Broken Maxwell EM ?

Newton said:
I personally get a tremendous laugh when I see papers on measure theory. (It turns out, measure theory only applies to topological spaces, it does not apply to non-topological smooth manifolds
From what you wrote I deduce that you do not know what is measure theory and what are smooth manifolds. Once more I am asking you to stop using terms that you do not understand. This way you are just creating noise. And it is one of my duties on this forum to keep an eye on those who create noise, and to get rid of this noise using all means that are available for an administrator.

Please, read at least

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

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

and make an attempt to understand what you read.
 
arkmod said:
Newton said:
I personally get a tremendous laugh when I see papers on measure theory. (It turns out, measure theory only applies to topological spaces, it does not apply to non-topological smooth manifolds
From what you wrote I deduce that you do not know what is measure theory and what are smooth manifolds. Once more I am asking you to stop using terms that you do not understand. This way you are just creating noise. And it is one of my duties on this forum to keep an eye on those who create noise, and to get rid of this noise using all means that are available for an administrator.

Please, read at least

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

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

and make an attempt to understand what you read.
I know exactly what measure theory is and isn't. It's becoming quite clear you don't. Your math skills appear to be pure crap.

Measure theory does not apply to 4 and 5 dimensions. In case you're interested, you need a finite sigma algebra. There's a problem with transitive closure in 4 and 5 dimensions for any sigma algebra.

You better read up on unmeasurable sets!

Regarding topological spaces, Measure theory actually only applies to complex Manifolds (Kahler) since translational groups have an infinite sigma algebra. (The standard undergrad example of unmeasurable set). Another example is cantor sets (that's why fractals seem so intractable)

Almost every interesting problem in physics involves unmeasurable sets. In fact, I believe every problem involving measurable sets has been solved (probably long ago).
 
arkmod said:
From what you wrote I deduce that you do not know what is measure theory and what are smooth manifolds.
Newton said:
I know exactly what measure theory is and isn't. It's becoming quite clear you don't. Your math skills appear to be pure crap.
Is the meaning of "measure theory" debatable, is this a vague thing? If not, then I guess im confused how can there remain a disagreement if there exists a clear and precise definition? Shouldn't the definition speak for itself? What's the point of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" if there is a definition that could settle any disagreement? Or am I missing something?
 
SAO said:
What's the point of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" if there is a definition that could settle any disagreement? Or am I missing something?
It appears that there may be different 'understandings' of the definitions, although I'm sure someone more qualified than I am can clarify - I would like to point out, however that once someone resorts to a comment like this...

Newton said:
Your math skills appear to be pure crap.
, they've lost all legitimacy in my book - here we see a case of a person who apparently can't justify their own points with facts or equations, so they resort to the good old school-yard mud slinging - sad, really.
 
Newton could at least stand to have more of an agree to disagree attitude. It would be great if everybody we talked to about SOTT stuff nodded in agreement. It ain't gonna happen and you just keep trying to make your case as less confrontational (aka less wierd) as possible. With my limited knowledge, even if Newton was right, the only thing Tony would have to change would be semantics. Newton calls Tony's checkerboard a Nobel Prize kind of work, Tony refers to his checkerboard as a stochastic flow, Newton thinks stochastic flows are crap. A miscommunication somewhere. With all that talking I got virtually nothing I could use to compare Newton's model with Tony's.
 
John G said:
Newton could at least stand to have more of an agree to disagree attitude. It would be great if everybody we talked to about SOTT stuff nodded in agreement. It ain't gonna happen and you just keep trying to make your case as less confrontational (aka less wierd) as possible. With my limited knowledge, even if Newton was right, the only thing Tony would have to change would be semantics. Newton calls Tony's checkerboard a Nobel Prize kind of work, Tony refers to his checkerboard as a stochastic flow, Newton thinks stochastic flows are crap. A miscommunication somewhere. With all that talking I got virtually nothing I could use to compare Newton's model with Tony's.
John,

Tony's main contribution is in the domain of 'string theory' (Hamiltonian flows). If you say he's also into stochastic flows and QM, I can't disagree (But I don't understand why he would be).

