 

[sol invictus]

Witt also says the following --

1. Matter and antimatter are always created in equal, yet opposite amounts, whose electrical sum is zero.

Obviously false. Look around you - how much antimatter do you see? It's also known to be false from particle accelerator data, where we have proof that matter and anti-matter are not symmetric and are not created in equal amounts (look up CP violation, for example).

2. Positive and negative electrical fields sum to a neutral universe with zero net electrical charge.

Probably true. Standard physics.

3. Energy is conserved in all interactions: the magnitude of of the universes energy has zero change.

The most basic physics of all.

4. Space is a collection of points, little bits of nothingness itself, embodiments of the geometric zero.

Gibberish.

5. Charge must be conserved in particle interactions, the sum of charge differences is zero.

Basic physics.

6. Momentum is conserved, so the universe's net momentum remains constant at zero.

Same.

 

[Reality Check]

Well RC,
I apologise for discussing this philosophically.
I am not a philosopher nor a mathematician. I am just using words here.
Does one have to speak in formulae in this thread.
How else am I supposed to discuss these issues.

If the general consensus here is that I should remove myself, please say so and I will.

Please define point as in line of points. Is the point a dimensionless object as per the link I supplied in an earlier post. Please clarify how the point contains location information.

The Stenger quote comes from "The never ending days of being dead" by Marcus Chown Chapter 7 "Patterns in the Void" pages 144 and 145.

Also check Stengers website and the powerpoint presentation called "Lawhigh".

Please understand I am also skeptical of Null Physics, but then to be honest, I am also skeptical of the opinions of posters on this forum. (given that most do not disclose their credentials)
I like to work things through by looking at a cross section of opinions before forming ad hominem opinions.

No you do not have to speak in formulae. I was just reminding you that there is an entire other section in this forum if you want to speak "philosophically". There are plenty of philosophers there.

Please do not remove yourself but you should keep in mind that this is the "Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology" topic. An occasioned digression into philosophy is OK.

Point: In geometry, topology and related branches of mathematics a spatial point describes a specific point within a given space that consists of neither volume, area, length, nor any other higher dimensional analogue. Thus, a point is a 0-dimensional object. Because of their nature as one of the simplest geometric concepts, they are often used in one form or another as the fundamental constituents of geometry, physics, vector graphics, and many other fields.
or
Point: A point 0-dimensional mathematical object, which can be specified in n-dimensional space using n coordinates.

Line: A line can be described as an ideal zero-width, infinitely long, perfectly straight curve (the term curve in mathematics includes "straight curves") containing an infinite number of points. In Euclidean geometry, exactly one line can be found that passes through any two points. The line provides the shortest connection between the points.

 

[Tubbythin]

Obviously false. Look around you - how much antimatter do you see? It's also known to be false from particle accelerator data, where we have proof that matter and anti-matter are not symmetric and are not created in equal amounts (look up CP violation, for example).

Doesn't the BarBar and Belle data only show CP violation in decay? Isn't CP violation in production reserved for things like the MSSM?

 

[Vorpal]

Well, when Einstein wrote GTR, it was assumed that the universe was static hence the cosmological constant. GTR as I understand was primarily about gravity and not the size of the universe. This theory initiated relativistic cosmology.

You miss the point. Pretty much the only way the null axiom makes sense is if it's referring to the the Einstein field equation--which identifies mass-energy, momentum, and stress with Ricci curvature of spacetime. The field equation doesn't care whether the universe is static, finite, or infinite (although it does predict that a static universe is unstable, no matter what the cosmological constant is).

What sin was I referring to?

Perhaps I misunderstood the point of referencing your quote. But it nevertheless remains the case that philosophy of science should be guided by actual science, or else it is simply blind flailing about. I don't see Mr. Witt's work as being based on actual science because his webpage shows that he does not understand it.

I am not confused about co-ordinate systems, I know that the point of origin can be anywhere.
However,if the point as some would say contains information of location, my question is which co-ordinate system would it be, and if the point of origin moved would it update its information. If not, then how could the point hold its location information.

This information is the relationship with every other point, not through any particular coordinate system. Say we're in Euclidean space. For any point P, moving the origin from O to O' does not change certain invariants, such as the distances OP or O'P. It merely changes the numbers on our coordinate axes.

This is what my argument is about about the 1 cubic metre of golfballs and 100 cubic metres of footballs. When you get to infinity, which you never do, the golfball sets volume is always is smaller because the volumes were different when you started.

