Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/13/13 at 10:00am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir Tamari, I would appreciate if you or someone else could...

Vladimir Tamari: on 8/13/13 at 1:48am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard sorry for the delay to respond. About 3)what I meant by the...

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/7/13 at 16:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, 1) Yes, I see it reasonable to not use local times but a...

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/7/13 at 14:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul (your last name Borrill added as to avoid confusion with a less...

Vladimir Tamari: on 8/7/13 at 7:24am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard as promised I will comment - not on the article itself but on...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 18:23pm UTC, wrote Eckard - excellent description of time and photon propagation. I wonder if...

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/6/13 at 7:17am UTC, wrote "... the final verdict is :eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our...

Eckard Blumschein: on 8/6/13 at 7:08am UTC, wrote Having looked at 3 pages, I still have no idea what eEnergy, eInfo, and...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Shannon’s View on Wheeler’s credo by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 16:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

According to the bible, in the beginning was the word. Wheeler’s more modern doctrine “it from bit” is also not directly falsifiable, yet it reflects Einstein’s credo: The laws of physics are invariant in time. Past, present and future are therefore mere illusions. Shannon’s view was quite different: “We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it.” A critical review of weak and strong points in Wheeler’s and Shannon’s concepts makes Wheeler’s preposterous idea of a participatory universe understandable – either as an appealing implication of the credo that is still predominant in physics or as one more speculation suspecting observation from outside universe. Wheeler’s wormholes were mysterious as long as point-particles were assumed. Wheeler intended to show backward causation with his delayed choice thought experiment. His reduction of reality to yes-no questions implies a description of reality in terms of rational numbers while his singularity of a black hole requires real numbers, not just rational ones. Anyway, Wheeler gave rise to scrutinize basic tenets. Ritz was presumably wrong with his emission theory but Shannon nonetheless shared his view concerning causality. While Shannon quantified information on a probabilistic basis similar to Boltzmann’s entropy, he did not consider the past an expectation. He did not even mention a quantum state that could be present between past and future.

Author Bio

See http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369 Trying to answer very basic questions by revealing mistakes including an own one, he was guided by FQXi contests and discussions and arrived at results some of which are summarized in the endnotes.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 04:15 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

What a pleasure to read your essay. And not just because I agree with you 100%. I love the way in which you present deep insightful analysis with historical data, persons, ideas and timelines. For example, I did not know that Wheeler introduced the S-matrix. Yet it is obviously true, as you state, that "Wheelers S-matrix is not just a tool but it already represents his...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
Dear Eckard,

This is a truly fine essay. It is so well crafted, I lost the sense that I was reading rather difficult scientific material, and I found myself openly gaining deep insights into exiting truths I had never even thought of previously.

As a decrepit old realist, may I just make a couple of real comments here? I know that here and now are absolutes of location and time, so I know that they are the only real location and real time that could exist, once.

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you for your kind assessment of my recent essay. Last time I tried to explain what I consider real in contrast to just imagined or expected. Let me add some further aspects:

The velocity of a body and therefore also its kinetic energy depends on the reference it relates to. You will agree that it is nonetheless real.

Something that happens in a brain is meanwhile measurable to some extent. Why shouldn't it be real, in principle, too? Consciousness of a brain is obviously also something real. Even an expectation may be considered a real structure while it must of course not be confused with what is expected to come true.

I do not see any reason why we should not consider an information something real, no matter whether it is correct or wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT
Eckard

Einstein’s concept of now (ie the present, when a physical state is existent) is based on Poincaré’s notion of simultaneity. This asserts that the times of any given occurrences were simultaneous if the ‘local times’ when they happened are the same, once sychronised (ie in ‘common time’), except if in the “immediate proximity” (a distance not explained).

1905, Part 1, Section 1, para 8:

“Thus…we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.”

This is wrong. Events either occurred at the same time, or they did not. Timing involves reference to a single constant rate of change, otherwise the system is useless. This is why timing devices, which just ‘tell’ the time (ie what the reference is at that time), are synchronised. What varies is the the time of receipt of a light based representation of the event, which is fundamentally dependent upon spatial relationships. Existence is, by definition, the present, and occurs independently of any sensing of it. The past having ceased to exist, and the future does not exist. Of course, one needs to understand that what exists at any time (ie is the reality at that time) is a unique physically existent state of whatever is involved. Thinking in terms of objects is wrong, because these are conceptualisations which do not exist in this form (except whatever constitutes the elementary types).

It is no wonder that Einstein got concerned about ‘now’.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 14:37 GMT
Paul,

You wrote: “Of course, one needs to understand that what exists at any time (ie is the reality at that time) is a unique physically existent state of whatever is involved”

The reality of that time cannot be the reality of any time. Otherwise, you are close to being correct except you omitted one essential detail. The unique can only happen once. It is reality that is unique, once.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT
Joe

"The reality of that time cannot be the reality of any time"

This is what I said. The reality is what is existent at any given time. What you have failed to understand, and I have been explaining to you on your blog, is that objects do not exist as we conceive them. They are the result of a definition based on superficial physical characteristics, which we then conceive of as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
Paul,

Because you lost the argument on my blog, I am going to respond here. I have never “conceived” of my toe. You apparently do not know the difference between conception and perception, just as your version of existentialism has prevented you from understanding what the word last actually means.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 16:28 GMT
Eckard,

A good essay and accurate review with some perceptive assessments. Another victory for realism over the fantasies emerging from careless initial assumptions.

I particularly liked your expose of Wheelers "...inclination of attributing physical reality to any mathematical model." which is a general theme I go to the roots of in my own essay.

I also in a more realistic way agree and falsify his attempted logic in the;

"... delayed choice thought experiment. Wheeler obviously intended to demonstrate that his speculation about time-reversal is justified."

