Ok people, let's roll !
...The only reason we can't do better that this, is because of the tools that we have available -- i.e., as long as we use electromagnetism to make our measurements, we are forever limited in resolution (and there may never be any alternative to electromagnetism.)
That is hardly the case, in fact we are doing measurments with the weak force (otherwise we couldn't detect neutrino's since they only interact through this weak force) gravitywave will soon become a means to probe the far reaches of space since we are now building large stations like
the ligo detectors to pick up this weakest of all forces.
The problem is, they all exibit the same properties as what you said about electromagnetism. So actually what you are saying is : you believe that somehow the world is deterministic but for all practicle purposes we must assume that it is indeterministic. Isn't this a good place for Occam's Razor ?
"interaction" as I use it no longer fits the classical physics usage of the word; it merely means interaction in a more mundane sense -- it assumes an exchange of information between the units, but it does not assume the means through which information should be exchanged (indeed, defining such means would go a long way toward formulating the complete theory.)
Look Boris, 'exchanging information' as you put it must involve in the most general case a carrier of this information. The non-locality of quantummechanics would suggest that their could be a way of circumventing this but that is an illusion because this very non-locality is nescessary and sufficient for Heisenberg uncertainty. This means a breakdown of information. So information can only be transferred locally, as a package.
You see how much assumptions you are already making if you simply use the frase : basic particles interact.
...This is basically transfer of heat -- heat is never destroyed, it is merely equalized.
You should better use the term 'energy' in this context. But Boris, entropy is not a deterministic concept, you can not explain it with a deterministic theory. You can see this in any work of thermodynamics, entropy is an ad hoc concept, it doesn't follow from the basic equations of Newton or any other basic equations who are time-symmetrical.
What seems to have happened to the universe, is that it started out in a very homogeneous, equalized state. Something disturbed that state, and touched off a cascade of chain reactions that, at first, destabilized the universe even further (by some kind of inertia, apparently) -- but the universe has since been on a trajectory toward maximizing its homogeneity.
again you are using indeterministic language : something disturbed that state. This something cannot be expained deterministically because it has no direct cause !
Now, given all that, it should be clear that a deterministic universe constrained toward equalizing disorder will not cycle -- for any true cycle would involve a reversal of the flow of disorder, which is kind of like creating a perpetual motion machine.
Given all that anything can follow since you contradicted yourself time and time again.
Then what is an interval? What is a metric? What makes for relationships such as in-between vs. outside? What is it that defines such properties as in-a-plane, vs. out-of-plane? Don't tell me we made it all up, because I'll slap you upside the head every time you put one foot in front of the other.
A metric (I assume you are talking about the g_{\mu\nu} of relativity) my dear Boris is something that is totally coordinate independent ! That was precisely the reason why Einstein used it in his relativity theory since any pinning to a certain coordinate system would have been fatal to the theory he was developing.
For the rest I refer you to what Crisp has said. And hope you won't slap him on the head for it
I hate the direction this is taking, but I'm afraid it's back to the old 2+2 debate. You would agree, wouldn't you, that 2+2=4 is true not because we define it that way, but because we observe it that way? Of course, we could always define anything we want to be "true" by virtue of its definition; however applied mathematics is true by virtue of more than merely definition -- it is true by virtue of reflecting the observed properties of our world.
I'm afraid to say that we indeed defined 2+2 to be 4 since there are algebra's in which 2+2 equals zero and they are also perfectly consistent !
We have to resort to observation to choose the correct algebra that confirms with our universe. But this means that algebra is something far more general then the universe we live in, and certainly that mathematics is something far more general. It could be that there are several possible ways to describe our universe who are all totally consistent but are utterly different from each other. Our way is this specific type of algebra. Actually it is becoming more and more a trend to use geometry in stead of algebra to talk about the fundamental interactions, see String Theory.
Hence, it is a fundamental fallacy to regard any abstract mathematical model as a basic, irreducible explanation of any physical system. (Lest there be any mistake, this is indeed a direct assault on the Copenhagen philosophy.) Whenever mathematics is applied to model physical systems, it represents real objects and real properties.
Here I already have a counter example : when quantum mechanics was develloped in the twenties there were two distinct ways to tacle the problem : one was the wavemechanics of Schrödinger that involved a wave function, the other was the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg that involved non-commutable matrices. It took two year before it was realised that the two views were actually complementary, this was shown by Dirac and he made a third way of looking at quantummechanics: the bracet notations.
So you see that the mathematics aren't fundamental at all but are simply a language with different dialects that can talk about the same thing independently from each other.
I can if I realize that the global reference frame is not accessible (at least not easily) through electromagnetic phenomena -- because such phenomena always occur relative to one another.
What is this that you have against electromagnetism ? Besides all other forces are found based on this fundamental assumption that global symmetries need to be locallised in order to make them free of global referential frames, this is what gauge theory is all about !
I can if I merely restrict time from going backward. I can still talk about differentials in rate of events. As for metric distortions, I would like to ask you what it is you think that embodies the instantaneous metric at any point in "spacetime"? For that matter (and yet again), what is it that our concept of "spacetime" represents; what is its fundamental nature?
This going backward of time is merly a freak solution of the fundamental equations being time symmetric and will be taken care of in due time. What you are reffering to as 'rate' is exactly the same as 'time' there is no differentiation of rates if there is no differentiation of times.
What is spacetime ? Aha, actually I don't have the foggiest idea but what could come close to it could be this. I think what we call spacetime is the form and shape of the GUT-field of which all forces and particles come. Why does it has this specific amount of dimensions and shape ? Because it is the only possible one that agrees with gauge theory and renormalisation of this theory. You can get a feeling of this with String theory.
I cannot think of ways to form quanta from continuous substrates. In fact, the quantum mechanics' mixture of quanta (essentially integer arithmetic) with continuous fields (real number arithmetic) has always struck me as a grotesque amalgam -- a hack, at best.
Not at all Boris, the reason why continuous substrates become quantised is because they are waves ! Waves who are bound can only exist as an integral times their ground wave. Free wave are contiuous again, that is why photons come in any possible wavelenght and free electrons can have any possible energy. Once bound in an atom, their wavenature restricts them to a certain amount of energy states.
Point is, the "exact" constants, such as PI, defined by our mathematics are in reality not exact; their precision only goes as far as the resolution of the fundamental structure. It is only because large-scale objects are composed of such fine and many discrete building blocks, that we perceive continuity -- unless, that is, we begin to probe reality at quantum resolution. My claim is that in turn, any "continuity" we still observe at quantum scale turns into complete discreteness at the fine structure scale.
First of all, you are contradicting yourself again when you said that mathematics is something that we 'observe', if there is no such thing as a perfect circle in nature how are we to make a math with perfect circles ?
Besides I'm afraid gauge theory requires a
continuous symmetry for it to produce photons and gravitons and gluons and W and Z bosons. So by by discrete theory.
? Here is my question again: why is right-handedness a property of the basic obsevables??
Yes, let's tacle this once and for all.
First of all we are talking about magnetism and electrostatic force which are not the fundamental forces. Magnetism is actually the rotor of the underlying Vector field : \nabla \times \vec{A} (I hope this \Latex notation makes any sense to you, if it doesn't \nabla is the sign used for taking the gradiant : \nabla f(\vec{r}) = \partial{f}/\partial{x}\vec{e}_x + \partial{f}/\partial{y}\vec{e}_y + \partial{f}/\partial{y}\vec{e}_y) and the electrostatic field is the gradient of the underlying scalair field plus the time derivative of the vectorfield.
\vec{E} = \nabla \phi - 1/c\partial{\vec{A}}/\partial{t}. So you see that the righthandedness that you are talking about finds its origan in the sign of the vectorfield and the scalair field.
Crisp is very much right when he says that a vectorpoduct isn't actually a vector at all, it is a pseudovector (also called an axial vector). This means that under parity transformations (this is the mirror transformation that Crisp was talking about) the pseudovector keeps his sign while the vector reverses it. This means that the magnetic field actually is a pseudovectorfield while the electric field a real vectorfield is. This is the reason why there is a fundamental righthandedness for the magnetic field because it is invariant under mirror transformations !
So thank you Crisp for finally pointing this out to us.
About your posts :
What does it take for you to realise that something can be incomplete deterministic and give a perfectly satisfying explanation at the same time...
I am begging for an example here.
Ok, let's take the wave nature of elementary particles, as I explained above it gives a perfect explanation of how an otherwise continuous substrate can give rise to quantised energy levels. This explanation requires nature to be indeterminsitic or rather : incomplete deterministic.
What this means is : if I postualte strict determinism as undertlying logic of the universe I can't explain quantisation, if I postulate incomplete determinism, I can expain it. Take your pick I should say.
Isn't this exactly what determinism is fundamentally all about ? Whether you regard determinism as a 1-1 causilty or an "underlying mechanism" (which are equivalent btw), it all comes down to one thing: being able to exactly predict how a system evolves once initial parameters are known.
No Crisp, as Boris already pointed out a deterministic system doesn't exhaust all its possiblities. If you propose a probability distribution as fundamental object then all the possiblities are exhausted by that, they will all have a certain probability.
Wow, this thread is steaming ! I love it !
------------------
I err, therefore I exist !
