I studied physics. This is a very important lecture, that is not yet fully appreciated by mainstream physics community, but it will. One cannot deny the choice of gauge, being the nonlocal one as physical. It is high time to rewrite text books. Aharanov and bohm indeed deserve applause. Maudlin for seeing the big picture. Very grateful for the insights he brings.
He studied physics first so he is well aware of the current knowledge we have. Sometimes philosophers don't have enough physical knowledge or sometimes physicists focus too much on the math. Tim has both
I initially clicked the thumbnail to find out why Tim maudlin was giving a physics talk in a cornfield. Even though it turned out not to be so, I enjoyed the talk immensely.
41:00: That's bothersome to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't choosing a gauge much like choosing a right handed or left handed cross product convention? What would cause the gauge to just suddenly change in practice? Physically, I mean? Are we to look at the gauge freedome as an un-driven physical thing that can just randomly drift around?
The point is the ability to chose different gauges and see what happens. With Coulomb gauge, you get apparent nonlocality which is why Bell and Aharonov-Bohm effect are part of the lecture.
This is an outstanding video. I watched it once before some years ago, but didn't really "get the point." I think I got it this time, and it's very well done. I would really be interested in seeing more about what can be done with this "foliation" Dr. Maudlin refers to near the end - particular with respect to how it could assist us in developing a relativistic version of pilot wave theory.
Wow, he has identified the hidden annoying ambiguity in scientific work. This is so refreshing and badly needed to be raised to the first pages of the process guide for physics composition, if such a guide existed. I am awestruck by the ontological clarity this presentation provides, a solution to circular reasoning headaches long endured. Physics is hard enough without getting tied in a knot of circular reasoning. Maybe now we can get some traction on uncracked paradoxes. The map is not the territory, and neither is the math. So glad someone pointed this out. This feels like the science of science, thou hast spoken, ahmen.
Tbh I kinda wish he kind of addressed what the electric field really *is*. I mean, he’s on the right path by questioning whether “it’s some vector field” is really a good answer, but then he doesn’t really go farther with it.
How would you go farther? A field is an invisible "something" that can be sensed/measured at each point in space. We see it everyday in gravity, we see it often in various forms of electric charge, current, and magnetism. Where is the farther?
@@david203 I can’t answer that (in terms of its metaphysical content), that’s the whole puzzle. I will say that “farther” would involve explicating it as more than an “invisible something” that causes specific effects.
@@2tehnik All I can say is that as a student who graduated in physics with 'A' grades, I'm not puzzled at all by fields. But then again, I'm not puzzled by any phenomena in nature, not even rainbows or waterfalls or even waterfalls with rainbows. Everybody is different. Enjoy being puzzled. I enjoy accepting it all, even Bohr's mystical Copenhagen interpretation that has done so much to hold physics back. There is beauty in the way he isolated all the parts that puzzled him into a set of axioms, rather than investigate and resolve them.
@walter - Good comment. Unfortunately, of course, general relativity doesn't take into account quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it is extremely successful: the time signal in the Global Positioning System requires two and only two corrections to make it work with precision: one for special relativity and one for general relativity. As to the electromagnetic theory, it is perfect for our everyday regime/scale, but misbehaves at the atomic scale, so again it needs corrections for quantum mechanics. Currently, physicists have a good idea of the ways in which current theories fail, but most of the new theories are so speculative that they can't yet be tested by experiments. The stage is set for a new physical insight.
In a convoluted way, Tim seems to be talking about the Kantian trinity. His canonical Commentary is the Semiotics required for communication. Physik: Things with attributes Logik: Relationships among things Ethik: Consequences of the relationships "All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts." John Locke
Physics has never been about things. Physics is about systems. Logic, OTOH, has always been about objects. It doesn't work for cases for which we aren't talking about objects like for colors or quanta of energy. But why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in high school science class? Did the consumption of too much Kant go to your head? ;-)
30:27 "There are obviously two-dimensional objects. But I won't get into that." Isn't this a symptom of the very ontological ambiguity he is trying to expunge? "Object" is a term of ontology, and "two dimensional" is a term of mathematical structure, e.g., a Euclidean geometry. No one has ever handed me a two-dimensional object. Hand me a square, and you are actually handing me a piece of e.g., cardboard in the shape of a square that has some thickness, even if only a millimeter thick. Even when I slip on ice, I am slipping on a layer of water molecules at least a few nanometers thick (i.e., I am interacting with a three-dimensional object). A two-dimensional object is NOT a beable, its a mathematical abstraction. All beables are three dimensional.
