From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:15:39 -0000 Archived: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:32:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs >From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 01:07:00 +0000 >Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs >>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:50:48 -0700 >>Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs <snip> >If you'll forgive me straying into even deeper waters, another >aspect of Godel's theorem that has intrigued me for some time >has been what it has to say about the consistency of axiomatic >systems. We take for granted (as a hidden assumption, a kind of >'meta-axiom') the need for consistency in our mathematical and >scientific thinking, and it goes against the grain to question >this. I've thought about this issue from time to time, and >wondered about the effects on our ability to describe the world >if: >a) we demand that our descriptions are consistent, and >b) the world actually turns out to be inconsistent. The world is inconsistent, according to quantum theory. It is at bottom (or at top, depending how you look at it) random without any possibility in principle of predicting one local particle state from another. This breaks the classical principle of contiguous and antecedent cause radically. It isn't a formulation that appeals to everybody, and may indeed be superseded (I tend to think so). But the history of QM is proof that science can not only handle radical inconsistency but has developed the most sophisticated and accurate mathematical theory in history to do exactly that job. >It's just a thought, and a wild one at that, but has Godel >unwittingly uncovered a clue as to what we might need to give up >in order to match our description to the world? Evidence >suggesting that the laws of nature might vary across space and >time hasn't helped me get this troublesome thought out of my >head... I think this talk of "the laws of nature varying" belongs in a tabloid headline. It used to be a law of nature that mass was conserved until Einstein showed that mass varies with velocity and that the "true" conserved quantity (so far) is the total mass-energy. These absorptions of constants into redefined categories is part of the normal process of physics I think. There's really nothing scary or new in principle about the idea that alpha might vary. It's widely understood that so-called natural constants have restricted areas of applicability. For example the speed of light is supposedly a universal constant, but the numerical value of c varies all over the place depending on the medium - it's only the supposed vacuum limit case that we isolate as being universal. - but even this is not an unassailable fortress, rather a value that emerges as a classical FAPP approximation out of a much more complex and as- yet-not-inderstood situation in the quantum vacuum. Even classical-type variable speed of light (VSL) cosmologies have quite a long and respectable history, and have been popular in some qaarters in recent years, although one has not yet succeeded in supplanting the standard model. Of course a VSL theory is automatically a variable alpha theory because alpha is defined in e and c (but a variable alpha is not necessarily VSL and could be a variable e [electron charge] theory). The gravitational constant G is presumed on general simplicity principles to be universal; but everyone knows that there is no direct proof of it and variable G theories also have an increasingly respectable history. In quantum theory the idea of false vacuum states is commonplace, and the zero-point energy is a familiar case whereby the average or expectation value of the energy of empty space is zero, but the actual instant value can be positive or negative - indeed infinitely so for infinitesimal lengths of time (if such exist). The idea of a "constant of varying norm" is quite a useful one to adopt generally. If any of these constants does vary across spacetime then the relationships among the different local norms simply becomes the next data-set for another "law of nature". Martin Shough Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp