08-05-2003, 07:01 AM
Yes, it reminds me of the contrasts between systems described by waves and those described by particles. Then you get the tricky stuff that is described by both. I think if his theories play out (and I hope they do), it may have some implications for a solution to the treatment of time in physics dogma like general relativity, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, et.al. and consequently has been a complaint back to von Neumann,
Just as we are trapped into our beliefs about the linearity and granularity of time (quantum moments), I would surmise that even our concepts of dimension are clouded by our perceptions of 3 space. So I go back to wondering if mathematics is just our tool for approximating the nature of reality.
Unfortunately, I think, the bulk of humanities capabilities in mathematics is limited to a small portion of easily solved linear equations. This limits most peoples mathematical understanding of reality to classical mechanics, or at best special and general relativity, and then there are the dedicated few who delve into quantum mechanics and beyond. But I fear that the true nature of reality is so chaotic, that no system of equations will ever describe it. The best we can do is to approximate it in controlled state environments. I kind of relate it to driving on a curvy highway. That is, we are seeking the equation to the curvy center line, when the best we can probably do is to sense when we are going into the ditch. Or, in other words, I fear that there is no equation for the center line. So from the Aristotlian POV, if we eliminate all those things that are not true, what we are left with is the truth. The problem is in knowing when you have reached it.
Anyway, I think it is useful to challenge ALL sacred cows, and I'm glad this guy had the guts to do it even with all the obstacles cast before him.
Quote:"First of all we must admit that this objection points at an essential weakness which is, in fact, the chief weakness of quantum mechanics: its non-relativistic character, which distinguishes the time t from the three space coordinates x,y,z, and presupposes an objective simultaneity concept. In fact, while all other quantities (especially those x,y,z closely connected with t by the Lorentz transformation) are represented by operators, there corresponds to the time an ordinary number-parameter t, just as in classical mechanics."
Just as we are trapped into our beliefs about the linearity and granularity of time (quantum moments), I would surmise that even our concepts of dimension are clouded by our perceptions of 3 space. So I go back to wondering if mathematics is just our tool for approximating the nature of reality.
Unfortunately, I think, the bulk of humanities capabilities in mathematics is limited to a small portion of easily solved linear equations. This limits most peoples mathematical understanding of reality to classical mechanics, or at best special and general relativity, and then there are the dedicated few who delve into quantum mechanics and beyond. But I fear that the true nature of reality is so chaotic, that no system of equations will ever describe it. The best we can do is to approximate it in controlled state environments. I kind of relate it to driving on a curvy highway. That is, we are seeking the equation to the curvy center line, when the best we can probably do is to sense when we are going into the ditch. Or, in other words, I fear that there is no equation for the center line. So from the Aristotlian POV, if we eliminate all those things that are not true, what we are left with is the truth. The problem is in knowing when you have reached it.
Anyway, I think it is useful to challenge ALL sacred cows, and I'm glad this guy had the guts to do it even with all the obstacles cast before him.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)