The potential for your mathematics equations is formed by the geometry of a process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking. The Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The two dimensional surface of the sphere forms a manifold for positive and negative charge. This process forms the potential for evermore abstract maths, and this is the problem! Therefore, the electron is squared e² and the speed of light c² the speed of the process, causality, for the same geometrical reason.
"Therefore, the electron is squared" ?? I love pseudoscience because it seems so reasonable at first. Later, we realize that each concept is unrelated to the others around it. So it's like a stream of consciousness, a flow of unrelated thoughts, like a person's speech in the state of mania. Locally entertaining and sensible, globally lacking in meaning.
Dyslexic...etc • There's no such thing as a 2-dimensional reality. Two dimensional model is just a theoretical concept used only to comunicate an idea for some reason. If the third spatial dimension is zero, then the 2 spatial representation doesn't exist at all as a REAL aggregate. Etc.
@@mikel4879 The geometrical aspect of this process is based on Huygens’ Principle that says, “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". We can think of the point as a photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for this interaction. The interior of the sphere naturally forms three-dimensions giving us our three-dimensions of everyday life.
Even in mainstream physics we have photon electron interactions or couplings with the exchange potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of motion of what is actually happening as the future unfolds. I think it’s all connected LOL @@david203
Dyslexic... • I understand what you mean. However, a mathematical geometry can't be by itself the true REALITY, like the case of einstein's theory, the quantum mechanics, your idea, etc, which are all mathematical concoctions only. No matter what theoretical formulation you present, in the end you have to show the REALITY, the true REAL natural aggregate. You say this and that theoretically, 'the surface, the photon, the wave, etc'. Now show how all of these create the natural bare REALITY. What your "surface" is made of in REALITY? Not only geometrically, mathematically, but in true natural REALITY! What is a "wave" in REALITY? What's your "spherical surface" made of in REALITY? What's your "interior of the sphere" made of in REALITY ? What is a "photon" in REALITY? Etc. Theory is easy. The CONCRETE explanation of the REALITY through a theory is very hard. No theory of physics has ever explained the true REALITY concretely. After you show your mathematical model, show how a true REAL aggregate is created CONCRETELY and CAUSALLY through your theory or through your ideas. That's the fundamental problem of any theoretical concoction of any kind.
This problem with ill-defined concepts represented by mathematical symbols was there from the beginning i physics. Newton knew that. He knew, that the concepts of force and mass told us nothing about what the world is. (edit, spelling)
And there's also the Lorentz industrieterrein. (Lorentz industriel zone, Zone Industrielle de Lorentz, or something like that in English & French.) but that's in Harderwijk.
On curl, there is no real two-dimensional world and curl is not defined in two dimensions. However, two-dimensional flow can exist in a three-dimensional world, with the third dimension proportional to the angular velocity vector arising from the curl.
> On curl, there is no real two-dimensional world and curl is not defined in two dimensions. Yeah, but that's rather contingent. The flatlander can define a scalar value that would correspond to the z component (with respect to their land) of what we call the curl. And that would essentially be the only meaningful sense of curl for them anyway so I'm not sure there's a problem. Flatlanders don't need a right hand rule because there's only 3 ways vector fields can curl for them (clockwise, counter-clockwise and not at all).
@@2tehnik Well, contingency doesn't apply to mathematics, only necessity. How could curl be a vector if the z dimension is missing? The vector product of two vectors is a scalar? That violates the definition of vector/cross product.
@@barryispuzzled yes. And I’m saying that the quantitive designation of curl as a vector is a contingent choice. We can describe the same quality as a scalar. The flatlander could anyway. And they wouldn’t really be missing any information by just describing it that way (as far as the vector fields in the flatland go anyway).
No. Physics needs to tell you if you do this or that, what do you observe. The question "what there is" is meaningless, and so is "what it does", because there are non identical formulations that have different ideas about 'what there is' and 'what it does', but which give identical predictions. This is why logical positivism was invented. This guy is not doing good work, he is ignorant of the philosophical revolution physicists made in the early decades of the 20th century.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Same thing. What there is? Is the inputs to the model. What it does? Is the model outputs. But to be clear I agree, physics doesn't claim to demonstrate truth, only that a model has predictive power.
