Dear MarkCC. Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article. I like your comment. Very like. ==. You say: Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that we see - and e and π won't change. =.. Now Euler’s equation plays a role in quantum theory. In quantum theory there isn’t constant firm quant particle. The Pi says that a point-particle or string-particle cannot be a quant particle. The Pi says that that quant particle can be a circle and it cannot be a perfect circle. If e and π belong to quant particle then these numbers can mutually change. Doesn’t it mean that Pi ( a circle ) can be changed into sphere? Doesn’t Euler’s equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain this transformation / fluctuation of quant particle ? You say: What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot really exist in the world we live in. =.
But this ‘a fundamental relationship between numbers and shapes on a two-dimensional plane’ can really exist in two-dimensional vacuum. All the best. socratus. ==….. On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, sadovnik socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > Euler's Equation Crackpottery > Feb 18 2013 Published by MarkCC under Bad Math, Bad Physics > > One of my twitter followers sent me an interesting piece of > crackpottery. > I debated whether to do anything with it. The thing about > crackpottery > is that it really needs to have some content. > Total incoherence isn't amusing. This bit is, frankly, right on the > line. > ==. > Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. > a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality. > Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'. > Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics". > ‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo > da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’ > ‘It is God’s equation’, ‘our jewel ‘, ‘ It is a mathematical icon’. > . . . . etc. > b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality. > "it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, > and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’ > ‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’ > ‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’ > ‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process > using physics.‘ > ‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum > physics ?’ > My aim is to understand the reality of nature. > Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality? > To give the answer to this. question I need to bind Euler's equation > with an object – particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle > or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which > says me that the particle must be only a circle . > Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and > therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories. > These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s > movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). > a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves > ( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. > We call such particle - ‘photon’. > From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally > . From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. > In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no > charge). > b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum > ( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis. > In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves > ( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c. > 1. We call such particle - ‘ electron’ and its energy is: E=h*f. > In this way I can understand the reality of nature. > ==. > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik Socratus. > > ==. > Euler's equation says that . It's an amazingly profound equation. > The way that it draws together fundamental concepts is beautiful > and surprising. > But it's not nearly as mysterious as our loonie-toon makes it out to > be. > The natural logarithm-base is deeply embedded in the structure of > numbers, and we've known that, and we've known how it works > for a long time. > What Euler did was show the relationship between e and the > fundamental rotation group of the complex numbers. > There are a couple of ways of restating the definition of that > make the meaning of that relationship clearer. > For example: > > That's an alternative definition of what e is. If we use that, and we > plug into it, we get: > > If you work out that limit, it's -1. Also, if you take values of N, > and plot , , , and , ... on the complex plane, as N gets larger, > the resulting curve gets closer and closer to a semicircle. > An equivalent way of seeing it is that exponents of are rotations > in the complex number plane. The reason that is because if you take > the complex number (1 + 0i), and rotate it by radians, you get -1: . > That's what Euler's equation means. > It's amazing and beautiful, but it's not all that difficult to > understand. > It's not mysterious in the sense that our crackpot friend thinks it > is. > But what really sets me off is the idea that it must have some > meaning in physics. That's silly. > It doesn't matter what the physical laws of the universe are: > the values of and e will not change. > It's like trying to say that there must be something special about > our universe that makes 1 + 1 = 2 - or, conversely, that the fact > that > 1+1=2 means something special about the universe we live in > . These things are facts of numbers, which are independent > of physical reality. Create a universe with different values for all > of the fundamental constants - e and π will be exactly the same. > Create a universe with less matter - e and π will still be the same. > Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds > of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that > we see - and e and π won't change. > What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation > tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers > and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot > really exist in the world we live in. > Beyond that, what he's saying is utter rubbish. > For example: > These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s > movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). > Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves ( as a wheel) > in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. > We call such particle - ‘photon’. > From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally. > From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. > In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no > charge). > > This is utterly meaningless. > It's a jumble of words that pretends to be meaningful and > mathematical, > when in fact it's just a string of syllables strung together > nonsensical ways. > There's a lot that we know about how photons behave. > There's also a lot that we don't know about photons. > This word salad tells us exactly nothing about photons. > In the classic phrase, it's not even wrong: what it says doesn't have > enough meaning to be wrong. What is the "inner impulse" > of a photon according to this crackpot? > We can't know: the term isn't defined. > We are pretty certain that a photon is not a wheel rolling along. > Is that what the crank is saying? We can't be sure. > And that's the problem with this kind of crankery. > As I always say: the very worst math is no math. > This is a perfect example. > He starts with a beautiful mathematical fact. > He uses it to jump to a completely non-mathematical conclusion. > But he writes a couple of mathematical symbols, > to pretend that he's using > math.http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/02/18/eulers-equation-crack... > > ==. > > On Feb 14, 8:46 am, sadovnik socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > > > > > Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. > > =. > > Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote: > > ‘ I understand Euler's Identity, > > and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it, > > there's nothing particularly mystical about it, > > it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric, > > and complex functions are related. > > Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise > > anyone that its various bits are connected. > > It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would > > almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’ > > > Mr. Gary wrote: > > Mathematics is NOT science. > > Science is knowledge of the REAL world. > > Mathematics is an invention of the mind. > > Many aspects of mathematics have found application > > in the real world, but there is no guarantee. > > Any correlation must meet the ultimate test: > > does it explain something about the real world? > > As an electrical engineer I used the generalized > > Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis: > > > exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta). > > > So it works at that particular level in electricity. > > Does it work at other levels, too? > > Logic cannot prove it. > > It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing. > > ====.. > > Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article: > > Euler's Equation and Reality. > > =. > > a) > > Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality. > > Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'. > > Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics". > > ‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo > > da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’ > > ‘It is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’ > > . . . . etc. > > b) > > Euler's Equation as a physical reality. > > "it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, > > and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’ > > ‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’ > > ‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’ > > ‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process > > using physics.‘ > > ‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum > > physics ?’ > > ==. > > My aim is to understand the reality of nature. > > Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality? > > To give the answer to this question I need to bind > > Euler's equation with an object - particle. > > Can it be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle? > > No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that > > the particle must be only a circle . > > Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and > > therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories. > > These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s > > movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). > > a) > > Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves > > ( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. > > We call such particle - ‘photon’. > > From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally. > > From Vacuum > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
