CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
Absolute or Relative Motion... or Something Else? by Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 14:29 GMT
Essay AbstractHistorically, motion has been conceived at the classical level either in a relationist or absolutist framework. It is argued that there may be other ways to conceive motion and that a systematic investigation of these different conceptions may produce new physics.
Author BioI´m a 23 years old student of mechanical engineering at the Universidade Federal do Ceará in Brazil. I took graduate and undergraduate courses in physics and studied independently for a long time. I now hold a scholarship from the brazilian government for studying physics.
Download Essay PDF File
Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Your essay is very well written, clearly set out and argued, going from the historical notions to possible future direction for further development. I am interested in understanding more about Julian Barbour's work. Your clear explanations are helpful with that. So good timing on your part. I think it is a fascinating enough question how we perceive what an object is let alone how it moves.Which is why, until recently, I have not given a great deal of thought to how best to describe a moving object. Other than a brief affair with Leonard Susskind's lectures on classical mechanics via FQXi resources. I like the way in which you have very clearly and simply set out your ideas on the matter.
My own work has been more to do with the separation of reality into an implicate and explicate types, (I have realised), the need for which is well described in ALGEBRAS, QUANTUM THEORY AND PRE-SPACE by F. A. M. FRESCURA and B. J. HILEY Department of Physics, Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HX UK (Received In February, 22, 1984)
The question then of what an object -is- becomes more complicated as it depends upon whether the "object" in implicate or explicate reality is under consideration or the sensory data by which one might be converted into the semblance of the other. Which I currently think is even more fascinating than the simple concept of an object or shape (as we are accustomed to thinking of those concepts) in an abstract space; or the concept of an object in Newtonian space or Space-time.Which (Ie. implicate or explicate or data) is under consideration by scientists is very important, I think. At least it is very important to me whenever I think about what is going on.
At the end of my essay I have also suggested that category theory could be a useful way forward in developing a formal expression of the relationships identified. Its feels nice, reassuring perhaps, when there is an overlap in thinking about a subject by different people.I hope you get lots of interest in your work.
Good luck in the competition
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear Georgina
Thanks for the encouraging comments. I will soon read your essay and shares ideas and opinions. Best regards.
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Daniel
Congratulations for your learned and original essay on a very important topic.
I will have to read your essay more carefully to understand your conception, especially that I think visually (geometrically) rather than algebraically. Nevertheless I agree with you that a new way to think about motion is essential.
In my
Beautiful Universe Theory (please see Figs. 19 attached, 20, 26) I have found that motion is the most complex and unintuitive process in my model! As you describe it, motion is a change of pattern. Exactly! In my my model it is the pattern of rotation and phase states in the individual nodes of a universal lattice, but the nodes themselves do not translate position. It is a bit like the
pattern of lights in a marquee sign . Nevertheless within the (BU) model forward momentum arriving at an object create contraction even before motion starts, and both special and general relativity are interpreted in simpler more physically realistic ways.
I would be grateful if you (and if you can invite Dr. Barbour to do so) will evaluate my essay, also at my fqxi paper
my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .
I wish you all the best.
Vladimir
attachments:
BUFIG19.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT
Vladimir
The path I visualize to find new conceptions of motion is by finding the meaning of our statementes about motion. How can we define time, space, motion and objects? How new definitions may create new physics and known physics? I will read you essay and share some ideas and opinions.
Best regards.
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 17:30 GMT
Daniel
I agree the most pertinent question today is to accurately analyse "objects that constitute a physical system and their evolution in time", and their effects. I have myself applied this and used pattern recognition to find a unification to "meaningfully describe the universe."
Your essay is well written, shows excellent understanding and rejection of the assumptions most students stridently defend. Well done. Certainly a good score is due.
Like Vladimir I am not a mathematician, and have identified a weakness in using algebraic vector space to accurately describe motion with Cartesian systems. Yet I suspect you may love my essay, or at least the relationships you may glean by considering the meaning kinetically. I hope you may also help better rationalise my findings.
Best of luck.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Dear Peter
Thanks for the encouraging comments. I will read your essay soon, and try to find out the relationship between our works.
Best regards.
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves,
I found your essay on Absolute or Relative motion absolutely fascinating. You do an excellent job of explaining Barbour's work in the context of Mach and show how the question of absolute or relative motion is still worthy of investigation. I recommend Daryl Janzen and Israel Omar Perez's essays for fresh insight on absolute frames of reference and also...
view entire post
Dear Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves,
I found your essay on Absolute or Relative motion absolutely fascinating. You do an excellent job of explaining Barbour's work in the context of Mach and show how the question of absolute or relative motion is still worthy of investigation. I recommend Daryl Janzen and Israel Omar Perez's essays for fresh insight on absolute frames of reference and also hope that you find my own essay
The Nature of the Wave Function to be relevant.
For example, my general relativistic approach to quantum mechanics centers on the weak field approximation: curl C ~ -p where p is momentum density and C is defined in my essay. Hence a change change in curl C with time corresponds to a force dp/dt. One might conclude that, if the field is real [it is -- see Gravity Probe B] this implies an absolute frame, otherwise the field [the basis of the QM wave function] could be transformed away. There is also a spin aspect of the circulating field.
I was also interested in your observation that time cannot be defined without motion of objects. In this sense you might find page 2 my
previous essay of interest. It deals with the breaking of perfect symmetry of the original universe, before which the solution is scale-invariant and hence motion-invariant. When the symmetry breaks local vortices appear, the first local cyclical events that give meaning to 'time' in the sense of physical 'clocks'. Before this time is meaningless.
In short, I find your essay absolutely compelling, partly because it overlaps my interests and relates to aspects of my last two essays. You have certainly shown that the concept of motion is still worth exploring. I would hope that you avoid Tegmark's extreme conclusion that the universe "is mathematics". I see this as a misguided dead end for physicists. Instead, I agree with you that the concept of obervation is crucial, and would draw your attention to new observations from 'weak' (Aharonov-type) quantum mechanical observations [referenced in my current essay].
Thanks for a stimulating essay and good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear Edwin
I have now read your essay. First of all, I would like to say that the proposal of deriving QM weirdness from classical physics is an outstading task and that I have not followed all the details of your essay, but there are some questions I´d like to ask here in the interface between our works.
First, you say that the fact that the C-field has been measured implies an...
view entire post
Dear Edwin
I have now read your essay. First of all, I would like to say that the proposal of deriving QM weirdness from classical physics is an outstading task and that I have not followed all the details of your essay, but there are some questions I´d like to ask here in the interface between our works.
First, you say that the fact that the C-field has been measured implies an absolute frame. I can´t see how this can be so if the equation of the C-field comes from general relativity which is a background independent theory. The equation curl C= -p is written in a particular reference frame, but if it is a general relativistic equation there should be a basis-independent version.
For instance, suppose the whole universe is moved 5 meters to the left. Would the C-field procedure be able to show this as an observable information?
The measurement of any field defined in every space-time point does not entail that there is an absolute frame.
For example, suppose you have a snapshot of a 3D euclidean space with numbers attached to each point representing the values of a field. Now imagine you have a second snapshot representing the same field after a while, with different numbers. How can we know if the field has changed over time? How do we indentify a point in one snapshot with a point in another? Newtonian´s absolute space was introduced to define an equilocality relation between the 2 snapshots, because otherwise it seems that it would be impossible to define any concept of change in space. But Barbour´s best matching procedure does exactly that without mentioning any kind of invisible absolute structure. So field theories can be made relational according to the definitions presented in my essay.
Actually, by imposing the metric field to have a relational character, GR is almost uniquely signed out, as Barbour has shown with collaborators.
I must say that I´m a bit confused by your statement that the measurement of a tensorial field (C) entails the existence of an absolute frame via QM consideratoins. Can you explain it a little more?
I still have not read your previous essay which has to do with the nature of time, but as soon as I do it I will share some ideas.
And finally, thank you very much for the encouraging comments- for me, seeing them coming from a scientist like you means a lot.
Best regards.
view post as summary
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Thanks for the thought you've put into my essay. In answer to your first question, it is not the fact that the C-field has been measured that implies an absolute frame of reference. Rather, the fact that the field is real seems to imply that its energy cannot be transformed away by transforming to a frame in which velocity is zero. The analogous case for electromagnetic fields...
view entire post
Dear Daniel,
Thanks for the thought you've put into my essay. In answer to your first question, it is not the fact that the C-field has been measured that implies an absolute frame of reference. Rather, the fact that the field is real seems to imply that its energy cannot be transformed away by transforming to a frame in which velocity is zero. The analogous case for electromagnetic fields varies the 'ratio' of electric to magnetic field according to Lorentz transformation, but it is not clear to me that the same 'tradeoff' applies to the gravito-electric G-field and the gravito-magnetic C-field. I'm still thinking this through, which is why I said "one might conclude...".
I'm unsure about how to answer your question about 'moving the whole universe 5 meters to the left." I assume that you mean the 'frame' but not the contents of the frame, in which case the inducing particle momentum and circulating field would seem to be displaced to the right by 5 meters, but I am not sure how one performs this experiment or what detection means are available. I do agree that the measurement of any field defined in every space-time point does not entail that there is an absolute frame. It is rather the link between these circulating field points and the inducing local mass flow (that is, between the rotational momentum and the linear momentum) that seems to me to suggest absoluteness. As in the case of shifting the universe 5 meters to the left, I am unsure how one would go about experimentally obtaining the 3D snapshots that identify field points in this situation in such a manner that all local correlations are preserved.
As I understand it, local mass density is an ill-defined concept in general relativity, while the C-field circulation is induced by the motion of local mass density. So the coupling of this local phenomenon to global GR may be conceptually 'fuzzy'. Your questions focus on measuring 'point's in a field, while the phenomenon in question is a complicated angular flow of field induced by and interacting with a local mass density linear flow. I am still of the opinion that the time derivative of (curl C ~ -p) supports an 'absolute frame' interpretation, but I'm uncertain how to translate this into appropriate 'points' to answer your questions. As I noted in my first comment, you might find support for your essay in a more familiar framework in the essays by Janzen and Perez.
In recent conversations with others I seem to detect two conceptual frameworks in operation. One is focused on the mathematics, while the other focuses on the physical phenomena. Of course the two should be related, but where the emphasis is placed seems sometime to affect the initial conclusions. This is why I counsel against belief in Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".
Thanks again for making the effort to understand how our essays might relate.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I have read your essay with great interest, especially because it dicusses an unsolved fundamental problem of modern physics: What is the cause of inertia?
I would like to draw your attention to a point that is often overlooked, but is of great importance with respect to our understanding of motion: The Law of Inertia implies a causal paradox of classical mechanics, which we still do not find resolved in modern physics. This paradox is even scarcely recognized as such.
In particular, setting the force, which is assumed to be the cause of the change of state of motion, equal to zero, there are still solutions with constant velocity.
According to the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weiszäcker one avoids the linguistic appearance of a paradox by appropriately calling force not the cause of motion but the cause of acceleration, and letting the state of motion be described by position and velocity (or momentum).
In brief, this state of motion varies in time although the condition F = 0 is given. In other words, there is no external influence that might be regarded as the cause of this persistent change of state.
V. Weizsäcker summarizes this as follows: "In contrast to the sensitive causal conscience of Aristotle and the scholastics, who searched for an explanation of the continued motion of a freely thrown body, in modern times we have simply renounced such an explanation of inertial motion. This renunciation is not a resignation in principle regarding causal explanation; it is none other than surrender in the face of an unsolved problem."
(in: The Structure of Physics, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, p. 24)
May be you will find this "paradox" somehow interesting. It is closely related to the notion of relational versus absolute motion.
Good luck for your well-written paper.
Kind Regards
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Helmut
Thanks for the positive comments.
I must admit I can´t see the paradox you mentioned.
First because there´s no need to a cause for why free objects are at rest or moving with constant velocity in relation to an inertial frame other than F=0. I don´t see the point.
Second, this ''persistent change of state'' as you put is meaningful only to a reference frame: there are frames in which classical mechanics hold and a free object is at rest.
Maybe you should try to explain me better where is the paradox (self-contradictory conclusion).
Best regards
Anonymous replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear Daniel,
The background of it as follows: The conceptual meaning of force ist that it is the cause of change. That means the function f(ik), whose form enters into the solution as a system parameter, is proportional to the time deritative of a state variable. It is thus already assumed how the force will depend on the state, and this force then determines the change of the state in time.
In brief, one understands f(ik) not as one cause among others but as the cause of the change of state. Mathematically it is due to the differential equation being of second order. The state variable x(ik) alone does not determine its own subsequent development, but does so only in conjunction with its time deritative v(ik) as an arbitrary initial condition. In particular, setting the force, which is assumed to be the cause of the change of state, equal to zero, there are still solutions with constant velocity:
x(ik) = a(ik)t + b(ik)
v(ik) = a(ik)
A body with no motive force acting upon it moves with constant velocity.
The physical background of v. Weizsäcker's argument is: Two bodies with the same velocity but at different locations are in different states, if correctly put by the modern description in phase space; and during inertial motion the point in phase space varies. V. Weizsäcker proposes: If one wants to think causally in a consistent way, one must radicalize Machs ideas and interpret the inertial motion as being caused by the universe (i.e. the distant masses).
Hope it helps to understand the point..
Best wishes
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Thanks for the reply.
First notice that the concept of velocity is not unique, as an objects velocity varies within different inertial frames. Since classical mechanics is galilean invariant, absolute velocity has no importance at all.
Also, the fact that ''A body with no motive force acting upon it moves with constant velocity'' is not strange or undesirable! It seems you feel unconfortable with the fact that the lack of force (F=0) implies a change of state. It may be easier to see that there is no problem by remembering that F is just -(grad V) which may be 0 even when V is different to 0.
Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 05:55 GMT
Dear Daniel,
you avoid the problem connected with it: Neither Galilean nor Special Relativity is able to justify the privileged role of inertial frames of reference. Newton's law is epistemologically circular. Today this problem is only solved by means of an incomplete induction. Einstein was aware of this problem, which he tried to eliminate it by introducing Mach's principle into his general theory of relativity. But he failed. Even in his last lecture, given at the Palmer Physical Laboratory in April 14, 1954, he struggled with this problem. He compared the inertial frame with God Almighty. Like him it would be unaffected by anything else.In this lecture he also explained why the implementation of Machs principle into his GTR failed. --If you give up space, you have an enormous number of distances, and unhandy consistency relations.-- (Einstein, 1954)
Hence, I resist: THERE IS A PROBLEM and its solution determines essentially how we understand MOTION.
Kind Regards
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Dear Helmut
The role of inertial frames was made clearer in the 19th century by the works of Lange and Tait. They showed how to define an inertial frame of reference operationally. But it is possible to recover all results from classical mechanics without using absolute spatial frame (associated with inertial frames). This is exactly Julian Barbour´s relational particle mechanics, implemented via his method of best matching. It recovers the notion of an inertial frame by an average procedure on all the masses of the universe, thus giving life to machian philosophy.
hide replies
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I think if the equation of physics are written with the help of vectors and tensors they can be truly for absolute reference frame. Then if we have truly transformations of coordinate and time to any relative reference frame we will have truly picture in this frame. Then we have absolute and Relative Motion in different reference frames and both are equivalent to each other. The example of absolute reference frame is in
Extended special theory of relativity, one concept of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter in my Essay.
Sergey Fedosin Essay
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 19:57 GMT
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for your interest in my essay. I did not understand the points you are trying to make. You say: ''I think if the equation of physics are written with the help of vectors and tensors they can be truly for absolute reference frame.''
The whole business of using tensors suggest background independence because tensors have an existence independent of any basis in which their components may be written. I don´t understand what you mean.
Sergey G Fedosin replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I supposed that in the beginning we have only one frame which is absolute reference frame. Then we discover vectors and tensors in this frame. After it we discover such transformation of coordinates and time that we can study phenomena in relative reference frames using the same vectors and tensors but with relative coordinates and time.
Sergey Fedosin Essay
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear Sergey
Mach once pointed out: ''what would be of our law of inertia in the middle of an earthquake?''
Due to the fact that we are used to live in a relatively stable enviroment, it is very natural to introduce an absolute frame. But when we find out that the whole background is not so stable (the earth moves, the sun moves, the galaxy moves) it really becomes compelling to look for background independent or backgroundless formulations for physics. We have almost a ''historical reason'' to look for such theories: newton´s absolute physics could well be an accidental mistake due to our stable enviroment.
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Edwin, thanks for the reply.
I think the whole confusion comes from the fact the C-field equation is written in a particular basis, but it should be diffeomorphism invariant if it comes from GR. If you can explain that to me, we can understand each other points more easily.
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 20:11 GMT
Hi Daniel,
The weak field approximation I use is derived in Hobson, Efstathiou and Lasenby's book, "General Relativity, An Introduction for Physicists" page 491. Another treatment begins on page 313 in Moller's "The Theory of Relativity".
I do not, as a matter of first choice, think in terms of diffeomorphisms, and, with all of the questioning in current essays of the interpretation of General Relativity and its relation to Quantum Mechanics, I don't plan to focus on diffeomorphism invariance. Upon reading your essay it appeared to me that it bore some relation to mine, but it looks as if this relation will die from the lack of a common vocabulary and common expertise. Thanks again for your efforts, and good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT
Edwin,
I don´t think any lack of expertise of my own should be a problem because my question is very simple. Unfortunately I could not find your references.
Let me put it in this way: The C-field is not a 4-vector (certainly because the curl operator is defined only for 3 dimensions). I´m just asking you to provide the tensorial version, i.e. the covariant version of the C-field equation.
Then I´m sure we can have a good talk.
Best regards
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 22:17 GMT
Daniel,
Due to the high degree of non-linearity in the field equations a general solution for arbitrary matter distributions is "analytically intractable". One approach to this is to linearize general relativity, and an excellent treatment of this is provided beginning on page 467 of the Doran reference given above and continuing to page 497. [An equivalent treatment begins on page 313 in Moller, as noted.] The key equation is probably the metric equation (17-4) on page 469, based on infinitesimal transformations (of the form given in equation 17-2) that apply to changes in scalar, vector, and tensor fields, but the claim is that these can be ignored in all quantities except the metric, "where tiny deviations from eta-sub-mu-nu contain all the information about gravity. Equation (17-4) is considered as analogous to a gauge transformation in electromagnetism, and hence has the form of the tensor F-sub-mu-nu given on page 4 in my previous essay, that I already referenced above.
I'm sure that you are quite competent, but if the linearized form of General Relativity is unfamiliar to you, I doubt that a comments blog is the place to remedy this. And, as I noted above, I don't wish to invest more effort into GR field equations, since I have doubts about the ultimate interpretation of GR and I currently find the Maxwell form of the equations much more useful for analogies with electro-magnetism, which I believe most applicable to the quantum approach I am currently interested in. Thanks yet again for your efforts.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Edwin
I found a good reference (Carrol´s book) and I now understand the C-field is a 3 vector formed upon the (0i) components of the pertubation of the metric h
uv in the linearized approach.
The C-field has an existence relative to any inertial frame, but just as the eletric and magnetic field are part of a basis independent tensor F
uv, the basis independent object from which C-field is derived is h
uv.
NASA´s probe b may have measured the C-field, but we should not forget that that was made in a particular reference frame. In a different frame, the result would be different (just as in electromagnetic measurements of the E and B fields).
Given the background independent nature of GR, 2 configurations of the universe related by a diffeomorphism (like moving the whole universe to the left) are not physically distinct, and also the h
uv before and after a diffeomorphism are not physical distict (even though the C-field might be, but that is analogous to the transformation of eletric field to magnetic field in different frames). So, just like anyother relativistic field, the h
uv has a background independent character and the C-field derived from it is meaningful only in a particular basis. There is no room for absolutness.
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 20:24 GMT
Daniel,
I'm glad you found a reference. And I agree with you that if it "is analogous to the transformation of electric field to magnetic field in different frames" then "like any other relativistic field, the huv has a background independent character and the C-field derived from it is meaningful only in a particular basis. There is no room for absolutness."
I am not certain that the analogy holds, due to some features of Martin Tajmar's measurements of the C-field and due to my own interpretation, but it is likely that it actually is analogous, in which case I fully agree with you.
I still recommend Daryl Janzen's essay and Israel Perez's essay as potentially related to yours. I think you will enjoy fruitful discussions with both of these authors.
I very much appreciate the effort you have made to understand the C-field and relate it to your own essay, and wish you the best in this contest and in your career.
Sincerely,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Daniel (part 1)
I enjoyed reading your clear and well written essay. I would like to make some comments so you can understand some nuances in how we should understand absolute motion. As I argued in my reply to you in my entry, I hold that space is some sort of aether which for modern convenience we can call it quantum vacuum or better the zero-point field (ZPF) and therefore it can be...
view entire post
Dear Daniel (part 1)
I enjoyed reading your clear and well written essay. I would like to make some comments so you can understand some nuances in how we should understand absolute motion. As I argued in my reply to you in my entry, I hold that space is some sort of aether which for modern convenience we can call it quantum vacuum or better the zero-point field (ZPF) and therefore it can be considered as the PSR. Because relative to this ZPF all objects move (including light). If we have an object at rest this object is absolutely at rest otherwise it is in absolute motion. So, as you can see I am being truly relational, unless you disagree. I am going to quote one of the arguments that Newton gave in his famous scholim when he was arguing in favor of the existence of absolute motion (which is basically the same idea I am stating):
"But because the parts of space cannot be seen, or distinguished from one another by our senses, therefore in their instead we use sensible measures of them. For from the positions and distances of things from any body considered as immovable, we define all places; and then with respect to such places, we estimate all motions, considering bodies as transferred from some of those places into others. And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. For it may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred.
But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our regions.
As you can see Newton was also truly relational in contrast to what most people believe about him, the problem is that Newton's space was envisaged as total emptiness and relating the motion to nothingness is meaningless. He also knew that it may not be possible to detect absolute motion but despite this when something moves it really moves not only relative to a reference object but, within the modern context, relative to the ZPF. This field pervades the whole universe and interconnects all physical objects (particles). Therefore, the water of the famous bucket experiment, moves relative to the ZPF which in Newton words would be "absolute space" and in Einstein words would be "the gravitational potential or the metric tensor". The problem with the metric tensor is that it is nothing but a mathematical object, pure geometry.
On the other hand, the programme your are endeavoring is not knew for me. I have tried in the past to reformulate mechanics getting rid of time and space. This would lead to a thermodynamic-like formulation of mechanics, but I found it fruitless basically because one cannot avoid the involvement of time-like parameter in the formulation. As I could see in your essay the parameter gamma plays the role of t, which appears to be redundant if one tries to get rid of one parameter and introduce another. My question here is, how is this parameter gamma going to be measured? With a clock?
To be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 02:12 GMT
Part 2
You also discuss the nature of time and take as a departure for your argumentation Newton's absolute notion. Indeed Newton's time appears to be unaffected by the motion of objects, it is a continuous flow that never stops, nor accelerates. I agree with you that the precursor of time is change/motion (CM) of things, this is what makes us feel the passage of time. I think that...
view entire post
Part 2
You also discuss the nature of time and take as a departure for your argumentation Newton's absolute notion. Indeed Newton's time appears to be unaffected by the motion of objects, it is a continuous flow that never stops, nor accelerates. I agree with you that the precursor of time is change/motion (CM) of things, this is what makes us feel the passage of time. I think that something that appears to be certain is that CM of things is seen everywhere in nature, I mean, there are things in the universe (motion of planets, etc.) constantly occurring following some physical laws, and in this sense the continuous occurrence of events can be thought of as a flow of CM and therefore this resembles a flow of time in the Newtonian sense. The inference we grasp from the previous reflexion is that to say that there is a flow of changes is equivalent to say that there is a flow of time. In physical terms this flow is measured with a clock (that is a material body that moves or changes) and is mathematically represented in physics as an "independent" variable. Certainly, it has to be independent because it seems that CM is an intrinsic aspect of the universe. According to the theoretical framework under consideration this variable is considered as a parameter (e.g. classical mechanics) or as a coordinate (relativity). Now, whatever the physical meaning of the variable is, I also hold that this CM has to be related to a reference CM. And since I am assuming a PSR I also hold that there is a preferred clock (time) and again if this clock is at rest in the ZPF one has a universal (absolute) time for all observers (see also the essay of Daryl Janzen). If a clock moves relative to the PSR it dilates as function of the speed (imagine again the light beam clock in which the mirror is held by a metallic bar that delimits the distance L).
The dilation effect is caused basically by the fact that the light beam --traveling through the ZPF-- will traverse an optical path length much larger than when the clock is at rest. If our light beam clock is placed perpendicular to the motion of the clock, the light beam will follow a diagonal trajectory in the forward and backward journeys. In this case there is no Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of the clock bar and we can calculate the amount of dilatation by using the Pythagoras theorem. But if we place the clock in a horizontal position the bar will undergo Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction by the factor gamma and we have to consider this effect in our calculations. Hence, no matter the orientation of the clock with respect to the motion, the dilatation will be in the same amount.
The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is a consequence of the fact that the bar of the clock is made up of atoms (particles) glued by electromagnetic fields. Thus, to set the clock into motion from absolute rest we have to apply a force, this force will cause a reconfiguration of the atoms in the direction in which the force is applied manifesting itself as a contraction of the length.
Special relativity gives a geometrical explanation of these effects based on the two postulates (which as I argued in my essay is only one). In a certain sense we can say that relativity makes a mathematical abstraction of the physical properties (such as length) of real objects (please read Einstein's essay: Geometry and experience). The abstraction of extension of a material object is mathematically represented by a three dimensional manifold. There is a caveat to make here, one should distinguish between physical space (ZPF, vacuum and aether) and the mathematical representation of physical space. Newtonian space was envisaged as nothingness, total emptyness and its mathematical counterpart is Euclidean geometry. Recall that in special relativity space is also totally empty as in the Newtonian case and its abstraction is the Minkowskian space-time, which is a psedo-Euclidean space (due to the minus sign in the metric). General relativity does the same thing, from this perspective space is epitomized as non-Euclidean which warps according to the energy-momentum tensor, but again, it is just a geometrical abstraction.
Best wishes
Israel
PS. I have replied to your last post in my entry.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT
Dear Israel
Thank you very much for taking your time to read my essay and my arguments on your own essay. I am a little bit busy with my university now so I may take a few days to reply your posts. Come back here until thursday and I will analyze your arguements carefully, both here and on your essay´s thread.
Once again thanks for an awesome discussion.
Daniel
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT
(Part1) Dear Israel
You state that: ''Because relative to this ZPF all objects move (including light). If we have an object at rest this object is absolutely at rest otherwise it is in absolute motion''
That seems true, but it is not! That is because you cannot indentify space points with field values. I have argued for this before, but I will try to be clearer now. Suppose we have a...
view entire post
(Part1) Dear Israel
You state that: ''Because relative to this ZPF all objects move (including light). If we have an object at rest this object is absolutely at rest otherwise it is in absolute motion''
That seems true, but it is not! That is because you cannot indentify space points with field values. I have argued for this before, but I will try to be clearer now. Suppose we have a snapshot of your ZPF. Then we have a spatial frame in which we can do physics: lets suppose that, by some procedure, it is possible to measure positions against this quantum vaccum field. After a small amount of time has elapsed can we calculate the displacement of a macroscopic object? Your anwser would be: YES! Just look at the quantum vaccum background.
But actually it is not so simple: how do you identify a point in one of your ''quantum background'' with a point an amount of time later? We need an equilocality relation for that. Please see the attachment, I took from Barbour´s book ''The Discovery of Dynamics''. The snapshot argument I have mentioned before holds both with ''point particles'' and 'fields''.
''The argument goes like this(again, taken from barbour´s book):
(...) let us consider the situation in field theories. In field theory the dynamical problem can be posed typically as follows. Imagine a pattern of intensities in two dimensions (supressing again the third dimension of space for better visualization) and once again suppose a snapshot taken of the intensities. A little pattern of intensities has changed everywhere by a certain amount. We take a second snapshot. No the aim of a dynamical field theory, expressed in these terms, is to formulate laws which say how the intensity at each point of space changes with the passage of time. But again, we confront the invisibility of space. Given our two snapshots, the only way we can determine how much the intensity has changed is by comparing the one pattern of intensities with the other. But how is the second snapshot to be placed with respect to the first? We lack all objective criteria for making any definite placing of one snapshot relative to the other but for every particular placing we choose we obtain in principle different changes in intensities. No less than in the case of material particles, the universal change that takes place between the two snapshots simultaneously severs all connections between the two time slices.''
(Julian Barbour, The Discovery of Dynamics)
view post as summary
attachments:
barbours_arrow.png
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:56 GMT
Part 2
You´ve written: ''But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but...
view entire post
Part 2
You´ve written: ''But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body''
Perfectly. As I have stated in my essay, inertial frames of reference were defined operationally in the 19th century. You may introduce absolute space, but there is no way to operationally define absolute velocity and absolute position! These are, as you put, impossible to know. No problem with this, as long as absolute space is useful. However, if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Relational particle dynamics is superior to Newton´s theory: it recovers the concepts of inertial frame and duration solely from observable data. Furthermore, there are very objective advantages, such as relational particle dynamics reducing the number of initial conditions needed to solve the equations for motion: it has a bigger predictivity. Less data is needed.
The only way out is if, by some procedure upon the quantum vacuum you propose, it could be possible to have distinguised positions! I have big doubts on that however, because GR is background independent!
In the end, if the absolute background hypothesis you advocate proves to be useful, I will always agree that theories should be built with it. But, I tried to make clear that it must be REALLY useful, because it is not simpler then stating that there is no background.
Actually my essay was not strictly about the relational formulation for mechanics. I try to argue that there are more ways one can conceive motion other than absolutely or relationally. You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.
Best Regards,
Daniel
view post as summary
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Daniel
You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space. I agree with you that is difficult (or may be...
view entire post
Dear Daniel
You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space. I agree with you that is difficult (or may be impossible) to put a material object at rest relative to the ZPF, but despite that one cannot reject its existence. In my entry I replied to you and discussed how the principle of relativity should be understood. I would be glad if you take a look at it and answer the questions I raised there in relation to the rejection of the PSR.
As far as I can see you do not get the usefulness as I do, and so you conclude that, as absolute newtonian space, my arguments are devoid of utility. This is not the case. In my last replied to you I provided a counter example in allusion to the measurement of the one-way speed of light. So far, no experiment has ever measured it, but despite this, as we all have witnessed, the special relativity has been quite successful for physics. The case is similar with the ZPF, despite that the absolute position of an object relative to ZPF could not be determined I find the assumption elucidating and helpful for the construction of a strong and coherent theory. Just because fields (gravitational, electromagnetic) cannot be seen by the senses, this does not mean that they do not exist. Similarly occurs with the ZPF. Despite that it cannot be perceived by the senses we know it is there (do you deny this?), just recall the Casimir effect. So, I can assume it as a continuous fluid because this will help me to explain the body of observations. Moreover, the existence of this omnipresent field allows us to assume the PSR, again, despite the fact that (as Newton argued) we only had access to relative measurements. The ZPF and the PSR has to be considered, above all, because light, seen as a wave, demands it (as a photon the explanation becomes faint). Because its speed is defined relative to the ZPF, not relative to the source or any other material body. Light does not travel relative to the empty space as Newton contended, but relative to the ZPF. If you have understood this, I ask you to provide any objection to the motion of light. According to you, with respect to what physical entity do light move? What physical entity defines the speed of light waves?