I hope and expect to see you higher up in the results this year. I also hope you may better understand the compatible propositions of my own essay, which I pit against the Bell Inequality mathematics and so called 'weak measurement' experimental analysis, which is actually just strong measurement hidden by statistics.

A 'rotational asymmetry' is predicted is experimental findings, disproving the EPR case is a 'paradox'. When digging I found Alain Aspects 99.9% discarding of results was due to finding a 'rotational asymmetry' inconsistent with theory he was trying to prove! I thought it sensational, but it seems few really understand Bells set up. I hope you do and look forward to your comments.

One last thing on yours; Perhaps your comment "if the suggested distinction between abstract and measurable time is correct" applied in a slightly different way may suggest the arbitrary 'apparent' as well as Proper' Time seen via signals from co-moving clocks. I had no space to discuss the proposition that once emitted, the 'signal' state (i.e. wavelength) may be altered by optical interactions (Doppler shift etc.) so apparent time rate changed with no effect on the real clock speed that produced it. Can you rationalise that?

Very well done for a pertinent essay. I do also hope you're keeping well.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am fine, thank you for your kind hope.

My first attempt to skim your new essay failed because my English is perhaps not good enough as to easily digest your somewhat too literate style of writing.

I do not see any chance for a good rating of my essay in the competition because my endnotes are at variance with the idolization of SR while the topic seems to even solicit support for Wheeler's visions.

What about asymmetry and in particular rotational asymmetry, I would like to offer Fig. 1 of my previous essay. Abstract time extends from minus infinity to plus infinity with an arbitrarily chosen point of reference (birth of Christ in Greenwich at midnight). Measurable is always only the positive already elapsed time that naturally refers to the very moment.

Best of luck to you too,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 06:41 GMT
Let me apologize for the typo "View ... credo" instead of either "View ... Credo" or "view ... credo" and also for perhaps not clearly enough pointing out some thoughts that I consider rather new and essential.

This time I submitted my essay in a panic for some reasons: A lightning stroke damaged the electric installation in my home, and the river Elbe reached an unprecedented high level. As a precaution, we decided to put all we could move to a higher floor. Then we were first recommended and then forced to leave our homes for some days. In the end, we were happy, the dikes around us proved sufficient to protect the Eastern part of the city Magdeburg where we live.

Due to health problems I did not yet manage to explain in detail why I am now considering Michelson's experiment an indeed compelling evidence against an light-carrying ether although I found out that the already corrected by Potier expectation was still rather incorrect. Feist's measurement was correct but I do not confirm his conclusion.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your essay is as much a pleasure to read, as it is conceptually very close to our essay published on May 31, 2013, though both approach the subject from totally different perspectives. Thus, though there are some differences in our analysis, the final outcome is strikingly the same.

“Analyticity implies the directional aspect of causality and vice versa” may not be a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I highly appreciate your justified criticism of my essay. When I pointed to the relationship between analycity and causality, I referred to what is well known to electrical engineers like me: “… causality implies the analyticity condition is satisfied, and conversely, analyticity implies causality of the corresponding stable physical system”, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%E2%80%93Kronig_relation
. When demanding “Analytic in the upper half of the complex plane“, mathematics and signal processing usually consider the frequency domain the complex plane.

I did not anticipate possible mistakes by readers like you who are not very familiar with the notion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_function . Admittedly, we engineers are using the expression analytic signal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_signal ) almost synonymous to the representation of an originally one-sided and real-valued signal in complex domain.

Incidentally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_continuation is Heaviside’s trick.

Thank you for criticizing my use of “analycity” in a too parsimonious and therefore mistakable manner.

While I tend to agree with many of your opinions, I do not consider it helpful to discuss some differences most of which would in the end perhaps boil down to problems I have with your as I guess uncommon terminology. At least I do not see how you are answering questions that arose from my essay. For instance, I would be interested in a further elaboration of the alternative to length contraction that I am suggesting.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 00:47 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are justified in your sarcasm because you have correctly pointed out the cause of our gap in communication. Scientists look at everything from ontological perspective, whereas Engineers like you are more concerned with the problem at hand and ignore universal aspects. For example, we never contradicted the relationship between analycity and causality, but were contradicting...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

You wrote: "Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that [time dilation] was fudged." Is this obvious in Wikipedia?

Anyway, I agree with you on that length contraction and time dilution are fictions, and I see our perhaps common obligation not just to show that Einstein's special relativity (SR) is based on wrong speculations but rather to look for reasonable explanations to "relativistic" phenomena that are so far ascribed to SR. Cf. Christov. In particular, I envision an understanding of the limit to the speed of light as the point of some resonance.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 19:40 GMT
Helo Teachers Eckard

It is true that there is nothing to blame the teacher's essay.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Shannon's view “We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it” jumped out at me as analogous to my essay's observer/observation approach that revealed a Fibonacci pattern.

In my case it would be: - We know some information but cannot reveal it. We reveal some information but cannot collect more.

I already suggested an arrow of time from this, but your essay has further helped make it relevant given the Shannon analogy.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading it - thanks for a great essay!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 06:28 GMT
Hello Antony,

What do you mean by "the Shannon analogy"? If you draw an analogy between two things, you show that they are alike in some way. Did you refer to your essay or did you mean an analogy drawn by Shannon himself.

I consider Shannon's statement a view that sharply contrasts to some belief-based tenets. While he makes his view plausible to everybody by the "we" perspective, it is still compelling if we do not at all invoke observer and observation but just causal relations and the now.

Let me point out that the now implies an arrow of time while some physicists accept the arrow of time without admitting the now. My explanation is illustrated in Fig. 1 of my previous essay.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Yes I'd mentioned Shannon's view was analogous to my essay in the first paragraph then was lending reference to it in the third paragraph.

I agree that Shannon's view sharply contrasts belief based tenets.