@@nmarbletoe8210 The "model inputs" can be completely different, the "model outputs" is the observations you make, this could be the same observations in completely different models. This is not an academic point. He talks about electromagnetism. You can formulate EM without fields, only using retarded potentials from charged particles. You get the same answers. Or with advanced potentials. Or with half-half potentials. Or using extra fields, like Maxwell used. Or using fewer fields with relations. These are all mathematically different, they have a different "ontology" the way he would say it, but they produce the same perceptions, so they are the same. The ontology isn't important, and there is no absolute ontology. All that matters are the predictions for the perceptions of observers. This is a very important point, and it's the foundation of logical positivism. This person doesn't understand this point, and is going backwards over territory that was solved by Mach in the 1890s.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 If the tribe does a raindance, does it observe rain? If it doesnt observe rain, the raindance wasnt performed correctly. Do it again and again. The tribe does not need to know the facts (is and what it does) of weather, irrigation, farm machines, computerized weather predictions, food from distant, non-drought regions attracted by higher market prices, etc. Your basic concern is your consciousness ("if") , not reality ("is"). This is the destruction of science and the return to mysticism. Science began to be possible when the first philosopher, Thales, rejected supernatural causes and traditional coincidences (statistics) for the natural causes evaded by Pragmatism and Logical Positivism (the basic early 20th century philosophical revolution). You also evade the decades-long delay in accepting atomic theory by anti-causality Logical Positivists. Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as basically inductive, not deductive; induction as basically about the is/what it does relation, not basically statistical. I push a ball and it moves. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that pushed balls move (in a context that is progressively known). Knowing what things are and what they do is not optional for mans life. Of course, IF your goal is not life, what observations will you make? Metaphysical realism is not an option. Reality is metaphysically primary. Consciousness is metaphysically passive.
This also points to a common disease of scientific thinking, where the theory gives you a seemingly self-consistent construct of axioms, consistent with the formalism of euclidian geometry, which solves some of the dynamics, but cannot identify the cause, and typically contains paradoxes resulting from that choice of construct. Just as non Euclidean geometry subsumes and explains some of the paradoxes that cannot be resolved from within the Euclidian deductive framework, a similar issue as Plato’s cave metaphor is happening in many dead-ends of science and physics. The escape question is always, what makes possible, that which I see on the surface? The popular methods of scientific reasoning, typically circular formalism itself, are paramountly guilty of baking in hidden assumptions that blind a model to higher causes, as if “what works” is the finish line, rather than seeking the higher organizing principle behind the described phenomena.
DougMds3u • Yes, correct. The REAL causal chain is completely broken. Instead of correcting everything and reconnecting the lost causal steps, they march ahead with absurd theoretical patches and absurd paradoxes, like everything would be OK like that. Well, it is not right. It is in fact a human cognitive fallacy. People with no tallent in the domain are roaming with strong authority and impunity maintaining the ignorant and dogmatic status quo. That's why the science in this domain has been on the wrong track for so long. Like Max Planck once said: 'science advances one funeral at the time'.
Go read revolutions of the heavenly bodies. He is wrong about Copernicus not having simply a mathematical theory. It pretty much explicitly says it. "For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the celestial motions through careful and expert study. Then he must conceive and devise the causes of these motions or hypotheses about them. Since he cannot in any way attain to the true causes, he will adopt whatever suppositions enable the motions to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry for the future as well as for the past. The present author has performed both these duties excellently. For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable. "
The only reason it's a mathematical concept or a function is because it's what was used to measure it but the nature is anything but, it's a bit like using 1 and 0 from a program to describe it a function but in reality there's a programmed interface to the observer. Could that be what we're dealing with. By the way, the presenter was clearly quantum entangled to the person sitting on the right.
It's the cool stuff version of mathematical commentry where two fields gives rise a group of equations with different oparator represents non unique field character to make physics
He makes much too much fuss about Curl, as if it is something mysterious. And too much fuss about the right hand rule. The right hand rule is just a convention, that is all. You could do physics with a left hand rule if you wanted.
