The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
account of this work.
Andrew Wiles.
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> group is correct.
Roughly, how many persons are there in the world now who have a
Masters degree or higher in mathematics? Perhaps 100,000? Of those, how
many believe they will prove a famous outstanding math problem? My
guess of the above is 50%. I believe 50% of mathematicians are arrogant
and self-deluded enough to believe they were "chosen" to do a famous
outstanding math problem. This guess-estimate of 50,000 if true is in
my opinion a good thing because if all persons entering mathematics
were realistic from the start, then the number of people who end up
majoring in mathematics would diminish to perhaps a mere thousand.
There is safety in numbers.
Since I believe the universe is superdeterministic then it follows
by this line of thinking that math problems become "famous" because of
our Maker. It was our Maker who made Fermat write his margin note. It
was our Maker who forced Riemann to conjecture 1/2, the only number
which the electron spin "M sub s" can have. And it is our Maker, 231Pu,
who has superdetermined already before the person is even born what
person will prove the outstanding problem. The proof of a very famous
outstanding math problem Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture,
Fermat's Last Theorem, and others will use "new techniques" and yield
"new mathematical knowledge." That is the reason these problems are
long outstanding. In this sense, a proof of FLT from the regular old
math is what Hardy and Dirac would have called "ugly mathematics."
Wiles's proof attempt uses the old math, nothing new. Just the length
of his alleged proof is testimony of "ugly mathematics."
The person superdetermined to prove RH,PC, and FLT will have done
so incidentally to something else--Atom Totality. In a thousand years
from now, historians will pick through these postings, not for the sake
of FLT but because of a beautiful and simple idea which can be
described in two words, ATOM TOTALITY.
PROOF OF FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM
FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM IS FALSE. Proof:
For exp3 in 10 adics these are three counterexamples
1
10
...52979382777667001
1
20
...4437336001
1
30
...4919009001
The expression a^n+b^n=c^n is true for all n given the following values
a= ...9977392256259918212890625
b=...0022607743740081787109376
c= 1
Because a,b,c are idempotents. ATOM,ATOM
LTR (revised) SENT TO THE CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY
LTR (revised) SENT TO THE GERMAN EMBASSY
SUBJ: WHEN I PICK-UP MY WOLFSKEHL PRIZE
Thus when I come to Germany to pick-up my Wolfskehl prize. It is not
by coincidence that the man who proved Fermat's Last Theorem is the
same man who proved Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture, Goldbach's
Conjecture, Kepler's Packing Problem, and 4-color-mapping problem. For
it is the same man who first saw that the observable universe is merely
the last electron, the 94th, of plutonium. The man who unified
mathematics to physics,chemistry, and biology. The man who first saw
that the number ¹ is a number approximately 22/7 because 231Pu has
approximately 22 subshells in 7 shells, and that the number e is
approximately 19/7 because 231Pu has approximately 19 occupied
subshells in 7 shells. The inverse fine-structure marker of physics is
because 231Pu has 137 neutrons in the nucleus.
Before I pick-up my Wolfskehl prize I want to have my German
citizenship restored to me that is why I have written to the Chancellor
of Germany and the German Embassy. I was born in Germany and it has
been superdetermined that a German citizen will win the Wolfskehl
prize.
When I pick up my Wolfskehl prize I want to have applied the prize
money (unless a German manufacturer wants to donate) to the making of a
shiny soft metal anvil and a stainless steel sword in the likeness of
NOTHUNG with a hilt of gold, and when the director of the Wolfskehl
prize reads off my name and all the other preliminaries. I will pull
EXCALIBUR out of the anvil and then I will make a display showing me
hammering like THOR (Siegfried) on the sword GRAM to make it into the
sword NOTHUNG and then I will act-out the scene where I divide the
anvil in half with NOTHUNG simultaneously showing the movie scene
overhead, where Arthur pulls the sword out of the anvil (stone) all of
which while continually playing the music of Wagner repeating a section
of SiegfriedÕs Funeral Music from GoetterdŠmmerung. For I, Ludwig
Plutonium, am the KING OF MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS.
signed and sent
Ludwig Plutonium
> However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.
