Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Zeeya Merali: on 10/21/11 at 13:47pm UTC, wrote I'm bumping this thread because I have added in Geoffrey West's...

Pentcho Valev: on 9/28/11 at 8:09am UTC, wrote Eckard, Both the ether theory and Newton's emission theory of light refute...

Eckard Blumschein: on 9/25/11 at 7:33am UTC, wrote Pentcho, Natural Philosophy Alliance did not revealed to me to any...

Pentcho Valev: on 9/25/11 at 4:39am UTC, wrote Eckard, interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on ether...

Eckard Blumschein: on 9/24/11 at 22:30pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, The MM experiment merely confirmed that there is no, measurable on...

Pentcho Valev: on 9/23/11 at 15:46pm UTC, wrote Remember the martyr: ...

Pentcho Valev: on 9/23/11 at 13:31pm UTC, wrote http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm Professor...

Pentcho Valev: on 9/23/11 at 5:37am UTC, wrote Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Merryman: "Pentcho, You are conducting an admirable campaign, with far more..." in Call for Research...

Pentcho Valev: "Theoretical Physics Unravelling Scientific method: Defend the integrity of..." in Call for Research...

ross nickel: "In the early 1980s I was watching a sci-fi movie taking place in a..." in Alternative Models of...

John Merryman: "The irony is this"expansion" is intergalactic, balancing the galactic..." in Is the Past Infinite?

Georgina Parry: "Thanks for the link. I didn't know that Einstein was so fiercely..." in Is the Past Infinite?

Chuck Stark: "As a Mathematics undergraduate with a Physics minor, this topic is near and..." in Trick or Truth? — Essay...

Anton Vrba: "Brendan, Wow what a fantastic essay topic, congratulations! After skipping..." in Trick or Truth? — Essay...

Peter Jackson: "John, It's clear that space can have 0 'condensed 'matter', but you've not..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum in Context
An untapped resource could provide the magic needed for quantum computation—and perhaps even open the door to time travel.

Spot the Difference to Reveal Exotic Particles
Questioning the symmetrization postulate of quantum mechanics and the notion that electrons are indistinguishable could reveal whether hypothetical new particles exist.

Life's Quantum Crystal Ball
Does the ability to predict the future—perhaps with quantum help—define the fundamental difference between living and inanimate matter?

The Quantum Truth Seeker
Watching particles fly through an interferometer might help to unveil higher-order weirdness behind quantum theory.

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.


FQXi BLOGS
December 22, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: A Turing Test for Free Will and the Rhythm of Life [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 23:10 GMT
First off, I want to alert you to some of the other bloggers covering the Nature of Time meeting. Over at Cosmic Variance, conference co-organizer Sean Carroll describes how the the meeting was conceived and has posted his introductory slides. Meanwhile, Sabine Hossenfelder has been pondering whether AI will eventually cause the extinction of humans.

On a related note, if you’ve ever worried that you might yourself be an automaton, rather than a truly free being, then computer scientist Scott Aaronson is the man to visit. He opened this morning’s session on “Quantization” by presenting a fresh perspective on free will and quantum mechanics, with what he promised would be the “looniest” talk he had ever given. (Aaronson: “I’ll place a much higher premium on being original and interesting than on being right. (I got tired of being right!)”)

With the qualification that the quantum-free-will arena is a notoriously “bulls**t-strewn interdisciplinary field,” Aaronson turned to computer-science prophet Alan Turing for inspiration on how to clear the stench. The Turing test arose after Turing replaced his initial question, “Can machines think?” (which he quickly decided was meaningless) with the answerable question: “Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?” Aaronson proposed a similar “replacement” question to help get to grips with the problem of free will. Just as the Turing test has led to a focussed research program in artificial intelligence, might articulating the free will problem in a more refined way lead to a focussed program in neuroscience?

Aaronson began by specifying that he takes one necessary condition for free will to be (partial) unpredictability – “not by a hypothetical Laplace demon, but by actual or conceivable technologies (DNA testing, brain scanning…).” He then defined his “envelope argument”: Imagine being handed a sealed envelope, containing predictions made using an artificial model of your mind based on some advanced future technology that could scan your brain in incredible detail (for instance). You answer a question and upon opening the envelope you find that it contains the words that you had just said. That, says Aaronson, would come pretty close to an “empirical refutation of free will.” If such an envelope could be made and someone could predict all your actions (or, at least, correctly predict a significant proportion of the answers you would give to a set of questions) then you’d be “unmasked as an automaton, much more effectively than any philosophical argument could unmask you.”

