| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Quantum Gravity 272.0: Probable Causation/Influence...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| OsherD... |
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From Osher Doctorow
General Relativity either does or doesn't have Conservation of Energy
according to John Baez' "Is energy conserved in General
Relativity?" (original by Michael Weiss and John Baez), math.ucr.edu/
home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html. Mostly it looks like
not, unless you use Einstein's and Weinberg's and Landau and
Liftshitz' (the Russian physicists) trick of picking one coordinate
system and transport vectors so that their components stay constant,
which replaces covariant derivatives with partial derivatives and
restores Gauss' (generalized) Theorem. Baez indicates that enough
has been said by him on the pros and cons of this method, and mostly
it seems that it has cons. The flux integral is not well-defined,
Levi-Civita's parallel transport works for infinitesimal distances but
not for adding up fluxes over a finite sized hypervolume, Gauss'
theorem can't be generalized in GR "in general" by either the usual
methods or apparently the special single coordinate system method
above.
It seems wise to go back to our original definitions and "first
principles", and Probable Causation/Influence (PI) is a good candidate
for "first principles" of Causation. In PI there are several types
of additive equations that could serve as models for Energy
additivity:
1) P(A-->B) = 1 + P(AB) - P(A)
2) P ' (A-->B) = 1 + P(B) - P(A), where P(B) < = P(A)
3) P(A<-->B) = P(AB) + P(A ' B ' )
4) P(A<-->B) = P(A-->B) + P(B-->A) - 1
None of these appear to be constant in time or across time, as we've
been seeing throughout this thread and previous threads of mine, at
least not in general.
The Universe, and the Multiverse, does not in general conserve
anything! If something does get conserved, it is in a specialized
case, for example a phase.
It turns out that phases are closely related to Fibonacci and Lucas
numbers, where these numbers in combinatorics and number theory
involve the simplest Memory scenario, Fn = Fn-1 + Fn-2 (2 past time
"memories"). Take a look at "Random approaches to Fibonacci
identities," by Arthur T. Benjamin, Gregory M. Levin, Karl Mahlburg,
and Jennifer J. Quinn, of Harvey Mudd and Occidental College (Southern
California) USA, whose date and journal I've misplaced, but which
Readers will probably find on the internet.
Osher Doctorow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Huang... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 25, 8:49 pm, OsherD <mdocto... at (no spam) ca.rr.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jun 24, 10:15 pm, Huang <huangxienc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Such a thing is concievable, with caveats I would expect.
Einstein uses the word "relativity" and carefully avoids the use of
the word "indeterminacy" which would have worked just as well to
describe GR. example: It is indeterminate whether one is in a rocket,
or a field. So you have indeterminacy. But of course - God dont play
dice.
I am not saying AE was wrong...but it does seem that he was trying to
avoid the whole issue of indeterminacy, even though he clearly spent
alot of time thinking about it.
From Osher Doctorow
Thank you, Huang. It is also interesting about Feynman and to see
what you
come up with.
Osher Doctorow
Thanks for taking it seriously.
You know...I have alot of things on paper and I have been trying to
organize my ideas into a book. And I have come to a realization. It
sems that I am not really doing math as we know it, it is something
else. Similar to math, and not invalid, but not deterministic the way
math is.
I am not surprised that mathematics does not have such a thing as
"probabilistic existence", because if you allow that then you can
never really prove things the way people are accustomed to doing.
But I would argue that the methods I'm working on do make sense, that
they seem to be consistent.
My work is starting to resemble a typical 4 semester calculus book,
and I am up to about the part where one studies div,grad,curl. It's
a work in progress, mostly a skeleton, but the philosophy of it all
seems to make sense. Needs more worked examples and better graphics.
It's all quite strange, and I cant seem to prove a damn thing. Seems
like an area which is stuck somewhere in-between math and not math.
Really quite strange. I'll have to post the whole thing online
sometime and make people laugh :)
cheers |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:06 am
|
|