I think I can help you here Andrew. Even if this hole (and the next)
were to be plugged. A famous outstanding arithmetic problem solved
geometrically, must first and foremost be proved to be the logically
equivalent statement. For example, the Moebius function was proved to
be the logically equivalent statement to the Riemann Hypothesis.
Andrew, even if you could plug every gap in your alleged proof, no
where is it compelling or even apparent that your finished product is
FLT. A hint of FLT is not FLT. Besides, stop what you are doing for a
moment and try to produce the Pythagorean Theorem using your methods.
> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
>
> Andrew Wiles.
Is this to be the standard life-cycle for fake proofs? 1) Spendid
world-wide publicity 2) a very long alleged proofs 3) gaps found 4)
fake proof to be taught at home town University 5) alleged proof never
withdrawn, just ignored.
When the lifecycle should be such. 1) Prepare for publication 2)
alleged proof published.
59162: [ 21:wiles@rugola.] Fermat status
59241: [ 34:Ludwig.Pluton]
59245: [ 40:Ludwig.Pluton]
59249: [ 61:Ludwig.Pluton]
59250: [ 49:Ludwig.Pluton]
For those of you who don't use the same newsreader, it meant: An
article by Andrew Wiles on the status of the FTL proof, followed up by
no less than 4 articles by "Ludwig Plutonium".
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Dale
Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT d...@math.mit.edu
--
Since *nobody* is willing to endorse all of the 120 Days of Sodom, there
will always be limits to sexual freedom. The only question, then, is
whether a particular act is permitted at a particular place and time,
and if not, how to get away with it.
: In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
>
> Dale
>
> Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT d...@math.mit.edu
>
> Andrew Wiles.
In article <1993Dec8.2...@peavax.mlo.dec.com>
h...@fascn8.hpc.pko.dec.com (Roy Ho) writes: [16 lines deleted]
> : Andrew Wiles.
Thank you, for I can just leap-frog the Humpty Dumpties in order for
me to clarify and correct spelling.
Is this to be the standard life-cycle for fake proofs? 1) corral a
band of so called experts on your side 2) repeatedly say or imply the
proof is a foregone conclusion 3) marshal splendid world-wide publicity
and front page news coverage 4) offer an exceedingly long alleged proof
5) claim new math techniques when in fact it is Òwarmed-up leftoversÓ
6) gaps found 7) fake proof to be taught at home town University 8)
fake proof never withdrawn or retracted, but pretended as if it is a
genuine proof even though the latest gap needs to be plugged 9) initial
endorsers seen distancing themselves from all ties to the fakery, for
fear that their own reputations will also be dragged down 10) Wiles
makes a last ditch attempt by publishing his fake proof/methods with
Princeton University Press 11) the math community goes in opposite
direction to WilesÕs offerings and ends by ignoring his claim that FLT
is proved.
When the life-cycle should be such. 1) prepare an alleged proof for
publication 2) alleged proof published 3) after a long time in
published form it is decided whether FLT is correct or not. These are
the steps I am preparing for the worldÕs first proof of FLT which is as
follows.
PROOF OF FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM
FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM IS FALSE. Proof:
For exp3 in 10 adics these are three counterexamples
1
10
...52979382777667001
1
20
...4437336001
1
30
...4919009001
The expression a^n+b^n=c^n is true for all n given the following values
a= ...9977392256259918212890625
b=...0022607743740081787109376
c= 1
Because a,b,c are idempotents. ATOM,ATOM
The reason such a simply stated math problem, FLT was not solved by
some of the world's greatest mathematicians Gauss, Riemann, Galois, . .
(not those dime a dozen professors of math-- just regurgitators of the
subject.) Was because it is false. And new math is created, more
realistically---uncovered to what was already laying there within the
Peano Axioms, by solving FLT. Galois photons saw "Group theory" to
solve the quintic problem. I photon saw the unearthing of infinite
integers from the endless adding of 1 in the Peano Axioms. The
mathematics world on Earth will never be the same after this year 0053.
1) How long have you been working on FLT?
2) Is your work focused on FLT? Or on some more general mathematics, that just
happens to prove FLT? I mean, was FLT your main goal? Or something deeper?
