[Bill Eshleman]

Gyula said:

“I think, I have said clearly what I mean. I have the impression, you don’t understand or/and you don’t reflect to my clear arguments. I am considering the end of our discussion is coming. I don’t respond more, until you could give me a significant new argument for discussion, and I decide what is significant. The entropy argument is not significant,”

But now you have seen even more of how difficult it is to
try to teach new things to folks who have been brainwashed
by the 20th century “physics interpretations”;

interpretations of both the data and the mathematics.

I warned you in private email at the beginning of our
discussions that I would not be a “blank-slate”, but more
like the worst student you’ve ever had… full of crazy,
preconceived notions, so it is to your credit as a teacher,
that you put-up-with-me for so long……..

One more thing, is the question significant as to whether
the electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic interactions(forces)
become one in the very strong field?

Sincerely,
Bill

[Bill Eshleman]

“No one can take from us the joy of first becoming aware of something, the so-called discovery. But if we also demand the honor, it can be utterly spoiled for us, for we are usually not the first.” Goethe

If one considers that there are most likely a vast number
of conscious and intelligent lifeforms in just our own galaxy,
then there is only a very slim chance to be the “first discoverer” of anything.

[Bill Eshleman]

Dear Gyula,

“There are no physical reasons to assume that these fields are quantized.”

Then I anticipate some very good news for you….

There is no purely mathematical reason for quantization
of fields nor any of the other false quantizations either.
Certainly, there are good reasons, like the double-slit
experiment and the discrete spectrum of atoms, to be
tricked into believing that the false quantizations are
real, but tricks are neither physics nor are they
mathematics; they are illusions; they are caused by the
real quantizations… the quantization and conservation
of electric and gravitational charges, as you profess.

I have suspected this for decades, and you have put it
into a nutshell. you have united electricity and
gravitation. What’s left is to unite electricity and
the so-called strong force, and then your theory will be
no less than a new and complete standard model.

And I say this in great sincerity and admiration of your
efforts.

Mit kollegialen Grüßen,
Bill

[Bill Eshleman]

It is not clear to me at the moment as to why the field of
a quantized charge is NOT quantized itself, but please let
us discuss that at another time.

But for now, please explain to me why you reject the
quantizations of the other things that your peers take for
granted are quantized.

I concur, Nature does abhor a singularity because, for lack
of other analogies, the singularity is merely an unachievable asymptote; and there is not enough energy in
the universe for matter to achieve a so-called singularity.
And there is not enough time in the universe for a computer
to achieve it either; all a computer can do is calculate an
unending sequence of terms and/or factors analogous to
attempting to calculate the value of an irrational number.

Again, why do you hold that things your peers think are
quantized, are not quantized, but continuous?

I agree that they should be continuous as well, but am
fishing for reasons why. Please explain.

[Bill Eshleman]

Dear Gyula,

If I was starting a new thread I would call it:

“RealQuantities, PseudoQuantities, and the Singularity”

In your theory, the real-quantities are (e,P,p,E) which
quantize the electric and gravitational charges and fields.
Everything else is continuous in nature. I’m not sure how
you have came to the conclusion that “everything else” is
NOT quantized, but I’ve come to the same conclusion from
my in-depth study of 1/(1-x); I probably know more bizaar
properties of this relation than anyone else in this world.

I literally know of an infinity of identities for this
seemingly simple relationship; the so-called Lorentz factor
is but one of its family members. I know its infinite sums
and its infinite products. I view the products as generalizations of the sums; generalizations that yield
many surprizing features. But I digress.

When multiplying vectors we have two choices; the scalar
product(dot product) and the pseudovector product(cross
product). Therefore I take care never to multiply
polynomial vector spaces to avoid those pseudovectors.

It is my contension that standard QM does need crossproducts
and that is where false quantizations rear their ugly heads.
Magnetism, angular momentum and lots of other things are
pseudovectors and therefore pseudoquantities as such.

My speculation that pseudovectors are the source of
pseudoquantizations is certainly a quite weak conjecture, but
it lead me to investigate the relation between how close
“x” is to unity and how many of the infinite set of factors
that are needed. As I suspected, this seemingly trivial
relation showed factors “popping” into existance as I
successively halved the distance to the singularity at x=1.

So I have come to the conclusion that the quantizations of
the properties that you reject are somewhat convincingly rejected for mathematical reasons as well.

I’m anxious for you to explain how you have come to the
same conclusion that those quantizations are false. Maybe it will help or give me ideas that are mathematically more
“concrete” than my currently quite hypothetical(bizaar)
ramblings.

Please start a new thread if you choose to respond, but
realize that I’m currently quite interested in why(how) you
reject the quantizations that most of your peers take for
granted.

Sincerely,
Bill Eshleman

• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by Bill Eshleman.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by Bill Eshleman.

[Bill Eshleman]

Dear Gyula,

GOOGLE seems to have made a mess of the Einstein quote;
Please, if you will, translate the translation for me.

“Make it so before that I look back with quiet satisfaction on a life’s work. But it is seen quite differently from close. There is not a single phrase that I would be confident that he will stand, and I feel unsure if I am ever on the right path.”

Sometimes I feel like that too.

