## Minggu, 26 Februari 2017

### QM is deeply inconsistent and full of contradictions

Siegfried,

I mentioned that from a contradiction, one can prove anything. Here is an
explanation for this well known result in logic.

Historically there was a long lasted dispute on the meaning of logical
implication P-->Q.
The following table is currently accepted meaning of P-->Q

P Q   P-->Q
-------------
t t     t
t f     f
f t     t
f f     f

This is called material implication and the dispute on this is for the
case P=f. There are still some philosophical dispute on this meaning going
on. But in mathematicians community this is well established. The reason
why we need this "strange" truth values for P-->Q when P=f is simple. We
need it to make sure that the logical equivalence P<-->Q
which has the following truth table for meaning

P Q   P-->Q
------------
t  t    t
t  f    f
f  t    f
f  f    t

Naturally we expect P<-->Q is the same as P-->Q & Q-->P. Then we need the
material implication.

It is this material implication which logically derives any proposition Q
from a contradiction. Contradiction is f (false). So in a system which is
inconsistent (which derives f) we prove f and so using the P-->Q with it,
we can prove Q for any Q. This is what logicians call "deductive
explosion". It is precisely for this reason, we mathematicians reject any
theory which is inconsistent. An inconsistent theory will tell you that
everything is true.

In case of Relativity Theory and QM they assume 0/0=hf. This leads to a

(0/0)xhf=1xhf=hf
(0/0)xhf=(0xhf)/0=0/0=1

So, from any theory which assumes 0/0=hf, we can prove anything. This
means such theory is inconsistent and totally useless. Only geniuses of
theoretical physics think such theory is correct.

Humanity does not need geniuses. We need good thinkers.

Akira

Dear Akira,

Consistency of any theory is tested by individuals, it is not assessed by
some abstract universal and objective agent.  The question whether QM is
consistent in my estimation is, indeed up to me as far as whether I expend
time entertaining this question.  That is the point of my comment, not
whether QM is consistent as a purely objective question.  In any case, it
seems to me part of the challenge here is whether the question is clear
enough to be considered objectively answerable.  It is not, as stated in
this forum.

Siegfried

-------
Siegfried

Here is a good argument which will enlighten physicists regarding
contradiction. Contradiction could be very constructive too. Physicists
think that contradictions are inconvenient truth (negative truth) which
has to be covered up or ignored. I presume that this is a common human
nature. But if you think about the history of mathematics, you will be
amazed by the constructive role contradictions played in maths.

Ancient Greek geometers extensively used the proof technique of "proof by
contradiction". It is unfortunate that due to the upstart Americanization
(globalization) of education, nowhere in the entire world, students learn
Euclidean geometry properly. I am sure that this ancient discipline of
mathematics is way more important than the upstart Computational
Complexity theory which some upstart American Computer scientists such as
Ullman and Hopcroft developed.

The infamous Zeno's paradox taught mathematicians that the structure of
the collection of rational numbers is not sufficient to build mathematics
which works in real life. This eventually lead to the discovery of real
real numbers and limits yielding what we now call calculus.

From the lesson of Cantor's paradox, Alan Turing reached the concept of
formal computation in his attempt to clarify what do we mean by
mathematical proof. With this, Turing knew that most of the mathematical
functions are not computable. He proved this result aka the Halting
Problem using proof by contradiction. It goes ad follows: Assume that we
have a program which given a program D applied D to D itself and determine
if the computation stops or not. Let H(D) be such a program. From this
H(D), we can write a program H'(D) such that it terminates when H(D) does
not terminate and it goes into infinite loop when H(D) terminates. What
happened we execute H'(H'). At the pain of contradiction, we can conclude
that there is no way to write a program H(D).

Unlike arrogant theoretical physicists, mathematical logicians humbled
themselves after learning this deadly result of Turing. In theoretical
physics, I am sure he would well have been dismissed as "lunatic fringe"
or "crank". So I wonder who are real crank, lunatic fringe.

So, the consistency of a theory is not something which theoretical
physicists think.

Akira

Siegfried,

Here is a perfect example of how Cantor's set theory was shown to be
inconsistent from which we mathematicians have not recovered yet as we do
use set theory in contemporary mathematics.

In cantor's set theory, the first set theory ever defined, we define a
set
using a predicate P(x) as follows:

{x:P(x)}

denotes a set of objects x such that P(x) is true. For example we all
know
what {x:0<x<1} means. it is an open interval (0,1) in calculus. All 19th
German mathematicians at Gottingen were very happy with using this
concept
in very elementary way in the development of what we now call
mathematical
analysis. In his attempt to show that the Fourier expansion is unique,
Cantor pushed the limit of set theory to where all elements of any set
are
sets, the so called abstract set theory. He introduced the above
mentioned
way of defining such set, namely the axiom of comprehension.

In his developing of transfinite set theory to consider hierarchy of sets
in his typeless set theory, he discovered that his set theory is
inconsistent. When he announced this, mathematicians community was
shocked
and refused to accept Cantor's announcement. It was Bertrand Russell who
tried to debunk Cantor's inconsistency result discovered that there is a
simple most proof for that cantor's set theory is inconsistent. Here it
goes:

Let R={x:x not in x}. This is a set. So either R in R or R not in R.

(Case 1): R in R.
Then by the definition of R, R is not in R. So, contradiction.

(case 2): R not in R.
Then by the definition of R, R is in R. Again contradiction.

So in either case, we have contradiction.

This simple most refutation of Cantor's set theory was well understood by
mathematical logicians who think most precisely among mathematicians.

However, virtually no mathematical physicist understood this argument.
Their rather elementary criticism was that R is  very unnaturally
defined,
though they could not say what is natural here. Never the less if the
Fourier expansion is unique or not is not the matter of concern for
sloppy
mathematical physicists.

To respond to this petty criticism from mathematical physicists,
Miramanov
showed the following more intricate proof for the inconsistency of
Cantor's set theory. He defined that a set X is "well founded" if there
is
no element in X from which there is an infinite descending chain of
membership (in) relation. Then he defined W to be the set of all well
founded sets. You can check your self that if W is well founded then we
have a contradiction. If W is not well founded, we also have a
contradiction. Quite clearly this remarkable argument of Miramanov was
too
much work for mathematical physicists who criticized Russell's paradox.

So, what can we do. Physicists have no patience to understand mathematics
they use. For them Mathematics is just a language. Let me say that if you
want to use a language, you better understand the language. From
mathematician's point if view, what is happening in theoretical physics
is
just all wrong.

I personally tried many times to tell physicists that their theory is
fundamentally flawed mathematically. It is all pure nonsense.

They say that they have experimental verification. I ask verification of
what? When yoy have no coherent definition of a theory, how can you
verify
it. Almost all the so called experimental verification are flat wrong.
They are assuming much more than the theory to be verified allow. As they
have no idea what is the precise definition of the theory, fortunately
they will not realize their fatal errors.

As I pointed out, the worst of all is QM. The Uncertainty Principle
claims
that when localized a particle turns into wave and this is how they
explicate the double slit experiment. Then how is it possible that a
particle which hit a water molecule in Wilson Chamber will leave
trajectory? As you know the resolution of the localization by slit is
much
much lower than that of a water molecule.

Sorry for being direct and rude. But I have to say that Physicists are
the
most dishonest political animals I have ever dealt with in science.
Virtually all of them respond to this kind of fatal criticisms with
political repression, name calling.

It is my personal but quite accurate view that any field which needs
"geniuses" are not worth taking seriously. In mathematics, we have no
geniuses. A lot of us refuse to put name on results.

Akira

Siegfried,

What do you mean by theory then? What do you mean by testing a theory?
How
can an individual test the theory?

It was Bertrand Russell who killed physics completely. He said when we
verify a physical theory using experiment we use the theory to verify
to
devise the experiment and so it is vicious circle. When we refute a
physical theory by experiment, we also use the theory to refute to
devise
the experiment. So, this is self-refutation (contradiction).

This very clearly tells us that it is impossible to refute or verify
any
physical theory by experiment.

How about logical inconsistency? When a theory is logically
inconsistent,
it proves false. Then from the laws of logic, we can prove anything
once
we prove false. This means a logically inconsistent theory is totally
useless as it proves any prediction. So, it was Karl Popper who said
that
we must reject any theory which proves false (is inconsistent). Only
Physicists do not understand this simple principle.

For example, Einstein's claim that 0/0 = hf is false. Assume it is true
then

(0/0)x(hf)=1xhf=hf.

Also (0/0)x(hf)=0x(hf)/0=0/0=1.

So we have hf=1.

This is an elementary school level mathematics which only Physicists do
not understand.

I spent time to learn about physics to discuss it. I do not think
physicists are willing to learn about mathematics and logic. When
theoretical physicists accepted that 0/0 =hf, theoretical physics
became
an absolute joke among those who think. As far as I can see,
theoretical
physics is much worse than religion.

Never mind Einstein, he also was a victim of the wrong culture of
theoretical physics. Assume m and M pull each other with the
gravitational
force GmM/r^2. Then for M, m is approaching with acceleration GM/r^2.
For
m, M is approaching with acceleration mG/r^2. So if M=/=m m and M are
moving towards each other with different speed?! It took me a while to
find out what went wrong with theoretical physics regarding this. Let
me
tell you that Newton was the only one who dealt with this problem
correct!

Some German Prof. of Physics told me kin panic that this problem was
resolved by Feynman's QED?!

So, the consistency of physical theories is extremely objective. It
requires some solid back ground to consider this issue. ....

Dear Akira,

Consistency of any theory is tested by individuals, it is not assessed
by
some abstract universal and objective agent.  The question whether QM
is
consistent in my estimation is, indeed up to me as far as whether I
expend
time entertaining this question.  That is the point of my comment, not
whether QM is consistent as a purely objective question.  In any case,
it
seems to me part of the challenge here is whether the question is
clear
enough to be considered objectively answerable.  It is not, as stated
in
this forum.

Siegfried

Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>

________________________________
From: Akira Kanda <kanda@cs.toronto.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 1:11 AM

Cc: Victor Christianto
Subject: Re: QM is deeply inconsistent and completely waste oftime

Dear Siegfrid,

I do appreciate the offer to discuss further, but to me QM is not at
all
inconsistent.

If some theory is consistent or not has nothing to do with a
particular
individual.  It is a purely objective and universal question. The
question
is not if QM is consistent for you or not. It is if it is consistent
or
not.

In decent science, scientists have duty to take this kind of
questions
seriously.

Akira

Dear Siegfried

Thank you for your clarification, yes it seems we disagree on the
ultimate
source of so many contradictory interpretations of wavefunction. My
assertion is that the Schrodinger wavefunction is unphysical,
unlike
electromagnetic waves.

Please check my paper: http://www.vixra.org/abs/1405.0311

This paper was inspired by reading papers of Dr. George Shpenkov,
see
his
website:

http://shpenkov.janmax.com

Ps: dear Dr. Shpenkov allow me to introduce you to Dr. Siegfried, a
physicist.

Yours,

Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,

E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,

Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:
http://nulisbuku.com/books/view_book/9035/sangkakala-sudah-ditiup
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/APS-Abstracts/APS-Abstracts-list.htm
Http://researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Christianto/
http://www.amazon.com/Victor-Christianto/e/B00AZEDP4E
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Evangelism-Difficult-ebook/dp/B00AZDJCLA
Http://gospel.16mb.com
http://www.kenosis4mission.tk
http://www.twelvegates.tk

On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:29, Siegfried Bleher <SBleher@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Victor,

Thank you for responding.  I agree there is an ongoing debate on
the
interpretation of QM.  But, may I offer that the debate is not
with
its
use or usefulness, rather with its interpretation, as you point
out.
The two items you point to highlight potential inconsistencies in
the
Schrodinger equation itself, not with the interpretation of QM,
and
as
my first response tried to emphasize, there are no inconsistencies
in
the derivation of the Schrodinger equation, nor in its
application.
Physicists typically are happy to discuss issues that are
testable,
falsifiable.  The ongoing debates have more to do with our own
discomfort with QM's predictions than they have with something
inconsistent with QM.  The main point of debate is really why
should
there be or what is the meaning of the tremendous reduction in
possibilities represented by the Schrodinger equation when an
observation takes place (from infinite to one).  So, in fact the
only
argument appears when we try to make the SE conform to our notions
of
what is physical or real.

Just a note on your second point—the Schrodinger equation is
indeed
similar in mathematical form to the classical wave equations
(including
equations for electromagnetic waves), except it contains a first
order
partial differential term with respect to time, instead of
second-order
terms.  The wavenumber k may vary in the case of the classical
wave
equations, if there is a medium with variable dispersion relation;
if
the speed of  sound varies with location within the medium that
carries
the wave.  For example, if the density of a material varies with
respect
to displacement within it, then k = k(x) is no longer a constant.

Also a point of clarification regarding the ubiquity of QM in
modern
electronic devices.  As you point out we do not yet have
commercially
available quantum computers.  But that's not what I was pointing
to.
All modern devices make heavy use of semiconductors, the complete
understanding of which is not possible without QM. Band-gap
theory,
electron and hole transport theory all require QM to understand
and
implement, especially at the tiny scales we build integrated
circuits
today.

I do appreciate the offer to discuss further, but to me QM is not
at
all
inconsistent.

Sincerely,

### YESUS SEJATI DIUNGKAP DALAM BAHASA ARAM ASLI

YESUS SEJATI DIUNGKAP DALAM BAHASA ARAM ASLI Ajaran YESUS NYATA tidak pernah hilang seperti yang pernah di katakan beberapa orang. Alkit...