Null Physics anyone?

[BFM]

Your sentences green importantly, so addition commutes alike? Thusly---there you go.

(In other words: you're not making yourself clear.)



So what? And Pi is a place holder for the diameter-to-circumference ratio of the circle. It remains true that mathematics has gotten beyond this, and for example the equation "e^(i pi) = -1" is true despite its total disconnect from circles and circumferences. Likewise, mathematicians now (and 500 years ago) know much more about zero---and about all numbers, and about non-numbers and functions and operators and whatnot---than ancient merchants did.



The history of mathematics is interesting, but the truth or falsehood of math statements is independent of their history.



You are again not being clear. Give an example.

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is. Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras.

As far as infinities of different sizes her's a good article http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes

 

[ben m]

ben m:
What is your opinion of Physics Essays?

Look through their table of contents some time: you will see all of the crackpot big names. It's a journal whose specific mission statement is to publish non-mainstream ideas without the burden of expert review. If you have library access, look them up in Worldcat some time---it's not in libraries. It's not indexed on SPIRES or Citebase or anything. In other words, it's got the same academic credentials as Bob's Weekly Mimeographed Perpetual-Motion E-Zine.

Glad it exists, from a free-speech and open-access perspective.

Never been sure why they don't post their articles online---it's not like many people *want* to read their stuff, why make it even harder?

 

[BFM]

The statement "in practice you can describe temperature without using the real number zero" is a much, much weaker (and less interesting) statement than you seemed to be making before. Indeed, this statement is well-known and well-proven in perfectly normal, zero-using physics.

Moreover, keep in mind that temperature is a statistical property of (countable) ensembles of degrees of freedom---degrees which we count, using additive numbers which include zero, and whose energies we measure on the real number line including zero. Even the statement "you can't reach zero Kelvin" has a rarely-stated caveat: " ... in a statistical system". Shrink your system enough, isolate a specific set of degrees of freedom, and you can sometimes get into a perfect ground state with exactly zero entropy---i.e. absolute zero temperature---except that by convention it's not interesting to write down the temperature and entropy unless the numbers are "large enough".

Not a very good basis for a Grand Theorem about How Numbers Work In Nature.

I'm sure you would be happy to use 0 K as an analogy to illustrate what you want your grand theory to do. But you can find an analogy for anything you want, including many true things and many false things and many not-even-wrong things. Skip the weak analogy and get to the meat, OK?

I don't know how weak the argument is when it lets the frame of reference shift from the traditional mathematics involved with classic physics, to more abstract algebras. Remember the chap Lisi and his crazy e8 lie set. Well it was a little to nutty to be taken seriously, but Mr. Witt's geometric argument is much much simpler

 

[Reality Check]

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is. Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras.

As far as infinities of different sizes her's a good article http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes

Why absolute temperature? What has this got to do with Terence Wiit's book?
According to Terence Wiit: there is only one infinitty. It has a finite size. It has the units of length.

Zero is easy, e.g. it is an integer number between -1 and 1.

It is easy to measure a quantity of zero kg/volts/joules/newtons/etc. in physics. But that quantity that you measure is not the number zero. The number zero does not have any units.

 

[Reality Check]

you would be looking for the property of something that would not exist. If I am trying to measure something that is not there how can i measure it????? Lets stick to absolute temperature for the purposes of trying to illustrate the point i am making.

OK. Then for the purposes of temperature only (what is absolute temperature?) you can never actually measure a quantity of 0 Kelvin.
So what?
Are you saying that every equation in Terence Witt's book is a calculation of temperature?

 

[BFM]

Why absolute temperature? What has this got to do with Terence Wiit's book?
According to Terence Wiit: there is only one infinitty. It has a finite size. It has the units of length.

Zero is easy, e.g. it is an integer number between -1 and 1.

It is easy to measure a quantity of zero kg/volts/joules/newtons/etc. in physics. But that quantity that you measure is not the number zero. The number zero does not have any units.

Terry does not NOT state that there is only one infinity. The math in his first chapter constructing his null sets is correct using alternate constructs of algebra.

Also, in reference to temperature of absolute zero, the reason I asked you to grant me what you just did, is that I can take that now apply alternate algebras, including affomentioned R*

Why can I do this?

 

[Reality Check]

Terry does not NOT state that there is only one infinity. The math in his first chapter constructing his null sets is correct using alternate constructs of algebra.