3) Any comment on the newspaper article and book by Marilyn Vos Savant that
discusses your work on FLT? Any comment on lay persons interest in FLT?
4) Any comment on the discussions that have gone on here in the Internet
regarding FLT and your proof?
5) It seems fairly unlikely that Fermat himself had a proof of FLT. Comment?
6) When you go over your work in your course in February, can it then be made
available on the Internet?
7) After FLT, what are your future plans? I.E. what is your next problem?
Thanks you.
I didn't see this because I have
/plutonium/h:j
in my KILL file. You might want to try it.
By the way I checked. This message really was from Wiles.
--
Bradley W. Brock | "If I do, these persons may come to great harm....
br...@ccr-p.ida.org | After all a person's a person. No matter how small."
IDA/CCR Princeton, NJ | -Horton in "Horton Hears a Who!"
br...@alumni.cco.caltech.edu
> I didn't see this because I have
> /plutonium/h:j
> in my KILL file. You might want to try it.
As I mentioned back in October, that is a Bad Idea. It will kill
articles that mention plutonium in innocuous places like the Path
header, so you are likely to kill some innocuous or even valuable
article. If you want to avoid Ludi Toons,
/^from:.*plutonium@/h:j
is more precise. If your news reader is a version of xrn that calls
this a "malformed kill file entry", leaving off the "h:" should work.
Anyone else who needs further help writing kill files should take it
to news.software.readers.
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
ObMath: Up to symmetry, there are ten ways of cutting a regular
dodecahedron into two simply-connected six-pentagon pieces.
One of them is not like the others!
Why don't you take a flying leap into the beyond?
That is, why don't you generalize your approach and
prove the meta-theorem:
Everything I think up is true.
That way, you could just post once, and we wouldn't
have to keep reading your posts, which basically just state
the above metatheorem over and over, in various special cases.
Incidentally, some of us who believe in God do not think that
the universe is deterministic; if it were, it would be perhaps
nothing more than the endless development of some pre-existing
condition. So why would God need the universe to exist, just
so that certain formal laws could parade themselves via their
inevitable implications, forever and a day? He'd be better off
making some beings who could easily derive these consequences,
and then just telling them the axioms.
[open for counter-flames from Pluto, d...@sjfc.edu]
To new readers of this newsgroup: welcome to sci.math, where mathematics
is sometimes different than it is elsewhere.
>Why don't you take a flying leap into the beyond?
He has, he has.
Only one of the ten produces two halves that are not congruent. Neat.
Reminds me of a question I came up with some time ago. Can the vertices of
the n-cube (n >= 1) be partitioned into two equal-sized subsets which are not
congruent to each other?
Readers, I do not feel anger towards these persons with these kind
of postings. More, I feel pity and sorrow. They will spend most or all
of their life in a subject such as physics or math and rave about how
they knew this and that when 12 years old, or studied the Feynman
Lectures in High School. They are quick to put others down and make
arrogant remarks about their own physics or math abilities. Many of
these persons made excellent grades while in school and got
scholarships to the best Universities. Many can be seen with widespread
influence within the bandwagon of physics or math communities, such as
poisoning-the-well to any would be publisher of the revolutionary idea.
And they are quick to try to label me as another Hannu or Abian physics
crackpot. They try to label me, not debate me for they will come up the
fool. But as my ideas are slowly verified some will revert to even
worse methods, they will try to steal my new ideas. Some will go
through their notebooks and fabricate or postdate entries. Some will
rewrite my math proofs rewording everything and try to steal the ideas
for themselves. Some person may even try the trick (a Bernoulli played
this on a younger Bernoulli) of getting a publisher to publish a
back-dated journal with one of my proofs or ideas included within and
claiming it as his own.
No, I am not angry with these folks. Instead I pity them for I
realize well that they will never amount to anything important in
physics or math. The more they attack revolutionary ideas seems to give
them a pyschological satisfaction of filling their own void of
contributions. Some of these persons in older age will mellow out and
drop their arrogance. Some will even drop their self-delusion that they
contributed anything of importance to physics or math. As if it
mattered that they had picked physics or math as a career instead of
writing brain teasers in newspaper supplements. That their time would
have been better spent enjoying whatever hobbies they liked and earning
a living by pumping petrol at Exxon. Sort of the pathos feeling
Bertrand Russell had when he discussed a future library throwing his
Principia into the rubbish bin.
