A Scientific Theory for Creation
Shubee
happens for no reason whatsoever. As all physicists believe, in
conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled
by a supervising probability amplitude. I merely postulate that out of
the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence
finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability
amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a
single big bang. Subsequently, there could have been a finite series
of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for
six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.
Furthermore, this scientific theory satisfies very precise definitions
of physics.
Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities
can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of
man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of
physics.
Igor
> Creation can be established on current quantum theory where everything
> happens for no reason whatsoever.
That's not even remotely true. The same laws of physics apply to QM
as they do to the classical world, but they need to be expressed in a
slightly different language.
> As all physicists believe, in
> conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled
> by a supervising probability amplitude.
Again, not true. The laws of physics are still independent of the
observer. The probability amplitude simply describes the probability
of making an observation of the given system in a particular state.
>I merely postulate that out of
> the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence
> finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability
> amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a
> single big bang.
Well, we're here, so the probability of that event must have been 100%
at some instance. Apparently, you've never heard of collapse of the
wavefunction.
>Subsequently, there could have been a finite series
> of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for
> six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.
Yeah, I get the idea. Where's yours?
> Furthermore, this scientific theory satisfies very precise definitions
> of physics.
Calling that untestable nonsense a scientific theory is sort of like
describing Mr Ed as an aquatic reptile.
> Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities
> can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of
> man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of
> physics.
But at actualization, any particular event will have 100%
probability. Collapse of the wave function again.
webster72n
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:59ec0a75-7198-4af8...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Thank you Igor, collectively, for saving the day.
Harry.
Oh No
>
>"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:59ec0a75-7198-4af8...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 30 2007, 8:31 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Creation can be established on current quantum theory where everything
>> > happens for no reason whatsoever.
>>
>> That's not even remotely true. The same laws of physics apply to QM
>> as they do to the classical world, but they need to be expressed in a
>> slightly different language.
This is wrong. Laws in the quantum world are fundamentally different
because they are non-deterministic.
>>
>> > As all physicists believe, in
>> > conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled
>> > by a supervising probability amplitude.
>>
>> Again, not true.
I see nothing much wrong with the statement, though the word
"controlled" seems inappropriate for probabilistic events.
>>The laws of physics are still independent of the
>> observer. The probability amplitude simply describes the probability
>> of making an observation of the given system in a particular state.
Indeed, but that does not contradict what was said.
>>
>> >I merely postulate that out of
>> > the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence
>> > finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability
>> > amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a
>> > single big bang.
>>
>>
>> Well, we're here, so the probability of that event must have been 100%
>> at some instance. Apparently, you've never heard of collapse of the
>> wavefunction.
>> > Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities
>> > can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of
>> > man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of
>> > physics.
>>
>> But at actualization, any particular event will have 100%
>> probability. Collapse of the wave function again.
>
>Thank you Igor, collectively, for saving the day.
>
Obviously the probability of a particular event is 100% after we know
that it has happened, but that in no way indicates the existence of a
classical, or determinist, law which can be applied prior to the event
taking place.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Shubee
> On Dec 30 2007, 8:31 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Creation can be established on current quantum theory where everything
> > happens for no reason whatsoever.
>
> That's not even remotely true. The same laws of physics apply to QM
> as they do to the classical world, but they need to be expressed in a
> slightly different language.
I have no idea what you mean. There is no isomorphism between the
classical world and a quantum universe.
> > As all physicists believe, in
> > conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled
> > by a supervising probability amplitude.
>
> Again, not true. The laws of physics are still independent of the
> observer.
But of course. I surely believe that.
> >I merely postulate that out of
> > the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence
> > finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability
> > amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a
> > single big bang.
>
> Well, we're here, so the probability of that event must have been 100%
> at some instance. Apparently, you've never heard of collapse of the
> wavefunction.
I believe I hear it too often. Every child mathematician knows that
the probability of an event happening after it happens is 1. Just
leave it to child physicists to give a grandiose name to such a
childish fact.
> >Subsequently, there could have been a finite series
> > of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for
> > six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.
>
> Yeah, I get the idea. Where's yours?
My idea is a challenging yes or no physics question for professional
physicists, which requires courage to answer directly and truthfully:
Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Exodus 14:21
"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept
the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into
dry land, so the waters were divided."
