Alphanumerics Mistake, Admit it

AlphaNumeric
I would hold you in very high regards if you can accept you were wrong... Thus i present the following >

''The idea of GUT is highly misunderstood, as they are neither Grand nor Unified... anything can change this system at any time...''
And Hawkings says
''Even though we know the relevant laws that govern the universe, we do not know how they will operate in the long-run... into the future. This is the law of Chaos.''

So, how is that i have misunderstood what he says... What the prof. says here is quite reasonable...

For those wondering, this is NeoNo.1's continuation of this thread. He's been demonstrated to be wrong there so he does as many cranks do, starts the discussion elsewhere to avoid acknowledging it.

NeoNo.1, you are interpreting Hawking's comments to say "Since GUTs contain chaotic systems, we cannot formulate a GUT". This is wrong. Newtonian gravity, as I've explained several times in the other thread, contains chaotic systems but Newton still formulated it over 300 years ago.

Hawking says "Even though we know the relevant laws that govern the universe, we do not know how they will operate in the long-run... into the future. This is the law of Chaos.''

I do not argue with this. He is saying that while you can write down the governing equations for a dynamical system, solving the equations to get an explicit expression for one or more of the objects within the system is not possible and in some cases (ie chaotic ones) the system is extremely sensitive to initial conditions.

I don't deny any of that, I understand that part of chaotic systems (the same can't be said for many people on here who buzzword drop 'chaos' into their posts). However, that doesn't have any corrollary when it comes to trying to find a GUT for fundamental particles. Finding such a GUT would involve finding the unifying governing equations for the 3 quantized forces. Notice that 'chaos' doesn't preclude that. Chaos would preclude solving the governing equations analytically (though not all analytically unsolvable systems are chaotic!).

See the difference? BM1957 and I have explained it to you a few times now but you seem totally unable to grasp the simple difference, even when given an explicit example. Instead, you decide to post a new thread about it and draw even more attention to the fact you don't understand.

It's no skin off my nose, it's not my job to stop you making an idiot of yourself. Infact, I consider it to be quite the opposite Job done then.

OH MY GOD. You are so incorrect. I said that (I) personally don't think that a GUT will ever evolve from our calculations, simply because Hawkings highlighted a very real cause not to trust everything in our attempts. Where does that leave the evidence you so amptly required, because, even though i proved your initial arguement wron, you also attempted to increase your pathalogical lie even further by involving subjects which i wasn't talking about. I was simply qouting Mr. Hawkings and then translating, in the most likely friggin translation. I can't see anything else emerging out of what he is saying, and neither have you provided any other translation, all you have said is that my translation is wrong. Prove it. Qoute the lines i metioned, and then give me your translation.... I am dieing for this one! Come on!
Neo

I side with AN's opinion; I think you are suffering from "confirmation bias" when you read Hawking's and other's remarks that appear on the surface to support your partially thoughtout position.

We've already got a unification for the weak force and the electromagnetic force, which is experimentally verified.

I mentioned Newton as an example of being able to derive a model which is chaotic. An example of how your initial claim was incorrect.

And you know it's the 'most likely friggin translation' because? Your extensive knowledge of physics, particularly GUTs and chaos?

I have provided an alternative 'translation' to what he said. It's in the thread this thread sprouted from, other people in that thread managed to understand, why can't you? Actually think when you read my posts, if you are reading my posts at all.

I see you're employing Zephir's logic. You ignore things people say to you, then demand they present you with information they've already told you. I guess it's a standard crank method.

NoCleverName
Yeh... I kinda gathered you would. It wasn't much of a surprise really. Just another sheep AlphaNumeric... He must indeed be feeling smug of himself right now.
But, as i said, none of this will deter me from my fight against this total waste of space... I stick my ground yet, call me the rebelion.
Neo

Ah, the usual crank/nut logic of "Anyone who disagrees with me is a sheep! They're in some kind of cahoots together!". Couldn't possibly be that more than one person has a viable reason to disagree with you, could it

Not really, since I don't feed my ego from showing online nuts to be idiots. It's so easy it's not a challenge and so not ego bolstering.

As my feedback demonstrates, people consider my posts on the whole a positive thing. If anyone wishes to discuss any particular part of physics or maths I'm always up for that as discussions on geometry/topology or Lie groups have demonstrated in the past. It's just too few people here are interested in that, too many are cranks who prefer starting threads about their personal theory of everything which never amounts to anything.

Of course I could start a thread about the specifics of some part of mainstream science and post a lot about it, to avoid being called a 'waste of space', but no doubt I'd be accussed of showing off or being a walking advert for mainstream physics. Catch 22.

Perhaps he studied the friggin Bayesian theory and sleeps with a copy of Treasure Island so he knows that Hawkings fellow will soon lead him to treasure, Yarrr!


(Apologies to residents of Cornwall.)

Then resite your explanations please... And i repeat for a second time, will you please qoute what i said, and tell me an alternative anwer.
If you are a scientist at all, then please respond to previous knowledge. This is what professionals do. They evaluate all other perspectives.
If anyone else is willing to be decieved by this crank, please speak up. I've already had two missionary's working for him, so please, the more the merrier... But please, consider my arguement before dismissing it with contempt. Do not be biast.
I Will admit, AlphaN has a wider veiw of mathematics than i ever can... I envy him for this view of a mathematical world... But at any time, i would be willing to see reason, but because he shows me with the same dogmatism, similar to the way he has treated several people, perhaps even more, and yet, we know he is intelligent... Nothing defies this truth... It is just that with his intelligence, he is rather clouded from the fact there are equally intelligent folks out there that can see errors inhis own work.
He has had a great deal to say and point out errors in others work... I can point out his, and whenever i do remark, i do it in a kind manor, and he get all rived-up.
And if he says that it was me who started it... listen to this AlphaN... being a mathematician, you will have heard of ''The Square Root''... Well, that equation talks in variables and evaluates a single answer yes? Well, you can get to the square root of an arguement, and the root will always lead to you, because before we ever first argued, you said that i was a crank-pot based on my thread made on Bible Mathematics... And when we did start argueing, you made that clear whenever i attempted to defend my faith in a [possible] subject.
So... again, and i'll ask one last time. Would you like a knowledge test wth me... I know you want to!
Neo

I volunteer to be the judge.

Good. Thankyou rpenner.
Then here are the coordinates.
1. You must choose a set of twelve questions.
2. You must not be biast towards either of us.
That's it... Just wait and we shall see whether AlphaN shows up.
This will be interesting indeed.
Neo

Argghhhh - choices, choices. The sporting schedules have left me to choose between:

Rubgy: Italy vs Romania
Football: England vs Russia
Physics: AlphaNumeric vs NeoNo.1

I wonder what odds I'd get on that last bout.

Quote 1 :

Quote 2 :

Quote 3 :

In Quote 1 NeoNo.1 implies that he's unsure that a GUT can be formulated because dynamical systems can sometimes exhibit chaos, a mathematical property which leads to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions and an inability to solve analytically governing equations. He is mistaking the difficulty in solving a differential with the difficulty in writing the differential equation down. These are two different issues.

To 'find a GUT' is to find a single gauge group which accounts for all the symmetries seen in the Standard Model (and perhaps gravity too, but GUT typically doesn't refer to that). The SM gauge group is SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), relating to colour, weak charge and electromagnetic charge respectively. A GUT would have a single gauge group (such as SU(5) or SO(10) or even E6 or E8) which has these groups as subgroups and which explains the interactions of the fields at high energies (typically of the order 10^16 GeV, see renormalisation group couplings).

Writing down such a group and a Lagrangian (ie list of quantum fields, interactions, masses) with such a symmetry would not be affected by the complexity of the solutions to the Lagrangian's equations of motions (ie the dynamics of the system). We have plenty of such Lagrangians already in quantum field theory (see QED and QCD), where the equations of motion are analytically unsolvable but the Lagrangian is a doddle to write down. NeoNo.1 is claiming that the difficulty of the equations of motion's solutions precludes us knowing the equations of motion. As demonstrated by QED, QCD, String theory, General relativity and even a great many classical (some chaotic!) systems, this is not true.

In Quote 2 NeoNo.1 worries that as people work through the equations of a GUT (so he agrees governing equations can be found, which amounts to 'Finding a GUT') people will find chaotic or analytically unsolvable systems. This would be nothing new nor would it be unexpected. We have approximation techniques or a variety of tools to map certain problems into easier situations, physicists have been doing such things for centuries now. Again, having difficult systems to solve doesn't prevent you from having the equations which govern the system.

In Quote 3, NeoNo.1 expresses his worry that a 'fluctuation in the universe' would alter our understanding of a GUT. He doesn't quantify what such a fluctuation would be, the sun explodes? Light speed halves? Electromagnetism doubles in strength? I win the lottery? He does however claim it would have a knock on effect in our ability to solve complex dynamical systems. He doesn't say how. He does however mention string theorist's and GUTs. The gauge groups used within Heterotic String Theory (SO(32) and E8xE8) do contain the aforementioned SM gauge groups within them as subgroups. Infact, one of the most viable groups for GUT research (one of the professors in my department does extensive research on it!) is the E6 subgroup of E8. E6 breaks down to the SM groups in a very nice way. So infact, string theory is giving us hints that it might have GUT formalism built right into it, along with gravity. Great.

Examples of systems where we know the governing equations exactly but are unable to solve analytically are QCD strong force interactions. Not chaotic, but analytically unsolvable, even perturbatively in many cases. An even simpler example of the (already mentioned many times) 3 body gravitational system. And an even simpler system is a pendulum swinging when you don't make the approximation sin(x) ~ x. If you keep it as x'' = -ksin(x), you cannot solve it exactly, yet you know the governing equation.

Is that enough of an elaboration on what you've said and what I was trying to say NeoNo.1 or should I type a bit slower so you can keep up?

The issue being they must be questions you cannot answer with a simple google. I regularly ask cranks to answer questions from question sheets found here, which are the question sheets I used to have to do as an undergrad (not all of them, depends which topics I took). I've never had anyone answer any question from that list, be it a first year question on solving an ODE or a 3rd year question involving connections on Riemannian manifolds.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Sep 12 2007, 05:56 PM