Best wishes & kind regards,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

I'll try again. I hope the fact, stated above, that I agree almost completely with this essay does not imply that you will not find other ideas in my essay which I invite you again to read and comment on. I hope that the flooding and ill health are in your past. What a horrible combination to deal with.

I know that you like critical comments to argue with and thereby improve your arguments, but the fact is I do not find anything to argue with in your current essay. You've done a masterful job.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 07:17 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Let me excuse that I did not yet respond. Before I was urged to leave my home because of the risk of flooding, my younger son helped me to rescue anything important including a copy of your essay by moving it upward to the second floor. While our dikes were fortunately successfully defended, we are still waiting for someone who repairs the bus system that controlled the electric installation in my home before it was destroyed by a lightning stroke hitting our neighbor's chimney. My connection to the internet is also shaky. So I am in rather a mess.

Admittedly, I didn't yet grasp how gravity relates to the nature of information. I didn't even understand how to read the three Chinese pictures you put at the beginning while it seems to be clear that you are sharing Schlafly's opinion.

I agree, an error by 120 order's of magnitude points to a false premise, and your GEM theory does certainly deserve scrutiny by an expert. Not sufficiently qualified readers like me can only guess that G stands for gravity and EM perhaps for electro-magnetic. With G and C you introduced on p. 3 rather uncommon, at least to me, quantities. Are they immediately useful for what were my students of EE? You specified on p. 5 "the G - or gravito-electric field" and "the C - or gravito-magnetic field". The following unnumbered picture relates only to the C-field.

You mentioned on your p. 3 that your equation is the only fundamental in physics to yield asymmetric time. Do you see a possibility to also consider the now?

Best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 00:20 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

I hope your electricity, Internet access, and all the other necessities of modern life are quickly restored. These minor disasters remind us of things we'd rather forget. But your health is most important. I wish you good health.

I made the decision to write an extremely high level overview of my theory in 9 pages, guaranteeing that those unfamiliar with it will find...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I consider Feeley’s Bush Doctor quote and your three Chinese pictures unnecessary hurdles of understanding. Your text explains the meaning of one picture but I felt unable to understand the whole arrangement.

While I understand your theory and its importance meanwhile already a bit better, the connection between gravity and information was perhaps too far-fetched as to provide an immediately plausible example for the application of your theory.

My question concerning the “now” is not astutely meant. I do not entirely share Feeley’s argument that an observable is just the result of a measurement. I see it an abstraction that describes what could already have been measured. People like you Mark Feeley and me who did not lose their common sense will agree on that future data evade measurement in advance. In biology there is a distinction between in vivo and in vitrio. The “now” is something similar to in vivo, something outside the scope of Einstein’s and Wheeler’s physics.

My objection against Einstein’s first postulate might indeed be astute. I will try and explain it in reply to Paul.

Thank you again for your warm words.

All the best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Paul,

I prefer answering in a new thread.

Here is the translation of Einstein's first postulated principle given by Wikisource:

The laws according to which the states of physical systems alter are independent of the choice, to which of two co-ordinate systems (having a uniform translatory motion relative to each other) these state changes are related.

Don't get me wrong. I do not object against the possibility to chose either the one or the other co-ordinate system as reference. I only question the tacit assumption of two rigid bodies (= co-ordinate systems) in uniform translatory motion relative to each other. My argument is simple: If the second rigid body was very long it could transfer information with a velocity in excess of c.

I see this also valid with the postulate you quoted as formulated in 1923.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Eckard

So do I. And that is an obvious challenge based on the translation of the first postulate you are quoting. Because as I said earlier, the standard 1923 work does not phrase it this way, it writes of "in all frames of reference". Which is physically correct, ie any law which corresponds with reality must be applicable in all circumstances, would be the most generalised way of putting it.

The caveat of uniform motion is an irrelevance (which is not the same as rigid bodies, but indicates how he is thinking. So even in this 'version' the first postulate is not wrong, just over conditioned. It is the second postulate which matters.

"My argument is simple: If the second rigid body was very long it could transfer information with a velocity in excess of c"

This is incorrect. Light only ever starts at c and can only decrease. The size of a body is irrelevant. Light is created at one spatial position, other light is created at another spatial position.

The whole issue here is how does reality occur, not how photons interact with it.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 15:46 GMT
Sorry Paul,

I disagree with you. Einstein himself identified a co-ordinate with a rigid body. Such rigid body would have infinite length. In order to transfer a signal faster than with light, It would be sufficient to vary the position of this second co-ordinate relative to the co-ordinate of reference.

And yes, I question the first postulate when it is understood claiming that the laws of nature are SIMULTANEOUSLY valid "in all frames of reference". Once we have chosen a co-ordinate, the other dependencies are affected by Doppler illusions.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:57 GMT
Eckard

I might just say first, my original comment which sparked this thread of exchange is that SR is not what Basudeba and you think it is, which was evidenced by the exchange you two were having. Your literal translation of the first postulate was very interesting. I find it the culmination of a farce, that although the man was clearly wrong in his concept of relativity, in 2013 there...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
In order to test my understanding of the velocity of light and of simultaneity, Daryl Janzen introduced two gunslingers (this word is not in my dictionary, I just assume receivers of the same signal) who are located on a train with equal distance from the common a source of that signal located in the middle of the train.

Yes, according to the endnotes of my essay, they will see the signal at the same moment. It is reasonable and possible to choose only one co-ordinate system that refers to the train.

An observer on the ground may sees the train moving to the right. This motion does not matter.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Daryl Janzen replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
Eckard,

Thanks for your answer. I’m sorry you felt that I mean to ‘test’ you with this question. I just thought it would be a nice concrete place to start a discussion about relativity and check on what we can agree, as you previously suggested.

And sorry for the confusion over the definition of a ‘gunslinger’. From Wikipedia: Gunfighter and gunslinger...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 23:19 GMT
Oh I can’t help myself. Can I say already what I think is the problem with Einstein’s proposal that synchronous events are simultaneous? It’s perfectly exemplified in the following quotation from Greene (next three paragraphs):

"So: *if you buy the notion that reality consists of the things in your freeze-frame mental image of right now, and if you agree that your* now *is no more...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 07:10 GMT
Daryl, my dear,

Having learned the word gunslinger, I would appreciate you having understood my arguments. You might consider me bold if I do not deal with your worries concerning spacetime.

Since I were a teacher of EE, I understand light as waves. My previous essay made aware of an experiment by Norbert Feist who seemed to confirm that acoustic waves behave as light in Michelson's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Michael Helland wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 17:13 GMT
Hello,

Nice essay, and hanks for your comment n mine.

When I originally esponde to your comment I missed where you included absolute reality. Yes, I agree with what you said.

Have a nice day !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Eckard,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 06:38 GMT
Eckard

I note your comment above about the first postulate. Can we please clear this up once and for all.

1 As always the best approach is to establish what was actually written first, before commenting on it!

Your translation is: “"The laws that describe how the states of the physical systems change do not depend on which of two coordinate systems we relate these changes of state if the two coordinate system are in steady motion relative to each other."

The standard 1923 translation is: “the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.”

Can you please confirm what Einstein actually wrote re his first postulate.

2 On the basis of what he actually wrote, what is your comment on the forst postulate?

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 05:56 GMT
Paul,

At first, I would like you to confirm that your question does likewise refer to the translation I found in Wiki: "The laws according to which the states of physical systems alter are independent of the choice, to which of two co-ordinate systems (having a uniform translatory motion relative to each other) these state changes are related."

This postulate

(and also the 1923 version you quoted:“the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good”)

was certainly meant and has been understood so far as follows:

One may choose a first and a differently moving second frame of reference independent of each other and then apply the laws to both of them simultaneously.

I consider this interpretation as Lorentz's illusory dream to have two mutually excluding perspectives at a time. Do not blame Einstein for his mistakes. He plagiarized elder mistakes.

Of course, the laws are independent of the perspective, and of course, it does not matter which perspective one prefers.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 06:06 GMT
Eckard

Unfortunately I wanted you to confirm what he wrote in 1905. The Wiki version looks more similar to your statement than the 1923.

Now, taking that (Wiki) version and your translation, there is nothing wrong with the statement, as written. The caveat of “in steady motion relative to each other” (yours) or “having a uniform translatory motion relative to each other”...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 12:09 GMT
Paul,

You wrote: [Einstein's first posutulate] "is a statement of the obvious. Laws correspond with reality, and reality does not alter depending on which reference is utilized to calibrate it, the calibration does. I find it amazing that he had the pomposity to declare this simple truth the ‘Principle of Relativity’."

I disagree. One may choose any coordinate system at will. However, different perspectives must not be taken at a time.

Einstein's seemingly trivial argument reminds me of Dedekind's appeal to just accept something for which he didn't have any evidence.

I also disagree with your other mainstream opinion "the only way out of that conundrum is SR, as defined by him".

You wrote:"Based on Poincare’s flawed notion of simultaneity ..." Yes, perhaps did already Poincaré use Einstein's flawed notion of simultaneity. I will check this. That method is said going back to Potier, and it was correct and common practice for A and B without relative motion.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Eckard,

My sincere apologies. I see I’ve been missing out on a very interesting discussion. Before I read through it and try to join back in, I want to refer back to your post on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 06:43 GMT. Since I’ve fallen out of sequence there, I’m posting this in a new thread.

The only thing that bothers me in what you wrote is the statement that you “consider it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I think I see a possible point of confusion that might lead to you objecting to my above post. In your post above on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT which you addressed to Christian Corda and Paul, you wrote “My objection does merely refer to the interpretation that the laws of physics provide the same picture if applied to the different perspectives of two moving relatively to each other inertial observers A and B - AT A TIME”.

First of all, it’s not “the same picture”, but that they apply equally as well from either perspective, as the descriptions from either perspective, as related through continuous coordinate transformations, are consistent with one another.

I think you may be thinking too literally about this “AT A TIME”. The measure of time in two different frames of reference is not the same (e.g., as per the above), so there is no consistent way of saying “at the same time” when talking about the descriptions from two different perspectives. Because of this, I think you’re arguing that it’s only relevant to describe things from one frame of reference or the other.

But the point I think you may be missing when someone says, e.g. “at the same time you can describe things from one perspective or the other”, is that what is really meant by that, is it’s not just that things can be described in either frame of reference, end point, but that there is a continuous transformation between the two descriptions which allows the same sequences of events to be described either way.

I hope that helps, and if I’m just misunderstanding you, I do apologise.

Daryl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 08:48 GMT
Dear Eckard,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. Here are some comments.

You wrote: "Kramers-Kronig relations guarantee that the future does not influence the past. They allow calculating the imaginary part from the real part and vice versa of any complex function that is analytic in the upper half-plane. Analyticity implies the directional aspect of causality and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
Dear Christian,

In order to avoid that we merely agree to disagree on almost all you wrote, I would like you to first accept that Maxwell's equations were established long before 1905 when Einstein suggested his Special Relativity. You are not the first one who claims that Maxwell's equations can be derived from Special Relativity. I see such maneuvers as lacking obedience of causality among theoreticians. Nonetheless, I would appreciate you giving me a hint to such calculation on the web.

I will reply to the many other questions as soon as possible to me.

Cheers,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:32 GMT
Dear Christian,

When I wrote "infinitely long rigid bodies (coordinate systems) [21] could ..." my hint to [21] (p. 892) meant that I blame Einstein for having written "The theory to be developed is based on - as every other electrodynamics - the kinematics of the rigid body, because the statements of every theory belong to relationships between rigid bodies (coordinate systems), clocks ...". I agree that no body is strictly rigid, and I wrote could, not can.

I argued that the non-existence of strictly rigid bodies implied that there are strictly speaking also no coordinate systems which are moving relative to each other.

Incidentally, did the uncertainty explain the limitation to c? I rather tend to imagine every body elastic.

Cheers for today,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 06:34 GMT
Eckard

Whether a body is rigid or not, in the sense meant by Einstein, is to some extent irrelevant. In that rigidity is an attribute over time. That is, a body is only that body once, whenever it exists. At any other point in time, physically it is something else. It might look the same at the higher level we are conceiving it at, but physically there will have been alterations, so it is different. In other words, there is only ever one physically existent state of something , which one could say is rigid, in effect, because there is only one discrete definitive occurrence. Whether subsequent states, which are actually a different something, happen to have the same spatial configuration is another matter.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear all

(in alphabetic order: Christian Corda, Daryl Janzen, Edwin Klingman, Israel Perez, Paul Reed, Pentcho Valew, Sean Gryb),

You uttered arguments concerning Einstein’s special theory of relativity that are more or less at variance not just with my endnotes but also among each other. While I am pretty sure being correct in that the future is quite different from the past, I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 06:14 GMT
Eckard

As I have said before, it is first best if you understand what SR is, according to the man who wrote it. Then any comments you make about Einstein’s concept of relativity can be properly focussed on what, in effect, it was.

Why are you only “pretty sure” that the future is different from the past? Obviously it is, it is a different reality, the future not having...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear all,

As a first step, I will try and explain my reasoning concerning synchronization. How to synchronize antenna A with antenna B when the distance between them steadily grows with velocity v?

I assume:

- Symmetry. The clock rate of A is assumed identical with the clock rate of B.

- Antenna A emits at t=0 a signal to be transferred to B and corrected for the delay due to that transfer.

- The distance d_0 at t=0 is known, and the distance d_1 at the moment of arrival t_1 can be calculated as d_0 + vT with T = t_1 - t_0.

- The velocity c of light refers to the difference between the position of A at the moment of emission and the position of B at the moment of arrival, i.e. in the assumed case to d_1 divided by T.

Obviously, the correction depends on the sign of v.

There were perhaps three reasons for Einstein to apply Poincaré's synchronization.

- He had realized that averaging the correction for positive and negative velocity yields a dependency of second order (a dependency on v squared) that corresponded to what Poincaré had dubbed Lorentz transformation, cf. his comment on "quantities of first order" in "On the Electrodyn."

- He almost copied Poincaré and Lorentz although he didn't quote their papers.

- He ignored to some extent logics and common sense.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Eckard

I do not understand this post, or even if you have got the example correct. You say the “distance between them steadily grows with velocity v”, which means there is relative motion, or they are travelling in different directions?

Forget the clocks, these are irrelevant. And let us assume that the rate of change in reality is the same as that for light (this just makes...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Eckard

Just to let you know that I have read your well structured and written essay. You raised several interesting issues such as those mentioned above by Edwin. My major motivation in reading your essay was to verify your claim that you have an alternative explanation to the MMX. I read also the endnotes. There I could find some of the comments that you already posted in my entry. As I mentioned in my entry, Lorentz' contraction is not an artifice but it's well justified if one recognizes that bodies are not rigid entities but deform under the action of a force.

You:The velocity of light c equals to the distance d between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight t: c=d/t.

Here, of course, we have to determine the time at the emission and receiving points. In doing so, this will inevitably lead us to the problem of clock synchronization (that you mention in endnote 4), which from my point of view is a dead end given the circular reasoning that emerges when we try to synchronize a clock by determining the one-way speed of light which in turn requires a clock synchronization procedure. The synchronization by slow motion has been extensively studied in the literature and I would not like to discuss it here. I remember that we have already discussed at length this topic.

With respect to endnote 1, I couldn't get what you really mean. It seems that you are suggesting absolute time and denying local times. You suggest negative values for t, which I don't get the physical meaning of negative time. Could you comment on this part please.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 06:58 GMT
Israel

If I may jump in. There is no synchronisation problem, neither do timing devices have to be synchronised using light. The whole point of the timing system is that all the devices are 'telling' the same time, ie the reference is a conceptual constant rate of change. The devices themselves are irrelevant, just a means to an end. There is, obviously, a practical problem with getting all devices 'telling' the same time and maintaining it, but that is not what was being considered.

Timing is not time. The consideration was about occurrence (reality). Now, any given reality only occurs at a specific time, not at different times. There is no such thing as 'local time'. It is the timing of the receipt of lights which were generated as a result of that occurrence, which represent that reality which alter, mainly dependent on spatial position.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT
Dear Israel,

The question whether or not there is length contraction due to velocity is not my primary concern. Nonetheless, I consider it an important one. Let me tell you some of my arguments:

a) As far as I know, such contraction was never measured so far.

b) FitzGerald and Lorentz might have ad hoc fabricated it in order to rescue Maxwell's aether when they explained Michelson's null result.

c) Velocity does not cause a force that could deform a body and change its length. Forces belong to accelerations.

d) To my understanding, velocity of a body as well as kinetic energy is always relative. For instance, in a crush between two cars of equal mass the relative velocity counts. This does not preclude that there is a limit to the velocity between any emitter and belonging receiver and in particular the speed of light.

e) Length contraction corresponds to Einstein's asymmetrical synchronization.

You asked for the meaning of negative time. Negative elapsed time is the temporal distance of an expected event from now. Where is the problem?

I only see a problem in the denial of the now in physics. Well, the laws of physics are invariant under shift and even reversal of time. However, doesn’t this merely indicate that the laws alone cannot completely describe the reality?

Well, I do not see a necessity to operate with different time scales belonging to differently moving relatively to each other bodies. And - despite of the many perhaps pointless discussions you mentioned - I prefer in theory the logically correct synchronization by slow transport of clocks.

Best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Eckard,

Sorry to hear of all your tribulations. I consider your essay largely excellent even without considering all those issues and am pleased to report I have it down for a high mark. I really loved your "Wheeler's preposterous idea" comment!

I'm sorry about the over-literal English in my own essay, too much Shakespeare and Chaucer in my youth! But my essay is too richly constructed to be able to extract the value from in a 'quick scan'. It builds a full ontological construction using orbital angular momentum to show how the stupidities of FTL assumed from Bells' theorem can be dispensed with. That's not an easy task! I do hope you get to read it carefully.

The blog comments also expand on precisely how the cosine curve is produced at EACH detector, thus reproducing the predictions of QM without spookyness. Your incisive falsification is most welcome. If you like donuts you can perform the experiment very simply yourself!

(I post this down here for convenience).

Stay well. And I hope and expect to see you finish higher up the field. Best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
Peter,

When I picked up the word preposterous from comments about Wheeler, I largely agreed with the context but did not exactly understand the meaning. My dictionary tells me now:extremely unreasonable and foolish.

Aren't I myself extremely unreasonable and foolish when I am uttering what virtually every contestant tries to carefully hide?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:24 GMT
I shall have to read your essay this weekend, Eckard.

Given that it is too near the bottom, and I find it hard to believe you deserve low placement given your excellent past work; I shall endeavor to offer up an assessment and upward adjustment as soon as time allows.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 09:33 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

May I ask you for critical comments on Shannon's and my views? While I e.g. disagree with Christian Corda, I appreciate his hint to the issue of claimed deriving Maxwell's equations from relativity. I asked him in vain for a hint to it. Meanwhile I found a file by Richard E. Haskell which seems to be rather weak.

Perhaps you realized that I do not longer support ether theories. While Feist's experiment is obviously correct, I see his argumentation flawed. I cannot expect experts like you to immediately accept my new solution to Michelson's null result.

When you wrote "your excellent past work", you might refer to the hopefully compelling Figures of my last essay. Wheeler's preposterous ideas were perhaps not suited to be plausibly illustrated without risking the reproach of blasphemy. "Have Fun" reminds me of someone who unfortunately already passed away.

I will read your new essay.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:23 GMT
It is perhaps better that I read first..

However; I have admired your ability to argue your points clearly and passionately, for not accepting a half-baked answer as truth, and for being helpful to the general understanding - in how you express your opinion. I tend to regard these traits as a sign of journalistic or literary quality, that stands apart from questions of the veracity of one scientific interpretation over another. And I think your command of Physics concepts is generally good.

As you have probably noticed, Eckard; I tend to reject as realistic the notion that only one model is correct or viable. Instead, I choose to admit a broader spectrum, and in my very first FQXi essay - I insisted that is what is needed for progress to occur. I think a great number of people cast aside great work just because it doesn't appear to be what they expect to find. Doug Osheroff instructs us we must do the opposite; don't imagine theorists are omniscient and look where others have not looked yet.

It is because of advice from people like Feynman and Osheroff, I'll keep being interested to know what insights you offer. As for my previous closing, someone has to keep up the tradition.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Basudeba,

While I see you partially an ally, I would like to comment on your sentence "Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift". Isn't length contraction only a second order effect, quasi what remains if one calculates the mean value of the two Doppler effects forward and backward seen from sender/receiver of a monostatic antenna configuration?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
A further comment..

You are taking up some questions in your essay that have a rich history, in the debate between Physics experts. As you know from Dieter Zeh's book; the Einstein-Ritz controversy was sort of like the middle of an argument that began in a debate between Planck and Boltzmann and later evolved into a disagreement between Wheeler and Feynman. So I am drawn in to the history and I want to find out how Maxwell fares in your telling of the story. Does he get to wield his Silver Hammer? (actually, I hope not)

More after thorough reading.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 04:48 GMT
I was pleased to give you a good rating.

I'll tell you why after some sleep.

Good job, Eckard..

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

The Beatles ignored our Maxwell's outstanding merits when they sung about a Maxwell who commits murder with a hammer. I see Maxwell's hypothesis of a light carrying medium quite reasonable as certainly also was Newton's guess that there are particles of light.

As far as I understood, Maxwell's equations were already adapted to the null result of Michelson's experiments (cf. Phipps) and cast in their present form by Heaviside and also by Gibbs.

When I wondered about striking perfect mirror symmetries between positive and negative functions of frequency or time in the theory of signal processing, I got aware of Heaviside's almost forgotten but decisive trick to split the not yet available and therefore assumed to zero future data in mutually extinguishing extensions of fictitious even and odd components in order to allow integration from minus infinity to plus infinity.

When I plausibly explained cochlear function without such trick a faced fierce distrust because the community of physicists already trusted in theories up to SUSY that interpreted the symmetries not as artifacts but as gospels.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:06 GMT
Regarding assumed future data;

One can explore this question in some interesting ways. It might be appropriate to assume, for example, that the most massive objects present in the distant future would provide an 'anchor' of sorts, which fixes an endpoint of possible timelines. I read a paper by Jack Sarfatti about retrocausal effects from Black Holes in the Cosmological distant future, that takes this approach or explores that angle - to explain certain components of the background radiation. I think that is on viXra.

This question ties in with your comments, on my essay page, about the CMB vs black-body spectrum and deviations therefrom. Brown's very brief essay in this contest talks about the 'Space Roar' which is the Cosmic Radio wave Background, and it was the first I learned of it - though worthy of note. It is assumed to be extra-galactic but its exact origin is unknown. However the current result is based on only one experimental run of ARCADE, as I understand it, so the data is inconclusive.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Eckard,

The main argument in your paper, I feel, is mainly centered on the concept of Time and the position of the observer “in” it when he views the laws of Nature historically and makes predictions about the future from them ‘in Time’. It is this which clearly distinguishes between past present and future. This is what I see is implied by your elegant argument when you point out the importance of the role played by the observer in science. While discussing this role of the observer, you are not siding with Wheeler’s ‘anthropic view’ but maintain your realistic objective point of view. I appreciate this stand for being pragmatic in you approach. You have beautifully elaborated the reasons behind how Wheeler came to claiming that It comes from Bit or, in short, “It from Bit”. Your line of presentation of this argument is not only interesting but also revealing. The great Einstein’s entry in your essay is highly absorbing. You have also elucidated clearly the application of Shannon’s theory to quantum informatics and also of weak points in Wheeler’s argument on wormholes and black holes.

I congratulate you for producing such a highly original essay with full of lucid points and briefings. I have all the prize and regards for you and your essay. So I will honor you and your essay with maximum possible rating allowed by fqxi. Please, also have a look at my essay and express your opinion on it in my thread. (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827)

Sincerely,

Sreena
th

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your support. I would even more appreciate any hint to mistakes of mine. While I do not understand how you meant your sentence "The great Einstein’s entry in your essay is highly absorbing, I have to admit that I see Einstein's observer-related perspective NOT suited in physics. During my career I dealt with two perspectives, the cochlea and radar antennas. In both cases I prefer to speak of a receiver, not of an observer.

I intend reading your essay as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:38 GMT
Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:59 GMT
Than Tin,

I cannot yet see how your mental brew relates to my current essay. Figure 2 in my previous essay might be of interest to you.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Eckard,

concerning my hint to the issue of claimed deriving Maxwell's equations from relativity you can see here.

Concerning your seeing Carlo Rovelli's objection to my Essay logically justified, I regret, but both you and Carlo are completely wrong. In fact, at the end of such a comment Carlo asks if he is missing something. The answer to this question is yes, he is missing what Jonathan J. Dickau correctly emphasizes in one of his comments, i.e. I supply missing terms without which a true unitary equation could not be written. Such missing terms arise from my previous research work, published in various important international peer review journals, which are correctly cited in my Essay. I strongly suspect that both you and Carlo have ONLY read the abstract of my work, and this generated to both of you the misunderstanding that I derived the Schrödinger equation based on an abstract and constructed on air assumption of unitarity. Instead, I derived it by using such missing terms which arise from my previous research work. In other words, in my Essay I did NOT made an abstract assumption of unitarity, but I finalized my previous research work by constructing a Schrödinger equation for a well defined system that I discussed and analysed in my previous papers.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Christian,

I wrote already on Jul. 27 to Jonathan Dickau: Meanwhile I found a file by Richard E. Haskell which seems to be rather weak.

While I do not question that you were in position to explain your mathematical view concerning unitarity in highly respected journals, I question the justification of your interpretation of mathematics in physics in general. I consider the world something that has only one border, the now between past and future.

Concerning my post on R. Kastner I would like to add that I see MY view the most simple and natural one

Cheers,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 04:10 GMT
Addendum:

In my post I refer to

R. Kastner's paper The Broken Symmetry of Time . Ruth E. Kastner shares the same view as virtually any scientist including A. Kastner (= Angela Merkel) that the future is a subgroup/semigroup of the assumed as original symmetry group called time. In other words, she follows not just Wheeler and Einstein but even the elder gospel from minus...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 04:24 GMT
I gave links that didn't work. You might find my post I referred to including a link at the new blog entry "What can't be sensed" among the recent forum posts.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I cannot read all your comments in all the FQXi Essay pages. Thus, I did not read your Jul. 27 writing to Jonathan Dickau. In any case, I do not think that the file by Richard E. Haskell is weak. Maybe you do not fully understand it. I know lots of people who, having success in their research field (engineers like you, but also mathematicians, physicist of particles, etc.), feel the necessity to compare them-self with Albert Einstein and reach a conclusion in favor of them-self by claiming that the Relativity Theory is wrong. I consider this very sad, because such guys always ruined their good careers by speaking ridiculous nonsense and are today considered crackpots. They are people obsessed by Einstein's ghost. Note that I do not consider Albert Einstein to be a saint. He was not infallible, he spoke nonsense too, but the few issues in which Einstein resulted correct made the history of science having an enormous effect on modern physics. Sorry, but I have very strong doubts that you, Pentcho Valev and company will make the history of science.

Concerning the issue that you question the justification of my interpretation of mathematics in physics in general, you are a cardholder who changes the cards in the table. You claimed that you see Carlo Rovelli's objection to my Essay as logically justified. This has nothing to do with my interpretation of mathematics in physics in general. In fact such an interpretation is surely more similar to Rovelli's interpretation of mathematics in physics in general rather than to your interpretation of mathematics in physics in general.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT
Dear Christian,

May we agree on that nature itself is the cardholder?

We certainly agree on that Pentcho Valev behaves annoying and will little or nothing contribute to science if he continues to evade an open factual discussion.

You sadness reminds me of the sadness of those who did recommend to Galileo obeying the dogma. Given Lorentz transformation is really justified, I did not see this an excuse for obviously naive reasoning in Einstein's paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and I also doubt that it justifies Minkowski's use of the old belief in an a priori given and merely unseen future.

Just an aside, calling someone "not a saint" would rather fit to Berlusconi. At least in Germany this wording denotes macho-like behavior.

I will go on dealing with factual arguments as soon as I have the required time.

Cheers,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 06:15 GMT
Dear Christian,

I apologize for choosing Berlusconi as an example for how we in Germany understand the phrase "not a saint". I intended to say that one must not judge personalities instead of scientific arguments. Einstein's behavior towards women, his child, and peace does not matter at all. Planck did certainly not have made Einstein great if he had considered his 1905 relativity paper plagiarizing the not mentioned sources.

You might have wondered why I started my essay with a comparison between Tukey's real-valued cepstrum and the complex-valued one. I suspect that the latest twists by Ruth Kastner or by Paul Borrill are similar over-sophisticated attempts to solve Wheeler's and Einstein's most serious problem.

You are correct in that I am unable to check in all details Haskell's claim. I see his weakness already in the missing transparency of his basic assumptions and also in missing consequences. Haskell just introduces gamma and operates with it. Wouldn't this also be possible with a Lorentzian perspective? Doesn't his maneuver remind of a clever fabricated logical circle?

Cheers,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I regret, but neither you, nor Pentcho Valev nor various other people who invoke Galileo's name are Galileo. Thus, you should stop to suggest that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case because this is not correct. Concerning Berlusconi, although I am not interested in politics, I appreciate his Don Juan's conduct. Why do you accuse Einstein to have plagiarized not mentioned sources? In 1905 lots of scientific papers were not accessible like today, thus I think that both Einstein and Planck merely did not know such sources. In any case Einstein physical interpretation is better than the ones by Poincare, Lorentz etc., and the same Lorentz always recognized to Einstein the greatest merit to construct Special Relativity. Concerning Haskell, what is the problem in introducing gamma and operating with it?

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Excellent essay in the spirit of Descartes, hard сartesian doubt."The trouble with physics" and the information revolution are pushing .. Excellent rating. I only have one small comment and two questions.

You write «According to the bible, in the beginning was the word.» In the original Greek: «Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 05:43 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

With my first sentence I intended to say that Wheeler's it from bit was anything but new, it relates to religious belief, and it cannot be reasonably answered.

Edwin Klingman admitted difficulties to understand your essay. I will perhaps need even more time for a careful reading.

Nonetheless, I thank you very much for the link to Zenkin's paper. I was surprised that the comment on Cantor's Transfinity was made by Brouwer. Mueckenheim was certainly wrong when he ascribed it to Poincaré. That's why I didn't find it in Poincaré's work.

Best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 21:53 GMT
Who deleted several posts here and at 1856 and why? For instance, I criticized that Christian Corda first wrote that Wheeler dubbed the phrase it from bit in the 1950, after I questioned this, he admitted he did not know when, and nonetheless he reiterated his old text without providing a reference he referred to.

More importantly, we disagreed about the notion unitarity, and I tried to further explain my (also missing) post belonging to R. Kastner's paper "The Broken Symmetry of Time" in the blog "What can't be sensed?". I argued that it might be more natural to consider time as an abstraction from measurable elapsed time and future time as a continuation of it than ad hoc assuming time as given a priori from minus infinity to plus infinity, sharing Einstein's worry about the now and bother to explain why elapsed time is a special case of abstract time. I see the border between past and future the only natural border. My position might be unwelcome. Is it a sign of strength if belonging posts are brutally deleted?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Eckard,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:17 GMT
"... the final verdict is :eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality".

Amazing

Bookmark and Share



Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:08 GMT
Having looked at 3 pages, I still have no idea what eEnergy, eInfo, and eUniverse stand for. At least you seem not to straightforward defend what I consider foundational wrong. Therefore I refuse rating. This is my comment ------

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:23 GMT
Eckard - excellent description of time and photon propagation. I wonder if the concept of subtime might provide additional insight:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeO
ne-V1.1a.pdf

(I have no idea why the fqxi web site breaks up this url).

I look forward to hearing your views.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Paul (your last name Borrill added as to avoid confusion with a less creative Paul),

Having already copied your essay a while ago, I need time for carefully reading it. So far I could merely express some of my reasons for not trusting in your admittedly brilliant suggestion.

I don't consider this essay of mine brilliant because I perhaps only managed to make aware of Wheeler's problem with time, but I failed to shutter decisive elements of common belief in key theories.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear Eckard as promised I will comment - not on the article itself but on your very interesting endnotes. I have added my comments rather hastily (see below, quoting your numbered endnotes) but it shows what I think and hope to be true. With best wishes

Vladimir

------

1) ...there is no common time but different local times. Suggestion 1: Negative values of d or t,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

1) Yes, I see it reasonable to not use local times but a common time scale all over the universe. Lorentz introduced local time as to rescue the ether hypothesis. Einstein applied Poincaré synchronization against logic to moving relative to each other AB too.

2) Yes, distortion of space and time is not necessary.

3) I do not see an ether lattice required. In that Einstein in 1905 was perhaps correct, by chance.

4) I am not sure if I understood what you meant.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 01:48 GMT
Dear Eckard sorry for the delay to respond.

About

3)what I meant by the word ether is quite different than what most 19th. c. physicists meant. Hertz had a different idea - that everything - matter, radiation and space itself is electric - ie a building block - a lattice of dielectric units. Einstein used the word only in relation to the vacuum - as opposed to solid matter.

4) I was referring to what you emphasized in point 2 here that distortion of space and time is not necessary. By pronouncing a constant speed = space traversed / time Einstein made it necessary that space and time as dimensions become flexible and related. If an object, say a meter stick moves at a certain velocity, it contracts. This contraction can be explained as space itself contracting (as in SR) or as in my lattice theory - its length contracts but lattice space remains unchanged and absolute. Ditto for time vs. clock time.

Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Vladimir Tamari,

I would appreciate if you or someone else could explain to me: What is wrong with my endnotes? In an empty space (vacuum) only two items take part in the propagation of light: sending and receiving antenna, no observer unless it is the receiver, no medium, no lattice, nothing at all.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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