CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
Common sense reflexions on Wheeler's dream by Israel Omar Perez
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Israel Perez wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Essay AbstractAlice and Bob have a nice chat about Wheeler's dream. They interchange their bird's-eye view of the topic and analyze the rudiments behind scientific proposals. From their discussion one can conclude that the problem may be a matter of semantics. Although they both agree that the it-from-bit approach may be useful to dissolve the crisis in physics. After discussing several roads to reality, Bob considers that it is worthy returning to the old way of doing physics in which intuition and "common sense" used to go along with the mathematical description of reality. Bob thinks that if physics wishes to maintain its high reputation among the sciences and the public, scientific proposals should not only explain the experimental observations but also be credible in accordance with "common sense". He then brings an example of these kind of proposals in which the "it" remains fundamental.
Author BioDr. Israel Perez works as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada in the field of condense matter physics. He is member of the National System of Researchers in Mexico. His innate passion for the understanding of nature has led him to do research also on the foundations of physics. This time, Israel has worked out a relaxed analysis of Wheeler's dream.
Download Essay PDF File
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Israel,
You did a terrific job of conveying the rich theoretical landscape of modern physics! I wonder, though, if even something seemingly so certain -- "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever" -- might not also be doubted by researchers who apply Mach's Principle to the many body problem on microscales.
No matter. It...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
You did a terrific job of conveying the rich theoretical landscape of modern physics! I wonder, though, if even something seemingly so certain -- "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever" -- might not also be doubted by researchers who apply Mach's Principle to the many body problem on microscales.
No matter. It was fun to read your essay and I wish you the best in the competition.
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Hi Tom
Thanks for reading my essay and for leaving your comments. Mach's principle was not included at all in GR. This is why many people (such as J. Barbour) are trying to build a truly relational framework, perhaps you will be interested in checking Daniel Wagner's essay and references therein.
I'm glad you had fun reading my essay I'll try to read yours asap. I wish you the best...
view entire post
Hi Tom
Thanks for reading my essay and for leaving your comments. Mach's principle was not included at all in GR. This is why many people (such as J. Barbour) are trying to build a truly relational framework, perhaps you will be interested in checking Daniel Wagner's essay and references therein.
I'm glad you had fun reading my essay I'll try to read yours asap. I wish you the best too.
Regards
Israel
view post as summary
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
Hi Israel,
To follow up -- while it is true that Mach's principle does not figure into the mathematics of general relativity, the philosophy of Mach's principle does motivate GR, as Einstein himself admitted. In fact, Einstein agrees with you that such "common sense" virtue *should* motivate the mathematics by which we make closed logical judgments on how nature behaves.
It is special relativity that limits the common sense of Mach's principle to local events, which makes it uncommonly hard to unite those events with the global assumptions of Mach. If all physics is local, though, as Einstein avers, I think you will like the part of my essay (it isn't yet approved for posting) that deals with finite sets of infinite things.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Tom
Indeed, Mach's principle was an inspiration for GR. And I also agree that first one should have a picture in mind and then look for the appropriate mathematics. Although, in modern physics, most theoreticians works in the opposite direction.
Thanks for your comments. I'll look for your essay as soon as it appears.
Good luck in the contest
Regards
Israel
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Israel,
Yeah, well done. Relevant and interesting. I should look at the references.
A few words that you use where I fully agree a) context: you can see my essay, b) geometry: again there is geometry in quantum contexts, c) correlation: David Mermin is fun of them d) the rules are simpler to manipulate: Henri Poincaré, e) compactified: I hope to become familiar with...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
Yeah, well done. Relevant and interesting. I should look at the references.
A few words that you use where I fully agree a) context: you can see my essay, b) geometry: again there is geometry in quantum contexts, c) correlation: David Mermin is fun of them d) the rules are simpler to manipulate: Henri Poincaré, e) compactified: I hope to become familiar with that.
Good luck,
Michel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Hi Michel
Nice to know you find my work interesting. Thanks for taking some time to leave your comments, I appreciate it.
I wish you good luck too.
Israel
Luigi Foschini wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:54 GMT
Nice work, it was a pleasure to read it. Although, I do not think these are "common sense" thoughts... I do not think that any layman could write such kind of essay...
I liked your point that:
..."agreement with experiment" is not synonimous of "fundamentally correct".
particularly because the "agreement with experiment" is done on just a very few specific measurements. As...
view entire post
Nice work, it was a pleasure to read it. Although, I do not think these are "common sense" thoughts... I do not think that any layman could write such kind of essay...
I liked your point that:
..."agreement with experiment" is not synonimous of "fundamentally correct".
particularly because the "agreement with experiment" is done on just a very few specific measurements. As you wrote, even the epicycles were in agreement with experiment.
I wish you all the best for the competition!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
You are correct Luigi,
You are correct "agreement with experiment" should not be done. That way truth will come out. One may not get the financial benefit. People who do the manipulation of results of experiments, will grow fast, earn money, surpass others.
best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Luigi and Satyavarapu
Thanks for leaving your comments. I appreciate it very much.
Satyavarapu:
An experiment is not accepted in science if it's not reproducible. So, manipulation of results doesn't help reproducibility and reliability. Luigi refers to the parameters of a model that allow us to fit the model with the observations. Given that we have several parameters one...
view entire post
Hi Luigi and Satyavarapu
Thanks for leaving your comments. I appreciate it very much.
Satyavarapu:
An experiment is not accepted in science if it's not reproducible. So, manipulation of results doesn't help reproducibility and reliability. Luigi refers to the parameters of a model that allow us to fit the model with the observations. Given that we have several parameters one can find many combinations of values that match the observations. So, the questions to answer are: what is the right set of values? and what is the physical reality involved?
Luigi
I have also read your essay, I have already left some words. Indeed, "common sense" is relative, that would depend on the expertise on a topic. Popper said that scientific knowledge is nothing but the refinement of vulgar knowledge. So, one can talk of common sense for the layman and common sense for the specialists.
Good luck in the competition!
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:15 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thank you for the nice reply. You are correct about the theoretical experiments and simulations, especially when the equations have real and imaginary values to be setup initially.
I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?
You got a very good way of presenting things with a smooth...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
Thank you for the nice reply. You are correct about the theoretical experiments and simulations, especially when the equations have real and imaginary values to be setup initially.
I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?
You got a very good way of presenting things with a smooth flow of English. You made us understand about the current research in a well manner. There are no equations ....
.....
.....
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 main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu
Thanks for your comments.
You: I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?
I agree, that's professional ethic. In my career, I'm not aware of manipulations of results. It may happen but honestly it is very rare. Nobody will risk his career and reputation for a thing like that. Experimentalist report what they get, whether it agrees or not with theories and models.
You: And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
If we knew reality, we wouldn't be doing physics.
You: We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule..
I agree. To be honest this is a relatively new field in physics, so we don't know much about the universe. The proposals that you hear are the first attempts to explain the observations, but there are still many speculations. So, you are welcomed to put forward your version of the cosmos. But if you are planning to do that you should do it professionally following scientific protocols.
I'll try to read your work asap.
Good luck in the contest
Regards
Israel
hide replies
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Israel,
Very interesting, well written, and entertaining essay! You rightfully advocate the return to intuition, which is lost these days in the sea of information and theories one is required to understand (correction, to use), which grows exponentially. These days, such a return is unjustly labeled as going back to ether theories, or to classical mechanics, etc. Great physical discoveries were always first found in mental simulations, in intuition, even though they defied the "common intuitions". For example, the "dark side" of the intuition told people that the Earth is not moving, or that heavier objects fall faster etc. But the "light side" of the intuition told people like Galileo that the truth is different. As theories became deeper and deeper, more such common sense intuitions became traps, and physicists started to avoid them, by hiding behind formalisms. By this, it became customary to also reject the good intuition, to throw out the baby with the bath water. Your essay advocates the return to the good intuition.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:13 GMT
Hi Cristinel
I'm glad you took some time to read my essay, thanks for your comments. You have opened a couple of interesting topics. Indeed, many people who don't appreciate the importance of intuition in the development of science consider those ideas as retrograde. But, you may recall that Einstein revived the notion of light as a particle. Evidently, he was a rebel. I have no doubts that...
view entire post
Hi Cristinel
I'm glad you took some time to read my essay, thanks for your comments. You have opened a couple of interesting topics. Indeed, many people who don't appreciate the importance of intuition in the development of science consider those ideas as retrograde. But, you may recall that Einstein revived the notion of light as a particle. Evidently, he was a rebel. I have no doubts that many people thought that this conception of light was retrograde, nevertheless, at the end, the proposal was accepted. Thanks to this, we now believe that light presents two facets: particle and wave (this is what appears intuitively). So, as long as the proposals appear to be reasonable one should not worry about those labels.
The other topic that you touch and that also drew my attention is the dark and light side of intuition. Many disregard intuition and common sense because they feel that they can fool us and misguide us in the search of the physical laws. Well, math is not excepted of this, there are many examples in the history of science. This is why I think it is important to find a balance between math and common sense.
The conception that the earth was the center of the universe seems quite natural when we do not understand the notion of system of reference. For the layman of the XV century the earth appeared static. This belief is totally justified based on the knowledge of the world that people had in that time. But Copernico and Galileo taught us that this was just a matter of perspective. Galileo then brought empirical evidence from which he showed that celestial bodies were not perfect and that the earth could be a planet just as the others. These kind of arguments tells us not that intuition was wrong but that our view of the world was very narrow. A similar situation occurred with the case of heavier objects falling faster. This was "evident" to everyone given the degree of technological development that they had and given the amount of experimental evidence they could collect. They didn't have precise rulers and clocks to asses a considerable difference in the speed or acceleration of falling objects. Today, we have enough technology to immediately rule out a statement like this. Thus, based on the poor experimental data at hand, intuition was right (we have to consider also social factors, such as religious beliefs, etc. that had influence on the perception and judgement of physical phenomena). When more experimental data emerged, they realized that what they had intuitively understood, was actually incomplete and therefore they were forced to update their intuitive beliefs.
So, intuition tells us what is going on based on the data at hand, but if we don't work intuition we will be blind resting our knowledge of the world just in mathematical structures. This is why, it is common to hear that nobody understands quantum mechanics, or proposals with eleven dimensions, a myriad of landscapes, etc. Those are mathematical results that we try to translate into intuitive language. But the truth is that, in our physical reality, intuition doesn't see any of these "mathematical objects". So, shall we blindly believe what our mathematical models are telling us of data? Of course, no. It's hard to reconciliate ourselves with such exotic proposals that easily surpass science fiction movies.
There are those who don't care about our an intuitive picture of the world, because what matters is quantification of phenomena and, in this part, math does an excellent job. Therefore, the questions to answer are: Do we really wish to build theories to understand the world? or do we want to construct just prediction machines? The last decades seem to favor the latter option. My guess is that both are necessary.
Well, thanks for your insightful and stimulating comments. I hope you have enjoyed this chat. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Regards
Israel
view post as summary
Cristinel Stoica replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thank you for the reply. While, as you have seen, we have many points of agreement, your answer developed well the point of disagreement. I am fully for intuition and for pictorial explanations. But I have the feeling that we use different definitions of intuition, and here may lie the difference. For example, mine include bad and god variants of intuition. Intuition can fail...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
Thank you for the reply. While, as you have seen, we have many points of agreement, your answer developed well the point of disagreement. I am fully for intuition and for pictorial explanations. But I have the feeling that we use different definitions of intuition, and here may lie the difference. For example, mine include bad and god variants of intuition. Intuition can fail us, and can help us. When you say "intuition", you seem to refer to only the good one: it is always correct, and if it is not, the cause is external. You say people's intuition was wrong because they did not have enough information, or because religion influenced them. Therefore, information is obtained by other means, which are experiments and logic. After gathering information about the solar system, it is not hard for intuition to admit that the Earth is moving. So, this kind of intuition seems to be useless, because always states what is believed at that time. The second thing that you say distorted intuition was religion. Well, religion did not come from math or from experiment, it came from people's feelings that the loved ones and us should not really die, that it has to be a divine justice to repair the injustice in the world, etc. In other words, from intuition.
If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo appeal to pope's intuition to explain that in fact it is moving?
Similarly, if in the times of Einstein people rejected relativity and tried to explain the same phenomena by using the ether theory, which their intuition said it is right, should Einstein give up and explain everything in terms of the ether? Maxwell's equations are so simple, but trying to explain them by ether or gear mechanisms is so complicated. SR is so simple, define just by a 4x4 matrix. GR is also so simple, just the geometry of a curved 4D space. I don't say they are complete, but much simpler than any alternative tried so far, based on ether etc. And when you train your brain in that math, intuition grows, and you have indeed an intuition for them. It is not true that nobody understands 11D or landscapes. Also, it is half true that nobody understands QM. Some understand it better than others. While I have some inside information that many quantum theorists write articles in the plain formalism of QM, they use "secretly" one or another interpretation of QM. They use the intuition, and get new results, and write them in a pure formal manner. Also, in the most abstract math, people don't derive the results by making blind calculations, which they don't know where will lead. They use simplified models to grasp the ideas, then they apply to more complex and more general structures, and generalize, and get the results. Sometimes, in geometry or GR, they calculate using index notation, then replace it with the modern notations. The most abstract branches of math, and the most difficult branches of physics, advance, even those 11D, because people build their intuition in parallel to technical abilities. Those who are too good to use models and intuition, in general are less successful. Now, what I said so far is based on anecdotal evidence I collected in private conversations, guided by some intuitions I have about the creation process in science. It is not backed by a study or at least a poll (you may remember that recently at least two polls are made about how physicists see QM, and the polls are very contradictory).
Often, intuition in one domain is useful to solve problems in another one. I am thinking at imports from statistical mechanics in QFT, or at the imports from condensed matter. You said "Giving the mathematical analogies of these systems with the quantum vacuum, some physicists have suggested that the vacuum could be indeed a quantum liquid, i.e., a state of condensed matter [17]." I would like to emphasize in what you said "mathematical analogies". The question is, after using an analogy like this, when we want to learn about quantum vacuum, should we also learn condensed matter physics? The analogy is useful to make discoveries, and to explain, but at some point, the analogy may be no longer needed. Even if we want to rewrite everything based on common sense, condensed matter physics also is far from the common intuitions of the lay persons. Intuition has to develop in parallel with the more technical parts. It should not be a Procustian bed to cut the math to fit in our Lego/Meccano/Minecraft-based intuition.
My intuition tells me that we essentially agree, and the discussion was just to clarify possible misunderstandings :)
Best regards,
Cristi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Dear Cristinel
Thanks again for your comments.
Indeed we can talk about different kinds of intuitions, but in any case I think our mathematical picture of the world should be aligned with our intuitive one.
You: If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo...
view entire post
Dear Cristinel
Thanks again for your comments.
Indeed we can talk about different kinds of intuitions, but in any case I think our mathematical picture of the world should be aligned with our intuitive one.
You: If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo appeal to pope's intuition to explain that in fact it is moving?
Strictly speaking, one could easily explain the notion of system of reference which I think is very intuitive too. Well, as I said in my essay, electrodynamics, classical mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, mechanics of fluids, etc. they are very intuitive.
You: should Einstein give up and explain everything in terms of the ether?
Lorentz succeeded in explaining (what we now called) relativistic phenomena using the ether. Actually, Lorentz' ether theory reproduces the same physics as special relativity. it was only forgotten because of SR was axiomatic, simpler and easier to handle, but that doesn't mean that Lorentz' theory is wrong. It is still valid.
You: Maxwell's equations are so simple, but trying to explain them by ether or gear mechanisms is so complicated.
Well, Maxwell attempted to give a microscopic explanation of the mechanisms involved in electromagnetic phenomena and, actually, to a certain extent he also succeeded, but for practical matters, at that time, his formulation was unnecessary. Today, it is necessary to understand the structure of particles and the quantum vacuum. So in this sense, we are continuing the job that Maxwell did, what are then strings, loops, causal sets, axions, etc.? They are nothing but the modern version of Maxwell job.
You: It is not true that nobody understands 11D or landscapes..
Of course, only those who know the math will understand the meaning of this. Same for QM and any other abstract theory. The others will have to conform with the mathematical interpretation which obviously they won't understand. This is my concern, we should look for more credible explanations, 2 or 1000 dimensions in math there is no problem, but are they real or just a mathematical artifice derived from the symmetry and the beauty of the equations? This is the part that many physicists don't buy.
You: Also, in the most abstract math, people don't derive the results by making blind calculations... ...and get the results.
Yes, I'm aware how models are constructed, I agree, I just saying that we need to have a clear picture of the physics. For instance, the wave-particle duality. Many people argue, that these two notions are complementary. I would say that light cannot be both things. So, what I'm having in mind is that there is something more fundamental than a particle and a wave that encompasses both concepts. When we understand that a particle and wave have a common source we will dissipate this duality. We intuitively understand what a particle and a wave are, but when we deal with an experiment such as the double slit experiment our picture of light is as a wave, and then when we talk about the photoelectric effect our picture of light is a particle. Obviously, for intuition light cannot be two things. My proposal is then to propose another physical object that reproduces both aspects of light. Then we would have a mathematical formulation of this object and an only one intuitive picture of light. I'm working in this part.
You: when we want to learn about quantum vacuum, should we also learn condensed matter physics?
Well, if this solves the problems and simplifies the physics, the answer is affirmative. But, I don't think it would be necessary.
Finally, I'm aware that math is fundamental in physics, I don't deny it but from my view the present unifying proposals are failing to give a credible description of the world. Giving this status, I will do as much as possible to create a theoretical framework for a unifying theory that can be as intuitive as Newtonian mechanics. The last section of my essay makes this feasible. However, we have to be conscious that the task is titanic and therefore it would take some time.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Cristinel Stoica replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear Israel,
You may like these two articles:
Charge Acceleration and Field-Lines Curvature: A Fundamental Symmetry and Consequent Asymmetries, Avshalom C. Elitzur, Eliahu Cohen, Paz Beniamini
Mechanical Properties of the Electric Field: A Novel Prediction derived from the Field's Mass and Stress, Eliahu Cohen, Paz Beniamini, Doron Grossman, Lawrence Horwitz, Avshalom C. Elitzur
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:27 GMT
Dear Cristinel
Thanks for the links, the articles seem to be interesting. My idea goes more less in that direction but its wider and more general.
Thanks anyway.
Regards
Israel
hide replies
Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:02 GMT
Israel,
I look forward to reading your paper later on this evening. Your abstract sound intriguing.
I believe you will find my essay relative to your interests as well. I look forward to your review of it which can be found here:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809
report post as inappropriate
Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:20 GMT
Israel,
I have had the pleasure of reviewing your essay. Although my findings dispute your statement, "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever." I truly enjoyed how you presented your argument. Excellent indeed as reflected by my rating of your masterful work!
I hope you will be open minded enough to review my essay which show how GR plays a fundamental role in the realm of particles. I believe you will somehow find the unification of gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces relevant to your perspective as well:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809Good luck with your entry.
Regards,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi Manuel
I really appreciate your comments. Definitely I'll take a look at your essay as soon as I can. I'm just arriving to the contest and there is a lot of material to see. I'm intrigue that you say that GR plays a crucial role at small scales. As I mention in my essay the final goal of physics is to find a unifying theory and if you claim that you have it, I'm open to persuasion.
Thanks again and good luck!
Regards
Israel
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Israel,
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:39 GMT
Dear Sreenath
Thanks for leaving your comments and for the invitation to read your work. I'll read it as soon as possible. I just arrived to the contest and I already have a pile of essays in my list, including yours.
I wish good luck too!
Best Regards
Israel
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Dr Perez,
Nice to see another essay which explores It remaining fundamental. Also, I'm a big fan of classical mechanics, as it still has plenty to offer in a world without a full Quantum Gravity theory. My
essay also doesn't abandon It's importance.
Nice essay - well scripted - well done!
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Antony
I'm glad that you have enjoyed reading my work. I'm also looking forward to reading yours. I do indeed think is worth trying to recover an intuitive picture of the world. This will give us a new insight of physical reality.
I wish you good luck in the contest!
Best Regards
Israel
Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Israel,
I think that you are right that intuition plays an important role in our understanding of nature. I hope my essay does not disappoint.
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:38 GMT
Israel,
I enjoyed reading your essay, which provides both a clear and entertaining overview of various approaches to modern physics. I particularly appreciated the conclusion that a theory that unifies GR and QM should be more intuitive and less mathematically abstract than most of the current candidates. In that regard, you might be interested in looking at my essay (
"Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ) in which I present a locally realistic quantum picture, whereby primary quantum particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks are soliton-like rotating vector fields with quantized spin, with rotation rate f=E/h (where E is the total relativistic energy). These constitute local clocks, which slow down when E is reduced in a gravitational field, thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement. Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:54 GMT
Hi Alan
Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments, I'm happy that you have found it entertaining. I realized that the topic is controversial and I thought that it would be fun to invite Alice and Bob for a nice chatting.
You: ...thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement.Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.
I'm curious about how could you derive GR. Heresy is not bad as long as the approach is logically consistent and make the right predictions. I'll definitely take a look at your work. I wish I had more time to read them all, so please give me some time, I'll take a look at it asap.
All the best
Israel
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 00:08 GMT
Hello Dr Perez!
It is so nice to see you take part in this contest too. I very much enjoyed reading your essay and sincerely hope it too will be a winner.
I decided to join on the fun in a spur of a moment 2 weeks before the deadline and now, waiting for mine to show, wanted to tell you that, while I was writing this essay, I changed my mind on Absolute Ref Frame -- remember I denied it on practical grounds? Looking at SR as a theory of relativity of information, I suddenly saw that an absolute frame is a very useful, practical, concept, for we could place in it all the info that we know must be there, but is not available to us at the moment. I could not help thinking of you then.
Good luck and have fun :)
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Vasilyeva
It's nice to know about you again. I'm also glad you enjoyed reading my essay. Thanks also for the wishes, it'd be great if my essay make it the finals.
I just watched that your essay was published, it'll be nice to read it, I was very much delighted last year with your work and I'm sure this time you also did an excellent job. I'll read it asap. Glad to know that you found an advantage of the privilege frame I wish most colleagues did the same (sarcasm).
At the moment, I only have a request for you, If it is not much to ask, I'd be very happy if you could tell me your name. Thanks
Best Regards and good luck too!
Israel
M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez, this year I dared to to print my name bellow the title in my essay :)
As an outsider I am a crank by definition lol. It's enough for me that my friends ridicule my participation in this contest. But I can't talk to them about physics. That's why I very much value your feedback and was thrilled to have talked to you last year.
Thank you,
-Marina
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 22:20 GMT
Hi Marina
Beautiful name! It's sad that you have no friends to discuss about physics and nature, I understand why you are here though. I'm glad that you have found a place to discuss about your interests.
Good luck in the contest!
Regards
Israel
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 06:01 GMT
Dear Israel,
As already noted, I agree with your essay and with the point that common sense and intuition have served us well in the past. But the profession of physics has grown from a relative handful of brilliant individuals to a worldwide industry. And it's questionable whether the physics community (at least the theoretical side of it) could be kept busy if it were constrained to...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
As already noted, I agree with your essay and with the point that common sense and intuition have served us well in the past. But the profession of physics has grown from a relative handful of brilliant individuals to a worldwide industry. And it's questionable whether the physics community (at least the theoretical side of it) could be kept busy if it were constrained to common sense and intuitive physics. By allowing abstract theories of phenomena that are unobservable, either in practice or in principle, there is no limit to the papers that can be published. And if it's too abstract for the funders to understand so much the better. Such physicists can be kept busy forever while producing nothing of practical utility.
So while your idea is excellent, and, I believe, correct, it is nevertheless unlikely to take hold. On the other hand, the proliferation of abstract nonsense is so frustrating to those who seek understanding (versus professional advancement) that some kind of reaction appears to be brewing. We'll see.
You mentioned "the worst theoretical prediction in all physics," i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy. As I noted in my essay, this has not made a dent in the use of virtual particles in physics, despite the dependence of these entities on local energy. In order for sufficient energy to exist locally to support virtual particles, the vacuum energy must everywhere (i.e., globally) be stronger than it appears to be. On the other hand, the local gravitic energy need be strong only in collisions, where the concentrated energy can produce particle creation and associated jets. This is exactly the physics implied by the non-linearization procedure I describe in my essay.
But the physics I describe is based on interpretation of the gravitic field as a "material substance". Thus I was happy to see your discussion of the magnetic induction as indicative of materiality of the vacuum, versus some abstract geometric substance-less nature. A very nice example.
I would also mention that Vishwakarma's current essay discussing the fact that the GR stress-energy tensor does not support either the gravitational self-interaction or the angular momentum of the gravity field. The angular momentum 'is' the C-field, and the nonlinearity of this field is key to particle level concentrations of energy. As you noted on my essay page, the nine page limit constrains the number of equations one can present, but the trail of equations is growing quite long in my theory, and covering a growing number of phenomena. I hope and expect my n-GEM technique to apply to problems in which gravity has not been applied before (successfully!). And these applications are all compatible with intuition and common sense.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:52 GMT
Hi Edwin
Thanks for your insightful comments. I'll address them the best I can.
You: As already noted..., ... appears to be brewing. We'll see.
I agree with this, but in recent years things are starting to change due to the fact that the abstract approach is not giving the expected results. There exists a moderate movement of important physicists and philosophers supporting the old way of doing physics. Actually, the FQXi project is one the consequences. Of course, the change would take some years more.
You: i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy..
Since most physicists believe that GR and QM are both correct, they ignore the anomaly. As long as there is no other alternative theory to replace QM or GR, the anomalies remain there until a new theory solves it. Recall for instance, the Michelson-Morley experiment. From the perspective of Maxwell's theory it was an anomaly, and it remained as such from 1887 until 1904-5.
You: But the physics... ..substance-less nature. A very nice example.
Yeah, this is clear for many physicists, but some others don't even understand it. It seems that relativity causes a blinding effect.
You: I would also mention... ...common sense.
I think you did a great job, and it would be nice if you could publish your results in scientific journals, that would grant scientific status and recognition to your work. Barbour is a case similar to yours. I'll take a look at Vishwakarma essay asap.
Best regards
Israel
Stuart Heinrich wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Israel,
Your article seems to prematurely conclude at the point where it says:
"A: I got your point. As I see it, this may be a matter of semantics..."
I must confess, I don't see your point, because the differences between the various theories are not merely a matter of semantics.
For example, there is quite a fundamental difference between Tegmark's MUH and the "universe as a simulation" hypothesis. For starters, the universe as a simulation is not even truly compatible with the laws of quantum physics, which show that the period inbetween observations cannot be simulated. Moreover, the concept of a simulation implies that the universe is represented by a configurational state which changes as a function of time -- which again, is contradicted by findings in quantum physics showing that there are temporal dependencies across the time dimension, not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time. Thus, the only way to represent the whole of spacetime in a formal system is to represent all past and future events simultaneously, which is not really what a simulation is.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 06:34 GMT
Hi Stuart
Well, if we just fixed our attention to that sentence, we could notice that Alice is not sure at all. She says "may be a matter of semantics". That's her guess based on the poor knowledge she has of the topic. However, in a broader sense the sentence is related to the unification problem. The problem is the same and unique. So, to solve it there are several approaches. LQG proposes a theoretical context with a 3 dimensional space, loops, background independence, etc. whereas string theory contributes with 11 dimensions, calabi-yau spaces, strings, etc. and so on with the other alternatives. In this sense, this is a matter of semantics, because every theory tries to solve the same problem with a different UNDERSTANDING and thus MEANING of the reality.
You: For example,... ...observations cannot be simulated.
Indeed, due to the lack of space in my essay I couldn't go into the details and the complications that you are pointing out. I agree, that the computational formalism has many problems. One of them is that it only works with discrete units. The US army and NASA have had a terrible time with this because sometimes accuracy is very important to control the trajectory of projectiles and computers cannot get all the real numbers. This severely limits the scope of this approach.
You: ...not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time.
In this part, I have a disagreement. Indeed SR excludes this kind of frames, but in my previous essay I discussed that the preferred frame of reference is not at variance with the principle of relativity. You may wish to take a look at it: http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2012.1#perez. As well you may wish to take a look at Daryl Janzen's essay from the past contest and the present one. He also supports this view and he was one of the winners in the previous contest.
Regards
Israel
Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Hello Dr. Perez.
Your essay seems to be a call to everyone to go back to basics, or at least change its current direction. I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields. There are also concerns that the ever growing numbers and the ever diminishing returns in pure science are starting to worry those who see chit chat evolving into squabbles over nothing.
My essay comes out of left field, and I suspect it is being dismissed out of hand by those too busy to notice, because on first sight it doesn't fit into the normal chit chat. It's title "Hierarchical Space-Time" is not doubt an instant put off, but then I found I had to take ten steps back in order to find a rock solid enough to keep me grounded. I would appreciate any criticisms you may have, because in the end it is better to be criticized than ignored.
Zoran.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Zoran
Thanks for leaving your comments. Indeed, the FQXi is one those projects that attempts to recover that spirit and at the same time is the result of a splitting in the physics community.
You: I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields.
As I mention in my essay there are several proposals that attempt to explain physical observations. The number continues growing and the schism will be worst in the forthcoming years. Only few people have realized where the problem is but we are minority. So, this would take many years more.
I'd be glad to read your essay. I'll write it down in my long list. So, please be patient, I'll try to comment asap.
Best Regards
Israel
Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 21:39 GMT
Hello Israel,
I agree completely. If we can't agree on the nature of observation, thinking and measurement, and describe those same things consistently, squabbles over nothing will continue.
Regards, and good luck.
Zoran.
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader – laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader – laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back again after being satisfied with the conclusion.
A computer program is GIGO – garbage in garbage out. It cannot go beyond its programming. Hence it is bound by the ideas of the programmer like a work of fiction. In view of the chaos theory, can we trust simulations without back up data in the shape of independent information? A small mistake or lapse or ignorance in the initial conditions may make giants out of Lilliputians. Incidentally, believing space and time to be discrete does not make them discrete. Taking out pots of water from the ocean does not make the ocean full of pots of water.
Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the “internal structural space” from the “external relational space”. Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension less than physical space.
The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?
The states of matter are described by their dimension, which differentiate the “internal structural space” – bare mass from the “external relational space” – the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound.
Your argument against multiverse includes argument against the equivalence principle. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality.
There is a problem with Tegmark’s views. Mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. These are not baggage. The left hand side of all equations depicts freewill since we are free to change the parameters. The right hand side depicts determinism, since once the parameters are changed, the outcome is fixed. The equality sign, which links both, depicts special conditions, which must be satisfied the reaction to take place (such as certain temperature threshold).
You are welcome to visit our essay:
“INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published here on May 31.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Basudeba
Thanks for your comments and for the invitation to read your essay, I'm trying to keep up with the reading, so, it would take some time to read your essay, I'll do it asap.
You: Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?
This is what I discuss in my essay. Math is used in physics not only to model physical observations but also to quantify. Without math it would be impossible to make quantifiable predictions. The extra dimensions approaches are only models attempting to explain observations and quantify. If one disagrees with such or such view one should make a proposition and follow the scientific protocols. This is what scientists do. In particular, I don't agree with String theory and that's why I'm putting forward my conception of the universe.
I also feel that GR is not fundamentally correct.
Good luck in the contest
Regards
Israel
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Israel,
Absolutely excellent essay and wonderfully refreshing approach, right in line with my own thesis. I also enjoyed your presentation method, though it perversely departed from reality somewhat in that Alice hardly got a look in! lol.
But seriously it was an absolute joy to read. Can you really drag physics back to the physical world? Many other may then understand the propositions in my own essay, which clearly to me provide all required resolutions, but you're clearly correct in the implication, conscious or not, that its not a case of having to FIND the right solutions, it's a case of thinking in such a way that, hiding right before our eyes, they become visible. I believe much may now become visible to you well before most.
I'll comment no more for now as I'd very much like you to read and comment on mine, but there are a number of compatible themes I'd like to discuss.
Very well done, and thank you for restoring my faith in at least part of physics.
Best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:21 GMT
Hi Peter
Nice to read you again. I'm glad you had fun reading my essay. I'd like to answer your question.
As I mention in essay, there are many physicists who are confident that understanding space can take us out of the present conundrum but it would take some time to finish this titanic task. We just have to do some adjustments to our way of conceiving the intuitive reality.
As you may imagine I a have a long list before reading your essay but I'll try to do it asap. Thanks for reading and commenting my essay.
Best Regards
Israel
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Israel,
An essay with a refreshing approach. Many comments have been expressed on this blog especially those of Peter Jackson, Anthony, Cristinel, Basudeba, etc which I agree with so no need repeating.
My first and probably only question for you is this: When did we start losing our "common sense"?
You state that common sense was lost in the XXth century. But I disagree. Someone and his pupil, wrote a book called Elements more than 2000 years ago and upon which ALL current physics is based, geometry, the science of space, being crucial to all physical theories, both quantum and classical.
In that book, lines were drawn and despite what we could see with our eyes, we were told that though the lines physically existed, they had no breadth. This was hotly disputed but eventually overlooked. And up till today no one has demonstrated a line without breadth or a surface without depth in this world. Or have you seen such a physical (not mathematical) surface or line?
The consequence of this for physics in a real world is also unaddressed. Mathematicians can enjoy the study of objects in a Platonic world, but this luxury is not open to physicists. Physicists are to study the things in this world and not in a Platonic one.
Therefore, I argue that if we have to regain our common sense we should start from where we started losing it. A natural consequence is that space will assume substantival properties and other consequences must follow from this. If we start from the XX century, we run the risk of starting all over again after encountering paradoxes again down the line.
All the best.
Akinbo
*If you find the time, comments on my
essay will be welcome.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:27 GMT
Hi Akimbo
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. In relation to your question, we have to keep in mind that classical physics is highly intuitive and goes along with experience and common sense, I would say that relativity starts to depart from common sense drastically and QM is a worst case. But, I'm working in fixing all these "mess".
The issue here is that physics has to quantify and this is why we need to use math as a fundamental tool, without math, physics loses its power of prediction and it would look as pure natural philosophy.
Do not worry, many physicists are confident that we have found the way out of the puzzle. The key is space. Thanks for inviting to read your essay I'll do it asap.
Best Regards
Israel
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Israel
A good story about a common desire - but it seems we need a specific proposal to solve the problems be existing in reality that related to information.
Anyway, wish you success.
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the...
view entire post
Dear Israel
A good story about a common desire - but it seems we need a specific proposal to solve the problems be existing in reality that related to information.
Anyway, wish you success.
To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
Add another problem, which is:
USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY
There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?
The reason is:
1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.
2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.
I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Hoang
Thanks for leaving your comments and the invitation to read yours. I'll will try to read your essay asap.
I agree with some of your points, the new theory should be as simple as possible, considering an absolute system of reference. Although as Newton discussed, we can only measure relative quantities. Objects have two motions absolute and relative.
A theory should be written in mathematical language in order to quantify phenomena if a theory doesn't display a mathematical formulation it is not a scientific proposal (at least in physics). I recommend that you implement calculations in your theory. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Best Regards
Israel
john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting – especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.
To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting...
view entire post
I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting – especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.
To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.
This, I think you'll agree, is how we came to consider that the material universe is simply information. The concept that the universe is a computer-like system can only be taken so far – not very far, and probably not very usefully either.
The computer is cognition, and cognition is an imprint of observed phenomena, whether it occurs in the brain or in a machine.
In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?
I agree with you that our quest for a Unified Field cannot be framed in terms of computers 'taking over', but rather in those terms we have experienced and developed over the evolutionary span.
I was intrigued by the point you make about a vacuum not being devoid of electromagnetic properties. Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy? Indeed, you speak of the correlation of space and time – and in this regard especially I think you will find much of interest in my essay: 'The Correlation of It and Bit in a Cosmic System'.
In it, I describe how this correlation occurs as a result with our Cosmic system's interaction with the General Field of Cosmae.
I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos – a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.
Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.
Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing the Cosmos) is replaced by a structure that accounts for our participatory Cosmos.
Your argument points us in a common direction: If we must retain the intuitions that are fundamental to our natures as evolving creatures, we must recognize the correlation that has always existed between the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms.
Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' – is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe? And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation – not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?
I hope you will let me know if you think the points you raise are resolved in the Paradigm I've developed: Is it credible, does it contradict nothing that is known, and is it usefully applicable to all foundational questions – paving the way for these to be explored empirically?
Like you, I particularly value credibility – an equilibrium between intuition and abstraction that has always been, and will always be, a very strong and useful component in our evolution – and in the future of Physics.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear John
Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Please find my comment below.
You: To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.
This scenario is...
view entire post
Dear John
Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Please find my comment below.
You: To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.
This scenario is starting to change, abstraction is not giving the expected results. The FQXi project is the result of it.
You: ... This, I think you'll agree, ...and probably not very usefully either.
Yeah, I agree, that proposal is just a vogue in physics, soon it will lose interest.
You: In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?
I think that computers are computers. I don't think the universe is a computer, so it doesn't imprint.
You: Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy?
Like I said, space is not empty and we can conceive it as a pervading material field and ocean of energy so to speak. The idea is to see particles not as independent objects from this field but as excitations of it. This is very much aligned with quantum field theory in which particles are created from the field.
From what you told me I'm curious about your essay. You mention: ...and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.
Well, in physics we don't make distinctions such as organic or inorganic these are chemical concepts and not fundamental.
You: Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.
Indeed, everything is correlated but there is a point in which one can assume, for the sake of simplicity in the theory, that those quantities or objects are not correlated.
You: Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' – is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe?
From my view, the it from bit and bit from it is a matter of semantics or perhaps of taste. So it is irrelevant which one we chose, however, the first case implies a reformulation of our reality in terms of computer language. So, I wouldn't chose to switch to a different approach. Of course, there is more than just matter out there and I'm not sure what would be the right answer to your question. I'm sorry, I couldn't help with that.
You: And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation – not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?
Yes, that is the final goal, to simplify the physics proposing a fundamental field, but, in my view, the field here plays the role of space itself. This is the connection. As I conceive time is nothing but change, but nobody understand change and what physical thing is changing.
You: I hope you will let me know... ...these to be explored empirically?
I'll put your essay in my list and leave you some comments asap. Thanks for commenting on my essay. I do agree that there should be a balance between math and common sense.
Best Regards
Israel
view post as summary
john stephan selye replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez, thanks for your many good points.
Rather than responding now, I think it would be more interesting to see where you stand after you read my paradigm. It is a fundamental paradigm – and, I believe, in line with our continued progress as scientists, thinkers, and people.
One point, as an example of the importance of our assumptions - when you state that inorganic and organic concepts are chemical and not fundamental, you are adopting a very definite paradigm – one that has a long history, to be sure, but which must now evolve further (indeed, one can say that it is evolving further, whether or not we know it).
What is fundamental?
And what might we gain by adopting a system wherein inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive phenomena are equally fundamental – and correlated?
These are the questions I deal with in my essay, and I very much look forward to your feedback.
Many thanks!
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:36 GMT
Hi John
Fundamental means that is not derived from another concepts. Organic or inorganic are just a chemical distinction for materials that have carbon or not.
Please be patient, I have a lot work these days and it's difficult to keep up with all essays. I'll do my best to read yours asap. Thanks
Regards
Israel
john stephan selye replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Hi Israel,
Please do check out my essay; my point regarding our assumptions (Re: fundamental divisions) still stands.
I propose a three-in-one Cosmos - those elements having carbon form a separate vortex, as do sensory-cognitive particles (which I describe).
I am very curious to know where you stand after reading the essay.
I will be patient, of course.
All the best,
John.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Israel,
You wrote "If space were trully Minkowskian, one would expect null electromagnetic properties." Can you please explain this to me?
In your previous essay you argued in favor of something like a liquid ether. Trying to find out what can explain some inconsistencies in Einstein's belief concerning time and spacetime, I checked Michelson's expectation and got aware that the already corrected after a hint by Potier version was still incorrect. However, my suspicion was wrong. The incorrectness cannot account for the null result. Einstein followed Lorentz's hypothesis of length contraction/time dilution. I see a different and perhaps so far overlooked possibility. Will you be fair enough as to admit that it might be an alternative to your common sense view?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Dear Eckard
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad you find it interesting. I'll do my best to answer your questions.
Just keep in mind that geometrical spaces represent total emptiness, nothingness. They don't represent substance (material or any other). In Newtonian mechanics total emptiness was represented by Euclidean space. In this vision, space was conceived as an EMPTY CONTAINER which in turn was filled with matter and electromagnetic fields. Later in 1908 the Euclidean space was replaced by Minkowski space-time, which is also an empty container. Mathematically speaking, this space doesn't have intrinsic electromagnetic properties associated with it. And again, this container is filled with matter and fields. So, if space were of this kind, we would expect that the magnetic permeability and the electric permittivity of empty space were zero, but they are not.
You: Will you be fair enough as to admit that it might be an alternative to your common sense view?
Yes, actually there are many alternatives, we just have to decide which one sounds more cogent. I hope I have clarified your doubts.
Regards
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thank you not just for answering my question but also for attracting Cristinel Stoica who pointed us to papers by Elitzur.
As I tried to explain in a previous essay, I support common sense but would like to warn about mere intuition which is often hidden in putatively natural and absolutely unquestioned assumptions. The enigma of forces across a vacuum puzzled already Otto de Guericke what immediately led to steam engine and electricity.
If I understood you correctly, your common sense tells you that there must be something material that fills the vacuum. Didn't Michelson's experiment disprove Maxwell's guess?
You wrote "geometrical spaces represent total emptiness, nothingness". Well, any mathematical abstraction from reality is - at least in my understanding - quite different from reality.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Eckard
Based on your comments, I could realize that you are not clearly understanding my view.
You say: your common sense tells you that there must be something material that fills the vacuum.
Indeed my intuition makes me infer that there must be a tangible substance (material or whatnots) that CONSTITUTES the vacuum. Can you see the epistemological difference? This...
view entire post
Dear Eckard
Based on your comments, I could realize that you are not clearly understanding my view.
You say: your common sense tells you that there must be something material that fills the vacuum.
Indeed my intuition makes me infer that there must be a tangible substance (material or whatnots) that CONSTITUTES the vacuum. Can you see the epistemological difference? This substance DOESN"T FILL the vacuum, IT IS the vacuum itself. This is why, I make a distinction and I refer to geometrical spaces as mere empty containers which are filled with material bodies and fields.
You ask: Didn't Michelson's experiment disprove Maxwell's guess?
No, it doesn't. This is what I elucidated in my essay from the previous year. To the best of my knowledge, no electromagnetic experiment disproves Maxwell's guess.
You: Well, any mathematical abstraction from reality is - at least in my understanding - quite different from reality.
But what do you mean by reality? If we don't know it for sure. Do you know what space is? what is the real space for you?
There should be a bijection between the mathematical space and the physical or intuitive space. But here is where it lies the source of the problem. Some think, as Newton, that the "real" space is a substance where material bodies are EMBEDDED (embedded is not synonymous of contained). Some others (as Leibniz and Einstein) think that the "real" space is not a substance but a mesh of relationships. In the current view, most people think that the "real" space is an empty container where objects move and live. If space is not a substance (matter, energy or field) it is emptiness, nothingness. If the real space is empty then objects are not embedded but contained. So, all geometrical spaces represent Leibniz' view. Euclidean space doesn't represent Newton's view about physical space. Despite this, it is the main ingredient in Newtonian mechanics. It is a static empty container where particles can be in absolute motion or at rest. Thus, some argue that Minkowski space is the real space. This is the controversy. I hold Newtons' view, space is a substance not an empty container. Do is it make sense?
Regards
Israel
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Israel,
Indeed, I do not understand your arguments.
Wasn't Michelson correct already in 1881 when he concluded that Maxwell's view is untenable who imagined a stationary aether relative to which the earth is moving?
Isn't the question rather irrelevant whether the vacuum constitute or contains something ? While spatio vacuo means empty space, it obviously contains electric, magnetic, and gravitation fields. In this respect I like the papers by Elitzur. Michelson's null result did merely show that there is no material carrier of electromagnetic waves. I do not see it disproving an absolute space which possibly may be understood as relations between matter located in it.
Is there "a bijection between the mathematical space and the physical or intuitive space"? Those who consider the world a computer might think so. I am an engineer who defines reality as the logical complement of theory and the like. Even concrete ideas, plans, etc. can be real. However, the map - while something real too - is not the territory.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Eckard
You ask: Wasn't Michelson correct already in 1881 when he concluded that Maxwell's view is untenable who imagined a stationary aether relative to which the earth is moving?
No, Michelson was not correct because he never understood the outcome of the experiment. Maxwell was right in assuming the aether static but he was wrong in assuming that Galilean transformations...
view entire post
Dear Eckard
You ask: Wasn't Michelson correct already in 1881 when he concluded that Maxwell's view is untenable who imagined a stationary aether relative to which the earth is moving?
No, Michelson was not correct because he never understood the outcome of the experiment. Maxwell was right in assuming the aether static but he was wrong in assuming that Galilean transformations applied. The point is that they never imagined that for an observer in motion relative to the absolute frame of reference (the aether, the vacuum or space itself as you wish to call understand it) clocks and material objects would undergo time dilation and length contraction, respectively.
You: Isn't the question rather irrelevant whether the vacuum constitute or contains something?
No, it is not irrelevant because depending on how we conceive the vacuum is how we'll model it in mathematical terms. If we think that space is a container the mathematical representation could be given in geometrical terms, if we think that space is a substance, we may model it as a fluid.
You: While spatio vacuo means empty space, it obviously contains electric, magnetic, and gravitation fields. In this respect I like the papers by Elitzur.
This is my point. Based on this sentence I see that you think that space is also an empty container that contains particles, electric, magnetic and gravitational fields; this is Einstein's view of space. He thought that fields and particles don't need a medium, that they can move in total empty space. Maxwell argued that fields were states of the aether and Einstein argued that fields didn't need a carrier. I disagree with Einstein's view. I hold that particles and fields are not independent objects of space but they are excitations and states of space, respectively; but conceiving space as a material substance not as a container. During the XIX century physicist thought that there was empty space which was in turn filled with the aether... I don't follow this dichotomy, aether and space are the same physical entity for me. Do you understand this?
You: Michelson's null result did merely show that there is no material carrier of electromagnetic waves. I do not see it disproving an absolute space which possibly may be understood as relations between matter located in it.
No, it doesn't show that there is no aether. Interferometric experiments do not prove that there is or there is not aether, this is what I discussed in my essay.
You: Is there "a bijection between the mathematical space and the physical or intuitive space"? ... However, the map - while something real too - is not the territory.
So, what is the territory? Could please let me know what is your conception of space then?
Regards
Israel
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Israel,
Michelson didn't accept Einstein's relativity. As far as I know, he did also not trust in Lorentz's length contraction. He admitted to have no acceptable explanation. I am perhaps one of very few who offered or are offering a different interpretation. Did Maxwell's aether really require Galileo's transformation?
What about a possibly absolute space and a light-carrying aether, imagine an infinitely extended white screen that carries a picture from a beamer. If one shifts the screen sidewards, this does not change distances in the picture. There is no a priori preferred point in space. In so far, I dislike the metaphor of a container too.
Well, Michelson's experiment did only disprove the existence of a carrier with a reference point.
My favorite conception of space is just what can be measured at rest: distances.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Israel,
You: Did Maxwell's aether really require Galileo's transformation?
No, the aether is not married with any kind of mathematical transformation because it is an ontological concept not a mathematical one. Many people erroneously think that when dealing with the aether they need to use Galilean relativity because they think that Galilean relativity is part of the aether theory.
You: Well, Michelson's experiment did only disprove the existence of a carrier with a reference point.
Michelson's experiment doesn't disprove the aether it only tests both length contraction and time dilation.
You: My favorite conception of space is just what can be measured at rest: distances.
As I understood you are say that space is what a ruler measures? When people are asked what they understand by time, some of them reply by saying that time is what a clock measures. If you mean that, that's Einstein view. For Einstein thought that length is what a ruler measures. I wish you have given a wider conception.
Best Regards
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:32 GMT
Dear Israel,
You: "Michelson's experiment doesn't disprove the aether it only tests both length contraction and time dilation."
This would be the case if either Einstein's relativity or your neo-Lorentzian view were correct. If I recall correctly, the latter rejects Einstein synchronization as do I too. I am not familiar with the work by Tangherlini, Selleri, Christov, van Flandern,...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
You: "Michelson's experiment doesn't disprove the aether it only tests both length contraction and time dilation."
This would be the case if either Einstein's relativity or your neo-Lorentzian view were correct. If I recall correctly, the latter rejects Einstein synchronization as do I too. I am not familiar with the work by Tangherlini, Selleri, Christov, van Flandern, and other dissidents whose position seems to be close to yours.
Admittedly, there seems to be neither evidence for length contraction nor against it. I am however reluctant to swallow the idea that was fabricated by FitzGerald and also by Lorentz as to explain Michelson's null result while rescuing the hypothesis of a light-carrying aether.
For a while I was mislead by Feist's correctly performed but incorrectly interpreted experiment, and I overestimated an error in the expectation by Michelson and Morley. Please read my current essay including its endnotes as to find a perhaps new solution to the old enigma.
You wrote: "As I understood you are say that space is what a ruler measures? When people are asked what they understand by time, some of them reply by saying that time is what a clock measures. If you mean that, that's Einstein view. For Einstein thought that length is what a ruler measures. I wish you have given a wider conception."
Yes, no clock can measure future time in advance. In so far, I formally agree with Einstein's utterance that time is what a clock measures. Likewise there is no negative distance. Newton attributed the abstract time, which is thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity, to god's clock. Therefore there is no natural zero of coordinate time. It can be shifted at will. Infinity is no fix point of reference. The shift does not change temporal distances, i.e. durations. I see the same true in case of spatial distances.
In case of a moving object, the proper reference tends to be the object itself. The space may absolutely exist without however providing a natural point of reference.
Regards,
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Eckard
You: This would be the case if either Einstein's relativity or your neo-Lorentzian view were correct. If I recall correctly, the latter rejects Einstein synchronization as do I too. I am not familiar with the work by Tangherlini, Selleri, Christov, van Flandern, and other dissidents whose position seems to be close to yours.
I'm not sure to what theory you are referring...
view entire post
Dear Eckard
You: This would be the case if either Einstein's relativity or your neo-Lorentzian view were correct. If I recall correctly, the latter rejects Einstein synchronization as do I too. I am not familiar with the work by Tangherlini, Selleri, Christov, van Flandern, and other dissidents whose position seems to be close to yours.
I'm not sure to what theory you are referring when you say "neo-Lorentzian". SR does an excellent job as a prediction tool but is flawed in the sense of denying the existence of a privilege frame of reference which leads us to paradoxes. The people that you mention realized this flaw and sought for alternatives to relativity.
FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction is so natural because it derives from the recognition that rigid bodies do not exist. All material objects deform when they are subjected to forces. Following the fact that macroscopic bodies are made of strings of atoms and that the electric field of any charge in motion undergoes a deformation, one can easily conclude that a body must contract when it is accelerated from absolute rest. And to accelerate the body we need to apply a force. Time dilation is also natural. And this follows from the recognition that a clock is a material object that will suffer length contraction when in motion. Even an atom can be considered as a clock. Given this, its frequency is determined by the energy difference between two energy levels and the energy levels can be put in terms of the radii, this mean that if the radii of the orbits changes (because of length contraction) the energy will change and in turn the frequency in proportion to the Lorentz factor. Thus we have here a deep insight of time dilation.
When we judge the MMX from the perspective of the privilege frame, length contraction suffices, however when we judge the experiment from the perspective of the frame at rest with the interferometer, we have to consider, for the sake of consistency, time dilation as well. Therefore the experiment tests both aspects (in SR these effects are not dynamical ones but kinematical, because they are derived from the properties of space-time). This is also in reply to you comment: Admittedly, there seems to be neither evidence for length contraction nor against it. I am however reluctant to swallow the idea that was fabricated by FitzGerald and also by Lorentz as to explain Michelson's null result while rescuing the hypothesis of a light-carrying aether.
These words "fabricated" and "rescuing" suggest me that either you are not fully understanding the physics or you are not aware of it. Einstein also labelled Lorentz contraction as ad-hoc hypothesis. Fortunately, more recently, people are starting to understand the great insight of Lorentz and they are realizing that Einstein was fundamentally wrong.
If you are not satisfied with the above explanation I'd like to ask you: Don you acknowledge that these effects really occur? If not, I have to conclude, for consistency, that you do not acknowledge E=mc^2 and the other dynamical effects. And I'm urged to ask: do you have any other plausible explanation to the outcome of the MMX that doesn't invoke time dilation and length contraction? Actually, there are not many explanations, another option that comes to my mind is the so-called emission theories. But I have already studied it in great detailed in the past and the solution is not consistent. Do you have any other option in mind?
You: Please read my current essay including its endnotes as to find a perhaps new solution to the old enigma.
Thanks for the invitation, I'll read it asap. Please be patient, I have so many essays to read and a lot of work in my job, that I'm afraid it would take some time.
Best Regards
Israel
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 23:46 GMT
Dear Israel,
Yes, I offer a different and perhaps new alternative explanation of the null result. Since your time is limited, I will tell you that my endnotes contain most of the belonging essence.
I’ll discuss your highly appreciated reply on 1793 asap.
Best regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:11 GMT
Israel,
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi Jim
Thanks for your comments. I'll try to read your essay asap.
Regards
Israel
Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 02:08 GMT
Hi Israel,
Indeed: ''Why should we believe that the information is more important than the stuff the universe is made of? ''
I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be...
view entire post
Hi Israel,
Indeed: ''Why should we believe that the information is more important than the stuff the universe is made of? ''
I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits, if particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other nor can one be more fundamental than the other.
If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior a.k.a. laws of physics must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when tested in practice, when molded into physical, material particles (whatever we may mean with 'material'), particles, 'its' which exist to each other only if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, bits. Part of the confusion originates in the supposition that particles randomly emit and absorb virtual photons and gravitons to communicate forces between them. In this view they only would exist, receive information about particles in their environment at the times they absorb a virtual particle, but not in the periods in between. This supposition is the expression of the belief that particles, particle properties only are the cause, but not also the effect of their interactions, as if they would keep existing even when isolated from interactions, as if 'to be' is a passive state which requires no effort on the part of the particles, a noun instead of an activity, a verb. If we insist that particles at all times exist to each other, if they express and at the same time preserve their properties by interacting, then it is this continuous exchange of information which preserves the status quo, an exchange without which particles would vanish from each other's universe: being too inconspicuous to even suspect its existence, it in fact manages to do what the so-called 'hidden variables' are thought not to do.
As to the unification of forces: If particles are both the source and product of interactions, of forces between them, then a force
obviously cannot be either attractive or repulsive, always. As long as we regard particles, particle properties as being only the cause of interactions, of forces (which is the assumption classical mechanics is based upon), we will never be able to unify forces even in principle.
Regards,
Anton
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:47 GMT
Hi Anton
Thanks for expressing your opinion. I notice that you have some ideas about your conception of reality and that's fine. I would like to invite to formulate your ideas in a mathematical theory. I don't know if you already have it, but if not it would be a great exercise for you to realize how theoretical physics is done. I couldn't understand some of your ideas certainly because I don't have the same background as you do, so I would prefer to take a look at your essay, if time allows, and leave you some comments.
Best Regards
Israel
Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 11:22 GMT
Israel,
I think you'll be interested in
my paper on just how and why physics was transformed into observer-info-mathematics. I also touch on Descartes' role in this process. You'll be interested to find that it was Bishop Berkeley who gave us Relativity and QM with this theory that we are living in a Matrix created and run by God--just like the movie.
Henry
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Hi Henry
Thanks for the invitation to read your essay, it sounds intriguing. I'll consider it in my list.
Regards
Israel
Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Dr. Perez,
Your essay was extremely informative and surprisingly easy to read considering the complex nature being reviewed. I find the prospect of virtual reality and artificial intelligence laughable.
The only question Wheeler ought to have posed was:
Is the real universe simple? And the only sensible answer is: Yes. Why then does man put all of his faith and trust in abstract complexity?
Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each star is unique, once. Everything in the real Universe is unique, once. It cannot and it does not get any simpler than that.
Yet here we have the physicists pretending that their antithetical unrealistic quantum theory is superior to reality.
I wish you well in the competition.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:29 GMT
Hi Joe
Thanks for commenting on my work. I'm glad you found the VRH laughable. I think that things are simple, but only once you understand them. Understanding is the difficult part.
You: Why then does man put all of his faith and trust in abstract complexity?
Theories must be put in mathematical language because this is the best language we human have to order our conception of the world a logical manner. Furthermore, without the mathematical language it would be impossible to quantify and make quantitative predictions. A theory that cannot quantify would be just beautiful philosophy.
Thanks for your wishes, I also wish you good luck too!
regards
Israel
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
Israel
Many thanks for your comments and your advice, but maybe I'll just add the calculated after resolved the criticism of the theory - in fact, I have already prepared.
Wishing you success and happiness always.
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 04:49 GMT
Hello Dr. Perez
I came to FQXi web site only recently and to your essay many days later. In both cases, I feel like a guest arriving late to a fabulous banquet.
If I were a little more systematic in sampling the contest essays, your essay should have been the first on my reading list. The title “Common Sense Reflexions” should had been a dead giveaway to the likes of me who have...
view entire post
Hello Dr. Perez
I came to FQXi web site only recently and to your essay many days later. In both cases, I feel like a guest arriving late to a fabulous banquet.
If I were a little more systematic in sampling the contest essays, your essay should have been the first on my reading list. The title “Common Sense Reflexions” should had been a dead giveaway to the likes of me who have proclaimed grandly that “Common sense and analogy-making power of our mind is our own private THEORY OF EVERYTHING.” Despite the affinities, I missed your essay in the early rounds. (Lucky me I found it midway through the contest.)
My essay “Analogical Engine” is a paean to common sense and intuition as is yours. The tone of your essay is serious Socratic Q&E in a proper professional manner, while mine is less sober, more whimsical, but my intentions are as serious. And after discounting the differing styles of presentations, I hope our respective readership can see both essays as being on the same track.
I have taken the view that automatic thought processes (such as analogy, commonsense, intuition, and what have you) are precussors to rational thoughts (where arguments and scientific rationality rules with logic and math). Next, I take this view of MIND into the realm of MATTER (BODY?) by introducing analogical strings such as “What quantum (wave) is to classical (particle)” is similar to “what analogy (linear) is to reasoning (nonlinear).” Notationally, quantum-classical ~ analogy-reason; or wave-particle ~ analogy-reason; or wave-particle ~ linear-nonlinear.
All dualities can be put into this form, as for example, the variation-selection from Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, thus showing the mechanism underlying analogy can generate its own circle of self-referentialities and observations more quickly than other modalities that we know. In fact I consider analogy is a flag ship of thought as quantum physics is to the classical!
If you ask what is the point of the exercise? My answer is de-mystification of QT, by putting it on the same plane as other scientific theories that are more amenable to our way of thinking and understanding. Other insights that follow from this line of thoughts are a view of Planck constant that is different from the text-books, but compatible with the original historic derivation of it, and the generous extension of its meaning beyond its role in quantum theory.
I hope you are not put off by this kind of advertisement for an essay. When I catch up with contest obligations, I hope to say more about the parallels between our two essays.
In the meantime, I wish you the best.
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Than
I'm happy you had enjoyed reading my essay and that you had found it interesting. I also thank you for leaving your comments here.
Indeed, I believe that a theory should not only make predictions but also be credible. I think that modern proposals have deviated from the right track. I do agree that QT should also be "remodeled" to go along with common sense. I'm working on this problem as well. I'm intrigue that you also discuss these topics. However, given the long list of essays that I have, I'm afraid it would take some time to read your work. I'll try to do it asap. Meanwhile I'd like to wish you good luck in the contest.
Regards
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Israel
You wrote a very well reasoned and enjoyable survey of the issues raised by the It Bit Question. To your historical survey one could add Godel's Incompleteness Theorem as it was applied to the concept of the Universe as a computer. I think the conclusion was that it was impossible because the computer will then have to contain its own information, and the information of the universe and in that the information of the computer, ad nauseum!
Towards the end you examine various possibilities of how to transcend the problems of current physics. At one point you say "GR and QM. These theories have been quite successful that nobody doubts that they can be wrong." Well of course they 'work' but I think for the wrong reasons. Too much bad baggage to use Tedmark's concept.
You yourself then examine the concept that space is paramagnetic - something that contradicts Einstein's Special Relativity in which the ether was banished. As you can tell from my essay and my
Beautiful Universe Theory also found
here I too believe that the vacuum is magnetic and from its building blocks everything else is made.
Alice and Bob can ask: Oh yeah? Hmmmm.
With best wishes for your success
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 05:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I appreciate it very much. Indeed, I do think that space is more than an empty container. I have read you previous essay in which you express your view of the vacuum. I think that we are in agreement. As of now I'm working in reconceptualizing the notion of space which from my view is very deficient in the current view of physics.
I also wish you good luck!
Best Regards
Israel
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Dear Israel,
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
report post as inappropriate
john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT
Hello Israel,
Thanks for your detailed views on my site (I post this here, to be sure you get my message).
Many of your points are of interest to me.
Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these...
view entire post
Hello Israel,
Thanks for your detailed views on my site (I post this here, to be sure you get my message).
Many of your points are of interest to me.
Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these questions at this time".
You go on to say that such a scientific discovery might not come about for many generations - centuries, even. If this is what we believe, then this is what will happen ...
It is true that science moves much more slowly than common wisdom - I believe all discoveries were previously made (and a long time before) by artists, writers, and people living off the land. The evidence of this is overwhelming - penicillin, the evolution of the earth, genetic, etc. - and is in itself a fascinating phenomenon.
I'd be honored to be considered a forerunner of this sort. If I am considering something that scientists will address 500 years from now, that's not so bad.
It is true I don't use the conventional jargon of physics, and it shouldn't be too surprising since I am taking a departure from the mainstream, and I feel it is less confusing to use new terminology - you can't put the new wine in the old bottles, as the man said.
I have had to condense things quite considerably for the purpose of the essay, but let me explain the terms you mention. The General Field is the field of pure energy from which cosmae arise. Pure energy has no mass: it is un-correlated positive and negative charge. It is an infinite field. Within the course of infinity, charges inevitably become correlated here and there, and once in a while. Once they do, they 'come into existence' - as protons and electrons.
And the game begins.
Prior to correlation, the General Field is omni-dimensional - meaning that it cannot be described in any dimensional system - whether quantum or classical.
Space-time is referred to as a 'dimensional field'. There are others, and no such field is infinite. Space-time, for instance, is a field that is correlated - in the course of evolution – with a given observer, and that merges (almost seamlessly from the viewpoint of that observer) with other dimensional fields that are progressively less measurable (the Intermediary and Primal Zones), relative to the observer.
As for the supposed flat shape of the universe - this simply refers to the fact that the distances we can consider are far too small for the curvature to be relevant. It does not mean that the universe is actually flat. I must say that it is far from apparent to me that this distinction has any real meaning at all. It's like saying the earth is flat.
The occurrence of vortices in all aspects of the cosmos is as fundamental as energy-mass itself, and this should be considered very seriously.
As for the big bang, my view is that it is virtually meaningless - and as I point out in the essay, though the cosmos must have emerged from the General Field at some point, we cannot know when because our space-time parameter system (the Composite Zone) did not emerge till some unknowable length of time later.
The manner in which the three Principal Vortices of the Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive realms continue to interact with the General Field, increasing their correlation and therefore affecting our evolution, is of far greater importance - and more knowable as well.
If you also question the big bang and space-time, then we might not be so far apart as you seem to think! We might even link up a century or two ahead of schedule ...
All the best, and thanks again for your input,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Israel,
It appears you have overlooked
my essay. You promised to read, especially since you said the key to making our physics right lies in our concept of space. Or perhaps, you have read but I didnt make my point clear enough? Your valued comments are welcome.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Dear Israel,
I appreciate your comments on my blog. I believe the relational view of space can be faulted but I admit very difficult to do. If you don't mind can you itemize the weak links in the relational continuous space concept? I know a few myself. You can reply here as I will be coming back in few days to check.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
Hi Akinbo
I don't consider myself an expert in the relational or substantial approaches of space since those topics are mainly treated by philosophers of physics. I have to study a little of that in order to understand the ontological and epistemological bases. Daniel Alves, Julian Barbour and Lee Smolin support the relational view because they see that the absolute space is a superfluous concept. I disagree with this and in my previous essay I give some arguments in favor of the absolute frame of reference or the existence of an absolute space. The relational approach adapted to relativity seems to me paradoxical, this is the only and most crucial weakness that I see. I don't have a list of weak links about the relational view of space. Sorry I cannot help more in this sense. However, if you do know some of them, I'd be glad if you could mention them.
Best Regards
Israel
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Israel
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...
view entire post
Dear Israel
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.
Good luck and good cheers!
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT
Dear Than
Thanks for leaving your comments. I'll try to read your work asap, you touch some interesting points.
I wish you good luck in the contest too.
Regards
Israel
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 20:47 GMT
Israel,
I hope the extra time does let you get to my essay. I'm sure you won't regret it. I found you languishing too low down and noticed I hadn't yet rated you, so your well deserved top marks going on now. Best of luck in the run in.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Hello Israel,
I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. There is a little essay, which provides underlying philosophy.
Excellent conclusion: «The classical way of doing physics is more alive than ever. Always keep in mind that in science we have to find correlations and that any approach has scientific value insofar as it explains natural phenomena. But this is not sufficient for theories should also be credible for common sense, otherwise, I'm afraid that physics will be jeopardizing its high reputation among the physics community, the sciences and society.»
Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counter-revolution in mathematics":
«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».
http:// www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm
In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to" an "unlimited number" of viewers."
Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?
Maybe we need a new mathematical revolution in the spirit of Descartes, to overcome the "trouble with physics" and build «a model of self-aware Universe» (V.Nalomov), united for physicists and poets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY
Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
HI Vladimir
Thanks for commenting on my essay. I'm happy that you enjoyed reading it. Indeed, the work touches philosophical issues of Wheeler's proposals. But it also deals with the a different conception of space.
With respect to your first question, I don't see the necessity of bringing the truth with "the help of cognitive computer visualization technology", but I do definitely agree that "should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence".
I also read your essay. I'm surprised of the number of references that you used and how you put them into context.
In your essay you mention that "logical symbolism is identical to the ontological structure of the world". As I mention in my essay common sense (which is the source of ontologies) is another mental tool that we humans have besides to logic or mathematics. I find this very much related to your last question. I don't know if the revolution will be mathematical or ontological, but indeed a revolution in thought is needed. However, I think it will take some decades more.
Good luck in the contest!
Best Regards
Israel
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:52 GMT
Israel,
Thanks for your comments and questions on my blog, I've responded these.
Well done also for your excellent work, Score going on.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Israel,
I really enjoyed reading your essay. The conversational style made it easy to read and makes it stand out from other essays that I have read. It is nevertheless informative and clearly expressed.Overall it sounds to me like an appeal to K.I.S.S. 'Keep it simple stupid' It makes a lot of sense to find ways that meaning can be easily extracted along with data. The discovery that geometry can be expressed as algebra was an interesting point for me. It made me think at the end that when the universe is understood as entirely mathematical relations it is also only 'a step' away from being an expression of geometry. Good luck.
Regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 06:47 GMT
Hi Georgina
Nice to hear about you again. Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. Indeed, the idea is to give a classical picture of our universe. Take a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE, it goes along with my notion of particle and space. It's very intuitive and I think we can have more progress if we follow this road. The idea is to find relations no matter their nature (ontological, mathematical or whatnot) but they should be necessarily mathematical to quantify. Thanks again, as you can see there are so many entries and it's difficult to keep up with the reading, but I'll try to read yours asap.
Good luck in the contest
Best Regards
Israel
john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:58 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.
If I may, I'd like to...
view entire post
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.
If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.
I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.
There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.
Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.
This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.
Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.
This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.
However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.
Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.
Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.
The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.
Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.
This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.
Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.
You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.
With many thanks and best wishes,
John
jselye@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Israel,
It lays out a well rounded description of the current situation and, commonsensically, points out the various possibilities, without insisting on any particular one, other than laying the ground rule that they shouldn't involve suppositions that seem intuitively nonsensical.
An idea that occurred to me while reading it; Abstraction is a form of reductionism, in which the...
view entire post
Israel,
It lays out a well rounded description of the current situation and, commonsensically, points out the various possibilities, without insisting on any particular one, other than laying the ground rule that they shouldn't involve suppositions that seem intuitively nonsensical.
An idea that occurred to me while reading it; Abstraction is a form of reductionism, in which the unnecessary information is the baggage to be distilled away. The problem with this is that reality is in fact wholistic and does a very good job of eliminating superfluous information, so what does exist has passed nature's test and should not be taken lightly by human judgement. Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another. This may well be a reason why QM and GR are not compatible.
So if we are to go the other direction and instead of eliminating all that is seemingly excess, what if we were to actually try going the other direction and figure out what has been eliminated in order to get to our current state of knowledge.
For example, one of the points I make, that irritates some, is that the process of addition means that when we do add things together, we get one of something larger. So that when we say 2+3=5, what we are really saying its that a set of 2+a set of 3=a set of 5. Now apply this to something as physical as your own body. It is not just the sum of the parts, but a whole entity which gives meaning, function and context to its parts. In other words, from a top down perspective, it makes more sense then it does from a bottom up perspective, where we can't figure out how and why all the parts seem to add up to this entity called a person. Now apply that to the problem of indeterminacy, where it seems as though "entangled" particles act as one, even though they apparently separated. In a linear, cause and effect, logical sense, it doesn't make sense, but in a more wholistic, non-linear, intuitive sense, it would seem quite reasonable.
For another example, consider how we treat space as three dimensional and time as a vector; As creatures moving about the surface of this planet, we exist as moving points of reference. So we model the spatial area in terms of a three dimensional coordinate system. Yet are distance, area and volume really the basis of space, or are they simply descriptions of it from the vantage of the point perspective? To say this mathematical modeling is foundational to space would be like arguing latitude, longitude and altitude are framework of what the surface of the planet is built on. The coordinate system is a model of space from the perspective of the point.
Treating time as a vector from past to future similarly is descriptive of the mobile point's relationship to its dynamic context. I frequently compare time and temperature, as two measures of activity; frequency and amplitude. Consider for a moment that you are a molecule of water in a pot; What would your experience be? A series of encounters with other molecules, in which you shed energy to those slower and receive it from those faster, until a state of thermal equilibrium is attained. Now consider the activities of the average person out in the world, as they are constantly trying to leverage more energy out of their context then they put in and equally feel resentful of all that is draining energy from them, without returning as much. Often economic statistics are described as a temperature reading of the economy.
Then consider how that person internalizes this process as a series of distinct events, since their mind must effectively work in a strobe-like fashion, in order to extract useful information from the overwhelming sea of potential input. This becomes their narrative sequence of events that compromise the passage of their life, as they first grow bigger, then plateau and eventually fade back into nature.
So it seems this effect of time is so much more consequential than the effect of temperature, yet anyone with any knowledge of nature knows how fundamental temperature is.
One could reasonably say thermodynamic activity creates temperature and temperature measures thermodynamic activity. As well as say change creates time and time measures change.
So in some sense, instead of examining nature in ever finer detail, in order to understand it, we should back up and simply take it in in whole and let it show us what is happening. Then use either method where appropriate. As I say in my essay, there is no central view that does all at once.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear John
Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.
You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.
Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.
To your...
view entire post
Dear John
Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.
You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.
Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.
To your question: Yet are distance, area and volume really the basis of space, or are they simply descriptions of it from the vantage of the point perspective?
I think that there are two connotations of space. Space as the organizer of places and space as extension of substance (matter in this case). A coordinate system only represent a way to localize object embedded in the substance. The notions of breadth, width and height are abstractions taken from shape and extension of material objects. We should not confuse the abstractions with the essence or the substance the world is made of. We should be able to distinguish space in the sense of coordinate system that represents an empty container and space as the substance that extends to all directions.
Now you mention that time is a vector but I think you are misunderstanding. When we say that time has an arrow that doesn't mean that time is a vector. A vector is defined by its transformation properties. Time is just a parameter in Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics that denotes change, whereas in relativity it is a coordinate or the component of the four-dimensional vector of space-time position. The idea of arrow comes because the laws of physics are reversible under a change of sign of time. As we time were flowing in reverse direction. However, we don't observe events that occurred in reverse order, they seem to follow a preferred direction, this is what we call arrow of time. It's just a name to identify the apparent passage of events. So, what appears to be wrong is not our perception of the passage of time but the way in which the laws of physics are formulated.
You also say: So in some sense, instead of examining nature in ever finer detail, in order to understand it, we should back up and simply take it in in whole and let it show us what is happening. Then use either method where appropriate.
Well, the problem is quantification. In order to model and quantify nature we need to dissect nature into its most essential components. It's difficult to quantify it holistically.
Regards
Israel
view post as summary
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
Dear Israel,
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.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear John
Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.
You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.
Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.
To your...
view entire post
Dear John
Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.
You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.
Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.
To your question: Yet are distance, area and volume really the basis of space, or are they simply descriptions of it from the vantage of the point perspective?
I think that there are two connotations of space. Space as the organizer of places and space as extension of substance (matter in this case). A coordinate system only represent a way to localize object embedded in the substance. The notions of breadth, width and height are abstractions taken from shape and extension of material objects. We should not confuse the abstractions with the essence or the substance the world is made of. We should be able to distinguish space in the sense of coordinate system that represents an empty container and space as the substance that extends to all directions.
Now you mention that time is a vector but I think you are misunderstanding. When we say that time has an arrow that doesn't mean that time is a vector. A vector is defined by its transformation properties. Time is just a parameter in Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics that denotes change, whereas in relativity it is a coordinate or the component of the four-dimensional vector of space-time position. The idea of arrow comes because the laws of physics are reversible under a change of sign of time. As we time were flowing in reverse direction. However, we don't observe events that occurred in reverse order, they seem to follow a preferred direction, this is what we call arrow of time. It's just a name to identify the apparent passage of events. So, what appears to be wrong is not our perception of the passage of time but the way in which the laws of physics are formulated.
You also say: So in some sense, instead of examining nature in ever finer detail, in order to understand it, we should back up and simply take it in in whole and let it show us what is happening. Then use either method where appropriate.
Well, the problem is quantification. In order to model and quantify nature we need to dissect nature into its most essential components. It's difficult to quantify it holistically.
Regards
Israel
view post as summary
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Israel,
I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.
I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.
You can find the latest version of my essay here:
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf
(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).
May the best essays win!
Kind regards,
Paul Borrill
paul at borrill dot com
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.