If the thought of being revealed to be an automaton by Aaronson isn’t enough to scare you, then physicist Geoffrey West’s apocalyptic view of the world seen through the lens of complexity theory should. This month’s Scientific American has an article about his work analysing the social and economic activity of cities and he had some sobering words about the unsustainability of growth. Basically we’re all doomed (but he said it more colorfully).



Bringing the whole thing back to time, West also proposed that a notion of “universal time” emerges when you think about the “pace of life” and look at the lifespan of mammals not in terms of years but in terms of heart beats (which, in turn, is related to metabolism and the production of ATP). Apparently any species, regardless of size, has approximately the same number of heart beats in its lifetime (roughly 1 billion). Measure time by beating, says West, and maybe the shrew that lives for a year and the whale that lives 150 years have the same “experiential lifespan.” It seems Sammy Davis Jnr was right; it’s all about the rhythm of life…

(Photo courtesy of Olaf Dreyer.)

(Edited on 21 October 2011 to include Geoffrey West's video.)

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 04:34 GMT
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/08/26/
time-is-out-of-joint/

Sean Carroll: "Newtonian/Laplacian time: the block universe. All times are implicit in every moment."

Is the block universe "Newtonian"? I thought it was Einsteinian, more precisely a consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 10:44 GMT
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4278/1/Minkowski_Spacetime%2
6Thermodynamics.pdf

Friedel Weinert, University of Bradford: "Traditionally the block universe was inferred from the stipulation of relative simultaneity as a consequence of the Special theory of relativity (STR) (Eddington, Einstein, Gödel). But newer defences infer a static block universe from the well-known relativisitic effects: length contraction, time dilation, the twin paradox."

The situation is frighteningly simple: those who reject the block universe should indicate the false postulate of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
Einstein's classical physics is an extension of Newtonian physics. If you relativity bashers ever actually study the theory, you might say something meaningful sometime.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:00 GMT
Tom,

I say meaningful things all the time. For example: Realtivity theory is clearly wrong.

James

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT
Funny, I find that statement clearly empty of meaning, James.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
Tom,

It is simple. Relativity deals with space and time. There is no empirical evidence about either space or time. There will never be. What has happened is that relativity theory has misnamed its observations of the motion of objects from distance and duration to space and time. I repeat: There is no empirical evidence about either space or time. The reason I can say this with certainty is that all observations, in so far as physics is concerned, have to do with changes of velocity. What experiment, that you know of, has not been performed on an object, but, rather has been performed on space or time?

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
No, James, relativity is not "about space and time." It is about spacetime. As I said, relativity bashers do not know the theory. Not to say that there can't be serious challenges to relativity -- there just aren't any.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Tom,

It is about space and time. They are the two indefinable properties of the universe. Neither of them can be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. The reason is that they are the pre-existing properties. Empirical evidence consists solely of them. All other properties are inferred from patterns observed to occur in changes of distance with respect to duration. Inferred properties must be definable in the same terms in which the empirical evidence from which they are inferred are expressed.

This means that all inferred properties must be expressible in the same units as is the empirical evidence from which they are inferred. Any units invented other than those of distance and duration are invented and are evidence of theoretical error. Their mere existence demonstrates that the subject property is arbitrarily decided to be as primary as are distance and duration. An example is mass. Mass is given units of kilograms. What the heck are kilograms other than some human made object. They cannot be defined in terms of meters and seconds, because, they are invented. What is the empirical evidence that justifies making mass an indefinable property joining both distance and duration?

By the way, since my last message I have thinking that I should probably be saying length instead of distance. I think that length is more representative of that which relativity theory deals with.

James

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
T H Ray wrote: "Einstein's classical physics is an extension of Newtonian physics. If you relativity bashers ever actually study the theory, you might say something meaningful sometime."

Recently I studied the bug-rivet paradox where, according to Einstein's special relativity, the observer travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed but the bug sees itself alive and kicking:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

In my view, "bug-rivet absurdity" is better than "bug-rivet paradox". Do you agree?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:14 GMT
You can't even get your "paradoxes" straight. The twin paradox is not actually a paradox, and your illustration is a variation of the barn door paradox which you don't understand in the first place. We won't be having a dialogue.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:36 GMT
Yes I don't understand the barn-pole paradox. Some Einsteinians teach that the 80m pole is trapped inside the 40m barn in a compressed state but others claim that compression is impossible:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/
SR/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT
Hold on, Pentcho. First, I have this pig I have to teach to sing.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
T H Ray wrote: Hold on, Pentcho. First, I have this pig I have to teach to sing. Tom

Quelle délicatesse, quelle finesse! I suspect the only songs you know are "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.ht
m

No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein

Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!

He explained the photo-electric effect,

And launched quantum physics with his intellect!

His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --

He should have been given four!

No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,

Professor with brains galore!

No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --

Egad, could that guy derive!

