User:Koeplinger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
userboxes
|
[edit] Hello
I am a M.Sci. in physics (German "Diplom" title) with interest in describing physics on numbers that are not typically used in the field. While preparing some material, I noticed that many number systems have been reinvented over the decades many times independently, with different names and related programs. Sometimes certain extension programs overlap, sometimes there are differences. It would be great if Wikipedia would eventually provide a comprehensive account on as many number systems as possible, where they are isomorphic with to others, and where they differ.
Next to some minor updates, I started the hypernumber article (now at Musean hypernumber), the multicomplex number stub, and posted a complete rewrite of hypercomplex numbers on 31 July 2006, and physicist Garret Lisi's "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" on 1 Jan 2008. I am planning to add an article on Burgin hypernumbers after Mark Burgin (e.g. [1]).
I have a personal publication reference here, and am moderating the Yahoo (R) discussion group "hypercomplex" [2].
Jens, 6 Jan 2008
[edit] Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience appears to be on the rise, and the internet provides a platform with unprecedented detail and visibility. Blunt, personal, and even intimidating statements are only part of what's used at times in order to create a false impression of hostility of the scientific community against "new ideas" or "out-of-the-box thinking".
Turning (pseudo-)scientific debates into political (or even religious) controversy is a big concern for me, and I'm not really sure how to react to it best. Neutral, factual information appears to be a good tool to restore reason. Controversy is easy to start and can make it hard to recognize pseudoscience, as compared to legitimate (but controversial) research. Yet even after something is identified unscientific, sifting through tons of poorly structured material that doesn't follow the scientific method is a strenuous task: What are certain key points in an otherwise inconsistent model, what works, and what doesn't?
I've done this deed once and brought the material into a condensed form now at Musean hypernumber - and was promptly rewarded: Out of Charles Musès' many statements, I've been able to prove that the Dirac equation can indeed be expressed on split-octonions [3]. I am very thankful for his statement, and that he didn't prove it himself! Understandably, this was rather technical and low on the "grandiosity" scale; but it did help my personal interests a lot, namely for proposing a description of four dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity on an octonionic geometry [4]. Further more, after a friend of mine cracked the riddle (in our personal view) of "w arithmetic" after Muses, we were able to fix the definitions and propose a similar, but quite different, "W space" [5].
This experience has shaped my view on pseudoscience significantly. While I continue to believe that much of Musès' mathematical writing simply doesn't add up, I've formed this understanding through rigorous testing. And - alas - we've got a winner! The luck of the draw, one might say; but isn't this what science is all about? Verifying or falsifying observations through objective means? Even if the proponent of certain claims asserts to be in contact with aliens from Sirius?
Jens, 8 April 2008
PS: I am not in contact with aliens, my work won't solve the energy crisis of our world (and others), the current U.S. president does not indirectly support my theories, I'm not famous and don't believe this to be caused by a conspiracy, I have not secretly built a machine that has proven to operate in violation of fundamental laws of nature, and I have not destroyed such machine to the benefit of mankind.