There is only 1 definition of infinity in his first 4 chapters that I have read.
If there are others then please provide citations.
Also state where he creates his "alternate constructs of algebra".

Also, in reference to temperature of absolute zero, the reason I asked you to grant me what you just did, is that I can take that now apply alternate algebras, including affomentioned R*

Why can I do this?

You can apply R* to the set of measurable temperatures if you want. By excluding 0 K from the set of measurable temperatures you are defining that set as the the real multiplicative group R* for temperatures.
Note that you will then not be able to add or subtract temperatures. Thus questions such as what is the difference in temperture bewteen the Earth and the Sun cannot be answered.

This has no application to the set of measurable masses (which includes zero), the set of measurable charges (which includes zero) the set of measurable lengths (which includes zero) etc.

So now you have a set of measurable temperatures that excludes 0 K. Temperatures in this set cannot be added or subtracted.
What are you going to do with it?

 

[sol invictus]

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is. Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras.

What in the world are you talking about? Zero has been understood thoroughly for centuries - more like millennia. Mathematically it's the additive identity, that's all.

As for temperature: are you aware that it can be negative?

 

[BFM]

There is only 1 definition of infinity in his first 4 chapters that I have read.
If there are others then please provide citations.
Also state where he creates his "alternate constructs of algebra".


You can apply R* to the set of measurable temperatures if you want. By excluding 0 K from the set of measurable temperatures you are defining that set as the the real multiplicative group R* for temperatures.
Note that you will then not be able to add or subtract temperatures. Thus questions such as what is the difference in temperture bewteen the Earth and the Sun cannot be answered.

This has no application to the set of measurable masses (which includes zero), the set of measurable charges (which includes zero) the set of measurable lengths (which includes zero) etc.

So now you have a set of measurable temperatures that excludes 0 K. Temperatures in this set cannot be added or subtracted.
What are you going to do with it?

I am not saying that he states that he is creating alternate contructs of math. I do think he does a poor job of saying what mathematical contructs he is using, infact he appears to be using abelian groups (which tie very nicely into boolean math) without stating such.

Also. Even relativistic protons have mass. Before we get into a QCD discussion, let CERN do its job and prove/disprove the model, if it ever comes online. Know that FERMILAB keeps ruling out possibilites of the higgs boson............

It's Late. Im going to bed.

 

[ben m]

I can take that now apply alternate algebras, including affomentioned R*

Why can I do this?

Because you picked a random group, then scoured physics for an example of a quantity that appeared to span that group, then ignored any contrary details of the physics? You can do that with any group you like.

 

[Reality Check]

I am not saying that he states that he is creating alternate contructs of math. I do think he does a poor job of saying what mathematical contructs he is using, infact he appears to be using abelian groups (which tie very nicely into boolean math) without stating such.

As far as I can see he uses ordinary (but misapplied) set algebra, i.e. intersections and unions. If he was a competent mathematician and using abelian groups then he would have stated this.

Also. Even relativistic protons have mass. Before we get into a QCD discussion, let CERN do its job and prove/disprove the model, if it ever comes online. Know that FERMILAB keeps ruling out possibilites of the higgs boson............

Try to keep on topic and not just blurt out random things.

Relativistic protons have mass. So do protons at rest.
We are never going to get into a discussion of QCD because Terrence Witt never discusses QCD.

It's Late. Im going to bed.

When you wake up you need to continue with your application of the set of measurable temperatures that excludes 0 K to Terrence Witt's pseudo-mathematics.

This should be interesting ....

 

[Perpetual Student]

Isn't amazing how many people who think they understand physics become seduced by crackpot stuff. Remember this BFM guy started with this comment:

Having Read the Book

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And having a excellent math and science background, I can say that book was a good read, contains novel ideas, and leaves room for additional work, including proofs (mathematical and observational). It almost reminded me of reading Flatland at some point in middle school. I love the fact that it introduces into modern physics the concept of 0 aka the null. How irrational is it that bookkeepers figured it out on the Indian subcontinent several thousand years ago, but the establishment rails against it because of its author/source/method of introduction (I have also invested the time to read this entire thread, quite amusing/frightening I might add...).

I would love to pick apart some of the concepts and ideas in the book and discuss them further, without getting into a gr, sm, qcd, string, whiners and complainers fest. Please Limit this discussion to people who have HONESTLY read the book with an open mind. It took about 1 week an hr a night to digest it, and I believe that it has been one of the best investments of my time recently.

With that in mind I realize there are some mental giants roaming loose on this thread, so before you (and you know who you are) start tearing into this post, which I don't really care if you do or don't, please post the ratio of free hydrogen to ionized hydrogen in free space at the top of your post.

So he thinks he has "a(sic) excellent math and science background." Then he says stuff like, "Physicists have not made that great leap into the acceptance of what a good mathematician can do with zero. Hence why I bring up absolute temperature, and departing into the different algebras."

Good Grief!

 

[sol invictus]

Also. Even relativistic protons have mass.

"Even"? Keep demonstrating your total ignorance of physics....

Before we get into a QCD discussion, let CERN do its job and prove/disprove the model, if it ever comes online.

The LHC at CERN is not going to prove or disprove QCD. It was built to find the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking, whether it's the Higgs or something else.

Know that FERMILAB keeps ruling out possibilites of the higgs boson............

Wrong. It has constrained its mass, but it hasn't ruled it out.

 

[ben m]

I only bring up the history of math to prove a point that, as illustrated by other posters, who are trying to measure the voltage of a table, that most persons do not have a good concept of what zero actually is.

Measuring the voltage across a table and getting zero is a perfectly good use of zero, and a perfectly good illustration of what zero "actually is".

You don't like it? This is how I am hearing that dislike: "Your physical example would be a counterexample if it were relevant. Since I'm right, there must be no counterexamples, so your example must be irrelevant."

 

[Perpetual Student]

From Witt's book:

"infinity + 1 > infinity"
"infinity (infinity + 1 ) = infinity2 + infinity
"infinity = the magnitude of the diameter of the universe"

BFM

Having Read the Book

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And having a excellent math and science background, ...

Yeah, right!

 

[sol invictus]

From Witt's book:

"infinity + 1 > infinity"
"infinity (infinity + 1 ) = infinity2 + infinity
"infinity = the magnitude of the diameter of the universe"

Yeah, right!

If BFM had any kind of math background, s/he would immediately recognize the silly Witt-icisms you quoted above as standard confusions many school kids go through when they first confront the concept of infinity in math class (at least the first two - the third is just weird). By age 14 or so most kids with even moderate abilities in math have understood that those statements are inconsistent and impossible.

 

[BFM]

Photons not Protons

Sorry for the confusion here. What I meant to say was that Even Relativistic Photons have mass...... It was late. sorry for the typo

 

[BFM]

The Missing Property

Let's say I have a set of really good Dial Calipers that can measure the width of ANYTHING. If you measure piece of paper, a human hair, etc, they would all give you measurements. If I take way that object, close my calipers, they read zero. By your logic I have made a sound measurement??? No I have made NO measurement. When you look for the voltage of a table and it has none, 0 is not a measurement, it is a placeholder for the lack of the property.

I am going to hit golf balls (seriously, I wont be back till Monday). If a ball sits on the tee, and my goal is 285 yard away, it has moved 0 meters, UNTIL I HIT IT. If the ball is never hit and Stays on the Tee forever, why would you measure its distance traveled?

 

[sol invictus]

Sorry for the confusion here. What I meant to say was that Even Relativistic Photons have mass...... It was late. sorry for the typo

That's what you meant to say? Are you sure?

Because that's really wrong. All photons are relativistic, and none have mass - photons are exactly massless.

 

[ben m]

I am going to hit golf balls (seriously, I wont be back till Monday). If a ball sits on the tee, and my goal is 285 yard away, it has moved 0 meters, UNTIL I HIT IT. If the ball is never hit and Stays on the Tee forever, why would you measure its distance traveled?

I don't want to measure the 285 yards, either, because golf is dumb. Let's put 285 and 0 into one set, and all the other reals into another. Null Physics surely follows apace.

BFM, now that we've discarded (and pureed and composted) your claim to have a "good background in math and science", let me introduce you to the concept of Cartesian coordinates. In science, we measure things with respect to coordinate systems. There are many different coordinate systems, all of which allow you to do the exact same measurements/kinematics/etc.. There are some coordinate systems that have special behavior at the origin. Others have special behavior somewhere else. None of them tell you what is or is not measurable or worth measuring; indeed, none of them should tell you that anything is unmeasurable unless you're being willfully ignorant.