No, I am not angry at these folks. I pity them for I realize they
love physics and math perhaps as much as I do. But the fact is that
revolutionary science comes very infrequently and the chances of it
coming to persons in the bandwagon are rare, because their mind-set is
status quo, not conductive towards new ideas. Being a member of the
bandwagon means that your mind is hard as concrete so the likelihood of
getting a new important idea is low.
Readers, watch the comments of these attackers of my PU Atom Totality
theory and new math ideas once a part of that theory is verified. Watch
the comments of my attackers, say when spontaneous neutron
materialization is verified. Or when it is obvious that the Peano
Axioms yield infinite integers. How I pity them. For it is far better
to not be a professor of math or physics; to have had difficulty with
grades in University and yet be able to contribute something new and
important to the subjects of physics and math.
I use gnus as my newsreader. I've put LP in my kill file, with M-k
C-c C-c. But his articles still show up in my *Summary* buffer, they
just have an X in front of them, and I can never resist reading them.
I actually like his anti-establishment positions. But I feel that
striking similar position has cost me too much already, and I'd like
to not expose myself to his hourly posts.
Can someone tell me how use gnus so that LP's articles are hidden, as
well as "killed?"
BTW, does anyone think that I should have put the ? inside the "?
Path: kth.se!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!129.105.16.55!richter
From: ric...@kepler.math.nwu.edu (Bill Richter)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 13 Dec 1993 01:49:05 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL USA
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
References: <1993Dec4.0...@Princeton.EDU> <CHM11...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<1993Dec8.0...@sjfc.edu> <2ebc30$d...@galaxy.ucr.edu>
<CHx36...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.math.nwu.edu
You must add (gnus-expunge "X") at the end of your kill file. For example,
my kill file looks like:
(progn
(gnus-kill "From" "somebody@somewhere")
(gnus-kill "From" "you-kn...@somewhere.else")
(gnus-expunge "X"))
and it works.
Kimmo Kettunen
In article <1993Dec8.0...@sjfc.edu>
d...@sjfc.edu (Dan Cass) writes:
> Why don't you take a flying leap into the beyond?
> That is, why don't you generalize your approach and
> prove the meta-theorem:
> Everything I think up is true.
> That way, you could just post once, and we wouldn't
> have to keep reading your posts, which basically just state
> the above metatheorem over and over, in various special cases.
>
> Incidentally, some of us who believe in God do not think that
> the universe is deterministic; if it were, it would be perhaps
> nothing more than the endless development of some pre-existing
> condition. So why would God need the universe to exist, just
> so that certain formal laws could parade themselves via their
> inevitable implications, forever and a day? He'd be better off
> making some beings who could easily derive these consequences,
> and then just telling them the axioms.
>
> [open for counter-flames from Pluto, d...@sjfc.edu]
I want to comment about your lines ---
> Incidentally, some of us who believe in God do not think that
> the universe is deterministic; if it were, it would be perhaps
It seems reasonable that nowadays if one wanted to study the origins
of the cosmos or universe, that person would study astronomy and
physics, say at Berkeley (I do not know if St John Fisher College
teaches these subjects.) The origins of life, then study biology and
chemistry at Berkeley. Why does Berkeley, Stanford, Rutgers, MIT, UC,
Cambridge, Monash Uni, Goettingen, and on and on and on, not use the
Bible to teach these origins? Because physics,chemistry,biology, and
math are our highest forms of truth.
The history of mankind's ideas took a broad general pattern of first
observing natural physical laws which could not be explained and so
gods were assigned to them (rain-god, Sun-god, etc). Then as more of
the world was explained through science those collections of gods were
narrowed into one god. You do not need a rain-god once you understand
the science behind rain. Mankind then thought Earth was at the center
of the universe. And mankind using religion thought mankind was the
center of god's creation, just lower than the angels.
