tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23070348212841163512024-03-13T15:18:36.801+05:30Engineer Ravi's BlogEngineers (Makers) Create Prosperity. Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-50839640421660062022020-12-30T22:47:00.003+05:302020-12-30T22:50:35.714+05:30The Yin-Yang (Tai Chi) Symbol is Inspired by the Full Moon<p>While looking at a reflection of the full moon today on a slightly distorted glass window, I suddenly realized that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang">Yin-Yang</a> symbol is a stylized full moon. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWhxz2vpscUXWT_XRWnXwB2nNlK8HdXlKlfmK_XDaM04bBBK0yyMgIUwTywE9a526eiBagLBbSRoip4T0dRO4i9sHQCTRLtSP3OsqBNx3r-8WtG5edWQJ5GaOSzIXUlTC1bIErUgw5OG8/s621/Yin_yang_rotated.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="621" data-original-width="621" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWhxz2vpscUXWT_XRWnXwB2nNlK8HdXlKlfmK_XDaM04bBBK0yyMgIUwTywE9a526eiBagLBbSRoip4T0dRO4i9sHQCTRLtSP3OsqBNx3r-8WtG5edWQJ5GaOSzIXUlTC1bIErUgw5OG8/w275-h275/Yin_yang_rotated.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><p></p><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_WfqMGVLFyFd8Gy865GJk-QjrW5iUfwFbHEpMFtllTJIfMDLrhQErdNtsedCV_gYQDs-AG96KZH2gWdfuOY0qrfRL1lbauau-kwey6mh6uA5jBe-L4pO1cerlzUPMnpH2HMmy6S5nvNc/s165/full-moon.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="165" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_WfqMGVLFyFd8Gy865GJk-QjrW5iUfwFbHEpMFtllTJIfMDLrhQErdNtsedCV_gYQDs-AG96KZH2gWdfuOY0qrfRL1lbauau-kwey6mh6uA5jBe-L4pO1cerlzUPMnpH2HMmy6S5nvNc/w272-h266/full-moon.jpeg" width="272" /></a></div><br />Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-81130019800173198022020-12-22T00:13:00.015+05:302020-12-30T22:33:56.885+05:30♃♄: 'Great Conjunction' of Jupiter and Saturn <p> </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2020/celebrating-winter-2020-and-the-great-conjunction-northern-hemisphere-6753651837108654.7-law.gif" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="406" src="https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2020/celebrating-winter-2020-and-the-great-conjunction-northern-hemisphere-6753651837108654.7-law.gif" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Google's Doodle to mark the Event</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table> <p></p><p>The 7 'planets': ☉, ☾, ♂, ☿, ♃, ♀, ♄ (in week day order*), and the 12 constellations of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_symbols">Zodiac</a>: ♈, ︎♉, ︎♊, ︎♋, ︎♌, ︎♍, ︎♎, ︎♏, ︎♐, ︎♑, ︎♒, ︎♓ (in order as on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic">Ecliptic</a>) give us a <b><i>natural celestial clock</i></b>. The zodiac signs are the face markers and the visible 'planets' the seven 'hands'. </p><p>*<span style="font-size: x-small;"> I never could figure out why the weekdays are ordered this particular way.</span> <br /></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Ecliptic_path.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="424" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Ecliptic_path.jpg" width="565" /></a></td></tr><tr align="justify"><td class="tr-caption"><i><b>The Celestial Clock:</b></i> As the Earth goes in its orbit around the Sun, the Sun, the Moon and the 5 visible Planets appear to move on the ecliptic (red), through the constellations of the Zodiac. The fact that the orbital planes of all the planets are more or less coincident with the orbital plane of the Earth, confines them to a narrow path across the sky. <br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The sun (or the full moon) moves at a zodiacal sign per month and the moon a full zodiacal circle in 28 days*. It should be no surprise that by learning to read the hands of a clock one can make all sorts of useful predictions about <i>periodic phenomena</i>. <br /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">* Since 365/28 ≈ 13, 13 months and 13 zodiac signs would make more sense. However, Babylonians had problems computing <i>interest payments</i> with 13, and today, too many people fear the number 13, so this 'reform' is not going to happen anytime soon. Even cultures which follow a lunar calendar, like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_calendar#Lunar_months_and_approximate_correspondence">Telugu calendar</a> call the 13th lunar month as simply 'extra' month and don't have a name for it. Again, I don't know why. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span>The other visible planets have more complicated movements, with Saturn
taking the longest to complete a full cycle of the ecliptic/zodiac, and
Mars having the most obviously mysterious movement (Jupiter and Saturn also have the same mysterious or retrograde movement, but take much longer to complete). Accurate measurement
of Mars' movements by Tycho Brahe and the spiritually inspired passion to make sense of these
measurements, and thereby understand the <i>'mind of God'</i>, by Kepler and later Newton yielded classical physics. </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>"</i></span><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">As above, so below". <br /></span></span></i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Kepler-solar-system-1.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="774" data-original-width="704" height="438" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Kepler-solar-system-1.png" width="398" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Kepler's initial solar system model (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum">Mysterium Cosmographicum</a>) based on the 5 perfect solids was inspired by Kepler's deeply held belief that Gott's creation had to be perfect in every way. In this view, the reason there are 5 planets is because there are 5 perfect solids. As per Carl Sagan (<a href="https://youtu.be/R6TdNbiAUnE?t=2048">COSMOS Episode 3</a>), when Kepler finally realized that the orbits of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn could only be fit by <i>ellipses</i> and not perfect circles, Kepler's faith in Gott was shattered. This faith shattering theological problem, along with others, was 'solved' by Leibniz's "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds">Best of all possible worlds</a>" theology. </span><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>My preferred interpretation of astronomical combinations is as useful mnemonics. My basic mnemonic code is:<br /><br />♀: Play, maximize this<br />☉: Food, eat carefully<br />☾: Sleep enough<br />♂: Exercise regularly<br />☿: Work, minimize this<br /><br />♃: Good Judgement, cultivate this <br />♄: Good Luck (<i>'Unknown unknowns'</i>)<br /><br />So, for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction">great conjunction</a>: ♃♄, my mnemonic interpretation is:<br /><i><b>"Good Judgement ultimately meets Good Luck". </b></i><br /><br />Of course, if we <i>forget</i> that these are merely <i>mnemonics</i>, then we move into Astrology. </p><p></p>Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-32943405385402297192020-12-16T00:12:00.006+05:302020-12-16T23:13:09.564+05:30TIL: String Theory is Essentially an Aether Model and a Rehash of W. Thompson's (Kelvin's) Vortex Atom Theory<br />
