Well Harv,
To most people who understand math, that is like asking them why the solution of the quadratic equation is the quantity (b plus or minus the square root of (b squared minus four times a times c)) divided by two a.. They would answer, "well it's true, try it and see"! But I know you have no intention of checking anything, so I will give you a different answer.
It is a well known fact that most all of physics can be derived from the assumption of certain symmetries. The general interpretation of this fact is that the physical universe has these symmetries. No theory of has ever been put forth to explain why these symmetries exist, they are just hypothesized and when the consequences are deduced the results yield certain physical consequences. So the symmetries become a characteristic of reality.
At the moment, it is close to the opinion of the academy that all of physics can be deduced from such symmetries; all we need do is discover the symmetries which "are physically real". What I point out is that our senses stand between us and reality. Before we can even think of explaining what we sense, we must first explain our senses (the common belief is that our senses are reality which is just not a rationally defensible position). Whatever our explanation of reality is, the mechanism by which we obtain the information upon which that explanation is based is part of the explanation.
A little thought should convince anyone that the existence of a symmetry in what we sense cannot be taken to indicate the symmetry is real. So long as one can conceive of a mechanism capable of creating a symmetry from data lacking that symmetry, how can one think that such a mechanism cannot be part of the explanation of our senses?
This puts me on the opposite side of the symmetry issue. One need not assume reality contains any symmetries at all; but one must certainly allow for symmetries being generated in the mechanism of our senses. In fact, it is not the existence of symmetries in our experimental data which needs explaining but rather, the absence which is really significant.
So why does my view generate modern physics? Because I do not assume but rather demand that these symmetries must appear it the experimental results.
Add to this a new symmetry (universal scale shift, which no physicist in his right mind would "assume") and I have interaction consequences which under common physics requires the postulation of five different forces.
If you look at my paper, you would find that I first "define" reality (the universe, everything which is real) to be something which can be communicated (thus converted into a set of numbers).
I then define time to be a parameter indicating what is known. (Specifying an observation; a certain collection of numbers or communicable information).
I then take the numbers (labels only) and plot them on an axis. This is no more than a display of those labels (they do not move, they do not change; the process can be thought of as no more than a visual display of the collections). Then I define those points to be positions.
I show that the data must display a specific set of symmetries (because there is no information outside the data being examined).
Then I add a thing I call "unknowable data". This constitutes hypothesized things which the evidence of the base data will defend. This is no more than exactly what any scientist does to explain anything except I do it on an abstract level. The difference between what I do and what the average scientist does is actually quite simple. The scientist proposes this hypothesized thing and gives it properties and then uses the currently understood laws of physics to see if his hypothesized thing yields anything different from what is expected (the original hypothesis is usually constructed to provide some known effect he needs to explain current experiments).
Since I have no idea what the correct laws of physics are (these are to be deduced from all the data), I simply require that these hypothesized things (my unknowable data) obey the same laws as do the "real" things. Notice that a very subtle thing has happened there. First, there exists no way to actually know the difference between what is "real" and what is "hypothesized". Secondly, the standard rules for declaring things "real" is that the results of assuming they exist yield the correct experimental results. In my abstract case, they are already constrained to obey the laws to be deduced so that, by conventional standards, they cannot fail to be "real".
In many respect what I have done is quite analogous to the development of the formula for black body radiation. That radiation spectrum is directly related to the probability distribution of kinetic energy. If one merely presumes that the stable state of that distribution requires rate of scattering out of a given stated to be identical to the rate of scattering into the same state, scattering statistics will yield but one stable state. (The distribution of states will change if it is otherwise.) Basically you assume you have found the solution and then calculate what it is. In one sense that is exactly what I have done.
I show very specifically that it is always possible to conceive of "unknowable data" such that the rule governing the possible observations can be written F=0 where F is constructed of Dirac delta functions. This is a mathematical proof and has absolutely nothing to do with any change in position of any plots of any of the observations and requires none of the original numbers to have any "numerical" properties.
I can then write a mathematical equation which must be true.
When I solve that equation, I get exactly the relations taken by modern scientists to be the laws of physics. In my analysis, these relations must be true by definition. In their analysis, the definitions of their terms are historical and the true consequences of those definitions are simply not fully understood. If the quantities being spoken about are the same variables they are speaking of (and I hold that they are) then their laws must also be a consequence of their definitions.
Now I know writing that down was a waste of time, but it was fun anyway.
Have fun -- Dick |