> > Furthermore, this scientific theory satisfies very precise definitions
> > of physics.
>
> Calling that untestable nonsense a scientific theory is sort of like
> describing Mr Ed as an aquatic reptile.
Why is my theory untestable? I define a creation event in spacetime as
the possibility of matter coming permanently into existence out of
nothingness. I conjecture that this can only happen in our universe a
bounded number of times. I use this axiom to prove that the
probability of a creation event happening is zero. I offer no physical
evidence in support of creation events happening. I merely state the
principle as an axiom and let respectable physicists affirm its
reasonableness. For example, Steven Hawking, in his book, A Brief
History of Time, has written that the big bang "smacks of divine
intervention." I also interpret "the beginning of the universe" as a
creation event.
Isn't it customary to make hypotheses in physics based on empirical
observations?
Now, as for your accusation of nonsense, simply familiarize yourself
with David Hilbert's philosophy of physics and discover that my
proposed mathematical universe satisfies the definition of physics. [1]
[2].
> > Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities
> > can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of
> > man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of
> > physics.
>
> But at actualization, any particular event will have 100%
> probability. Collapse of the wave function again.
Shubee
1. The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 (section 2)
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. The Relativity of Discovery: Hilbert's First Note on the
Foundations of Physics (sections 1.1 and 1.2). http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
Oh No
>Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
>to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
>inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
>
Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be
technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely
unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the
mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the
event could not have happened.
>Why is my theory untestable? I define a creation event in spacetime as
>the possibility of matter coming permanently into existence out of
>nothingness. I conjecture that this can only happen in our universe a
>bounded number of times. I use this axiom to prove that the
>probability of a creation event happening is zero. I offer no physical
>evidence in support of creation events happening. I merely state the
>principle as an axiom and let respectable physicists affirm its
>reasonableness. For example, Steven Hawking, in his book, A Brief
>History of Time, has written that the big bang "smacks of divine
>intervention." I also interpret "the beginning of the universe" as a
>creation event.
There is a big difference between creation events within our universe,
which are prevented by conservation of energy, and creation at the
beginning of the universe when conservation of energy becomes
meaningless.
Oz
NB Whilst I think discussing creationism is important simply to point
out its theological and scientific inadequacies, the need for a .faq may
well be pressing.
NBB Just to put the record straight (for Christianity) one should note
the following key theological points.
1) Other than the ten commandments and a handful of prophet's statements
the bible itself does not claim to be either accurate or god-given. Its
basically the verbal history of a smallish semitic people.
2) Free will (which is the apple in the garden of eden) was given by god
(he could have reversed it of course) but the corollary is that god must
be forever hidden (the throwing out of the garden of eden) because
otherwise there is no need for faith, and no free will (all is
determined by god).
So one frequently sees the bizarre situation where devout (but ignorant)
christians search for signs of god, which if they found them would
inevitably destroy their faith, because faith is not required in the
face of certainty.
Most of this was sorted out theologically by the early christian church
before about 1000AD. Its not rocket science.
>Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
>to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
>inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
No. Its the closest definition to zero probability you are likely to
find. Clutching at straws is not an expression of faith.
>Genesis 2:7
>"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
>into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
>
>Exodus 14:21
>"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept
>the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into
>dry land, so the waters were divided."
Neither claimed to be true either in the bible or by a prophet either.
NB There are dozens of plausible natural explanations for the latter.
>Why is my theory untestable? I define a creation event in spacetime as
>the possibility of matter coming permanently into existence out of
>nothingness. I conjecture that this can only happen in our universe a
>bounded number of times. I use this axiom to prove that the
>probability of a creation event happening is zero. I offer no physical
>evidence in support of creation events happening. I merely state the
>principle as an axiom and let respectable physicists affirm its
>reasonableness. For example, Steven Hawking, in his book, A Brief
>History of Time, has written that the big bang "smacks of divine
>intervention." I also interpret "the beginning of the universe" as a
>creation event.
The probability of a creation is indistinguishable from one.
There is no evidence of any others within the observable universe.
>Isn't it customary to make hypotheses in physics based on empirical
>observations?
Repeatable, yes.
>> But at actualization, any particular event will have 100%
>> probability. Collapse of the wave function again.
