From: Osher Doctorow [log in to unmask], Sat. June 22, 2002 12:36PM
At first glance this might not look like SVM, but the universe has some
surprises left.
On http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum today, I posted the equation (in
slightly different terminology here):
1) E(G) = PR E(D)  PV E(ND) = (PR F>)  (PV F<)
where E(G) is expectation of G, G is the growth of the universe (expansion;
negative growth would be contraction), R is Rare Events, V is Very Frequent
Events, D is Dark Energy, ND is NonDarkEnergy (energy that is nonDark),
the other E( ) expression are *energy of* , F is force, F> is repulsive
force, F< is attractive force.
Although the equation is not in general 0, when we set it equal to 0 we get
some remarkable results, including:
2) P(R)/P(V) = E(ND)/E(D) = F< / F>
According to this, the lower the probability of Rare Events in the universe,
with all else constant, the higher the probability of Dark Energy, or with
the other factors constant the higher the repulsive (expansion) force of the
universe.
Let me first of all say that there is no known way to obtain anything
similar to such a result by standard nonprobability and nonstatistics
techniques used in physics, astrophysics, astronomy, mathematics, etc.
Physicists at the Nobel Prize level have not the faintest idea whether such
relationships hold, being almost always adherents of either the
quantumrelated schools (including the newer
String/Brane/Duality/Loop/Knot/Topological Quantum Field Theory schools) or
the General Relativity or its generalization schools, in all of which
probabilitystatistics is treated as a remote third cousin. What techniques
do they use, if not mainly probabilitystatistics? They use algebraic
topology, algebraic geometry, and field theory techniques, which are
characterized by (1) almost no translatability into even roughly ordinary
English or other natural verbal language, (2) very little intuitive
comprehension even for experts, (3) extreme abstractness rather than a
balance between the abstract and concrete or applied worlds, (4) anomalies
and paradoxes which require almost continual *repair*, *revision*, etc.
Do the nonprobability and nonstatistics physicists come up with any simple
explanatory or causal variables or factors concerning either the microscopic
or the macroscopic universe? Using the above techniques, they almost
always come up with the conclusion that nothing is really probabilistic and
even the *statistical picture* only holds theoretically in an abstract sense
or at the most a thought experiment sense which nobody really carries out.
Their other conclusions are almost always one of 4 types: (1) everything is
discrete and finite (a slight variation is discrete and infinite, where
infinite is roughly being used in the sense that somebody forgot to stop
counting), (2) everything is a field (this barely translates, and it would
take me too long to do it here), (3) everything macroscopic (large) scale is
curvature of space(time), (4) everything is due to string type tension
(roughly speaking, how tight the string on a violin is).
It should not be thought that nonprobability and nonstatistics
mathematicians tend to be that much better than physicists except in what is
called ANALYSIS (real analysis, complex analysis, functional analysis,
nonsmooth analysis, differential equations, integral equations,
integrodifferential equations). That is roughly speaking calculus and what
it becomes and leads to. The algebraists, for example, have tried to
create a *spectacular* interdisciplinary field known as Category Theory, the
work mostly of Saunders MacLane of U. Chicago and Lawvere (I have forgotten
Lawvere's school). By the use of builtin restrictions based on *what most
mathematicians believe,* which is roughly Creative Genius By Voting, they
manage to limit their interdisciplinarity to just a few disciplines at a
time, and never come near to anything like equations (1) or (2). Perhaps I
should mention, to clarify this point, that equations (1) and (2) cross 3
branches of fuzzy multivalued logic, 3 branches of probabilitystatistics, 4
branches of proximitygeometrytopology, mathematical physics, chaos and
fractal theories, etc., with almost identically analogous concepts. There
is not even remotely any such thing in category theory.
What kinds of explanatory or causal variables or factors does
probabilitystatistics in the form that I have used it come up with? I
find that frequencies and probabilities of events of 3 major types have very
different influences: (1) Rare Events/Processes, (2) Fairly Frequent (Fairly
Common) Events/Processes, (3) Very Frequent (Very Common) Events/Processes.
I come up with force and energy relationships based on scalar equations
(essentially ordinary equations rather than tensor and vector and
nonscalarbased equations of the *field* type except for scalar fields). I
come up with Growth across both physics and biology as an explanatory
variable related to fractals and chaos and Golden Ratios and Harmonic Means
and Fibonacci numbers and so on. For example, the solution to the packing
problem with growth is the Golden Ratio angle of seeds and buds in botany
and is closely related to equations (1) and (2) for physics of the universe.
Like Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford in part, I come up with
crossconsciousnessmemoryperceptionradiation (quantum) entanglement
relationships that interpolate between parts of physics and biology and
psychology and distinguish them from the matteroriented parts of physics
and computers. I am *ahead of the pack* in Dark Energy, black holes, phase
changes, superluminal research (superluminal phase and group velocities have
been confirmed, and Professor Nimtz' group at U. Cologne/Koln argues that
they also hold for signal/matter velocities), theories of budding off
universes and cosmology, etc.
I am not *ahead of the pack* in publications, and neither was Beethoven,
Mozart, Vivaldi, Schubert, Haydn, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pierre De Fermat (he
only published one minor work, all his other work being published from
letters by and to his friends and acquaintences, despite coinventing
probability theory with Pascal, modern number theory, etc.), Sir Isaac
Newton (he totally avoided publishing until Leibniz did and his friends
persuaded him to respond to Leibniz), Chopin, Lord Francis Bacon, Socrates.
I recommend David Ruelle's little book Chance and Chaos (sometime in the
1990s, as I recall) to anybody who thinks that Mainstream Peer Reviewers are
usually friendly to NonMainstream authors. The chaos and fractal and
entropy people like Ruelle had quite a time getting into print!
Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
One or More of California State Universities and Community Colleges