In addition to these arguments, I pointed out another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the speed of light (see my reply to you in my entry). To avoid the paradox, it is necessary to assume the PSR. You say: if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Because if do not introduce the PSR we arrive at several paradoxes. Furthermore, if a theory A assuming a PSR explains the same amount of observations as another theory B in which there is no PSR, I would chose theory A, because theory A would be free from paradoxes.
You: You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.
As I explained, Newton was also relational contrary to the customary view. The material objects we used as reference systems are in space, but one has be careful in how we conceive space. From my perspective, Mach misconceived the deep meaning of Newton conceptions because Mach thought of space as an empty vessel not as a massive fluid, this is why he claimed that the stars, and not space, were playing the major role in defining inertia and centrifugal forces.
Best Regards
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Israel
''You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space.''
Agreed. Newton takes absolute space...
view entire post
Dear Israel
''You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space.''
Agreed. Newton takes absolute space for granted. Classical mechanics is tremendoulsy powerful. However, notice that the statements of Newton´s mechanics
can never be classified as true or false (because F=ma and ''a'' is defined in the absolute space frame which cannot be seen, so there´s no way we can verify the theory). We must choose an object to become ou reference frame, so that we measure distances upon it (x,y,z). Now if this frame is inertial,
-(grad V)=ma.So we could almost see absolute space, except that we still could never measure absolute position and velocity. Again, any problem with that? Well, we know classical mechanics is incredibly useful. But that is because we take the ''distant stars'' as a substitute for absolute frame, and that is very practical and as precise as we need for everyday engineering. But if we can create a theory WITHOUT unobservable data and which lead to the same (and/or new) verified results, then shouldn´t we prefer it? So why did it take so long for someone to find a substitute for Newton´s classical mechanics which didn´t have unobservable statements? The general belief that it could not be created. Let´s move on.
'' I agree with you that is difficult (or may be impossible) to put a material object at rest relative to the ZPF, but despite that one cannot reject its existence. In my entry I replied to you and discussed how the principle of relativity should be understood. I would be glad if you take a look at it and answer the questions I raised there in relation to the rejection of the PSR.''
Okay, I see you have written new arguments there, I will definitely take a look.
''As far as I can see you do not get the usefulness as I do, and so you conclude that, as absolute newtonian space, my arguments are devoid of utility.''
That´s not the case actually. With the snapshot argument I tried to remark that the ZPF by itself cannot be identified with a PSR. But PSR have utility. For instance, as far as I know, string theory is a backgound dependet theory. So if in the end it proves to be correct, we see that there would be a PSR, even though symmetries of the theory would make it become unobservable. But strictly at the classical level, I think relational formulations have clear advantages as I explained above and in other replies.
''This is not the case. In my last replied to you I provided a counter example in allusion to the measurement of the one-way speed of light. So far, no experiment has ever measured it, but despite this, as we all have witnessed, the special relativity has been quite successful for physics. ''
It really does not break your argument, but anyway, you will find interesting that a guy has filmed light moving!
Video link. I agree that we may have unobservable data in physical theories. Maybe they are inevitable. Who knows? But don´t you think we should get rid of them if we can?
''The case is similar with the ZPF, despite that the absolute position of an object relative to ZPF could not be determined I find the assumption elucidating and helpful for the construction of a strong and coherent theory.''
That´s the point. If it is REALLY useful, yes, I agree we should take the PSR proposal. But then we must always bear in mind that such a theory would provide us unobservable data (like newton´s mechanics). Nevertheless, it is a way to conceive motion. There may be others as well. The point of my essay is to study all these possible conceptions systematically.
''Just because fields (gravitational, electromagnetic) cannot be seen by the senses, this does not mean that they do not exist.''
They can be seen, where by ''seen'' I mean detected. This is different form PSR.
'' Similarly occurs with the ZPF. Despite that it cannot be perceived by the senses we know it is there (do you deny this?), just recall the Casimir effect.''
Yes, it is there. But we cannot use it (as far as I know, please correct me if I´m wrong) to define a preferred position. So it is as invisible as absolute space (this is where the snapshot argument comes in).
''So, I can assume it as a continuous fluid because this will help me to explain the body of observations. Moreover, the existence of this omnipresent field allows us to assume the PSR (...)''
don´t agree that the existence of ZPF allows us to assume PSR, because PSR can´t be used to define a preferred position. Same aguments as before.
''(...), again, despite the fact that (as Newton argued) we only had access to relative measurements. The ZPF and the PSR has to be considered, above all, because light, seen as a wave, demands it (as a photon the explanation becomes faint). ''
I don´t see why this is so. We can easily imagine electromagnetic waves without ether. Instead of saying an eletric field E=E(x,y,z,t) is a pertubation of some invisible ether it can be seen as telling you that the measurements of that quantity you call eletric field in the position (x,y,z,t) as seen by an observer has the value E. The wave would be a compact way of telling us operational procedures. Above all, what I´m trying to say is that there is no strictly LOGICAL need for a medium where electromagnetic waves would propagate. In more advanced theories like string theory, the vibrating strings would produce the waves and even space-time itself.
''Because its speed is defined relative to the ZPF, not relative to the source or any other material body.''
As far as I know, no one has ever measured the speed of light against the background of ZPF (and I still argue that the ZPF cannot provide a background, snapshot argument). The speed of light is always measured against a material, visible object. What empirical experiences say is that, no matter what object you choose as reference, the speed value is always ''c''.
''Light does not travel relative to the empty space as Newton contended, but relative to the ZPF. If you have understood this, I ask you to provide any objection to the motion of light. According to you, with respect to what physical entity do light move? What physical entity defines the speed of light waves?''
As argued above, you can choose any physical entity as reference, when the speed of light is measured the value is always ''c''.
''In addition to these arguments, I pointed out another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the speed of light (see my reply to you in my entry). To avoid the paradox, it is necessary to assume the PSR.''
Once again, I will take a look. If the PSR solves any paradox, we have a strong reason to consider it, even though that would render unobservable statemets. Bt again, if these paradox can be solved by a theory without unobservable statements, we should prefer this theory.
''You say: if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Because if do not introduce the PSR we arrive at several paradoxes.''
Again, this is the good point. Now our discussion should turn to this paradoxes.
''Furthermore, if a theory A assuming a PSR explains the same amount of observations as another theory B in which there is no PSR, I would chose theory A, because theory A would be free from paradoxes. ''
Again, these paradoxes should now be the center of our discussion.
''You: You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.
As I explained, Newton was also relational contrary to the customary view. The material objects we used as reference systems are in space, but one has be careful in how we conceive space. From my perspective, Mach misconceived the deep meaning of Newton conceptions because Mach thought of space as an empty vessel not as a massive fluid, this is why he claimed that the stars, and not space, were playing the major role in defining inertia and centrifugal forces.
Best Regards''
Once again, this massive fluid (that you identify with ZPF) must be able to define a preferred position, so that (x,y,z) can be meaningful even without any material object. If we could identify this ZPF field values with absolute space, then we could finally see absoulte space. But the existence of this field by itself does not (see snapshot argument again) entail that the PSR is any more reasonable then in the classical case.
Now, let´s turn to the paradoxes in your entry.
Best regards
Daniel
view post as summary
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:18 GMT
Daniel Wagner (Part 1)
Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. To avoid discussing this topic in both entries, mine and yours, I will reply in yours only. So far I think we have reached a point in which we have made clear our positions. So I would like to summarize them.
I would like to start with one of your paragraphs: Let's get to a final conclusion. The PSR...
view entire post
Daniel Wagner (Part 1)
Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. To avoid discussing this topic in both entries, mine and yours, I will reply in yours only. So far I think we have reached a point in which we have made clear our positions. So I would like to summarize them.
I would like to start with one of your paragraphs: Let's get to a final conclusion. The PSR assumption weakens our theories in one respect (makes unobservable statements) but according to you it also explain some other phenomena. We should be aware of these strengths and weaknesses in order to choose, finally, what´s the most FRUITFUL conception of motion.
I definitely agree with you. I see your position as Einstein’s, that is, parsimonious. I agree also with this, and this is why I revive the PSR and the aether. In Einstein times the aether was superfluous, but today I see it necessary and parsimonious to explain contemporary problems. You may have realized that theoretical physics has been in a state of stagnation for more than 30 years. I have studied and meticulously analyzed the present stage of physics along with its foundations. I have identified, as I reported in my essay, that there are no weighty arguments to reject the aether. You have contented that there are no experimental reasons to reject nor to accepted. So we can assume it because it is useful. So, according to my analysis, the rejection of the aether has led physics to the present state. First, since SR rejected the aether, physics has been deprived of a massive medium for light waves, since there is no medium for light there is no mechanism for light to lose energy (i.e., cosmological red shift). Based on Hubble’s law, this led physicists to resort to the space expansion hypothesis whose consequence is the big bang theory (BBT). In turn the BBT has led physics to the problem of flatness, the horizon problem, dark energy and dark matter problems and so on and so forth. However, I found that by reintroducing the aether we are reintroducing a mechanism to explain the red shift and therefore there is no need of postulating expansion of the universe. It follows that there is no horizon problem and no dark energy problem (as you can see, the aether assumption is washing out needless hypotheses). The model also is based on Euclidean geometry and therefore the flatness problem is justified. Taking into account the massive character of the aether there is also no need to invoke dark matter. Dark matter can be seen simply as an increase of density of this fluid within galaxies. Under the aether proposal, the cosmic background radiation is not interpreted as the relic of the BB but as the radiation given off by the medium in thermodynamical equilibrium with the millions of stars in the universe. Of course, I am telling you in a few lines the highly condensed version of the story. So, if you do not have the whole background of how the events developed up to our present days, you won’t believe me. And, the great problem that I see is that physicists are not even open to entertain this way of conceiving things.
You may recall that Hendrik Lorentz developed in 1904 the kinematical part of relativity departing from the principle that there was aether. Under this assumption he showed that the Lorentz symmetry (as we know it today) naturally emerges. On the contrary, Einstein saw the aether superfluous and derived the same kinematics from his two postulates. As early as 1899 Lorentz was aware that kinematical experiments could not tell about the state of motion relative to the aether. Let's call for the sake of illustration the Lorentz' approach, Lorentz theory (LT) and Einstein' approach, SR. These two theories explain the same physical phenomena, i.e. time dilation, length contraction, Doppler effect, addition of velocities, etc. The weakness of LT is that the aether, apparently, cannot be detected and, as Einstein (and you) argue, the notion of absolute position has no meaning. On the other hand, the weakness of relativity is the series of paradoxes that arise by denying the PSR (unfortunately, relativists do not even acknowledge the paradoxes, but let us assume for our purposes that they acknowledge them). So, the weakness of SR is the strength of LT and viceversa. Since these two theories explain the same body of experimental evidence, at first sight, it turns out to be inconsequential what theory we use to make calculations. But since SR had less assumptions physicists prefered SR above LT. So far so good.