Actually I wouldn't completely agree with that.
I prefer indistinguishable from one.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This time, the PS does not apply ;-)
Shubee
> Thus spake Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
>
> >Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
> >to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
> >inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
>
> Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be
> technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely
> unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the
> mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the
> event could not have happened.
I started off thinking that a creation event should have zero
probability. If that is true, then there could be no limit to the
number of special creation events in the universe, provided that the
average time between such events is infinite. I finally settled on
being as conservative as my instincts will permit and thus
conjectured, as per David Hilbert, that there will be no more than a
fixed number of creation events in the eternity of time and not
infinitely many.
I have no idea why you doubt the interpretation of the mathematics. I
created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math for
those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via
Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can
happen. There is therefore no doubt that events of fantastically small
probability can happen.
> >Why is my theory untestable? I define a creation event in spacetime as
> >the possibility of matter coming permanently into existence out of
> >nothingness. I conjecture that this can only happen in our universe a
> >bounded number of times. I use this axiom to prove that the
> >probability of a creation event happening is zero. I offer no physical
> >evidence in support of creation events happening. I merely state the
> >principle as an axiom and let respectable physicists affirm its
> >reasonableness. For example, Steven Hawking, in his book, A Brief
> >History of Time, has written that the big bang "smacks of divine
> >intervention." I also interpret "the beginning of the universe" as a
> >creation event.
>
> There is a big difference between creation events within our universe,
> which are prevented by conservation of energy, and creation at the
> beginning of the universe when conservation of energy becomes
> meaningless.
Real analysis swarms with many mathematical statements that are almost
always true--the exceptional points being a set of measure zero. If
measure zero exceptions arise frequently in mathematics, why can't
measure zero exceptions exist in physics? That's the beauty of David
Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Everyone is free to favor any
cosmology they like, just so long as it exists in the atlas of all
conceivable universes. I maintain that my physical axioms are
logically consistent and empirically relevant.
The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden
variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of
quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result.
Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason
whatsoever. That is my first axiom. Note that I distinguish my
universe from others by adding to axiom 1 the conjecture that the laws
of physics allow for a bounded number of creation events to occur in
the infinity of spacetime.
My second axiom is that the universe can appear deterministic even
though all the laws of light and matter are ultimately statistical. My
justification for this belief is in a very interesting theorem that I
recall hearing ages ago. I believe it was in Ergodic theory. My
recollection is that the theorem proved that every chaotic system
exhibits predicable behavior.
My third axiom is that of a spacetime structure. I select Minkowski
spacetime with all physical forces being ultimately quantum mechanical
but certainly Lorentz invariant.
My fourth axiom is the Law of large numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Shubee
Shubee
> >"Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 30 2007, 8:31 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics,
> >> > all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability
> >> > amplitude.
>
> >> Again, not true.
>
> I see nothing much wrong with the statement, though the word
> "controlled" seems inappropriate for probabilistic events.
My purpose in using the word "controlled" was not to suggest that a
probability density in any way determines, guides or sets the
direction of a physical process but that a probability function is the
closest thing in quantum theory that fits that description.
Shubee
Oh No
>On Jan 6, 2:18 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thus spake Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
>>
>> >Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
>> >to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
>> >inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
>>
>> Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be
>> technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely
>> unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the
>> mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the
>> event could not have happened.
>
>
Because a probability is a human construct, and not a real object. What
it actually means when applied in the real world is an issue which
raises extremely subtle problems.
>I
>created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math for
>those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via
>Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can
>happen.
You can't do that. Zero probability means that an event cannot happen.
If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but
about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible.
>There is therefore no doubt that events of fantastically small
>probability can happen.
>
While events of very low probability can happen, the mere calculation of
a non-zero probability does not enable you to say that that event can
happen unless you have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of
physics and have taken absolutely everything into account. That is never
the case.
>Real analysis swarms with many mathematical statements that are almost
>always true--the exceptional points being a set of measure zero. If
>measure zero exceptions arise frequently in mathematics, why can't
>measure zero exceptions exist in physics?
Because mathematics is the product of thought, not of reality. Many
things can happen in thought and not in reality.
>The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden
>variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of
>quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result.
>Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason
>whatsoever. That is my first axiom. Note that I distinguish my
>universe from others by adding to axiom 1 the conjecture that the laws
>of physics allow for a bounded number of creation events to occur in
>the infinity of spacetime.
Then you have already contradicted empirical and scientific evidence.
The only creation event in our universe permitted by known law is the
big bang, which is not in the infinity of spacetime, but at the finite
beginning of time.
>
>My second axiom is that the universe can appear deterministic even
>though all the laws of light and matter are ultimately statistical. My
>justification for this belief is in a very interesting theorem that I
>recall hearing ages ago. I believe it was in Ergodic theory. My
>recollection is that the theorem proved that every chaotic system
>exhibits predicable behavior.
I believe this is right, and would like to track down this theorem, if
you have any clues.
>
>My third axiom is that of a spacetime structure. I select Minkowski
>spacetime with all physical forces being ultimately quantum mechanical
>but certainly Lorentz invariant.
Again you contradict known physical law. This kind of discussion applies
to general relativity, not to Minkowski spacetime.
Shubee
> Thus spake Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
>
> >On Jan 6, 2:18 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Thus spake Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
>
> >> >Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
> >> >to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
> >> >inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
>
> >> Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be
> >> technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely
> >> unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the
> >> mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the
> >> event could not have happened.
>
> >I have no idea why you doubt the interpretation of the mathematics.
>
> Because a probability is a human construct, and not a real object. What
> it actually means when applied in the real world is an issue which
> raises extremely subtle problems.
Mainstream mathematicians have no problem with it.
> >I created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math
> > for those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via
> >Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can
> >happen.
>
> You can't do that.
But of course I can. I'm a mathematician.
> Zero probability means that an event cannot happen.
In finite probability spaces, you are correct. In general, all that is
needed for a "Probability space" is a measure on a sigma-algebra of
events that assigns to each event a number between 0 and 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_%28mathematics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space
> If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but
> about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible.
No. It's all standard mathematics called measure theory, which is
required of all first year graduate students in math when they take
real analysis. In probability theory, it is true that the empty set
represents events that do not occur and has measure zero. However, in
a general probability space, there are plenty of non-empty events that
have measure zero.
> >There is therefore no doubt that events of fantastically small
> >probability can happen.
>
> While events of very low probability can happen, the mere calculation of
> a non-zero probability does not enable you to say that that event can
> happen unless you have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of
> physics and have taken absolutely everything into account. That is never
> the case.
In Hilbert's philosophy of physics, reality is only the model universe
under consideration. If the axioms are consistent and physically
relevant, then you do have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of
physics.
> >Real analysis swarms with many mathematical statements that are almost
> >always true--the exceptional points being a set of measure zero. If
> >measure zero exceptions arise frequently in mathematics, why can't
> >measure zero exceptions exist in physics?
>
> Because mathematics is the product of thought, not of reality. Many
> things can happen in thought and not in reality.
Again, in Hilbert's philosophy of physics, the only reality is in the
proposed axioms for a model universe and whatever mathematical results
follow from those axioms.
> >The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden
> >variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of
> >quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result.
> >Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason
> >whatsoever. That is my first axiom. Note that I distinguish my
> >universe from others by adding to axiom 1 the conjecture that the laws
> >of physics allow for a bounded number of creation events to occur in
> >the infinity of spacetime.
>
> Then you have already contradicted empirical and scientific evidence.
> The only creation event in our universe permitted by known law is the
> big bang, which is not in the infinity of spacetime, but at the finite
> beginning of time.
There is no empirical or mathematical proof that spacetime is curved.
What we know conclusively about the big bang could have occurred in
flat spacetime.
> >My second axiom is that the universe can appear deterministic even
> >though all the laws of light and matter are ultimately statistical. My
> >justification for this belief is in a very interesting theorem that I
> >recall hearing ages ago. I believe it was in Ergodic theory. My
> >recollection is that the theorem proved that every chaotic system
> >exhibits predicable behavior.
>
> I believe this is right, and would like to track down this theorem, if
> you have any clues.
I asked if that theorem has a name in a thread titled, "Which theorem
proves that every chaotic system exhibits predicable behavior?" at
sci.math and sci.physics.research.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84b64d071a258559
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/e3597438af1a74c3
If a relevant response is posted, I will post it here also.
> >My third axiom is that of a spacetime structure. I select Minkowski
> >spacetime with all physical forces being ultimately quantum mechanical
> >but certainly Lorentz invariant.
>
> Again you contradict known physical law. This kind of discussion applies
> to general relativity, not to Minkowski spacetime.
The standard subject indexes to the scientific literature has for
gravity a huge category titled, "Theories of gravity other than
Einstein's." Many papers in the direction of, "Relativistic non-
instantaneous action-at-a-distance interactions" are listed.
Shubee
Oh No
>On Jan 7, 3:36 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thus spake Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
>>
>> >On Jan 6, 2:18 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Thus spake Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
>>
>> >> >Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea
>> >> >to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the
>> >> >inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).
>>
>> >> Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be
>> >> technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely
>> >> unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the
>> >> mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the
>> >> event could not have happened.
>>
>> >I have no idea why you doubt the interpretation of the mathematics.
>>
>> Because a probability is a human construct, and not a real object. What
>> it actually means when applied in the real world is an issue which
>> raises extremely subtle problems.
>
>Mainstream mathematicians have no problem with it.
Mathematicians deal in mathematics, "the subject in which we do not know
what we are talking about" (Russell). The issue of interpretation of
mathematics is not a part of mathematics, that is why it presents
mathematicians no problem :-). Actually it has always been a very subtle
philosophical problem at the foundation of mathematics, up until a sound
foundation was built on set theory and logic, which made it possible to
construct mathematics without considering the issue.
>
>> >I created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math
>> > for those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via
>> >Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can
>> >happen.
>>
>> You can't do that.
>
>But of course I can. I'm a mathematician.
It may have escaped your attention, but this is a physics newsgroup.
>
>> Zero probability means that an event cannot happen.
>
>In finite probability spaces, you are correct. In general, all that is
>needed for a "Probability space" is a measure on a sigma-algebra of
>events that assigns to each event a number between 0 and 1.
Indeed. But that is not all you need for the application of probability
theory to reality.
>> If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but
>> about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible.
>
>No. It's all standard mathematics called measure theory, which is
>required of all first year graduate students in math when they take
>real analysis.
I believe measure theory was one of my best courses. However, I found it
profoundly disappointing, like much of mathematics, because it does not
apply to reality. It is all very well mathematicians constructing
behaviours for objects of our thought, but those things remain objects
of our thought and essentially useless unless you can show that the
axioms of a mathematical structure describe real physical properties.
>In probability theory, it is true that the empty set
>represents events that do not occur and has measure zero. However, in
>a general probability space, there are plenty of non-empty events that
>have measure zero.
and having measure zero, there is no possibility that they can model
real objects in our finite experience of the universe.
>
>> >There is therefore no doubt that events of fantastically small
>> >probability can happen.
>>
>> While events of very low probability can happen, the mere calculation of
>> a non-zero probability does not enable you to say that that event can
>> happen unless you have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of
>> physics and have taken absolutely everything into account. That is never
>> the case.
>
>In Hilbert's philosophy of physics, reality is only the model universe
>under consideration. If the axioms are consistent and physically
>relevant, then you do have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of
>physics.
I would disagree. You have a mathematical model, but a mathematical
model is neither physics nor reality. Hilbert is ducking the issue.
>> >Real analysis swarms with many mathematical statements that are almost
>> >always true--the exceptional points being a set of measure zero. If
>> >measure zero exceptions arise frequently in mathematics, why can't
>> >measure zero exceptions exist in physics?
>>
>> Because mathematics is the product of thought, not of reality. Many
>> things can happen in thought and not in reality.
>
>Again, in Hilbert's philosophy of physics, the only reality is in the
>proposed axioms for a model universe and whatever mathematical results
>follow from those axioms.
It remains, for me, a wholly unacceptable philosophy of physics.
>> >The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden
>> >variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of
>> >quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result.
>> >Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason
>> >whatsoever. That is my first axiom. Note that I distinguish my
>> >universe from others by adding to axiom 1 the conjecture that the laws
>> >of physics allow for a bounded number of creation events to occur in
>> >the infinity of spacetime.
>>
>> Then you have already contradicted empirical and scientific evidence.
>> The only creation event in our universe permitted by known law is the
>> big bang, which is not in the infinity of spacetime, but at the finite
>> beginning of time.
>
>There is no empirical or mathematical proof that spacetime is curved.
>What we know conclusively about the big bang could have occurred in
>flat spacetime.
There you are completely wrong. The only empirical thing we can call
spacetime is the results of measurement, and we do have clear proof that
it is curved. Please see my website course on gtr
http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/MainIndex
>> >My second axiom is that the universe can appear deterministic even
>> >though all the laws of light and matter are ultimately statistical. My
>> >justification for this belief is in a very interesting theorem that I
>> >recall hearing ages ago. I believe it was in Ergodic theory. My
>> >recollection is that the theorem proved that every chaotic system
>> >exhibits predicable behavior.
>>
>> I believe this is right, and would like to track down this theorem, if
>> you have any clues.
>
>I asked if that theorem has a name in a thread titled, "Which theorem
>proves that every chaotic system exhibits predicable behavior?" at
>sci.math and sci.physics.research.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84b64d071a258559
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/e
>3597438af1a74c3
>
>If a relevant response is posted, I will post it here also.
Thanks.
>
>> >My third axiom is that of a spacetime structure. I select Minkowski
>> >spacetime with all physical forces being ultimately quantum mechanical
>> >but certainly Lorentz invariant.
>>
>> Again you contradict known physical law. This kind of discussion applies
>> to general relativity, not to Minkowski spacetime.
>
>The standard subject indexes to the scientific literature has for
>gravity a huge category titled, "Theories of gravity other than
>Einstein's." Many papers in the direction of, "Relativistic non-
>instantaneous action-at-a-distance interactions" are listed.
>
I think people should understand general relativity before indulging in
meaningless research.
Lubomir Vlcek
Very precise calculations in physics right up to 30 decimal places
Nuclear fusion
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/data/Nuclear_fusion_Vlcek.pdf ,
Please refer to:
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/ ,
1.New trends in physics
Vlcek L.: New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava 1996
ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen. Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS10 ) Sevilla, E
Vlcek L.: New Trends in Physics /book, elementes pictures, spheres in nuclei, forecasted nuclei, ZOO-3D editorfor interactive inspecting of nuclei spheres/, Academic Electronic Press, Bratislava, 2000, CD- ROM,
ISBN 80-88880-38-6.
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/contents.html ,
Motto , Abstract , Introduction ,
Nomenclature and terminology , Criticism of Einstein's Theory of Relativity , Our New Theory of Relativity ,
Theory and Its Comparison with Experiment , Form of the Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and Magnetic Field , Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field - A New Theory , Kaufmann's Experiment , Electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations.
Non-linear form of the interference field , Fizeau's Experiment , Harre's Experiment , Doppler's principle - correct relations ,
Consequences 1, Possible generalization of the theory relating to all fields
(gravitational,nuclear, etc.) where the speed of propagation is constant and equals c ,
Calculation of the kinetic energy of a body moving at a given velocity v , Nuclear field ,
Radius of force reach of particles, calculation of speed, frequencies, and mass particles,
"mass defect" notion , Unified theory of field ,
Consequences 2 ,A physicist's consience Epilogue , References ,
The New Coordinate System In Physics And Magic Numbers ,
The New Coordinate System In Physics , Nuclear Shells , Conclusion
2.Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is beautifull
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/data/LV_Introduction_to_my_two_articles_Physics_is_easy_and_Physics_is_beautifull.pdf ,
3.Physics is easy
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/data/LV_Physics_is_easy.pdf ,
4.Physics is beautifull
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/data/LV_Physics_is_beautifull.pdf ,
5.Neutrino Oscillations
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/data/Neutrino_Oscillations_Vlcek.pdf ,
6.Nuclear fusion
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/data/Nuclear_fusion_Vlcek.pdf ,
7.Gluons, Mezons, Baryons Gallery
https://plus.google.com/photos/100738406901160020308/albums/5728773101704182353 ,
8.Spheres in nuclei
Vlcek L.: New Trends in Physics /book, elementes pictures, spheres in nuclei, forecasted nuclei, ZOO-3D editorfor interactive inspecting of nuclei spheres/, Academic Electronic Press, Bratislava, 2000, CD- ROM, ISBN 80-88880-38-6.
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/prvky/prvkyang.htm ,
Lubo Vlcek