Physics from logic?(Check my math)

Can physics be derived from pure logic?

I've been able to construct an equation in propositional logic that
can be translated into mathematical terms that produce the Feynman
path integral. I start with the assumption that reality consists of
the universal set of statements that all exist in conjunction with
each other. This universal conjunction can be manipulated into a
conjunction of implications. Each implication can be equated to every
possible "path" of implications through every possible state. I show
that material implication can be represented by the Dirac delta
function in the form of a complex gaussian. The exponents in the
gaussian can be added up in the paths to form the Feyman path
integral. This gives the first quantization of quantum mechanics.

This procedure can be easily iterated to get the second quantization
of quantum field theory. And nothing prevents further iterations to
get third or even forth quantization. The first quantization procedure
is shown to require complex numbers. The second quantization seems to
require quaternions; the third quantization seems to require
octonions. Complex numbers form the U(1) symmetry, quaternions from
the SU(2) symmetry, and octonions form the SU(3) symmetry. All of
these form the U(1)SU(2)SU(3) symmetry of the Standard Model. This all
indicates that physics can be derived from logic.

See more details at:

http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

Comments welcome.

"Mike" <maj...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:83a83c99-f8cd-454e...@i16g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
According to Boyle's and Charles' laws, a fixed pressure of
a gas at 20 kelvin will have a volume that is twice that at 10
kelvin. If you heat the air in a balloon the pressure goes up
and the balloon expands according to the law P1.V1/T1 = P2.V2/T2
Using your "physics from logic", what is the volume of gas at zero kelvin?

I reworked the derivation. I made it more straight and obvious from
logic. I removed some of the pictures and replaced the concepts with
more reliable math. So I include a a very light, brief introduction of
logic to introduce language and notation. And I use these concepts
throughout.

I removed the reference to Scaled Boolean Algebra since I could not
parse it, and it took too long to read. I replace it with a short
discussion of how algebraic concerns need to be preserved across the
map from logic to math. This also seems to provide an easy
justification of the Sum and Product rule for probabilities. This may
be of interest for its own sake. And I give better reasons why the
Dirac delta should be the gaussian version and why it should be
complex based on algebraic concerns. Hopefully, this will stand up to
mathematical inspection. Let me know what you think. Thank you.

Revision 4, now on-line at:

http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

implication is not commutative, but
it is transitive.

> .....
This represents a major breakthrough in natural philosophy. It takes
all the guess-work out of theoretical physics. It's the only way to
derive a Theory of Everything (TOE). So I think it deserves a serious
review.

It seems traditionally theoretical physics is advanced by first
guessing at some kind of mathematics based on intuition, then making
predictions based on that math, and seeing if experiment confirms
those predictions. When many observation confirm the predictions and
none contradict them, then we develop confidence that the theory is
correct. But we can never really say that the theory is unquestionably
true since it might be possible that future observations may falsify
the theory.

But if theory is derived from logic alone, then physical laws become a
tautology and are true by construction. What would we do if logic
itself made a prediction that was contradicted by observation? Would
we say that reality was illogical? Or would we say that the experiment
was flawed? It would certainly be a difficult position to be in to
question reason itself. It's nice to see that my derivation so far
seems to be confirming the math we have been using in physics.

We could always questions the accuracy and meaning of experimental
results. And when we don't know the reason for the math we are using,
there is always room to wonder if there isn't something more basic
behind the math that might explain more things. So the question won't
stop until the answers come from reason itself. For once we have a
theory derived from reason itself (logic), then there is no recourse
but to question your sanity if you don't like the answers.

An alternative logic has been proposed for quantum theory. It was
invented by Birkhoff and von Neumann, see their 'The Logic of Quantum
Mechanics', Annals of Mathematics, 37.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

The question is can you derive fundamental constants, the hallmark of
a TOE?

Or are you just building up any formula in a constructive step by step
system?

You might be interested in my http://tinyurl.com/LogicTheory

that uses only the formula A^B->C

to store all facts and tautologies!

**********************************

My LOGIC THEORY uses only 2 Relational Tables.

<fixed width>

TAUTOLOGIES TABLE
*****************
A B C TYPE
a a->c c Modus Ponens
d->e e->f d->f Transitivity
!(!d) TRUE d Double Negation

THEOREMS TABLE
**************
THEOREMID A B THEOREM
1 0 0 1=1
2 1 1 ( 1=1 ) ^ ( 1=1 )
...

i.e.
Theorem1 ^ Theorem1 -> Theorem2

In TAUTOLOGIES Table
A ^ B -> C

In THEOREMS Table
A ^ B -> THEOREM

Hence my Proof() Predicate
PRV(C) <=> C v (PRV(A) ^ PRV(B) ^ (A^B->C))


I've saved your webpage, but will take me some time to wrap my head
around it!

Herc

news:ca42f3f7-d954-4535...@z5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
============================================
Start questioning.

On Apr 5, 5:17 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I have an objection to this "new" quantum logic. As I understand it,
this quantum logic denies the distributive law so that

p^(q v r) does not equal

(p^q)v(p^r)

as it does in classical logic.

My objection is that you can express any formula in logic by using one
connective, negation, and parenthesis. For example

(p^q)=~(p->~q), and

(p v r)= ~p->q = ~q->p

where ~ is negation and -> is material implication.

Given that, the distributive law can be expressed by this set of
negation, a connective, and parenthesis. So it would seem that denial
of the distributive law is the same as denying the definition of this
connective in this one case. That would be a case of special pleading,
which is a logic fallacy. We can't assert the validity of the
connective in one case and turn around and deny it another.

What I've shown is that there is no need to invent a new logic. QM can
be easily derived from classical logic.

I'm not actually claiming to have derived all of physics, yet. But I
do claim to have derive quantum theory and most likely the Standard
Model symmetry groups. When I iterate the process, the complex numbers
become quaternions that further iterate to octonions, which are
subsets of the more general Clifford algebra used to represent
differential geometry. So even there, there might be an in to help
derive GR. I cover all this on my website at:

http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

logic is just the simplest of the three Rs,
which are nothing but language acquisition,
which is more-or-lsee organic, viz Chomsky. but,
if your symmetries are able to hold,
that is something.

On Apr 5, 8:49 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I think there is more to logic than language. It seems to be
describing something about the nature of reality. We wouldn't use it
if it did not.

news:d35e2cc2-fe8b-4b17...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
There is nothing simple in every single particle as complex as the entire
universe.
That is wrong, upside down: logic *is* language. In fact, now yours rather
is the onus of explaining how it is that there is (or there is not) a
"reality" (what is it??) at all...
Mind you, that is a basic logic fallacy.

There is nothing simple or "self-evident" in logic, and you should pay it
*at least* the same respect as you pay to mathematics or physics.

That said, I have enjoyed reading your article...

-LV

Then there is a great mystery to solve as to why nature is logical. Or
do you think otherwise?
What do you mean? Do you mean I need to explain why there is something
rather than nothing? Isn't it enough to say that once there is
something, then there must be consequences too? Or isn't it enough to
say that once there is a set of facts called reality, then all those
facts must not contradict each other?

Agreed. At the very least it is language with a consequence relation
defined on it. Maybe a partial consequence relation R, by which I mean

If R(x,y) is true then y is a consequence of x,
if R(x,y) is false then y is not a consequence of x,
for some x,y R(x,y) may be neither true nor false
(or, at least, it isn't known which).
An old fashioned view is that logic describes the laws of thought. It
is not a claim that you will find in any current text, but it is worth
considering:

Did Brouwer's brain (or the brain of any apologist for non-classical
logic) obey different laws from ours? And, since a brain is a physical
thing, did it obey different physical laws?
Some will claim that logic _doesn't_ say anything about reality: that p
v ~p, for example, is true in virtue of the meanings of v and ~, and
that those meanings are just a matter of convention.

That physics might be derived from logic alone is an interesting thought
(I think I raised it myself years ago), but _which_ logic?

Are the connectives interdefinable in quantum logic as they are in
classical logic? If so (I doubt it) then one or both of ~ and -> will
behave non-classically as well.

The Bikhoff/von Neumann proposal doesn't have an implication operation
(it does have a notion of logical consequence). Negation on
its own is as usual ( ~~ p and p are interderivable). So Mike's
argument does not apply as it stands.

--
Alan Smaill

Kaufmann used Spencer-Brown's notation
from his little book, _The Laws of Form_, actually using
it & its mirror-image, in _Knots and Physics_.

ordinary predicate calculus is just arithmetic;
numbertheory is the "higher" arithmetic.

Actually, my argument does not rely on implication, only that the
distributive law can be expressed with one connective (be it
implicaiton, ORs or ANDs), parenthesis, and negation. Then the
argument is that it is not correct to consider the connective valid in
one formula but not in another.

And now that I think about it, I'm not sure my derivation makes use of
the distributive law.

Using de Morgan's laws? And does the Birkhoff/von Neumann logic satisfy
de Morgan's laws? It's a genuine question, I know nothing about it.

It's clear that the quantum logic proposed does not
coincide with classical propositional logic; it's a strictly
weaker logic, in that if P1 entails P2 (P1, P2 just using
and, or, not) in quantum logic, it does in classical logic also,
but not vice versa.

So the usual truth tables do not apply --
but that makes sense if our judgements are about
QM properties, I think.
--
Alan Smaill

I raised it myself... All I can find is
news:1160267673.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com which seems
not to be very serious.

Yes, de Morgan's laws hold.
That's not enough to derive distributivity from the lattice
properties, though;
you get the laws corresponding to an orthocomplemented lattice
(plus an extra condition):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complemented_lattice


--
Alan Smaill

This seems to prove that quantum logic cannot be used in my efforts.
For I use a conjunction of implications to describe a "path". These
implication are really more entailment, since they derive from a
conjunction implying one of it operands. So if classical entailment
does not have a quantum logic equivalent, then quantum logic is
probably of no use in my efforts.
So I'm hoping we no longer have to consider quantum logic to fully
explain QM.

That's a good question. I have only a limited knowledge about
mathematics and mathematical logic and my physics is even
worse; so I could only speculate here.

I was probably not the only one but years ago I harbored a naive desire,
a dream, that one day all the physics laws would be just consequences
of mathematics and mathematical reasoning; and all the known properties
of the universe such as the speed of light, Planck constant would be
just values derivable from some mathematical relationships. In the
effort to see that dream though I tried to learn and discern some
"deep" properties of real numbers, of geometry, groups, rings, fields,
etc...

In the end I gave up: there are so many difficult things to learn
and yet nowhere have I found even a slightest hint in mathematics or
in logical reasoning that would explain the mystery as to why the speed
of light is 300,000.00 km/sec, instead of 299,299.99 km/sec! Or why I'm
here and now, instead of being there and then!

One day though, it just dawned on me that the answer to the mystery
above is quite simple and lies within a branch of mathematics that
we're all familiar with: Combinatorial Analysis, which involves
a concept known as permutation! You see, a coin has 2 sides: head or
tail; and you might not know the next time you encounter a coin
strolling on a beach whether it's a head or tail facing up, but
it got be either head or tail only: there's no 3rd side!

The long and short of the story is that I think the entire physical
universe is just a permutation out of however many possible combination,
permutations of possible point-wise states. And so we don't need to ask
why the speed of light is such and such: it just happens to be _that_
permutation. And if it's not that permutation, it would still be just
a different permutation, different value!

Iow, the entire physical universe is just a Choice function, out of
collection of however many choices there exist.

Something like that, imho. And so, to your question:
I'd think the answer would be a yes, albeit trivially so: physics
would be just a mathematical permutation, a mathematical choice
function: things are just the way things are!

Incidentally, with just a minor twist, physics would be just
an autonomous axiomatic formal system! The twist is that rules
of inference are still applicable to some formulas, but there are
no (starting formulas known as) axioms!

(Think of the difference between the natural numbers that there's
a starting point, and the integer numbers that there's no starting one)
--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

The universe use 3 state logic from electronics.

You might like to consider the counter-example to distributivity
in the original Birkhoff/von Neumann paper, at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1968621


--
Alan Smaill

Let's formally expand this concept of an "autonomous axiomatic formal"
system, in the context of FOL formalism.

The formal system is designated as U and its language is that of ZF:
L(U) = L(ZF). The meta descripyion of U is:

(a) All theorems of ZF are theorems of U.

(b) There exists an infinite sequence of formulas, any finite
sub-sequence of which is a FOL proof.

Can U really exist - as a consistent theory?

> L(U) = L(ZF). The meta description of U is:
OK. U can't be distinct from ZF just on the basis of (a) and (b) only.
So here's an addendum:

(c) Any formula in the sequence has a non-trivial proof in the sequence.

Dear Nam,

I'm a little confused here. Is this issue you raise have something to
do with my effort as described on my website? Is the U that you are
referring to the same conjunction of all facts that I label as U? Or
is this a side issue that you are having with another participant?