So? Value and limit are not the same thing. Imagine that it is an hour before midnight and you have an empty urn of infinite capacity and infinitely many balls indexed by the natural numbers. You put in balls #1-10 and immediately remove ball #1. Half an hour before midnight, you put in balls #11-20 and remove ball #2. A quarter-hour before midnight, you put in #21-30 and remove #3, and so on.
Q: How many balls are in the urn at midnight?
A: None. (To make this obvious, ask yourself: if the urn is not empty, which ball is in the urn?)
Similarly, you're finagling with limits involving volume. That's not counting. How do tell if two sets have the "same number" of elements? You lay try to lay them side by side in a one-to-one fashion.
Golfball1 <--> Football1, Golfball2 <--> Football2, ...
And since you can do so in a way that each golf ball is identified with exactly one football and vice versa, there are the same number of golf balls as footballs. Regardless of their individual volumetric comparison.

It's even true if we count volume. Imagine, for convenience, that each golf ball and each football are sized to be a whole number of cubic units. Then we can straightforwardly do the same kind of identification as above, with "volume unit #n of golf balls" identified with "volume unit #n of foot balls", and conclude that the entire collections both have the same volume (which happens to be infinite).

 

[Vorpal]

I think you are messing with my brain for your entertainment

(Psst, guys... next, let's tell him that 0.9999.... = 1.)

 

[Scott1972]

(Psst, guys... next, let's tell him that 0.9999.... = 1.)

There is a special hell for people like you.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

The statement infinity+1>infinity is mathematically false, as I have already proven for you.

Depends on your number system. That's true for the integers and reals, but not true for the surreals (not that this has anything to do with null physics, of course).

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[sol invictus]

Depends on your number system. That's true for the integers and reals, but not true for the surreals (not that this has anything to do with null physics, of course).

Agreed on all counts. Earlier I was more catious (I said that Witt would have to be very careful how he defined arithmetic operations, or something to that effect), but I quickly realized these considerations were so far beyond the level of the discussion it wasn't worth keeping them.

Doesn't the BarBar and Belle data only show CP violation in decay? Isn't CP violation in production reserved for things like the MSSM?

I'm not sure what you mean... those experiments produce lots of Bs and Bbars. It's true there is an intermediate unstable state (the upsilon 4s resonance), but I don't see the relevance.

Anyway Witt's statement was not really about CP, but about C. For example the fact that kaons spontaneously turn into their antiparticles proves his claim false. The fact that they turn into anti-kaons at a different rate than anti-kaons turn into kaons proves that a more clever version of his statement - that CP is conserved - is also false. And just by looking around you can see there's a major problem from the very beginning - how much anti-matter do you see?

 

[Stir]

Skwinty: I think possibly the difficulty in understanding a 'point' and its relationship to a coordinate system is due to your (often stated) description of a point 'containing' its location ... as though if you could grab a point and peel it open, there would appear a set of numbers describing its location ... the word 'contains' in this context is completely misleading ... better would be to say a point is associated with a location which may be described in relation to a coordinate system of choice

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm not sure what you mean... those experiments produce lots of Bs and Bbars. It's true there is an intermediate unstable state (the upsilon 4s resonance), but I don't see the relevance.

Hmm. Neither am I entirely. I'm working from hazy memory. Is it true that the B⁰ and B⁰ bar have the same lifetime but that the decay branching ratios to the CP analogues states differ? Does that even make a word of sense?

Anyway Witt's statement was not really about CP, but about C. For example the fact that kaons spontaneously turn into their antiparticles proves his claim false. The fact that they turn into anti-kaons at a different rate than anti-kaons turn into kaons proves that a more clever version of his statement - that CP is conserved - is also false.

My understanding is that CP violation was first observed with the two pion decay of the K⁰_long. And hence, K⁰ _short and K⁰ _long are not CP eigenstates. Is your above statement just another way of saying what I've just said?

And just by looking around you can see there's a major problem from the very beginning - how much anti-matter do you see?

Agreed. I wasn't objecting to you saying Witt was wrong.

 

[Skwinty]

Skwinty: I think possibly the difficulty in understanding a 'point' and its relationship to a coordinate system is due to your (often stated) description of a point 'containing' its location ... as though if you could grab a point and peel it open, there would appear a set of numbers describing its location ... the word 'contains' in this context is completely misleading ... better would be to say a point is associated with a location which may be described in relation to a coordinate system of choice

hi stir, yes i agree, i was arguing against RC's statement here below.

"This ignores the fact that a point has a location in space and so contains information. Information is not nothing."