osherd

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Paradoxes From Using Over-Complicated Terminology: Quantum Atoms
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005.

I've been defining, developing, generalizing, modifying concepts
of quantum logic lattice atoms by combining them with geometry,
temporal logic, modal logic (see, e.g., sci.logic). Independently,
Andreas Martin Lisewski of Munich has been studying related
problems using Baltag's analytic non-wellfounded set theory and
modal logic interpretation of Dempster-Shafter theory and discrete
metric isometric embeddings (e.g., arXiv:quant-ph/0412047 v1
6 Dec 2004 for Lisewski) and also concepts of strong and weak
virtual reality (arXiv:cs.LO/0312001 v1 29 Nov 2003), though
without my geometry and temporal logic. Michel Planat has
independently been developing cyclotomic quantum algebra of the
perception of time (Panat is with Institut FEMTO-ST, France; see,
e.g. arXiv:quant-ph/0403020 v1 2 Mar 2004) with phase-locking and
Bost and Connes quantum model for prime numbers.

Although my work is the simplest to read by most logicians and
mathematicians and even physicists because of my nonconformist
dedication to simplifying, Lisewski and Planat are also simpler
in their ideas than almost all of mainstream quantum physicists
where the latter insist on almost entirely divorcing themselves
from quantum logic, temporal logic, modal logic, quantum algebra
other than where it totally overlaps with mainstream ideas, etc.

What do theoretical physicists and mathematical physicists
actually do then in the mainstreams of respectively physics and
mathematics in quantum theory? They mostly pursue one of the
following or more.

A. Loop quantum gravity with algebraic geometry (that takes about
a Ph.D. in mathematics and a Ph.D. in physics to really get
familiar with at the current levels of translation and writing
clarity).

B. Supersting/Brane/M-Theory with algebraic topology and
some algebraic geometry (the latter was more of a fad a few years
ago, now algebraic topology is more of a fad), which is at least
as complicated as A above.

C. Quantum Field Theory without A or B, which mostly has gone off
either trying to imitate A or B or devise ingenious ways of
getting around its many anomalies which caused Nobel Laureate
Steven Weinberg to leave it around 1972 and move into B at U.
Texas Austin (from Harvard) with quite a few colleagues.

Some logicians and philosophers may be fooled by popular books


simplifying their concepts in their main research papers. No
way, in my opinion. The popular books, in fact, are either on
side issues to their main research (like Smolin's and Sir Roger's)
or inadvertantly deceptive by using pictures that people think
they understand but which don't enable people to accomplish
anything with the pictures since they don't get to the core of
the concepts (like Greene's), or else consist of interviews with
Nobel Laureates on where science is going in the next hundred to
hundred and fifty years at a rather general level (Kaku's,
although he is to be commended for at least caring enough about
other people to do those interviews).

My point is that the use of over-complicated language when
much simpler language works as well or better, or even the
orientation toward complication rather than simplification,
actually provides a mind-set which prevents Creative Genius
and replaces it with Ingenious Imitation. It's the reason
for Euclidean geometers rejecting Non-Euclidean geometry for
thousands of years, and for the very slow rate of progress in
resolving paradoxes in quantum theory and general relativity
that often date from the first half of the 20th century.

I have said before, and I'll say it again: if you can't translate
it roughly from mathematics to English or other natural language,
or if you're too picayune to be willing to translate most of the
concept and pospone some of the details for later or for
separate translations, then either your concept is "full of
holes" or you can't see the forest for the trees or the trees
for the forest. That should be the standard for popular books,
and although research papers with mathematical content should
retain mathematics unless they are addressed to non-scientists,
they should nevertheless be simplified in a language that most
mathematicians can usually understand rather than only specialists
in the field (without getting another Degree or more).

Osher Doctorow

osherd

I meant to type Dempster-Shafer and it came out Dempster-Shafter.

Osher Doctorow

osherd

I also forgot to discuss Stephen Hawking's popular books.

