Alex,

***Math does not indeed determine anything, it just re-labeling complex combination of symbols by smaller number of them (say, what do we call a derivative y' ? Simply the procedure: take small change in x, calculate corresponding to it change in y, take the ratio of them and find this ratio at the limit when the change in x becomes smaller and smaller: y' = lim (delta y/delta x).***

This is a complete reversal of your earlier positions. Before math was the reason that explained nature, and now you are saying that math only approximates the behavior seen in nature. Which is it?

***So, math indeed just re-labels axioms - and thus, say, energy conservation law is as accurate as a symmetry of time (because it is one and the same thing).***

Energy conservation is violated within short periods (i.e., due to the uncertainty principle) which is what virtual particle pairs is all about. They come into existence (violation of energy conservation) but zap out of existence within the time allotted by the uncertainty principle (UP). Is that not correct?

***So, IF our universe happens to be time- and space-independent (in a jargon we say as that time and space are symmetric) then it HAS to obey conservation rules. We call those conservation rules "natural laws" and thus call such behavior as "natural way".***

If it has to obey conservation rules, then why does it violate conservation rules within the uncertainty period of the UP? Does the UP take more precedence than energy conservation?

Warm Regards, Harv

• Harvey, how does UP violate EC (en cons)? - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 17:54 UTC
  • re: energy of conservation - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 18:36 UTC
    • During WHAT "brief period"? It does not exist (this period) yet. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 19:49 UTC
      • My understanding is that particle physics says it does - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 19:57 UTC
        • No,it does not.Proton-antiproton pair does not exist 10^-27 sec - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 22:25 UTC
          • I'm not completely sure about this - harvey1 - January 18, 2002 - 00:34 UTC
            • Inherent sense of number of objects - yanniru - January 18, 2002 - 17:26 UTC
              • What is the name of the book? (nt) - ymateen - January 19, 2002 - 15:27 UTC
                • "Where mathematics comes from" - yanniru - January 19, 2002 - 16:56 UTC
            • Inherent sense of number of objects - yanniru - January 18, 2002 - 17:26 UTC
              • Babies also have some other inherent senses. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 21:11 UTC
                • Alex, if you only knew what babies know,,,, - dolphin - January 21, 2002 - 05:14 UTC
              • Yanniru- Roger Penrose has examples - dolphin - January 21, 2002 - 07:23 UTC
                • I refrain from flying - yanniru - January 21, 2002 - 15:36 UTC
                  • Flying, going many dimensions (including time ones)... - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:41 UTC
                    • Alex: time to face "the false vacuum" - dolphin - January 22, 2002 - 10:05 UTC
                      • We have (and had) so many babies around. Where is the result? - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 19:45 UTC
                        • The fall of man - dolphin - January 27, 2002 - 04:18 UTC
                  • You do not refrain from flying - dolphin - January 22, 2002 - 09:53 UTC