He gave us special relativity,

That's always made him a hero to me!

Brownian motion, my true devotion,

He mastered back in aught-five!

No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,

Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Einstein's postulates imply

That planes are shorter when they fly.

Their clocks are slowed by time dilation

And look warped from aberration.

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 2, 2011 @ 03:59 GMT
Note that, if length contraction is absurd (that is, if the bug cannot be both dead and alive and if an arbitrarily long object cannot be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container), we will have to return to the original (ignored) meaning of the Michelson-Morley experiment: this experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) and confirms the assumtion that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 04:36 GMT
"...his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Whose instinct is this? Of an abject dissident or of a respectable high priest in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 05:59 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

That Classical physics and quantum physics appear to be contradictory has been a problem. I do not think the interpretation I am giving is incompatible as it works with uni-temporal space at the foundational level, and not observed space -time.

It seems to me that the counterintuitive nature of relativity and non simultaneity are generally dealt with in one of two very human ways. Either it is denied or it is accepted as just the way reality is. I think that kind of commonplace black and white thinking has been a part of the problem.

If the reality that exists independently of the observer forming a representation of it is acknowledged as the source of the data used to form the manifestations observed; and change of spatial arrangement of objects etc. in that underlying space is recognized as giving "temporally unidirectional" causality and passage of time, then the counterintuitive nature of relativity dissolves.

It is not counterintuitive that lots of sensory data can be formed by emission or reflection of EM radiation from an object.

It is not counterintuitive that multiple observers can receive some of that data and each form a representation of the object when the data has been -received and processed- by them. (Not when the data left the origin at the object in unobserved uni-temporal space.)

It is not counterintuitive that transmission of data across space is not instantaneous but takes time.

Nor is it counterintuitive that the further from the object, the longer it takes the data to arrive at the observer.(Introducing a time dimension.)

It follows that the images of objects seen in the present-now manifestation, not only where they were but as they were when the data was emitted or reflected. If different observers have different reference frames they will receive different sensory data and may therefore see the same event in their present-now at different times.

Though I think there is a place for a medium of transmission of EM it is not within the observed manifestation formed by the observer. So I am not advocating a straight forward ether model.It is necessary to also untangle the temporal confusion.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
There is no free will involved in the time or place that we are born, a human being is born with an empty open mind, and absorbes all the data that he is receiving via his 5 senses. The paralel with a computer is easily drawn, we also work on the experiences that we are, and were, aware of, our consciuosness is formed that way , we argue and think about our universe (about poles and barns etc), we can call our life an EVENT. Since there is in our causal universe no simultaneity, this is an unique event, there is no other the same event, so I wonder if the philosopphical description of FREE WILL is adequate to describe something that in essence is unique.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 17:39 GMT
Does FQXi really care about science? Recently Physicsworld informed the rest of the world that E=mc^2 has nothing to do with Einstein's relativity:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941

"..
.where does relativity come into it? Actually, perhaps it doesn't. While Einstein's celebrated 1905 paper, "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", clearly laid down the foundations of relativity by abandoning the ether and making the speed of light invariant, his derivation of E = mc2 did not depend on those assumptions."

No reaction from FQXi. "Theoretical physics is dead" is by no means an exaggeration.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 18:02 GMT
It's no mystery to anyone who knows classical physics that the identity E = m depends on atomic mass deficit and not on the speed of light, which is a calculational artifact.

Apparently, you find the trolling easy here.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

If we simplfy our equations with c = 1 (to simplify notation - any physics student should be able to reconstruct these equations in full detail), then we find that an invariant spacetime interval is given by:

s^2 = (Del r)^2 - (Del t)^2 and an invariant rest mass is given by:

(m_0)^2 = E^2 - p^2.

These invariants have the same form because of the hyperbolic (-1,+1,+1,+1) Minkowski metric of Spacetime. And although these two equations might seem to be completely independent, we should recall that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (and Hamilton-Jacobi generalized coordinates and conjugates) relate position-momentum and time-energy as complemetary/conjugate variables/coordinates. I would thus consider these two equations to be closely related - sub-examples of the same hyperbolic spacetime postulate. But I also would not lose any sleep if someone declared these two equations to be separate postulates. Some people like to focus on similarities - others prefer differences...