It's hard for me to discuss topics that were resolved over thirty years ago and now keep reappearing over and over again. Also I'm a bit tired of seeing mathematics, like measure theory, that has such a restricted class of applications that I can't even understand why someone would write a book on the topic.

I was a bit hard on Ark's mathematics, sorry.

Newton.
 
Tony's main contribution is in the domain of 'string theory' (Hamiltonian flows).
Tony's most fundamental formulation of the bosonic string is E6/F4. If that fits with Hamiltonian flows, I guess I have no problem though Tony is a Lagrangian mechanics rather than Hamiltonian mechanics kind of guy. I think the more controversial aspect of Tony is not the math of the bosonic string or Checkerboard, it's Tony's interpretation of these things as very fundamental rather than being toy models. You mentioned SUSY transforms so I wonder if you consider the bosonic string to be a toy. You also mention the Checkerboard with the qualification of being for "exerimental results", so maybe you consider it to be a toy. You are certainly allowed to have your own interpretations but they could be different than Tony's.

Another thing string theory conventionally needs is an underlying GUT. Witten likes E6 for a GUT and so does Tony. Both Witten and Tony like E6 orbifolding for fermions, Tony has a D5 aka SO(10) emergent spacetime similar to a description in a recent John Baez paper. Tony also uses D4 similar to SU(5) GUT for bosons. As for your GUT, your interest in the Galois field and spin(4) quaternions seems to give a clue. The spin(4) quaternions of the Galois field are a different use of spin(4) than the use to give rotations and boosts for gravity. The Galois field quaternions for Tony would be the spin(8) vector-half spinor-half spinor for the quaternionic imaginaries and the spin(8) adjoint representation (bivectors) for the quaternionic real. Thus for that Tony quote I posted that began with a question from me, the part related to your spin(4) quaternions would not be where Tony mentions spin(4) but where Tony mentions spin(8) Triality and the adjoint representation.
 
John G said:
Tony's main contribution is in the domain of 'string theory' (Hamiltonian flows).
I think the more controversial aspect of Tony is not the math of the bosonic string or Checkerboard, it's Tony's interpretation of these things as very fundamental rather than being toy models. You mentioned SUSY transforms so I wonder if you consider the bosonic string to be a toy. You also mention the Checkerboard with the qualification of being for "exerimental results", so maybe you consider it to be a toy.
From a pure math perspective, I believe Tony's exceptional Lie group model for irreducible (nonlinear PDEs) is correct and fundamental. I'm also quite sure that there are only four variable types, real, complex, quaternions and octonions based on Bott periodicity. The corresponding group actions, translational (infinite abelian), rotational (finitie abelian), symplectic or bi-rotational (finite non-abelian), and 'no actions' for octionions (since only the identity is left in the algebra).

On the physics side, Tony's work is fundamental to Sp(4) which is fully developed in 'phase space optics'. That's basically the combination of EM and special relativity where one first encounters SUSY (canonical transforms) transforms (to for example, change frames to the group velocity). The geometry is non-Euclidean, that is symplectic. It's interesting to note that the Fourier pair of the group velocity frame is a soliton. So bosons with that geometry can interact as ordinary solitions do, the shape is preserved but there is a phase shift (acceleration or gravity). Tony's work is consistent with current gauge theories up to those with 2nd order PDEs.

Regarging fermions and higher dimensional spaces, I agree there is little work taking boson interactions to explain quark construction. But abstractly, there is reason to believe Tony's model is correct since it generally agrees with gauge theories with 3rd order nonlinear PDEs (Kac's work at MIT).

There is no 'toy' in Tony's model.
 
...quaternions...symplectic or bi-rotational (finite non-abelian)... That's basically the combination of EM and special relativity... can interact as ordinary solitions do...
That's new transform terminology for me. Are you taking EM to its conformal/soliton Kerr-Newmanish limit?
 