<table><tbody>
<tr>
</tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.britannica.com/76/138676-050-0DA6DEA9/Baron-Kelvin-William-Thomson-compass-1902.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="604" height="273" src="https://cdn.britannica.com/76/138676-050-0DA6DEA9/Baron-Kelvin-William-Thomson-compass-1902.jpg" width="207" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">W. Thompson (a.k.a Kelvin)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/J.J_Thomson.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="512" height="286" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/J.J_Thomson.jpg" width="183" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(sometimes confused with) </span>J. J. Thompson<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p></p><p>While reading through Edmund Whittaker's famous treatise: '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Theories_of_Aether_and_Electricity">A History of the Theories of the Aether & Electricity': Chapter IX: 'Models of the Aether</a>', I came across this interesting set of paragraphs: <br /></p><blockquote>One of the greatest achievements of Helmholtz was his discovery in 1858 that vortex rings in a perfect fluid are types of motion which possess permanent individuality throughout all changes, and cannot be destroyed, so that they may be regarded as combining and interacting with each other, although each of them consists of a motion pervading the whole of the fluid. <br />...<br />The individuality of vortices suggested a connection with the atomic theory of matter. <br />...<br />The earliest attempts to build up a general physical theory on the basis of vortex motion were made in 1867 by William Thomson (Kelvin), and were suggested by a display of smoke rings which he happened to see in the lecture room of his friend, P. G. Tait, in Edinburgh University. He used vortices in the first place to illustrate the properties of ponderable matter rather than of the luminiferous medium, and pointed out that if the atoms of matter are constituted of vortex rings in a perfect fluid, the conservation of matter may be immediately explained. </blockquote>As the wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_theory_of_the_atom#Legacy">article</a> says:<br /><blockquote>Tait's work especially founded the branch of topology called knot theory, with J. J. Thompson providing some early mathematical advancements. Kelvin's insight continues to inspire new mathematics and has led to persistence of the topic in the history of science.</blockquote>While W. Thompson and J.J. Thompson attempted to model atoms with vortice ring knots, string theorists use the same idea to model the fundamental subatomic 'particles' one level below. <br /><p></p><p>Compare: </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBV3V-I_suCh0aSU3jzzJL8oWN-r_ifa98C27AIPHLmqotankfNUENGJQNYVZ1o_usihDckrVxiBIwjVI1oqPOs8oI0uBfDi4PCIKSwnN5tz0FYREjHsKqYj-BtwJDhXTK5UF3qlRntts/s1156/Screenshot+from+2020-12-15+23-32-06.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="855" data-original-width="1156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBV3V-I_suCh0aSU3jzzJL8oWN-r_ifa98C27AIPHLmqotankfNUENGJQNYVZ1o_usihDckrVxiBIwjVI1oqPOs8oI0uBfDi4PCIKSwnN5tz0FYREjHsKqYj-BtwJDhXTK5UF3qlRntts/s320/Screenshot+from+2020-12-15+23-32-06.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Knot_table.svg">Aether Vortex Knots</a></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> <br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kF4ju6j6aLE" width="320" youtube-src-id="kF4ju6j6aLE"></iframe><br /></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b0wpV50Num4" width="320" youtube-src-id="b0wpV50Num4"></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">In String Theory, the Aether (now relabeled <i>euphemistically</i> as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_state">Quantum Vacuum</a>) is modeled as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam">Quantum Foam</a> consisting of knots of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane">memBRANES.</a></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Compare with Kelvin's 'Vortex Sponge' described below. <br /></span></div><div><p></p><p>Continuing with Whittaker: <br /></p><blockquote>The vortex-atom hypothesis is not the only way in which the theory of vortex motion has been applied to the construction of models of the aether. It was shown in 1880 by W. Thomson that in certain circumstances a mass of fluid can exist in a state in which portions in rotational and irrotational motion are finely mixed together, so that on a large scale the mass is homogeneous, having within any sensible volume an equal amount of vortex motion in all directions. To a fluid having such a type of motion he gave the name <i><b>vortex sponge</b></i>. <br /><br />The <i>greatest advance</i> in the vortex-sponge theory of the aether was made in 1887, when W. Thomson showed that the equation of propagation of <i>laminar disturbances in a vortex sponge</i> is the same as the equation of propagation of luminous vibrations in the aether. </blockquote>Ultimately, however, these attempts to create mechanical models of the aether were abandoned. One of the implicit aims of Whittaker's treatise was to present the history of the ideas leading up to the theory of relativity and the many scientists who contributed to it, thus putting Einstein's contribution in context, thereby humanizing him, and deflating the unwarranted, ardent hero worship of Einstein. Whittaker credits Larmor as one of the first to state that the aether models were all unsatisfactory, and suggesting that the very idea of modeling the aether with mechanical models was probably hopeless: <br /><blockquote>Towards the close of the nineteenth century, chiefly under the influence of Larmor, it came to be generally recognised that the aether is an immaterial medium, <i>sui generis</i>, not composed of identifiable elements having definite locations in absolute space. The older view had supposed <i>‘the pressures and thrusts of the engineer, and the strains and stresses in the material structures by which he transmits them from one place to another, to be the archetype of the processes by which all mechanical effect is transmitted in nature. This doctrine implies an expectation that we may ultimately discover something analogous to structure in the celestial spaces, by means of which the transmission of physical effect will be brought into line with the transmission of mechanical effect by material framework.’