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

contradiction as

(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

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

contradiction as

(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.

AkiraSiegfried,Here is a perfect example of how Cantor's set theory was shown to beinconsistent from which we mathematicians have not recovered yet as we douse set theory in contemporary mathematics.In cantor's set theory, the first set theory ever defined, we define asetusing a predicate P(x) as follows:{x:P(x)}denotes a set of objects x such that P(x) is true. For example we allknowwhat {x:0<x<1} means. it is an open interval (0,1) in calculus. All 19thGerman mathematicians at Gottingen were very happy with using thisconceptin very elementary way in the development of what we now callmathematicalanalysis. In his attempt to show that the Fourier expansion is unique,Cantor pushed the limit of set theory to where all elements of any setaresets, the so called abstract set theory. He introduced the abovementionedway of defining such set, namely the axiom of comprehension.In his developing of transfinite set theory to consider hierarchy of setsin his typeless set theory, he discovered that his set theory isinconsistent. When he announced this, mathematicians community wasshockedand refused to accept Cantor's announcement. It was Bertrand Russell whotried to debunk Cantor's inconsistency result discovered that there is asimple most proof for that cantor's set theory is inconsistent. Here itgoes: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 bymathematical logicians who think most precisely among mathematicians.However, virtually no mathematical physicist understood this argument.Their rather elementary criticism was that R is very unnaturallydefined,though they could not say what is natural here. Never the less if theFourier expansion is unique or not is not the matter of concern forsloppymathematical physicists.To respond to this petty criticism from mathematical physicists,Miramanovshowed the following more intricate proof for the inconsistency ofCantor's set theory. He defined that a set X is "well founded" if thereisno element in X from which there is an infinite descending chain ofmembership (in) relation. Then he defined W to be the set of all wellfounded sets. You can check your self that if W is well founded then wehave a contradiction. If W is not well founded, we also have acontradiction. Quite clearly this remarkable argument of Miramanov wastoomuch work for mathematical physicists who criticized Russell's paradox.So, what can we do. Physicists have no patience to understand mathematicsthey use. For them Mathematics is just a language. Let me say that if youwant to use a language, you better understand the language. Frommathematician's point if view, what is happening in theoretical physicsisjust all wrong.I personally tried many times to tell physicists that their theory isfundamentally flawed mathematically. It is all pure nonsense.They say that they have experimental verification. I ask verification ofwhat? When yoy have no coherent definition of a theory, how can youverifyit. Almost all the so called experimental verification are flat wrong.They are assuming much more than the theory to be verified allow. As theyhave no idea what is the precise definition of the theory, fortunatelythey will not realize their fatal errors.As I pointed out, the worst of all is QM. The Uncertainty Principleclaimsthat when localized a particle turns into wave and this is how theyexplicate the double slit experiment. Then how is it possible that aparticle which hit a water molecule in Wilson Chamber will leavetrajectory? As you know the resolution of the localization by slit ismuchmuch lower than that of a water molecule.Sorry for being direct and rude. But I have to say that Physicists arethemost dishonest political animals I have ever dealt with in science.Virtually all of them respond to this kind of fatal criticisms withpolitical 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 nogeniuses. A lot of us refuse to put name on results.AkiraSiegfried,What do you mean by theory then? What do you mean by testing a theory?Howcan an individual test the theory?It was Bertrand Russell who killed physics completely. He said when weverify a physical theory using experiment we use the theory to verifytodevise the experiment and so it is vicious circle. When we refute aphysical theory by experiment, we also use the theory to refute todevisethe experiment. So, this is self-refutation (contradiction).This very clearly tells us that it is impossible to refute or verifyanyphysical theory by experiment.How about logical inconsistency? When a theory is logicallyinconsistent,it proves false. Then from the laws of logic, we can prove anythingoncewe prove false. This means a logically inconsistent theory is totallyuseless as it proves any prediction. So, it was Karl Popper who saidthatwe must reject any theory which proves false (is inconsistent). OnlyPhysicists do not understand this simple principle.For example, Einstein's claim that 0/0 = hf is false. Assume it is truethen(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 donot understand.I spent time to learn about physics to discuss it. I do not thinkphysicists are willing to learn about mathematics and logic. Whentheoretical physicists accepted that 0/0 =hf, theoretical physicsbecamean absolute joke among those who think. As far as I can see,theoreticalphysics is much worse than religion.Never mind Einstein, he