"At the borderline between large and small objects, the writ of one set of nature’s rules rather mysteriously falls away in favor of the other..."
There is nothing mysterious about it. It is the size of the information content that matters, not the size of the physical container, carrying that content. As the information content approaches one-bit, things MUST become quantized, because that is the nature of information.
Rob McEachern
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 01:18 GMT
Thanks Robert,
I get that. As well as your point about QM, which itself is symbolic analysis and procedural rather than physical. It's a stretch to compare information density, which is dependent in communications on the physics of apparatus, with field theory which treats energy as real in the material sense. But I'm sure you know that too. But thanks for the informed soliloquy. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 01:25 GMT
edit:Robert
the buttons off on this thread. Just to be clear, your post is exactly my own objection to the egeneration incarnation of information as being something real. And really Thanks for That. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 02:24 GMT
Not just the e generation John.
For vision there has to be receipt of sensory information, in the form of photons providing frequency and intensity data. It is just information. Yet Relativity does not take account of that, and so the things seen are regarded as Objects themselves. That is the category error and cause of the paradoxes. (I don't know how much you have read/ followed my postings over the years-sorry if its old hat.)
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 02:42 GMT
Georgina,
https://www.chemheritage.org/.../robert_bunsen_and_
gustav_kirchoff
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
"Yet Relativity does not take account of that..."
wrong, that's your categorical error. 'Special Relativity' is not only about, but starts with the clearly stated take-off from Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, by it's title "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It is exactly what happens to those wavelength/frequencies, at velocity, and thus the reaction/inductance by recptors that the bare bones geometric hyperbolic function accurately prescribes, that preserves in reality the absolute requirement under Maxwell that there will exist in anything, everywhere, a light velocity proportionate difference between the electrostatic and magnetostatic intensities of any point charge. That's the known and and universally accepted convention in all modern physics. And is only disputed by those whom either haven't studied the physics leading up to it, or who simply do not understand (or like) the theoretical outcome. Seriously, check your six. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 03:55 GMT
John, I'm not disputing that it functions within its own framework. I have never said that the mathematics is wrong. I have only suggested an alternative solves a number of issues. Einstein does not talk about vision or about the different temporal origins of photons that are received by an observer but only considers reference frames. Which are what is deemed to be the observers present; what is in 'his field of synchronized clocks and rods. But what is in his seen present is (has to be because of how vision works) the product of processing received information and that therefore is a Map that is temporally non-homogeneous, even without the processing effects added to the temporal composition. The product of the information is being regarded as THE 'reality'. The photon information in the environment is one part of the Terrain, emitted from objects. It is not Objects and nor is the product of its processing. (In regard to your" my own objection to the egeneration incarnation of information as being something real")
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
Georgina,
Let's take just the blue-green spectral line of hydrogen. The only way we can detect Doppler Shift is by it's position in what would always appear to be a continuous visible spectrum. Light is going to go at light velocity. So...at velocity, if a star were viewed as it moved very rapidly away from us, even though hydrogen would emit that BG wavelength, by the time it was through the Transition Zone of emission, it would be 'stretched out' and the absorption spectral line would be detected in a region more towards the red end of visible. But we would know it by its position among its companion Hydrogen spectral lines. All the other emissions would do likewise, so ultra violet would become visible while red would become infrared. (The Transition Zone of 2 wavelengths is it's own theoretical study)
Likewise, light going at light velocity, would be encountered more rapidly by an approaching receiver. What slays people is that at velocities at the very high end of the velocity scale, the receiver physically compresses along the direction of motion. All of which physically preserves the electrodymanics of the induction of the 'leap-frog' electro-magnetic reaction to the absorption of energy by that c proportional difference between the electric field and its companion magnetic field.
Doppler shift of sound in not the same thing. What your sensory organs do with that electromagnetically induced reaction, that you become consciously aware of is 'information'. You may wish to ascribe information to reactions that you are unaware of, but then the onus is upon you to physically prove what that is. In physics, they are known as properties, having known characteristic results.
How we become 'informed' is still a great mystery in neural-physiological research. I'll accept their findings.
Sorry to wear an old hat, but it's well sweat-stained and I like the darned thing. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 05:10 GMT
John, sorry I don't know what Doppler shift has to do with what I wrote. Could you address the concept of a reference frame in Relativity together with the process of sight? IE that photon sensory information has to encounter the retina to enable the sensory system to generate the seen image. (Though I suppose in this day and age one could contemplate information being directly fed to the visual processing areas of the brain, but that's a by the way.) The content of the reference frame does not exist as Terrain but as generated Map. The paradoxes treat the Map as Terrain.
I am not using 'what one becomes aware of' as information (as you have described it), but the EM 'signal' that is received. The product of processing is knowledge or experience not information, as I am using the term. It is what I have called 'potential sensory data'.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 06:19 GMT
Don't get me wrong; I realize that at everyday speeds and distances an aspect of the Terrain will closely match the one generated by information processing. That makes sight useful. But Still Terrain and Map can not be regarded as identical.