It takes time to prove or dis-prove any new physics statement. Joy Christian has drawn more attention around here than you have. You might draw more attention to yourself (if that is what you are looking for) by participating in the Joy Christian conversation.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 19:34 GMT
E=mc^2 has been worshipped as Einstein's greatest achievement deduced from special relativity's two postulates. Yet, acording to TH Ray, "it's no mystery to anyone who knows classical physics that the identity E = m depends on atomic mass deficit and not on the speed of light, which is a calculational artifact". "Anything goes" would say Paul Feyerabend.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 20:47 GMT
Does the future "already exist" in the sense defined below by Thibault Damour? In my view, a straightforward yes or no answer should precede ANY discussion of time. The "yes or no" compulsion would be particularly relevant for people who reject the block universe but continue to sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Thibault Damour: "Textbook presentations of Special Relativity often fail to convey the revolutionary nature, with respect to the "common conception of time", of the seminal paper of Einstein in June 1905. It is true that many of the equations, and mathematical considerations, of this paper were also contained in a 1904 paper of Lorentz, and in two papers of Poincaré submitted in June and July 1905. It is also true that the central informational core of a physical theory is defined by its fundamental equations, and that for some theories (notably Quantum Mechanics) the fundamental equations were discovered before their physical interpretation. However, in the case of Special Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer. This new conceptualization of time implied a deep upheaval of the common conception of time. (...) The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute"). No wonder that many people, attached to the usual idea of an external flow of time, refused to believe that the travelling twin will come back younger than his sedentary brother."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 21:06 GMT
No.

There is some data from distant events that has not yet been received by an observer from which an experienced present can/will be formed. That data exists but not the events which will be seen.The events have already happened and are no longer an actualisation, an actual existing arrangement of the universe.

Time travel is not possible because the time dimension is restricted to the manifestation produced by the observed from received sensory data and is not apart of the universe that exists independently of what the observer sees. Which is a patchwork temporal fabrication, masquerading as externally existing reality.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
A more straightforward answer is needed, e.g.

(A) Yes, a sentient being CAN jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and therefore Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true.

(B) No, a sentient being CANNOT jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and therefore Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 22:06 GMT
No. The choices offered are too simplistic for the complexity of the problem.

The material future does not exist out in space. However what will be observed in the future as a present-now manifestation by an observer on the Earth, due to the transmission of sensory data -can- be observed ahead of the stay at home observer by the traveling observer. This is just extreme non simultaneity which is a consequence of different observers being able to intercept sensory data from the same event at different times. The data in the environment is not the event itself whenever the observer receives the data and manufactures the manifestation.

The problem is there are two versions of the future.

1.the prewritten future which is the sensory data formed by reflection or emission from objects existing in space, which persists in the environment awaiting interception by an observer.The event has occurred unobserved and can not be changed. If the data has not yet been received by the observer it can be considered to be in his future.

2. there is that which exists as arrangements of objects/material /substance in space, unobserved and independent of any observers. One can also contemplate that which does not yet exist as an actualization and is therefore unwritten and only imaginary.That which does not yet exist and so has no arrangement or substance/material or object reality in space can not be visited.

It first depends upon understanding that there is not a singular future realm but two different interpretations of the word future. One of the futures the object reality, open unwritten future is completely independent of the observer. The other, the prewritten future is not independent of the object reality.

I reiterate the choice you have given is too simplistic. You need to think really carefully about what I have said because you do not yet appear to have grasped its implications.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 08:48 GMT
Einsteinians abandon "the dominant paradigm for cosmic time and evolution - the Big Bang" and become buddhists:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/01/140105350
/living-on-an-older-time

Adam Frank: "The punch line is that the dominant paradigm for cosmic time and evolution - the Big Bang - is on its way out. Since we will soon be replacing our version of cosmic time, it is likely that our culturally defined experience and organization of time is going to shift as well. A good way to start thinking about this topic might be to remember what other versions of time, very different from the one we experience daily now, have looked like in the past. Here is a passage from the famous buddhist writer Thich Nhat Hanh..."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
The Big Bang is dead and will be replaced by... Big Bang!

http://usairwaysmag.com/articles/the_end_of_the_beginni
ng/

Adam Frank: "The Big Bang is all but dead, and we do not yet know what will replace it. There are those who will tell you that cosmology - the study of the Universe entire - has become an exact science. They will tell you that this grand and all-embracing field...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 9, 2011 @ 14:25 GMT
I see it an my responsibility to find and point to cardinal mistakes. To me NPA helpfully pointed to Shtyrkov, Gift, Persson, and others who provided evidence for an entrained geostationary ether. I got the impression that mediocre authors already are trying to jump on this alternative. I wondered why my search for NPA did not lead to "Natural philosophy Alliance".

What about Cynthia Kolb, I admire her nice idea of light expanding from the source but contracting to the receiver. I will have to deal with it. Constantinos Ragazas might be surprised: She already used his metaphor of Rosetta stone.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Member Ian Durham wrote on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
Hey Zeeya, et. al.

While it is not nearly as extensive as the aforementioned bloggers, I have added my own entry on the conference to my blog that summarizes my personal thoughts about it (essentially the same ones I pointed out in that video clip of the final session that mysteriously appeared in place of a reply of the public session...). Anyway, if anyone is interested, here's the link.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 04:41 GMT
Originally Clausius deduced "Entropy always increases" from an assumption equivalent to "Any irreversible process can be reversed":

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics

p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."

Is Clausius' interpretation of the entropy (in terms of heat exchange) still crucial? If irreversible processes CANNOT be reversed, should we reject "Entropy always increases"?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Ian Durham wrote (in his blog): "So given that commonality that seemed to cross disciplines, it is no surprise that pretty much everyone agreed that time has something to do with entropy. In fact many of the presenters and attendees probably think this is simply a trivial truth. So perhaps we should have been debating entropy, which is something that is still not entirely well understood as a concept."

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear Ian , though you are not addressing me I will include myself amongst the et al. Thank you for the link.

For me the most interesting thing you highlighted is the consensus so far. That time is regarded as a statistical phenomenon makes sense to me as I can see it would be a way of considering the sequential changes constituting the passage of time.And that it has something to do with quantum mechanics and thus something to do with the reality occurring that we don't/can't observe also makes sense to me.The ambiguity of entropy makes its involvement more woolly but entropy is about perceived change, whether change in energy, or structure or information and change is definitely involved in passage of time.

All of these things are about passage of time and not about the other place that time has a hold which is within space-time. Though space-time is IMO an emergent observer construct; within that space-time the time dimension is a foundational and essential feature. Without it it would not be space-time and there would not be relativity and non simultaneity. It, the time dimension "artifact" makes the experience what it is, it is not a consequence of more foundational parameters.

However if taking a look at the larger picture outside of observer experience itself the time "artifact" giving the time dimension comes from the way in which different observers can receive data from the same events at different time. So emerges from what the observer is doing in relation to the potential sensory data in the environment.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 09:03 GMT
Against the second law of thermodynamics (a convincing although not rigorous argument):

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.p
df

A second look at the second law, Granville Sewell, Mathematics Department, University of Texas, El Paso, United States

"If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable. (...) Order can increase in an open system, not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door.... If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth's atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here.... But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 05:19 GMT
Einsteiniana: Special relativity is false and will be replaced by... special relativity!

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8765/1/WuthrichChristian2011
_PhysicalFatePresentism_philsci.pdf

The fate of presentism in modern physics, Christian Wuthrich, Forthcoming in Roberto Ciunti, Kristie Miller, and Giuliano Torrengo (eds.), New Papers on the Present - Focus on Presentism,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 05:06 GMT
Special relativity destroys the very foundations of human rationality. It forces scientists to believe that, by changing his own speed, the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the light that is coming in:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/
big_bang/index.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 14:54 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

Your indications that SR is wrong on the relative velocity of c , seem to be logic, when I was 14(in 1959) and read for the first time the theorie of relativity, this was also one of the most strange things, I just could not understand that when 2 photons are approaching each other their relative speed is the same as when the are speeding away from each other.

After that I started thinking, the photon wave function is speeding at c (in vacuum), so time is not proceeding for this photon or wave, the same for the other one, so time is not proceeding, so from the point of view of time it does not matter if the relative velocity speeds up or not, just time has stopped, and as a matter of speaking you enter a non causal universe, no time no cause no effect, so when there is no time passing there is no distance covered in our causal universe, and wow... here I was loosing the road again, because two photons when emitted each one opposite to each other, can and will meet, so there went my theory of timeless non causal universes where photons proceeded without proceeding , only... the only thing I could think of then was that even when the 2 photons were both in different universes, speeding at c, the indirect result of their presence (like we can see gravitation as emerging from other dimensions) was the photon/wave function, so what we observe is the manifestation of two photons/waves in our 4D causal world , not the "particles"(with no length or mass) or "waves" themselves, this was for me the only way how I explained myself this strange effect of SR, and to be honest I am not happy with it, because it left me with a untouchable entity called the origin of light in a different universe, so just a way of replacing the problem.

You are right Pentcho , what is called the truth when you are young is not easy to replace, but believe me I am still seaching for a more reasonable explanation.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 22:05 GMT
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate). Then a century of brainwashing reversed the situation and nowadays it is indeed extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to return to the old truth. Similarly, in Big Brother's world, it is impossible to return to "two and two make four":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
Einsteiniana: Special relativity's "epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical" so special relativity will be replaced by... Lorentzian theory!

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routled
ge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy)

"Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory."

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/

Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009

"The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 19:55 GMT
The genius:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm

Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that (...) the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion of field..."

The plagiarist repents at the end of his life:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d0
0-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Clues:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
More about Walther Ritz:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files
/RitzEinstein.pdf

"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...." (...) Einstein's theory garnered prestigious supporters such as Planck, Sommerfeld, and Wien, who endorsed and protected it from the attacks of others, while Ritz's theory acquired no supporters. Ehrenfest and Tolman called for unambiguous empirical evidence to test Ritz's emission theory, but neither spent any effort in extending it, and soon they both epoused Einstein's theory unreservedly, especially following de Sitter's work. For a few years immediately following its publication, Ritz's theory may have seemed to be an odd and complicated curiosity, in comparison to the leading approaches in electrodynamics. Ritz, the one man who had both the skill and the motivation to advance it, had died."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 14, 2011 @ 22:28 GMT
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Unpersons in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pd
f

Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different rates of ageing to result from motion which...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 15, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
Abysmal ignorance in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einste
in.html

Dept. Physics & Astronomy, University of Tennessee: "Einstein's theory predicts that the direction of light propagation should be changed in a gravitational field, contrary to the Newtonian predictions. (...) The General Theory of Relativity predicts that light coming from a strong gravitational field should have its wavelength shifted to larger values (what astronomers call a "red shift"), again contary to Newton's theory."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Haw
king/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)"

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html

"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/vie
wer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9

Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 04:18 GMT
What if the speed of light were variable, that is, what if the speed of photons varied as the speed of any material objects, cannonballs for instance? Einsteiniana: No problem at all. Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be unaffected":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf

Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit capable de vraiment mettre...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 05:44 GMT
Einsteiniana's fundamental lie: Both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0
306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw

p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Velocity v re. to what? Do not call E. a liar if he might just have got the victim of his imprecise thoughts. In 1905 Einstein merely excluded that v depends on the emitter.

Unfortunately, those who disagree with SR for various reasons do not yet agree on a single alternative.

Did you find someone who explained or questioned the calorimetric confirmation for the energy of particles that reached nearly c in an linear accelerator?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Pentcho

May I point out that you're forgetting one thing. c = fl (frequency x wavelength) is a constant, for all observers in any state of motion. Not only is it always FOUND constant on measurement (subject to tiny third order effects from harmonics/PMD), but it has to be a constant anyway for the Law of Conservation of Energy. Also look up Bradleys original proof based on planetary orbits which has never been, and seems logically cannot be, refuted.

That is for moving receivers. You also confuse at the end with regard to moving emitters. Simple homework resolves this. The signals from a space probe orbiting a planet arrive in precisely the same time whether orbiting away or towards earth. The third order effect here is simply the extra distance due to position. As always Doppler shift informs us of x axis velocities. It's the same for binary stars. The emission theory is nonsense and disproven by all evidence.

But yes. There is indeed something wrong with SR.

Now ...of course if light always changed speed on leaving the emitter, to the local CMBR rest frame, and, on arrival, just before measurement, that would work logically and meet all observation. Unfortunately it's not the same as present science so it apparently must be wrong.

If you have the time and would like to check out a possible 'local reality' solution to it all look over my essay '2020 vision' (few have it!). http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Best wishes

Peter

PS Eckard, et al. Has anyone ever seen any proof of the assumption that we always observe light normal to the causal wavefront plane?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 11:44 GMT
For ANY wave other than light wave the frequency and the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer while the wavelength does not. Both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light say that the frequency and the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer while the wavelength does not. Only Einstein's special relativity says that the frequency and the wavelength vary with the speed of the observer while the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) does not. Einsteinians should at least discuss this flagrant contradiction between special relativity and any other approach but they don't: They just fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable: Einsteinians tumble to the floor, start tearing their cloths and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 13:46 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

Einstein could be wrong of course but not everywhere.

We are going to reason simple at first : The speed of light is c, but not everywhere ,so c is different in parts of the universe where there is relative more mass available (for example light in water), this can only mean that time in this areas proceeds for the particle involved, and is not standing still, meaning that the particle involved needs no longer to be massless and can have a certain length (all this when I use SR in its original meaning).

However when I go to the wavefuntion this is not influenced by mass because it represents a *probability* of the final observation/interaction locations of a particle, these can be everywhere, here c is c. So : only observation/interaction makes a wave a particle (a probability a reality) , and all interactions (in the proximity of mass) between these probable positions of a "future" particle make an end to the wave function (collapse) and an end to c.

Photons are only "visible" when they interacted with another medium that can communicate the signal to the observer/interactive medium, before that photons are no photons but waves with probabilities of interaction, their waves proceed always at c, two waves cannot be observed as approaching each other "face to face", so the problem of adding up two times c is not pertinent.

Where am I going wrong ?

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 20:06 GMT
Wilhelmus, consider this text:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapter
s/big_bang/index.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased."

Now a crucial question: Has the speed of the wavectrests relative to the observer increased as well, as would be the case with any different wave? The answer "yes" would mark the end of contemporary physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-
2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is (c plus v)." [Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
Wilhelmus and Pentcho

I appreciate your point of view regarding the terms of photon, particle, mass, light and wave.

I think it is important issue for understanding the nature.

It seems to me that the gap between the QM and CM is depending on the understanding of the Wave-Particle duality which also depends on understaning Light-Photon duality.....

In my essay... every thing (matter) is made from clusred particle (photons)and the Light is wave (photon's gravitational wave).

The Photon mass: E=mc^2 = 1.78266173x10^-36 Kg.

Here is the Esssay:



http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794


Best wishes,

Bashir

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
Let me try to simplify

The Photon's gravitational interaction is not like a canon ball which goes through/from matter to matter, but as an influencing force (Gravity) interaction which is done by the photon (particle).

Bashir

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 05:15 GMT
The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the VARIABLE speed of light established by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

However, according to Einsteiniana's high priests, the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirms the CONSTANT speed of light established by Einstein's special relativity. How can a single experiment confirm two incompatible theoretical predictions? In fact, it cannot - one of the confirmations is invalid. Banesh Hoffmann hints at the valid confirmation:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane
sh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 05:55 GMT
The Pound-Rebka experiment gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory but somehow confirms Newton's emission theory of light as well (the latter confirmation is not glorious at all):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/m
sg/44abc7dbb30db6c2

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity."

How can a single experiment confirm two incompatible theories? In fact, it cannot - one of the confirmations is invalid. Banesh Hoffmann hints at the valid confirmation:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane
sh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from WHAT BEFALLS LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITATION."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 06:31 GMT
Big Brother's world: It is absolutely true that two and two make five ("two and two make four" is forbidden, that is, some consistency is obeyed):

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 21:01 GMT
DEDUCTIVE science is extremely vulnerable: Refuting a fundamental axiom may make any further discussion pointless. Let us extract the following words from Gibson's text below:

"...the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE... (...) The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

If the above statement is true, Einstein should be forgotten and we will only have to choose between Maxwell's original theory (the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer but is independent of the speed of the emitter) and Newton's emission theory of light (the speed of light varies with both the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter).

Do waves overtake you at a slower rate when you are travelling in the same direction as the waves? If yes, goodbye Einstein. If not, not. A third answer: "Who cares?"

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.ht
m

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1 plus Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT
hi Pentcho, I admire your knowledge of sources, and I thank you for the sudy material you gave me, seems that my problem is existing still for along time and that even Einstein himself was not fully convinced of his ideas. It really means not always to accept what the highpriests say, I was convinced already about that with religion , and now also with science, there are no LAWS, only INTERPRETATIONS of events that we wittness in our awareness, but it is hard to blow away thoughts that you were convinced of for such a long time, by the way I am still convinced of my own interpretations in my essay

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 19:45 GMT
Pentcho

Thank you for your quick responses,



"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)"

I think the duality problem, arises when we mix up, since the way we view may be diffrent than the way it is/does.

Ofcourse Light exist as a wave, and photon exists as particle which radiates that wave (as a force influence), one good example is that the even macrosystems behave like this similarity;

supose that, if the Earth makes a vibration, wouldn't the moon also make vibration in same tact?.

but the question is, Where the photon is? What cive the proton/electron the charge?



I have tried to picture up how Hydrogen molecule, which contains two electrons and two protons made from photon, and how it behaves. The attachment is some previous discussion,

The figure under the title of the CHARGE FORCE & NATURE OF GRAVITY gives good picture of what I mean.

The following paragraph, we will discuss later.

"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

Regards

Bashir.

attachments: 2_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
correction: the above anonymous is Me.

Bashir.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 21:30 GMT
I have the impression that the topics "special relativity" and "presentism" have been carefully avoided at the Nature of Time meeting:

http://www.fqxi.org/conference/talks/2011

Am I right? If people like Bradley Monton had fallen among the participants, they would have been found drowned at the end of the meeting:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2308/1/presentism_an
d_qg_vp_3_dd.pdf

PRESENTISM AND QUANTUM GRAVITY, Bradley Monton, Department of Philosophy, University of Kentucky

"I am a presentist: I believe that only presently existing things exist. Contrast presentism with eternalism: the eternalist believes that past, present, and future things all exist. Assuming that there are three spatial dimensions, the eternalist believes that the universe is fourdimensional, and while there are different events in different regions of this so-called "block universe", the universe as a whole does not change. The presentist, in contrast, believes that the universe is three-dimensional. (...) The point of this paper is not to argue for presentism, but to defend presentism from a particular type of argument that is often taken to refute it. The form of the argument is as follows:

(1) Presentism is incompatible with relativity theory (usually the focus is on special relativity).

(2) Relativity theory is our most fundamental theory of physics.

(3) Presentism is incompatible with our most fundamental theory of physics. (From (1) and (2).)

(4) Presentism is false. (From (3).)

(...) But regardless of the strength of the arguments for presentism, the presentist is not required to endorse a non-traditional understanding of relativity. The presentist can simply say that presentism is incompatible with special and general relativity, and hence special and general relativity are false."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT
Pentcho,

I admit to not following all messages, Did you explain the 'barn' example? I said, or at least I am saying now that, if the rod moved through the barn at a speed sufficiently close to the speed of light, that it would momentarily fit inside the barn. What was or is your response?

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Neither Presentism nor Eternalism are the solution. Just substituting one non solution for another doesn't really help.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 04:44 GMT
James, Special relativity predicts that arbitrarily long objects can be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers. The pole "would momentarily fit inside the barn", as you say, but at this very moment the observer in the barn frame can close both doors of the barn simultaneously and the long pole remains PERMANENTLY trapped inside the short barn. (I have already given references where Einsteinians explicitly teach this). Note that the length contraction responsible for the effect can be deduced from Einstein's 1905 light postulate alone, that is, if the effect is absurd, the light postulate is to blame, not the principle of relativity:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.h
tml Chapter 11

Of course, the time dilation absurdities (the twin "paradox") are more interesting than the length contraction absurdities but there century-old Augean stables of arguments and counterarguments have been formed, leaving no room for any new analysis.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Eckard, The Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the speed of the photons varies EXACTLY as the speed of perfectly elastic balls does. I am afraid that, however "cautiously" I interpret the experiment, the conclusion would always be the same.

Best regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 17:52 GMT
Eckard, Note that results like the following one do not impress me at all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

"P
uzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light."

What matters to me is that both in the absence and in the presence of a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of perfectly elastic balls does, and the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments have UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed that.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 05:37 GMT
Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp. 12-16 in Chapter 11 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press

So the hysteria around any faster-than-light travel established in experiment or theory would be a red herring (that is, Einsteiniana would continue to destroy human rationality) unless the assumption of independence is refuted. Fortunately the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments have UNEQUIVOCALLY shown that the variation of the speed of photons is identical to the variation of the speed of any material bodies, e.g. cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 13:31 GMT
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.ht
m

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1 plus Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave."

Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation:

V' = Vwave plus Vo

which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light:

c' = c plus v

So if the waves overtake the moving observer "AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE", then whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does not matter at all - special relativity is wrong anyway. If the rate at which waves overtake the moving observer does not vary with his speed, then, somewhat surprisingly, whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does not matter much again - fundamental effects such as time dilation and length contraction are valid consequences of the invariability in question.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 15:46 GMT
Remember the martyr:

http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/sci.physics/index.
html

Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present science will be considered medieval,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 04:39 GMT
Eckard, interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on ether do not withstand scrutiny but since this has already been discussed countless times (the topic is not forbidden in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world), I deliberately avoid the discussion. You are right: we should use the notion of particle with care but in some cases light behaves AS IF it were a particle. When it comes to the variability/constancy of the speed of light, we have just one of those cases: photons behave AS IF they were cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Eckard Blumschein wrote: "Pentcho, The MM experiment merely confirmed that there is no, measurable on earth, motion between earth and an ether. Are Shtyrkov, Gift and many others wrong? How fast a propagating wave conveys energy depends on the medium, not on the emitted energy. Some facts concerning e.g. light and electrons are seen as support of SR while they actually indicate properties of a wave. Velocity and energy of a body moving without acceleration in a hypothetically empty space are relative quantities in so far they are given with the motion of an emitting body relative to a receiving body regardless of any observer. Light is not a body. In order to avoid paradoxes, we should perhaps use the notion particle with care. Regards, Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 07:33 GMT
Pentcho,

Natural Philosophy Alliance did not revealed to me to any refutation of Shtyrkov. Of course, as the pope said: Belief is not negotiable.

Regards, Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 08:09 GMT
Eckard, Both the ether theory and Newton's emission theory of light refute special relativity by referring to the fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer. The *moving observer* scenario is quite convincing so let us postpone the fight "ether theory against emission theory" until special relativity is officially denounced. Otherwise we would be like two people in Stalin's Russia trying to establish a new political party and hesitating between, say, conservatism and social democracy.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 13:47 GMT
I'm bumping this thread because I have added in Geoffrey West's show-stopping video, on the emergence of a universal time in complexity theory, to the original post. It's well worth a look -- probably one of the standout talks of the meeting.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.