also was a victim of the wrong culture oftheoretical physics. Assume m and M pull each other with thegravitationalforce GmM/r^2. Then for M, m is approaching with acceleration GM/r^2.Form, M is approaching with acceleration mG/r^2. So if M=/=m m and M aremoving towards each other with different speed?! It took me a while tofind out what went wrong with theoretical physics regarding this. Letmetell you that Newton was the only one who dealt with this problemcorrect!Some German Prof. of Physics told me kin panic that this problem wasresolved by Feynman's QED?!So, the consistency of physical theories is extremely objective. Itrequires some solid back ground to consider this issue. ....Dear Akira,Consistency of any theory is tested by individuals, it is not assessedbysome abstract universal and objective agent. The question whether QMisconsistent in my estimation is, indeed up to me as far as whether Iexpendtime entertaining this question. That is the point of my comment, notwhether QM is consistent as a purely objective question. In any case,itseems to me part of the challenge here is whether the question isclearenough to be considered objectively answerable. It is not, as statedinthis forum.SiegfriedSent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>________________________________From: Akira Kanda <kanda@cs.toronto.edu>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 1:11 AMTo: SBleher@msn.comCc: Victor ChristiantoSubject: Re: QM is deeply inconsistent and completely waste oftimeDear Siegfrid,I do appreciate the offer to discuss further, but to me QM is not atallinconsistent.If some theory is consistent or not has nothing to do with aparticularindividual. It is a purely objective and universal question. Thequestionis not if QM is consistent for you or not. It is if it is consistentornot.In decent science, scientists have duty to take this kind ofquestionsseriously.AkiraDear SiegfriedThank you for your clarification, yes it seems we disagree on theultimatesource of so many contradictory interpretations of wavefunction. Myassertion is that the Schrodinger wavefunction is unphysical,unlikeelectromagnetic waves.Please check my paper: http://www.vixra.org/abs/1405.0311This paper was inspired by reading papers of Dr. George Shpenkov,seehiswebsite:http://shpenkov.janmax.comPs: dear Dr. Shpenkov allow me to introduce you to Dr. Siegfried, aphysicist.Yours,Victor Christianto*Founder and Technical Director,www.ketindo.com<http://www.ketindo.com>E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy**Founder of Second Coming Institute,www.sci4God.com<http://www.sci4God.com>Http://www.facebook.com/vchristiantoTwitter: @Christianto2013Phone: (62) 812-30663059***Papers and books can be found at:http://nulisbuku.com/books/view_book/9035/sangkakala-sudah-ditiuphttp://www.unesco.chair.network.uevora.pt/media/kunena/attachments/731/ChristologyReloaded_Aug2016.pdfhttp://fs.gallup.unm.edu/APS-Abstracts/APS-Abstracts-list.htmhttp://independent.academia.edu/VChristiantoHttp://researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Christianto/Http://id.linkedin.com/pub/victor-christianto/b/115/167http://www.amazon.com/Victor-Christianto/e/B00AZEDP4Ehttp://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Evangelism-Difficult-ebook/dp/B00AZDJCLAHttp://gospel.16mb.comhttp://www.kenosis4mission.tkhttp://www.twelvegates.tkOn 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 ontheinterpretation of QM. But, may I offer that the debate is notwithitsuse or usefulness, rather with its interpretation, as you pointout.The two items you point to highlight potential inconsistencies intheSchrodinger equation itself, not with the interpretation of QM,andasmy first response tried to emphasize, there are no inconsistenciesinthe derivation of the Schrodinger equation, nor in itsapplication.Physicists typically are happy to discuss issues that aretestable,falsifiable. The ongoing debates have more to do with our owndiscomfort with QM's predictions than they have with somethinginconsistent with QM. The main point of debate is really whyshouldthere be or what is the meaning of the tremendous reduction inpossibilities represented by the Schrodinger equation when anobservation takes place (from infinite to one). So, in fact theonlyargument appears when we try to make the SE conform to our notionsofwhat is physical or real.Just a note on your second point—the Schrodinger equation isindeedsimilar in mathematical form to the classical wave equations(includingequations for electromagnetic waves), except it contains a firstorderpartial differential term with respect to time, instead ofsecond-orderterms. The wavenumber k may vary in the case of the classicalwaveequations, if there is a medium with variable dispersion relation;ifthe speed of sound varies with location within the medium thatcarriesthe wave. For example, if the density of a material varies withrespectto displacement within it, then k = k(x) is no longer a constant.Also a point of clarification regarding the ubiquity of QM inmodernelectronic devices. As you point out we do not yet havecommerciallyavailable quantum computers. But that's not what I was pointingto.All modern devices make heavy use of semiconductors, the completeunderstanding of which is not possible without QM. Band-gaptheory,electron and hole transport theory all require QM to understandandimplement, especially at the tiny scales we build integratedcircuitstoday.I do appreciate the offer to discuss further, but to me QM is notatallinconsistent.Sincerely,

## Tidak ada komentar:

## Poskan Komentar