Hawking is difficult to attack because of his great courage in
overcoming his
physical handicap and his great accomplishments in black holes, but in
my
opinion only his early work with Sir Roger on black holes and work
around that
time several decades ago reflect much Creative Genius. Maybe it's like
Simon and Garfunkle (when they split up, something of the magic
disappeared
very much).

Hawking's popular books have relatively little to do with his actual
research,
and are curiously lacking in translation of his core mathematical and
physics
concepts into English as opposed to somewhat obscure glossing over
language and emphasizing tangential concepts. His books are much
worse than Sir Roger Penrose's even in presenting the issues and
alternatives
on those concepts that he addresses. Maybe for him there are no
alternatives, but Sir Karl Popper and most learned people believe or
believed
in presenting issues and alternatives.

There is also a complication with Hawking in that he is in my opinion
obsessed with thermodynamics. It resembles in many ways the obsession
of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Bohr with probability and
statistics - something none of them knew much about and certainly none
of
them was an expert in compared to an average mathematical statistician
and mathematical probabilist. In fact, thermodynamics and statistical
mechanics are full of paradoxes and anomalies despite the "good things
they have done" so to speak, and most of the paradoxes relate in one
way
or another to the nature of probability and statistics.

Current research on black holes has gone far beyond Hawking's and Sir
Roger's work on black holes decades ago, and yet Hawking in my opinion
adheres mostly to the old stuff. He also tends to take the mainstream
view
on nonconformist and new problems and issues. At least he may have a
reason with his great health difficulties, but what about the rest of
the
physicists and mathematicians involved in physics?

Osher Doctorow

osherd

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Paradoxes From Using Over-Complicated Terminology: Quantum Atoms
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005.

I've been defining, developing, generalizing, modifying concepts
of quantum logic lattice atoms by combining them with geometry,
temporal logic, modal logic (see, e.g., sci.logic). Independently,
Andreas Martin Lisewski of Munich has been studying related
problems using Baltag's analytic non-wellfounded set theory and
modal logic interpretation of Dempster-Shafter theory and discrete
metric isometric embeddings (e.g., arXiv:quant-ph/0412047 v1
6 Dec 2004 for Lisewski) and also concepts of strong and weak
virtual reality (arXiv:cs.LO/0312001 v1 29 Nov 2003), though
without my geometry and temporal logic. Michel Planat has
independently been developing cyclotomic quantum algebra of the
perception of time (Panat is with Institut FEMTO-ST, France; see,
e.g. arXiv:quant-ph/0403020 v1 2 Mar 2004) with phase-locking and
Bost and Connes quantum model for prime numbers.

Although my work is the simplest to read by most logicians and
mathematicians and even physicists because of my nonconformist
dedication to simplifying, Lisewski and Planat are also simpler
in their ideas than almost all of mainstream quantum physicists
where the latter insist on almost entirely divorcing themselves
from quantum logic, temporal logic, modal logic, quantum algebra
other than where it totally overlaps with mainstream ideas, etc.

What do theoretical physicists and mathematical physicists
actually do then in the mainstreams of respectively physics and
mathematics in quantum theory? They mostly pursue one of the
following or more.

A. Loop quantum gravity with algebraic geometry (that takes about
a Ph.D. in mathematics and a Ph.D. in physics to really get
familiar with at the current levels of translation and writing
clarity).

B. Supersting/Brane/M-Theory with algebraic topology and
some algebraic geometry (the latter was more of a fad a few years
ago, now algebraic topology is more of a fad), which is at least
as complicated as A above.

C. Quantum Field Theory without A or B, which mostly has gone off
either trying to imitate A or B or devise ingenious ways of
getting around its many anomalies which caused Nobel Laureate
Steven Weinberg to leave it around 1972 and move into B at U.
Texas Austin (from Harvard) with quite a few colleagues.

Some logicians and philosophers may be fooled by popular books


simplifying their concepts in their main research papers. No
way, in my opinion. The popular books, in fact, are either on
side issues to their main research (like Smolin's and Sir Roger's)
or inadvertantly deceptive by using pictures that people think
they understand but which don't enable people to accomplish
anything with the pictures since they don't get to the core of
the concepts (like Greene's), or else consist of interviews with
Nobel Laureates on where science is going in the next hundred to
hundred and fifty years at a rather general level (Kaku's,
although he is to be commended for at least caring enough about
other people to do those interviews).

My point is that the use of over-complicated language when
much simpler language works as well or better, or even the
orientation toward complication rather than simplification,
actually provides a mind-set which prevents Creative Genius
and replaces it with Ingenious Imitation. It's the reason
for Euclidean geometers rejecting Non-Euclidean geometry for
thousands of years, and for the very slow rate of progress in
resolving paradoxes in quantum theory and general relativity
that often date from the first half of the 20th century.

I have said before, and I'll say it again: if you can't translate
it roughly from mathematics to English or other natural language,
or if you're too picayune to be willing to translate most of the
concept and pospone some of the details for later or for
separate translations, then either your concept is "full of
holes" or you can't see the forest for the trees or the trees
for the forest. That should be the standard for popular books,
and although research papers with mathematical content should
retain mathematics unless they are addressed to non-scientists,
they should nevertheless be simplified in a language that most
mathematicians can usually understand rather than only specialists
in the field (without getting another Degree or more).

Osher Doctorow

osherd

I meant to type Dempster-Shafer and it came out Dempster-Shafter.

Osher Doctorow

osherd

I also forgot to discuss Stephen Hawking's popular books.

Hawking is difficult to attack because of his great courage in
overcoming his
physical handicap and his great accomplishments in black holes, but in
my
opinion only his early work with Sir Roger on black holes and work
around that
time several decades ago reflect much Creative Genius. Maybe it's like
Simon and Garfunkle (when they split up, something of the magic
disappeared
very much).

Hawking's popular books have relatively little to do with his actual
research,
and are curiously lacking in translation of his core mathematical and
physics
concepts into English as opposed to somewhat obscure glossing over
language and emphasizing tangential concepts. His books are much
worse than Sir Roger Penrose's even in presenting the issues and
alternatives
on those concepts that he addresses. Maybe for him there are no
alternatives, but Sir Karl Popper and most learned people believe or
believed
in presenting issues and alternatives.

There is also a complication with Hawking in that he is in my opinion
obsessed with thermodynamics. It resembles in many ways the obsession
of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Bohr with probability and
statistics - something none of them knew much about and certainly none
of
them was an expert in compared to an average mathematical statistician
and mathematical probabilist. In fact, thermodynamics and statistical
mechanics are full of paradoxes and anomalies despite the "good things
they have done" so to speak, and most of the paradoxes relate in one
way
or another to the nature of probability and statistics.

Current research on black holes has gone far beyond Hawking's and Sir
Roger's work on black holes decades ago, and yet Hawking in my opinion
adheres mostly to the old stuff. He also tends to take the mainstream
view
on nonconformist and new problems and issues. At least he may have a
reason with his great health difficulties, but what about the rest of
the
physicists and mathematicians involved in physics?

Osher Doctorow

bernardz

In article <1108265583.582176.64370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
mdoctorow@comcast.net says...


Interesting please explain why you think so!

Thermodynamics is generally seen as an essentially statistical rule that
should be true at every level.


Again please explain further.


--
Nothing is important to you unless you think it is!

Observations of Bernard - No 71

albert

<snip>

Statistical rules are generalizations that obscure the fact that
there are no observed particulars.


--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

bernardz

There are observed particulars eg a cup of hot water gets colder over time.

albert

Not a particular. A generalization. Your remark above verifies
to me that you haven't a clue what I mean. Hot and cold when
referencing a cup of water is a 'generalization', a statistical
statement, of the average temperature of the individual
'particular' water molecules.


--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"