John G said:
...quaternions...symplectic or bi-rotational (finite non-abelian)... That's basically the combination of EM and special relativity... can interact as ordinary solitions do...
That's new transform terminology for me. Are you taking EM to its conformal/soliton Kerr-Newmanish limit?
Spin angular momentum is a projection from a relativitic EM manifold which can vary from Schwarschild to Kerr limits.

In this symplectic space, the Poynting, E and M vectors are not orthogonal. The 2nd order nonlinear PDE for EM theory is calculated by using a frame anywhere between zero velocity (usual EM theory) and the phase velocity, c.

I believe a careful look at solitons will show an oscillation in phase. For example in a bow wave, there is probably a very small foward-back movement that has gone undetected (I worked back from Navier-Stokes). The average shape is KdV.
 
Let me conclude this discussion with the following observation:

QM is based on stochastic flows which are diffusions. Tony's theory and string theory are based on hamiltonian flows which are dispersions. There is a huge difference diffusion and dispersion dynamics.

Diffusions have mathematics in Eulidean space (Riemannian manifolds). And dispersions have mathematics in Banach space (symplectic manifolds). Problems in Banch space are quite difficult since the inner-product is not supported. The manifolds are infinite dimensional and obey a Kac-Moody algebra.

Is Maxwell's EM theory is broken? (getting back to the orginal topic) It's not broken as long as there is no wave interaction. But once you add interaction such as with a changing index of refraction, Maxwell's EM theory is, in fact, badly broken (inadequate). The waves are dispersive and the new mathematics is 4-dim on a symplectic manifold (the main reason Hamilton invented quaternions).
 
QM is based on stochastic flows which are diffusions. Tony's theory and string theory are based on hamiltonian flows which are dispersions. There is a huge difference between diffusion and dispersion dynamics. Diffusions have mathematics in Eulidean space (Riemannian manifolds). And dispersions have mathematics in Banach space (symplectic manifolds). Problems in Banch space are quite difficult since the inner-product is not supported. The manifolds are infinite dimensional and obey a Kac-Moody algebra.
Tony certainly does not have infinite dimensional manifolds, he uses finite-dim Lie Algebras up to the Monster (though strangely to me, the finite-dim Monster apparently can be seen as a generalization of an infinite-dim Kac-Moody algebra). This does not mean you can't do useful things with Hamiltonian flows, I could see you doing nice things with Cooper pairs for example. More terminology conflicts, Tony uses the term diffusion. Also as I said previously Tony fundamentally uses Lagrangians not Hamiltonians.
In the HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard model
the mass parameter m is the amplitude for a particle
to change its spacetime direction. Massless particles
do not change direction, but continue on the same
lightcone path.


In the D4-D6-E6-E7 Lagrangian continuum version
of this physics model, particle masses are calculated in terms
of relative volumes of bounded complex homogeneous domains and
their Shilov boundaries.

The relationship between
the D4-D6-E6-E7 Lagrangian continuum approach
and
the HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard discrete approach
is that:

the bounded complex homogeneous domains correspond to
harmonic functions of generalized Laplacians
that determine heat equations, or diffusion equations;

while the amplitude to change directions in the
HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard is a diffusion process
in the HyperDiamond spacetime, also corresponding to
a generalized Laplacian.

Details of the D4-D6-E6-E7 Lagrangian continuum approach
can be found on the World Wide Web at URLs

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9501252

Dynamics of this D4 − D5 − E6 model are given by a Lagrangian action
that is the integral over spacetime of a Lagrangian density made up of a
gauge boson curvature term, a spinor fermion term (including through a
Dirac operator interaction with gauge bosons), and a scalar term.

For the discrete HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard
approach of this paper, the only free mass parameter
is the mass of the Higgs scalar. All other particle
masses are determined as ratios with respect to the
Higgs scalar and each other.