Einstein also argued that fields were not states of any medium, that electromagnetic fields are independent realities, and so there is no need of aether. Following this line of thought you claim that the ZPF (aether) does not imply a PSR and that fields do not need a bearer, actually, according to the most modern theories the fields can generate space. Ok, I have no problem with this, it is one approach. But I am following another one. I hold a different view and support Lorentz approach, that space is a fluid and that fields are states of it even if it could not be detected. So, in analogy with the previous paragraph my weakness is that it may not be possible to detect the motion relative to the ZPF but despite this, my view has no paradoxes as in the case of SR. Of course, as I explained above, my proposal goes beyond relativistic matters, it endeavors to explain as much physics as possible at all scales.
to be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:52 GMT
Part 2
Fortunately, we have one important point of agreement. You acknowledge that a theory is valuable due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. And you also agree that if a theory assuming the PSR can explain most experimental observations, it would be worth of consideration. Indeed, this is why I support the PSR and the fluid assumption.
If we are looking for...
view entire post
Part 2
Fortunately, we have one important point of agreement. You acknowledge that a theory is valuable due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. And you also agree that if a theory assuming the PSR can explain most experimental observations, it would be worth of consideration. Indeed, this is why I support the PSR and the fluid assumption.
If we are looking for parsimonious theory, I think I have it because it is based on only one single postulate, that is, that space is a massive fluid. This postulate alone suffices to explain most of the problems of modern physics. But this requires a radical change in our present conceptions of the physical world. By this I mean, for instance, that we have to abandon the assumption that fields do not need a medium. Certainly, this is the opposite view that you and current physics hold and this is a big problem. So, I am not going to convince you or anybody else only by epistemological or ontological arguments but also by providing a new theoretical and consistent framework where the facts could be satisfactorily explained. Actually, I am working on this part.
Among the problems that my proposal has the potential to explain (or eliminate) are: the dark matter and dark energy problems, the expansion of the universe, the flatness problem, the vacuum catastrophe and the horizon problem (which from the perspective of my proposal are all illusory problems in the sense that they are the result of the choice of the fundamental assumptions in the prevailing theories such as there is no aether, fields are not states of the aether, etc.), the fly-by and pioneers anomalies, the baryon asymmetry, the GZK limit, the cosmological constant problem and so forth. Some other problems of theoretical character such as the Hawking paradox, the arrow of time, the reality of the wave function, the wave-particle duality and the nonlocality of QM can also be solved. In fact, my proposal has the potential to make QM to be utterly local. In addition to all of this, the theory I support not only will solve most of the problems but also will make the physics very intuitive. Modern theories lack this virtue and so they lose credibility. Their lack of an intuitive picture is the result of too much mathematical formulation and very few philosophical reasoning. Fortunately, physicists have realized this and they are going back to the old way of doing physics (e.g., check the Trouble with Physics of Lee Smolin or look up at the Herman Minkowski Institute on the web), actually this contest is a recognition that the old way of doing physics should be recovered.
to be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:54 GMT
Part 3
Finally, you said: guy has filmed light moving! Well, if your idea is to present this experiment as a test that the one-way speed of light or any other physical entity can be measured, I invite you to analyze it in great detail so you can convince yourself that measuring speeds is not just defining a distance and measuring the time it takes for a physical entity to travel it. This...
view entire post
Part 3
Finally, you said: guy has filmed light moving! Well, if your idea is to present this experiment as a test that the one-way speed of light or any other physical entity can be measured, I invite you to analyze it in great detail so you can convince yourself that measuring speeds is not just defining a distance and measuring the time it takes for a physical entity to travel it. This will be useful as an exercise for you to realize that the one-way speed of light can not be measured. It will also help you to understand that one has to assume a special system of reference where the one-way speed of light is isotropic (see my reference 17 to follow the approach).
You: My above comments are related to this paragraph. What I can figure out is that you are confusing the experimental implications of the theory (i.e., the predictions of the theory) with the internal consistency of the theory. From the experimental point of view relativistic effects are real, they do occur (and they are real because the PSR must exist)''
Can´t see why they are real because the PSR exist.
According to the LT objects in motion really contract and clocks in motion really dilate because to accelerate an object from absolute rest one has to apply forces. Being the aether a fluid, the aether opposes to the applied force and the object deforms (contracts). Clocks in motion relative to the aether dilate because electromagnetic fields are states of the aether and so fields have to travel longer distances in the aether as the clock moves through it. Again, imagine the light clock placed in a perpendicular direction to the motion. Light has to travel in a diagonal in the forward and backward journeys, covering a longer distance than when the clock is at rest on the aether. The faster the clock moves the slower the ticks because light traveling trough the aether will take a longer absolute time to reach the upper mirror and go backwards. So, as measured by an observer at rest in the aether, the process of completing a tick lasts more while in motion than at absolute rest.
If you have understood this picture, then you will probably understand why it is said that in SR relativistic effects are only apparent and not real. The word "REAL" implies an absolute system of reference in the sense of LT. Since in SR there are no PSRs, the effects cannot be real or absolute. To understand this problem further you have to study it deeper. My suggestion is that you should do the exercise above and consider my reference 17 and references there in. As long as a relativist does not spend some time studying this problem he will never understand it (and what is worst he will be denying it for the rest of his life).
I hope you have grasped a little the great importance of reintroducing the aether and the PSR. So, if you are interested we could be in touch far beyond this forum. In any case, I see in you someone with great potential for physics, and it would be a shame if you focus your efforts in something fruitless. It took me many years of hard work to realize where the problem was and I'll move on with this approach because I am 99.9% that I am right. If you would like to join my endeavor now or in the future you will be more than welcomed.
Good luck in your life and the contest
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Israel
We have definitely come to a point of agreement. Thanks for your comments and for inviting me to participate in your research. I´m having a little bit of trouble now, because studying (enginnering, not physics) in my city in Brazil does not give me academic status enough to be admitted in the top physics universities of the world, so I´m desperately trying to convince people my independent study was effective. After a quick research I found lots of papers about one-way speed of light issue, so there´s a lot of interesting material I haven´t heard of before. Certainly, if you can show more concretely how the PSR assumption might lead to fruitful achievements I will be convinced, as the rest of the physics community around the world. I think our main conclusion was that of identifying the strengths and weakness of some different conceptions of motion... and to find a criterion for judgment: utility.
Thanks again for an awesome discussion!
Daniel
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Daniel
I have commented above all the problems that the reintroduction of a medium for light solves. I do not understand what you mean by "if you can show more concretely how the PSR assumption might lead to fruitful achievements I will be convinced". Do you want to see the references? If you do, check my reference 19, and look for C. Christov papers. He develops a theory assuming space as a continuous massive fluid and propose some experiments to detect it. By the way that paper also analyses some misconceptions about the michelson-morley experiment. There will also find my email, in case you would like to keep in contact.
On the other hand, If you are interested in understanding paradoxes of SR and how relativists see other people who denied the veracity of SR, I recommend you to read the essay of Chris Kennedy which is related to the clock paradox.
Best regards
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Israel
By ''if you can show more concretely how the PSR assumption might lead to fruitful achievements I will be convinced'' I intended to mention the problems in the big list of problems you said the PSR might help to solve. as you said:
''the dark matter and dark energy problems, the expansion of the universe, the flatness problem, the vacuum catastrophe and the horizon problem (which from the perspective of my proposal are all illusory problems in the sense that they are the result of the choice of the fundamental assumptions in the prevailing theories such as there is no aether, fields are not states of the aether, etc.), the fly-by and pioneers anomalies, the baryon asymmetry, the GZK limit, the cosmological constant problem and so forth. Some other problems of theoretical character such as the Hawking paradox, the arrow of time, the reality of the wave function, the wave-particle duality and the nonlocality of QM can also be solved. In fact, my proposal has the potential to make QM to be utterly local.''
I remain skpetic about the PSR assumption (aren´t there other ways to attack the issues that motivate it according to you?). But we shouldn´t discuss that here right now...maybe in the future. The relational approach of motion has also advantages (no unobservable statements for instance), and also has potential for explaining a lot of things, including a novel path for quantum gravity. Again I feel ''utility'' is the main word. But are we restricted to absolute or relational motion? My essay was about how distinct conceptions of motion may lead to distinct physics.
Best Regards
Daniel
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 00:51 GMT
Dear Daniel
Sounds good.
With respect to your question, I can only conceive two ways of modelling physics, absolute or relative; although I uphold the opinion that when something undergoes forces, it really moves.
If you have realized, contemporary physics assumes that space is only geometry (epitomized by the GR) and filled with fields (fermion, gauge, Higgs, EM). I hold the opposite view. Space is a massive fluid (not empty geometry) and the fields are states of this fluid. I found this view more useful than the other.
I also thank you for this stimulating and interesting discussion and I hope we could keep in contact in the future.
Best regards
Israel
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Member Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
dear Daniel
I will post this also in reply to your post concerning my essay.
Thanks for suggesting I should read your essay.
I enjoyed it very much.
Of course we are pursuing different objectives, but there is a common drive toward seeking the building blocks of space-time notions in your essay and mine.
I am trying to take a certain leap in the (conceptually) unknown: doing physics without space, time, motion,,,,only particle detections and relationships among detectors,,,,this is after all what we really do operatively and I am intrigued by the possibility that if we stick to this minimalistic description, if we get read of the extra luggage of space-time inferences, perhaps we might travel more comfortably toward addressing some of the foundational issues we are facing
and by the way to me a clock is a box Alice gives to Bob: when the box is materially connected, in appropriate ways, to Bob's ``particle-detector box" the combination of the two boxes produces readouts which assign a certain number, "time", to each particle detection,,,,,it seems to me this is what is actually done by the objects we call clocks,,,
if we found a steady source of particles in nature, let me call them particles of type A, it could be all in one box: detector distinguishes two types of particles and uses number of particles detected of type A as time whereas it handles number of particles detected of type B as its actual detections, so it times the detections by producing readouts of pairs of numbers, correlations n_A,n_B (had value of the counter B equal to n_B in correspondence of the value of the counter A equal to n_A)
best wishes for the competition
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
Dear Giovani
Thank you very much for your interest and comments in my essay! I feel that if one focus to build physics on operational procedures, he would inevitably arrive at something close to mach´s philosophy. For instance, positions are usually defined in relation to absolute space, but we operationally always measure it against some objetc (we don´t use an invisible frame to define positions because we can´t see it!). How is the relation of your proposal with this?
Also, I see a problem with your clock definition: it must rely, as you put, on a steady source of particles in nature. How can we characterize if the source is steady if we don´t have a clock?
Best regards,
Daniel
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT
Dan,
I liked your essay. The Barbour’s shape dynamics is almost a form of dynamic triangulartion in a classical setting. This does give some operational notion of time. I will have to think about the meaning of this definition of time. I might imagine we could quantize this problem.
The Schrodinger equation describes the evolution of a wave function according to a Hamiltonian which is the generator of time translations. The Hamiltonian in classical gravity is zero, or NH = 0, for N the lapse function. This is a standard result of ADM general relativity. We then use Gauss’ law to evaluate the amount of mass-energy in the space, but there is no boundary sphere around the universe by which one can integrate out the mass-energy contained within. This argument can be posed according to the nature of coordinate time in general relativity, where this is a frame dependent quantity and physics should not depend upon it. So the Schrodinger equation
i∂ψ/∂t = Hψ = 0
is seen to be zero on both the left and right hand side in a consistent manner. This is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation Hψ = 0, which is the quantum form of the Hamiltonian constrant NH = 0. The inability to define mass-energy means there is no concrete definition of time.
The time evaluated from the Jacobi variational principle
δt = sqrt{m_iδx_iδx_i/(E-V)}
is related to a proper time, or an interval. This is different from the notion of time in quantum physics, which is a coordinate time. So for a particle sitting on a spatial surface its proper time is then something similar to Wheeler’s discussion of a “bubble time” in the book he coauthored “Gravitation.”
If you have time you might want to read
my essay if you are interested in quantum gravity issues at all.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:14 GMT
Dear Lawrence
Thank you very much for the comments. Barbour and his collaborators are trying to bring the relational conception of motion to quantum mechanics to create a full machian quantum gravity. I don´t know their work in details, but you may like to take a look at Barbour´s and Sean Gryb´s essays and ask them directly.
Best regards,
Daniel
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
I just read Barbour's paper. It along with his video on FQXi makes reference to similar work you have. I suggested a way to think about this using null rays on his
blog site.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 07:24 GMT
Daniel
As per your request on my blog
Forget the theories, and just consider the fundamental nature of physical reality as is manifest to us. There being no other, unless one resorts to belief/assertion.
Motion is the incremental alteration in relative spatial position. As with any such attribute, it can only be calibrated by using a reference. Any reference can be selected, but having done so, that must be used consistently so that results are comparable. So, by definition, motion can only be known in relative terms. We are unable to transcend our existence.
To establish motion (and other features such as size, etc) we conceptualise reality as being in a spatial grid. The distance from one point to another on this grid being the equivalent of the smallest ‘thing’ in reality. Thus at any given point in time, A is deemed to occupy X configuration of spatial points, whilst B occupies Y. As at each subsequent point in time any alteration can be identified. That is the easy bit to say! In practice I doubt if this could be achieved. But our failure to be able to discern physical reality at its properly differentiated level does not mean we can then just embark on a false approach.
There is no existent phenomenon which corresponds with space, it is only ‘things’ which exist. Neither is there any time in physical reality, because the concept of timing relates to the rate at which change occurs. That is, it is associated with a feature of alteration between realities (ie speed of alteration), not of any given one.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:24 GMT
Dear Paul
''As with any such attribute, it can only be calibrated by using a reference.''
I feel motion can only be defined using a reference. When we say something has moved, it must have moved in relation to some other thing, even if it is in relation to the invisible absolute space.
''To establish motion (and other features such as size, etc) we conceptualise reality as being in a spatial grid.''
This grid is unobservable and the question immediatly comes: can we make physics without that grid? Barbour´s research argues that we can.
''As at each subsequent point in time any alteration can be identified.''
Maybe we don´t need the grid to identify alterations, as Barbour´s research has argued. The question then becomes ''what is the most fruitful conception of motion?''
Daniel
Paul Reed replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 07:31 GMT
Daniel
Sorry I missed this response, I happened upon it because I was looking for a post by Ben Dribus.
The ‘grid’ is conceptual. But, by definition, it must always underpin any relevant analysis. For example, how does one conceive of the relative shape/size (ie spatial footprint) of any given entity, or indeed a subsequent alteration thereto, without it? Where is the reference? Motion is the incremental alteration in relative spatial position.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Daniel,
You wrote: "...quantum mechanics uses a mathematical and conceptual formalism suitable for an absolutist picture while general relativity is almost perfect relational."
The opposite is true: Quantum mechanics uses Newtonian concepts according to which any motion (speed), even that of light, is relative. In Einstein's relativity the motion (speed) of light is absolute. If...
view entire post
Daniel,
You wrote: "...quantum mechanics uses a mathematical and conceptual formalism suitable for an absolutist picture while general relativity is almost perfect relational."
The opposite is true: Quantum mechanics uses Newtonian concepts according to which any motion (speed), even that of light, is relative. In Einstein's relativity the motion (speed) of light is absolute. If Walther Ritz had lived longer, the name "Einstein" would be unknown nowadays:
Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, 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, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."
Alberto Martinez: "Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regard !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Excellent writeup! A few remarks come to mind. First, regarding relational theories:
1. I would like to point out that there are at least two very different types of relations that play crucial roles in fundamental physics. Shape dynamics deals principally with symmetric relations, since the separation between two points has nothing to do with their order; X is a...
view entire post
Dear Daniel,
Excellent writeup! A few remarks come to mind. First, regarding relational theories:
1. I would like to point out that there are at least two very different types of relations that play crucial roles in fundamental physics. Shape dynamics deals principally with symmetric relations, since the separation between two points has nothing to do with their order; X is a distance D from Y if and only if Y is a distance D from X. Spacelike separation in relativity is similar. However, two events may also be causally related, and in this case the relation between them is generally asymmetric because the order matters; X is in the causal past of Y if and only if Y is in the causal future of X. In all but extreme cases, causal relations correspond to timelike separation.
2. Different approaches to fundamental physics place different emphasis on these two types of relations. For example, shape dynamics takes the symmetric relations as fundamental, and causal set theory takes the asymmetric ones as fundamental. The theory of causal dynamical triangulations takes both to be fundamental.
3. My own belief is that there is one fundamental type of relation, but I am not sure that it is strictly symmetric or strictly asymmetric. I think it is “mostly asymmetric,” and hence I refer to it as the relation generating the causal order, but one should bear in mind that this is a definition of what causality means and not a hypothesis. The hypothesis I make is that this relation is sufficient to describe both metric and causal structure. If you are interested, you might look at my essay here
On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.
4. Another possibility is that there is some type of duality in which spacelike relations can be recovered from timelike relations and vice versa. I mention some metric recovery theorems in my essay (not my theorems, you understand) that allow for recovering most of the metric structure from causal relations.
5. You remark that “relativity is almost completely relational.” True, but the “almost” is important. Time-travel paradoxes and various other problems arise from the fact that it is not completely relational.
Regarding relationships among time, space, objects, and motion, and category theory.
1. I think you are right on target by suggesting that perhaps any one of these concepts can be given meaning in terms of the others (page 6 of your essay).
2. I agree that category theory (and more generally, graph theory) is a very promising language in which to develop this view.
3. My viewpoint on this is somewhat different from that of Baez. I think that in certain important ways elements (events), relations, objects, and morphisms can all be viewed interchangeably. Viewing morphisms as objects arises in multicategory theory. Viewing elements as objects arises in the theory of categorification. I mention both of these in my essay, but only briefly.
In conclusion, you have touched on a lot of points that I have thought about too, and I think you have done so in a very promising way. I would appreciate any remarks you might have on my submission if you get a chance to read it. Take care,
Ben Dribus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:08 GMT
Dear Bejamin
Thanks for the comments, I´m really glad to see your post and I think we can have a very interesting discussion. I will adress each of your points.
''1. I would like to point out that there are at least two very different types of relations that play crucial roles in fundamental physics. Shape dynamics deals principally with symmetric relations, since the separation...
view entire post
Dear Bejamin
Thanks for the comments, I´m really glad to see your post and I think we can have a very interesting discussion. I will adress each of your points.
''1. I would like to point out that there are at least two very different types of relations that play crucial roles in fundamental physics. Shape dynamics deals principally with symmetric relations, since the separation between two points has nothing to do with their order; X is a distance D from Y if and only if Y is a distance D from X. Spacelike separation in relativity is similar. However, two events may also be causally related, and in this case the relation between them is generally asymmetric because the order matters; X is in the causal past of Y if and only if Y is in the causal future of X. In all but extreme cases, causal relations correspond to timelike separation.
2. Different approaches to fundamental physics place different emphasis on these two types of relations. For example, shape dynamics takes the symmetric relations as fundamental, and causal set theory takes the asymmetric ones as fundamental. The theory of causal dynamical triangulations takes both to be fundamental.''
It´s a good thing that you remarked these two different types of relations. Shape dynamics recovers GR, including its whole causal structure, from relational first principles (which as you put, is based on symmetric relations). I don´t know very much about causal dynamical triangulation and causal set theory and about the main motivations for them to be dealing with assymetric or symmetric (or both) relations. But an interesting point about shape dynamics is exactly its motivation: it comes from a definition of motion at the classical level that cuts off (in a sense) the unobservable structure of absolute space and time, which was historically introduced in part due to the ''accident'' that we live in a nearly perfect stable enviroment (rotation of earth substitutes unobservable time parameter, distant stars substitute absolute space). Had humanity appeared in a different enviroment, would we ''need'' to introduce absolute structures? Barbour´s theory say we wouldn´t. When applied to a 3-D metric field theory, the result is GR. There are many more interesting results.
As regards to your points 3 and 4, I will take a careful look at your essay.
''5. You remark that "relativity is almost completely relational." True, but the "almost" is important. Time-travel paradoxes and various other problems arise from the fact that it is not completely relational. ''
That is true and interesting. The relation between GR and shape dynamics (which claims to be completely relational) can be found
here.
''1. I think you are right on target by suggesting that perhaps any one of these concepts can be given meaning in terms of the others (page 6 of your essay).
2. I agree that category theory (and more generally, graph theory) is a very promising language in which to develop this view. ''
Good to know we have similar views. One thing I would like remark about that is: by seeking semantic completness (giving time and ''position'' a meaning) at the classical level Barbour gets to GR via relational conceptions of motion. But the relational programme is not complete in this semantic endeavour: the notion of object, or ''state'' remains primary. What would happen if we attached a meaning to it? If Barbour got to GR, could a semantic complete formalism for dynamics bring us any closer to quantum mechanics? One interesting point is that if we use the categorical approach and definitions I presented, the semantic functor has tight relations with the concept of ''observation''. In the traditional Machian picture, two configurations ''mean'' the same if they are the same upon observation. That is, two configurations of the universe related by an absolute translation are the same because this translation cannot be detected/observed. This may point a direction on why observation is so special in QM: it could be the basic ingredient of the semantic functor. It could be a reason for why ''observation'' is so different from all other physical phenomena.
If you have any thoughts or if you would like to investigate this more deeply, please let me know.
''3. My viewpoint on this is somewhat different from that of Baez. I think that in certain important ways elements (events), relations, objects, and morphisms can all be viewed interchangeably. Viewing morphisms as objects arises in multicategory theory. Viewing elements as objects arises in the theory of categorification. I mention both of these in my essay, but only briefly.''
I feel N-category theory seems the perfect language for studying the fundamentals of motion. I also feel it is perfect for extendind machian thoughts as I explained above.
Best Regards,
Daniel
view post as summary
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 23:52 GMT
One can look at this according to how one axiomatizes a space. If you have a space in n dimensions one can represent the positive tensor dimension as ||| …|•ε = 0, where | represents an element such as a vector or spinor and the set |||…| means an exterior product of these. The ε means a Levi-Civita symbol and this is a skew product. This can be seen equivalently as a skew symmetrization of the |||…| in a higher dimensional space. If this is zero, then the space of tensors is symmetric. This system however requires there to be the |||…|•g, where g is a symmetric tensor. This way of thinking is what might be called Penrose-ology. Again this is equivalent to a symmetric trace in a higher dimensional space. The “dimension of these tensors” are n and –n respectively. They correspond to the symmetric and antisymmetric sets of tensors, which have a duality.
This duality between symmetric and skew symmetric elements, or for two tensors products of the sort
{ψ^a, ψ^b} = g^{ab}
[φ^a, φ^b] = ω^{ab}
involves supersymmetry. In the case of spacetime the generators of supersymmetry Q_a and \bar-Q_b construct Lorentz boosts
[Q_a,\bar-Q_b] = iσ^μ_{ab}∂_μ.
The relationship between the symmetry and antisymmetric approaches, say shape dynamics and causal set theory, might then have functors to Fermi-Dirac fields and boson fields, and a system which includes both might then have a graded Lie algebra with Grassmann generators that connect the two.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Daniel,
I will have to think carefully about what you said and wrote about semantic completeness and observation. One of the weak points in my knowledge that has come up over and over again on this forum is the original ideas of Mach, although it seems that much of this involves covariance/equivalence principles, which I have thought about. Part of my task is just understanding the terminology, since I come mostly from the math side. Take care,
Ben
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 16:09 GMT
Lawrence,
Again, thanks for the insight. I have been having a somewhat similar discussion about possible duality/complementarity with Sean Gryb over on my thread. I won't remark further about this particular idea here without Daniel's permission, since it's somewhat tangential to the focus of his essay, but such discussion is always welcome on my thread. Take care,
Ben
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Lawrence and Ben
Unfortunately, I must admit I still don´t have enough technical language to participate in the discussion you have proposed, but please, feel free to discuss those matters as you wish.
Ben, sorry, I think I was not clear enough, but tomorrow I will prepare a more elaborate reply to you to explain those machian and extensions of machian thoughts I mentioned.
Daniel
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Ben
I will now try to explain the point I was trying to make. Let´s place ourselves in the 17th century and try to build physics from the scratch, that is, for the sake of the argument, let´s ignore any complications due to modern physics. I must firts say that Mach´s thoughts are philosophical. For someone coming from a math background this may seem extremely vague. But Mach´s...
view entire post
Dear Ben
I will now try to explain the point I was trying to make. Let´s place ourselves in the 17th century and try to build physics from the scratch, that is, for the sake of the argument, let´s ignore any complications due to modern physics. I must firts say that Mach´s thoughts are philosophical. For someone coming from a math background this may seem extremely vague. But Mach´s philosophy has tight relations with GR, and this makes it very important.
Due to our stable enviroment, we were led to think that there was an invisible space and time background. The rotation of the earth provided a parameter to which all motion should be labeled and the distant stars provided an infinite grid to which all distances should be measured. It was then very natural to take the mathematical gadgets such as R³ to model the physical world. Then you can build equations between 'stuff' defined on R³ such as ma=-grad(V) but this theory cannot be tested because this R³ spatial grid cannot be seen... a closer look reveals that the distant stars also seem to move! There is no epistemological way to identify the grid. The best that can be done is to find a visible object, measure distances upon it and check if ma=-grad(V) would hold (such an object would provide an inertial frame of reference). But even so we could not identify a grid defined this way with absolute space, because the inertial frame object can be moving with constant velocity in relation to absolute space.
So, was absolute space a historical mistake? Could we formulate a physical theory without unobservable structure, in a purely relational (because all we see and measure are relations) way? This is what Mach intended, though he never wrote down a complete physical theory. But then, Barbour has shown that, in a sense, it suffices to impose a relational framework to a 3-metric field to RECOVER general relativity from first principles.
If one recovers GR from relational first principles, it becomes compelling to study the origin of these first principles... what´s the origin of Mach´s thoughts? What I have been thinking is that maybe it is possible to see Mach´s procedure as a part of something bigger.
Mach´s unease with classical mechanics can be seen as coming from the following: what do we mean when we say an object´s position at a time t is (x,y,z)? Mach´s criterion of meaning is OBSERVATION. To say that the position is (x,y,z) at a time t can only MEAN that the relative distance between the object and a reference is (x,y,z) and that a clock (which is a physical object) has marked t. For Mach, all statements of classical mechanics should MEAN only what can be observed upon then. Unobservable statements should be cut off from the start, because they don´t MEAN anything. What Mach was ultimately searching was MEANING, using OBSERVATION as criterion. And remarkably, this leads to GR via Barbour´s argument!
But the relational philosophy is not complete: it gives time and position a meaning upon the concept of physical object. But the concept of physical object is still MEANINGLESS! This is why I proposed to try to build a dynamics where time, space, motion and objects all gain their meaning upon each other, to see what would be the correct mathematical structure amd what result we would achieve. I call a completely meaningful description of the universe ''semantically complete''. Now one of the mysteries of QM is the nature of observation: why is observation so different from other physical phenomena? What causes the wave function to collapse? How can we classify a physical process as an ''observation''? Category theory now comes into the game: imagine a category where objects are semantically complete descriptions of the universe and functors that send such descriptions to descrptions that MEAN the same (let´s call them semantic functors). Now it seems that the concept of ''observation'' could be given a precise mathematical meaning: it is ''that thing that is used to build the semantic functor''! And relational physics can be simply stated as ''the square commutes'' as I put in my essay! This is the outline of what I was thinking.
I think the first step should be to cast barbour´s relational physics in a category theoretic framework. Barbour´s procedure of eliminating absolute structures is his method of best-matching, as I explained in the essay. I was thinking of trying to find the origin of best matching via category theoretical considerations. I don´t know if this is possible, but my intuition tell me it is. Once we do that, then I think everything would be easier to understand. Maybe you will find that interesting. I´ve seen that Derek Wise was trying to find relations between Barbour´s theory and Cartan geometry, which has some relations to category theory, we could investigate that. Anyway, I will be waiting for your feedback.
Best Regards,
Daniel
view post as summary
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I have been thinking a bit more about the last few sections of your paper. I am in the process of trying to learn several new things at once (and also write a dissertation about something completely unrelated!) so you'll have to forgive my delayed response.
First, I appreciate your explanation in the previous post; I think I have a better idea now of how you are using...
view entire post
Dear Daniel,
I have been thinking a bit more about the last few sections of your paper. I am in the process of trying to learn several new things at once (and also write a dissertation about something completely unrelated!) so you'll have to forgive my delayed response.
First, I appreciate your explanation in the previous post; I think I have a better idea now of how you are using certain terminology. In particular, I realize now that a large part of what you are presenting is your own ideas, so it's not surprising I haven't heard of this view before. Now let me itemize a few remarks.
1. Regarding the concepts "time, space, object, motion," it seems that you want to define each in terms of the others. Now it seems clear that any logical or mathematical system (at least any system satisfying a suitable finiteness assumption) will have either undefined concepts at its lowest level (in terms of which the remaining concepts are defined), or will have redundancy at its lowest level (where the fundamental concepts define each other). It seems that these two possibilities are interchangeable: if you have redundancy, you can eliminate concepts one by one until the redundancy disappears and the remaining concepts are undefined. Conversely, you can define new concepts in terms of the fundamental (undefined) concepts and take these to be "equally fundamental." I suppose this is analogous to finding a basis of a vector space from a spanning set, or augmenting a basis to a larger spanning set that is no longer linearly independent. There are plenty of situations in which a larger redundant set of concepts is useful, so parsimony is not the only consideration here.
2. It seems that "semantic completeness" as you define it requires redundancy, because if every concept can be defined in terms of others, then some of these concepts can be eliminated (at least, if there are a finite number of fundamental concepts).
3. We must be very careful about the use of the word "object," because it has more than one meaning. It has a precise, axiomatic, but very flexible meaning in the context of category theory; as you point out, categorical objects could be Hilbert spaces, or logical propositions, or whatever. It seems to have a vaguer but more specific meaning in the sense of "physical object." When you mention defining time in terms of objects, space, and motion, the objects you are talking about in this case must mean "physical objects," such as "particles" or "fields," and to define "time," they must somehow be indentifiable as "the same object" after undergoing the "change" that defines time. In other words, I don't think a pair of different structures by itself can define time in a Machian sense; rather, it is necessary to be able to identify the "second" structure as being the "result" of "changing" the "first" structure. I use quotation marks to indicate that I am not attempting to be precise at this point! What I am trying to get at is that the concepts of "change" or "motion" require that the "initial and final states" be identified as different states or configurations of the "same object" rather than two totally unrelated structures.
4. I am glad you pointed out the work of Derek Wise. I have not read these notes yet, and they seem very relevant to what we have been discussing.
5. There is much more to discuss, but no time at the present to do so. I see you have an email address on your paper, and I also have one on mine... that way we can keep in touch after the essay contest is over.
Take care,
Ben
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Ben,
Thanks for your reply. I understand your lack of time. A few remarks to your remarks:
''It seems that these two possibilities are interchangeable: if you have redundancy, you can eliminate concepts one by one until the redundancy disappears and the remaining concepts are undefined. Conversely, you can define new concepts in terms of the fundamental (undefined) concepts and...
view entire post
Dear Ben,
Thanks for your reply. I understand your lack of time. A few remarks to your remarks:
''It seems that these two possibilities are interchangeable: if you have redundancy, you can eliminate concepts one by one until the redundancy disappears and the remaining concepts are undefined. Conversely, you can define new concepts in terms of the fundamental (undefined) concepts and take these to be "equally fundamental."''
That´s the point. I was thinking that maybe we can define ''motion'' using ''time'', but then times becomes undefined... or we can define ''time'' using motion, but then motion becomes undefined... and so on. In the end, maybe all fundamental terms: space, time, motion, physical objects could have this ''duality''. The reason that points me for thinking this is that machian philosophy (which leads to GR) can be seen as a PART of this duality!
''2.It seems that "semantic completeness" as you define it requires redundancy, because if every concept can be defined in terms of others, then some of these concepts can be eliminated (at least, if there are a finite number of fundamental concepts).''
I don´t know if they could be eliminated... but the CHOICE of fundamental terms would not be unique! Again, we could consider that motion gains meaning from time, space and objects, OR that time gains meaning from motion, space and objects. Then, we could postulate that no matter how we choose to represent the universe, there should be no physical change upon a different choice of fundamental terms. Absolute and relational views of motion would be a part of the same structure... and there would also be the ''something else''!
Ultimately, what I propose is that by investigating the ''meaning'' of classical statements about motion, we can find new ways to conceive motion, and then build physics using this conceptions.
''What I am trying to get at is that the concepts of "change" or "motion" require that the "initial and final states" be identified as different states or configurations of the "same object" rather than two totally unrelated structures.''
We can also define motion without an absolute structure by introducing a ficticious ''background'' structure for the final and initial state and then eliminating it using barbour´s best matching: take for instance two configurations of point particles defined in cartesian frames, say (xi,yi,zi) and (x'i,y'i,z'i), representing distinct instants of time. Now hold the first frame fixed and perform rotations and translations of the second until some incongruence measure such as SQRT((xi-x'i)2+(zi-z'i)2+(yi-y'i)2) gets minimized. This is defined as the best-matched distance between these two configurations, and this value can be calculated using only information meaningful in the relational view of motion.
I´ll keep in touch for further discussion.
Best regards
Daniel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 18:51 GMT
and one redundance and one for the sortings of datas and informations, and now you are going to make some logarythms for the sortings, we know we know.
and after a mthematical universe proof of course of course.
report post as inappropriate
Chris Fields wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I completely agree that "if the appearance of observation in the semantic functor could bring us any closer to quantum mechanics" since I see "observation" as a mapping from physical states to recorded experimental outcomes, i.e. to descriptions encoded in some memory medium using classical information. So observation is itself a functor, from a category in which the objects are quantum states and the morphisms are unitary transformations to a category in which the objects are descriptions encoded in classical information and the morphisms are formal operations defined on those descriptions. The criterion for descriptive coherence is precisely diagram commutativity. But this is not your "semantic functor" which you have defined as a category automorphism. It is the function that tests whether two physical configurations "mean" the same thing from some observer's point of view.
Such "observation" functors are very familiar: they define the semantics that we associate with computer hardware. We pretend that "classical" computers are classical. This is of course nonsense; they are quantum systems just like everything else. Nonetheless, when we look at them, we assign a semantics under which their physical dynamics is mapped to formally-specified execution traces of classical algorithms. In my view, this is what ALL observation is.
My PhD advisor, Rob Cummins, used to tell us all to imagine that our PCs grew up overnight in our back yards. I agree: this forces us to think about the semantics we assign to physical events in a coherent way.
Good luck with your research,
Cheers,
Chris
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Chris
Thanks for your comment. I´ve read your essay and, as I said, I deeply impressed!
''So observation is itself a functor, from a category in which the objects are quantum states and the morphisms are unitary transformations to a category in which the objects are descriptions encoded in classical information and the morphisms are formal operations defined on those descriptions.''
I see we have slightly different views. To describe a ''quantum system'' or a ''classical system'' we need to use structures like space and time. However, these structures may come with a large degree of redundancy, depending on how we conceive motion in the first place, as I have explained in my essay. So there should be a functor connecting all those semantically ambiguous states, and the outcome of physical process should not depend on how we describe it. This is where the diagram commutes in my view. And the functor that connects all the semantically ambiguous states should be built by using a criterion of ''meaning upon observation'' to fulfill the principle that ''empirical indiscernibles are physical indiscernibles'' (as Robert Spekkens put). My hope is that this would have relational physics and GR as a sub-product. But I see the process I have in mind could be greatly enhanced by first characterizing observation as a functor in the first place, as you said. I will have to think more about that.
Best regards,
Daniel
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 04:08 GMT
Hi Daniel,
To be honest, I doubt that it is reasonable to follow Barbour and somehow replace time. Your age refers to the time of your birth which is certainly not likely to be chosen as reference point for an absolute time. May we conclude that there is no absolute zero of time? I do not suggest referring to the hypothetical moment of a Big Bang. Being an old engineer, I see only the actual border between past and future a natural fix point suited to refer to in an non-arbitrary manner. You might try and find some flaw in my
criticism .
As for mathematics, it would not be unreasonable to completely avoid non-zero integration constants by agreeing on a definition of integration that always refers to the lower border zero.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Eckards
Barbour´s research on time deals exactly with the following redundancy: if eveything speed up in the universe, including clocks, we could never tell the difference. So, why not consider time an abstraction from motion instead of an invisible parameter?
This is the relational view of time, and by combining with a relational view of space, one gets a completely different mathematical and physical structure than those of absolute view of motion. So the point is that distinct conceptions of motion may lead to distinct physics, and I have argued in the essay that maybe we´re not limited to absolute or relational conceptions.
Best regards
Daniel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT
Dear Daniel,
The contests solicited to reveal wrong assumptions. As an engineer I know how to describe an invention. Accordingly my essay begins with a list of obvious shortcomings. Will your suggestions provide solutions to such enigma and suspected flaws?
I do not deny that Barbour's approach might be reasonable to some extent. I merely doubt that it will help for instance to overcome Einstein's tense-less view. I rather see it a step in the wrong direction. See 1364.
Best regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT
''The contests solicited to reveal wrong assumptions. ''
As I say in the abstract, ''It is argued that there may be other ways to conceive motion and that a systematic investigation of these different conceptions may produce new physics. ''
''Will your suggestions provide solutions to such enigma and suspected flaws?''
Who knows. Everybody is speculating to some extent here.
''I rather see it a step in the wrong direction.''
Even if it is a step in the wrong direction, my conclusion remains: different conceptions of motion at the classical level may lead to distinct physics.
Best regards
Daniel
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT
Dear Daniel
Reading your essay I could see you have the talent, mental stamina and imagination to discover new physics. The problem of understanding motion is a very interesting one. You promote Barbour's theory which I value for relegating time to an emergant status, but think the SS idea unnecessary theoretical complication. Mach's ideas are very interesting, but there are many ways to interpret them.
Starting from very different premises developed in my 2005
Beautiful Universe Theory on which I based
my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . I concluded that motion is the translation of a pattern (a concept you use) in the energy and orientation of dipolar nodes making up a universal lattice. In my theory general relativity becomes very simple, but motion involvs a self-convolution of the pattern not only of the object involved but (a la Mach) the nodes making up the surrounding gravitational field, on to those of the entire universe. For example a force on matter causes the pattern to compress first, and then start moving with its length contracted, 'pushing' the external gravitational node pattern ahead as well. This combines Newtonian SR and GR notions. I attach a figure from the BU paper to explain this qualitatively.
I wish you all success, and urge you to stick close to simple physical concepts - one can easily get too abstract using clever mathematics.
Vladimir
attachments:
2_BUFIG26.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 23:39 GMT
Dear Vladmir
Thank you so much for these encouraging comments! I have read your essay and though I must say there a lot of points of divergence between my thoughts and yours, you´ve written in a very clear and concise way. Good luck.
Daniel
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 11:22 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:45 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Sergey, I don´t understand that. Are you sure about this rating formula? That would mean that giving an essay 10 ratings of ''1'' and 1 rating of ''10'' would be the same thing!
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:43 GMT
Hi Daniel and Sergey,
(My intention of going through Daniel's essay and the discussion thread was to involve in the discussion, but I accidentally saw your question about the scores. So I thought of putting my two cents worth).
Suppose an essay had an aggregate score of 150 from 20 ratings (average rating 7.5). Now someone gives 10. Avergage goes up to 7.62. Someone else gives 1 the average becomes 7.32. (Fluctuation 0.3)
Another esssay has an aggregate of 45 out of 6 ratings (average 7.5), Some one gives 10, average shoots up to 7.86 Someonelse gives 1. Average 7.0.
(Fluctuation 0.86).
For the folk who have got a lot of ratings done already, a stray lower rating does not make their average fluctuate much. The ranking might go down a few places.
For those with a lower number of ratings, even a single low score makes a big difference in the rankings, it can go down 30 to 40 places.
Thus if Sergey gave 3 to everybody the effect is not uniform to all.
The Fundamental Questions Institute must address the fundamental question of how to establish a fair, impartial and a uniform rating process.
Solution - (1) No Prizes, that will bring down the number of essays, only those who have serious stuff will tend to enter the competition. (2) Essayists should not be allowed to rate others' essays. (3) Prohibit solicitations of mutual high scores. (4)Prize money diverted to an independent panel to select and rate essays. (5) All "shoe horned" essays not dealing with "Wrong Assumptions" per se to be rejected.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Daniel
Motion seems at the heart of misunderstanding in physics. I'm now re-reading those I've not yet scored and am pleased to say yours still stands out. You did undertake to read mine, and I hope you will as I'm very interested in your comments (and score!). Very well done for yours. I hope you find we have a rich common vein.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:43 GMT
Peter
I have read your essay few days ago (and already rated it very positively). Sorry for not leaving any comments before, I was in the middle of a big hurry with university and work projects. But I will post some remarks right now.
Daniel
report post as inappropriate
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:55 GMT
Dear Daniel,
your essay the most interesting and refreshing in this contest. You introduce many new and stimulating ideas. I also very much enjoyed reading your discussion with Dr. Israel Perez and side entirely with you.
I very much liked how you introduced the ideas about time, space and motion. I am intrigued by shape dynamics and intuitively feel that this is the right way to go. My conception is that space, energy and time are 3 aspects of one and the same, a process, with either one expressed in terms of the other two.
Because you are so well-read on what to me appears as the avantguard in physics, I would very much value your feedback on my essay, which, thankfully, will be after the ratings, so we all can relax speak our mind without worrying about the consequences (which your honest replies indicate were never your concern). My topic is 1547.
Again, thank you for your most stimulating and well-written essay!
report post as inappropriate
Author DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva
Thank you so much for your comments! I will read your essay for sure. This competition spirit here is annoying me. Hepefully we will all be able to discuss our ideas freely and without any kind of worries.
Daniel
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.