Beware of storytellers that mirror the counter (II)

- A. Anyway, I tried to read the article to the end, as I always do when I don't understand what I read in the textbooks.

- P. Who risks further reading after the bombastic “quantum world” faces the hilarious “idea” that

objects are not individuals ”, at least in the“ quantum world”.

Well, what is "object"? And individual? Wouldn't it be something like “aim or aim”, as some dictionaries want? How could the mind of a specimen of Hoss think of an object without aiming at its individuality? I would like to know that. My guess is that it is impossible, but I do not prudently rule out a positive probability of being wrong. I think the notion of individuality is inherent in the notion of object, in its determination as object, because if it were not, it would be impossible to think of it, there would be no object, or end to which it is aimed or aimed at. Isn't that obvious? Or is this poor mortal and naive calculus teacher who writes here out of orbit?

- A. You are a calculus teacher and this is no longer calculus.

Q. Without wishing to make inroads into Metaphysics (I have no competence for it), or whatever it is, the notion of object, to me, means "something quite certain in some way." So object has to have individuality, doesn't it seem clear? That is, any object has to be, by definition, an individual. If the object has no individual meaning, therefore individuality, then it has ambiguous meaning and has not been well determined and therefore not an object, it is just a mental confusion. We should not confuse objects with ambiguous, therefore confusedly determined, meanings with collective objects: a swarm is an individual object with the meaning of a collection of other objects, bees. Object collections are new objects, and this growing construction of objectivity is endless and offers mathematics infinite possibilities for structuring and creation. This has been known for a long time.

- A. There are passages of physics in the article also difficult to understand as:

…, There is no way to know if the released particle is the same one that energized the atom. This is because it is physically impossible to paint electrons or follow their paths..”

Could there be no other way of knowing which particle was released? Doesn't God know that?

Q: Ah, we are only talking about the scientific mental constructions of some Hoss specimens, and the hypothesis of God is not necessary as Laplace taught us. You're right. So is it really that the only way to distinguish one particle from another is with paint and brush or running after it? Of course not, mathematics will be the only hope again. It may be that new mathematical structures can shape the universe to the point where they can distinguish two particles, if the notion of particle persists and is not replaced by the notion of, say, “vibration of a brana”, or any other notion of some. genius that will still be born.

A. How do we know that there is "no way of knowing"? Who demonstrated this? Wouldn't it be better to just say “we don't know yet”, and that's it?

- Q. I think so, I agree.

- A. What do you think of the following statement:

Which suggests the possibility that elementary particles

of the quantum world are not provided with individuality.

Q. So in this case, you don't know what you're talking about, because there is no object without individuality. So my conclusion (logic?) Is simply that "elementary particle of the quantum world" does not exist! Democritus' notion of "as little matter as possible" must be rejected and another physical theory about the universe elaborated, perhaps with superstrings, whites, or whatever to calm the spirits of scientists who seem to be convinced of the "reality." (detectable by the Hoss species) of matter and as little matter as possible ”.

- A. My energies to finish the article are too low.

Q: Anyone who has reached this point will now be rewarded by strongly hilarious moments triggered by an exciting fantasy:

In fact, it is very important for the physicist to consider the existence of collections of elementary particles completely indistinguishable from each other. Otherwise, he will not be able to mathematically describe certain established experimental data.

Honestly, I admit to the possibility of being crazy, but there's nothing wrong with laughing the crazy, it's just a possible reaction. If not, though, I wonder: How is it possible for a specimen of Hoss to claim that physicists have only this way out? Who made this bombastic and hilarious statement? And in a hundred years, could there not be a surprising overcoming of current physical ignorance and new mathematical structures to cope with the problems that are intractable today? After all, hasn't it always been like this in the history of science? Save your energy and save your inventory of laughter (as a precaution, I remind you that a windsock student also becomes a windsock) because the motivation is not over yet.

… Because in her in mathematics There is no room for collections of multiple indistinguishable objects.

This statement is incredible: either it is of unreachable wisdom for this naive ignorant mortal who is but a calculus teacher, or perhaps dramatically ridiculous. The equivalence relation in mathematics produces equivalence classes that are precisely collections of multiple indistinguishable objects! For example, the infinite collection of multiple distinct objects

{… , (-3)/(-3), (-2)/(-2), (-1)/(-1), 1/1, 2/2, 3/3,… } = 1

It is indistinguishable when the mathematician wants to aim at the rational number "1". When the mathematician wants to aim at the “class 1” objects, he then targets the infinite ordered pairs (± no, ± no) as distinct objects with their individualities.

When a group G acts in a set, each element x of the set can be targeted as an object belonging to another object called the orbit of x, and denoted by (O(x)). The mathematician may be interested in aiming the orbit O(x) and therefore the multiple objects in the orbit O(x) are targeted as indistinguishable and replaced by the object “orbit O(x) ”For certain mathematical purposes. That is, still has the fact that being indistinguishable depends on the goal of the mathematician, is not an immovable property of the object and eternally linked to it. This is why there are numerous theories about the same object, or about the structured collections they can form. It's a basic math fact!

- A. You have now taken a nice trip!

Q: In any good physics textbook on the standard particle model you will find the action of groups on sets and the important study of orbits as multiple indistinguishable objects. I do not understand what is written in the article.

Back to columns