</i> Larmor urged on the contrary that <i>‘we should not be tempted towards explaining the simple group of relations which have been found to define the activity of the aether by treating them as mechanical consequences of concealed structure in that medium; we should rather rest satisfied with having attained to their exact dynamical correlation, just as geometry explores or correlates, without explaining, the descriptive and metric properties of space.’</i></blockquote>However, I disagree with Larmor (and Whittaker). With the vast increase in experience with complex emergent phenomena and modeling them mathematically/numerically since 1910, it might be time to give the aether another shot. <br /><br /><p></p></div>Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-23553361761598856492020-10-19T23:09:00.006+05:302021-09-06T14:37:20.783+05:30Beetel M56 Landline Phone: How to Store Numbers for One-Touch Dialing<p> The quickest way to make a call is still with a landline phone. However, to make a 'one-touch' call, the number first has to be stored in one of the 'one-touch' memory locations of the phone. Unfortunately, most of these phones do not come with any user manual, and it can be frustrating to figure out how to store a number for one-touch calling. <br /><br />The following instructions are for the Beetel M56 phone pictured below and, hopefully, <a href="https://www.brightstarcorp.in/consumer-products/">similar models</a>. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidGcWZOFZWjjsrCznEc9kF8HA1qEt2XRAaPLuM7Iqm-yhqkap2GTb_3hZuC3FIp9LE6vpvE5fOzk_i-o4M1T7xAWEnZQVs4gpCEGPQBFoohKdRzq3B0gNcarLm8FgyLMUAIb7c2VT1F3k/s500/beetel-m56-phone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="456" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidGcWZOFZWjjsrCznEc9kF8HA1qEt2XRAaPLuM7Iqm-yhqkap2GTb_3hZuC3FIp9LE6vpvE5fOzk_i-o4M1T7xAWEnZQVs4gpCEGPQBFoohKdRzq3B0gNcarLm8FgyLMUAIb7c2VT1F3k/s320/beetel-m56-phone.jpg" width="292" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><p>To store a number in one of the three one-touch locations: M1/M2/M3: <br /></p><p></p><p>1. Type in the number on the keypad. <br />2. Press the 'PH. BOOK' button. <span style="font-size: small;">(This is the counter-intuitive step. One would guess that, to store a number, you should press the 'STORE' button. ) </span><br />3. Press one of the M1/M2/M3 buttons to pick the memory location in which to store. <br />4. If the memory location is empty, you are done. <br />5. Otherwise, press the same button (M1/M2/M3) again to OVERWRITE the location. <br /><br />To dial the number, you just press M1/M2/M3. <br /><br />If more quick-dial numbers need to be stored, the 10 keypad numbers, [0-9] can be used, (the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneword">keypad letters can serve as a mnemonic guide)</a>. To store numbers in these, the procedure is: <br /><br />1. Type in the number on the keypad. <br />2. Press the 'PH. BOOK' button. <br />3. Press the 'STORE' button. <br />4. Press one of the keypad buttons: 0-9. <br />5. If the corresponding memory location is empty, you are done. <br />6. Otherwise, press the 'STORE' button again to OVERWRITE the location. <br /><br />To dial the number, you press 'STORE' followed by the keypad number location. <br /><br /></p><br />Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-40713082596350266252020-08-27T14:27:00.001+05:302020-08-27T14:27:58.313+05:30A Better Way to Implement Affirmative Action: Competency Exams Instead of Competitive Exams will Automatically Ensure Proportionate Reservation<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>A Better Way to Implement Affirmative Action: Competency Exams Instead of Competitive Exams will Automatically Ensure Proportionate Reservation</title>
<!-- 2020-08-27 Thu 14:20 -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
</head>
<body>
<!-- <h1 class="title">A Better Way to Implement Affirmative Action: Competency Exams Instead of Competitive Exams will Automatically Ensure Proportionate Reservation</h1> -->
<p>
The following article that came in the news today reminded me once again of this old idea.
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-hearing-arguments-on-referring-challenge-to-quota-to-larger-bench/articleshow/77774509.cms">Maharashtra government wants reservations ceiling raised beyond 50%</a>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
The Maharashtra government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the 50% ceiling on reservation fixed nearly 30 years ago by a nine-judge SC bench required reconsideration by an 11-judge bench as 70-80% of the population belonged to backward classes and it would be unfair to deny them proportionate reservation.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
The current system in India for selecting people from the university/college level onwards is to conduct intense, extremely stressful competitive exams, rank all the participants and allow them choice of branch or job based on their rank. But, the total positions are partitioned beforehand based on caste. Needless to say, this causes a huge amount of <i>social friction</i>, immense amounts of <i>stress</i> and many cases of burnout and <i>suicides</i>.
</p>
<p>
An <i>immensely</i> better way to implement affirmative action is to have <i><b>competency exams</b></i> instead of <i><b>competitive exams</b></i>. A competency exam is designed to ensure that a person who achieves more than the passing score, is very likely to have the necessary background preparation or competency required for the position being applied for.
</p>
<p>
Since there will <i>always be</i> <i><b>far more competent candidates than the positions available</b></i>, <i>ALL</i> passing candidates are admitted into a pool of eligible candidates and from this pool, candidates are selected at <i><b>RANDOM</b></i>.
</p>
<p>
The <i><b>laws of statistics</b></i>, in particular the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers">law of large numbers</a>, will <i><b>automatically</b></i> ensure that candidates are selected <i><b>proportionate</b></i> to their caste representation in the general population. The same system will also automatically ensure that people belonging to marginalized groups other than caste are also proportionately represented, such as gender, wealth/family income, etc. Also, all the social friction and needless stress is eliminated.
</p>
</body>
</html>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-71918090805429645252020-07-23T23:02:00.000+05:302020-07-27T15:51:49.129+05:30A Minimal Python Implementation of Conway's Game of Life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I was incredulous that the simple rules of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life">John Conway's Game of Life</a> could result in such complex behavior, providing many analogies to Biology, Physics and Economics. So, I wanted to check it for myself. Unfortunately, most code available online has a lot of <a href="https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/conways-game-life-python-implementation/">bells and whistles</a> that obscure the simplicity of Conway's rules. So, here is a minimal implementation in Python. Being small, it is easy to verify that the program does implement Conway's rules faithfully, and introduces nothing else.<br />
<br /></div>
Download link: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E_7Amf8F1pXm7T78py1-uYj5FuklKa2U/view?usp=sharing">game-of-life-minimal.py</a>
<pre class="src src-python"><span style="color: #FFA500;">import</span> numpy <span style="color: #FFA500;">as</span> np
<span style="color: #FFA500;">from</span> scipy <span style="color: #FFA500;">import</span> ndimage
<span style="color: #FFA500;">import</span> matplotlib.pyplot <span style="color: #FFA500;">as</span> plt
<span style="color: #a0522d;">n</span> = 100 <span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">grid size</span>
<span style="color: #a0522d;">t</span> = 1/24. <span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">simulation update interval in seconds</span>
<span style="color: #a0522d;">pT</span> = 0.1 <span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">percentage of cells initialized to True/on</span>
<span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">randomly initialize a boolean grid, with more off cells than on</span>
<span style="color: #a0522d;">G</span> = np.random.<span style="color: #0000FF;">choice</span>([<span style="color: #FFA500;">True</span>, <span style="color: #FFA500;">False</span>],n*n,p=[pT, 1-pT]).<span style="color: #0000FF;">reshape</span>(n, n)
<span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">neighbor weights for convolution</span>
<span style="color: #a0522d;">W</span> = np.<span style="color: #0000FF;">array</span>([[1,1,1],
[1,0,1],
[1,1,1]], dtype=np.<span style="color: #8b2252;">uint8</span>)
<span style="color: #a0522d;">fig</span> = plt.<span style="color: #0000FF;">figure</span>()
<span style="color: #FFA500;">while</span>(<span style="color: #FFA500;">True</span>):
plt.<span style="color: #0000FF;">matshow</span>(G, fig.number)
<span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">find the Live Neighbors around each cell using convolution</span>
<span style="color: #a0522d;">LN</span> = ndimage.<span style="color: #0000FF;">convolve</span>(G.<span style="color: #0000FF;">view</span>(np.<span style="color: #8b2252;">uint8</span>), W, mode=<span style="color: #8b2252;">'wrap'</span>)
<span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">update grid based on Conway's rules using boolean operations</span>
<span style="color: #32CD32;"># </span><span style="color: #32CD32;">G = G*((LN==2)+(LN==3)) + np.invert(G)*(LN==3)</span>
<span style="color: #a0522d;">G</span> = G*(LN==2) + (LN==3)
plt.<span style="color: #0000FF;">pause</span>(t)
plt.<span style="color: #0000FF;">cla</span>()
</pre>
</div>
A simple experiment that can immediately be carried out, is to see what happens when Conway's rules are ever so slightly tweaked. Say what happens if the 'overpopulation limit', 3 is changed to 4, or the 'reproduction number' is adjusted. Depending on your worldview/weltbild, the results will remind you either of '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">Intelligent design</a>' or the '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle">Anthropic principle</a>'.
</div>
<br/>
<h3>Verifying Correctness</h3>
<p>
As per Wikipedia, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Rules">rules of Conway's Game of Life</a> are:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
At each step in time, the following transitions occur:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if by <i>underpopulation</i>.
</li>
<li>Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
</li>
<li>Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by <i>overpopulation</i>.
</li>
<li>Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by <i>reproduction</i>.
</li>
</ol>
<p>
These rules, which compare the behavior of the automaton to real life, can be condensed into the following:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Any live cell with two or three live neighbours survives.
</li>
<li>Any dead cell with three live neighbours becomes a live cell.
</li>
<li>All other live cells die in the next generation. Similarly, all other dead cells stay dead.
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>
The above rules translated into pseudocode:
</p>
<pre class="src src-python">
<span style="color: #0000FF;">if</span> C==1 <span style="color: #0000FF;">AND</span> ((LN==2) <span style="color: #0000FF;">OR</span> (LN==3)):
<span style="color: #a0522d;">C'</span> := 1
<span style="color: #0000FF;">else if</span> C==0 <span style="color: #0000FF;">AND</span> (LN==3):
<span style="color: #a0522d;">C'</span> := 1
<span style="color: #0000FF;">else</span>:
<span style="color: #a0522d;">C'</span> := 0
</pre>
<p>
are equivalent to the Boolean expression:
</p>
<div class="ORg-src-container">
<pre class="src src-python">
<span style="color: #a0522d;">C'</span> := C <span style="color: #0000FF;">AND</span> ((LN==2) <span style="color: #0000FF;">OR</span> (LN==3)) <span style="color: #0000FF;">OR</span> (<span style="color: #0000FF;">NOT</span>(C) <span style="color: #0000FF;">AND</span> (LN==3))
</pre>
</div>
<p>
or equivalently (using * for <span style="color: #0000FF;">AND</span> and + for <span style="color: #0000FF;">OR</span>)
</p>
<pre class="src src-python">
<span style="color: #a0522d;">C'</span> := C * ((LN==2) + (LN==3)) + (<span style="color: #0000FF;">NOT</span>(C) * (LN==3))
</pre>
<p>
simplifying:
</p>
<pre class="src src-python">
<span style="color: #a0522d;">C'</span> := C*(LN==2) + C*(LN==3) + <span style="color: #0000FF;">NOT</span>(C)*(LN==3)
:= C*(LN==2) + (LN==3)*(C + <span style="color: #0000FF;">NOT</span>(C))
:= C*(LN==2) + (LN==3) <span style="color: #32CD32;">∵ (C OR NOT(C)) is always True.</span>
</pre>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-45567119982617504902020-05-20T15:27:00.001+05:302020-12-14T23:40:38.503+05:30#Automation: Sending Signals Over Wires. <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator">Crystal oscillators</a> are a piece of automation that are ubiquitous but barely noticed. They are the basis of both computers and the internet. In computers they play a role analogous to the <i>prime mover</i> in a factory, and in networking/communications they do the code keying-in at magically fantastic speeds. <br />
<br />