The map is a representation of the Terrain
from information received -so it is a partial view. There will also be gaps in the information processed, as some will not cause a change in a photorecetor pigment that goes on to form part of the signal sent to the brain. The brain will do 'significant' gap filling as necessary. Some information is amalgamated and the brain works to accentuate important features that allow discrimination and identification. That we see high intensity as lightness and lack of intensity as darkness (pertaining to amount of photons received) and colours with some correlation to frequency (but also other factors) does not mean these are Terrain characteristics. They are Map product characteristics. So over to you re. Reference frames-
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 12:39 GMT
Georgina,
"For vision there has to be receipt of sensory information, in the form of photons providing frequency and intensity data. It is just information. Yet Relativity does not take account of that, and so the things seen are regarded as Objects themselves."
I accept that colloquialisms have a utility in logical discourse, to summarize otherwise lengthy detail. But. (1) sensory information is confined to the physiology. (2) photons exhibit frequency and intensity but only transport energy. (3) the data is provided by the generality of Maxwell's equations. (4) Relativity takes all that into account, it says so in the title. (5) things seen are not regarded as the objects themselves, refer to (3). (6) people start learning about subjects without prior knowledge, so there is not sufficient 'knowns' to support full incorporation of knowledge as 'information'.
It may be common in discourse to speak of 'a red photon', or that the photon 'carries information' that the apple is red. Those are colloquialisms. There is quite literally no experimental evidence that 'red' exists anywhere other than the mind. Yes, I said that. What makes anything visible is just as dark as any other region of the spectrum. What can be said is that what we do know something of, is only the response of a detection system and to a lesser extent through deduction, the behavior of an emitter. That is the science (not much, eh), not the psychology, metaphysics or philosophy. How could a photon provide information when science can't agree on what it is? Some says its a flower, some says its a weed. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 13:32 GMT
Hi Georgina,
" ... Terrain and Map can not be regarded as identical.
The map is a representation of the Terrain from information received -so it is a partial view."
By definition, then, a map (m) and the ideal Map (M) only map with 1 to 1 to 1 certainty, within the boundaries prescribed by quantum mechanics.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT
1 to 1 to 1? Make that 1 to 1. Sorry
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
Georgi,
okay, I've had my coffee ration and cigarettes. So I'll get back to you about reference frames;
Let's demystify. Yes, Al made a big splash in '05, maybe like when Apple unveiled the 'smart phone', but more for the photo-electric effect and e=mc^2 because that was where the bucks were in industry. But in the hard sciences, SR solved a problem that had progressively become...
view entire post
Georgi,
okay, I've had my coffee ration and cigarettes. So I'll get back to you about reference frames;
Let's demystify. Yes, Al made a big splash in '05, maybe like when Apple unveiled the 'smart phone', but more for the photo-electric effect and e=mc^2 because that was where the bucks were in industry. But in the hard sciences, SR solved a problem that had progressively become urgent in the preceeding 48 years. Maxwell had blown the doors off Newton's coupe in 1867, by answering the hows and whys of chemistry and physics when chemistry ruled the roost. And swung wide the doors of astronomy which was always in the lead in mathematics. He was opaque, but not like Newton, simply consumed in his work. His students interpreted his theoretical results and he quickly became THE 'Inconvenient Truth' of the Newtonian, absolute predeterminism Age. Because, at every day speeds and distances, the constancy of light velocity was negligible to computational results. But over long terms and extrapolated to vast distances, the time parameter and distance parameter would analytically diverge to an unacceptable degree. But Newton was King of gravity and his theory of light allowed "v+c" which Maxwell's results refuted. And chemists had found a unification with physics in Maxwell because it showed that chemical reactions were predictable and stable due to that 'c' difference, and that chemical reactions of all sort could be understood as an electro-magnetic exchange of energy. C had to be constant everywhere for anything to work anywhere. Something had to give. And that something was what Einstein set out to find. The reference frame of the observer is arbitrarily assigned a 'rest position', the invariance of electromagnetic induction elsewhere moving at a constant velocity relative to the observer, is maintained by a co-efficiency of that velocity difference and the effects of velocity on the reactivity to induction by (say) the molten lava spewing forth on a distant rocky planet, or the photosynthesis of your salad greens. He didn't invent SR, he solved it. And what he found was that for light velocity to be constant relative to anything and everything, space and/or time had to give a little back. How you allocate your qualifications to that, I really can't say. Good Luck.
"Rods and Clocks?' yehh, they'll do. :-) jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear John,
This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 14:22 GMT
OOPS, 38 YEARS, 1867 TO 1905
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 20:39 GMT
Thanks for the history lesson John. The bit that seemed relevant to my argument was "space and time had to give a little". I'll agree however the space/time that gives is the space/time of the product of information processing, not the Territory which contains the sources of the information. The objects emitting the electromagnetic radiation that has fallen on them or from chemical / physical processes happening such as for light bulbs. There is no territory other than the information in that model. The information is all just there. So it takes no account of physical processes we know are going on involving material objects. Time as far as the observer is concerned is what is in the seen present,from that observer position and state of motion, and that is what has been obtained from the received information, not what exists independently from the
photon information mediated generated product (which may include perception if the observer is sentient). Yes it can be abstractly calculated but that is modelling what would happen with an actual observer. Being able to do those calculations does not change what it is, fundamentally. (As Einstein suspected it is an incomplete model.)(In regard to your" my own objection to the egeneration incarnation of information as being something real
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 21:02 GMT
John, Re. your "How could a photon provide information when science can't agree on what it is?"