Hi Mike,

I did read your original post and iirc it already contains in depth
physics materials which discouraged me from visiting the web page,
because (as mentioned before) I'm not a physicist and my knowledge
of technical (theorectical) physics is extremely limited, virtually nil.

On the other hand, the title of the thread has the 3 words "Physics",
"Logic", and "Math" and the fora list includes the 3 corresponding ng's,
so I think it's not inappropriate for me to chip in some thoughts.

After all, it was said that Neptune orbit was a direct result of
mathematical calculations using Newton mathematical "axiomatic
formal system". And, that failing, gravitation is said to be mere
(space-time) _geometrical_ curvature.
It is just a coincidence: it stands for "Universe", naturally, and
it has its mathematical logic root in the definition of FOL language
model, as you might already be aware.
If we consider mathematics as the language of science and I think
all of logic, math, and physics, we've said so far would be related
in some way.

It's also true my posting here was directly motivated by the
very first question-sentence of you original post:

As a logician, I think you should be able to fully appreciated the
logic I use on my website. There is no physics in my derivation.
That's the whole point of the webpage, to show how to go from logic to
physics. The only thing physical on the site would be the Feynman path
integral. I can provide a link to a wikipedia article, if you need to
see the Feynman path integral from some one else. But if you are
willing to trust me on that point, you might find the development
interesting. Let me know where you get stuck, and I'll see if I can
help make things more clear. Thanks.

http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

Under the context of this question let me add a few more notes.

First, my mentioned formal system U is only a suggestion of how
complex the actual physical reality be and how _incompletely_
it'd be to use mathematical formalism and logic to try describing
the physics of the universe. After all, we only know this physical
reality through what we can _finitely_ observe; and although the
number of the fundamental particles might be finite, the Schrödinger
wave equation (with the continuity of time domain), for example,
means lurking behind what we could finitely observe would probably
be infinitely many physics information and truths no amount of
mathematical formalism can capture. The best we can do is to
realize that mathematical formalism and logic, toward describing
the physical reality in its entirety, can't exceed the our mortal
finite ability to observe it.

Secondly, toward the realizing the limitation of using mathematical
expressions and logical reasoning to describe physics, and toward the
physics-to-mathematical-logic linkage, my posting here is meant to
alert us on both sides (physics and logic) that there are parallel
similarities between these 2 disciplines.

The most striking and fundamental similarity is the incompleteness
of any human description of certain aspects of infinity. The direct
consequences of this incompleteness would be relativity of truths
(in mathematics), or observed facts (in physics); and uncertainty
both in some mathematical assertions and physical events.

After 1905, physicists tend to call this incompleteness "home".
The same, though, can't be said of mathematicians and logicians,
especially after 1930. Unfortunately, imho.

Perhaps time will change all that?

Mike wrote:

>
> http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

Your equation [18] makes no sense. I think I pointed this out before.

On Apr 8, 10:47 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I'll try to explain more fully, but I'll need to know more about what
you know. Do you know anything about calculus and the process of
taking the limit as some variable approaches zero or infinity?

But equation [18] is one form of the dirac delta function. It is the
4th equation on the list at:

http://functions.wolfram.com/GeneralizedFunctions/DiracDelta/09/

I use it with epsilon equal to 4 times DELTA squared.

Some.
The rudiments. Enough to know that the limit on the RHS doesn't exist.
The delta function isn't a function. Don't allow yourself to be misled
by words. You might like to look up the Sobolev/Schwartz account of
distributions.

On Apr 8, 2:26 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
Right. It approaches infinity as the DELTA approaches zero. But it
makes no less useful. We seem to use it only inside an integral which
integrates out the infinity to a nicer number.
Yes, I've been at this for a while. And I'm aware that the Dirac delta
function is not actually considered a function since it only has an
undefined (infinite) number at one point and is everywhere else zero.
What seems to be going on is that we can use it as long and the DELTA
is kept much larger than the integration differential. Then there is a
small interval that does act like a funciton, which we can multiply
and integrate, etc. We let the DELTA go to zero after we do our
multiplications and integration.

If we are talking about point particles, then it should be no supprise
that our math is the mathematics of a singularity, which is what the
Dirac delta represents. The complex gaussian Dirac delta function is
what is usually used in the development of the path integral of
quantum mechanics. Now I think I know why.

I did read your link provided below a couple of times. So, your
intention is "to go from logic to physics", but can you in one
paragraph elaborate on (a) what that phrase really means in technical
term? and (b) what's your road map to achieve the objective?

For instance, by "physics", would you mean, e.g., the precise location
and precise momentum of, say, an electron that the Uncertainty
Principle stipulates there can't be a precision? If not, what exactly
did you mean by "physics"? And how would your road map overcome the
uncertainty as stipulated by the Principle?

I have no problem with a function which does that, but the integral over
R is supposed to be one. How come?
Do you know that integral of limit equals limit of integral?
What particles? Physicists don't think that proton, for example, are
points, do they?

I would suppose that "physics" in this context means "what one may read
about in physics books".

That would be too vague to establish a link between logic and "physics",
don't you think?

So, which one is "what one may read about in physics books": precise
location and precise momentum of a moving electron? Or its precise
wave of probability of existence?

I think the Abstract at the website is a summary of my intentions.
When I say "to go from logic to physics", I mean to go from concepts
of a purely logical nature, true, false, AND, OR, IMPLIES, etc. to
physical concepts like wavefunction, Born rule, Feynman path integral.
The physical concepts I just listed are common to various physical
applications. They're common to linear momentum or angular momentum,
to potential energy and kinetic energy. But my main intent was to show
how one can make contact with physical concepts by using only logical
concepts.

On Apr 9, 2:19 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I suppose you could simply multiply the Dirac delta by a constant and
then the integral would be other than 1. But sometimes the Dirac delta
is considered to be a probability distribution that is deliberately
normalilzed to 1.
We have two different limiting processes going on, the limit of the
integral and the limit as the DELTA in the exponent goes to zero.
Typically, it does not matter which limiting processes happens first.
But sometimes it does matter. In the case of integrating the Dirac
delta, if the DELTA in the exponent were allowed to approach zero
first, then the there would be a point of infinity inside the
integral, and the integral would go to infinity too. But that would be
meaningless. So we take the limit of the integral first and then allow
the DELTA to go to zero.

I think I recall talking about this years ago, where in analysis one
must sometimes consider which limiting process to do first. I don't
recall the terms of that analysis. Maybe someone here does. (Mixed
limits?)
Of course, we really don't know what particles are made of, points,
strings, membranes. And we're never going to be able to directly
observe that. And about the only thing that will determine which would
be some kind of derivation on principle alone, perhaps a derivation
from logic.

You also said in the website:

"I may not have given a full account of all of the quantum mechanical
formalism yet."

So, that's really my "critique", question: you could go from logic to
to some mathematical formalism (mathematical description) known as QM,
which in the end may or may not 100% correctly describe the physics
of the the universe, but how could you go to - get at - the _precise_
physics of the universe, whatever "physics" would entail?

And if you can't, your original question "Can physics be derived from
pure logic?" would be somewhat of a misnomer, if not misleading (though
uninteneded), imho.

"However, this does open an intriguing possibility for deriving
the laws of nature."

That would seem to me a tall order: we probably never know 100% for sure
what "nature", hence "the laws of nature", be

Bingo! Now you are up to speed. These are the same questions I'm
asking myself. And perhaps you have some ideas on how to proceed, if
you think about it.

How can I prove that this is in fact a derivation uniquely leading to
physics? I don't know. Maybe it's not unique. I have seen where some
are using the path integral for economic purposes. Or perhaps it is
sufficient to know that this is where QM comes from, whereever it's
used. Should I put this paragraph on my website?

One thing that's interesting is the discussion at the end about
iterating to get QFT (quantum field theory), and how the iterations
seem to give quaternions and octonions which is believed to specify
the symmetry groups of the Standard Model. This is a bit conjectural
at this point. But it does seem quite probably the case. If this
indeed does specify the SM symmetry groups, then perhaps that is
unique to the physical world. I think it is interesting to consider
that this may give us a prescription to develop 3rd and 4th
quantization procedures, and perhaps other symmetry groups if we
continue to iterate the process. But even if these iterations made
predictions that were confirmed by experiment, could we say that it is
unique to the physical world? Or is this whole effort just an abstract
concept that just so happens to apply to reality as well as to other
abstract constructions? Ultimately, we may not be able to tell the
difference. Afterall, theoretical physics is also an abstract
construct in our minds.

I don't know. I might be forced to agree with you here. Hopefully, my
development provides some confidence that the quantum theory we are
presently using in physics is not so mysterious and has a logical
basis that we can easily understand. Again, for those just tuning in,
I'm referring to my website at:

http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

Since I'm getting some valuable feedback here, let me be honest about
the weaknesses I may have in my derivation.

I think the development is sufficient to establish the Dirac delta
function as the mathematical representation of material implication.
And I think the algebraic arguments are adequate to map disjunction
(OR) to addition, and to map conjunciton (AND) to multiplication.
Maybe some here would think otherwise. I'd appreciate your comments.

But my argument to establish the gaussian form of the Dirac delta
might be a little weak. There are many mathematical representations of
the Dirac delta function. And I only use the gaussian because it
represents the a function with the least information in it. Any other
representation would require some further explanation which I'm not
prepared to debate. Perhaps others here might see stronger reasons to
use the gaussian form of the Dirac delta function. I can't think of
anything else at this time.

I also argue from algebra that the guassian Dirac delta should have a
complex exponential. This seems kind of weak as well. That may need
some more work.

But once you have the complex gaussian representing the Dirac delta
function, the development to the Action integral in the exponent, and
the path integral from that seem beyond question.

These are the strengths and weaknesses in my derivation if anyone
would like to help. Thanks.

"Mike" <maj...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:32b96a87-6c54-43c4...@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
try some shrooms

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4202-shrooms/
"Shrooms" are hallucinogenic mushrooms: They are a non-addictive way to
experience alternate planes of existence, and exist on all continents, save
the Antarctic.


Just The Facts
A Shroom trip generally lasts for 6 hours and will not be easy on your soul.
The active chemicals are Psylocibin and Psilocin.
Some shrooms grow so fast they can be fully formed in under a day.

Surviving shrooms.
While shrooms are non addictive, they're probably more likely to leave
scarring, whether that be mental scarring from sitting on a beach surrounded
by dogs giving you "bestiality works both ways" eyes or physical scarring
from thinking that the sea level has inexplicably (and at the time
logically) risen to just below the height of first floor level.

Shrooms should not be taken by anyone who is even slightly pessamistic in
their outlook, I knew a guy once who thought he was surrounded by cops, and
being the kind of guy he was ended up attacking a fence, it wasn't until the
effect of the shrooms wore off that he could be convinced he wasn't on the
run for murder. An effort should also be made keeping yourself fractionaly
aware of reality, the guy who kicked a piece of chalk thinking it was
polystyrene would tell you this also. Lets call him Janet, because the man
does not chase those who taunt him anymore. Shrooms tend to amplify your
emotional state, and it's likely things you worry about only slightly when
sober become the focus of your attention, you could spend the whole time
feeling guilty about something as stupid adopting children to work in your
razorwire factory.




With all that can go wrong with eating shrooms it should be known also that
they can offer up profound insight into oneself and the world around them.
From a euphoric state you could see trees growing and horny green women
girating against trees like poledancers, inviting you to bone a hole in a
tree, although it must be stressed not all hallucinations are tree based.
The world can become more colourful, sounds can become intensely interesting
and sometimes time itself can seem to slow down or stop completely as you
ponder the spectacular importance of Lady Gaga's contribution to the
transvestite community.

The recommended dose of mushrooms varies with their strength, but it's
considered wise; albeit pussyish to have a few and then up the dose late on
if you aren't staring at a lightbulb in fascination after one hour. Shrooms
often grow in shit, theirs no getting around it, they are the fruiting
bodies of fungi, which may well be hundreds of years old, lying beneath the
surface as mycelium, the vegetable part of the same fungi. The effects
(seeing and hearing things that aren't real) begins to wear off after around
8 hours, by which time you and the people you're with are either secretly
wishing you had stayed the fuck away and just watched the Cosby show instead
or are regretting a bout of "experimentation".



The film and similar tangents.
Shrooms is also the name of a terrible horror film set in Ireland about a
group of youths who were probably on a spring break getting loaded on
mushrooms and then having a shitty time being chased around by what may or
may not be their hallucinations, I can't remember exactly, I'm not watching
it twice.
The mushroom in the film is known as a liberty cap, because they give you
liberty and look like a little cap (Irish for hat) they are characterised by
a nipple on the top, and if eaten fresh you can easily get the idea into
your head that your eating lots of sexy little slimy boobies.

The leading lady is blissfully unaware as she eats a black nippled liberty
cap that it will be epic in it's power and will really fuck her up to the
extent that it kills her or turns her into Scott Bakula, or another
superhero. To burst the bubble on the plot slightly, this simply doesn't
happen, although all fungi are inclined to develop with mutations, as with
some people:

eating mutated or irregular mushrooms is perfectly safe, and god knows,
sometimes mutated boob shaped mushrooms are more appealing than ordinary
ones.

>That's a good question. I have only a limited knowledge about
>mathematics and mathematical logic and my physics is even
>worse; so I could only speculate here.

>In the end I gave up: there are so many difficult things to learn
>and yet nowhere have I found even a slightest hint in mathematics or
>in logical reasoning that would explain the mystery as to why the speed
>of light is 300,000.00 km/sec, instead of 299,299.99 km/sec!

Would it bother you if somebody pointed out that the speed of light is
neither of those, but is actually 299,792.458 km/s -- by definition?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On 10 Apr, 14:49, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
v=d/t from that follows using SR that if d is variant(framedependent)
or t is variant(framedependent) thus is v variant(framedependent)
From this follows Einstein was a dreamer using circular reasoning
ending up with monkey distances, monkey time and monkey velocity
and thus follow from this only monkeys can follow his theories using
monkey physics.

It was only a manner of speaking; the particular constancy value is
the issue. In this case the question is essentially the same: why
not, say, 299,792.457 km/s?

Btw, " by definition"? I thought physics quantities are _measured_ ?

On Apr 9, 10:30 pm, "ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> try some shrooms
>

No thank you. I'm high enough already.

Not in this case, no. The metre is defined to be 1/299792458 times the
distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1 second.

--
Hate music? Then you'll hate this:

http://tinyurl.com/psymix

> > In article<uoPfr.26515$V94.8...@newsfe19.iad>, Nam Nguyen<namducngu...@shaw.ca>  writes:
As I understand it, the Feynman path integral of quantum mechanics
prescribes every possible path from start to finish. This includes
paths that go backwards in time and faster than light. What happens is
that the classical path contributes most heavily to the integration
process so that it is the classical path that we end up observing. You
have to have one particular path (not every possible path) in order to
measure the speed of light. So I think that the speed of light is a
classical effect.

One of the questions I have is that the speed of light is strickly
speaking an electromagnetic effect, having to do with photons. So why
should it have any baring on the maximum speed of other particles like
neutrinos, or gravitons? So I'm thinking that more generally, there
may be a classical limit of the speed of information propagation that
might be discerned in the path integral formulation. Since path
integrals calculate wavefunctions that are probability distributions,
one can calculate the information content of these distributions. And
there may be a way of calculating a maximum rate of change in that
information, which may give a classical speed limit for anything to
happen.

news:2a77e45f-e075-4bf2...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
=========================================
[strictly]
=========================================
=========================================
[bearing]
=========================================
=========================================
Only the moron Einstein put a speed limit on anything,
and whatever moron invented gravitons was talking out
of his arse while farting from his mouth.

So, there is a set F of formulae (maybe sentences) closed under
disjunction and conjunction, and a set N of numbers closed under
addition and multiplication, and a map f:F -> N such that

f(p OR q) = f(p) + f(q), and f(p AND q) = f(p)f(q) ?

Is the logic governing material implication (let's symbolize it '=>'),
disjunction and conjunction, classical? And is F closed under =>? If
so, the waffle about the Dirac delta function needs to take account of

f((p => q) => q) = f(p OR q) = ...

Also, if the logic is classical, there is a negation (call it '~'). If
F is closed under ~, how does f(~p) relate to f(p)?

Mike wrote:
>
> [...] then perhaps that is
> unique to the physical world. [...] could we say that it is
> unique to the physical world? [...]

Are there non-physical worlds? I ask because if I say 'Big Ben is
unique to London' I mean 'no other city has anything like Big Ben.'
(Whether that's true or not has no bearing on what I'm writing about.)
When you write 'such-and-such is unique to the physical world', is that
similar?

On Apr 10, 1:19 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Like I said, the path integral has been used for it own statistical
value in economic theory as well as to physical laws. So I'm not sure
this effort is unique to physics.

yes, via the medium of "free space,"
whose index of refraction approaches "one,"
but never quite attains it.

just because Einstein coined a word, doesn't mean that
there are "massless rocks o'light."

Young completely destroyed Newton's alleged theory
of corpuscles, with the two-pinhole experiment etc.
> So why should it have any [bearing]

Same question, really: why would light not travel at 99.9999999% of the
current constant speed, instead of 100%?

On Apr 10, 1:10 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ok, that's a thinker! I don't want go beyond what I think I know. I
only got addition for OR and multiplication for AND because I got the
delta function for implication. So F I think would be every
implication between every combination of propositions in the space.
Although implication between statements is a proposition in itself, it
is not in the original list of propositions in the space. So are we
talking about a new space derived from the original space?

And strictly speaking, I'm not sure N would necessarily be a space of
numbers. In the discrete case with a finite number of propositions in
the space, the Kronecker delta is either 1 or 0. I think that means
there is no inverse map from N to F. But in the continuous case, with
an infinite number of propositions in the space, the Dirac delta is
either infinity or zero, which probably cannot be considered a number.
And there would be no inverse map in that case either.

I do use the bare propositions themselves (not the implication between
them) in my explanation of the Born rule. And I seem to be applying a
map between bare propositions and numbers. But this is more from
experience with probability theory and less from derivation. I don't
actually derive a map between bare propositions and numbers. (Another
weakness I need to work on). So I still wonder how I can go from
implications between propositions being mapped to either 0 or 1 and
bare propositions that are mapped anywhere between 0 and 1. Is there a
reverse iteration process that I can use? Or does the formula
p^q=>(p=>q)^(q=>p)
sufficient to provide a number between 0 and 1 when the implications
each are either 0 or 1 (or infinity). If you have any ideas, let me
know.
I believe all my logic is classical. I don't want to even think in
terms of non-standard logic. I think I got the delta function to
represent =>. I'm not sure that means that => is being treated the
same as AND and OR. I seem to be adding and multiplying deltas as if
they were numbers. Is that a delta space instead of a number space?
What does it mean when any delta can be expressed in terms of every
other delta?
Again, I seem to only be interested in f(ANDs and ORs of (p=>q)). So
f(p OR q) may be beyond the scope of my efforts.
I got what I got. Is it correct? I don't believe I'm claiming to have
derived a map from any logic expression to some arithmatic expression.
I may only have a limited map that considers the conjunction and
disjunction of implicaitons. Perhaps this can be expanded to include
every logic expression, I don't know. But I am intrigued by the
implicaitons:)

Ok. To me the physical world and physics are quite different.

Can you fill in the dots:

f(p => q) = ....

in terms of f(p) and f(q)?
Well a map is a map _to_ something. And the things mapped to can be
added and multiplied; so what is F's codomain?
I don't know, if trying to understand it. So the domain of f is a set
of conjunctions and disjunctions of material implications between
propositions? Is there some true proposition (like 0=0, say?), if so,
let's call it T. Is there some false proposition (like 0=/=0, say?), if
so, let's call it _|_. The implication T => p is materially equivalent
to p, so if

f(p) = f(anything materially equivalent to p),

then f(p OR q) is f(OR of two implications). The implication p => _|_
is materially equivalent to ~p, so all Boolean combinations of
propositions are in the domain of f.

It could -- but by definition that would change the length of the metre,
and the speed would still count as the same.

--
Alan Smaill

"Alan Smaill" <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fwefwca...@eriboll.inf.ed.ac.uk...
Same question, really: why would light not travel at 50% of the
current constant speed, instead of 100%, then we could have
50 cm / metre, be half as tall as we are and as insane as Einstein
and his ridiculous disciples.

The speed of light is the same constant everywhere by definition.
Since all of our observing processes in the brain and in our
instruments depend on the speed of light we would not be able to
observe a change in the speed of light. If light slowed down, all our
perceptions would be slowed by the same factor and everything would
seem the same, we would not be able to preceive it.

news:891bb1a6-f31a-4920...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
Bullshit, you are as insane as Einstein and brainwashed by his
ridiculous crap.

--
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>

Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.

480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 seconds = 1 second.

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of
light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity --
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
--ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.

Not by definition. That _constant speed_ must be measured, and has
been measured.

On Apr 11, 5:26 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I appreciate you trying to get to the heart of the matter. I may not
be the one most qualified to generalize the mathematics to that
extent. Hopefully, we can eventually get to the truth of it.

Generally, I got f(p=>q)=delta(x_q - x_p)

where x is a variable for keeping track of where the propositions are
located in the space of propositions.

So is it fair to say that the delta function IS the map?

It might be that the space of propositions is entirely different from
the space of implications. Maybe there is a lesson in how Quantum
Theory labels its spaces.

In my article I write that quantum field theory (QFT) can be developed
by iterating the process. I get

(qi=>qj)=>(qk=>ql) implication between implications

that gives rise to the path integral used in QFT. The wavefunctions of
QFT occupy what is known as Fock space. Whereas the (qi=>qj) that I
developed first in my article gives rise to wavefunctions in regular
quantum mechanics which occupy Hilbert space. As I understand it,
Hilbert space and Fock space are different things and are not
compatible with each other.

So likewise, I'm thinking that the implication between implications is
not the same space as just implications between proposition, which
similarly is not the same space as bare propositions.

BTW, it's interesting to consider that this the way to derive the map
from bare propositions to numbers. Previously I just assumed this map
from probability theory and have not derived it on my website. But
this may be the way to actually derive it:

The map from ANDs and ORs to multiplication and addition worked just
as well when I iterated to get the implication between implications.
That gave function with 4 indexes. And the backward iteration would be
just the implication between propositions which had functions of 2
indecies. The map from AND and OR to X and + worked there as well. So
backward iterating again would give functions of 1 index, the bare
proposition itself, where we should expect that the AND and OR to X
and + should work there as well. This probably need more development.
That's an interesting possibility. I don't know if T for F are
actually part of the space on which the map, f, operates on. I think
it's the space of all propositions in the space, that could be either
T or F. I think I leave it as a question as to whether a proposition
is either T or F. I do write that T maps to 1 and F maps to 0, but do
I actually use this anywhere? I eventually start using variables whose
values are differing propositions. I use the variable i in the
discrete case and x in the continuous case as variables to move from
one proposition to the next. So I go from propositions as variables
whose values can be T or F to continuous variables x whose values can
be propostions themselves. That's a little confusing, but I think the
development on my website seems straightforward.

>>> [...]
Because that doesn't mean anything. The main lesson of Special
Relativity is that there's no absolute distinction between space and
time, much like there's no absolute distinction between length and width
- length and width are mixed into one another by rotations, while
distance and time are mixed into one another by boosts.

Imagine that there were a society of people who started measuring
distances before they understood rotations, and consequently measured
lengths in metres and widths in inches (much like how we measure
distances in metres and times in seconds, since we understood distance
and time long before we understood SR). Imagine that those people
discovered a type of object which, owing to some natural process, was
always perfectly circular. Then they would find that the lengths of the
objects and the widths of the object differed, but that there was a
constant ratio (about 39.4) between the length and width of any such
object. They might further conclude that this ratio was some kind of
fundamental constant of nature, and speculate about alternate universes
in which the constant were something else. But since you and I know
about rotations, we know that this "fundamental constant" doesn't really
tell us anything about the laws of physics, it just tells us about a
peculiarity of the units used by this hypothetical society.

The situation with c is similar. Light in a vacuum travels along null
geodesics; in the flat space of SR, this amounts to a photon's
world-line lying along one of the preferred "null" directions through
spacetime. In "sensible" (for high-energy physics purposes, not everyday
life purposes) units, these directions have a speed (that is, gradient
of the line's graph in a plot of position against time) of 1. In other
units, it can be anything.

There is a potential cause for confusion, though: sometimes you /will/
hear physicists talking about the possibility that the speed of light
has "changed" over time. Really, though, this is just a consequence of
the unfortunate fact that many physicists are willing to dumb down what
they say to the point where it becomes nonsense when talking to lay
people. What they are actually talking about is the fine-structure
constant, a dimensionless and fundamental (as far as we know) constant
(as far as we know) which, roughly speaking, determines how strong the
electromagnetic force is. That the fine-structure constant is as small
as it is is the reason why units that are sensible for HEP purposes are
so completely impractical for everyday purposes; since the energies
involved in the chemical reactions which we use to move things are much
smaller than the rest energy of the things we move, the speeds that we
usually deal with are much slower than the speed of light. Therefore it
makes sense that our unit of distance is much smaller than our unit of
time. If the fine-structure constant were to change overnight but the
various mechanisms we use for measuring the speed of light were not
modified, the speed of light that we measured would seem to have
changed. This would mean that those mechanisms were now giving the wrong
answer, not that the speed of light actually /had/ changed - the speed
of light in m/s would still be exactly the same by definition of "m".

There have been studies that suggest that the fine-structure constant
has changed over geological timescales. I don't know how widely accepted
their conclusions are.

Mike wrote:
>
> [...]
Since your delta (equation [18], I think it was) makes no sense, the
above equation makes no sense.
What is this "space of propositions"? I know nothing about logic, but I
do know that logicians like clarity. Perhaps you could begin by telling
us what a proposition _is_.

> [...]
So you better tell us what an implication is as well.

> [...] I don't know if T for F are
What is the space that f operates on? And what is its codomain?

> [...] but I think the
Very sanguine.

Mike wrote:
>
> [...] I seem to be adding and multiplying deltas as if
> they were numbers.

The delta that I know is a distribution, and distributions cannot be
multiplied. At least I think not. Maybe someone has a theory of
"distributions" (and thus of the Dirac delta function) in which they can
be multiplied. David Ullrich and others will know, but I know nothing
about analysis.

It means you were incorrect in interpreting my question. Speed of light
is _a ratio_ which happens to be a constant of the value 299792458,
based on the standard of unit of length and time. And it is a
_measured_ unit: _no one defined that value_ !

Your answer above is incorrect because a) it's circular: "times the
distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1 second" already connotes
the speed of light already whose constant value is at the heart of
my question (why not other constant value?); and b) my question is
about that constant value - which is _a ratio_ between distance and
time, and your answer is about meter which is distance. You use apple
to answer a question about orange, basically!
That's vague and doesn't explain why the constant value isn't just
a little less or more than what it is. (Note: I'm not saying the new
value be not a constant: it's the value, not the constancy of the ratio,
that is at the heart of my question).
Again, this (seemingly verbiage) still doesn't explain why the constant
value couldn't be a little more or less that what it is.
I'm sorry: "it can be anything" is wrong: the constant speed of light
is at a fixed value and not of the nature "it can be anything".
("Can be anything" and "constant" are very much contradictory in term).

In any frame of reference traveling at a constant speed, the ratio
between the space length of (say) 1 trillion proton long _in a frame_
and the however many number oscillations, state transitions (of certain
atomic particles) during the traveling of light over this distance
_in the same frame_ is a constant that would be measured in all such
frames.

Rotwang can answer for themselves, and I hope they will since their
contribution to this thread is a useful one. (Btw,
'themselves'/'they'/'their' because I don't know if Rotwang is a man or
a woman. Sorry about that. Anyway, to continue...)

I knew that the speed was a matter of definition, but I pretended that I
didn't and did a bit of Googling. My search string was "speed of
light", the first result was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
where we may read: 'Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure
that is exact since the length of the metre is defined from this
constant and the international standard for time.'
How preposterous of you to write '_no one defined that value_' when you
can very easily learn that yes they did.

I think you heard of The Michelson-Morley _experiment_ as exemplified
in the link:

http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/M_M/M_M.html

Note the word "measurable" in "there was no measurable difference
between the speed of light in the two directions".

Note "is defined from this". Why do people including you keep giving
out apple-orange kind of answer? My question is about "this constant"
value, _not_ about what can be defined _from_ it!

On Apr 11, 7:20 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I sense you are getting frustrated. I'm sorry if I don't have all the
answers for you. But I dont believe I'm using any math that I haven't
seen professionals use.

I first multiply Dirac deltas together in equation [16]. I've seen
this in other books on QM. For example, equation [18] is in the
wikipedia article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#Translation

I've also seen it in, Quantum Field Theory, by Lowell S. Brown, page
30. And my equation [17] of an infinite number of integrations of an
infinite multiplication of Dirac deltas I've seen in, Path Integrals
in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial
Markets, by Hagen Kleinert, page 91.

That same wikipedia articles also shows how equation [18] goes to
infinity as the parameter goes to zero. You probably were comfortable
with my use of the Kronecker delta in the discrete case. And going
from a discrete Kronecker delta to the Dirac delta in the continuous
case is also a typical generalization. Is that where I lost you?

If it is any consolation, many analysts don't believe that the Feynman
path integral is even well defined. As I recall, they take issue with
the space of paths not having a Lebesgue measure, or something like
that. I have to wonder if developing the path integral from the Dirac
measure helps in any way since the Dirac measure is accepted.
Although, things probably get more complicated when you start
introducing a complex gaussian for the Dirac delta.

Wrong. Look, you've already written ITT that your knowledge of physics
is virtually nil. Mine is not. In asking questions about physics, is
your purpose to learn the answers or do you just want to defend your
misconceptions indefinitely, like usual? Because if it's the latter then
I'm happy to leave you to it, but if it's the former then please read on.
This question is like asking why the ratio between a metre and an inch
is not some other constant value. The ratio is not measured, it is
/chosen/ by defining one unit in terms of the other. There is no reason
why it is what it is, rather than some other constant value, other than
convention. It will never be determined to be anything other than what
it is by experiment; the only way its value will change is if we adopt a
different definition of the metre or the inch.

Do you wonder why the ratio between a metre and an inch is not
99.9999999% of what it is, instead of 100%?
I made it vague for the sake of brevity. Here's the non-vague version:

According to SR (which is a good approximation whenever gravity is close
to uniform), the laws of physics are invariant under an action of the
Poincaré group, which is the group of isometries of Minkowski space. The
Poincaré group includes, among other things, rotations about the z axis,
which look like this:

x' = x*cos(theta) - y*sin(theta)
y' = x*sin(theta) + y*cos(theta)
z' = z
t' = t

and boosts along the x axis, which look like this:

x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
y' = y
z' = z
y' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

These show that there is no absolute distinction between width and
length, since an object with zero width and non-zero length from the
point of view of one inertial frame can have non-zero width when viewed
from a frame that is related to the first by a rotation, and also that
there is no absolute distinction between distance and time, since two
events which occur at the same time but with non-zero distance between
them from the point of view of one inertial frame can occur at different
times when viewed from a frame that is related to the first by a boost.
The value is fixed by defining the metre as 1/299792458 times the
distance light travels in a vacuum in one second. The reason it isn't
just a little less or more than what it is is because that would imply
that the distance travelled by light in a vacuum during one second would
be a little less or more than 299792458 metres, or in other words a
little less or more than 299792458/299792458 = 1 times the distance
travelled by light in a vacuum during one second. Since no distance can
be a little less or more than itself, this would be a contradiction.
Suppose that someone from the hypothetical society I described asked you
why the constant ratio between the length (in metres) and width (in
inches) of a perfectly circular object couldn't be a little more or less
than what it is. What would you say to them?
Give me any positive real number x, and I'll give you a unit of length
(the "rotre") in which the speed of light in vacuo is x rotres per
second. This is what I mean when I write that the speed of light can be
anything. I'm sure you consider this an obvious point, but you don't
seem to understand what its implications are for your question. Think of
it this way: if the speed of light were to change to half its current
value overnight, what would that /actually mean/ for the purpose of
experiments? We might time how long it took for a beam of light to
travel from one end of a metre rule to a mirror at the other end and
then travel back to where it started, and find it took twice as long as
it did yesterday. But in order to conclude that the speed of light had
changed, we would need to know that our metre rule - which was a metre
long yesterday - was still a metre long today, and that our stopwatch
which measured nanoseconds yesterday still measured nanoseconds today. A
priori there are at least two phenomenologically equivalent ways of
describing what would have happened; one is that the speed of light had
changed to half of its previous value, another is that everything in the
universe had become twice as big. Defining the metre in such a way that
the speed of light is constant means that we choose the second
description. If you ever learn what SR says, you will see why that
choice is sensible.
It is a constant (as far as anyone knows, and pretending that "1
trillion proton long" makes sense), yes, but that isn't the same thing
as the speed of light in a vacuum - this much is apparent from the fact
that, if the above-defined constant were to change, the speed of light
in a vacuum would still be exactly 299792458m/s by definition of the
metre. Instead, measuring a different value for the constant would mean
that at least one of the length of 1 trillion protons or the duration of
an oscillation or state transition of the certain atomic particle had
changed (if the oscillation happens to be that of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the caesium 133 atom then we can rule out the latter, by
definition of the second).

On 12/04/2012 11:14, Frederick Williams wrote:
> [...]
Thanks :-)
For what it's worth, I'm male.

If you were to do a little bit of Google searching, you might
be able to discren the the definition of the meter changed
between the time of the Michaelson Morley experiment and
the present.

One might also speculate that it is easier for students to
learn physics taking the meter and the second for granted
as quantities roughly defined as "the length of a standard
meter stick" and the "the duration of a second on a
standard stop-watch" and leave it to various vendors,
metrologists and standards bodies to arrange things so
that standard meter sticks and standard stop-watches are
readily obtainable.

In those terms and with those definitions, the result of
the Michaelson Morley experiment is indeed to rule out
certain theories in which the speed of light depends upon
the speed of the observer.

From the point of view of modern metrology however,
the constancy of the speed of light is taken for granted
to the point where it can be used to define the meter
in terms of the second.

On Apr 11, 7:14 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I've had other questions as to how I could have a proposition
represent anything in existence when propositions could possibly be
false but represent something that definitely exist. I thought we
assigned "true" to statements that do describe reality? How can the
false proposition exist? OK, that's a good question. But then again,
how could one fact that exists not prove another fact that exist? How
could two facts that coexist not imply each other? Maybe the answer is
that if something does exists, then the proposition that describes it
is true independent of whether some other fact is true or false. And
so we are allowed for the sake of argument to consider whether
something that exists is "false".

Again for newcomers, I'm talking about my effort to derive physics
from logic at:

http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm

"virtually nil" doesn't mean "literally nothing", the last time I
checked English.
That's just idiotic babbling, a la Inquisition style. You were incorrect
in denying the constant _speed_ of light is a physics _measured_
quantity.

Taking your opponent's non-technical a-manner-of-speaking "virtually
nil" _to force_ an acceptance of your argument, and then threatening
to quit the argument if your opponent doesn't accept what you said
is a non-starter. In any rate, what you said about the speed of light
not being a measured physics quantity is dead wrong, which I'll will
assert and explain again (as I've already explained), whether or not
you leave the conversation.
So, you said: "The ratio is not measured".
Tell us, Rotwang, in _physics experiments_ if physicists didn't
_measure_ anything, would they just "meditate" on the constant speed
of light and come up with the common agreement that the value be
299792458?

Shouldn't we call that Zen, instead of Physics? Or are you saying the
two aren't distinguishable?
What kind of physics here did you claim you knew?

How does what you've just said above invalidate my question
as to why the constant isn't 99.9999999% of what it is?

(Read: you'd get a new constant value but the 99.9999999%
question remains the same question.)
Not that one in particular. But suppose I had, I'd have had a
correct answer for it. Would you have an answer for it in this
case?

Read: Do you know what is meant by the phrase _NON-LOGICAL_ in
mathematical reasoning context? (As in "non-logical axioms".
Note the relevance of the thread's title:

"Physics from logic?(Check my math)"!
But how would all what you said below solve the question why the
constant speed of light is at its current value, whatever the unit
you choose?
Sight. Where did I indicate I'd like to debate about the "distinction
between width and length"?

My question is really from what mathematical, logical reasons, the
constant value for the 'c' is at whatever the value it is, and not
something else?

Do you _really understand_ my question?
Your reasoning is incoherent here. In this context, we always by default
assume we're talking about the speed of light in vacuum. So your "It is
a constant" and that isn't the same thing as the speed of light in a
vacuum" don't rhythm together.
Do you know that your last paragraph above has proved that the
definition of a "metre" here is just a red herring and that you
were wrong in claiming the speed of light were a defined and not
measure physics quantity.

First, length and time are defined by purely _physical entities_
NOT by convention: how many proton-long, how many oscillation-duration.

Secondly, all physics quantities _MUST BE MEASURED_ . The reasoning
being is in SR (at least) we can't talk about, say, motion without
frames of reference (and let's recall that light is never motionless).

A train is moving from where I stand; and you on the train.

The _very same train n-proton long at rest_ and the very same light-
photon (or light wave-front), passing over the train from end to end.

The problem is since I'm not on the train I can only use my measurements
on the ground to measure the length of the train which _to me_ would
appear to be n1-proton long, where n1 < n (SR length contraction).
And the time it takes the very same light wavefront to pass the train
from end to end would be m1, where m1 < m (where m would be measured
when the train is at rest to me; this is SR time dilation).

But to you though, being on the moving train relative to me, the train
is still n-proton long and it'd take the same light wave front
m-oscillation duration to pass the train end-to-end.

It also happens that _my measured_ ratio n1/m1 and _your measured_
ratio n/m turn out to be identical value (no matter how fast or slow
the speed of the train be).

If there were no measurement involved, you could in effect just
take the ration n1/m to be the speed of light, which is wrong
(and which would be variant). So I hope you understand now that
as far as _frame of reference_ is a _required_ notion in SR, then
_ALL physics quantities are MEASURED_ !

My original question is then why that constant value (in all frames of
reference) is _that_ particular value, instead of something else
a little less, or more. And this has nothing to do with the definition
of "metre", which, as I've shown above in the ratios n1/m1, n/m, is
irrelevant and expendable!

I have an answer to the question: there's just no logical and
mathematical explanation: it's just a permutation in the realm
of physical existences.

What's is your answer (if it's different from mine)?