When telegraphy was invented, signals over wires were manually keyed in with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_key">telegraph keys</a>, with an average speed of about 150 characters/minute. No wonder telegrams cost so much, which in turn spawned a new language form: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_style">telegraphese</a>. </div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/J38TelegraphKey.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/J38TelegraphKey.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A typical telegraph key.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today the internet depends on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_interface_controller">network interface controllers</a> which use crystal oscillators to do the keying in, at about <i>750 million characters</i>/minute (100 Mbits/sec).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/ForeRunnerLE_25_ATM_Network_Interface_(1).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/ForeRunnerLE_25_ATM_Network_Interface_(1).jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The metallic cubical box, to the left of the large chip houses the crystal oscillator on this 25 Mbits/sec networking card.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Crystal_oscillator_internals.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="747" data-original-width="800" height="298" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Crystal_oscillator_internals.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The metallic box opened, showing the quartz crystal slice. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The following video explains how a typical quartz watch works in an easy to understand way:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_2By2ane2I4" width="320" youtube-src-id="_2By2ane2I4"></iframe></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>
</div>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-40626621231313314532020-04-08T23:22:00.000+05:302020-04-08T23:57:36.790+05:30Mathjax Test<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>\(\LaTeX\) and MathJax test</title>
<!-- 2020-04-08 Wed 23:17 -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="generator" content="Org-mode" />
<meta name="author" content="engineer" />
<style type="text/css">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/
.title { text-align: center; }
.todo { font-family: monospace; color: red; }
.done { color: green; }
.tag { background-color: #eee; font-family: monospace;
padding: 2px; font-size: 80%; font-weight: normal; }
.timestamp { color: #bebebe; }
.timestamp-kwd { color: #5f9ea0; }
.right { margin-left: auto; margin-right: 0px; text-align: right; }
.left { margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto; text-align: left; }
.center { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; }
.underline { text-decoration: underline; }
#postamble p, #preamble p { font-size: 90%; margin: .2em; }
p.verse { margin-left: 3%; }
pre {
border: 1px solid #ccc;
box-shadow: 3px 3px 3px #eee;
padding: 8pt;
font-family: monospace;
overflow: auto;
margin: 1.2em;
}
pre.src {
position: relative;
overflow: visible;
padding-top: 1.2em;
}
pre.src:before {
display: none;
position: absolute;
background-color: white;
top: -10px;
right: 10px;
padding: 3px;
border: 1px solid black;
}
pre.src:hover:before { display: inline;}
pre.src-sh:before { content: 'sh'; }
pre.src-bash:before { content: 'sh'; }
pre.src-emacs-lisp:before { content: 'Emacs Lisp'; }
pre.src-R:before { content: 'R'; }
pre.src-perl:before { content: 'Perl'; }
pre.src-java:before { content: 'Java'; }
pre.src-sql:before { content: 'SQL'; }
table { border-collapse:collapse; }
caption.t-above { caption-side: top; }
caption.t-bottom { caption-side: bottom; }
td, th { vertical-align:top; }
th.right { text-align: center; }
th.left { text-align: center; }
th.center { text-align: center; }
td.right { text-align: right; }
td.left { text-align: left; }
td.center { text-align: center; }
dt { font-weight: bold; }
.footpara:nth-child(2) { display: inline; }
.footpara { display: block; }
.footdef { margin-bottom: 1em; }
.figure { padding: 1em; }
.figure p { text-align: center; }
.inlinetask {
padding: 10px;
border: 2px solid gray;
margin: 10px;
background: #ffffcc;
}
#org-div-home-and-up
{ text-align: right; font-size: 70%; white-space: nowrap; }
textarea { overflow-x: auto; }
.linenr { font-size: smaller }
.code-highlighted { background-color: #ffff00; }
.org-info-js_info-navigation { border-style: none; }
#org-info-js_console-label
{ font-size: 10px; font-weight: bold; white-space: nowrap; }
.org-info-js_search-highlight
{ background-color: #ffff00; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; }
/*]]>*/-->
</style>
<script type="text/javascript">
/*
@licstart The following is the entire license notice for the
JavaScript code in this tag.
Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
The JavaScript code in this tag is free software: you can
redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU
General Public License (GNU GPL) as published by the Free Software
Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version. The code is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY;
without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU GPL for more details.
As additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7, you
may distribute non-source (e.g., minimized or compacted) forms of
that code without the copy of the GNU GPL normally required by
section 4, provided you include this license notice and a URL
through which recipients can access the Corresponding Source.
@licend The above is the entire license notice
for the JavaScript code in this tag.
*/
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/
function CodeHighlightOn(elem, id)
{
var target = document.getElementById(id);
if(null != target) {
elem.cacheClassElem = elem.className;
elem.cacheClassTarget = target.className;
target.className = "code-highlighted";
elem.className = "code-highlighted";
}
}
function CodeHighlightOff(elem, id)
{
var target = document.getElementById(id);
if(elem.cacheClassElem)
elem.className = elem.cacheClassElem;
if(elem.cacheClassTarget)
target.className = elem.cacheClassTarget;
}
/*]]>*///-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://orgmode.org/mathjax/MathJax.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/
MathJax.Hub.Config({
// Only one of the two following lines, depending on user settings
// First allows browser-native MathML display, second forces HTML/CSS
// config: ["MMLorHTML.js"], jax: ["input/TeX"],
jax: ["input/TeX", "output/HTML-CSS"],
extensions: ["tex2jax.js","TeX/AMSmath.js","TeX/AMSsymbols.js",
"TeX/noUndefined.js"],
tex2jax: {
inlineMath: [ ["\\(","\\)"] ],
displayMath: [ ['$$','$$'], ["\\[","\\]"], ["\\begin{displaymath}","\\end{displaymath}"] ],
skipTags: ["script","noscript","style","textarea","pre","code"],
ignoreClass: "tex2jax_ignore",
processEscapes: false,
processEnvironments: true,
preview: "TeX"
},
showProcessingMessages: true,
displayAlign: "left",
displayIndent: "5em",
"HTML-CSS": {
scale: 100,
availableFonts: ["STIX","TeX"],
preferredFont: "TeX",
webFont: "TeX",
imageFont: "TeX",
showMathMenu: true,
},
MMLorHTML: {
prefer: {
MSIE: "MML",
Firefox: "MML",
Opera: "HTML",
other: "HTML"
}
}
});
/*]]>*///-->
</script>
</head>
<body>
<div id="content">
<h1 class="title">\(\LaTeX\) and MathJax test</h1>
<p>
A test of \(\LaTeX\) export to MathJax.
</p>
<p>
<b>Maxwell-Heaviside equations:</b>
</p>
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{E} &= \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} & \boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{B} &= 0 \\
\boldsymbol{\nabla} \times \boldsymbol{E} &= -\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{B}}{\partial t} & c^2 \boldsymbol{\nabla} \times \boldsymbol{B} &= \frac{\boldsymbol{j}}{\epsilon_0} + \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{E}}{\partial t} \\
\end{aligned}
<p>
<b>Their solutions:</b>
</p>
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{E} &= -\boldsymbol{\nabla} \phi - \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{A}}{\partial t} \\
\boldsymbol{B} &= \boldsymbol{\nabla} \times \boldsymbol{A} \\
\end{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\phi(1,t) &= \int\frac{\rho(2,t-r_{12}/c)}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r_{12}}\,dV_2 \\
\boldsymbol{A}(1,t) &= \int\frac{\boldsymbol{j}(2,t-r_{12}/c)}{4\pi\epsilon_0 c^2r_{12}}\,dV_2
\end{aligned}
<p>
Maxwell would have approved of these, BUT not Heaviside who thought it was <i>"best to murder the whole lot"</i>, i.e. the scalar and vector potentials (\(\phi\), \(\boldsymbol{A}\)).
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-32174945515746193412020-02-12T17:32:00.000+05:302020-02-15T11:31:35.003+05:30A Heretic's Guide to Modern Physics: Theories and Miracles<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>A Heretic's Guide to Modern Physics: Theories and Miracles</title>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<style type="text/css">
p {
text-align:justify;
}
</style>
<body>
<p>
This article by <a href="http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=W_A_Scott_Murray">W. A. Scott Murray</a> was originally published in the <a href="https://www.americanradiohistory.com/UK/Wireless-World/80s/Wireless-World-1982-06.pdf">June 1982 issue (pg. 80)</a> of <a href="https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Wireless_World_Magazine.htm">Wireless World</a>.
</p>
<p style="font-size:10px">
Link to plain html file: <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1krHgIICZGId0VUuo6yGwZt7OOZr2YQhu">Theories-and-Miracles--Scott-Murray-June-1982.html</a>. This is still the best way to read a text article (zooming in/out re-typesets the entire article). Download the file and open in any browser to read.
</p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p style="font-size:12px">
The phenomenon of the radiation of light and radio energy is a "miracle" — a well-established physical occurrence for which science can offer no physical explanation. Modern technology uses these radiations and others every day without understanding them. Progress toward understanding such things effectively came to a halt in about 1920, after which fundamental concepts in physics began to become confused and mutually contradictory. This lack of progress may have been due to one of two possible factors. Either Nature is too mysterious for us to understand, so that it is not worth the bother of trying, or our fundamental thinking may have taken a wrong turning 50 years ago. There are historical precedents both for such errors and for conservative pressures against correcting them. Nevertheless, enough material now exists to warrant a major re-think, based on a return to the earlier philosophy of realism in physical science which reflects the underlying simplicity of Nature.
</p>
<p>
Many thousands of professional radio engineers can design television transmitters, and almost anyone can build a radio receiver, but there is nobody who can explain in a plausible and watertight way how radio energy comes to be transferred from the Crystal Palace transmitting tower to the H-aerial on the roof of my house. This transfer of energy — the radiation process — is miraculous, if we define a "miracle" as a physical occurrence for which we can offer no physical explanation. (I'll just say that again: a miracle is <i>a physical occurrence for which we can offer no physical explanation</i>). It is just over 100 years since James Clerk Maxwell gave us a good working description of what happens — the equivalent of saying that if you lie in hot sunshine you will get sunburned — but he did not explain the radiation phenomenon; and nobody has explained it since.
</p>
<p>
Here, then, is a fine example of modern technology in action. We know how to build a radio transmitter and we can calculate very accurately what will happen when we switch it on. Something will travel from transmitter to receiver at the speed of light, and we shall be able to detect its arrival and make whatever use of it we please for our convenience and entertainment. But except that it may consist of physical energy, or at least that it may carry physical energy with it, <i>we have no idea</i> what it is that does the travelling.
</p>
<p>
Confronted with this true statement of our human ignorance, ninety-nine people out of every hundred will probably say they do not care. The radio is for listening to, not wondering about; wondering about such things is a job for scientists. But now we come to the crunch, for I have to make a similar report to you about the attitudes of the scientists themselves. Nine out of every ten physicists today would also say they didn't care — they are far too busy to be bothered with such abstract, impractical matters. On the other hand, the one physicist in ten who does care about such things is likely to be seriously worried.
</p>
<p>
If one were to identify and question this minority, their consensus view would almost certainly be that vast gaps exist in our knowledge of physical phenomena that take place not only in complex laboratories and remote galaxies, but also "right on our doorstep" — of which domestic radio radiation and sunlight are commonplace examples. From a purist point of view it is a pity that our progress in understanding such things should have come to a grinding halt in about 1920. (The fundamental basis for atomic energy was laid by Einstein in 1907, and that for the laser in 1917.) Of the new concepts which have arisen in physics since that time very few, if any, have dealt credibly with fundamental matters. I include in this category the major speculative adventure of the 1930s, which failed amid general confusion and is one of the main topics to be examined here.
</p>
<p>
There would seem to be little doubt that progress in fundamental physics, as opposed to technology, has not kept pace with contemporary progress in other branches of science during the past fifty years or so. It should have done, in view of the number of physicists at work all over the world, but it hasn't. Every now and then, it is true, some new hypothesis seems locally promising and is hailed as a triumph; but when one seeks to apply it elsewhere it does not fit, and it leads one sooner or later to a logical impasse. Nowadays, for reasons that we will explore in due course, we no longer reject a failed hypothesis as we should, but instead we tend to retain it on the pragmatic basis that it may prove more useful to have wrong concepts than no concepts at all. From that point it is very easy to forget that they are wrong concepts — scientifically disproved — and instead to go on building upon them as if they were true and valid: an elementary mistake, surely, but one which we go on making.
</p>
<p>
There are countless examples of this trouble in modern physics, so that it is the rule rather than the exception. The cumulative effect of such errors has been confusion on a majestic scale. We are left with a tangle of separate, uncoordinated, and very often mutually-exclusive concepts. "Sometimes light behaves as waves, sometimes as particles", it is said, yet the concepts of electromagnetic light-waves and particles (photons) are mutually exclusive. Our picture of the physical world has become less clear, rather than more clear, with the passing years. This, I submit, is evidence of a lack of progress. In the 1980s we have to admit that we have not yet found answers to some simple but important questions which were asked as long ago as 1920, and even earlier.
</p>
<p>
Now when you have been searching diligently for something for fifty or sixty years and failed to find it, it may be sensible to pause and consider whether there might not be some reason for the failure. In our present case two possibilities are more likely than others: either the thing we are looking for doesn't exist, so that we are mistaken in looking for it, or we are looking for it with the wrong kind of spectacles. Let us examine these two possibilities in turn.
</p>
<p>
There is a doctrine of modern physics, whose origins we will identify later and criticise, which says that scientific theories are limited in their application to providing descriptions of physical events, and are intrinsically incapable (in an absolute sense) of explaining them. According to this doctrine, questions of the nature "what happens?" may give rise to descriptive answers — in numerical detail, of course — and are legitimate questions, whereas questions of the type "how?" or "why?" cannot be answered by science and are therefore <i>improper</i> questions which should not be asked.
</p>
<p>
To take an example, experiments show convincingly that all negative electrons are identical in their behaviour — "indistinguishable" in the approved jargon — and that short of its complete annihilation the physical properties of an electron never vary in any way; one never comes across bigger or smaller electrons, or parts of an electron. Now: to the question "Why is the structure of an electron so phenomenally stable?", current doctrine returns the answer that the mass of the electron is so small that its structure must be quantum-indeterminate, which means that the question of its mechanical stability does not arise. That question is a non-question, an irrelevance that does not <i>require</i> an answer.
</p>
<p>
For convenience of reference I propose to call this the Doctrine of Haziness: "Microphysical entities are hazy, and one should not ask old-fashioned questions about them". Personally I am very suspicious indeed of this doctrine. It seems to be just a little too flexible in its application to be intellectually honest. For instance, in another example,
</p>
<p>
<i>Question</i>: Why are the wavelengths of the spectrum lines from a gas in a discharge tube so precisely defined? <br>
<i>Answer</i>: Because the permitted energies that electrons can assume within the atoms are precisely quantized. <br><br>
<i>Question</i>: Oh — I thought it was the electron's angular momentum that was quantized? <br>
<i>Answer</i>: That is also true. Both energy and angular momentum are precisely quantized. <br><br>
<i>Question</i>: If that is so, then the position of an atomic electron must be precisely determined. How far is it from the nucleus? <br>
<i>Answer</i>: We cannot tell you that, because of the Uncertainty Principle of Professor Heisenberg. We can only tell you where you are most likely to find it. <br><br>
<i>Question</i>: So its energy and momentum are in fact not precisely determined? <br>
<i>Answer</i>: That is so; they may take on any values within Heisenberg's limits. <br><br>
<i>Question</i>: Then why are the spectral wavelengths, which you now say are dependent on indeterminate energy and momentum, themselves precisely defined? <br>
<i>Answer</i>: Your questions presuppose that the atom has a mechanical structure. Our modern theory is a mathematical theory, not a mechanical theory. Hence the questions you ask are meaningless. <br><br>
<i>Question</i>: But I thought you said the mathematical theory dealt with energy and angular momentum. Are these not ordinary mechanical quantities? <br>
<i>Answer</i>: You are wasting my time. It is a matter of statistics. Look up the theory in any textbook. <br>
</p>
<p>
You will have noticed the testiness of tone which arises characteristically at that point in the discussion. We shall look into that little "matter of statistics" and form conclusions about it which are not entirely conventional. As I said earlier, the doctrine of haziness seems a shade too convenient to be true. It enables its adherents to wriggle out of logical impasses by sheltering in mysticism, a particular mysticism which as we shall see is linked directly to an unexpected and, as I shall assert, erroneous and quite unjustified denial of the Law of Causation. These are deep waters which can bear being looked into. The doctrine of haziness also offers comfort to the lazy physicist (or shall we say, the too-busy physicist?). Current theories suggest that Nature may be stranger than our forbears thought, for human understanding. If so, we should not be surprised that we have made so little progress recently. (I need hardly emphasize that if this defeatist attitude should become held generally — and it seems to be gaining ground — it must spell the end of the philosophical road for physical science.)
</p>
<p>
The other possible explanation for our failure to achieve that steadily-improving understanding of the working of the physical world which human instinct (<i>and</i> previous experience in physics, <i>and</i> current experience in other disciplines) suggests we ought to be achieving, is that there is something there to see but that we have been looking for it with the wrong spectacles. We cannot see radio waves or electrons with the naked eye, of course, but we infer their existence from the readings of our instruments. Our "electron spectacles" are not the instruments we use, but <i>the scientific theories</i> with and against which we interpret our observations. A current theory is an expression of a contemporary attitude of mind.
</p>
<p>
We can be, and historically often have been badly misled by our theories. To take a classically familiar example, in times past the motion of the planets across the night sky could be <i>described</i> to any desired degree of accuracy on the basis of the Earth being the dynamic centre of the universe. It could be <i>explained</i> — that is, accounted for rationally with a minimum of underlying assumption — much more readily by means of a Sun-centred theory. From experience we have come to believe that the more closely a scientific theory reflects the mechanism of the physical world, the simpler will its concepts appear and the wider will be its field of application. In this example, planetary astronomy had been bogged down for a thousand years under the geocentric theory, and progress had virtually stopped. Further advance depended on the rejection or overthrow of the geocentric theory and its replacement by the alternative which is still in use today. And what an advance that proved to be! One of its earliest consequences was Newton's law of universal gravitation.
</p>
<p>
We may perhaps read that experience across into the area of fundamental physics where our recent progress seems to have been surprisingly, and disappointingly, slow. Slow progress does not prove that anything is wrong with our current theories and doctrines, but it raises that possibility. It is possible that some of our fundamental thinking may have been on the wrong lines (and by wrong lines I mean lines which do not accord with those of physical Nature). If so, then much of the elaborate, self-generating and <i>untested</i> structure of mathematico-physical theory that has been built up during the past fifty years may turn out in the end, to have been irrelevant, if not actually misleading. I am suggesting that the time is now ripe for a critical review of modern physical theory, much of which has not been of a type to inspire confidence.
</p>
<p>
There was for many years a powerful body of opinion which in the teeth of all the evidence for the heliocentric theory maintained that the Earth, as the abode of Man, <i>must</i> be the centre of the physical universe. To such opinion no factual proof was convincing: one can neither prove nor disprove an Article of Faith. Thus the ancient polarisation between churchman and scientist tended to continue. Yet it is a feature of modern physics, unexpected but explainable, that in its philosophy it is more akin to a religion than to a classical science. Mysticism has returned in a big way. It seems that in the fundamentals area we are dealing with matters of faith and doctrine, dogma and heresy, so that formal experimental proofs are no more to be expected in fundamental physics nowadays than in a theology. There may even be resentment against anyone who presumes to question the One True Faith; but this time the conservative Establishment is likely to be found within the ranks of science itself.
</p>
<p>
The significance of that remark will become clear when I declare my main thesis, which is that physical science made a sequence of errors during the 1930s from which it has never recovered. I am in good company in this, since that view was to a greater or lesser extent shared from the early days of Quantum Theory by Einstein, Planck, von Laue, and Schrodinger, all of whom were central in the original arguments. Theirs was a "realistic" view, which in the climate of the times did not prevail against the novel, mystical doctrines of Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, and others. The last-mentioned became established and remain formally accepted today. But attitudes may now be changing after fifty years: at any rate I hope so. I propose to identify some of the errors in the 1930's doctrines, show that they were indeed errors, and show how they came about. To my physicist colleagues I say, If your faith is not strong enough to withstand such criticism you should read no further, for I have no wish to cause you offence. To the layman I say, Here for your entertainment is a real-life, up-to-date version of Hans Andersen's famous story of the King's New Clothes.
</p>
<p>
To sum this up: every scientific theory is somebody's particular pet. Rather than attack the established theories of physics — which would force their doting owners to rush to their defence, and lead to quite unnecessary altercations — I propose to examine a selection of miracles. A miracle, you will remember, is a physical occurrence for which we can offer no physical explanation. There are plenty of miracles to choose from, so we can afford to be selective. We shall find that our miracles have a certain hallmark about them, from which we can deduce not understanding, perhaps, but clues towards understanding. The nature of current theories will become clearer, so that we shall discover when it is safe — philosophically safe to use these theories, and when dangerous. When fully developed this technique should enable us to judge the <i>physical credibility</i> of any new hypothesis, providing us with a critical faculty which in recent times has been woefully lacking.
</p>
<p>
The first miracle we shall examine will be the one I mentioned at the opening, namely the mechanism of the transmission of light energy through empty space. Our first philosophical milestone will be consequential and closely related to it: an understanding of the true function of "waves" in modern physics. We shall have to go back some 200 years in scientific history to find a suitable starting point. Our route will take us from Newton to Heisenberg: via electromagnetic theory and the acute distress it suffered when denied an aether; via practicable photons, quantization, non-existent matter-waves, and a <i>restricted</i> Principle of Indeterminacy; and ultimately to an affirmation that the Law of Causation is obeyed in physics not only statistically but in all circumstances. In each of these areas I will present ideas for your consideration which although far removed from conventional scientific doctrine are yet strictly in accord with the findings of experiment. These ideas will add up eventually to a self-consistent whole, but not yet, I regret, to a fully-developed Theory.
</p>
<p>
All that I have to say is very simple, and indeed I hope to show how simple Nature really is when the dust of man-made confusion has been swept away. William of Occam said that fundamental assumptions should not be multiplied unnecessarily, and I am a follower of William of Occam.
</p>
</body>
</html>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-76096643978695841952020-02-08T16:00:00.000+05:302020-02-08T16:00:08.010+05:30On Teaching Mathematics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.</span> ― <i><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arnold">Vladimir Igorevich Arnold</a></span></i></blockquote>
<br />
That insightful opening line of Vladimir Arnold's essay: <a href="https://www.uni-muenster.de/Physik.TP/~munsteg/arnold.html">On Teaching Mathematics</a>, is the attitude towards mathematics that has motivated me the most to learn it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-46985083324055155752019-04-06T12:19:00.000+05:302019-04-08T16:30:12.636+05:30Gott ist der große Ingenieur.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTTGKoNJzgfEJzweH7qltlMWjtDlday15CNbN0qf-tniOhcYvQhDtAjLXaDht7JUpxd8LmAYEJGpdf-8DU-UmFMiPAp5QTNeOZE0Mpd1A9f2ztUc8yh-mm6hmwe2V7ESktYLDJsHHsyyI/s1600/The+Ancient+of+Days.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="285" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTTGKoNJzgfEJzweH7qltlMWjtDlday15CNbN0qf-tniOhcYvQhDtAjLXaDht7JUpxd8LmAYEJGpdf-8DU-UmFMiPAp5QTNeOZE0Mpd1A9f2ztUc8yh-mm6hmwe2V7ESktYLDJsHHsyyI/s640/The+Ancient+of+Days.jpg" width="456" /></a></td></tr>
<tr align="justify"><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gott, der große Ingenieur. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancient_of_Days">('The Ancient of Days' by William Blake</a>.) Douglas Adams' character, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Magrathea">Slartibartfast the Magrathean</a>, seems to be based on the 'Ancient of Days'. He is the chief designer of planet Earth, and is especially proud of designing the fjords of Norway. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<i>
</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Gott ist der große Ingenieur</i>, means <i>God is the great Engineer</i> or <i>దేవుడు మహా యాంత్రికుడు</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Conversely, it also means the great engineer is God and it is this
latter interpretation that I prefer. Becoming a great engineer is the
closest to the idea of God that one can hope to attain. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No amount of rituals, chanting mantras, or meditation on Brahma[n] is
going to get anyone closer to God. Understanding how the world works
using the methods of science and applying that knowledge with
engineering to make the lives of people around us better, is the way to
godliness. To make real changes for the better, it is necessary to
understand both the physical world and, more importantly, the <i>social</i> world, and it is these issues that I want to explore in this blog. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Personally, I believe the trio of great electrical engineers: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday">Michael Faraday</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla">Nikola Tesla</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Westinghouse">George Westinghouse</a>
have done so much to ease humanity's existence that they deserve all
the honor that is unnecessarily wasted on the many false, made up,
imaginary Gods who amount to no more than a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot">Russell's teapot</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By my deeds, I honor them. <a href="https://madmax.fandom.com/wiki/Cult_of_the_V8">V8</a>, or more appropriately, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traction_motor">E8</a>!
</div>
</div>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2307034821284116351.post-30738761389235072172019-04-06T09:53:00.001+05:302019-04-06T09:57:19.928+05:30యుగాది శుభాకాంక్షలు!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Happy Telugu New Year!<br />
<br /></div>
Engr. Ravihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18334373070378068411noreply@blogger.com0