The Higgs mass is 145.789 GeV in the
HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard model,
since the Higgs Scalar field vacuum expectation value v
is set at 252.514 GeV, a figure chosen so
that the mass ratios of the model will give an electron
mass of 0.5110 MeV.
 
Is Maxwell's EM theory is broken? (getting back to the orginal topic) It's not broken as long as there is no wave interaction. But once you add interaction such as with a changing index of refraction, Maxwell's EM theory is, in fact, badly broken (inadequate). The waves are dispersive and the new mathematics is 4-dim on a symplectic manifold (the main reason Hamilton invented quaternions).
As Ark said earlier somewhere, quaternions are part of Clifford Algebra so it's not like they are missing. The full symmetry of Maxwell's equations is conformal Spin(6) and these equations have superluminal solutions so I'm not sure there's anything missing using a Lie Algebra approach (Lie Algebras derive from Clifford Algebra).
 
John G said:
Is Maxwell's EM theory is broken? (getting back to the orginal topic) It's not broken as long as there is no wave interaction. But once you add interaction such as with a changing index of refraction, Maxwell's EM theory is, in fact, badly broken (inadequate). The waves are dispersive and the new mathematics is 4-dim on a symplectic manifold (the main reason Hamilton invented quaternions).
As Ark said earlier somewhere, quaternions are part of Clifford Algebra so it's not like they are missing. The full symmetry of Maxwell's equations is conformal Spin(6) and these equations have superluminal solutions so I'm not sure there's anything missing using a Lie Algebra approach (Lie Algebras derive from Clifford Algebra).
You are correct in a world with no interactions, but there is no such world. We know that EM theory should yield elliptic curves as solutions and not sinewaves as with Maxwell's EM theory. How do we know? From Electrical Engineers... Beamformers for phased-array-antennas are driven with 'chips' rather than pure pulsed rf. Dispersion reduction (for highest resolution) is only achieved if the solutions to EM theory are elliptical curves - hence the chirp (FM) drive. In turn, this means EM theory is based on irreducible 2nd order PDEs and not Maxwell's linear PDEs. Of course, one might expect this result base on gauge theory where all PDEs are irreducible. The phase space of 2nd order irreducible PDEs is a symplectic manifold. Linear PDEs have an S^n phase space.

Just as complex variables are natural for sinewaves, quaternions are the 'natural' variables for elliptical curves. Rational, complex, quaternion and octonion variables are all part of Clifford algebra.
 
John G said:
QM is based on stochastic flows which are diffusions. Tony's theory and string theory are based on hamiltonian flows which are dispersions. There is a huge difference between diffusion and dispersion dynamics. Diffusions have mathematics in Eulidean space (Riemannian manifolds). And dispersions have mathematics in Banach space (symplectic manifolds). Problems in Banch space are quite difficult since the inner-product is not supported. The manifolds are infinite dimensional and obey a Kac-Moody algebra.
Tony certainly does not have infinite dimensional manifolds, he uses finite-dim Lie Algebras up to the Monster (though strangely to me, the finite-dim Monster apparently can be seen as a generalization of an infinite-dim Kac-Moody algebra). This does not mean you can't do useful things with Hamiltonian flows, I could see you doing nice things with Cooper pairs for example. More terminology conflicts, Tony uses the term diffusion. Also as I said previously Tony fundamentally uses Lagrangians not Hamiltonians.
John,

The Lagrangian is just another representation of the Hamiltonian. The connection is through Hamiltion-Jacobi theory.

The reason the Tony is not being published is because he is not rigorous as Ark pointed out. Referring to a dispersion as a diffusion is clearly quite sloppy. It doesn't bother me, because I know what Tony's driving at, but others might view his physics as just plain wrong.

I'm also sure it troubles many when he makes references to QM when clearly he's describing 'String Theory'. As I mentioned previously, his material needs a bunch of editing.
 
Back
Top Bottom