Rod and Cone Visual Pigments and Phototransduction through Pharmacological, Genetic, and Physiological Approaches (I haven't read this yet but it looks like it might give some interesting insight into the subject.
Absorption spectra of human cone pigmentsI think it is important to use the sciences as a whole rather than only consider within the bounds of a single discipline.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 21:20 GMT
Georgina,
I admit I'm fuzzy about what you are getting at, but what is important I think, is that you are able to develop a sound overall analytical framework. It seems pretty ambitious to me because it's looks like trying to build a 'plug-in' continuity tester for everything. And there isn't anything I've seen about physics that isn't full of holes. I'll pause, maybe I'll catch the drift and have something useful to mention but I'm stretching now. :-) jrc
oh, 1865, I was thinking of another thing.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 22:33 GMT
What is unclear John? Space-time is a product not the foundational reality. Mentally treating the product as space containing material things leads to the paradoxes. The product and the information in the environment from which products can be generated is not the "really real" reality of material objects. Not having that foundational level, source of the information and hence source of the generated product is a pretty big hole.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 15, 2017 @ 03:01 GMT
"He didn't invent SR, he solved it. And what he found was that for light velocity to be constant relative to anything and everything, space and/or time had to give a little back."
He didn't do that using physics equations. Neither space nor time have ever been directly represented in physics equations. Their substitutes are 'l' for length and 't' for duration which I will represent using 'time' to appear to follow convention and not have to use the word 'duration' against claims about a universal property of time. The unit of length is the meter and the unit of 'time' is the second. Both of these units have rules of measurement that are entirely dependent upon the use of objects, none of which are either space or time. There are no units for either space or time. There are no isolated specimens of either space or time in any laboratory. No experiments have ever been performed on either space or time. All empirical evidence arrives as patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to 'time'. Neither space nor time have been shown to have velocities.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 15, 2017 @ 04:05 GMT
James,
you write "All empirical evidence arrives as patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to 'time'." Well if you want to be precise, no it isn't patterns in change of velocity of
objects because it isn't the objects themselves that are seen.
John,
I am not a military person. I had to look up "take care of your six" because I found it confusing. I see it means watch out for your back/rear or underside depending on whether one is on land or airborne. I now think you are implying my ideas will be shot down, presumably by you. But I don't know if that is the correct intended meaning. I thought it could possibly just mean take care in a friendly signing off way or another warning of some kind, which I find a bit disturbing. So I would be grateful if you would please try to use plain English, or explain what you mean, in future to avoid that kind of ambiguity.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 15, 2017 @ 07:54 GMT
John,
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which,
viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
Einstein, 1905. My bold emphasis. Envisage: to form a mental picture of something...from Cambridge dictionary.
Looks like reference to vision to me and therefore the process by which vision can happen
is relevant, and he is also talking about a mental picture or imagining of the event from the other state of motion. So this is about
how things look/ are seen.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 15, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
Look back, where did you start? It only seems logical that the place-moment 'here' that we experience is no different than a place moment 'there' even if we are not there to experience it. And that is similar in vernacular to what AE was saying using common experience verbage of 'viewed' and 'envision'. But you cannot support a formal argument by a misinterpretation of any sort that leads you to say that 'Relativity does not take account of that'. Because in Einstein's day, while much less was known about the physiology of eyesight, what we might know today, whether classical or quantum in chemical behavior, is all dependent on the electromagnetic theory of James Maxwell! and when AE repeatedly stated that SR is based on that, you have to argue qualification of conclusions you might reach from an indefinite proposition; ie: 'information'. Isn't that your thesis? The Quality and Quantity of information? Big chore Georgina! Big chore! But its the task you set for yourself, and you are the one whom must qualify projecting 'perceptual awareness' into the field where physics is based on observed behavior which are categories of properties and characteristics parameterized independent of an indefinite proposition of 'information'. Not all is as it seems, and that is the impetus of logical rules and argument. 'Information' has become the most abused colloquialism of the electronic revolution. Like Lenny Bruce said, 'Say it so many times and it becomes meaningless'. It's tough out there! If you tackle something like SR, its not the final word but you dare not short it. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 15, 2017 @ 20:18 GMT
John, you wrote" It only seems logical that the place-moment 'here' that we experience is no different than a place moment 'there' even if we are not there to experience it." You are using your common sense and Einstein's relativity itself shows that it isn't applicable; because of non simultaneity of events for different reference frames, the 'place-moment' can be experienced differently.
My argument is not
based on eyesight. It applies equally to electronic sensors. The kernel is transmission and receipt of EM radiation.