Think of dielectric gelatin and bubbles that push pull in one piece of the gearless Differential system the others is the free flows of everything else in bubble that have a large amount temperatures in gas particularly the heavy ones and the light ones the spherical parts of the bubble trapped and do an expanding space and a shrink release in the mindset of a mechanism to create a new idea of currents in a position of space timed and the body expands like that can do a causality of motion now place it in a gearless Differential mechanism that will do rotional works the expansion contraction focus a charge introduced in the long side a diode drains the channel of charge on the short side the point of right turning or left turning depends on the one left or the right angle to to introduced charge not a resonance in the gas but some appear to happen still trying to understand that part but the conjugation of the gearless Differential has a way to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise it depends upon side one from side two.
Why can't something get deflected as a result of an assignment of numbers? You say that this doesn't make sense, but if the universe is computed, it makes perfect sense. Maybe the assignment of numbers and functions do operate mathematically. That's a simpler answer.
Mathematics is just another language like French or English. Maths is just more rigorous and less ambiguous than the verbal spoken language. If you can’t express the physics theory in Maths, it is either impossible in any spoken language.
Nature is inherently curvilinear. The one all-encompassing Principle of Nature is pressure mediation. The two phases of pressure mediation are electric centripetal convergence and magnetic centrifugal divergence. 0. Hermaphroditic di-electric null point of inertia (potential) 1. Masculine electric centripetal convergence (charge) 2. Feminine centrifugal divergence (discharge) 3. Androgynous electromagnetic conversion/current (energic parsing)
LOL. Relativity formulas look like Gibberish to those who do not understand what they mean. Calculus looks like Gibberish to those who do not know Mathematics. This is all fine and well but what strikes me as odd is you felt the need to loudly proclaim your ignorance by not only telling everyone you cant understand this relatively straight forward and easy to understand talk but you do it in an arrogant manor that shows not only are you clueless.... but you are clueless about the fact that you are clueless and if I am not mistaken a few Scientist a little while back whose names started with a D and a K wrote a paper about folks such as yourself. I wish I could remember the name of those two Scientist but their names elude me. Do you perhaps know who I am talking about? What was the names of those Scientist that described that sort of behavior?
@@2tehnik This is a well understood problem in physics. It’s the problem of using words to describe things for which there isn’t adequate language to describe. The answer seems to invent more words. Physicists get themselves into trouble with this semantic juggling. The “god particle” being a popular example.
Everything this guy says is ridiculous! Why does he just not learn logical positivism? This is the type of thing that makes people want to remove philosophy from the respected academic disciplines, and remove all these people from positions in univesities. This guy should not be commenting on physics.
@@NerveConserve They didn't know what they were talking about. Also, not all the Vienna circle, just Ayers. He submitted to the show trials of the 1970s. Carnap stayed true, and didn't sell out.
This guy doesn't know logical positivism, and without logical positivism physics is impossible to learn. His questions and statements are absurd either because they are meaningless or because they are the opposite of intelligent.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I studied physics. This is a very important lecture, that is not yet fully appreciated by mainstream physics community, but it will. One cannot deny the choice of gauge, being the nonlocal one as physical. It is high time to rewrite text books. Aharanov and bohm indeed deserve applause. Maudlin for seeing the big picture. Very grateful for the insights he brings.
I think Maudlin is one of the most brilliant men alive, and the clearest thinker on problems of Physics since John Bell.
Was literally just telling my wife that Maudlin seems to be the clearest thinker out there on these subjects.
I'm with you. Amazing combo of technical chops, philosophical sophistication and plain speech.
The "like" would be enough
He studied physics first so he is well aware of the current knowledge we have. Sometimes philosophers don't have enough physical knowledge or sometimes physicists focus too much on the math. Tim has both
He's Bell's successor and an amazing Philosopher !
I initially clicked the thumbnail to find out why Tim maudlin was giving a physics talk in a cornfield. Even though it turned out not to be so, I enjoyed the talk immensely.
Yeah, it's not corn (🌽) right?
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Who's to say what corn is though...
41:00: That's bothersome to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't choosing a gauge much like choosing a right handed or left handed cross product convention? What would cause the gauge to just suddenly change in practice? Physically, I mean? Are we to look at the gauge freedome as an un-driven physical thing that can just randomly drift around?
The point is the ability to chose different gauges and see what happens. With Coulomb gauge, you get apparent nonlocality which is why Bell and Aharonov-Bohm effect are part of the lecture.
This is an outstanding video. I watched it once before some years ago, but didn't really "get the point." I think I got it this time, and it's very well done. I would really be interested in seeing more about what can be done with this "foliation" Dr. Maudlin refers to near the end - particular with respect to how it could assist us in developing a relativistic version of pilot wave theory.
Wow, he has identified the hidden annoying ambiguity in scientific work. This is so refreshing and badly needed to be raised to the first pages of the process guide for physics composition, if such a guide existed. I am awestruck by the ontological clarity this presentation provides, a solution to circular reasoning headaches long endured. Physics is hard enough without getting tied in a knot of circular reasoning. Maybe now we can get some traction on uncracked paradoxes. The map is not the territory, and neither is the math. So glad someone pointed this out. This feels like the science of science, thou hast spoken, ahmen.
Science of science is called philosophy ;)
I am awestruck by the depth of your bullshit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 mate just because you're too dum to comprehend and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is.
@@lepidoptera9337 just because you're too stupid to understand and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is also.
@@lepidoptera9337 just because you're too d um to understand and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is also. Stay in your lane.
Phenomenal talk
Too bad the video cuts off at the end, wonder if there were any follow up questions.
Tbh I kinda wish he kind of addressed what the electric field really *is*. I mean, he’s on the right path by questioning whether “it’s some vector field” is really a good answer, but then he doesn’t really go farther with it.
How would you go farther? A field is an invisible "something" that can be sensed/measured at each point in space. We see it everyday in gravity, we see it often in various forms of electric charge, current, and magnetism. Where is the farther?
@@david203 I can’t answer that (in terms of its metaphysical content), that’s the whole puzzle.
I will say that “farther” would involve explicating it as more than an “invisible something” that causes specific effects.
@@2tehnik All I can say is that as a student who graduated in physics with 'A' grades, I'm not puzzled at all by fields. But then again, I'm not puzzled by any phenomena in nature, not even rainbows or waterfalls or even waterfalls with rainbows. Everybody is different. Enjoy being puzzled. I enjoy accepting it all, even Bohr's mystical Copenhagen interpretation that has done so much to hold physics back. There is beauty in the way he isolated all the parts that puzzled him into a set of axioms, rather than investigate and resolve them.
@walter - Good comment. Unfortunately, of course, general relativity doesn't take into account quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it is extremely successful: the time signal in the Global Positioning System requires two and only two corrections to make it work with precision: one for special relativity and one for general relativity.
As to the electromagnetic theory, it is perfect for our everyday regime/scale, but misbehaves at the atomic scale, so again it needs corrections for quantum mechanics.
Currently, physicists have a good idea of the ways in which current theories fail, but most of the new theories are so speculative that they can't yet be tested by experiments. The stage is set for a new physical insight.
@@david203ppppp😊 an
I can't tell if this guy is a genius or really committed to hating math. Either way, I'm on board
In a convoluted way, Tim seems to be talking about the Kantian trinity. His canonical Commentary is the Semiotics required for communication.
Physik: Things with attributes
Logik: Relationships among things
Ethik: Consequences of the relationships
"All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts."
John Locke
Physics has never been about things. Physics is about systems. Logic, OTOH, has always been about objects. It doesn't work for cases for which we aren't talking about objects like for colors or quanta of energy. But why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in high school science class? Did the consumption of too much Kant go to your head? ;-)
30:27 "There are obviously two-dimensional objects. But I won't get into that." Isn't this a symptom of the very ontological ambiguity he is trying to expunge? "Object" is a term of ontology, and "two dimensional" is a term of mathematical structure, e.g., a Euclidean geometry. No one has ever handed me a two-dimensional object. Hand me a square, and you are actually handing me a piece of e.g., cardboard in the shape of a square that has some thickness, even if only a millimeter thick. Even when I slip on ice, I am slipping on a layer of water molecules at least a few nanometers thick (i.e., I am interacting with a three-dimensional object). A two-dimensional object is NOT a beable, its a mathematical abstraction. All beables are three dimensional.
Thanks for this talk
you're gonna love clifford algebra. and you're gonna really love iterants :)
Great Job! Big Fan!
This is wonderful.
Copy of the slides?
Omg, that was amazing.
The third sentence may be well revised as:
'a scalar field is an assignment of real numbers to space-time points'.
Yes, it's an abstract. Nature can not even implement a single real number, not even using the entire matter in the entire universe.
Thank you so much for this!
The potential for your mathematics equations is formed by the geometry of a process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking. The Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The two dimensional surface of the sphere forms a manifold for positive and negative charge. This process forms the potential for evermore abstract maths, and this is the problem! Therefore, the electron is squared e² and the speed of light c² the speed of the process, causality, for the same geometrical reason.
"Therefore, the electron is squared" ?? I love pseudoscience because it seems so reasonable at first. Later, we realize that each concept is unrelated to the others around it. So it's like a stream of consciousness, a flow of unrelated thoughts, like a person's speech in the state of mania. Locally entertaining and sensible, globally lacking in meaning.
Dyslexic...etc • There's no such thing as a 2-dimensional reality.
Two dimensional model is just a theoretical concept used only to comunicate an idea for some reason.
If the third spatial dimension is zero, then the 2 spatial representation doesn't exist at all as a REAL aggregate.
Etc.
@@mikel4879 The geometrical aspect of this process is based on Huygens’ Principle that says,
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
We can think of the point as a photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for this interaction. The interior of the sphere naturally forms three-dimensions giving us our three-dimensions of everyday life.
Even in mainstream physics we have photon electron interactions or couplings with the exchange potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of motion of what is actually happening as the future unfolds. I think it’s all connected LOL @@david203
Dyslexic... • I understand what you mean.
However, a mathematical geometry can't be by itself the true REALITY, like the case of einstein's theory, the quantum mechanics, your idea, etc, which are all mathematical concoctions only.
No matter what theoretical formulation you present, in the end you have to show the REALITY, the true REAL natural aggregate.
You say this and that theoretically, 'the surface, the photon, the wave, etc'.
Now show how all of these create the natural bare REALITY.
What your "surface" is made of in REALITY? Not only geometrically, mathematically, but in true natural REALITY!
What is a "wave" in REALITY?
What's your "spherical surface" made of in REALITY? What's your "interior of the sphere" made of in REALITY ? What is a "photon" in REALITY?
Etc.
Theory is easy.
The CONCRETE explanation of the REALITY through a theory is very hard.
No theory of physics has ever explained the true REALITY concretely.
After you show your mathematical model, show how a true REAL aggregate is created CONCRETELY and CAUSALLY through your theory or through your ideas.
That's the fundamental problem of any theoretical concoction of any kind.
Some of Mauldin's ideas remind me of some of Valentin Turchin's ideas concerning cybernetics.
This problem with ill-defined concepts represented by mathematical symbols was there from the beginning i physics. Newton knew that. He knew, that the concepts of force and mass told us nothing about what the world is. (edit, spelling)
Fortunately that provides for a whole cottage industry of philosophers of science. They get to tell us what it means.
Lorenz (gauge/and Coulumb) and Lorentz (transformation) 🤔 I'm pretty sure that most people in that room know this. Amazing talk 👏
And then, there’s the Lorenz attractor (chaos) and Lorenz curves (economy, statistics)
And there's also the Lorentz industrieterrein. (Lorentz industriel zone, Zone Industrielle de Lorentz, or something like that in English & French.) but that's in Harderwijk.
BTW, the curl of a circle is zero.
On curl, there is no real two-dimensional world and curl is not defined in two dimensions. However, two-dimensional flow can exist in a three-dimensional world, with the third dimension proportional to the angular velocity vector arising from the curl.
> On curl, there is no real two-dimensional world and curl is not defined in two dimensions.
Yeah, but that's rather contingent. The flatlander can define a scalar value that would correspond to the z component (with respect to their land) of what we call the curl. And that would essentially be the only meaningful sense of curl for them anyway so I'm not sure there's a problem. Flatlanders don't need a right hand rule because there's only 3 ways vector fields can curl for them (clockwise, counter-clockwise and not at all).
@@2tehnik Well, contingency doesn't apply to mathematics, only necessity. How could curl be a vector if the z dimension is missing? The vector product of two vectors is a scalar? That violates the definition of vector/cross product.
@@barryispuzzled yes. And I’m saying that the quantitive designation of curl as a vector is a contingent choice. We can describe the same quality as a scalar. The flatlander could anyway.
And they wouldn’t really be missing any information by just describing it that way (as far as the vector fields in the flatland go anyway).
Who is this guy a hoax ? A lot of artifact he contrives to show how smart he is ??!!
Maudlin by name and nature
"The main bumper-sticker is: 'Physics should tell you what there is, and what it does." Tim Maudlin
No. Physics needs to tell you if you do this or that, what do you observe. The question "what there is" is meaningless, and so is "what it does", because there are non identical formulations that have different ideas about 'what there is' and 'what it does', but which give identical predictions. This is why logical positivism was invented. This guy is not doing good work, he is ignorant of the philosophical revolution physicists made in the early decades of the 20th century.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Same thing. What there is? Is the inputs to the model. What it does? Is the model outputs.
But to be clear I agree, physics doesn't claim to demonstrate truth, only that a model has predictive power.
@@nmarbletoe8210 The "model inputs" can be completely different, the "model outputs" is the observations you make, this could be the same observations in completely different models. This is not an academic point.
He talks about electromagnetism. You can formulate EM without fields, only using retarded potentials from charged particles. You get the same answers. Or with advanced potentials. Or with half-half potentials. Or using extra fields, like Maxwell used. Or using fewer fields with relations.
These are all mathematically different, they have a different "ontology" the way he would say it, but they produce the same perceptions, so they are the same.
The ontology isn't important, and there is no absolute ontology. All that matters are the predictions for the perceptions of observers. This is a very important point, and it's the foundation of logical positivism.
This person doesn't understand this point, and is going backwards over territory that was solved by Mach in the 1890s.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Thank you that is beautifully clear, and very interesting.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 If the tribe does a raindance, does it observe rain? If it doesnt observe rain, the raindance wasnt performed correctly. Do it again and again. The tribe does not need to know the facts (is and what it does) of weather, irrigation, farm machines, computerized weather predictions, food from distant, non-drought regions attracted by higher market prices, etc. Your basic concern is your consciousness ("if") , not reality ("is"). This is the destruction of science and the return to mysticism. Science began to be possible when the first philosopher, Thales, rejected supernatural causes and traditional coincidences (statistics) for the natural causes evaded by Pragmatism and Logical Positivism (the basic early 20th century philosophical revolution). You also evade the decades-long delay in accepting atomic theory by anti-causality Logical Positivists.
Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as basically inductive, not deductive; induction as basically about the is/what it does relation, not basically statistical. I push a ball and it moves. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that pushed balls move (in a context that is progressively known). Knowing what things are and what they do is not optional for mans life. Of course, IF your goal is not life, what observations will you make? Metaphysical realism is not an option. Reality is metaphysically primary. Consciousness is metaphysically passive.
This also points to a common disease of scientific thinking, where the theory gives you a seemingly self-consistent construct of axioms, consistent with the formalism of euclidian geometry, which solves some of the dynamics, but cannot identify the cause, and typically contains paradoxes resulting from that choice of construct. Just as non Euclidean geometry subsumes and explains some of the paradoxes that cannot be resolved from within the Euclidian deductive framework, a similar issue as Plato’s cave metaphor is happening in many dead-ends of science and physics.
The escape question is always, what makes possible, that which I see on the surface? The popular methods of scientific reasoning, typically circular formalism itself, are paramountly guilty of baking in hidden assumptions that blind a model to higher causes, as if “what works” is the finish line, rather than seeking the higher organizing principle behind the described phenomena.
DougMds3u • Yes, correct.
The REAL causal chain is completely broken.
Instead of correcting everything and reconnecting the lost causal steps, they march ahead with absurd theoretical patches and absurd paradoxes, like everything would be OK like that.
Well, it is not right. It is in fact a human cognitive fallacy.
People with no tallent in the domain are roaming with strong authority and impunity maintaining the ignorant and dogmatic status quo.
That's why the science in this domain has been on the wrong track for so long.
Like Max Planck once said: 'science advances one funeral at the time'.
If you are trying to say that Plato was an idiot, then we can both agree. ;-)
Go read revolutions of the heavenly bodies. He is wrong about Copernicus not having simply a mathematical theory. It pretty much explicitly says it.
"For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the
celestial motions through careful and expert study. Then he must conceive and
devise the causes of these motions or hypotheses about them. Since he cannot in
any way attain to the true causes, he will adopt whatever suppositions enable the
motions to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry for the future as
well as for the past. The present author has performed both these duties
excellently. For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable. "
The only reason it's a mathematical concept or a function is because it's what was used to measure it but the nature is anything but, it's a bit like using 1 and 0 from a program to describe it a function but in reality there's a programmed interface to the observer. Could that be what we're dealing with.
By the way, the presenter was clearly quantum entangled to the person sitting on the right.
It's the cool stuff version of mathematical commentry where two fields gives rise a group of equations with different oparator represents non unique field character to make physics
maudlin's hexapla!
He makes much too much fuss about Curl, as if it is something mysterious. And too much fuss about the right hand rule. The right hand rule is just a convention, that is all. You could do physics with a left hand rule if you wanted.
Think of dielectric gelatin and bubbles that push pull in one piece of the gearless Differential system the others is the free flows of everything else in bubble that have a large amount temperatures in gas particularly the heavy ones and the light ones the spherical parts of the bubble trapped and do an expanding space and a shrink release in the mindset of a mechanism to create a new idea of currents in a position of space timed and the body expands like that can do a causality of motion now place it in a gearless Differential mechanism that will do rotional works the expansion contraction focus a charge introduced in the long side a diode drains the channel of charge on the short side the point of right turning or left turning depends on the one left or the right angle to to introduced charge not a resonance in the gas but some appear to happen still trying to understand that part but the conjugation of the gearless Differential has a way to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise it depends upon side one from side two.
Why can't something get deflected as a result of an assignment of numbers? You say that this doesn't make sense, but if the universe is computed, it makes perfect sense. Maybe the assignment of numbers and functions do operate mathematically. That's a simpler answer.
You need a causal bridge, I guess. Just like a computer uses causal bridges (transistors) to be able to compute and show you the result.
great talk. Watching close-up screen as he paces like a caged tiger makes me sea-sick. no stable point as the shrubbery flies by.
Mathematics is just another language like French or English. Maths is just more rigorous and less ambiguous than the verbal spoken language. If you can’t express the physics theory in Maths, it is either impossible in any spoken language.
من تنطع الوهابية يريدون ان يحرموا قراءة القرآن اكثر من مرة اعوذ بالله ان اكون من الجاهلين
Nature is inherently curvilinear.
The one all-encompassing Principle of Nature is pressure mediation. The two phases of pressure mediation are electric centripetal convergence and magnetic centrifugal divergence.
0. Hermaphroditic di-electric null point of inertia (potential)
1. Masculine electric centripetal convergence (charge)
2. Feminine centrifugal divergence (discharge)
3. Androgynous electromagnetic conversion/current (energic parsing)
I have a much better definition for Physics: "Physics is the study of space-time systems."
gibberish
LOL. Relativity formulas look like Gibberish to those who do not understand what they mean. Calculus looks like Gibberish to those who do not know Mathematics. This is all fine and well but what strikes me as odd is you felt the need to loudly proclaim your ignorance by not only telling everyone you cant understand this relatively straight forward and easy to understand talk but you do it in an arrogant manor that shows not only are you clueless.... but you are clueless about the fact that you are clueless and if I am not mistaken a few Scientist a little while back whose names started with a D and a K wrote a paper about folks such as yourself. I wish I could remember the name of those two Scientist but their names elude me. Do you perhaps know who I am talking about? What was the names of those Scientist that described that sort of behavior?
hardly
@@objectsofintuition yeah if anything it seems a very lucid elaboration on the problems a lot of people seem to be blind to.
Misses point.
@@2tehnik This is a well understood problem in physics. It’s the problem of using words to describe things for which there isn’t adequate language to describe. The answer seems to invent more words. Physicists get themselves into trouble with this semantic juggling. The “god particle” being a popular example.
You are moving down a dark road trying to create physical theories outside of the math Tim. The math exists and the physics do not.
So the world does not exist? Only descriptions exist? Mathematics is a language, agree?
Everything this guy says is ridiculous! Why does he just not learn logical positivism? This is the type of thing that makes people want to remove philosophy from the respected academic disciplines, and remove all these people from positions in univesities. This guy should not be commenting on physics.
@@paulthomas963 The problem is with the philosophy department, and their fascist paymasters.
Have you ever learned it? You know that vienna circle itself admitted that this project failed?
@@NerveConserve They didn't know what they were talking about. Also, not all the Vienna circle, just Ayers. He submitted to the show trials of the 1970s. Carnap stayed true, and didn't sell out.
This guy doesn't know logical positivism, and without logical positivism physics is impossible to learn. His questions and statements are absurd either because they are meaningless or because they are the opposite of intelligent.