Science then explained that Earth was not the center of celestial
spheres. Biological evolution explained that Mankind is not the center
of creation. With the Atom Totality, I push it one step further. Life
is not the centerpiece of creation. In fact there is only one thing in
all of creation--atoms, for we are just a sack of chemical atoms.
Democritus said 2200 years ago "The only things that exist are atoms,
.."
The idea of an Atom Totality will take a long time to be recognized
as the truth because most will have difficulty in shedding their
arrogance that an "it" is god. The Bible hints of true things, such as
there is an afterlife--photon souls; there is a heaven--the Protons.
But for the most part the Bible is a collection of science fiction
stories. The Bible was given to us by the Protons of 231Pu as a book of
guidance to conduct a social life. But as the Earth centered universe
conception had to pass, so too must the Bible pass as the proper way to
live. Science will take over that guiding role also, including ethics.
The Bible of the future will be the textbooks of science such as
quantum physics. Some of the Bible is true provided if you replace the
words God, Lord, etc with the word Plutonium Atom Totality. Once you do
that you can see our Maker every day of your life for its physical laws
are always, forever, and almighty. You need not have to search anywhere
for our Maker for it is everywhere, and we are just a small part of it.
Its laws are always obeyed because it is physical law.
No person in human history has ever walk on water and violated
physical law. If Jesus was more than a human being then he would have
come down from the cross, but no he did not, he bled and died like the
thousands of other humans who were brutalized and crucified. Organized
religion had to hide behind some facade so the idea of salvation which
makes no biological or logical sense was invented. Organized religion
spent centuries and centuries destroying all true historical facts
surrounding Jesus and invented their own to try to make the story
believable. One true statement that Jesus made and which organized
religion was unable to twist was on the cross Jesus said " My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
This is what any normal human being would say who was being tortured
to death after his role in an uprising failed. It is my opinion that
Jesus was a morphine medical doctor who had joined a band of revolters
trying to remove Roman rule. Jesus's earlier years were spent learning
about morphine in Eygpt and India. Organized religion destroyed all the
historical facts pointing to Jesus's normal humanity. No group of
people have ever had the Red Sea parted for their escape for it
violates many if not all physical laws.
> You must add (gnus-expunge "X") at the end of your kill file. For example,
> my kill file looks like:
>
deleted
>
> and it works.
>
> Kimmo Kettunen
Kimmo Therapy
Anyway, I only meant to raise the (old) question of whether or not
the universe is deterministic. It isn't easy even to frame this
question properly, in such a way that experiment could determine
its truth or falsity. It seems to me that deciding whether determinism
holds is much like deciding whether God exists: we don't have conclusive
proof/evidence/etc to decide either. (If such proof existed, why would
these questions be debated for so many centuries?)
--Dan Cass
Dan the following below are excerpts from my textbook Plutonium Atom
Totality: The Unification of Physics,Chemistry,Biology, and
Mathematics.
It is my opinion that the debate between free-will and determinism is
now at an end, and surprizingly it is neither free-will nor determinism
which won but rather instead--superdeterminism. Our every thought and
action was ordered up by the 94 Protons of the nucleus. THE ANSWERS
COME FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS EXPERIMENTS AND IS ONE OF OUR MOST PRECIOUS
TRUTHS. This is the Bell Inequality with the Aspect experimental
results. See below.
EXCERPTS:
But the atom whole knows where all the atom parts are, and knows where
they will all be in the future. I quote John Bell's thinking on
superdeterminism: "[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in
the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is
super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another,
the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light
signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows"
what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
The atom totality is superdeterministic in its mode of operation.
Everything that happens or will happen has already been
superdetermined, i.e., registered and ordered-up by the atom whole
(mostly the nucleus with its 137 neutrons and 94 protons) of 231Pu. We
atom parts can only make indeterministic, and uncertain measurements
inside the atom whole, but the atom whole is superdeterministic. Below,
in the meaning of mathematics chapter, I will give another clear idea
relying on mathematical analogy by means of the logarithmic spiral of
what superdeterminism means.
h') Spooky action at a distance where a measurement in one part of an
experiment instantaneously changes the measurement in another part even
though the two parts are at opposite ends of the observable universe.
This is Bell's inequality and Aspect's experimental confirmation of
quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality distinguishes between Classical
physics and quantum physics on the large scale. On the small scale of
the atom and inside the atom, quantum physics governs completely. In
quantum mechanics a particle does not possess both a precise position
and a precise momentum. Or, in quantum mechanics, a particle does not
possess both a precise time and a precise energy. Then for Classical
physics on the large scale, a measurement on part of a previously
connected system will show the mathematics of -2 Łp Ł +2, but for
quantum physics, a different mathematics results. And for the case of
detectors oriented at angles of 45° the p for quantum theory will have
the value of +2.83. Where p is the probability that a particular
spin of an electron is detected. Replacing spin with polarization.
Aspect's team worked with the polarizations of pairs of photons, which
were produced from a single atomic event, and thus connected. Then if
quantum theory is correct, each photon exists in a mixed superposition
of states until a measurement is made on the polarization, and at that
instant of measurement, both photons collapse into a state which makes
the mathematics agree with quantum theory. Aspect's experimental
results obtained +2.83 exactly. Thus quantum theory applies to the
entire observable universe, both to the large scale of astronomical and
cosmological distances as well as to the distances of collections of
atoms and inside an atom. Classical physics can only answer Bell's
inequality and Aspect's experimental results by hypothesizing
superluminal speeds. But if there are speeds faster than the speed of
light means all of physics is destroyed, similarly, if in mathematics,
if ever 1+1=+2.83 or if ever 1x1= +2.83 then all of mathematics is
destroyed. The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental result
thrusts the number one, most outstanding problem in all of physics
before us. Where does the quantum physics world end and the Classical
physics world begin? John Bell stated "There is a way to escape the
inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But
it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence
of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one
experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the
"decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements
rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a
faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been
carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A,
already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
The Aspect experimental results implies a total cosmic link of every
atom. Aspect's experimental results and Bell's inequality changes our
view of the totality. Bell stated "The only alternative to quantum
probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wavefunction,
and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is
superdetermined." Further, Bell said "For me it is a dilemma. I think
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it
will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."
The resolution to Bell's dilemma is that the totality is an atom
itself. Quantum physics is all about atoms. Then with the Bell
inequality and Aspect experimental results confirming quantum theory on
the large scale, on the size of the observable universe, means the
observable universe is atomic. The totality is an atom.
This is a photograph of page 18-2>>
Another way of stating this problem is how many atoms does it take to
make a Classical physics apparatus, a measurement? Any specified number
is artificial since then the question would arise why this number? Why
does such a number have special meaning? Why is this number special
over other numbers? Since the Bell inequality with the Aspect
experimental results, quantum physics has displayed itself on the large
scale. Quantum physics is no longer confined to the small scale. One
resolution for the Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental results
is superluminal speeds, but if we accept superluminal speeds then
physics is inconsistent and all of physics is destroyed, just as all of
mathematics is destroyed if inconsistency is accepted.
Does the quantum world end at some distance from an atom? Then what
defines this distance? A search for a distance looks for some boundary,
but an electron does not have boundaries, in fact the Coulomb force of
an electron goes out to infinity, and the gravitational force however
small goes out to infinity. An electron has no boundaries, instead it
has a probability distribution. So where does the Classical physics
world of measurement begin? Does the world of measurement begin with
some specific number of atoms to make a measurement?
N. Bohr never answered this problem but instead gave parables to this
problem, such as a walking stick when held closely near you then it is
a part of you (Classical physics), but if you do not hold it, or hold
it loosely, it is part of the outside world (quantum physics). Quantum
physics has this beautiful mathematics but where exactly is it
applicable and not applicable. Physics before 7/11/ŻŻ5Ż had two
scales-- small and large, atom size was small scale, we and
astronomical objects were large scale. Where is the boundary between
these two scales?
How physics abhors artificial things, ad hoc things, arbitrarily
defined boundaries. This problem of where does the quantum physics
world end and the Classical physics world start evaporates immediately
once the totality is taken as a plutonium atom. Since quantum theory
describes atoms and if the totality is an atom then the quantum world
no longer has any artificial boundary with the Classical physics world.
The entire world is quantum. The quantum world is everywhere. The
Classical physics world is just another name for a first approximation
of the quantum physics world, a first approximation of the collapse of
the wavefunction of a quantum totality. What physics loses is scale.
No longer is there a small scale different from a large scale. Scale
is all the same since everything is atoms. Everything is atomic scale,
and an atom encompasses physical properties associated with zero,
finiteness, complex numbers, hypercomplex numbers, . . , infinity. A
Plutonium Atom Totality contains atoms from hydrogen to plutonium, and
then builds transplutonium atoms inside it.
The scarcity of technetium and promethium in a universe which is not
an atom is a huge puzzle. But in an atom totality, which results in a
superdeterministic totality, (see Bell's inequality discussion), the
scarcity of technetium and promethium and the plenitude of other
elements makes sense in that elemental abundance is needed in exact
quantum proportion for a purposive electron observable universe. Zinc,
molybdenum, iodine, thorium, and uranium are plentiful for the needs of
life. Molybdenum is needed for plant nitrogen fixation and zinc and
iodine are essential for Homo sapiens.
A superdeterministic universe has a purpose and hence a meaning. That
meaning is nucleosynthesis. Life carries out nucleosynthesis which the
stars will not. Life is a cold star. A free-will universe has no set
purpose and logically no meaning.
It has been known for 65 years that the universe is NOT
deterministic; the laws of Quantum Mechanics are not
deterministic and have been tested in thousands of
differents experiments, none of which has ever
disagreed with quantum mechanics.
--
---------------------------------------
e-mail: sim...@iro.umontreal.ca |
---------------------------------------
This really over simplifies a very subtle philosophical question. Let
me illustrate.
Suppose some entity mails you a letter every day, with either a zero
or a one on it.
It could either be that
- this entity has pre-computed a sequence of zeros and ones before
he mailed the first letter, and it just picks the next one in the
sequence each day.
- this entity chooses a new zero/one by some process every day
he mails a letter
Now in the first case, the sequence is deterministic, and in the
second it is not. What this means is that in the first case, with
some knowledge about the internals of the agent, we could _predict_
the next value of the sequence; in the second we could not.
We could find out whether it is deterministic or not _only_ by
actually going and examining the inner workings of this agent. There
is _no way_ of telling simply by examining the received letters.
Don't be confused by various non-local properties of QM. The
proposition that the universe is deterministic means that there is
some agent, outside the universe, which controls the universe according
to some fully-worked-out-in-advance plan. This proposition does not
conflict in any way with any QM experiments that can be performed,
because it is _fundamentally undecidable_, since things within the
universe cannot observe things outside it.
It can, however, be said (and this is the conclusion of QM) that the
universe is nondeterministic _with respect to_ what can be observed
from within the universe. That is, if there exists 'somewhere' a
master plan, it does not exist within the universe. Just as the
letters were nondeterministic wrt your mailbox, they may or may not
have been nondeterministic wrt the agent.
--
--
Trevor Blackwell t...@das.harvard.edu (617) 495-8912
(info and words of wit in my .plan)
> Can the vertices of the n-cube (n >= 1) be partitioned into two
> equal-sized subsets which are not congruent to each other?
Not for n=1,2,3, but yes for n>=4. For n=4, labelling the vertices by
binary coordinates:
0000--0010--0011 1000--1010--1110
| | | | |
0100--0110--0111 1101--1001--1011
| | | |
1100 1111 0101--0001
The adjacency graphs are not even isomorphic. Also, the former
contains a square of diagonal 2 (0000,0011,1111,1100) while the
rectangle of diagonal 2 in the latter is 1 by sqrt(3)
(0001,0101,1110,1010).
I (not extremely carefully) enumerated the ways of partitioning the
vertices of the 4-cube into connected 8-point subsets, and counted
that four of the twenty-four partitions were into non-congruent parts.
I suspect that the partitions into congruent parts become
asymptotically scarce, but I haven't figured out how to prove it.
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil