Category: Mathematics

Posted on

A light hearted way of understanding the theory of relativity [temporal reality]

This is a dated comic strip [probably from sometime before the 1960’s] that I feel  does a good job in explaining the effects of relativity

Readers should note that the cartoon was produced before the discovery of the lighting effects that occur near to the speed of light.

Quote:

“When Albert Einstein advanced his special theory of relativity in 1905, he turned upside down everything that common sense and science had established about time. He said that time is not absolute, but is a relative quantity that could show one value to one observer while seeming different to a second viewer. The whole thing seemed preposterous.”

References:

http://kvpy2005.blogspot.com.au/2006/09/great-relativity-bomb-plot.html

http://www.willemsplanet.com/2015/05/09/friday-the-relativity-express/

It is against this background that I recommend that you read the attached pdf file:

relativity express comic

Posted on

The power of unpredictability in the universe

How did we get here?

The following video argues that reflective equations postulated by Turing predicted the underlying chaotic nature. It also states how nature self organizes itself into beautiful patterns which seem to come from nowhere. I wonder if fractal patterns are also a manifestation of Turing’s predictions? [Although Benoit Mandelbrot discovered fractals.] I will introduce you to this fascinating video by quoting the words of Edward N. Lorenz.

Lorenz wrote:

“At one point I decided to repeat some of the computations in order to examine what was happening in greater detail. I stopped the computer, typed in a line of numbers that it had printed out a while earlier, and set it running again. I went down the hall for a cup of coffee and returned after about an hour, during which time the computer had simulated about two months of weather. The numbers being printed were nothing like the old ones. I immediately suspected a weak vacuum tube or some other computer trouble, which was not uncommon, but before calling for service I decided to see just where the mistake had occurred, knowing that this could speed up the servicing process. Instead of a sudden break, I found that the new values at first repeated the old ones, but soon afterward differed by one and then several units in the last decimal place, and then began to differ in the next to the last place and then in the place before that. In fact, the differences more or less steadily doubled in size every four days or so, until all resemblance with the original output disappeared somewhere in the second month. This was enough to tell me what had happened: the numbers that I had typed in were not the exact original numbers, but were the rounded-off values that had appeared in the original printout. The initial round-off errors were the culprits; they were steadily amplifying until they dominated the solution.” (E. N. Lorenz, The Essence of Chaos, U. Washington Press, Seattle (1993), page 134)

I invite you to view one of my favorite scientific videos

More about Alan Turing that you may care to know

Posted on

Is reality defined by what is missing from zero?

I suggest that zero is a multidimensional concept of explicit [temporal] and implicit [ontological] informational meaning

I believe that each of these meanings have values of some kind. These values “exist” in a concurrent relationship to each other and might be seen as being relational to ten dimensional string theory. These values are determinate and indeterminate. I suggest that there are finite and infinite values in these multidimensional “layers” of dimensional information. These layers are not necessarily limited to ten. Implicit values are not limited by nature, extent, determinable theory or fact. Explicit [temporal] values are. But what are these concurrent relational values related to? Is is something greater than nothing? If this is the case what can we make of this? Is it the property of mathematical i that is representative of zero [The zeroth dimension]? Are these the same concurrent values that influence and “set” the direction and purpose of our everyday lives? Do these values also contribute to our understanding of the meaning of our lives too?

Posted on

When Zero might mean all that “IS”

I discuss why nothing might mean something

Some people think that zero means nothing. Others think zero means everything. If you read some of my science related blogs you will see where I believe that the later debate has merit. I propose this hypothesis in relationship to my view that the explicit [temporal] informational influences of the universe are “floating” in a sea of implicit [ontological] influences as described in this presentation. I further discuss this possibility in another shorter blog that I recently composed. From this I am proposing that all information that is implicit is without time [timeless] and as such is nondeterministic.

We can perhaps say from this that all implicit information is related to some sort of timeless [endless] continuum that can be referred to as being nothing. However, as we all know influences are real. Consciousness is real, consciousness has influential meaning. If this is correct, how can we discuss the properties [influence] of something that is nondeterministic and from a temporal perspective is “nothing”. I suggest that all that “IS” is either related to itself [I say a “common” continuum of awareness] as a universal continuum or otherwise temporally exists in a concurrent relationship with it. This is as though it were some sort of oneness. I think that this might be what Einstein was considering within this presentation that I recently compiled.

I propose that this “oneness” of all that IS has both temporal and ontological meaning and as such can perhaps be best described as having the mathematical and notional meaning of “everyday” purpose of zero. This meaning and purpose is represented by the mathematical concept of i.*

In respect to this debate you might find the three complementary links below to be of interest. In another blog demonstrate how I believe that from a multi-dimensional perspective such concept science might have merit.

* Quote:

“The imaginary number i: The imaginary numbers (numbers that include the value i = √ – 1) are a set of numbers not found on the real number line. If that idea sounds unbelievable — where else would they be? — don’t worry: For thousands of years, mathematicians didn’t believe in them, either. But real-world applications in electronics, particle physics, and many other areas of science have turned skeptics into believers. So if your summer plans include wiring your secret underground lab or building a flux capacitor for your time machine — or maybe just studying to get a degree in electrical engineering — you’ll find that imaginary numbers are too useful to be ignored.”

Complementary links:

Introduction to timelessness

The origin of the number zero

Is the past, present and future the same?

Posted on

It can be shown that we do not live in isolated systems

It can be mathematically and (significantly) organically demonstrated that we exist as a unified whole. Mathematically it can be shown that this holistic unity is as a result of the existence of unknowable energy type formations that ontologically manifest themselves in nature  as objects. Fractals are objects in which the same patterns occur again and again at different scales and sizes. These objects include flowers, trees, mountain range formation, cloud patterns and body parts and object shapes such as human faces.

They manifest themselves in organic structures in the visual form of self similarity in such objects. This “self-similarity” goes infinitely deep: each pattern is made up of smaller copies of itself, and those smaller copies are made up of smaller copies again, forever in a perfect mathematical fractal set. In mathematics this is known as the Mandelbrot set. A video demonstration of this self-similarity going infinitely deep (forever) can be seen here.

I suggest that fractal theory provides a pointer to what many people might see as the shortcomings of contemporary main stream physics theories. However, one of the eighteen versions of quantum mechanics probably does. This means that one day [it was in 2021]* could conceivably be linked to a suitable mechanical physics model such as the Bohm implicate order model.

*P.S. [6/Mar/22] If the words in this presentation seem to you to have a degree of validity I introduce you to this David Bohm documentary trailer to the full Infinite Potential video. In doing this try to understand the philosophical commentary thereto rather than the physics debate therein. Some of the science is complicated and not designed to be fully understood by lay persons, including me. The information herein can also be linked to this Infinite Potential post.

Posted on

Einstein believed in his later life that the past, present and future all exist simultaneously

He talks about the concept of ‘now’ in his new modelling

Unlike in his earlier life in his 1952 book ‘Relativity’ Einstein tells his readers that he had changed his mind and that the past, the present and the future all existed simultaneously. He believes that there is a single existence along the lines I suggest in this blog*. In this sense Einstein is debating that physical reality is a four dimensional existence. He extends these words by saying:

Quote:

“What nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory; rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has exceeded the mental powers of physicists. Do not be troubled by your difficulties with Mathematics, I can assure you mine are much greater..”

In material contained in the links below Einstein reminds us that “…it is an illusion to think otherwise…” about simultaneity as being the dominant property of the universe. The late distinguished physicist Richard Feynman talks about this possibility in his book ‘Sum Over Histories’ and seems to summarise his point with these few words (as quoted by another author):-

Quote:

“…Events in nature are probabilistic with predictable probabilities P.

The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes associated with every history leading to the event.

The quantum amplitude associated with a given history is the product of the amplitudes associated with each fundamental process in the history...” *

*A belated complimentary quote from this article:-

“… Yet even the great Einstein despaired of understanding the flow of time and the meaning of now. Einstein’s quandary was described by Rudolf Carnap:

“….”Einstein said the problem of the Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation. So he concluded ‘that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside the realm of science.’ “…” (I emboldened the text)

In another blog (also cited above) I talk about this topic in relationship to Bohm’s Holomovement theory and predeterminism. This blog also includes a link to a BBC video on the same subject. I feel that this video is compelling viewing.

*I believe that the Planck line in physics is a field of symbolic ‘nows’. Now’s are without time. Temporal fields (with time) exist on one side of the Planck line and ontological fields (relating to the rules of quantum mechanics) exist on the other. Both the temporal and ontological fields are in a concurrent relationship with each other as well as the Planck field of now’s. I think that this is what Bohm might be saying with his Holomovement theory (also known in other works as the implicate order).

Click here to view a copy of the original quoted text that I gleaned ideas and quotes from.

Also see my earlier complimentary post here. You might also find what Carlo Rovelli has to say in Nature magazine of interest as well. Also see this physics explanation.