Sincerely,
Bill Eshleman

[Bill Eshleman]

Dear Gyula,

Now, with my feet again firmly attached to the Earth, and
not at all attacking your theory, nor even proposing to fool
you into a chain of reasoning that could negate your
assumptions….

I propose that your theory be left intact, and suggest that
it is only the form of your formalism, your purely Calculus
treatment of motion that could stand a more statistical
flavor. When I listen to you say that the positions and
velocities cannot be determined and that the Laws of Nature
are non-deterministic but causal, I see the need for your
concept of motion to be augmented by the concept of “optimal
transport” of information(-entropy). I believe that
statistical laws are what Nature has; probabilities and
their flow is a start, but large collections of objects
need the concept of a “measure” and that the term “entropy”
is that measure. Here is another video that I think you
should be interested in:

I suggest that your formal treatment is most accurately
described as “analytic” and that Information Theory is
as Cedric says, “synthetic” and so general that elegant and
beautiful concepts are born-out-of this generality.

Sincerely,
Bill Eshleman

[Bill Eshleman]

And that minus-sign that you modern physicists put into my
“precious” Pythagorean-Theorem; I don’t interpret what
happens as the creation of an imaginary axis; I see it as
the creation and/or revelation of another real 3-dimensional
world for so-called “weak-fields”; a world where our copies
see time as the cause of interactions, whereas in this
world we see the opposite…. that interactions are the cause of time. And as the fields get stronger and
stronger, more and more other worlds get created and/or
revealed.

That the “weak-field” “other-world” could be an (E, p)
world, would be very elegant indeed.

The irony might be that for the “strong-field” we may
be detecting particles that belong in the other-worlds and
not in this world at all.

[Bill Eshleman]

I’m even thinking that Feynman diagrams could easily
have been developed as “entropic” instead of “energetic”
He sums vectors that occur simultaneously, and dot products
vectors that occur one after the other. I like Feynman diagrams, but sadly, they only represent how shallow my
understanding of QM is. 🙁

[Bill Eshleman]

A suspicious dichotomy, I’m thinking. A hidden symmetry.
Possibly even a symmetry between Calculus and Information
Theory. Or maybe even as “trivial” as “d” versus “delta”,
and “integral” versus “summation”. To my way of thinking,
numbers are only numbers, so maybe the symmetry is between
the “concreteness of reality” and the “nothingness of
numbers”…….

[Bill Eshleman]

And this is the man who might be responsible for
creating a new way to replace Calculus as a modeling
language. He got the 2009 Fields Medal for studying
the Boltzmann Equation.

[Bill Eshleman]

This Wikipedia entry is what I was exposed to at university;
it was called Communication Theory at that time. The so-
called “other” entropies still baffle me. I call it the
“candy-store” entropy and have been utterly brainwashed and
hung out to dry, on its “truth”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)#Entropy_as_information_content

Communications require a transmitter, a channel, and a receiver. This theory allows electrical engineers to
describe the information content of alphabetic characters
and words so that optimal(but noisy) channels can be
determined.

e, P, p, E is the alphabet, the atoms and composite
particles are the words, the radiations are the noise,
and the channel is space(time).

To me, the analogy is fascinating; so I think/speculate
that most, if not all, models of particles and their interactions can be modeled not necessarily with Newton’s
old-style Calculus, but with the more modern Shannon
Information(communication) Theory concepts instead.

But it is important to know that I view this as merely an
hypothesis; the theory comes to me courtesy of Boltzmann, Gibbs, et. al., and finally Shannon.

Entropy is an extensive property and its paths are real
and reversible and conserved and symmetric(usually).

Thank you, cough, cough.

[Bill Eshleman]

Dear Gyula,

You said:
“The only conserved properties of interactions are their sources and their constant propagation c.”

I must agree, but then I must conclude that it is really
the entropy which is conserved and propagated at c…….

So in this fashion, Atoms and Entropy would be equivalent
notions and this is what I’m thinking Boltzmann
was “getting-at” in the first place. That is, that conserved particles and conserved waves are what might be
called “entropy-packets”(-P times Log(P)) and symmetric in
Nature.

Sincerely,
Bill Eshleman

[Bill Eshleman]

Ludwig Boltzmann was a genius; his atoms and his entropy
are tightly related, if not exactly the same thing.

Here is a nice lecture to this end:

That is, if the statistics are Gausian… did I say that
correctly?

[Bill Eshleman]

The picture in this post is a page out of my “idea-book”.

This cardioid-like curve is constructed piecewise-linear,
with the equality,

(delta theta)/(delta R) = theta/R

For our Sun, theta is the angle between an imaginary line
to where the Sun really is, and an imaginary line to where
the Sun was about 500 seconds previously. R is the distance of separation of the Earth and Sun, a 500 second
trip for the light(and gravity).

We all know that light and gravity travel only in straight
lines if not interfered with somehow, but that cardioid-like
“path” is compelling to say the least. Could it be a real path? Please dash my hopes with some logical reason why
that cardioid-like curve is just a mathematical artifact.

I literally need to “straighten-out” out that curve so I can
discard it or optionally leave more folks confused, as
certainly am I.

Gyula, please put Picture004.jpg here:

[Author]

Posts