Space-time is the generated location of the product. The source is not in space-time along with the product. The train measured from a distance is not a material train. Nothing in space-time is a material object. (Analogies -the computer console is not inside the game being played: The book being read is not inside the story. )
It was perhaps unfair of me to compare the young generations preoccupation with information with older generations 'obliviousness'to it but I saw a similarity in thinking that the products of information are THE reality.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 00:48 GMT
John, it was "seriously, check your six' that you said. I unintentionally paraphrased earlier. Its been bothering me, as you might have noticed from my earlier mention. Did you just mean check the background facts I'm arguing with -IE if talking about on the electrodynamics of moving bodies checking that what I'm saying is consistent with it? Its a military term used in combat as a warning and so I'm not sure how it was being used in our conversation.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 01:56 GMT
Georgia,
Not just checking background facts, that's a continual process in learning and it changes any originating understanding anyway. But I find it helpful to also do the 'reality check' reavaluation of where did I get off on this or that track and am I making sense enough that it would make any to others. It is in my mind that I'm doing the abstraction, and I'm the only one paying it any attention. So the trick in communicating ideas is to play to the audience. Peter Galison co-edited a collection of essays on Scientific Authorship which I ordered hoping it would be helpful in the Publish or Perish atmosphere these days, and it was none of that, but very rewarding in how we got to this stage. One great impact was that there is no such thing as 'a perfect reader'.
I did mean to get your attention to that. Because if you Publish, you then must defend. And even if you don't, there are elements of comprehension that do not require direct information but only observation and subjecting that to analysis. Recalling ~ the eye receiving sensory data, or something to that effect; was incorrect in that the receptors only react photo-voltaically and that's not the data. The data enters from analysis, and that's mind not matter. And then you tell others that They fail to differentiate object from information.
Relax, regroup. That's life. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 04:21 GMT
John, I do appreciate the advice. I should be more careful to check that I have not said something that can be picked out as incorrect. I find that happens sometimes because I'm thinking about something in a different way from the reader. (And I don't always get it right because I am human.) I have tried very hard to find the right words that will resonate with an audience but will also convey the meaning I intend. I have also made an effort to be more succinct.
For a very long time I avoided using "information' because I know it has different meanings to different people and disciples. That means it can be deemed incorrect if my usage differs from the readers usage of the word. Nevertheless I do think that potential sensory data is a kind of information and I have attempted to put an argument to justify that opinion. My prior term of preference ,"potential sensory data, designates that it has the potential to lead to the production of sensory data. I have maybe become complacent with that term and not used it in full on occasion. I was not sure people knew what I meant by 'potential sensory data'or thought it anything to do with physics but was more confident the idea of information would be understood and considered relevant. I think it might be best to use 'potential sensory data' exclusively and just not participate in the is it or isn't it information debate. It is a semantic side issue.
I have developed a number terms for parts of the explanatory framework and offered alternatives to try to find what works best for others; what conveys an idea best so that it is grasped. Its very hard with so little feedback to go on. Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 05:02 GMT
James,
"No experiments have ever been performed on either space or time."
Only true enough as you have written; 'space or time'.
Spacetime however is another thing. And it is routinely and essentially involved in practical experiments of the technological kind. Gravitational anomaly detection in geophysical research comes immediately to mind. Your smart phone with GPS - in...
view entire post
James,
"No experiments have ever been performed on either space or time."
Only true enough as you have written; 'space or time'.
Spacetime however is another thing. And it is routinely and essentially involved in practical experiments of the technological kind. Gravitational anomaly detection in geophysical research comes immediately to mind. Your smart phone with GPS - in 1977 when the first satellite was launched, engineers were skeptical enough of their SR and GR calculations that the time signal was broadcast in the raw to earth for 20 days before the relativistic correction mechanism onboard was activated. According to the theories which establish spacetime in reality; the SR delay due to velocity was an astounding 7 millionths of a second per day, and at an orbital of 11,000 miles the GR advance was a whopping 45 millionths of a second per day. The corrections add up to 38 millionths = 38,000 billionths of a second per day! and for GPS to function with any accuracy the time sync with earth time had to be kept within a 50 billionths of a second/day. Without correction for the spacetime effects, the satellite's own inertial frame would have faithfully followed its time keeping and the positional tracking on earth would have skewed about six mile every day!
Also launched in autumn 1977 were the Voyager spacecraft (that's 40 years ago) and both are powered by a radio-isotopic heat generating thermopile. The Pu238 modules are designed on an earth based time register with a nominal safe margin working life of about 14 and a half years predicted on the 88 year half life. If that unexpected longevity of providing nominal power were a consequence of the "clock" of the satellite inertial domain speeding up it would have exhausted its decay rate. It is due to the spacetime field changing as the spacecraft continued towards the edge of the solar domain, and the 'speed of time' increasing, that kept the material inertial domain's constant time rate continually advancing ahead of the earth based projected power demand.
Stranger than fiction. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 05:08 GMT
'different people and disciples'
Georgina,
That's a good one. :-) And the rest is clear enough. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 05:24 GMT
Ha, that was a typo honestly John. "Disciplines!" I was talking about being careful with my words too. How ironic. Still, I did say I am human. There's the proof.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
I've decided spellchecker can have half of the blame for that mistake.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 12:07 GMT
John, instead of' photon information' and 'potential sensory data' I could use either of these terms;'sensable/detectable electromagnetic radiation (EMr) signals’ or potential photoreceptor stimuli: applying both to biological and inorganic receptors. These may be getting more accurate while expressing the intended meaning. From looking at 'signal' that is what i have meant when I have talked about transmission of photon information. So instead of mentioning the problematic 'i word' i'm thinking I should just talk about EMr signals and stimuli.Does the substitution make what I have been saying more intelligible in your opinion?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 13:53 GMT
Georgina,
Just briefly, it's not my thing, but that is all a little more dinstinct. And that is the root of the problem in definition of terms to say where the boundary is between what is the physical and what is interpreted to be information. As in Roberts arguments, it isn't information until we assign what it is supposed to be about, beforehand. Where we might apply a code to a system of observation is the prerequisite to generate data, and that's simply a given to most scientists. "Codicillary" is the adjective of the legal term "codicil" which refers to an article subsequent to the drawing of an instrument, such as a "Will". And you might find that it depends on which direction you are tracking effect, which is most pertinent to drawing the boundary. So it occurred to me that you might want to reserve "iWord" for the mathematical value side of the puzzle piece. Firstly, you are building a Codex.
later, chores await. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 20:46 GMT
John, thanks good to know it is more distinct. It seems I just need to state up front that the content of the signal transmitted from object to receiver can be regarded as information because a retina or photocell array (or other device) is able to convert the received energy frequencies and intensities into signals that can be incorporated into a product.
If I talk about a signal I think...
view entire post
John, thanks good to know it is more distinct. It seems I just need to state up front that the content of the signal transmitted from object to receiver can be regarded as information because a retina or photocell array (or other device) is able to convert the received energy frequencies and intensities into signals that can be incorporated into a product.
If I talk about a signal I think I should also be clear that it is not just a uniform signal emitted from a singular object but that the radiation profile that is being emitted varies with the location on the surface of the source and variations in illumination. The observer will receive electromagnetic radiation with a distinct spatial, and temporal origin profile, 'reflected' in the product that is generated.
I think you are saying that how the radiation is defined depends on whether it is being considered at the receiver end or emitter end. From the'point of view' of the emitter or any object incapable of turning the radiation into a product, it isn't information , but to an object that can and in particular those that I have tried to differentiate (as having or being reality interfaces), it is information. So the boundary you mention is one of 'viewpoint'. But those objects don't have opinions.
The differentiation of the radiation that has not itself changed, to being information from not being information, is to do with vocabulary and not physics. It makes 'information' a word dependent on the kind of relationship an object or phenomenon has to objects in its environment. I haven't thought of it in that way before but considered either something has the potential to be information or it hasn't. I was going for it has the potential therefor it
isinformation. On reflection that potential alone definition would include almost everything. I have simultaneously been trying to get across that the EMr does not have a meaning of itself, by unhelpfully saying it is just information. Whereas I should have said it is just radiation.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 23:19 GMT
"Only true enough as you have written; 'space or time'."
No John Space-Time is no other thing. All empirical evidence credited to proving anything about space or time or space and time or space-time has to do with effects involving objects only. Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics. There are no experiments upon either space or time or space-time, unless of course it is admitted that space-time is a construct of theoretical physics and has nothing to do with the properties of either space or time. There is no information about the nature of cause of any kind. We receive information about effects only. We know what cause does.but we do not know what cause is. One piece of evidence for this dilemma is that current theoretical physics lacks fundamental unity. The cause of this lack of unity is the empirically unsupportable separation of cause into individual "natural" causes. Relativity theory is a theory that lacks any empirical support. My reason for saying this is because it relies upon the belief in space-contraction and time-dilation. Neither of these effects have ever been observed. The evidence put forward in support of them always is evidence of effects upon objects for empirically unverified causes. A theory can group together all the effects that can fit in its envelope; but, there is no evidence whatsoever that either space or time or their theoretical construct space-time, suffer effects caused by object or cause effects upon objects.
james A putnam
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 00:02 GMT
James, you wrote "Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics."
No James it adds a great deal. It gives two different realms, which I could describe as adding an extra layer of universe or having The 'Map' as well as the 'Territory'. Space-time the realm of seen things and space the location of the source of the radiation from which signals are generated that can lead to seen or see-able product. Although not recognized as such when the term space-time was adopted and subsequently used, it is extremely important as a different category from space. Things in space-time have spatial and temporal 'flexibility' that Objects in space do not because of their construction from received EM radiation signals.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 02:43 GMT
Georgina,
No Georgina!
"No James it adds a great deal. It gives two different realms, which I could describe as adding an extra layer of universe or having The 'Map' as well as the 'Territory'. Space-time the realm of seen things and space the location of the source of the radiation from which signals are generated that can lead to seen or see-able product. Although not recognized as such when the term space-time was adopted and subsequently used, it is extremely important as a different category from space. Things in space-time have spatial and temporal 'flexibility' that Objects in space do not because of their construction from received EM radiation signals."
There is no empirical evidence to support your position concerning anything said about either space or time, space and time, space-time, space+time,space with time, etc. There has never been any experimentation on any of the above theoretical forms of space & time. All experiments ever performed have been between objects as either source or target. Theoretical conjecture is for theorists. When physics returns itself to seeking out direct empirical support for its interpretations of properties, then we will know about the incredible differences between theory and reality. There is no way that physicists can tells us about the nature of the universe until after they have defined mass, temperature, and removed the circular definition of electric charge. Carry on! But when you want to correct me please begin it with a defined mass for a starting point. A definition of a physics property means a mathematical definition.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 06:30 GMT
No James, my point was in defense of the very important, and significant little dash. I see no need to have the definition of mass as a starting point to that argument. James, you wrote "Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics." I strongly disagree, and will leave it at that.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 14:56 GMT
James,
On defining; mass, temperature and electric charge.
I quite agree that those parameters are ambiguous and require at least some definite qualification. I'm fond of saying that 'Mass is only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which exhibits the characteristics associated with matter'. And this is at the heart of the model of the electron Lorentz was working on, and abandoned when the Planck Quanta captured the imagination of physicists and mathematicians. And of course, with the Lorentz Electron goes a qualification of 'charge'. Temperature (the prime parameter in the distributive Planck Theorem) is associated with action, which goes to density of energy AND scale.
Yet to assert that theory cannot address these definition deficits, ignores that empiricism is constructed on theoretic parameterization in the first place. I for one have long pursued a Relativistic formulation of the Lorentz Electron Model, which is gravitationally dependent. And its doable, I can tell you that for free. Best wishes for your efforts, though we might agree to disagree. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 16:27 GMT
James, I must add;
Navigation is time dependent, that is empirical fact. For 20 Days, the first GPS satellite was allowed to broadcast its onboard time registration without Relativistic correction. The satellite(s) make two complete orbits per day, while that orbital path progresses as the earth rotates. Thus two 'fixes' were obtained every day of the position of the tracking ground station every day giving an arclength, for 20 days. But each new day, the next fixes were from a different angle of attack, making a recursive arclength total a mathematical estimation. But after 20 days that total arclength was ~120 miles from the geophysical position of the ground tracking station. When the onboard relativistic correction to the satellite time registration was activated, the calculable 38,000 nanosecond prediction was confirmed to nearly perfect agreement, and the 50 nanosecond accuracy requirement was operationally established and is continually refined. What isn't empirically evident in that? jrc
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 18:34 GMT
Georgina,
"James, you wrote "Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics." I strongly disagree, and will leave it at that."
Your explanation of your version of what is space-time, is not empirical. The mainstream explanation of their version of what is space-time, is not empirical. Neither are based upon observed effects occurring to either space or time. I don't think that your version calls for such effects. However, length-contraction of objects is real and the direction of its velocity either toward an observer or away from an observer does not change the effect. Returning to my own statement to which there is objection: There is no empirical support for that dash to be inserted between the properties of space and time. The dash itself is not a mathematical symbol. It is not found in physics equations. Space and time can be joined together only by a physics equation. There is no such equation. The reason is because neither space nor time have ever been directly represented in any physics equations. Physics properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units. Neither space nor time have units. The units of meters and seconds are units of characteristics of objects and object behaviors. I will leave it at that unless there is a new protest.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 19:39 GMT
James,
One objection. You have stated; "Physics properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units. Neither space nor time have units."
You are arguing that the units assigned by arbitrary convention to 'things' are privileged over the arbitrary conventions of assigned units of time and space.
And to encapsulate; the 3D+T argument that the synchronized...
view entire post
James,
One objection. You have stated; "Physics properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units. Neither space nor time have units."
You are arguing that the units assigned by arbitrary convention to 'things' are privileged over the arbitrary conventions of assigned units of time and space.
And to encapsulate; the 3D+T argument that the synchronized Cesium Clocks used in the GPS infrastructure display a registration discrepancy as a causal effect of the gravitational 'force' dampening of atomic vibration, while arguable as a minor premise, fails in that same argument to the radiological decay of the man-made Plutonium used in the RPS modules on Voyager(s). If that argument (overlooking that the gravitational 'force' in Newtonian physics has never been qualified as to what it IS) is extended across eons in interstellar/intergalactic space of exponentially lower gravitational effect, the rate of decay as would be extrapolated from Voyager data over 40 years would render the census of parent transuranic isotopes in the earth's crust completely irrational. Those ancient distant, exploding, old stars that were the furnace of those parent isotopes would have had to be nearly entirely made up of a HUGE critical mass of only the heaviest atomic isotopes, from which Pu238 is produced.
The empirical evidence to date validates spacetime as having a real phyisicallity. And to quote Bertrand Russell; "Neither mathematics nor symbolic logic will study such special relations as (say) temporal priority, but mathematics will deal explicitly with the class of relations possessing the formal properties of temporal priority - properties which are summed up in the notion of continuity." for the very reason you state, that there is no absolute scale that we can refer to in deriving a standard unit for space or time parameters. This does not mean, however, that math and logic are prohibited from attempts to explain the arrow of time. Spacetime offers the most promising empiraclly valid parameterization to make such attempts. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
James, the dash is not joining properties of space and time. It is not a mathematical symbol, as you have pointed out. The dash gives us a new term, for something that is different from space and time. You may not like it but I am adopting space-time and furnishing it with the explanation I think best fits what it is -based on a lot of empirical evidence. The evidence shows that received em radiation is used in the generation of products that incorporate together information that was emitted at different times(different configurations of the Material [source reality] Universe).
Re.your'Space and time can be joined together only by a physics equation." Space-time is not an addition or aggregation of space and time, it is different from both; A different category.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 20:19 GMT
Hi John, I replied to your helpful suggestions and wanted to share he improvement in expressing the concept. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 20:46 GMT (below). I was hoping for some sort of feedback e.g. that's much better or its still obscure.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 20:56 GMT
Georgina,
Apologies, I've really been only taking some time outs, here. But yes, your efforts at distinction are becoming a bit more clear, and that distinction has a similarity to the difference in computer engineering where the 'interface' commonly gets confused with 'transport protocols'. The only true interface is between the programming language (choice) and the machine language bit sequence from which the chip architecture is designed (no choice). What those algorithmic transforms are, and how they interface with any programming language bit sequencing, "is a mystery of the first water" so to speak. And the thing of dark characters and HBO movie themes. (me? don't know...don't want to know) The similarity ends where in mathematical physics, despite the arguments about conventions, the so-called 'physical laws' are known without hacking an 'interface'. But bridging the protocols in applications interfacing with those hard and fast cenventions, is commonly done in physics on a one (app) to one (or more Laws) kind of ad hoc venture. Your effort would seem to mimic that general conundrum of anyone trying to make sense of it ALL. [ :-)"Abandon hope! all Ye that would enter here!" ] jrc
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 21:58 GMT
Georgina,
"Space-time is not an addition or aggregation of space and time, it is different from both; A different category."
No it is not a different category. What matters in physics is effects. Causes are unknowns. The empirically unjustified idea that there are multiple fundamental causes is contradicted by the orderly operation of the Universe. The effects upon space-time are length-contraction and time-dilation. These two effects are not in a new category except for the complete lack of empirical evidence for them to apply to space and time. The empirically unjustified idea that these two invented effects cause the effect we call gravity lives on only because mass is undefined. Since mass is an unexplained undefined property, theorists can fool around with it, even mold it to fit their theory. They get away with circular argument and circular 'definitions'. Proof of advancement in physics must include defining mass.
(The real observed effects called length-contraction and time-dilation are predicted to occur and do occur with the same result whether an object is moving toward an observer or away from an observer.)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 22:15 GMT
John, do you think then there is a problem with using the word 'interface'? I can see a similarity between program language being converted to on off bits at an interface, and the EM radiation profile being converted to electric nerve impulse or signal in a device. But I have been considering the sensory system or device 'workings' to be an interface that converts the externally originating input into the internal product, which is a much broader concept. Perhaps I need to talk about the 'sensory interface' component of the larger 'reality interface'.
Re. Boston Dynamics 'spot': What is particularly interesting to me is the map of the obstacles generated from the cameras inputs ( generated using input of EM to the cameras.) Clearly the map is not the external reality. Nonessential information has been minimized and only where can and can't be safely stepped on is included, which is most important for locomotion of the robot. (Shown as two colour differentiation in a visual display product.)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 22:46 GMT
James, re. your "These two effects are not in a new category except for the complete lack of empirical evidence for them to apply to space and time.' Yes they do not apply to space and time, they belong to space-time.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 17, 2017 @ 23:03 GMT
Georgi,
I would say that designing an 'interface'; from a nexus of application transport protocols in the observable realm, to/from a nexus of physical law operational criteria - is what you are up to. Just be careful. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2017 @ 00:14 GMT
Hi John, I don't know what you just said but it sounds a lot more impressive to me than what I think I'm up to : ) I will take care -thank you.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 18, 2017 @ 23:55 GMT
Georgine,
" ... they belong to space-time."
Words have gotten so cheap in physics since Einstein's successful revolution based upon no empirical support! There has never been a variable in a physics equation that directly represents the universal property of time nor the universal property of space. Relativists and you now are putting a '-' into physics for no reason other than theoretical preference. Your meaning of space-time is not the meaning put forward by Relativity. Both are wrong. Relativity theory pretends that the 'l' in physics equations and the 't' in physics equations represent space and time. This has never been the case. You argue that what we observe as Relativity effects are due to variations in the arrival of light. I repeat that: The empirically observed physical effects called length-contraction and time-dilation are predicted to exhibit the same result whether an object is moving toward an observer or away from an observer.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 01:56 GMT
Words in theoretical physics have gotten cheap. The word definition has moved from its mathematical dependence, that existed up until the 1960's or so, to layperson type guesses, opinions, or escapism when physicists' refuse to acknowledge that which they do not know about the foundations of physics.
The circumstance that prompts this message has to do with the word 'proof'. Rather than admit that their support for their theories is insufficient and even fundamentally artificial, physicists reach out to mathematicians for help. While physicists, especially in textbooks, throw around answers, some of which lack empirical support, for what things are, when confronted by requests to take their stand formally, they excuse themselves by citing that proofs belong to mathematics and do not apply to physics. Of course they don't.
Mathematics is the study of shortcuts for counting. Their proofs consist of whether or not their shortcuts work to reproduce the intended count or counts. Physics uses empirical evidence that occurs in the real world of Earth and Sky. Rather than admit even that their feet are on firmly on the Earth, physicists, in their effort to avoid answering questions such as: What is mass?, escape from the real world of relying upon repeatable empirical evidence and cry out that mathematics is the place to go for proofs.
It is ironic that, in the largest part, theorists argue that empirically unsupportable theories such as Relativity Theory are fact, while refusing to go on the record that they have proof for what they say.
In physics, the word 'proof' does not apply to whether or not a dropped stone will fall down. Physicists would rather allow for the eventual stone that falls up rather than have to admit that they lack physics proofs for so much of, even in the fundamentals of, theoretical physics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 02:48 GMT
James you wrote "You argue that what we observe as Relativity effects are due to variations in the arrival of light." How the seen product looks (could be rod like, could be clock like) will depend upon what sensory information has been amalgamated into that representation. It has to do with the distribution of the EMr in space and how the observer interacts with it. Sensory information is generated in response to the stimulus of electromagnetic radiation with frequency and intensity profile; changing over time if there is alteration of the relation between the observer and the source, and or a change in relationship with the already emitted radiation itself, within the environment. (The source may no longer exist). Same applies with a photosensitive device transforming EMr input to product in its own way.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 03:27 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Perhaps I don't remember clearly. Please correct me. One example is the too long pole in the too short barn problem. Relativity says that it doesn't matter whether the pole is moving away from the observer or toward the observer, it will, at sufficient relative velocity, fit inside the barn. Will the pole fit inside the barn for both circumstances? Will the pole only fit inside the barn for one of those circumstances? Will the pole only look like it fits inside the barn for both of those circumstances? Will the pole only look like it fits inside the barn for only one of those circumstances?
An earlier request on my part, I asked for mass to be defined before presenting a theoretical correction. You haven't done so. Actually, my point this time is that if there is any scientifically trained onlooker who thinks of jumping in and correcting me, I expect them to arrive with a mathematical definition of mass.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 06:37 GMT
James, I think it is necessary to have both beables and measurables in science. The beables are actual parts of physical reality, whereas the measurables are those variables we use to gain some cognition of the external world. Those measurables allow construction of models and ideas about how that World/universe functions. By your way of reasoning it would seem to me there would be only measurables. As I have been discussing recently those measurables are found by the relation between the object of interest and something else providing a 'relative to this' context. They do not exist without such a relation. I don't think what mass
is can be defined in terms of measurables. Though inertia is associated with mass and when you define mass as negative acceleration I think it is inertia not mass that you are defining. The mass is about amount of 'existingness'.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 10:57 GMT
Georgina,
You didn't answer my pole barn question.
"Though inertia is associated with mass and when you define mass as negative acceleration I think it is inertia not mass that you are defining."
I define mass as inverse acceleration which is not negative acceleration. That inverse acceleration is the acceleration of light. I introduced the principle of conservation of acceleration. That which a freely falling object gains, light traveling the same path loses.
"The mass is about amount of 'existingness'."
This is the physics of words that I find meaningless.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 13:23 GMT
James,
Give YOUR mathematic definition of 'mass'. And remember, the inverse square law is an invariance operation so that the change measures the same from either reference frame, just as the Lorentz transform does in SR.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT
Hi John,
"Give YOUR mathematic definition of 'mass'. And remember, the inverse square law is an invariance operation so that the change measures the same from either reference frame, just as the Lorentz transform does in SR."
I see you have not read my essay entries. Nice challenge, but first you either can define mass or you can't. Does your favorite physics include a defined mass or an undefined mass? The Lorentz transforms are believed to perform in the manner you describe. However, I read them differently. The
complete change is not the same from each observer's reference frame. The Lorentz transforms should not be applied reciprocally. They are not simply transform equations. That is a subject that I am raising somewhere else.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 15:08 GMT
James,
Now, please. Do not take umbrage. I fully accept covariance within a closed system allowing measurement in a 3D+T analytical format where light velocity can be a variable and the Time parameter a constant. To speak of definition of 'mass' in terms of 'inverse acceleration of light' goes to density of energy increasing towards a center of a self-gravitational domain, consistent with the conventional rationale of the refraction index. After all, e=mc^2 is only half the battle and is a mathematical result from only two degrees of freedom which does not include 'acceleration'. SR is derived from uniform motion, and as AE once wrote; 'As a consequence of the theory SR, the energy of a closed system is equal to its inertia.' Inertia still, today, being only an operational definition.
Could we not at least agree that a covariant domain may be hypothetically achieved as a theoretical, background independent, free rest mass? That is to say it may become incorporated into reality, but must truly be respected as existing in the realm of contemplative analysis for the sake of firstly isolating a quantity of energy. Then, as a unitary field, the problems of measurement and definition can be addressed. We would take the privilege of assuming an 'outside looking in' role of instantaneous observation. Quite old school, benchtop type of stuff, but has the advantage of confining inquiry to a manageable set of criteria. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 19, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
James, I'm sorry for getting the way you define mass wrong. It is clear to me now that it is quite different from what I supposed.
I think you might agree that there is a difference between a materially existing thing and a non existent thing. Some quality at the foundational level that enables
material being, that differentiates
it from
not it outside. IE the difference between that being and not being (of a fermion particle, atom, substance, material or Object thing.) Different materially existing things can be compared giving a measurable with the name 'mass'. What is being compared, as I see it, is their material 'existing-ness'. Beables with material 'existing-ness (mass) have other associated measurables enabling mass to be put into equations.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies