Barry Schwartz 🫖

@farbel@mas.to Einstein came up with Special Relativity around 1905 and 1907. He was celebrated for it and developed General Relativity from it. GR is, of course, mistaken because of that. In 1921, I believe, he was given a Nobel prize, for all of it, but ostensibly for photon theory, which also is disproven, since it is now shown that frequency is due to times of arrival of wavefronts at different relative speeds. So Einstein was no longer free to revisit this old problem. He had been ruined.

It seems to me that the if a ‘photon’ is ‘massless’ then most likely a ‘photon’ is actually a mathematical entity and not a physical one. It is an ‘infinitesimal’. And such things are not actual things, unless you are using Abraham Robinson’s nonstandard analysis. We do not use nonstandard analysis, but the standard kind that is a mathematical analog of action by direct contact. (They do not TELL you this in Calc 101, or ever. It is LOST KNOWLEDGE. Our modern times are a Dark Age)... #physics

I have corrected the Grover’s algorithm code at http://crudfactory.com/PHYSICS.html It now takes a predicate closure to tell it what to search for. Before you actually had to give it the answer to get the answer! This was what the inference engine interpreted an ‘Oracle’ to be. Oracles are practically impossible to understand, to me. They come from Turing theory, don’t they? Well, I’m a functional programmer (though I do often write Ada). #computing #quantumComputing #physics #science #mathematics

@FishFace@ioc.exchange Shor’s algorithm, on the other hand, is impossible to implement at scale in ordinary hardware. Thus it cannot break RSA on an ordinary computer, either hybrid or digital. Therefore I am looking for other methods of factorization based on maxent.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange Why would you give a flying føkk about anything to do with science? You obviously haven't the least bit of interest in it.

@MaddieM4@raphus.social BTW I haven’t worked on hiha lately, because I have been too busy proving that Special Relativity is wrong (and that therefore General Relativity is wrong). The Michelson-Morley effect is due to electromagnetic transmissions moving inertially along with the transmission source (antenna, light bulb, etc.) It couldn’t be simpler. Albert Einstein would have said, “Ach du lieber, of course! I have boo-booed!” But most physicists are actually citation portfolio managers. And I am not one.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange If you want to criticize my Master Field Equation, then CRITICIZE MY MASTER FIELD EQUATION. Do not critize Ritz theory or a diagram. Go to the equation itself and criticize it. Nothing else is worth my responding to.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange I am giving you a chance to stop sea-lioning and instead shut up and read the books. That you have no interest in the derivation of the proton/electron mass ratio from first principles is proof you are currently brain dead. I am giving you a chance to read the books. They are posted at https://crudfactory.com now as well. Next thing you will claim the charge to mass ratio of the electron is not actually derived from first principles in my text, because I am an offensive person.

Speaking as a fonts guy, I find it remarkable just how bad at ordinary geometry physicists seem to have become. Special Relativity was not, I am coming to believe, the correct approach to a mathematics for dealing with the Michelson-Morley results. First the notion that c was a "speed of light" should have been dropped. It should be viewed as a units-defining constant. Second, the notion of "frame of reference" dropped in favor of more abstract use of coordinate systems...

@FishFace@ioc.exchange On the halting problem, is it that you are asking me for a proof of it within my iris number system? I would imagine this is easily done, if only because I have already merged probability theory, maxent theory, and Clifford 4,1,1 geometric algebra into the number system as a tautological whole, along with parts of topology. My app broke, though, and I had to remix it. I have not come back to it, and what I was doing was recomposing my textbook, anyway. Which you wanted me to do.

@boggin@mastodon.scot @Kierkegaanks@beige.party @MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk They were Canadian sentry bullets. Just as effective as German bullets. :)

@FishFace@ioc.exchange You are just a bully. Nothing but a schoolyard bully. And Ritz never invented a theory of emitted WAVES. You wouldn't know one theory from another if your life depended on it. Now, you moronic jackass, I need to get back to making my fast n-th prime algorithm actually work fast on mere Zen 5 hardware. It takes advantage of prime numbers being Shannon optimum signal bases and works fine as long as you don't stall the pipeline.

Back to the grindstone. I have figured out it will be 42 years next autumn since I did my ‘Electromagnetics’ 300-level class in electrical engineering, which would be the last time I used Maxwell’s equations. And here I am having to make them fit in the new theory, which should have been Einstein’s theory in the first place but he had no radio stations in his time so he completely missed this: That radio waves have inertia and move with the transmitter. This solves Michelson-Morley.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange It turns out the only reason the “quantum” computing research community thinks Grover’s algorithm is too slow to use in practice is they believe if they sample the register before (pi/4)sqrt(N) time has passed they will cause a “wave collapse.” But there is no such thing. You can sample the register whenever you want, and look for indications it has converged on an answer. Grover’s algorithm is actually extremely fast. Lightning fast.

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe And here is a key point about mathematics departments working in set theory and continua rather than something like my Iris numbers: THEY HAVE PRACTICALLY ZERO THROUGHPUT. They achieve almost nothing. By contrast, with Iris numbers and an inference engine I blew past the whole list of conjectures in just minutes, and was ready to go to work on NEW PROBLEMS. Sitting around trying to find proofs to problems that are actually already solved by other methods is not worth funding.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange I am sorry I have been away for some while but have been working on the various problems. I have a fully working Grover’s algorithm for AMD Zen 5 here: https://github.com/probabilistic-numerical-algorithms/grover_search/tree/master/Ada-Zen5-IntegerMath It finds an item in an array of a million, on my mini-PC, in about 3 milliseconds. In the same repository is an electronics project for building a “quantum” computer with ordinary op amps. I have run the LTSpice simulation and it converges immediately.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange You obviously are unfamiliar with Grover’s original paper, by the way. It has no quantum theory in it. It is entirely in the language of signal processing and Turing theory. Thus it does not forbid sampling the “quantum” register at any time. Common sense says running the computation for the full (pi/4)sqrt(N) is stupid, if the goal is to RETAIN coherence. So what I am doing is the RIGHT thing, and it is IS Grover’s algorithm.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange The advantage of this over the idiotic system of reduction to set theory, in the hope of producing a supernal creation that sits before the Throne of the Holy Name, is that a tautologically complete system such as mine is guaranteed to be totally free of contradictions and paradox. It is absolutely trustworthy.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange I need help understanding what is supposed to be so interesting about the Halting Problem in this context. Is it that the number system is defined tautologically? That has nothing to do with the Halting Problem. The structure of tautological reasoning is that you MUST choose some of the assertions in it AS POSTULATES. From those postulates, the rest of the system follows. However, WHICH assertions you choose is arbitrary, as long as they are sufficient to prove the rest.

@farbel@mas.to He tried AND FAILED to unify GR with Maxwell’s equations. Because GR was wrong. The new theory has obvious intuitive advantages. Radio waves have to go SOMEWHERE, after all. Einstein simply avoided the issue. And the new theory predicts EXACTLY THE SAME Doppler shift. It merely does so by a mechanical means, rather than saying moving fast causes a new space-time reality to form. We are back in the realm of 19th century physics instead of 20th century metaphysics. Einstein misread c.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange Just because something is a standard term does not make it meaningful. It does not make the term resonant in one’s head. I am in charge here, not you. It is my theory, not yours. You are not my PhD dissertation committee. I do not need your approval. You are a person coming to me for an explanation of my theory. If you want an explanation, you must treat me with respect. You must first understand and accept the proof that Hilbert space is a linear space of propositions, not physics.

I know for a fact, now, that there is no such thing as a photon: https://michelson-morley.crudfactory.com/#_there_is_no_such_thing_as_a_photon Take it or leave it as you wish. I do not try to force belief on anyone, and I am not a professor who controls your grade or whether you get granted a PhD. #physics #science

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe Whenever the professors in my department came into contact with working engineers in the field, it was as if two different worlds had collided: one of actual working engineers, and one of monkeys trained to ask stupid questions and pretend they knew anything about electrical engineering. And this was at a top-notch state research university, Rutgers. At Harvard they were probably even stupider.

Now it works. The details were still a little off, but I must have solved the problems with it unconsciously in my sleep. I am completely serious about having likely solved the problems unconsciously in my sleep. The ‘AI’ people understand NOTHING about intelligence. Nor does almost anybody else. Here is the code: https://gist.github.com/chemoelectric/817e70db66dd4ae75b37fbe90c725a65

@FishFace@ioc.exchange What is more, this is on my Zen 5. I have an even faster parallel GPU that I have not used yet. I just got it out but must upgrade its operating system. All the quantum computer researchers have to do is actually TRY sampling the register early and see if they get correct results. But if they did so and published positive results they would be ostracized by people who react like you are doing. Quantum theory blocks them from doing true empirical research.

Okay, there was no Big Bang. The universe is expanding due to electrostatic repulsion, and the cosmic microwave background is due to all this electromagnetic activity. At some point I will have to organize all this. First, I have to order me up some books about the mathematics. Probably from computer graphics people rather than physicists, so I do not prejudice myself. #physics

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe THAT is my insight. That you can do it with Grover’s algorithm rather than Shor’s algorithm. I let LLMs work out the details for me, but it was my insight to do it with Grover’s algorithm rather than Shor’s. But this is still not something I can MYSELF do. If some outfit uses my algorithm (it is in the Iris volumes) to crack that number, it may get attention. But I cannot make this happen. So I continue searching for that LONG LEVER. Not publishing, which is a short lever.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange The arguments you offer are fallacious. I shall not try to refute them because you have not bothered even trying to make them correct. If what you said were true, then my algorithm is faster than any “quantum” algorithm. It is immensely faster than what you claim Grover’s algorithm is. There is no “quantum” algorithm that can compare with it. And the op amp circuit is faster than “quantum” hardware. So in that case your own argument makes the “quantum” computer industry look stupid.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange It is worth noting that if the size of the search space is limited to the size of an array in memory then its logarithm is bounded by the size of a register and so should be regarded as constant-bounded. But Grover’s algorithm in practice converges so quickly that it hardly matters. The usual analyses are practically worst case instances. I actually had three of the item in the array, which is supposed to be bad for Grover’s algorithm, but it took only two iterations, not 804.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange I know about Ritz now, if that is what you mean. The counterarguments were stupid. It is amazing how stupid physicists can be. They ignored that you have to use wave mechanics.

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe I had changed the problem domain, but this did not matter, because all he was doing was looking for talking points to torpedo the paper. And it would have worked. I was being bullied.

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe You mention Galileo, but the person you ought to mention is Archimedes: Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. Publishing in any journal is using a short lever. I am interested only in long levers. I have come up with an algorithm that can factor the RSA-2048 number. Unfortunately to do that requires computer equipment on the ‘enterprise’ scale. You do NOT need a ‘quantum’ computer or even a systolic array...

@FishFace@ioc.exchange You can want to do something uninteresting, but that doesn't mean I will become interested. Here is something interesting. I have begun a textbook series on The Iris Number System at https://archive.org/details/@chemoelectric with current editions of the first two volumes up. Among other things there is the discovery of a new prime number sieve that is something like exponentially faster than those known beforehand, but of course you will deny my number system had anything to do with this.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange You are using far too many words and far too much of it is jargon such as ‘unitary operator’ that mean absolutely nothing. I have proven that Hilbert space is merely a linear space of logical propositions. The proof is by me and merely written down by the LLM. It is in PHYSICS.html and until you accept the proof you are merely babbling nonsense.

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe I do know I could publish in, say, the Annals of the Louis de Broglie Foundation. But it is not worth my effort. People have published contrary papers there for eons, but what has been the effect? Nada. Nothing. Clauser still gets the Nobel Prize. So I do not bother. E. T. Jaynes knew better. He was a fairly famous physicist. Has the Jaynes-Cummings model named for him. But he debunked Bell’s ‘theorem’ in a keynote lecture at a MaxEnt workshop, not in physics journals.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange And it was the Grover’s algorithm that was broken. You have the fixed version now. I fixed it with help from a different inference engine.

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe What Archimedes got BTW was killed by a Roman soldier. But Archimedes was respected by the Syracusans, at least. I am working on a typesetting system to blow TeX out of the water. I figure the way to a scientist’s heart is through their typesetting system.

As usual, the details were just a LITTLE off and still are. Or else there are lingering problems with macro hygiene.

Add ‘separate chains’ and you have a hashmap.

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe What you call ‘disagreement’ was merely this jackass looking for talking points to torpedo the paper. Which was not written for the journal system, but he showed what would happen if it were. He did not hold back on looking for ad hominem attacks that were complete irrelevancies. And he actually, literally claimed I had assumed symbols on paper were moving faster than light. The whole paper was about symbols and symbolic operations, and he claimed I assumed FTL motion.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange You employ a form of argument known as ‘argumentum ad hominem’. It is a fallacy of distraction. You continue not once to address the Master Field Equation itself. You have no working cerebral cortex. Your little gray cells are devoted entirely to sea-lioning. You ought to get a job as president of a physics society.

By moving the antenna to one focus of the ellipse, where it actually belongs, we should now get a COMBINED Doppler shift. So there are no longer separate transverse and longitudinal shifts, but just the combined shift due to the relative motion of the electromagnetic waves. They move not only outwards from the antenna, but also inertially along with it. It is simple as that. Photon theory, for one, ought to require this. Michelson-Morley is explained.

@FishFace@ioc.exchange What is interesting about the program BTW is not that it took 2 iterations but that it took 3 milliseconds on a mini-PC I bought on Amazon. What is important for a scientist to notice completely bypasses your attention. This is what makes it proof that ‘quantum computing’ is nonsense: it is finding the solution in a number of seconds that is supposed to be impossible. I am not going to do the calculation for you. AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 w/ Radeon 890M

@PaniczGodek@functional.cafe I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering. I was a teaching assistant. I was literally a very junior member of faculty of a major public research university. There was utter disrespect for everything decent and good. And my father-in-law was in medical biochemistry, not physics or mathematics. He fled from the University of Texas Medical Branch.

In short, Special Relativity is wrong. The Michelson-Morley effect is due to electromagnetic transmissions being an inertial material (such as photons, though my guess is it is a continuous material with a mass density, that is emitted in “quanta” due to resonances). Since Special Relativity is wrong, so is General Relativity. This, presumably, is why Einstein never succeeded in finding a Unified Field Theory.

What is more, where coordinate systems are not needed they need not be used at all. But, to get back to Special Relativity, I think instead a more abstract elaboration on galilean relativity, dropping the notion of "observer", would have done the job far better. But now we no longer have Minkowski space and thus no incentive to develop Einstein's theory of gravity. We see it is merely the accident of Special Relativity that gave us this particular field theory.▫️

Now back to bed. It might be that I had the solutions that woke me up.