FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Heinrich Hertz and Albert Einstein were experimental and theoretical geniuses. Hertz demonstrated the existence of radio waves. Einstein [with deHaas] experimentally linked magnetism and angular momentum. These two ingenious physicists tackled Maxwell's equations but diverged in their interpretations of reality. Einstein bases his classic paper on the Maxwell-Hertz equations. We report a post-humous meeting of these geniuses discussing ‘What is fundamental?’

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His 1979 PhD dissertation, (published as "The Automatic Theory of Physics"), describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy. Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 33 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. He currently searches for false premises of physics that lead to contradiction and confusion.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Eugene,

Another profound essay, congratulations. I have long been suspicious of the use of t as to define time as a 4th dimension. To me it follows that proof exists for SR with regards to time precisely because all that has happened is a t, a geometrical counter of time, has been inserted into the motion of light and the landscape situation light encounters i.e. that of the pull of gravity from a sun. This seems like Aristotle's ‘change’ describes Aristotle's time, by the limits of Aristotle's change itself. I find this somewhat astounding. Einstein has taken the induction of passing time, assigned it a counter as t at each location and then described its qualities in terms of a gap in that count due to the use of change of a physical object being counted. By this recognition it follows the time taken would be altered as the spatial is via mass. What I am suggesting here is that Einstein knew he would be right with regards to defining time as relative, long before they even did the experiment with the Hubble, because his equations were already right in the sense they didn’t actually explain time, they just predicted the inserted t count which altered, orderly, with each spatial coordinate of physical change.

(Is the final quote in your essay an endorsement of 'presentism'?)

Thanks for a great essay.

Jack

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 03:00 GMT

Dear Jack James,

Thank you for your kind comments. As you note, the standard SR perception of 4D space-time is problematical; Einstein's invention of multiple time dimensions even more so. Since FQXi page limits result in a lot of info being crammed into relatively few pages, those interested in this complex topic will probably find re-reading the essay worthwhile.

I've read your essay and will comment on your page. I checked the Wiki definition of 'presentism', which appears to me to agree with the fundamental understanding of time as universal simultaneity.

Thanks again for your comments,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 02:07 GMT

Dear Jack James, [ I have left this comment on your page.]

You argue that rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) must have a vital role when it comes to revealing fundamentals. It is hard to find 'pure' cases (without experiential input) but I examine a case wherein a null result led to a theory based on pure reasoning, with the result that unreasonable assumptions (multiple time dimensions) took hold and have endured for a century.

Your point C discusses "our rational theories matching our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality". In the case of special relativity, our evolved cognitive perception of reality was that of universal time as universal simultaneity. Einstein's assumptions, upon which he rationally based his theory, led to conclusions that contradicted our evolved cognitive perception of reality. It's a real ball of wax.

Interestingly, an alternative rationale leads to the same mathematical result (the Lorentz transformation) by an entirely different path while yielding a theory that does match our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality. The difference is based on careful analysis of "perfect clocks".

The empirical confirmation offered by relativistic particle physics confirms the applicability of the Lorentz transformation without contradicting either the space-time symmetry of SR or the energy-time asymmetry of the 'real world' (one time dimension)-based theory.

I'm uncertain what the relevance of this is to your analytical approach, but it seems to provide a 'test case' for you to apply your approach to.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. My sense is that your approach is a reasonable take on a difficult problem.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ed,

You sly old dog, when did you become a bartender? I will be reading and re-reading this paper for some time to come! Many thanks. I was never taught the Hertz Equations that you present, so this will give me another set of tools to study and use. MANY THANKS!

When you went from equation 1 to equation 2, you changed from G to g. I'm guessing you did this to prevent confusion...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 13:52 GMT

Ed,

There are a couple of typos I did not catch in the above post.

"T = t*[cos(omega) + isin(omega)] = t*[sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2} + i(v/c)

Is this compatible with your thinking? It relates the phase angle to vI consider this to be a way to explain those pesky muons:-)"

Should be

T = t*[cos(omega) + isin(omega)] = t*[sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2} + i(v/c)]

Is this compatible with your thinking? It relates the phase angle to velocity. I consider this to be a way to explain those pesky muons:-)

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 03:14 GMT

Dear Gary Simpson,

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you intend to re-read the essay. It is packed full of info, therefore difficult to fully absorb in one reading. I worried about that, but first responses seem to imply that it is intelligible.

I was not taught Hertz's equations either. I was made aware of them recently by Tom Phipps, who participated in an FQXi essay contest at age 90 (as Eckard notes below).

Yes, equations (3) are more simply expressed via vector cross products but I am attempting to preserve Hertz's actual equations in their original 1890 form, as they also appear in Einstein's 1905 paper in that same form. However I have re-written equations (5) in modern form (with the original form shown in the Endnotes.)

I've read your paper and will respond on your page.

I do not view universal time as having two components. As you know, I very much appreciate quaternions but prefer geometric algebra. When moving beyond 4D I tend to believe one should jump to 8D Octonions, as I will discuss on your page. In short, since quaternions describe electromagnetism and also gravitomagnetism individually, I suspect that Octonions might nicely describe both electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism together. I'm not sure whether anyone has looked into this representation or not.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:05 GMT

What about Tom Bearden and his octonioc Maxwell?

The presence of Fermi arcs is maybe some proofs?

Regards.

Ulla Mattfolk.

report post as inappropriate

Dear "Tavern Keeper",

Sadly Tom Phippps has meanwhile died. When he the last time contributed to a FQXi contest, he was 90 years old. He would certainly appreciate you continuing and further developing his central ideas.

I blame my outdated office program and my worsening eyes for some problems I have with your essay. Maybe your reference 14 on p.1 is just a typo between 1,2,3 and 5,6,7,8 on p.2 ? Maybe I overlooked the mentioned in the abstract name deHaas in the body of your essay. I may also have overlooked several hints in the text to the given references. Perhaps they were not overly important.

Your message is clear and coincides with mine.

Anyway, the 10 by the public so far seems to appreciate your courage.

Having just finished my essay "Semi-fundamental structures", I hope you will get in a few days and use the option for commenting on it. I have not much time for reading essays and selected yours because I recall your exceptionally proficient comments in former contests. Your essay turned out to be closer to mine than to be expected from your abstract.

Best,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 18:39 GMT

Correction:

Semi-fundamental constructs

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 03:27 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

As you note, Phipps participated in FQXi at age 90. Although I communicated with him I had not yet read his book, which made me aware of Hertz's version of Maxwell's equations and their Galilean invariance. Phipps interpretation was clever but confused (in my opinion) by his understanding of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless he inspired me to read Hertz's work and to re-read Einstein's paper. These supported my understanding of time as expressed in the essay, and my understanding of gravity as expressed in previous essays. The timing was perfect; I discovered Phipps after writing the paper An energy-based derivation of Lorentz transformation in one inertial frame which differs from all special relativity derivations based on two inertial frames.

Sorry the out of sequence references confused you. Reference 4 was initially in line, but space considerations forced me to move it to the Endnotes (bottom of page 11).

I very much look forward to your essay,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 23:24 GMT

Having now read your essay, I posted the following on your page:

Dear Eckard Blumshein,

A tour de force! Congratulations on an incredibly information-dense essay.

I appreciate your beginning with Fourier transforms, without which quantum mechanics surely would not exist. You have for several essays focused on cosine transforms providing insight based on your audio work. Your issues concerning t = 0 are subtle. I do agree that physicists tend to stay away from the foundations of mathematics, some actually considering mathematical structure more fundamental than physics.

You note a truly fundamental assumption besides causality: "There is only one reality." My essay treats the fundamental nature of time essential to reality, which is universal simultaneity.

You observe that rigorous formalizations are notorious for causing paradoxes. I observe that all special relativity (SR) texts base the derivation of the Lorentz transformation on two inertial frames, seeming to impute that the very existence of the Lorentz transformation implies the existence of two (or more) time dimensions, per Einstein. In An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame I prove that two inertial frames are not required for the existence of the LT. I believe this is both mathematically and physically significant. In the first place it gets rid of the paradoxes associated with Einstein's 'space-time symmetry'-based "gedanken" experiments [based on railway examples not subject to measurement] while retaining the relativistic [energy] particle physics so well-supported by twentieth century physics.

In a yet-to-be-published a paper I examine Einstein's faulty 'simultaneity detector' based on which he declares "the relativity of simultaneity". Deriving the Lorentz transform in one real world (one inertial frame) argues against multiple time dimensions (and all of the non-intuitive nonsense that depends from this) and leads to the classical understanding of time as universal simultaneity. His denial of this caused Einstein to admit "the now worries him seriously." Universal simultaneity is, of course, now.

CS Peirce, as you note, insisted that "axioms are not a priori truths, but synthetic statements." Einstein's two axioms are contradicted by a one-frame derivation of the Lorentz transformation and by local gravity as ether. Again you state (p5) that "unjustified rigor is to blame for [much] nonsense." Einstein's rigorous derivation of LT in two inertial frames is the basis of much nonsense that vanishes when LT is derived in one inertial frame.

I also like your treatment of symmetry. You say "in reality, symmetries tend to be rarely perfect." Amen. The SU(3) basis of the Standard Model is valid only if masses are equal. In reality the relevant masses differ by two orders of magnitude! Approximate symmetry is all that one finds in the real world.

I also like:

"Should we try and alternatively deal with some fundamentals of physics from the perspective of elapsed time-span…". I would apply this to the elapsed time of the cycle of vibration characterizing the energy of the 'clock' mechanism, and the realization that clocks actually measure energy, and only indirectly are measure 'time'. This demolishes Einstein's clock-based derivation of SR, while fully retaining the energy-time basis of relativistic particle physics. Most particle physics occurs in collisions, which obviously occur at one point in time, not in two time dimensions, as per the theology of SR.

You then note that

"Time t and circular frequency w constitute a pair of conjugate quantities."

That is, time and energy! And note that circular frequency is the basis of all clocks!

In conclusion, you say

"Let's likewise check the historic line of reasoning behind what led to Einstein's special theory of relativity for possibly not justified analogies and generalizations."

That, of course, is exactly what my essay does. I believe our conclusions are almost identical.

Congratulations on a truly magnificent essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Ed, I have enjoyed the conversation. Would you please tell me what program you used for the diagrams. Thank you, Chris N.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 21:30 GMT

Dear Chris,

I'm very glad you enjoyed the conversation. I use Wolfram's Mathematica for calculations and graphics.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Your essay is configured as a dialog between Hertz, Einstein, and the Tavern Keeper. So are you the Tavern Keeper? The final line talks about “the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity”. But the problem with questioning relativity is that it is embedded in modern technology. GPS would not work without relativity, including corrections due to both general and special relativity.

My view is that relativity is essentially correct, but that space and time are not abstract at all, but rather are embedded in microscopic quantum waves. In my essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential.

This agrees with orthodox GR for small gravitational potentials, which is really all that has been measured. Extrapolation to strong gravitational potentials is completely unknown, but there is no reason to accept the presence of any mathematical divergences such as black holes or event horizons. There are certainly collapsed gravitational objects in the center of galaxies, but we actually know very little about their nature.

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 21:55 GMT

Dear Alan,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I began the year believing SR was simple (the Lorentz transformation, what else?) and that GR was complex. A year of discussion with other physicists has convinced me otherwise. Competent physicists understand so many aspects of special relativity that when they come across one statement that seems to contradict other aspects, they dismiss the statement and stop considering the issue. The point of the essay is that Einstein space-time symmetry is a faulty interpretation of the Lorentz transformation which can correctly be reinterpreted in terms of energy-time conjugation. The Lorentz transformation (which I believe is what you are defending) does apply to relativistic particle physics, to the muon, and to GPS, but it is an energy-time effect, not a space-time effect.

A key aspect of this is derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Einstein, and all relativity textbooks assume two time dimensions (inertial frames) to derive LT. In An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame I derive the LT in one inertial frame. I hope you will read this. As you are one of the better physicists who frequent FQXi, I hope you will take the problem seriously.

You say the problem is "GPS will not work without relativity, including corrections due to both general and special relativity." On page 8 I note that muons, GPS, atomic clocks, and Pound-Rebka are all compatible with an energy-time re-interpretation of space-time physics. Your statement actually means that the Lorentz transformation is necessary for twentieth century physics, but many will read it to mean that the "space-time symmetry" interpretation is necessary. It is not. I hope you will reread at least pages 8 and 9, which focus on the nature of clocks. Clocks measure the energy of oscillating systems, which only indirectly translates into time. Einstein's gedanken experiments are based on "perfect clocks" at every point in every inertial frame, ignoring the energy dependence of clocks. That is a fallacious concept. I have one detailed analysis posted [link above] and four more in process to show this in extreme detail.

Of course, questioning relativity is almost a cottage industry, and most physicists categorize every such attempt as futile, but I hope you will attempt to understand my essay rather than dismiss it because you believe it rejects relativistic math -- it does not. It keeps the math while reinterpreting the erroneous physics concept of multiple time dimensions. It is subtle, but it retains the Lorentz transform while rejecting the source of paradox and confusion, Einstein's space-time symmetry concept based on multiple time dimensions.

Having spent a year discussing this with quite competent physicists, I know that the tendency is to focus on any particular statement, and tell oneself "that is incompatible with other things I know" and mentally stop at that point. That's when the complexity of SR raises its ugly head. Please believe me that every physicist who has explored this across all SR aspects now agrees with me. I hope you will reread my essay with an open mind, reserving judgment until you have considered all points.

In fact, your second paragraph is almost word for word compatible with my interpretation of clocks and with page 6 in my essay. You say

"Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential"

Alan, they shift because of the GR energy difference, and also shift because of the mv**2 SR energy difference. This is the key to understanding my essay.

In short, you are assuming that I reject the special relativistic math. That is not true. I retain the Lorentz math of the SR while I re-interpret the physics of space-time symmetry in favor of the physics of energy-time conjugation.

I will of course comment on your essay on your page.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Klingman,

Great essay. Admittedly some of it was above my head but I trust your physics. If I understand, you conclude that time is counted in cycles and is everywhere the same. Is it possible that nature uses time in at least three different ways? Time simply repeats for particles which means their masses are stable and uniform. You discussed what I call cosmological time, time that repeats and counts forward. But time shift we call gamma is used to allow kinetic energy (ke=m/gamma-m) and associated velocity. Time appears to be nature’s primary construction tool and deserves to be called fundamental. Your discussion between ghosts in a tavern shows a supple, creative mind. Congratulations on a fine essay and thank you again for your encouragement.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 22:07 GMT

Dear Gene Barbee,

Thanks for your kind thoughts. You understand me to say that "time is counted in cycles and is everywhere the same." You are correct and have boiled the argument down to the essentials. All clocks count cycles (examples in essay). The cycle is inverse frequency and, since Einstein, we know that energy is related to frequency and frequency to inverse time. Hence

cycles ~ inverse frequency ~ inverse (inverse time) ~ time.

So clocks measure energy which is indirectly related to time. That is, clocks do not directly measure time. Einstein's 'perfect clocks' were assumed to measure time perfectly, and his (faulty) concept of multiple time frames and (faulty) concepts of perfect clocks were logically extended into areas (such as railway cars) where experiments to prove or disprove his logic were impossible, hence "gedanken" experiments, deriving results based on the valid logic of faulty principles. This is why Einstein states in his 1905 paper that his theory is derived "with the help of certain imaginary experiments."

Thanks again for reading and commenting so astutely.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 02:41 GMT

Dear all,

Let me appreciate Klingman's carefully chosen wording. When proponents of SR are using the word gedanken, they usually understand it as "Gedankenexperiment" while a Gedanken is simply athought.

I personally dislike this habit and similar ones:

It is almost mandatory to write Galileo or even galileo if Galileo Galilei is meant, just because his father was not entirely unknown.

Michelson designed, performed, and published a first important experiment with the so called null result in Potsdam 1881 and a merely technically improved version of it in Cleveland 1887, the latter one in cooperation with Morley. Already the first one challenged the experts. Hence, I feel the abbreviation MMX a bit inappropriate.

Incidentally, as a German, I am not quite sure how to translate astute.

report post as inappropriate

Ed,

Here is something for you to ponder. The relativistic energy equation can be decomposed into the following quaternion conjugate pair:

Q = m_0*c^2 + pc

Q^ = m_0*c^2 - pc

where m_0 and c are scalars and p is a vector

This then leads to a quaternion conjugate pair for momentum:

P = m_0*c + p

P* = m_0*c - p

This then leads to a quaternion conjugate pair for velocity:

V = c + v

V* = c - v

where v is a vector.

It is hard for me to believe that this is a coincidence.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Edwin

This was an interesting and thoughtful essay. Yes, Einstein was wrong by not allowing clocks to be wrong. Although all theories must be true internally they must nevertheless be treated as approximations in relation to reality, since we must test them and tests produce always errors. There may for instance be hidden variables.

Since stellar aberration and MMX are useless in relation to the ether wind we must use measurements of 1-way speed of light as we have done for decades in the GPS system, and also in Sagnac's test. To explain gravity the ether must be falling. We cannot do that the bending of nothing.

Stokes assumed mirrors in MMX to define the vector sum ether wind and wave velocity. In reality mirrors have relevance only for moving oscillations in light, but not for the static assymetry in ether that we call ether wind. So, Stokes' invention (effect in transverse arm) is in error. Lorentz did not DISCOVER this, but instead INVENTED time dilation, and Einstein bought the idea.

Einstein INVENTED an explanation by starting with the same speed in relation to ALL inertial observers.

The first error by Stokes resulted in lots of errors and more errors to explain the earlier errors. The confusion was started by Stokes.

Regards from _________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 23:32 GMT

Dear John-Erik Persson,

I posted the following on your page:

I enjoyed your essay and agree that theoretical physics today depends on more than 100-year-old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, some of which are in error. Like you, I feel that perhaps the easiest way to advance physics is to reveal old fundamental errors.

You discuss too many physical phenomena for me to critique, so I will focus on those aspects on which I believe we agree. For example, you state that

"Instead of by time dilation, observed effects must be explained by clock behavior."

Any analysis of atomic clocks must be based on clocks counting cycles, which are inversely related to time, while (per Einstein) frequency is directly related to energy. Thus clocks measure energy directly and time only indirectly. Einstein's idea of 'perfect clocks', located at every point in the moving frame and perfectly synchronized, is an erroneous idea. Formulated long before the development of atomic clocks (the only ones that show relativistic effects) Einstein might be forgiven his mistake, but why hold onto it?

You note that the "Lorentz transform is based on the absurd assumption that light moves with the same speed in relation to all observers moving with constant, but different speeds." Of course Rindler, whose name is associated with several aspects of special relativity, agrees with this, and I discuss this in detail in my essay.

Like you, I feel that Faraday's pedestal could be raised much higher.

You also note that experiments that detect the ether wind based on rotation of the planet surely cannot be interpreted to "assume our own planet to entrain the ether in the whole universe." I propose that light propagates in local gravity, and that this is compatible both with MM's null result and with the motion of clocks circling earth in opposite directions. I suspect that when you say that

"Such an ether wind can explain gravity as well",

you are in agreement with the fact that

"Local gravity can explain ether"

as detailed in my essay.

You note the absurdity of the twins paradox, which is a logical consequence of 'space-time symmetry' that vanishes in an 'energy-time conjugate' formalism (while retaining relativistic particle physics quite well) and note (as I do) that an older, wiser Einstein said "physics without ether is unthinkable."

You develop the idea of "falling ether", then state that "this falling ether describes gravity". I would respectfully suggest that the concept of "gravity as local ether" satisfies the goals you have in mind, but perhaps I need to study your essay more closely.

In any event, we are almost identical in our analysis of the problem, and I think in general agreement in our solutions.

I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I have enjoyed yours.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT

Edwin

You said: LIGHT PROPAGATES IN LOCAL GRAVITY and I say LIGHT AS WELL AS GRAVITY PROPAGATES IN THE ETHER. This means a slight difference. I regard gravity as a static situation in the ether, and light as moving oscillations in the ether.

From _____________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

marc fleury fleury replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:19 GMT

John Erik,

in modern condensed matter treatment local gravity maps to defects in the matrix and these provide the correct Riemann metric (in 3D). So gravity maps to the static deformation of space in the density compressions of the aether. Light analogs appear as transverse elastic vibrations. Once you identify the transverse velocity of these waves with c then e=mc2 comes trivially from Hooke's law, or the amount of energy stored in a plastic defect as it were. Reconciling these ideas with Michelson and Morley null results, meaning the nature of time and speed of light in said aether occupies most of the essay I submitted (SR emerges from a fundamental Aether)

report post as inappropriate

Klingman,

“‘Clocks’ are always implemented as ‘cycle counters' so clocks actually measure energy, not time.”

- I would submit that a clock indicates the local rate of evolution of spontaneous processes all happening according to the local rate of time evolution....

Good stuff! You deal with the history

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 20:52 GMT

Dear Marcel-Marie Lebel,

It's great to see you back in the contest. I've always felt that your 2009 essay "Physics stops were natural metaphysics starts" is one of the best of the hundreds of FQXi essays over the last decade. Your definition of truth as absence of choice, and use of this definition to develop logic is simply superb. Then, as now, you argue that one 'substance' exists by itself; the same point is made in my 2009 essay. This is where we diverge. You believe this 'substance' is time; I believe the substance is gravity. We both are faced with the problem of evolving our universe as we know it from this basic substance. That has, in one way or another, been the focus of many of my essays.

My current essay addresses the non-intuitive concept of "the relativity of simultaneity". If the universe is happening now, I believe that 'now' must mean universal simultaneity. Having spent much of this year reviewing the history of special relativity (and Einstein's later 'second thoughts') I conclude that an energy-time interpretation of (clock-based) reality is preferred to the 'space-time symmetry' interpretation, and is compatible with relativistic particle physics of the twentieth century.

Einstein claims "there is no space absent of field" which seems to place 'field' as the fundamental substance, leaving 'space' as an abstract category of 'empty container'. Of course Einstein mixes time and space as a 4D-entity while Hertz and others imply 3D-space plus 1D-time.

You quote Unruh as presenting 'time' as something that does exist by itself. He notes "gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places…". This, and his following remarks are based on space-time symmetry. In my view it is the idea of time as measured by 'perfect clocks' that is in error. Time flows equably, not faster some places, slower others. Local energy of moving systems does however vary from place to place, and since clocks count cycles and thus measure energy, then it is false to conclude, as is done, that

"We know that time does run slower closer to the ground."

This is the standard GR-based misinterpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment. It leads to all the space-time symmetry paradoxes of SR. The universe 'happens' at the same rate everywhere, but local vibrations are energy dependent and vary from place to place. To compare the interplay of logic in gravity, versus your treatment of logic and time, is impossible in a comment. I do enjoy your thinking, and always love your essays.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I thought I would offer up some outsiders arguments for a presentist view of time, that you might find useful.

Our minds function as flashes of perception and so we think of time as the point of the present, moving from past to future. Consequently this is the basis of narrative, history and civilization.

The reality is that it is change turning future to past, as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 00:32 GMT

Dear John Merryman,

Thanks for your comments. The presentist view of time, as I understand it, is that things are happening now. The future is an abstraction, with no physical reality. So to speak of the reality of change turning "future" into past, seems to perceive an abstraction as real. I do not view the "past" as real [i.e., as actually existing] but it is at least reflected in 'records' or 'echoes' that do exist now.

Einstein dismissed simultaneity by inventing new time dimensions, which he 'attached' to moving objects, along with new coordinate systems. It is this invention of new time dimensions that demolishes time as universal simultaneity. His reason for doing this was never explained. I conjecture about this in my essay.

You say 'events are first in the present, then in the past." This is mathematically 'reasonable' but I think presentism views 'events' as happening only now. Physical reality is the existing 'record' of earlier events, but those events are not "in the past". The idea of direction of an abstraction flowing into abstraction, is an abstraction, and thus a matter of choice.

Having suffered over a century of "the relativity of simultaneity", it is difficult for physicists today to perceive time in the classical manner, while it is ridiculously easy to 'represent' time as one of four dimensions. The fact that the Minkowski formalism accurately maps relativistic particle physics in an energy-time perspective yet leads to nonsense in the space-time symmetry perspective seems to argue for the energy-time conjugation as the physically most appropriate model. But this is, of course, swimming against the current.

You say energy "exists in the present" and is "constantly creating new information". I agree that information is created when energy changes local structure, thus creating a 'record' that is 'in-formation'. This occurs independently of whether one considers it flowing from one abstraction to another abstraction. I think Omar Khayyam captured the essence of presentism:

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on; nor all thy Piety nor wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,

Nor all thy tears wash out a Word of it."

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 11:43 GMT

Edwin,

We are in agreement. My point about events being present then past isn't to argue for a physical present, but to argue against determinism. The past irrevocably leads to present, events occur and then recede. That it isn't the present "flowing" from past to future, but events "flowing" through the present. So it is the occurrence of events that calculates the input and determines the outcome.

Obviously the conceptual problem here is that our mental processes are temporally based, just as our physical existence is a fundamental manifestation of the thermodynamic environment in which we evolved. So trying to express anything involves the effect of sequence.

I just submitted an essay, after having put it off, up until writing it out a few days ago.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 11:45 GMT

argue for a physical past.

But events occur and recede

Rushed.

Erg.

report post as inappropriate

Ed,

If you have the time, take a look at the essay by Declan Trail. He produced an EPR result based upon classical assumptions that is similar to the result you produced for a previous essay.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 21:12 GMT

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the heads up. I had read Declan's essay, but not yet responded to it.

Declan proposes an angle-dependent detection probability. If all hits are detected, then all hits count as +1 or -1 (in the QM theory). If certain hits are missed, this effectively lowers the 'average' reading to a number below +1 (or above -1). The +1 and -1 come from Bell's very first...

view entire post

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the heads up. I had read Declan's essay, but not yet responded to it.

Declan proposes an angle-dependent detection probability. If all hits are detected, then all hits count as +1 or -1 (in the QM theory). If certain hits are missed, this effectively lowers the 'average' reading to a number below +1 (or above -1). The +1 and -1 come from Bell's very first statement defining the problem, and reflects the consensus interpretation of the quantum mechanics of spin as a half integral "nonclassical" phenomenon. Despite Declan's contention that his model is essentially classical, he nevertheless accepts the QM interpretation of spin as a two state entity, which is generally true from spin statistics and magnetic fields, and never proved or experimentally demonstrated for single spins in magnetic-field-free space.

In my classical model of the 'hidden variable' it simply the 3D nature of spin which yields an angle-dependent deflection that matches the Stern-Gerlach data which has the well-known 'lip' pattern. My model assumes 'perfect' detection since none of the atoms are lost; all reach the target. But the registered spin component is less than +1, dependent on the initial angle the spin makes with the magnetic field. This yields exactly the ab cos(theta) curve that Bell claims is impossible to achieve classically. It's only impossible when one forces all projections of atoms through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus to be maximum or minimum. Of course, the data shows that the atoms are deflected over a range of angles, but why be picky about experimental data that doesn't match a theory? Better to assume experimental error or some type of 'noise'.

FYI, there is another SG-relevant paper, the essay by Anton Garrett which I find very interesting. Finally, I would call attention to a key problem in Bell tests. Bell's initial analysis (and the Stern-Gerlach experiment) are based on neutral atoms, while all Bell tests are based on photon detection, which, as Declan points out, are not perfect.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 22:05 GMT

A slightly more fleshed-our comment on Declan Andrew Traill's page:

I am in full agreement with you that entanglement, "a nonlocal process inaccessible to the classical world", is a most serious problem facing those who wish a comprehensible universe. Like you, I find it possible to produce a classical model that violates Bell's theorem. In the following I will try to compare our two results, both of which lead to the 'impossible' result.

You propose an angle-dependent detection probability. If all hits are detected, then all hits count as +1 or -1 (in the QM theory). If certain hits are missed, this effectively lowers the 'average' reading (for that angle) to a number below +1 (or above -1). This lowering of the average value is effected by the cos(a.b) term.

The +1 and -1 come from Bell's very first statement defining the problem, and reflects the consensus interpretation of the quantum mechanics of spin as a half integral "nonclassical" phenomenon. Your essentially classical model seems to accept the QM interpretation of spin as a two-state entity, which is generally true from spin statistics and magnetic fields, but has never been proved or experimentally demonstrated for single spins in magnetic-field-free space.

In my classical model the 'hidden variable' is simply the 3D nature of spin which yields an angle-dependent deflection that matches the Stern-Gerlach data which has the well-known 'lip' pattern. My Stern-Gerlach-based model assumes 'perfect' detection since none of the atoms are lost; all atoms reach the target. But the registered spin component is less than +1, dependent on the initial angle the spin makes with the magnetic field. This yields exactly the cos(a.b) curve that Bell claims is impossible to achieve classically. It's only impossible when one forces all projections of atoms through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus to be maximum or minimum. Of course, the data shows that the atoms are deflected over a range of angles, but why be picky about experimental data that doesn't match a theory? Better to assume experimental error or some type of 'noise'.

Finally, a key problem in Bell tests derives from the fact that Bell's initial analysis (and the Stern-Gerlach experiment) are based on neutral atoms, while all Bell tests are based on photon detection, which, as you point out, are not perfect. I have some ideas about how to translate from atomic phenomena (SG) to photonic phenomena (Bell tests) but your approach is physically reasonable, and may actually be correct for photons. Thanks for a very interesting essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Edwin Eugene Klingman,

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Having written previous essays on Bell's theorem and Stern-Gerlach, I am pleased to see both Anton Garrett's essay and Declan Andrew Traill's essay in this contest. I wrote the following comment on Anton's page:

Literally thousands of comments have been spent on FQXi concerning Bell's theorem, which, as you state, "is about logic, not quantum mechanics". Bell's first statement defining the problem is his equation (1) in which he defines measurements A and B to have +/- unit values. The logical outcome is completely determined from this point!

Bell essentially asks for a "classical" explanation [the 'hidden variable'] while insisting on a "quantum" result. Stern-Gerlach did not find "quantum" results. Their deflection data is smeared over an upper "lip" and a lower "lip" which are arbitrarily called +1 and -1 to fit the naïve quantum picture of spin. But which picture? Pauli's, Dirac's, Feynman's? As you obviously spent time and effort on this topic I hope you might look at Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell.

Pauli conveniently chose half integral eigenvalues, which Bell uses unquestioningly, while Dirac, who many think more fundamental, derived a four component equation that is no longer an eigenvalue equation. Indeed, it is only "converted into" an eigenvalue equation by the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation which smears the particle with spin over a region of space. Only after this integration do we arrive at a Dirac-based eigenvalue equation.

Perhaps if Bell had thought more deeply about spin he would've had more reservations than he did about this issue. Unfortunately, about the same time Bell developed his theorem, Feynman, deeply in love with the two slit experiment, decided to apply the analogy to Stern-Gerlach-as-two-slit and [of course!] the two state "wave function" worked. [What a surprise -- Pauli invented a workable 'wave-function' when he used O|+> = +|+> and O|-> = -|->.] Thus deBroglie's linear momentum-based wave function, with wavelength proportional to inverse momentum, compatible with experimental tests, was conceptually extended to angular momentum, with no logical justification for associating a wavelength with electron spin. [Spin waves in condensed matter or solid-state physics are not spin wave functions.] But, like Einstein, it is today verboten to question Feynman, so we are stuck with "wave functions" for spin analogous to wave functions for particles with momentum. This leads to superposition concepts for particles going through non-homogeneous fields that are entirely inappropriate but unquestioned, although never demonstrated.

Nino says: "I presume physicists… are now looking for a theory that predicts what happens each time you put a particle through successive Stern-Gerlach apparatuses."

Neo answers: "Actually we are not."

Actually we are. Or were. Two other physicists and myself [one received the National Medal of Technology at the White House in 2014] began this experiment in 2015. We produced fine healthy silver atomic beams but finally decided that single atom detectors were far beyond our resources.

If the first SG detector is used to prepare atoms from the oven in a particular state, say + (up), and the second SG detector is offset at angle theta from the first, then the deflection of the particle from the second device will be a factor of theta.

Here's the kicker: according to my theory (which does violate Bell's theorem classically) only + particles will be detected from the second SG device. According to Feynman's two slit spin analogy, the wave function will predict some - states will be found.

If spin is actually 3D, then the deflection of SG can be shown to depend on the angle between the spin and the field. This is what is actually seen in the SG data. But as you imply, no one wants to test this. Even suggesting it is to be drummed out of the corps.

But if spin is actually 3D, then the measured deflection is not +1 or -1 but is ~cos(theta). This conflicts with Bell's definition A,B= +/-1. Using real theta-based measurement results (i.e., deflection) it is easy to show the correlation cos(a.b). Using Bell's +1 or -1 constraints it is logically (not physically) impossible.

In Modern Classical Spin Dynamics see figure 6 on page 20 wherein the classical model overlays SG data almost exactly, and in Bell was simply wrong see page 6 where the energy-exchange model is shown to yield cos(a.b) while the Bell-constrained version cannot accomplish this.

So, to repeat, if one accepts Bell's requirement that measurements be +1 or -1 , instead of actual deflection seen in the SG data, then one is logically bound to fail. If one allows actual deflection data the classical model obtains the quantum correlation cos(a.b) violating Bell's theorem and removing even the suggestion of "entanglement".

This is further complicated by loose thinking, such as Nino's statement "but nevertheless only one of the detectors actually goes off." If this is applied to Stern-Gerlach, it means only that every particle is deflected up or down based on initial state, but does not imply A,B= +/-1. On the other hand, Bell is not tested with SG atoms but with photons which are detected (+1) or not (0).

Due to Feynman's beloved two-slit-spin-analogy, people consider atomic spin wave functions and photon wave functions to be the same, thus on/off photon detection results are conflated with the SG deflection results. Confusion reigns.

Nino says "quantization is indeed a mental rather than a physical procedure." Bell forces classical physics into a quantized mold that is mental rather than physical. When this artificially constrained logical problem leads to the conclusion that classical physics cannot yield the measured correlation we invented "entanglement". This nonlocality that has ruled physics for fifty years is a farce, but one which cannot be challenged without forfeiting one's establishment position. The natives should be restless.

Congratulations on a very fine essay,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I just read your essay, as promised.

There is a lot in there (a bit early in th morning for me to process it all I fear!).

Your essay is very interesting and also a novel and innovative format.

I don’t have time at the moment to leave a longer comment, but well done on a fine essay!!

Regards,

Declan

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for reading my essay.

I find your essay interesting.

I wrote something similar a few years ago

$R_{munu}-frac{1}{2} g_{munu}R=frac{8pi(-k)}{c^4}T_{munu}$

where k is Coulomb's constant, and this could be the Maxwell's equations at high energy, with the same low energy approximation.

Regards

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:34 GMT

It is impossible!! The (verified) latex interpreter make many errors:

$R_{munu}-frac{1}{2}g_{munu}R=frac{8pi(-k)}{c^4}$

I try to write the equation without web interpreter.

Regards

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT

I give up:

R_{munu}-frac{1}{2}g_{munu}R=frac{8pi(-k)}{c^4}

each person that write in latex understand this equation

Sorry

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Nice essay. Fun format and moot points to your usual excellent standard (though AE didn't get much of a word in!) Of course I agree local 'ether' frames, but Einstein didn't get a chance (or forgot) to mention his key final concepts (1952 'Addendum'). Which I agree, and relate to your p5 'boxes'. Please advise what's wrong with this;

1. First do away with the 1st (bottom left)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 04:00 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your comments. I will address them one by one.

1. The "boxes" are reference frames, so it makes no sense to do away with the rest frame. They're translucent, and, while redundant, I think the visual image of the frame is appropriate. An invisible depiction of space is potentially misleading. In any case, it changes nothing physical.

2. You are adding layers of physical entities that do not exist, are unnecessary, and simply complicate the issue. (I've yet to discuss this theory with a true relativist who did not wish to redefine the problem immediately into terms he was comfortable with, almost always in terms of two inertial frames.) Your first paper, which impressed me greatly, dealt with plasmas in space, but there are no plasmas in this problem.

3. The 'ambient medium' is the local gravitational field, and the behavior is completely defined by the Maxwell-Hertz equations. All signals do not do c locally, since one of the frames is defined to be moving with respect to the local gravity.

4. Forget (box-car-like) "in the train" and use open flat-cars. The light moves with speed c in the local gravitational field (associated with the railway station and/or tracks). If by "local train rest frame" you mean the moving flatcar, then it does not do c in the flat-car's rest frame. That's the point!

5. There is no transition zone in the perfect vacuum (filled with gravitational field, but no plasma). So this point is moot.

In short, your ideas of plasma-filled space are very likely valid for interplanetary and even interstellar space but have zero application or relevance to electromagnetic propagation in the local gravitational field. After 100 years of special relativity based on "two inertial frames" (leading to Lorentz) it takes some mental work to re-conceptualize as "one inertial frame" (with energy-based Lorentz). My essay does not describe the 'discrete field model' and does not fit into your above comments, but I very much appreciate your taking the effort to transpose it to such a framework.

Thanks again for your gracious comments.

My very best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 12:24 GMT

Edwin,

Yes, thanks. I understand you don't agree Einstein's final conceptions, or free fermions around all bodies increasing with v, as Unruh, probes etc. (Though I assure and can show you that IS what's universally found!) But we must all focus on and follow our own paths with all rigor, and close agreement isn't a valid scoring criteria! (you do excellently on those!).

Your approach is very interesting and I agree the local 'gravity' view may help acceptability in many eyes. For myself I most strongly 'usefulness' i.e. in logically resolving anomalous effects. I've found that in extremis in the 're-emission at local 'c' schema, including the full ontology behind Declans code, and have looked for it hard in the tavern but you'll have to help me.

Last questions to help me rationalise your view and falsify mine;

1. Will fermions absorb and re-emit ('requantize') EM energy in your schema?

2. If so, may the re-emission be at c in each centre of mass rest frame, or what other speed would each electron select, and why?

Great chat. Another beer?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 05:10 GMT

Hi Peter,

I'm not sure whether you believe low velocity motion creates fermions, or whether you're assuming the existence of fermions everywhere, so it's kind of hard to respond to your first point.

Local gravity is not designed to "help acceptability"; it either serves as the medium for electromagnetic propagation or not. Since gravity exists everywhere, it clearly is available to serve this function. And since it deflects light, it is not just an inert presence. My opinion is that the fermion and plasma aspects you focus on are not relevant to my essay, and if you wish to reframe everything in your own conceptual terms, you will probably miss the point.

In answer to your questions:

1. If fermions absorb and reemit EM energy in reality, then this will happen whenever fermions are present. Fermions are not assumed to be present in the gravitational field in question.

2. Light emitted at any point will travel with speed c in the local gravity, independent of the speed of the "center of mass rest frame" (unless it is the center of mass that is the dominant source of gravity.) If the frame you are interested in is moving with velocity v in the local gravitational field, then the relative velocity will be v + c. Einstein imagined that c is attached to every moving reference frame. This was an invention of his that solved his immediate problem while destroying our intuitive notions of time.

Why not have another beer?

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

First of aal my reaction on the comments you have on my essay 5thank you for paying attention to it..)

"In the so called space-time there is no absolute simultaneity". The so called means "emerging", as it emerges out of the Planck Area where time and space are all simultaneous, only at the border line that I described as vague and full of exitations, all simultaneity is lost once the "reality" emerged. The so emerging "reference frames" are each one differnt from the other which is in accordance with Einsteins relativity theory.

"Backwards causation" Wheelers delayed choice thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment but has been executed and is a phenomenon that we have to count with. My model can explain it as you have read. I understand that is (like everything in quantum mechanics) a bit strange to get trusted with..

The confusion that arises when I introduce "Total Consciousness" is understandable. The basic reason for consciousness is the experience and implementation of our emerging reality. In order to realise that we need a "first cause" that I call "INITIATIVE". This first cause cannot originate out of only emergent phenomena. There is of course "causality from emergent phenomena" but then the mergence has already "occurred".

I also have read your essay and will give a reaction after this one

Good luck and regards

report post as inappropriate

Can I order two beers please ?

Just to celebrate your very good written essay Edwin.

The discussion you describe is indeed fundamental for what I am calling "our emerging reality" and the reference frames that are involved in this process.

you say : ""An inertial frame is one in which spatial relations, as determined by rigid scales at rest in the frame, are Euclidian and in which there exists a universal time…[such that Newton's laws of inertia hold.]" I understand that these frames are the reference frames of "agents". Events happening "inside" these frames are seeming simultaneous for other frames outside the observed one.

You are discussing simultaneity like I also am trying to find a solution for this in my model (that you already have read).

An interesting article you can find here:EINSTEIN, RELATIVITY and ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY from William Lane Craig.

"But Earth exists in and travels through one time dimension, not one per location!" Here you are touching the foundational question of time and space, in a block universe there is o travelling there "movement" is from one moment to another even no "flow'' needed, becaus e these moments need not to be consecutive. (The perception of consecutive only exists in our memory)

"The fundamental nature of time is universal simultaneity" This perception is in concordance with my perception of "Total Simultaneity" that is the origin of the emergence of TIME. But the time that originates from this Planck Area is coupled to the mergence of space and a specific reality.

I am gonne read your essay again (first of all to understand better the formula's you used) because it is to me a vast information source.

I thank you for making me THINK and I hope to meet again in your bar, maybe there are arriving more scientific spirits for further discussions. This discussion I liked very much and rated it like that...

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 05:12 GMT

Dear Wilhelmus,

Two beers coming up!

Thank you for your kind comments. Thanks for explaining some your concepts from your essay. I am glad that you find my essay worth reading again, and hope it does serve you as a source. The history is fascinating, and I was only this year made aware of the significance of Hertz's version of Maxwell's equations. I wanted the essay to be useful and fun to read. It sounds like you had fun. That's good!

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Ed,

This one looks interesting and fun! I am only now starting to scan for interesting reading material in this year's crop, after pushing to make a proper completion for my own entry. I tried to squeeze as much as possible of the material in my talk at FFP15 in Orihuela, while keeping on topic for the most part, and while stepping down the feed voltage to match the technical level required here. I left a lot out, most of which is covered elsewhere, but I managed to put some very technical concepts in layman's terms - so we'll see.

Or rather, you will see my essay appear in a few days. And if he follows through on what we discussed via e-mail; you will also see an entry from Brian Josephson in this year's contest. His lecture at FFP15 was far off the beaten track, but the idea to used concepts from bio-semiotics to explore Physics might put some items in our toolbox that otherwise would never get added. So we'll have to see how the FQXi community treats his work. I look forward to some engaging discussions.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Thank you for your kind words regarding my essay.

In this thicket of dense conversation, it is helpful that you highlight pearls of wisdom arising from the dialogue and thus differentiate the realities of Hertz and Einstein, like clocks measure energy not time and fundamental reality based on energy-time conjugation not on space-time symmetry. The differences in reality that Einstein provided in explaining Hertz's photoelectric effect was well done thru the tavern-centered dialogue. Thanks for a good read, Edwin.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 22:47 GMT

Dear Jim,

Thanks for reading the essay and extracting the key message succinctly. I'm pleased that you found it a good read. As I noted on your page, our essays complement each other.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I have read with great interest your deep essay on the problem of fundamentality. You give very important ideas that encourage the need to revise the ontological foundations of natural science. The FQXi contests provide an excellent opportunity to push new ideas and that's fine. Great job. I think that there will be a "big fight". And that's fine.

Successes in the Сontest!

My best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 01:45 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I very much enjoyed your essay and its insights, and commented on your page. I'm pleased that you find my look at our ontological foundations rewarding. Yes, FQXi offers a unique forum for questioning century-old orthodoxy, and for this we are all grateful.

Thank you sincerely for studying my essay and responding as you have.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Good work, especially the elaborations on the fundamental relationship between (unperfect) clocks, energy and time.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 01:57 GMT

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for reading and absorbing the critical message which you state so succinctly. I have read your essay, which, in spite of a list of problems, I interpret as optimistic.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I like this essay very much!

I admire the way the bartender-mediated conversational style makes it seem almost effortless going between using words and equations to communicate, without breaking stride to explain yourself. I am only now becoming able to weave the Math in without it interrupting the flow of my message, so your dexterity in that area is well appreciated. I chose instead to go with almost purely verbal content in the body, and saved the equations for the technical explanation in the endnotes.

I will be reading this one again, before rating it or commenting much further. But I wanted to mention that some of what you said connects back to a lecture by Mikhail Altaisky I attended, talking about the complications of using a GPS system to guide travel in space. Choosing the nearest satellites fails to provide meaningful information sometimes, because the Jacobian vanishes. This can be traced to the need for a non-collapsing tetrahedron of measurement platforms, in order to provide meaningful or reliable positioning data.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 02:01 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for reading my essay and offering to read it again. It is chock full of information, and I wasn't sure how it would come across. This is the first time I've chosen the particular vehicle and I appreciate that you found it 'almost effortless'. What a very nice comment.

I look forward to reading your essay soon.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks for your paper. I appreciate its novel presentation.

I know very little mathematics and know nothing at all about important contemporary theories in physics. I confess that I did not understand arguments presented in the article (with the help of few functional entities like; mass, field, time, energy, etc. and mathematics). My inability has...

view entire post

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks for your paper. I appreciate its novel presentation.

I know very little mathematics and know nothing at all about important contemporary theories in physics. I confess that I did not understand arguments presented in the article (with the help of few functional entities like; mass, field, time, energy, etc. and mathematics). My inability has nothing to with quality of subject, arguments in the article or presentation, but it is due to lack of my education in contemporary theories in physics (and advanced mathematics). Therefore, I hope you will not take offence on the following.

To have any type of nature, an entity should have some sort of recognizable form, structure, constituents and a mechanism of development and existence. In other words; the entity should be real. If your arguments about fundamental nature of ‘time’ are right, ‘time’ should be a real entity. What is time? Without a concrete definition of time, how could you ascertain its nature? Does time has all requirements that endow it with independent objective reality and positive volumetric existence? Assigning time with properties of real entity does not appeal to common sense. Time and related mathematical tools may be very good to explain different states of universe (history of events) and its constituents. But (I think) ‘time’ remains a functional entity, created by rational beings and its nature is fundamental only to corresponding mathematical analyses – It is neither a fundamental entity nor it may have fundamental nature. A functional entity can only fulfill functions assigned to it and its nature can be changed by its assigner as frequently as he pleases. Searching whole of universe, we cannot find time because it is not present anywhere. But searching our world, we shall find time in everything and in all modern theories.

I consider gravitation and gravitational attraction (gravity) as different phenomena. Gravitational attraction is an apparent expression of gravitation. Gravitation is the most fundamental pressure (‘force’), derived from existence of substance (matter) and it is enormously strong (beyond what we can imagine) compared to all other manifestations of gravitation, which include ‘natural forces’ (gravitational attraction, electromagnetic ‘forces’, nuclear ‘forces’, etc.) and other mechanical ‘forces’. All of them are minutely weaker than gravitation and there are differences between each other’s strengths and ranges. Gravitation is caused by relative mechanical movements of constituent particles in a universal medium, structured by quanta of matter and fills entire space outside basic 3D matter-particles.

You discuss many other phenomena in the article, about which I am not confident enough to comment. Thanks again. Kindly pardon me, if I exceeded limits of criticism.

Regards, Nainan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 22:20 GMT

Dear Nainan,

Thanks for reading and commenting.

You are certainly correct to note that the nature of time is difficult to nail down. My essay reviewed the way in which Einstein interpreted some 'facts' and ignored others to come up with his invention of multiple time dimensions, demolishing the intuitive understanding of time as universal simultaneity and claiming "the relativity of simultaneity." I show an alternative approach that retains the Lorentz transformation for relativistic particle physics based on an energy-time reinterpretation of space-time symmetry. This restores the intuitive understanding of time as universal simultaneity.

You say you think 'time' remains a functional entity. I'm in sympathy with this approach, but I believe energy is spread all over pseudo-infinite 3D space, and it's hard for me to imagine energy functioning so perfectly across the cosmos for 14 billion years yet 'staying in sync' so to speak without a real phenomenon to enforce this. Because time is measured indirectly but experienced directly by all of us there will probably always be a disagreement among us as to its true nature.

Thanks for your consideration,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Reading through a number of the essays, it seems the questions surrounding the issue of time are starting to become a, if not the, primary issue. I recently suggested to Eckard that given this increasing concordance, some thought might be given to a cooperative effort to draw in the various fields of expertise and assemble a focused argument against the block time/eternalist view.

It is not as though future generations of theorists are going to devote their careers to untestable ideas, just because the current generation has done so, so a revolution will occur, sooner, or later and having some theoretical reference points and arguments being put forth, could very well help it along.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 22:30 GMT

Dear John,

Like you, I've noticed a number of the current essays do focus on or in some way question the nature of time. I did not expect this but I'm pleased to see it.

You suggest a possible joint effort to investigate/attack 'block time'. That's probably not a bad idea although I believe Daryl Janzen did an excellent job on this back in 2012 with his essay "A Critical Look at the Standard Cosmological Picture" and the associated comments.

Your second paragraph shows that you are an incurable optimist. I think that speaks well of you.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, the fundamental has to be simple and clear to cherish our thinking. You wrote a great and wonderful essay. You are reviving the idea of the ether. I must say that the idea of identity of space and matter of Descartes is stronger than the idea of ether, which he also considered the matter and filled in the gaps between large particles, to obtain the space without holes. He believed that the voids in the physical space are filled immediately. New Cartesian Physics claims that the hole in space filled with the speed of light, according to modern ideas, forming the physical vacuum filled with energy. This energy as you think and creates time.

Read my essay in which I have some examples to show the effectiveness of the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 22:48 GMT

Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,

Thank you for your gracious comments. I'm not alone in "reviving the ether"; Einstein himself began such in 2013, as pointed out in my essay. Also, in my endnotes, the condensed matter theorists do much the same, as seen in Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet".

I would be honored to be the first to suggest local gravity as ether, but after thinking of this and beginning to work on it I of course found myself late to the party. Perhaps I am first to re-interpret space-time symmetry as energy-time conjugation, but it would not surprise me to find others already there. In any case, the pieces are there, needing only to be put together.

I do not understand your approach and will read your essay. You say "the identity of space and matter (of Descartes) is stronger than the idea of ether." As I noted in my endnotes, "Ether, physical space, and field became synonymous."

Thanks again for your comments. I will read your essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 03:31 GMT

Edwin, it turns out, space is the ether, and the ether is space. It's mythology, it remains to say that in the ether fly angels. Descartes firmly, space is matter, which we cannot see because it is transparent as glass, and which constituted the whole world.

You deserve to be the winner, but I appreciate those who take a look at my essay and give a comment, i.e., apply Descartes.

With respect Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 22:45 GMT

Dear Boris,

There's much overlap in our interpretation of physics, particularly your emphasis on the fact that

"Sometimes discovery is not a physical property of an object, but a property of the mathematical structure."

I touch on this in my essay when I quote Maudlin:

"…even if we can describe a mathematical structure that everywhere looks locally like a possible space-time structure, it does not follow that the whole object corresponds to a physical possibility."

There are many examples of such projection in physics, many of them applying to quantum mechanics. As one example I would suggest that the Compton wavelength, considered as the size of a particle, is almost certainly incorrect. Nevertheless it appears useful.

My focus is on the Einsteinian "ether, physical space, and field" becoming synonymous. I prefer the concept of 'field', and in particular the gravito magnetic field, which is a circulation/vortex in the field. This seems to agree with yours/Descartes's view in many interpretations.

If you read my last essay on the Nature of Mind, you will find it not far from your final sentence.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Edwin

I have to commend you on a witty essay, and I liked it enough so I gave you a grade of 8. i.e. very well done

However, this is my nit.

The initial time step, call it either delta t, is either intrinsic within a system as done by Barbour in his essay about emergent time, or it is super imposed upon the system say by cyclic cosmological intervention from prior universes upon our present universe.

In essence, I would like to have a clear distinguishment made between emergent time, as stated by Barbour, or by some other agency, say as in cyclic conformal cosmology (penrose)

Aside from these nits, I frankly felt your essay was the most enjoyable one I have encountered in this contest and I am saving it as a gem.

Just because I raise this issue does not mean I disapprove. On the contrary I give you high marks and am asking for an extension of your dialogue to include the distinguishable choice I am referring to.

Andrew

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 06:11 GMT

I am going to put in here what I used to reply to your comment as to my essay:

quoting upon what I said in your essay discussion

quote

Edwin

I have to commend you on a witty essay, and I liked it enough so I gave you a grade of 8. i.e. very well done

However, this is my nit.

The initial time step, call it either delta t, is either intrinsic within a system as done by Barbour in his essay about emergent time, or it is super imposed upon the system say by cyclic cosmological intervention from prior universes upon our present universe.

In essence, I would like to have a clear distinguishment made between emergent time, as stated by Barbour, or by some other agency, say as in cyclic conformal cosmology (penrose)

Aside from these nits, I frankly felt your essay was the most enjoyable one I have encountered in this contest and I am saving it as a gem.

Just because I raise this issue does not mean I disapprove. On the contrary I give you high marks and am asking for an extension of your dialogue to include the distinguishable choice I am referring to.

Andrew

end of quote

Answering you was a pleasure, Edwin, but the choice I made was to include in time as in the form of Barbour,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

And the super structure I used was to focus upon the cosmological constant as I referenced it, as a way to initiate the placing of time as I saw it in the present cosmos.

Hence, I worked with forming the cosmological constant, as a bench mark for initial conditions enabling the development of time as given by

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

What may surprise you. Edwin, was that I initially was to make my essay about time,and shifted to the cosmological constant as referred to in my essay after reviewing what I know of time, as a way to conjecture out an initial structure consistent with

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 06:14 GMT

Please consider what I brought up about either emergent time, or the other choice of time, as I tried to answer it in my replies to you

I after this FQXI contest, will continue this discussion at great length, Edwin

Finally, please tell me if you think Barbour is full of beans, i.e. this essay

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 06:16 GMT

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

Please comment upon this idea by Barbour.

Thanks

Andrew

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Dear Andrew Walcott Beckwith,

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I'm very impressed with the work you do and generally attempt to read your papers. [I still pity your reviewers.]

The topic of cyclic cosmology is beyond a comment, so I will attempt to respond to your questions about Barbour's nature of time (an earlier FQXi essay).

He begins by noting that his mechanics books define neither time nor clocks. He further complains that the fundamental notions of duration and simultaneity are almost universally ignored, the latter due to Einstein's 'relativity of simultaneity'. In fact, Barbour states that only Newton discussed duration. Barbour hopes to persuade one that time as an independent concept has no place in physics.

In agreement with Einstein, ("There exists no space absent of field.") I view 'space' as contingent on 'field', where field is substantial in the sense it has energy, hence matter. Similarly, I view time as contingent on energy, essentially energy in the field (see Hertz's 'energy' quote, on my page 5). Barbour quotes Mach to the effect that 'time is an abstraction'. I would not go that far. I would agree with Newton that:

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration."

The nature of time, in my opinion, is universal simultaneity, and its property of 'duration' is almost certainly tied to local energy, and very likely to the constant of action.

In this sense I somewhat agree with Barbour that

"…intervals of time do not pre-exist, but are created by what the universe does."

The "intervals of time" are supposedly what clocks measure, as described in my essay as "counting frequency" or "measuring energy".

Ignoring his 'rotation of the earth', etc., I disagree with Barbour that "Newton was wrong… Mach was right, we do abstract time from motion." This is, if not duplicitous, at least confused; motion is no more fundamental than time, in my mind not as fundamental. Motion is essentially local, while time is universal simultaneity. Universal outranks local every time. Perhaps Barbour believes that Einstein's attachment of time dimensions to local moving objects make time also 'local' in nature. I do not.

The key to Barbour, as I see it, is his statement on page 4:

"Modern textbooks, leave us to fathom the meaning of t, say that all these quantities are functions of the time: phi(t), a(t), r(t)."

If this is true, one would expect that a clever approach could factor out t and this is what he does, ending on page 9 with an expression for delta-t in terms of energy.

I'm not impressed that Barbour has accomplished anything other than to support my arguments in my essay. I do not support all of his arguments.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Edwin,

I remember our positive and worthwhile discussions during the 2012 essay contest. I enjoyed your essay, good to make it into a dialogue, and show some different angles - even though I couldn’t help wishing we knew what they’d really have said. A point on the later part of your essay - I think Einstein was using the word ‘ether’ rather differently by the 1920s, meaning space itself, rather than something that fills space. By that time he was talking about fields as being set in space itself.

I have a question for you - what exactly do you mean when you say SR implies two time dimensions? You have Einstein conceding this point, I suspect he might not have... I know Einstein was initially against Minkowski spacetime, and called it ‘superfluous learnedness’, but he later came around to it.

I also know that in 2012 you were arguing for some kind of universal simultaneity, and I understand that better now. We agree that SR is correct in terms of predictions and experimental results. The interpretation may be questionable - but then there are so many ways to interpret it. To me they don’t matter, unless you can get at the physics somehow, either by making a prediction, or by showing something to be true, such as by showing that the apparent flow of time cannot be emergent. This was done by experiment in 2015, see my essay, by showing that events at the quantum scale are not reversible, although the Schrödinger equation is. They found a directional flow of time down there, events were affected by entropy - it makes Minkowski spacetime even more questionable, and suggests that a new view of time is needed.

To me the phenomenology of what was being discussed in that bar is more interesting than the different interpretations. Trying to get somewhere without an underlying picture is premature - there are so many different ways to describe something mathematically. Einstein said (in real life) that there was a need for a conceptual basis for physics, and that one would be found in the future. He talked about the ‘future conceptual basis of physics’ - Wheeler said the same, many times. The quotes are in the essay, which argues that whatever’s at the deepest level MUST include a conceptual picture, as some of the puzzles it would shed light on can only have conceptual solutions, such as time and QM.

There’s also a point about time you might find of interest, near the top of page 2, the para that begins: “And trying to put these layers in the right order leads to an interesting point.” In an email exchange with Anthony Aguirre in 2014, he commented on it - it’s a point of mine, I’ve never seen it made elsewhere. Although one would never guess the point from his comment, he said:

I very much like your other point, which is that if I just invent a Unitary Block description of some sort (say, define GR, a Hilbert space, and a Hamiltonian), there seems no reason to believe that it should admit of some description in which there is past and future, 'flowing' time between slices of similar coordinate time, 'objects', etc. It's a bit like the 'fine-tuning' problem, in which it seems like a bit of a miracle that the Universe (or Unitary Block in this case) so happens to be compatible with observers like us.

My essay also argues that conceptual physics is the best way forward, and gives examples of puzzles that can only be solved by conceptual thinking.

I’d very much appreciate your comments on the essay - thanks, and good luck.

Jonathan Kerr

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 00:21 GMT

Dear Jonathan Kerr,

I enjoyed your essay immensely, and not just because you focused on the fundamental nature of time.

You ask exactly what I mean when I say SR implies two time dimensions. I base this on Rindler's definition of inertial frame as one in which spatial relations (as determined by rigid scales at rest in the frame) are Euclidian and in which there exists a universal time [such that Newton's laws of inertia hold] and on Einstein's formulation of his two principles of relativity in terms of (at least) two inertial frames.

One might say the "universal time" is the same in both inertial frames, but Einstein goes on to derive the Lorentz transformation in terms of t' =/= t, so that the times clearly are not the same universal time. That they can share one time t' = t = 0 in common does not make them the same time. If they had no point in common they would be impossible to relate to each other, effectively separate elements of a multiverse. The Lorentz transformation of 4D entities mixes time and space based on the idea that the time axis can be rotated from t' into t. If there's only one universal time then t' = t and it does not mix time and space.

As I develop in the essay, time does not 'dilate'; it 'flows equably through all space'. Local "clocks" measure energy, which is conjugate to time, and each 'tick' is a measure of a local time interval that is characterized by the energy of the clock mechanism. Motion-based energy differences of clocks do not represent variations in the time dimension, which is simultaneous across all space.

Daryl Jansen, back in the day, argued strongly that the 4D block time is nonsense and that any discussion of it immediately introduces a fifth dimension where things change. Nothing changes in block time. It exists only because of the Minkowskian idea of 4D rotations in 'space-time'. If time does not mix with space (it doesn't) then the 4D block time is a mathematical artifact, having no physical reality.

I agree with you that conceptual physics is the best way forward, but many react to new concepts as if they were the plague.

Thanks again for reading and commenting on my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan Kerr replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT

Hello Edwin,

Thank you for your positive comments on my essay, glad you enjoyed it.

Incidentally, the link I posted above goes to the wrong page, it's here. I'd appreciate it if you'd rate my essay, I've only had one rating so far.

It’s worth pointing out that neither time nor energy are well defined at present, so although one might perhaps interpret SR by making either one or the other change (in the standard view both change), it’s not a ‘deepest level’ interpretation, it’s an intermediate level one. My own approach is to try to find the deepest level before assuming much on the way. SR has many equivalent configurations (it’s a bit like a Rubik’s cube), but there may be only one configuration that goes anywhere.

I think your idea that SR has two time dimensions is about the derivation, rather than what’s in SR. It seems you’re saying that dilated time is derived via a universal time - to me that doesn’t mean the theory has both, it’s just a way to get to the theory.

About energy and time - a point I’ve made is that they go in opposite directions, if you look at the two different kinds of time dilation. (I know you don’t believe in time dilation, I mention it to make a point about the relationship between energy and time.)

In motion time dilation, an object’s energy increases as its time rate slows down - inverse proportion.

In gravity time dilation, an object’s energy decreases as its time rate slows down - direct proportion.

(With gravitational time dilation, although this is about position in the field, it can be about an object moving towards a mass.)

So I think not only are both time and energy unexplained, the relationship between them needs some explaining as well.

Wishing you all the best, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

I very much enjoyed your excellent essay; you say "things from the Mandelbrot set … teach lessons in physics." I would say that you gain insight from the Mandelbrot set and teach yourself. Regardless, your focus on asymmetry is fruitful. I had not thought of the

"near perfect symmetry at higher magnification… [and] asymmetrical at lower magnification."

I agree with you that "entropy can be characterized by spreading and sharing." As I've noted in earlier essays, energy is transmitted through space and time. If that energy crosses a systemic threshold and effects a change in structure of the system, then that 'in-formation' of the system is a record of information. One can show that Bekenstein's holographic entropy formula based on "screens storing information" can be derived exactly in terms of energy only, never mentioning, using, or even conceiving of information.

My point is that if energy is fundamental, and one can define an abstraction, say information or entropy, and derive abstract results, then a clever person can often begin with the abstraction and work back toward the fundamental as if it "emerges from" the abstraction, as Verlinde does. Barbour does something similar with time.

The same applies to 'quantum information', as you so well describe at the top of page 3. I of course do not deny the obvious usefulness of the abstraction of information, but what is fundamental is energy.

Jacobson asks "how did classical general relativity know that horizon area would turn out to be a form of entropy?" As I noted, the horizon formula can be derived strictly as a distribution of energy. Since thermodynamic entropy is derived in terms of energy distributions, and since formulaic similarity between 'thermodynamic entropy' and 'information entropy' leads [as ET Jaynes notes] to "proving nonsense theorems", it should not be surprising that clever persons can run the derivations backwards, from abstract to fundamental. Here fundamental is made to seem to "emerge" from abstraction. That appears to be quite the fashion in physics today. Hence Jacobson and Verlinde.

You, on the other hand, observe:

"...that asymmetry is as fundamental to physics as symmetry takes some getting used to."

Hooray for you. You mentioned SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) is fundamental, but SU(3) is a valid symmetry only for equal masses, yet it is applied in cases where masses differ by two orders of magnitude. As you note,

"there is a tendency in physics to oversimplify."

You "see condensation as a general feature of all theories of emergent and induced gravitation." While I wholly reject "emergent gravitation", I heartily concur with you on the importance of 'condensation'. And I do agree with you that

"Asymmetry is as much a fundamental to physics as symmetry is."

I think this is a major contribution to this particular essay contest.

Gravity is fundamental, not emergent, and the key asymmetry is that expressed in the gravito-magnetic equation

curl C = - mv

where C is the gravito-magnetic field, m is the mass/energy density and v is the velocity. The - represents the fundamental asymmetry that is left-handed circulation. This underlies the asymmetric left-handedness of the universe from galaxies to neutrinos to biology. If Mandelbrot brought you to this insightful understanding, you have used it well.

Congratulations on a superb essay,

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman

You explored nicely about the Fundamental Nature of Time using equations of Einstein with deHaas in SR dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, it’s a large amount of work. …..….. very nice idea….… I highly appreciate your essay and hope you also will go thro my essay and spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin,

Here are some things that I have concluded reading your essay:

1) Your essay says that Time is used to derive energy; since mass has energy, time can be fundamental both in quantum and classical mechanics.

2) There is no proper clock

3) You are the Tavern Keeper.

Your essay was, truly a well-written essay and of course, different from others. I enjoyed many parts of your essay and indeed learn many things.There were some parts which disturbed me. I am going to point them out:

1. "In other words, Einstein, there are no perfect clocks — all are subject to local energy conditions. You entirely ignore this reality; positing 'perfect clocks' and a method to synchronize perfect clocks, and then you imagine the clocks measuring different time dimensions" This particular part, where you (Or HH) assumes that there is no perfect clock to measure the time dilation or for other purposes. I agree with the statement but we cannot say some phenomenon is not perfectly true (in this case time dilation and Lorentz contraction) only because we cannot observe them clearly; for instance, in quantum mechanics we assume several things, from the momentum of particles to their position in space and we assume their uncertainty given by uncertainty principle. Similarly, we also assume that body cannot exceed 'c' speed although we have not seen if a body can exceed. What I mean is that we have some limitations to prove things correctly; hence we use the term 'precisely'. We use mathematics and pattern to derive something and if we go on questioning the result produced by them by matching them with what we cannot predict in real life due to our limitations, then it might occur that many theories could be not perfect as well. It is just what I think, could you reflect your views on this.

Also, I came to know about your description above and I found out that one of your papers from 1979 describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality; meanwhile my essay explain how physical realities are derived from numbers, patterns and mathematics. I think we can have a great discussion on my topic.

Also, a month ago, I came across this article "Changing the arrow of time" which might me of some interest to you.

Anyway, your essay is one of the enjoyable essays with facts and best among other. Your Essay got my best points as well. I wish you all the best for the competition.

Kind Regards

Ajay Pokharel

report post as inappropriate

Ajay Pokhrel replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:09 GMT

Edwin,

Sorry, it was me who posted this. I did not know how I logged out.

Regards

Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Ajay Pokhrel replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:13 GMT

My essay's link is incorrect above:

Is Mathematics fundamental

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 01:47 GMT

Dear Ajay Pokhrel,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. You say that I say "time is used to derive energy." That is not quite what I say. I say that the energy-time conjugate relation is a more appropriate interpretation of the Lorentz transformation than is 'space-time symmetry' of the sort made famous by Einstein.

You also say that there is no 'proper clock'. Instead I say there is no 'perfect clock' of the type postulated by Einstein in his gedanken experiments. I point out that clocks are physical systems that are energy dependent, and this fact is ignored by Einstein.

You, in your use of 'proper' may have keyed off of the use of d(tau) in equation (3) on page (3). I worried that in retaining the symbols used by both Hertz and Einstein the tau would confuse people. Their d(tau) is NOT the 'proper time' that is the usual interpretation today.

You quote that there is no 'perfect clock'. Einstein's idea was that perfect clocks, synchronized at one point, remain in sync and that time itself changes when the clock is in motion. I claim that the motion changes the energy of the system that the clock is 'counting' and this is misinterpreted by Einstein to imply that time "dilates". Instead, time flows unchanged everywhere, but local clocks reflect local conditions and actually measure local energy/frequency, NOT the universal time dimension.

As for the speed of light, it is based not on the 'moving body' that Einstein attaches it to, but on the local medium or 'ether' that Einstein claims does not exist. [He later claimed it does.] Hence the relative speed of light seen by the body moving with speed v with respect to the medium is v + c, not c. The speed of light itself does not change locally.

The above is all precise. It implies that Einstein's "attachment" of light to moving entities is unrealistic and leads to logical problems. The light is "attached" to the local medium or ether, not the particular bodies moving through the ether.

I hope this removes your expressed concerns.

Finally, you note my work in describing how numbers derive from physical systems (counters) while you believe physical reality derives from numbers. That is the great divide in today's physics, and I do not observe anyone "switching sides", in this case.

Thank you for critical reading of my essay. I will read yours and comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Edwin,

Here we are again with essays in another contest. I appreciate very much the stimulating comments you wrote about my essay. Given your comments, I can see that I need to clarify and extend my thinking, and perhaps to modify it, on several matters. Although I do not suppose that believing something (for example, that free will is an illusion, or that it is not) makes the belief true for the person who believes, the relations among truth, belief, and illusion can get complicated when the belief is about the person who believes or about the believing process itself. Then too, I need to think more about the way in which the human predicament, or at least the predicament of an individual human being, is shaped by the thoughts of that individual, including self-referential thoughts about the individual’s personal condition and about the human condition in general. And finally, you raise the important issue of degrees of consciousness. You refer specifically to Zen and similar disciplines. The point of Zen might be that the problems of being conscious are not inherent in consciousness as such and therefore do not beset all forms of consciousness. From a perspective like that of Zen, one might say that there is a form of consciousness without any awareness of an individualized subject of consciousness. It would be awareness without awareness of itself, without awareness of any subject having or doing the awareness. I am inclined to believe that this kind of consciousness does exist and that some people sometimes by effort or by accident do attain it. Nonetheless, most people most of the time exist for better or for worse with ordinary human consciousness.

But here I want to comment on your essay. I do not fully understand why you attribute to Einstein a belief in multiple time dimensions. I had thought that in the standard view of physicists there is only one time dimension, although there are three dimensions of space. (We leave aside string-theory speculations about additional spatial dimensions.) Again, according to what I have read, space and time are two different things, although it is not clear, at least not clear to me, what the difference is, and it is not clear whether the full difference between the two is described or explained in the equations of physics.

I had thought that the matter of varying measurements involving time and space, including varying opinions about whether two events are or are not simultaneous, amounted to something like this: There is only one time for the entire universe. This universal time is defined by the reference frame in which the universe is expanding uniformly. Two events are really simultaneous if and only if they are simultaneous when observed in this reference frame. This preserves universal simultaneity as fundamental to the nature of time, which is the principle you assert on page 9 at the conclusion of your essay. The relativity of measurements, including differing measurements of simultaneity, comes into the picture because all measurements are local processes within the universe. No observation process or measurement process occurs from the vantage point of the universe. Hence, all observations are modified by local conditions. One might even say that the modifications are distortions. The modifications apply to all physical processes. The modifications apply to all human observations, insofar as those observations are or rely upon physical processes. My understanding of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity is that they provide, among other things, ways of correlating one distorted local measurement with other distorted local measurements. Using Einstein’s procedures one could also correlate local measurements to the the universal perspective, the perspective of universal time, if one cared to do that. However, rarely if ever is there a practical need for that. This at any rate was how I had understood matters. I do not see how to change this view in the light of the considerations you bring forward.

I am not sure whether the distinction between mathematical structures and physical reality is relevant to these issues. In any case, I certainly agree with the statement that you quote from Tim Maudlin at the bottom of page 2. We should not confuse a mathematical structure with physical reality, or even with physical possibility, regardless of how detailed the mathematical structure might be.

Perhaps you have already answered my questions in the essay or in responses to other comments. However that may be, thank you for a very thought-provoking essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 23:04 GMT

Dear Laurence,

Thanks for your comment. I'm very pleased that my comment on your page stimulated your thinking. Your first paragraph above captures what I had in mind.

You are the second commenter to question Einstein's two time dimensions. My response to Jonathan Kerr above partly addresses this. The definition of inertial frame is expressed in terms of "a" universal time frame, not "the" universal time frame, and the fact that t' is not equal to t indicates to me that his times differ from universal. You say the standard view of physicists is there is only one time dimension. My experience this last year in discussions with competent physicists is that there is much confusion. In particular (see my endnotes) my attempt to analyze the railway station and a railway flat car in one inertial frame (surely the railway car can be analyzed in the frame of the station!) is met by insistence on introduction of the second 4D coordinate, with t' =/= t, AND by insistence that the light passing over the flatcar in the station's frame is different from the speed of light passing over the flat car from the car's frame. In essence, my physicist friends defending SR re-define my one-frame problem (which is solvable) as two "real worlds", each with its own space-time and associated speed of light with reference to each "rest frame". This often amounts to a refusal to analyze the problem in one inertial frame.

The analysis and derivation of the Lorentz transformation in one inertial frame is found here: An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame.

I've written but not yet published analysis of Einstein's faulty "simultaneity detector" and have designed an experiment to detect the speed of a railway car from within the car with no reference to outside information, impossible according to SRT. I believe this has utility and plan to file for a utility patent so I've not yet published this approach.

In short, Einstein's formulation of relativity in terms of inertial frames, each of which has its own space-time and associated speed of light [see Rindler's comment] leads to 'paradox' and non-intuitive non-sense, which do not accompany an energy-time interpretation in one inertial frame. I know for a fact that the better the physicist, the harder it appears to be to re-conceptualize this problem. My opinion, expressed in last year's FQXi essay, is that we can have 'paths' in our brain that "hold" incompatible beliefs/logic, but the paths are separated and we go down only one path at a time. This is tolerated by saying that "nature is non-intuitive" or "our brains did not evolve to understand [fill in the blank]." I do not believe this. I think it traces to faulty assumptions.

I am grateful to FQXi for providing this forum in which I see many of the participants' ideas improving year after year. I suspect much of the improvement comes from our ability to discuss these issues in comments.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 23:31 GMT

Lawrence,

Further to your above comment. When you discuss the expanding cosmos as the basis of simultaneity, you're bringing a later conception into the 1905 picture. As indicated in my essay, Einstein contradicted himself at various times in his long productive career. Nevertheless, he never went back and re-stated special relativity in terms of his later belief in 'gravity as ether'. The 1905 paper is based on 'no ether' and that is the reason for 'attaching' the speed of light to the moving objects (see his quote on 'railway car and rails' and Rindler's "not for us to ask why!". So I would tend to agree with you that a more sophisticated approach today might indeed consider a universal time, but when you bring 'reference frames' into the picture you automatically bring 'attached' speed of light and that jimmies the whole works. I think SRT has to be re-conceptualized from space-time to energy-time in order to restore a logical perspective. Yes, of course the math "works" in SR, but the energy-derived Lorentz works without the 'space-time symmetry' nonsense [which is NOT supported by GPS.]

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin:

I very much appreciate your critique of Einstein's work and the confusion some of inconsistencies have caused. I was especially intrigued with the realization that if velocity is taken into the time derivative Maxwell's equations could be made invariant under Galilean transforms. This is an important paper.

However the conclusion seems to suggest that there is only one universal time and transforming t into t’ does not make sense. I’ve always been in favor of Lorenz’s interpretation of the Michelson-Morely experiment but appreciated Einstein’s multiple independent space time attached to different coordinate frames. My difficult with Einstein is that he did not go far enough in defining the role of the observer. He talks about observer riding along with coordinate frames when each observer is a coordinate frame. If the railcar analysis is carried through to what an observer actually experiences by tracing the signals from coordinated frame detectors back to the display inside the frame on which the measurement results are displayed then it would be clear that each of us observers experience our own space and time.

Giving up a single fundamental space time background is necessary if we are to properly include the observer in physics theories as my paper suggests.

Since you include R. Cahill in your references and experiments to determine the velocity within a moving inertial frame you must be familiar with his claim to have developed such a measurement using correlations with random number generators. We worked hard with Cahill to try to verify these measurements but have been unsuccessful.

report post as inappropriate

Sorry forgot to add my name to the post

And congratulations on a very good paper.

Wolfgang Baer

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 00:48 GMT

Dear Wolfgang Baer,

Thank you for your gracious comments. Your essay looks very interesting; I will read it and then comment. Here I will respond to your remark about Cahill. I am aware of his many claims about experiments, and I have not studied these (I have a friend who is looking at Cahill in more depth) so I'm very interested in your attempts to verify his measurements which you say were unsuccessful.

Cahill's attempt to map between Galilean and Lorentz covariant formulations are based on his declared definition of non-physical time and space coordinates. He claims

"If this [non-physical] formula were to be taken to be fundamental, it would be an allegory for twentieth century physics."

Thus Cahill appears to say/imply that Einstein's 'moving' space-time form is non-physical. In fact he states:

"The Lorentz covariance of the Maxwell equations only occurs because of the use of non-physical space and time coordinates."

Cahill makes many other statements, but his dependence on non-physical space and time coordinates is his Achilles' heel in my estimation. As I note, the Lorentz transform can be derived in one inertial frame [i.e., without non-physical space and time] by focus on energy, with the advantage that relativistic particle physics is preserved and Einstein's gedanken experiments are dismissed, as is space-time symmetry. Cahill's view is conflicted in my opinion, and the conflicts are tied to his conception of gravity as a quantum effect. Since I have not studied his experiments, I very much appreciate your comment about their lack of reproducibility.

From your comment, you might find An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame worth reading.

I look forward to your essay.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 04:03 GMT

Dear Wolfgang, having now read your paper:

Since you injected the Magic Theater into FQXi, I'll use it as an occasion to answer a little more metaphorically than usual. Harry Haller was warned against "putting too high a value on time. … It is the 'eternity at the back of time' that is the kingdom of truth. The magic theater; the world of pictures, not realities."

It's possible that the "fundamental shift in our world view" due to quantum mechanics is a world of pictures, not realities.

Like Harry, "all the hundred thousand pieces of life's game are in my pocket." Physicists, like Harry, can "meditatively with an artistic skill, make up a new game of the same pieces with quite other groupings." "In this fashion the clever architect built up one game after another out of the figures…" I believe this can be so only if a primordial field exists, all physical reality a continuum of energy/mass where self-interacting physical reality can take all of the stable forms we know, as well as support energy transformations from place to place and time to time. Never does this self interacting underlying nature change, but the pictures and events "attain an endless multiplicity of moves in the game of life."

If this is so, the field is gravity, and the emergent statistical tool of quantum mechanics draws pictures to describe highly contrived events or experiments. It pretends to describe non-contrived events, such as the cat, but this too shall pass.

Quantum pictures can "emerge" from the correct understanding of gravito-electro-magnetism, but the whole cannot "emerge" from quantum pictures. As you note of a "typical quantum experiment examining a Bell inequality… A mental jump is made. He imagines photons radiating into his equipment… However he has never seen a photon, or for that matter light itself."

Sometimes one has to step back and look at it.

Congratulations on a wonderful essay and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin;

You had a very good insight when you pointed out that “Physicists can project mathematical structure onto reality and can come to believe that the corresponding physical structure is reality”.

I like they way you presented your discussion (a “trialog” between the three geniuses that originated modern physics), but, knowing the epistemological and ontological problems that plague the traditional fundamental concepts in physics, I felt like reading a treaties on the “Sexes of Angels”.

Note:

There is a solution to the Heaviside-Hertz electro- and gravito-magnetic theory without having to include mass in the photon. In the same way as there is no electric charge in the photon, and it has associated an electric field, there is a gravitational field associated to the photon without it having mass (see “EMG Theory of the Photon, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/EMG%20III.pd
f).

I wish you had time to read in my essay my concept of space, space-time and time.

Yours;

Diogenes

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 04:47 GMT

Dear Diogenes,

Your essay begins by acknowledging the need for a conceptual basis and the basic or 'substantial' stuff from which stems everything that exists. The conceptual basis is 'mental structure' for imaging and image correlation entailing information-based limitations of finite channels and noise. From these derive our concepts of space, time, mass, and distance, all sensor based. The ontological basis of such is inherently unknown, but sensed correlations allow us to build up mental structures which we project onto reality. Since pre-existing space devoid of content seems unlikely to exist, the essential stuff entails space which leads to space and time, wherein events occur. You conclude that space cannot be continuous. My own concept is that the 'essential stuff' or field is a continuum. You note that the concept of time currently used in science is subjective. Having read my essay you know that I identify time as universal simultaneity.

You discuss mass in terms of inertia, then define the most basic form of matter as 'energy', with self-consistent dynamic structure. This seems compatible with an energy-time conjugation interpretation that is basic to the measurement of time.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in this contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

While I don't like beer, and my computer has minor problems to correctly reproduce all formulas, I would like to recomment your paper "An energy-based derivation of Lorentz tramsformation in one inertial frame" to all teachers of physics worldwide:

"We only need the Lorentz tramsformation when energy is taken into account, such as is required for particle physics."

May I suggest you commenting on Michelson's late (1923?) experiments too?

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

an interesting essay, but a dangerous technique. While it is quite natural to think in terms of such discussions - theoretical physics is, last but not least, argumentation, and requires that counter-arguments are answered - the discussions we imagine in our mind certainly differ from real discussions a lot. First of all, in a positive way, because nobody falls...

view entire post

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

an interesting essay, but a dangerous technique. While it is quite natural to think in terms of such discussions - theoretical physics is, last but not least, argumentation, and requires that counter-arguments are answered - the discussions we imagine in our mind certainly differ from real discussions a lot. First of all, in a positive way, because nobody falls back to ad hominem and nobody proposes completely stupid counterarguments. But, on the other hand, finally, the opponents in our imagined discussions give up and admit we have the better argument (if not, we change our own position, instead of writing it into a paper). This happens also if our own arguments have weak points we have not recognized. In real discussions, even among scientists today, you will seldom find such agreement.

This makes such dialogues always very unrealistic. A point which holds also for classical examples like Socrates.

The problem becomes much more serious if we use, as our opponents in the imagined discussion, not no-names we have invented ourselves, but real scientists. This essentially changes how one reads the dialogue. Even if it is only a ghost of Einstein who participates, every place where Einstein admits you are right is dangerous. Even if you would be really right, not everybody will agree with this, And those who will not agree will make conclusions which are very unfavorable for you, like "oh, this is one of the many ether cranks who claim to have found logical errors in Einstein's theory". And you receive immediately 10 points for point 18 of the Baez' crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html So, the story you use is an extremely dangerous technique, far too open to attack, and extremely difficult to defend.

And it is indeed not that difficult to find things attributed to Einstein which may be reasonably questioned:

AE: My dear Prof. Hertz, I never realized that your equations of electrodynamics are Galilean invariant.

Of course, if EM is an ether theory, it does not have any problem with Galilean invariance, the preferred frame of the Maxwell equations is simply the rest frame of the ether, and one can, of course, rewrite them for a frame moving against the ether too. I think (or I would guess, without having studied this) this was the standard position of pre-relativistic scientists about Galilean invariance for the Maxwell equations of a luminiferous ether. Today it is the standard view about sound wave equations in condensed matter theory too. To assume that Einstein was somehow unaware of this is at least questionable.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 21:14 GMT

Well… one can't please everyone.

As you focus on sound wave equations in condensed matter (which I treat briefly in my endnotes) and upon the global versus local aspects of Lorentz, I was hoping for more technical feedback from you.

This is an essay contest that does not target children so I assume that readers can cope with the fact that this vehicle tends to favor my own arguments. I found it a way to get a large amount of information into nine pages. I also link to a recent derivation of the Lorentz transformation in one inertial frame that is novel as all special relativity derivations require two inertial frames.

Since your essay is largely based on Lorentz symmetry, I can only assume that my approach calls yours into question. Actual arguments would've been better than hurling crackpot and voting a 1, but it takes all kinds.

Finally, you seem to say that when people read 'Einstein' in my essay, they are unduly influenced. If this is true it implies that people been unduly influenced by 'Einstein' for 100 years.

I think you underestimate the readership of FQXi. .

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ilja Schmelzer replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 20:25 GMT

I do not think your approach calls my approach into question.

In my own thread I have written the following:

"Regarding the idea of considering relativity in one frame only, this seems to correspond to Bell's "how to teach special relativity" paper, where the main point is also that one gets much better intuitions about his thread between rockets example if one analyses it in a single frame, instead of switching all the time between different frames and confusing oneself in this way."

"My intro to relativity http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/LorentzEtherIntro.pdf may be interesting in this context too. I use there the Lorentz transformation, with the speed of sound instead of c, in a single frame to construct a Doppler-shifted solution of the same sound wave equation."

So, you see in the question of using only one frame I agree with you. (On the other hand, I see no point in deriving transformations - if you guess a transformation, it is as good.)

In general, I'm not somebody who likes to praise other people in a scientific discussion. If I start to praise, this should be something exceptional. I write if I see something to criticize. Once, in this case, my criticism is about a quite secondary question, it means I have not seen something more serious to object.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT

Dear Ilja Schmelzer,

As I noted in my endnotes, the condensed matter approach [Volovik, etc.] treats the speed of light analogous to the speed of sound, and thus 'ether'-dependent. For various reasons I chose not to introduce variable speed of light into my essay, despite that Joao Magueijo and others view this topic as important.

I'm glad you do not think my approach calls yours into question. I could not tell and surmised that from your crackpot comment.

I'm also glad you agree about using one frame. You may see no point in deriving transformations, but some I have discussed/argued with in the last year insist that the very existence of the Lorentz transformation (always derived in special relativity in terms of two time dimensions) implies two inertial reference frames. They denied it could be obtained from one until I showed them by deriving it.

Regardless, I complimented your essay very highly and gave you a 10 to give you visibility in the contest. It seems to be working well for you. Your discussion is very high level both mathematically and physically, and I hope that the material you reference goes into more low level detail.

As for your last paragraph, I can understand your point. It is a personal preference. I was raised to view legitimate praise as a lubricant that smooths conversations. Your last two sentences are enough praise for me.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Copied from a jrc thread above:

You say "SR is mathematically complete geometrically, just not physically." Yes. This is why Leonard Susskind, head of physics Department at Stanford, says in his new text, "Special relativity and classical field theory", the following:

"Special relativity, until you get used to it, is counter-intuitive – perhaps not as counter-intuitive as quantum mechanics, but nevertheless full of paradoxical phenomena. My advice is that when confronted with one of these paradoxes, you should draw a space-time diagram. Don't ask your physicist friend, don't email me – draw space-time diagram."

In other words, attack it geometrically, not physically. Physically it doesn't make sense.

As for your points 2.) through 5.), I think we're in general agreement. Many of my previous essays have addressed these issues. It is the self-interaction that makes gravity boss when densities are of the right order. GR completely fails to handle the self-energy of the gravitational field. And the spherical geometry is designed for gravito-electric (radial) not gravito-magnetic (vortex). These issues affect both the teaching and practice of SR and GR.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 15:50 GMT

Thanks Ed,

I have found much agreement with you on a number of matters, and try to refrain from arguments about time. It is too personal a passion for everyone though few admit it. Ultimately none escape it though many wish to believe they will. :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Comparing last year’s essay to this wonders if it is the same author. I pray we live long enough to make more contribution. The old saying goes there is more than one way to skin a cat. You’ve skinned this well. I come from an accelerator lab. I won’t overplay my hand and pretend to be a machine physicist, but I do have basic grasp of relativistic synchrotron operation. I am a bit confounded by the statement “all light propagates in local gravity”. I don’t know how to relate this to what I understand about SR. I am weak in GR. The electrodynamics of moving bodies refers also to charged particles. In particular electrons, protons, and ions up to gold in various charge states. In a billion dollar government machine (ring) these particles reach relativistic velocities easily and routinely. For v

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:00 GMT

Dear Victor,

I enjoyed your first sentence and fully endorse your second above. Your third and fourth are very gracious. I'm not sure what exactly confounds you about "all light propagates in local gravity", so I'll try to restate it.

The statement "all light propagates in local gravity" is factually correct. Light deflects and diffracts, as seen during eclipses, in the local gravity of the sun. Light participating in the Michelson-Morley experiment propagated in local gravitational field of the earth, the dominant local source, so the static experiment, located in the MM-laboratory, was in the true local rest frame with v = 0 origin and c = speed of light. Any moving object in this 'rest'-frame will effectively see c + v . If we identify the local gravity field as the 'ether', the medium of propagation for light, then we predict the null result of the MM-experiment. And when applied to Einstein's railway gedanken experiments, the station becomes the rest frame, and the rail-cars are moving in the rest frame. All light moving in the local gravity propagates with speed c, independently of the speed of earth thru space, etc.. The axiom that the speed of light is relative to each moving rail-car is incorrect. Steven Andresen, in the following comment, says the same thing:

"Yes, gravity as Ether. Gravitational fields act as preferred reference frame. And to be preferred reference frame is a battle won by the larger dominant local mass. A car submits to the Earths preferred frame. The Earth submits to the suns preferred frame. Unless you are very very close to the car, or close to the Earth. Nearby Photons submit to the Earths Gravitation field as a preferred reference frame, they can be thought of in terms as being trained by Earths gravity, giving mmx results."

Your response on your page contained, "I have not yet found time to digest your essay." I'm glad you persevered. As for charged particles, the mass and charge differ from light, but the Lorentz transform applies to the relativistic (kinetic) energy in Euclidean space. After getting the particles to the collision point, the physics of interest occurs in only one time dimension, the time of collision.

You also say:

"My challenge to you is to write a description of space – gravitation without the bloody Einstein field equations. Help me out. Where is the simple calculation for the correction factor to keep the clock on a geostationary satellite synchronized with my watch?"

I can write a description of space without the bloody Einstein field equations, although it can be shown to be essentially equivalent to those equations. And I wanted to treat the GPS timing, but "9 pages!" Tom Phipp's explanation of GPS clarified things for me [my reference 9]. He made one major mistake concerning the Hertzian equations, based on his understanding of QM, but I have corrected that in my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin

Great essay once again. Count on a top ranking from me.

Yes, gravity as Ether. Gravitational fields act as preferred reference frame. And to be preferred reference frame is a battle won by the larger dominant local mass. A car submits to the Earths preferred frame. The Earth submits to the suns preferred frame. Unless you are very very close to the car, or close to the...

view entire post

post approved

when your app not working properly or not responding then update your app from your app store or you can also re-install the app on your device then its work. if you have known more about it then contact chrome support

chrome support

post approved

Edwin

I could assume computer glitch, or that you have deleted my post?

If you have deleted it, I would have preferred that you tell me why my reasoning's are so poor to have deserved? Is it really such a leap, you speak of time in terms of its relation to a systems energy. To what energy could you possibly refer to other than matters energy? matters energy relates to mass?

If you're relating times effect to matters energy, then surely that includes the dilation effects? Wouldn't that be the point?

It is force/energy that drives a clocks mechanism. If clock functions dilate in relative gravitational environments, then its force/energy must be considered to have dilated. This can be defined and measured, clock springs being exampled. What is so unreasonable with the statement, clocks measure force/energy, when forces clearly drive clocks? a simple enough question please

Steven

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 06:43 GMT

Hi Steven,

I don't know what happened to your post, but I had saved it, so I can reproduce it below. I've been too busy today to respond to you and Victor. I will soon.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steven Andresen wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 06:50 GMT

Hi Edwin

Great essay once again. Count on a top ranking from me.

Yes, gravity as Ether. Gravitational fields act as preferred reference frame. And to be preferred reference frame is a battle won by the larger dominant local mass. A car submits to the Earths preferred frame. The Earth submits to the suns preferred frame. Unless you are very very close to the car, or close to the Earth. Nearby Photons submit to the Earths Gravitation field as a preferred reference frame, they can be thought of in terms as being trained by Earths gravity, giving mmx results.

You question times operation as a fourth dimension and provide an alternative viewpoint in its stead. That at its fundamentals, relativity is a consideration of kinetic energy. Clock cycle counts, and variations of their cycle count can be interpreted as varied expressions of energy. And I believe you are correct.

Clocks after all are driven by mechanical force, not time. What is the nature of the justification for, “mechanical force drives clocks, but clocks measure time? No! Clocks are driven by force, therefore clocks measure force. And the clocks forces acting in relative environments of space and motion can be defined in terms of variable energy or force.

If two identical wind up clocks are wound up equally, then one placed near a large mass and one afar the large mass. Dilation effects having done their thing, then bring the clocks together for comparative. We note the hands are advanced on the space born clock, but then we peel off the clock faces for comparative of the springs. Like the clock hands, the spring from space displays an advanced position, and because a springs position can be defined in terms of how much energy or force it has expressed, (force over distance) the comparative of the two clocks can accurately be described as being “force Dilated”. Clocks dont measure time dilation, they measure a definable quantity that is “force dilation”.

When you associate relativities effects with a variable kinetic energy value, then it must be that your referring to a variable value of atomic energy/force. Atomic energy/force corresponding to mass, let us presume a variable Baryon mass.

Scaling atomic kinetic energy, scaling mass dependant on gravity’s distance square law. It can be said that Baryon mass scales dependent on square law proximity to matter. “proximity to matter Edwin!”. That includes proximity of stars to each other within spiral galaxies.

If you scale atomic force/mass dependent on square of average distance between stars in spiral galaxies, it readjusts the mass distribution within galaxies. Placing it as a precise antidote to deviation from General Relativities prediction. Because, the average distance between stars increases by square of distance from a galaxies centre. This proscribes an increase in baryon mass proportionate to square of distance from galaxy centre. As an ideal geometric solution.

Energy is indeed as you say, a primary consideration of relativity. Not time. This translates to consideration of Atomic energy/mass. Your hypothesis predicts anomalous galaxy rotations.

MOND attempts to adjust gravities square law, and although it comes tantalizingly close, it doesn’t quite achieve it. This is because atomic force/mass is the variable instead of gravities square law.

My essay isn’t up yet, so hopefully it will be qualified soon. It details these considerations in greater detail. I’d love for you to take a look if you will please?

Steve

Steven Andresen replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 08:06 GMT

Its a welcome message that you didn't delete it :) thank you. By all means take your time.

I think my first paragraph fairly represents the circumstance of, "gravitational fields acting as ether, serve as preferred reference frame.

I think this is a fair assessment. Dilation is an effect experienced by clocks in relative gravitational environments. Dilation effects extend to the...

view entire post

Its a welcome message that you didn't delete it :) thank you. By all means take your time.

I think my first paragraph fairly represents the circumstance of, "gravitational fields acting as ether, serve as preferred reference frame.

I think this is a fair assessment. Dilation is an effect experienced by clocks in relative gravitational environments. Dilation effects extend to the clock springs, which can be defined in terms of force expression, or potential for force expression. or you could substitute term of force, for term of energy. A comparative of two clock springs in terms of their energy potential and expression, from different gravitational environments, can fairly be termed "force dilation". A definable measure, I do think?

Does this observation extend to fundamental considerations of atomic energy dilation and therefore to consideration of mass dilation? I haven't presented this argument to you yet, but I have one. I read your essay and it seamed to me you were referring to matters energy in relation to times process, which dilates dependent on square law. unless you were relating to some other limited context?

Then I point out that if you assume atomic force/mass dilates dependent on gravity's square law proximity to matter. Then that implicates proximity of stars to one another in galaxies. The test would be, is there a correlation between star densities and galaxy rotation velocities which deviate from GR predictions? If you pursue this question, you will discover there is. It fits

I got excited when you related times operation with energy, and as a substitute to GR prescribed fourth dimension. And you seek to remedy the situation of many real worlds, which are an inescapable consequence when "my clock runs slower than your clock, while your clock runs slower than my clock. If force/energy drives the rate of causality instead of times forth dimension, and it is force/energy that dilates rather than time, then no such paradox arises.

Steve

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:05 GMT

Hi Steve,

I'm awfully glad I saved your comment. [I also had it up in another window that had not refreshed.]

I essentially agree with almost every word in your lengthy comment and very much look forward to reading your essay.

Good luck in the contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman.

show all replies (7 not shown)

Edwin, I like the idea that there is a tavern where physicists get free beer in exchange for answering the keeper's questions about physics. Even better is that in this tavern people can blurt out complex equations in casual conversation.

However, I am not so sure that Einstein would have conceded the points against him so easily. I suspect that the Tavern Keeper is actually Henri Poincare...

view entire post

Edwin, I like the idea that there is a tavern where physicists get free beer in exchange for answering the keeper's questions about physics. Even better is that in this tavern people can blurt out complex equations in casual conversation.

However, I am not so sure that Einstein would have conceded the points against him so easily. I suspect that the Tavern Keeper is actually Henri Poincare in disguise. Poincare understood the principles of relativity very well. In fact it was probably his use of the term that inspired Einstein. Yet Poincare preferred a conventionalist approach to space and time. He thought that even if it is not possible to determine absolute time by observation it is still simpler to define one by some arbitrary convention. Both he and Einstein lived at a time when the setting of such conventions was an important need for practical reasons. Poincare also said that if space is non-euclidean it would still make sense to define a Euclidean reference from to work in and translate everything in terms of Euclidean distances in that frame, because it would be simpler.

Yes, you can make the Maxwell equations Galilean invariant. Einstein would have pointed out that according to general relativity the equations are invariant under all coordinate transformation provided you transform the spacetime metric as if it is a field. All theories can be made invariant under any transformation law provided you introduce other fields that transform to compensate, but unless those fields are themselves dynamic they define a fixed background.

Physicists have adopted Einstein's view that it is better to think in terms of relative time and non-Euclidean spacetime, even if you have to fall back on some conventional framework to perform experiments. Since the spacetime metric is the gravitational field which is itself dynamic this turns out to be simpler and more instructive, but simplicity is subjective so is it just a philosophical preference? I think it is up to the point where spacetime breaks down, e.g. at the big bang or a singularity inside a black hole. If the topology of spacetime is not that of the euclidean plane then Poincare's conventionalist point of view fails. He would have understood that but he lived at a time when such ideas were too wild to contemplate.

Thank you anyway for such an entertaining and thought provoking essay. As well as this contribution to the contest you should be commended for your insightful and positive comments on other essays.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT

Dear Philip Gibbs,

I'm glad I designed a Tavern you would be happy to frequent. You certainly designed a forum that I am happy to frequent. But I wish those who say Einstein would not have agreed so readily would point out which specific point he would've argued. Of course I could have argued for Einstein, but 9 pages! Since I'm arguing against him, to argue for him would waste space I cannot afford. And those who have most interest in this essay can argue for him themselves.

The problem I address in the EndNotes is that Einstein's view changed radically over his career, so I try to focus on 1905, although the Tavern keeper pulls things from 'whenever' he needs to. You mention Poincare and Einstein living in a time when setting conventions was important for practical reasons, but over a century later we still teach relativity pretty much as presented by Einstein, so I don't think those reasons still hold.

I'm glad you know that Maxwell's equations can be made Galilean invariant. Most physicists seem not to know that Maxwell's equations can be made Galilean invariant. I did not, and I've seen the arguments used as justification for Lorentz. Again you quote his GR which was a decade away in 1905. The gravito magnetic field is indeed dynamic so it doesn't form a fixed background.

You discuss "up to the point where space-time breaks down". I am not convinced that current ideas of 'space-time' are valid, but that seemed outside an essay focused on 1905.

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I read your essay early, and will re-read and comment on your page.

Best regards, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT

Thank you for the answer. I accept your point about not being able to represent Einstein given the space limitation. I also agree that Poincare's conventionalism has long-since been surpassed by Einstein's relativity. In fact a lot of people fail to understand the difference in Poincare's philosophical view and therefore claim he discovered relativity before Einstein. He was almost there but not quite. It is easy for us to see the right idea now but at that time conventionalism must have seemed like a reasonable alternative to some.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

post approved

Hi Edwin. Sure I'd like a drink. Over there? ... OK, but this better not be a zombie tavern.

Hertz's ideas really sound like the river model of gravity, which is where I ended up in my essay, with the vacuum behaving like a compressible fluid. I have no idea to what extent Hertz's ideas might need to be absorbed into gravitational theory.

I think your expectation of simultaneous time corresponds to time in quantum mechanics, which is classical. Perhaps it is curious that space and time are common to classical and quantum theory, but this allows the underlying quantum ether to be distinguished from what we call the real world. Anyway, I agree because I concluded that the ether operates in classical time, and that relativistic matter is energy transformed out of the ether, so that relativity is a secondary characteristic of the ether.

Cheers,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 00:57 GMT

Dear Colin Walker,

Having re-read your essay I find it chock full of interesting things. I briefly looked at "the river model of black holes", and it seems somewhat a generalization of Hertz's idea in that it adds bivectors for rotation, whereas Hertz assumed only a velocity vector representing flow through the local ether. I find it interesting that the escape velocity (of the 'river') flattens space, although I've not had time to study Gullstrand and Painleve's work. Hamilton and Lisle mention "the picture of space falling like a river into a black hole may seem discomfortingly concrete." It seems to bear resemblance to Cahill's dynamical 3-space, and to an FQXi essay about three years ago. I grant that the math seems to work, but I have trouble visualizing the physical reality of the process, especially for many body problems. Perhaps I'm too comfortable with Faraday type 'field lines of force'. The extension of Hertz's ideas to gravity are represented in my equations (5). This is a flat space model that, when iterated, yields the full Einstein field equations.

Thanks again for an interesting paper and for your remarks on my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Colin Walker replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 00:50 GMT

Hi Edwin. The name 'river model' is rather fanciful. I also have great difficulty visualizing space moving into matter - it flows in but not out? A better explanation might be that it is some sort of wave motion that propagates through space. I am thinking of something like the moving pattern on a cuttlefish that sweeps over it in waves. The surface of the cuttlefish is not moving, but the pattern gives an illusion of motion. For waves of force, instead of lines of force, there would have to be some coupling between matter and waves, but also between waves to promote coherence.

My visualization of standing waves comes from experiencing them too close for comfort. I was fishing in a canoe with a friend at the northeast corner of the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver. The tide was strong, a line got caught in the electric motor, and we were swept through rapids to the east side of the bridge. Having survived the rapids, we were being carried toward a field of standing waves being reflected off the shoreline looking like rows of jaws. I was surprised and terrified by the sight, and have wondered ever since whether the waves might act as trap. It is a long way to gravity from there, but the physical analogy of waves seems better than a river.

Thanks for pointing out your previous essay, and Cahill's work. Interesting how experiments (and theory) such as MM can benefit from reanalysis. Cheers, Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 01:35 GMT

Colin,

The essay I mentioned was not mine. It was written by a medical doctor who, I believe, only participated in one contest. I can't recall his name, or the title of his essay, but I do recall that his was "a river model" and that it focused on escape velocity. If I recall any more, I'll let you know. Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. The fourth dimension of time is something we never understood very well. I have different opinion about time. I showed in my essay. Time is quite different when you see in GR, thermodynamics, and in quantum Mechanics. I would like to know what do you about time; an absolute entity?

I wish you luck.

Best,

Priyanka

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 01:02 GMT

Dear Priyanka Giri,

Thank you for commenting on my essay. I've now read your essay. You conclude that "our mind is bound by what it accepts as correct." In your essay you discuss "mind concludes things classically but works quantum mechanically." That may or may not be correct. You refer to 'no object traveling at the speed of light', and then ask about entanglement. You state that space-time has been the most basic element in our universe. That may or may not be correct. Similarly, the discussion of the direction of time, and the measurement of time. Also that quanta of the inflaton field are as large as the observable universe; and the information paradox of black holes. Even the decoherence of quantum superposition, singularities, infinite gravity, Schrödinger's cat and EPR paradox.

So as you say, we cannot explain all the phenomenon was certainty. My belief is that many of these problems arise from false assumptions. My essay attacked one key false assumption, the idea that the speed of light can be attached to every moving object.

I think you've established your point well in your essay, and I wish you luck in your career and in this contest.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi dear Eugene!

It's Nice to meet you again and to hearing you.

You are one honest critic of physical science and same time one pen master (as much I can judge with my poor English!) Any science quickly will fall into different kind of speculations without of objective criticism. Meantime it already has happen with our main science and ours criticism hardly can change here anything. Why and who does it resolutely, - we can only made different suppositions, that will stay for us only, as the global apathy to natural science in the public now dominate in generally.

Your work is very attractive by style and narration and it deserves on high score without discussion!

And, you have concretely asking my opinion on your interpretation of SR. So, what can I say on this matter, or suggest you something useful than I believe it is right? (Even if you will see it will useless for you!)

So, in my opinion, on this question no need to refer to any serious mathematics, to be prove something, as per as here we have deal first of all with the cognitive misunderstandings.

If we will clearly understanding what goes on from the causal aspects, then we can use only some elementary algebra only. Maybe you can find something useful with this plan (after finish of this battle of course!)

from here

Good wishes!

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 01:06 GMT

Dear George,

Thank you for your kind comment. I am not sure that criticism here can change nothing. Your essay is very well written and succinctly describes the problem. Many other essays do likewise. These essays are read by hundreds of people, which may not sound like much, but they are people who are competent to varying degrees and who tend to have open minds.

I've observed over a number of FQXi contests that many authors who attack specific aspects of physics noticeably improve their arguments as time goes by. Part of this is probably due to having another year to hone their ideas, but I'm sure part of it derives from feedback on their essays.

There seem to be a number of authors who feel that the current state of physics is a problem, and the problem may be getting worse. It seems that this situation cannot go on indefinitely, and things may loosen up and allow a new idea or two to enter the field. We can hope!

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Your essay format of a posthumous discussion between geniuses is delightful. I used such a format in describing time as a quintessential, existential precondition on page 5 of the Reference to my essay.

I question whether or not the theories propounded by the ‘geniuses’ are mind-dependent and, if so, cannot be verified objectively.

While I am not qualified to comment on the merits of your mathematics, your rationale is clear and persuasive. Technical expressions do tend to broaden the definition of the evaluation criterion that essays should be ‘non-specialist’, but I can live with that.

I have no difficulty in prefacing The Nature of Time with the term ‘Fundamental’, but this raises the question as to whether any fundamental concept necessarily stands in precedence to Time.

It is reasonable to assume that Time and Existence are coincidentally dependent insofar as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You have elected one and I the other.

Good luck. I shall look for your name amongst the high rankers.

Gary.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 01:10 GMT

Dear Gary Valentine Hansen,

Thanks for your kind remarks and thanks for reading. I do think we are in more agreement than your comment implies. You conclude that space can hardly qualify as the most fundamental. Then you question energy. You suggest either relativity or quantum theory will have to give in order to achieve a resolution. Finally you say above that time and existence are coincidently dependent as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You say I have selected one and you the other.

But I do not claim in my essay that time is the 'most' fundamental phenomenon. What I do is address the fundamental nature of time which has been confused since Einstein said 'simultaneity is relative'. Instead, I believe that a primordial field had do exist before time and space have any meaning.

Thanks again for your comments.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin, it seems that many beer-mats and napkins later they left without agreement but at least had not come to blows. I don't think Einstein would have enjoyed the meeting.

We are, it appears, in agreement about there being no empty space.

You include some history but I think the most important background, which you do not point out, was that this development of Special Relativity was happening at a time when co-ordination of clock time at different places was becoming necessary for the successful running of railway timetables. After early time signal sending by pneumatic tubes, electric signals were used. It is easy to understand that the time signal is something different from passage of time. Just as a time signal can be sent and received, a light signal can be transmitted and received. The time signal is processed into a clock time and the light signal can be processed into an image. When the signal is processed is when the image is seen, not when the event it pertains to happened.

You know from your own experience of thunder storms and Doppler effect of a moving siren, that the observer's relation to the sensory stimuli affects the experience. Two observers different distances for the storm experience the thunder and lightning differently, there isn't simultaneity of the events, for them. The different time lines pertain to the different experiences. The observers are experiencing the universe differently. Those experiences are different from what is actually happening in external reality simultaneously with the 'present' experience. It is important to separate what appears to be Now from uni-temporal Now. Due to the way in which the senses work there is a causal order: production of potential sensory information, transmission, receipt, processing, experience. Thus present and uni-temporal Now can not be the same.

I can tell a lot of thought and effort has gone in to crafting your essay. It is well written. No disrespect is intended. Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 03:40 GMT

Dear Georgina,

Thanks for reading and commenting. You are of course correct about the contemporary history of signal timing and synchronization of clocks. One of my more informed adversaries always wants to formulate relativity problems in terms of clocks in space at every point in each inertial frame. This is based on the view that clocks measure time perfectly, and can be synchronized perfectly, then moved with no effects.

A key problem is that none of the clocks, circa 1900, could measure any relativistic effects. Not until the advent of atomic clocks could one test relativity, and then the results depend on interpretation of what clocks are doing: measuring a moving time dimension or measuring the cyclic energy of a moving atom, etc.

When you speak of observer's experience of time, this vastly complicates the "clocks" involved, and, while this is relevant to our perception, it's difficult to rigorously relate this to relativity.

Thank you for your positive remarks. Good luck in the contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 10:30 GMT

Edwin, the content of each observers reference frame, that which is deemed to be simultaneous, must necessarily be the product of processing of received sensory input. The content of the reference frames of organisms or devices can not in reality be the externally existing matter (outside of, and distant from the observer), independent of the function of observer's sensory systems, or function of the sensing device. As that can not be seen /has not been detected. The different time dimensions you mention are pertaining to the space-time generated by the observers.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin:

I do not believe you've made much fundamental progress in the nature of time since, In my opinion, without properly including the subjective aspect of the observer and his relationship to our theories we will continue to be stuck in an old paradigm. However your critique of Einstein and emphasis on the great body of work based more on classical thinking is excellent and deserves to be praised since we must dislodge the constraints he his bigger than life reputation has trapped us in to make progress. I hope you win and will do my part to make that happen

Wolfgang Baer

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin

I just took pleasure in bumping your score up another point.

I hope you will take the time to view my essay please? Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin.

And I also hope we will have occasion to discuss a theme common of both our works. That considerations which are traditionally delegated to times process, are better served as considerations of energy or force. Specifically, that relative motion and gravitational environments issue effects as a modulation of atomic energy or force. I understand my Darwinian scope will seam an unjustified leap to you, and I'm happy to bench that subject while we might discuss modulated atomic energy, and the theme I have already put to you regarding modulated Baryon mass and its prospect for predicting galaxy rotation velocity. Simply by issuing a modulated Baryon mass based on square law proximity of matter. Specifically, the proximity of stars to each other in galaxies. What did you make of this assertion please?

Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy center. Interesting symmetry to reflect on, dont you agree?

Congratulations on a great essay. My favorite for a placing two years running.

Steven Andresen

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 07:44 GMT

Dear Edwin

I’m glad you liked my intro and I much appreciate your complement.

I understand your grand effort contribution for this community, reading and communicating with a large number of essays and authors. I know you are extremely busy in this community service, and I feel guilty for demanding more of your time than you have already volunteered for me. But it is a relatively simple question I hope you can address for me please? An is more important to me than I might readily admit too.

I have been going on about galaxy rotation velocities. That if atomic energy is modulated/dilated dependent on gravities square law. What do you think of applying consequence to dilated mass?

Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates the deviation from GR predictions. Its very tidy.

If atomic energy/mass is dependent upon proximity of stars to each other, inversely proportional to gravitys square law. Then it applies mass precisely where it need be, so as to predict galaxy rotation velocity. It presents a mathematical fit. Do you recognize my reasoning in this regard please?

Please can you tell me where you stand with this reasoning? and in light of your gravity / atomic energy considerations?

I understand your misgivings concerning the use of “perfect clocks” in theoretical context. You made that point clear in your essay. And you said to me that mechanical clocks can’t measure relativistic effects. I spoke loosely within terms of, near and afar large masses. Would you object in the same fashion if the mass was sufficiently large so as to have a dramatic effect on the mechanical clocks function? A neutron star or larger mass.

Thank you once again

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:05 GMT

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your gracious compliment. The interactive commenting is one of the most valuable features of these FQXi contests. I learn a lot from participation.

It's difficult to address the 'flat rotation curve' problem in a single comment. Even tougher to analyze your specific model and address the pros and cons. A few years ago I treated spiral galaxies as 'mass current loops', which induce an axial gravito-magnetic dipole similar to the electromagnetic dipole induced by a charge current loop. This 'gravito-magnetic moment' pierces the galactic plane and exerts a Lorentz type force mv x C, where v is the velocity of the orbiting star with mass m and C is the gravito-magnetic field vector generated by the rotating spiral galaxy. Physically, this acts in exactly the correct manner, with faster objects experiencing greater force inward toward the central axis of the galaxy. Quantitatively, I have no results to compare to anything.

Therefore, since I have a qualitative theoretical explanation for 'flat rotation curves' from gravitational equations of the type seen in equation (5) of my essay, but I have no quantitative reason to believe it, I tend to stick with my own qualitative theory unless and until someone comes up with a qualitative explanation with quantitative calculations that are convincing.

As for whether mechanical clocks in massive gravity would exhibit relativistic effects, I don't know.

I hope this answers your question.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:14 GMT

Dear Edwin

Thank you

Ok I had hoped or assumed that your correlating clock cycle counts to consideration of energy value, resulted in our works having an equivalence. The only difference being you speak in terms of a variation of energy as clocks increase or decrease their cycle count, while I relate the same principle with term of force dilation.

However, when you convey to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Ed,

Good to see your rating having tough, regardless of all other disagreements about time it does mean that there is a growing realism than the hitherto strictly Quantum Mechanical abstraction that Time emerges from pure random events piling up in a bell curve. jrc

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 01:30 GMT

HANGING tough

oops the typo :-)

report post as inappropriate

Even Rindler, whose name is attached to aspects of special relativity, states about Einstein's postulate:

"Light propagates the same in all inertial frames... It is not for us to ask how!"

Well since Einstein' space time based on Minkowski's Paper – Minkowsky, Hermann, German paper Raum und Zeit (1909), Jahresberichte der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 75–88. In the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jouko Harri Tiainen replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 08:27 GMT

Read the attachment as well it as FAQ

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:44 GMT

Dear Jouko Harri Tiainen,

It's very rewarding to read comments such as yours. You express your appreciation of my essay, and suggest that I could derive my ideas with less bother if I had expressed

+i(second)=c(meter)

or

-i(second)=h(Joules)

to express that clocks count energy, not time.

I am most impressed, but my first response is that bringing the 'imaginary' i into the picture instead of the physically intuitive arguments would've gotten me nowhere. The expression i = sqrt(-1) does not usually 'clarify' things for people, even physicists. Even Minkowski, in your quote, referred to the 'mystical' formula.

Nevertheless, my own interpretation of the 'imaginary' i is as represented in geometric algebra, i.e., i is the duality operator that transforms one element of geometric algebra into its dual.

Thank you for observing the quality of the comments I'm receiving. Yours is exemplary. I look forward to reading your essay and will comment on your page.

Thank you very much,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

post approved

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:51 GMT

Dear Jouko Harri Tiainen,

It's very rewarding to read comments such as yours. You express your appreciation of my essay, and suggest that I could derive my ideas with less bother if I had expressed

+i(second)=c(meter)

or

-i(second)=h(Joules)

to express that clocks count energy, not time.

I am most impressed, but my first response is that...

view entire post

show all replies (3 not shown)

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:52 GMT

Some embedded character is messing up my responses and others responses. I will ask FQXi to help me solve this problem. - Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 22:57 GMT

Dear Jouko Harri Tiainen,

By equating i to the speed of light (i=c) you suggest that the speed of light is a "constant of motion" if "the laws of physics (or the equations) are the same in all inertial reference frames."

If one believes as Einstein, that "space does not exist absent of field" and that the gravitational field fills space, then the Galilean invariance of the...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 23:48 GMT

Dear Jouko Harri Tiainen,

After reading Armin's comments on your page, I want to expand on my remarks. I admire Armin's work very very much, but I don't think I agree with all of his statements, perhaps because I ignored your use of bra and ket, and also your treatment of entanglement. I pretty much ignore everyone's treatment of entanglement, for reasons I have already published, but as it is a common belief today, I do not generally downgrade essays for expressing this belief, or even a novel way of trying to make sense of it. Armin makes some good points, such as E=-m if i=c. Perhaps i~c would be more appropriate? You do use +i and -i so one might get E=m. Or perhaps this can relate to the negative energy of the gravitational field. I simply need more thought on this matter.

Nevertheless, my perspective here is that you are simply letting the speed of light take on a unit value and similarly Planck's constant take on unit value and you are trying to make sense of the imaginary i in key physics equations.

Why is that i there?

I have concluded, with many others, that geometric algebra is the most powerful tool available for physicists today. In geometric algebra the function of i is that of a duality operator, which transforms the element it is operating on into its dual. That is how I'm interpreting your work. As I say below, your essay (for me) requires more study, but I do not dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps because physicists are so comfortable with complex analysis and so used to using the imaginary i in Minkowski geometry and Schrödinger's equation they see no need to think further. For pure geometry this is probably reasonable, but physicists tend to treat the i in quantum mechanics as somewhat mystical. Again, I want to spend more time thinking about this, and I will do so in the framework of the geometric algebra duality operator.

By equating i to the speed of light (i=c) you suggest that the speed of light is a "constant of motion" if "the laws of physics (or the equations) are the same in all inertial reference frames."

If one believes as Einstein, that "space does not exist absent of field" and that the gravitational field fills space, then the Galilean invariance of the Maxwell-Hertz equations implies only one time dimension, and this is consistent with constant speed of light in a local gravity frame. Coordinates fixed in the gravity frame see constant c. But for other objects moving in the frame with velocity v, the constant local c appears as c+v from the perspective of elapsed time. This preserves the geometry of the Minkowski differential, without implying different time frames.

You then postulate that the mathematical definition of +i and -i can be associated with GR (c=i) and QM (h=i). That is truly fascinating, and may relate to the energy-time conjugation I develop in my essay. My own interpretation of the relativity of a self-interacting field (such as gravity) leads to unidirectional time. I will try to see how to understand this in terms of your postulate. The Minkowski geometry does not imply multiple time dimensions. It is compatible with 'same time' Lorentz formulations in one inertial frame.

You interpret h=i in Schrödinger's equation to satisfy 'Planck's quanta is constant' and "all time is equal for all observers", compatible with time as universal simultaneity. As I mention above, my own interpretation of the 'imaginary' i is as represented in geometric algebra, i.e., i is the duality operator that transforms one element of geometric algebra into its dual.

I think this part of your essay is potentially very deep and requires thought. I plan to give it more thought and will score it accordingly. Congratulations.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

hide replies

Ed,

Browsing your paper for the first time surprised by the opening implicit assertion that there is something wrong with light defining a 'preferred' reference frame. Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do? Light is the fiducial in our definition of space. The laws of physics don't change when we take light as the fiducial. That's what SR tells us as I understand it. And I'm of the...

view entire post

Ed,

Browsing your paper for the first time surprised by the opening implicit assertion that there is something wrong with light defining a 'preferred' reference frame. Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do? Light is the fiducial in our definition of space. The laws of physics don't change when we take light as the fiducial. That's what SR tells us as I understand it. And I'm of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to properly appreciate why this is true.

Having said that, I'm delighted by the way you set the scene in the tavern. Thank you for that.

Didn't dig into the remainder of the paper in detail, see there is not much to do with the quantum in it. Logically it is perhaps good to keep in mind that SR is three body problem, Lorentz transform is just Pythagoreus. If seeking foundations exact general solutions don't exist (afaik) beyond two body. And QM is ultimately two body. Getting three things together in one spot simultaneously gets ever more difficult as one goes to every smaller length scales.

The distinction you seek to make is between partial and total derivative? I don't know if it will help you to look at this from GA perspective, but pretty cool if it does:

vacuum wavefunction in GA can be taken to be Pauli algebra of 3D space, comprised of point, line, plane, and volume elements. One scalar, three vectors, three bivectors, and one trivector. Assigning topologically appropriate electromagnetic fields to those fundamental geometric objects generates agents in the physical world.

interactions of those wavefunctions/agents can be modeled by the geometric product, which changes dimensionality of the iteracting geometric objects. The product of two 3D Pauli algebras yields a 4D Dirac algebra, a geometric representation of the particle physicist's holy grail, the scattering matrix. The fourth dimension, time, emerges from the interactions. It is encoded in the 4D pseudoscalars of the Dirac algebra.

Does this means total or partial derivative to your Tavern Keeper? One or the other? Both? Neither?

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:14 GMT

Dear Peter,

Special relativity means different things to different people (I know this from a year of discussions). In your opinion light is to define a 'preferred' reference frame. I cannot believe this makes sense in reality, and as I point out, the nonsense flows from space-time symmetry [i.e., light as 'preferred' frame] and vanishes with energy-time asymmetry.

You're also of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to appreciate your point. You claim to understand quantum gravity; I have an understanding that I'm sure differs from yours.

For many I talked with last year, the first statement that they disagree with tends to shut them down, rather than try to understand how their belief may be reinterpreted. Although quantum mechanics has probably a dozen interpretations, almost all of which yield the same calculations, there is surprising resistance to an interpretation of special relativity that makes sense, but differs from the received wisdom. I'm disappointed that you "didn't dig into the remainder of the paper" but with 200 essays, it's hard to study them all.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about GA and I do not see an E8-type assignment of GA product terms to the standard model as meaningful, so we do agree on the significance of GA, but not on all physics. On your thread you were happy to hear about Arthur's "Understanding geometric algebra for electromagnetic theory". I suggest after you read this book you may wish to reread my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

peter cameron replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 12:41 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply. I hope to be able to respond clearly to your comments.

It is not that I believe a preferred reference frame can be defined by photons, but rather that photons are the experimentally accessible tool that we use to explore the properties of space, that it is in some sense the 'fiducial' one uses if seeking to establish the existence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 21:02 GMT

Dear Peter,

In your response above you mentioned quantum gravity. My view of this topic is here: The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

You say Hawking suggests that a 'Planck particle' would have a Compton wavelength thousands of times the observable universe. For me, that's a proof of no Planck particles.

In my quantum gravity theory (post-big bang) events which occasion extreme energy density (such as LHC collisions: Au-Au, Pb-Pb) are "off-center", i.e., "off axis" and hence also occasion high angular momentum in the resulting perfect fluid. The dynamics of turbulent vortices spit out particles along the gravito-magnetic axis (of angular momentum) and these particles have bounded energy. That is, no matter how much energy you bring to a small region, it does not create a Planck particle, but a cascade of real particles. These are the particles (and resonances) of the standard model. Post-big bang there is nothing beyond them! Just as SUSY has never shown up, nothing beyond additional resonances will ever show up. The particle zoo we have is it. We need a theory that calculates the masses and I believe that my quantum gravity can do so. [I am working on it.]

The effective field theories are 'bookkeeping schema'. They ignore the perfect fluid particle dynamics leading to toroidal particles and jump straight to the end result, "creating" and "annihilating" particles from 'quantum fields' in a way that conserves appropriate aspects of the particle. From this perspective, there is no limit on the particle zoo, hence wavelengths 1000 times longer than the observable universe arise. This does not occur in a more fundamental particle dynamics. Quantum theory is just statistics. The particle and the wave properties arise from quantum gravity.

I very much enjoyed our exchanges, and I'm always excited to see geometric algebra-ists at work.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin:

Thanks for your time in reading my paper and providing kind and thoughtful comments. Finally, I got a chance to read your paper and enjoyed throughout.

I do not fully comprehend all mathematical detail of your model but notice your conclusion - "The effect of this belated recognition of ‘ether’ is the restoration of physical intuition and understanding of the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity."

Your conclusion contradicts Einstein's relativity of simultaneity, while my photon model in my paper - “What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light” supports Einstein as it is vindicated by the observed universe expansion data. My photon model shows that there is no unique time or clock in the universe as time is only a relative entity to the frame of the observer.

I notice that you are in the bay area; I also reside in Cupertino, may be we can get together to discuss this further. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 02:51 GMT

Dear Avtar,

I hope you will read my essay again, as I do not believe you have understood its potential significance for your work. You say your photon model depends on special relativity, as it matches the observed universe expansion data. But that is not based on the relativity of simultaneity as you imply. Cosmic microwave background on which all cosmology models are based is essentially Machian, and time is considered absolute with respect to this background. So contradicting "the relativity of simultaneity" does not seem relevant, as it is not involved in cosmological 'universe expansion' models. My impression is that you reached this point and decided not to go further. This is unfortunate, as Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations address the problem you address, but as "disturbances in the ether", with implied local energy density. Moreover, the recent observation of colliding neutron stars has demonstrated that gravitational disturbances propagate at the same speed as electromagnetic disturbances in the field. There is no "acceleration time" involved!

This Hertzian extension of Maxwell's theory envisions energy flow in a body, while Maxwell/Einstein envisions energy flow between systems. It seems de facto true that cosmology 'universe expansion' observations concern energy flows within the cosmological frame, not simultaneous flows between frames. (When one frame is the universe, what is the other frame?)

The problem here for your model, is that there is no acceleration. As soon as a disturbance occurs in the field, it immediately propagates at the speed of sound (the generic term for perfect fluid models) – no acceleration.

The significance for you is that this lack of acceleration required to reach speed c implies that light never has value v < c. Of course you refer to recent experiments in which light impinges on a semiconductor material and is absorbed, whence it photons become 'excitons'. In my opinion, such interactions are phonon-like, not pure photons, and are more likely explained as many-body phenomena, rather than pure photons. Of course I may be wrong, there is not enough information to determine this yet. If the phenomenon is essentially one of absorption and re-emission then formulas with the inverse square root of (1-(v/c)**2) are undefined. These are in most of your equations, since you seem to conceive of local 'photon' mass density as a material body, instead of the equivalent mass density of the disturbance in the field. The v-based equations for the photon are inappropriate in the Hertzian framework, which you seem not to have understood in my essay. In spite of this, and for reasons too long to include in a comment, I do find your Postulate 1 on page 5 to be is very astute and appropriate to the problem. It is that which first excited me about your essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

With the effectively entertaining device of a stage play taking place in a bar, you’ve revisited a variety of “relativistic” debates from a range of perspectives (historical characters).

As an indicator of where I stand in such matters, I’ll begin by offering my translation of the recurring relativistic expression: “Relativity of Simultaneity.” As used by Big Al...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 01:21 GMT

Dear Richard J Benish,

As you note elsewhere, we both have high regard for Tom Phipps' contributions to physics, despite certain disagreements with his approach. You further point out something I believe often goes unnoticed:

"…understanding a theory about gravity (i.e. GR) is often confused for understanding the physical phenomenon of gravity itself."

As you say with reference to "matter tells space time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to move", no academic physicist bothers to point out that we have no idea how these orders are carried out. You extend this line of criteria to "quantum gravity", and to how "gravitons" work, in that they make no physical sense. Just part of quantum field theorists attempt to force the universe into a bookkeeping scheme.

With respect to your comments above, your first paragraphs effectively summarize the situation. I agree that one-way measurements are hard, perhaps impossible, hence the average back-and-fourth measurements predominate. I have designed an experiment that should be capable of measuring the velocity of the local frame from within the context of the local frame with no outside information. This should establish whether my approach is valid or invalid.

The experiment you discuss has never been done, yet, like other 'gedanken' experiments, it is typically accepted as reality. It's not quite clear to me why achievable experiments that question the status quo are not performed. I hope both of our experiments will be performed.

You then discuss maximum geodesics and accelerometers. My own perspective is that "curved space-time" outside matter is equivalent to energy density distributions in flat space. As you probably know, Weinberg, Feynman, and others have shown that iterated flat space approaches lead to Einstein's field equations in "curved space" so my inclination is to reject "curved space-time" (incapable of dealing with "density" or with "self-interaction energy") and this bias extends to rejecting higher dimensional theories of physics. You identify the motion as not through space, but of space, and view this as curvature in (4+1)D. My perspective on the gravito-magnetic ('C') field is analogous to electro-magnetic circulation, i.e., circulation of the field with characteristic angular momentum. Circa 2006 Martin Tajmar used accelerometers to measure gravito-magnetic field circulation. I reject higher dimensions of space, from 4 to 11, however it might be possible to interpret circulation in space as a fourth dimension. This is more a mathematical representation, like the Minkowski representation, than a true description of the physics. Clearly n-dimensional representations are of utility in physics. Having read your essay several times I'm still not exactly clear on how your (4+1)D model is to be interpreted. My 3D mind, operating in time, works well with n-dimensional math, but does not grasp spatial models greater than 3D.

As for the accelerometer questions (ignoring gravito-magnetic issues) it is probably not purple-winged horsies, but the gravity gradient dG/dt that imparts momentum and induces local gravito-magnetic circulation. How this registers or not on an accelerometer is not clear to me, having not studied accelerometers in ages. The equivalence principle that falling 'cancels' gravity, does not prevent the accumulation of kinetic energy.

In summary, I do not intuitively grasp how a gravitation field 'pulls' and I don't think 'gravitions' is the answer, nor do I accept 'curved space' explains anything physical. 'Pushing' seems to bring with it another set of problems, and might work for a universe with only one central body, but I can't envision a many-body dynamics in such a case. Gravity to me is the great mystery, acceptance of which seems to unlock other doors big time. Neither gravitons, curved space-time, 'dynamic space' nor (4+1)D do it for me, yet I feel the field as I just sit here typing. It's real, and when I accept the reality, and play with the equations, lots of the universe falls out. I know this doesn't answer your questions, but it's a mystery to me.

I appreciate your many comments. If we ever meet, let's drink to Tom Phipps.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin.

This is quick notification for you and discussion that I shared Richard. Im reading this your essay and will comment later.

Since Richard J. Benish told in his essay some interesting point of your ideas which I really appreciated.

I think your essay is very interesting and important (one of the best I know so far) and therefore rate after reading it with great...

view entire post

post approved

Dear Edwin.

This is quick notification for you and discussion that I shared Richard. Im reading this your essay and will comment later.

Since Richard J. Benish told in his essay some interesting point of your ideas which I really appreciated.

I think your essay is very interesting and important (one of the best I know so far) and therefore rate after reading it with great...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:43 GMT

Dear Bashir,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

You cover many aspects of physics in your essay. I interpret your "indivisible atom" to be the fundamental "substance", which you seem to postulate to be the photon. You say all other composite particles have two key categories, "charge and neutral". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields in electromagnetic fields, as described in equations (1) in my essay. Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting non-linear field. I do not believe this situation has been sufficiently explored, but mine is a minority view. Your intuition seems to be good, but I do not believe your basic model will take you as far as you wish to go. I encourage you in your efforts to understand nature.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin

Some thing got wrong with file format after transmission, so I I converted to pdf format and sended as attachment.

Best Wishes

Bashir

attachments: fundamental.pdf

report post as inappropriate

I have asked FQXi to find the embedded character or other source of the formatting errors appearing above. - - - Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have rated yours on 1/19. Thanks for reviewing mine.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Ed,

There is something that always bothered me about SR and relative motion being the same irrespective of whose frame of reference was used. Specifically, let's say that I jump up from the ground. My vertical leap is ... well, not much. But I do get a few inches off the ground. Knowing this, I can calculate the force needed for the jump and the amount of energy needed for the jump. Surely the amount of force and energy needed to move me by 6 inches is less than the amount of force and energy needed to move the Earth by 6 inches. So, it seems to me that part of your preferred reference frame is the result of a minimum energy principle associated with action.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 01:45 GMT

Gary,

Not sure I understand the question. Since energy = work = force x distance, the distance the earth moves, for the reaction force, will be much less than 6 inches. When you reach the height, and fall back, presumably the earth is falling back to you. Don't try to measure it.

I live on the coast, and to get to Silicon Valley I cross a reservoir/lake which is on a fault line. On my side the ground is moving north, on the other side of the lake the ground is moving south (if one believes plate tectonics). I never experience a jolt, and I've never seen them repair the bridge. Some things we almost have to take on faith?

Best regards, Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 04:27 GMT

Ed,

If I move 6" away from the Earth, doesn't relativity say that is the same thing as the Earth moving 6" away from me? Wouldn't it take more energy to move the Earth than to simply move me?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 05:59 GMT

Dear Gary,

You're correct of course that if you move 6 inches away from Earth, the earth is now 6 inches away from you. But the movement is measured from the ground you stand on. You move 6 inches away from the initial ground surface, while the earth moves an infinitesimal distance away from the initial origin. Since initially there was zero linear momentum in the system, the momentum of you moving up is theoretically canceled by the momentum of the Earth moving away from you. Since momentum is mass times velocity, the velocity of the Earth moving away is infinitesimally small, which means it will not have moved very far by the time you reach 6 inches (ignoring gravity). This is essentially in the frame of the earth. Special relativity is not concerned with this, only with your velocity relative to the Earth (and the speed of light c, relative to each of your inertial frames).

The classical relativistic system in which you are the rest frame and the Earth is moving away from you, or the Earth is the rest frame and you are moving away from Earth is not a very useful formalism here; in the 'space-time' perspective the energy is ignored. In theory, from the Earth's rest frame perspective, your clock will run slower, whereas if you are the rest frame, a clock on the Earth will run slower. Similarly, in the special relativistic formulation where you are one inertial frame and the earth is the other inertial frame then the speed of light with respect to you is c, where your velocity is the equal zero. At the same time when the Earth is viewed as the rest frame then the speed of light with respect to the Earth is c and the velocity of the Earth is considered equal to zero. This makes about as much sense as Einstein's railway based gedanken experiments.

In special relativity the energy that got you moving or got the Earth moving is not really the issue. What is at issue is your velocity and the speed of light. If you are at rest it is the velocity of the Earth and the speed of light that is the issue. The relative energies (and gravity) are ignored. Particle physics treats relativistic energies in terms of the Lorentz transformation, but doesn't treat where that energy came from -- for example how long one had to accelerate a particle in a collider to reach that energy. Similarly, as I interpret what you're asking, if you wish to say that you are at rest and the Earth is moving away from you at a certain velocity, the energy required to move the Earth away from you is not part of the problem. Special relativity assumes that one frame is at rest and the other is moving. It does not ask what it took to get the other frame moving. It's assumed moving when one formulates the problem.

What my essay focuses on is 'time dilation' and I claim that you and the Earth share one universal time. In this case your atomic clock will run 'slower' than the clock in the rest frame of the Earth, but that is an energy-time effect, not a space-time effect. In special relativity the view is symmetric however in reality, for example in the GPS system, the symmetry is not found. The clock on earth is always the fastest clock. This is because you were initially at rest and then your energy changed, in such a way that your atomic clock measures a different frequency, or energy, which special relativity falsely interprets as measuring your 'time dimension'.

That's probably enough answer for a comment. Is this more what you had in mind?

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Edwin,

That was a bit of fun but I felt I needed a drink listening to those three. I also felt a bit sorry for Einstein not getting much of a word in. It seemed a bit 'scripted' somehow.

Your different views were interesting to read but I must say I could't get me head round the concept or point of 'deriving SR with just one frame'. Surely the wholw point of SR is that it handles transitions BETWEEN states of motion. You may not recall my 2012 essy but I showed that can be done with CSL with solid evidence. Our conceptions of 'frame transitions' must be very different. I still need that drink!

A nice refresher of Hertz's views anyway.

Best of luck.

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:20 GMT

Dear Richard,

Thanks much for reading and commenting. Didn't mean to give you a headache, or a need for a drink. You're right, Einstein didn't get to say much. Most physicists can (and probably do) fill in his arguments as they are standard special relativity explanations, while Hertz's, Heaviside's, and the Tavernkeeper's arguments are not as well known. And I plead nine pages!

The reason to derive Lorentz with 'just one frame' is to show that the Lorentz transformation can be derived with only one time dimension. All SR derivations are based on two inertial frames, each with its own universal time dimension, and leads to the 'relativity of simultaneity', which is nonintuitive and leads to nonsense: "your clock runs slower, while my clock runs slower", etc. And many seem to think that the very existence of the Lorentz transformation implies two inertial frames with two time dimensions. My derivation still handles transitions between states of motion, but not between different time dimensions. There is a very big difference. The focus is on the difference in energy of the 'states of motion' not the difference between different 'space-times'.

Probably our conceptions are very different. I've found that the more a physicist is comfortable with special relativity, the harder it is for him to understand my point. That's probably to be expected.

Come back to the Tavern. The drinks will be on the house!

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I had to make a new post sorry I oouldn't reply to your first comments.

Thank you and a big thanks to Armin as well (he sent me a reply that made clear what he meant by his comments).

Your comments have been wonderful and I really do appreciate your time and effort in responding. Since I cannot work how to put equations and images into this post I have attached a PDF it contains Peter Jackson's red/green sock trick and a "two slit" diagram as well. Also if you have more question see the first post in my thread there is a FAQ rejoinder. Your and Armin's remarks and deep intuitions have been very very helpful

attachments: Edwin.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Klingman,

your essay is interesting indeed.

I would be glad if you find a moment to go through my essay, and to have a discussion about convergences and differences between our works.

Best of luck,

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 23:15 GMT

Dear Flavio,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. Your invited me to read your essay and compare and contrast. It's difficult for me to summarize in a few words. My last essay, The Nature of Mind, offers nine pages that address the issue of intuition, which you appear down on. You seem to lump determinism and absolute simultaneity, local realism and conservation laws into the same category of 'prejudice'. My current essay argues for absolute simultaneity, and I elsewhere argue for local realism, while I have a more nuanced view of determinism, and I have argued against conservation as a consequence of symmetry, as all symmetries I am aware of are approximate.

I recently watched a YouTube discussion between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia, a goodly portion of which dealt with Derrida, Foucault, and other deconstructionists and radical relativists. For a number of reasons I feel this nonsense is beginning to infect physics, probably because physics is chaotic in the extreme, based (in my opinion) on fundamental false assumptions and prejudices that have endured for about a century, both in relativity and QM.

Once one discards intuition, one is left with 'word hash', combining words/equations in 'narratives' [see Gibbs] and having no idea how to discriminate reality from story. My current essay focuses on one non-intuitive narrative, while previous essays address other such instances. As you spend quite a bit of time on Bell I will address Bell.

You refer to Bell's theorem as "momentous no-go theorem" and spend a couple of pages on his logic. If you look at his first paper, his first equation determines the outcome: A = +/-1, B = +/-1, where A and B are measurements on Stern-Gerlach. This is based on the (prejudiced) assumption of quantum qubits. You clearly state that QM provides only probabilistic predictions. Many-body experiments on spin yield qubit outcomes, as should be expected. Stern-Gerlach does not yield qubit outcomes but smeared results that match 3D spin dynamics in an inhomogeneous field. However Pauli's mathematical projection of qubit mechanics: O|+> = +|+>, O|-> = -|-> is Bell's prejudiced assumption of reality. In other words Bell claims to look for a classical (local variable) description of Stern-Gerlach, but then constrains the problem to quantum results based on the mathematical projection of Pauli, not on the empirical results of Stern-Gerlach.

Feynman later put the final nail in this coffin by assuming that his favorite two-slit photon experiment could be carried over directly to a two-slit spin analog (the SG experiment). Of course the same equations apply, because he's making the same mathematical projection, but the actual physics of the photon in two-slits is vastly different from the physics of atoms in a homogeneous magnetic field, and Feynman's extended SG model has never been tested.

Since Feynman and Bell's math and logic have been accepted as gospel, local realism has been excluded from physics. A no-go theorem based on atoms in a magnetic field, constrained to never-tested single-qubit spin results, is then "proved" by photon-based experiments which actually do produce two-state results: on/off detections.

I repeat – the entire industry is based on the erroneous assumption that the results of the Stern-Gerlach atomic experiments are +1 and -1 deflections, "tested" by photonic experiments that use +1 and 0 detections. The atomic data produced by Stern-Gerlach clearly conflicts with Bell's initial assumption, but instead of trying sophisticated tests of Stern-Gerlach using modern technology the whole entanglement industry is based on 1922 experiments that clearly do not yield +1 and -1 results. The confusion of 1920s quantum mechanics is locked in. Here is your fundamental 'prejudice'.

My suggestion is if one wishes to 'deconstruct' physics, look for the basic assumptions that violate intuition and that lead to nonsense. Of course that is dangerous for those toiling in the establishment, so generalizations are preferred.

This is how I would contrast your approach with my approach.

Good luck in the contest and in your careers.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I posted this on Gary D. Simpsom comments --

I try to justify +i and -i and the pure number i=c with c(metre)=i(sec)

Read the 4-square essay by Gary Simpson here https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Simpson_Four_Squar
es_rev00.pdf

here is my comment on Equation 1 below the double...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin,

Thank you for your comments on my essay and apparent rating of 7, it’s only the second rating I’ve had - and thanks for saying you enjoyed reading it immensely, and that it deserves to be doing better than it is.

I’m glad we both think (the apparent flow of) time is not emergent, as the 2015 experiment I’ve outlined makes it harder to take that view. Although it needs reproducing, the experiment had press coverage at the time, as it showed for the first time that the world at the quantum scale is not reversible, but is subject to entropy, just as in the large-scale world. It leaves time very much unexplained.

I’ve seen quite a few attempts to explain the direction of time, where the given cause turns out to be a process, needing another flow of time underneath it. I don’t know about your idea that the direction of time arises from the self-interaction of the gravitational field, but any forces (or pseudo forces) are at risk of needing time already in place, if they are to have what we call effects - just as cause and effect implies a time sequence.

Good luck, best regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 01:26 GMT

Hi Jonathan,

You say, "I’ve seen quite a few attempts to explain the direction of time, where the given cause turns out to be a process, needing another flow of time underneath it. I don’t know about your idea that the direction of time arises from the self-interaction of the gravitational field"

I just posted a variant of the following on Phil Gibbs page:

At one point Phil suggests that "quantization as a sum over histories is more fundamental than particles or field or even time and space." What is history without time or path without space? He then asks if there is a fundamental law which is not derived from anything deeper? Well, if we assume that a law governs something, there must exist at least one thing. Since I cannot conceive of this one (and only) thing being a particle, I assume it's a field, or at least a continuum. Phil then says that such law must be as it is because it could not be any other way, and asks "Why would those answers be incomprehensible to us?"

Conscious experience is our contact with the universe; Phil says "information is everywhere" crossing the universe. I prefer "energy is everywhere" crossing the universe. When energy triggers a change in structure (absorb the photon, switch a logic gate, …) the structure is 'in'-formed and becomes a record (~bits of information). It has no meaning absent a codebook or context: "one if by land, two if by sea." Thus it's hard for me to find meaning in the statement: "the information in a wave function is conserved." Most wave functions describe situations in which energy is conserved, so in that sense "information" might be conserved. He notes we're dealing with idealizations. If information implies energy and change of structure, where is the energy of the wavefunction and what does it change? Phil notes that such "informative" 'records' are more real than the 'past'; "Our reality is what we experience."

Phil then sets up the problem, noting that recursion can take us places independent of the starting point:

"… we must define this recursion… in algebraic terms and see how the physics of space, time, and particles can emerge…"

He notes this iteration will be algebraic without a Lagrangian, and conjectures that the holographic principle may argue for 'complete symmetry'. I believe one can formulate the holographic principle in terms of energy, with no mention of information. Would this imply such symmetry?

Phil suggests a "free algebra" generated from a vector space V and says that "if it requires information to specify how it works then a theory can't be fundamental"; concluding by expecting to find symmetry in a pre-geometric meta-law that transcends space-time, taking a purely algebraic form, beyond which point it will be emergent.

Jonathan, based on Phil's formulation of the problem, I suggest how this might work?

I don't believe a 'lattice' can satisfy his requirements for 'fundamentalness', so I assume a continuum, f. "Pre-geometric" must mean there is only one such, else we would have two different things and can subtract f1 from f2 and begin geometric correlations between continuums (kind of like Einstein's inertial reference frames). So if there is only one continuum, f, it can only interact with itself, as there is nothing else to interact with! This provides a basic principle for the pre-geometric, primordial law, based on algebra only:

The Principle of Self-interaction is that any operator O acting on the continuum f must be equivalent to the continuum f acting on itself, represented as

Of = ff.

This iteration is fundamental, not derived from anything deeper, and is infinitely recursive. One can solve this for characteristic features of the continuum, and the operator spectrum might determine the feature spectrum. Let one operator be the essential derivative d/dq and the second operator be the generalized derivative 'Del' = d/dp. [it's hard to find symbols that don't bring something to mind, so I've already biased you.]

As it turns out we have two unique solutions corresponding to these two operators. For O = d/dq we find that f = 1/(-q) solves the algebraic equation, Of = ff, and for O = d/dp we find that f = 1/p solves Of = ff. We assume geometric algebra (Clifford/Hestenes) is our context. Therefore we need only interpret q and p. These may of course be anything we can get away with that agrees with our experience, but I believe the most fundamental (or at least the most useful) fundamental interpretation's are q = time t and p = spatial vector r.

Jonathan, please note that there is only one solution to the self-interaction equation of the form 1/t, and that is 1/(-t). That is, if t is time, then only one 'direction' of time solves the self-interaction equation!

Thus our Self-interaction Principle leads to a unidirectional time and a general 3D space. One feature of the continuum is the frequency f ~ 1/t and another feature is a 1/r spatial dependence, with appropriate gradient, ~1/r.r . All of this is easy to prove (except the identification of q with time and p with space) once one adds a 'connector' c ~ r/t then ccf is an acceleration and f is a frequency. The dimensions thus associated with f and f are those of the gravito-magnetic field: G ~ cc/r, C ~ -1/t --- acceleration and frequency. When one brings rotation into the picture the self-interaction equation generates a quantum solution, and the minus sign associated with the frequency yields a fundamental left-handedness such as that characterizing neutrinos and amino acids.

The equations that govern these fields are in my essay's equation (1). A result of iteration is figure on page 12. Of course there's much more of interest than will fit into a comment. For example, the Self-interaction Principle leads to Newton's law, Einstein's equations, and the Klein-Gordon equation, for starters, when augmented by E = mcc. I do believe "we arrive at a final level where everything is possible and the whole theory is described with zero information."

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan Kerr replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 11:45 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Thank you. I think the concepts we use when we think about these things are so dependent on an implied flow of time, that it's hard to remove that. You mention 'action', as in 'interaction' or 'self-interaction' - to me you can't explain time with those concepts, because you need time already in place to use them, as they wouldn't exist. You say there's only one thing that exists, so it can only interact with itself, but if so, in some sense it has 'moving parts'.

So it's hard to 'get underneath time' in order to do any physics and try to explain it, for instance with a mechanism, because it's hard to find a mechanism that would work at all - mechanisms need time if they are to work.

And I think mathematical concepts are equally at risk of having this kind of problem, or more so, as they're often two steps away from what we need to get at, instead of one.

I felt there were four or five main avenues for getting to a better understanding of time, and explored them while trying to write a book. The conclusion was that all of them, without exception, are blocked in some way. I then looked at the question of whether any of them might become unblocked if there was a fundamental change to the underlying assumptions, and found that one of them, and only one, had the possibility of becoming unblocked.

I'm all for creative thinking on the subject, and don't want to sound otherwise, but I think the way people take time out of the mathematics, and feel they can move things around here and there, is often inappropriate. Incidentally, Huw Price, who takes absolutely the opposite view from me, is also very strict about removing a pre-existing flow of time from our thinking. But he does that for different reasons!

Anyway, best regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 01:16 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you. I agree with you that the implied flow of time is inherent in 'change', and the only universe of interest is the one that is changing now. You are correct that 'interaction' contains "change", hence time, in its meaning. My comment to Phil was based on his desire for an algebraic 'meta-law' from which time and space 'emerge'. I began with such a general meta-law Of = ff where O and f are unspecified except that O 'operates on' f. Biased by this algebraic relation, we find that two solutions involve a 1D directed scalar and a 3D vector. I then choose these to be 'uni-directional time' and 'space'.

I understand what you're trying to say, but to cast out 'moving parts' and replace it by 'mechanism' is not overly convincing. When you say your analysis led to "the possibility of becoming unblocked", it's not clear whether you solved this or just became convinced that a solution exists. If you solved it, I'd like to know the solution.

In any case, it's been a pleasure discussing this topic with you.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Jonathan Kerr replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 21:37 GMT

Thanks Edwin,

I've said that neither a mechanism, nor anything with moving parts, can explain time, or generate time, because those things need time to exist already. There are quite a few examples of attempts to explain time with concepts like those.

Then there are attempts to explain the direction of time, by saying it emerges from thermodynamics. One of several problems with this is that emergence itself is a process, so it's another of those concepts that needs time if it's to function. And it's hard to make something that moves and changes emerge out of something that doesn't.

Another problem with this is a point near the top of page 2 of my essay, which I'd say entirely removes emergent time, and shows it not to work. A third problem with emergent time is the 2015 experiment, which found entropy at the quantum scale, and time working just as it does in the large-scale world, showing the reversibility we imagined at that scale was false.

Illusion time is also removed - emergent time is a wider set of possibilities, which includes illusion time, as illusion time would be an emergent effect.

So this is part of a process of elimination I've done, where I think we can get clues about what time really IS like, by eliminating various pictures that it ISN'T like. That's what my book's about, and the essay is a potted version, with some of that process. And yes, I ruled out all avenues except one, which though also blocked, had a blockage that could be removed, with a change to the underlying assumptions. Then, exploring that particular avenue, and the solution it offers, you get the change to the assumptions that it leads to, and selects out of many possibilities.

Yes, good discussing these things with you, best regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Edwin Klingman,

[My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First I will assess your essay, then discuss your conclusions. Positives:

-- Wow, you know your targets well! I sort of kept hoping for Maxwell to drop by to, but it would have distracted Einstein from the main topic. I think the main reason that Einstein never modified SR after GR forced him back to the ether was , well… he couldn’t quite figure out how to do it? You really need a more modern computer modeling concepts of how to handle binding times to implement the virtual frames with absolute fidelity, and that concept suite and was flatly not available to him. So ironically, he stayed block universe to keep SR happy, even as he defined a unique “ether slice” sequence that was curved but on average remained orthogonal to your universal simultaneous time.

-- I like very much that you pulled out the GR ether connection. People still are shocked by that, and at the time Einstein’s fellow physicists tried very hard to pretend Einstein never went back to the ether. There is an attraction in the mathematical symmetries of SR that is incredibly appealing to many folks, especially if you are mathematically inclined. The idea that such symmetries might be nothing more than virtual limits in a reality that like to fake people out does not appeal in the same way, unless you happen to be more computer-science-ish in mind set.

-- You pull in lots and lot of really good, highly specific threads of though, though there are so many that a seriously deep look at them could take days or months (or years).

-- Your conversation format is entertaining, though at times it makes it a bit difficult to recognize exactly what the main point is going to be.

Negatives:

-- You pull in lots and lot of really good, highly specific threads of though, though there are so many that a seriously deep look at them could take days or months (or years).

-- Your conversation format is entertaining, though at times it makes it a bit difficult to recognize exactly what the main point is going to be.

-- My standard complaint: The intent of the FQXi request as I read it was to write an essay on how to recognize a fundamental theory, rather than write an essay to provide a fundamental theory.

--------------------

Now, let’s see if I understand your point (I may not!). When you end by saying:

“the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity”

I think you are saying that there exists a singular curved foliation of spacetime, which Einstein in his post-GR years would have called “the ether”, in which all causality unfolds at the “same time” (e.g. as measured by a hypothetical solid sheet of tiny clocks all making synchronized hand-shake time measurements with their immediate neighbors).

That is of course utterly heretical to SR perspectives, because it would make that single foliation absolutely unique and the only “real” source of causality. However, again, it is not even all that difficult from a computer simulation perspective to define structures in which the primary foliation creates asymmetric embedded virtual foliations -- other frames -- that internally look exactly like the primary frame though a combination of directionally-dependent early and late binding of causal events in the primary frame. In fact, you can do that so well that there is no way to distinguish internally between the cases... which is of course exactly what SR requires!

Again, assuming that I’m even understanding you correctly, your frame of temporal simultaneity would almost certainly be the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) frame, the frame that has undergone the least number of acceleration-deceleration events over the history of the universe. As long as matter in that CMB frame remains unaccelerated, any other matter in the universe that “come to visit” the lazy CMB matter will be guaranteed to have less elapsed time; that is, the CMB frame will always have the fastest time in such comparisons, and no arrangement of other matter in the universe can overcome that speed advantage, no matter how you arrange the test.

The CMB frame will also be the only frame that “sees” the real minimum energy of the universe as it looks out and assesses the total relativistic energy of the rest of the universe. Any frame moving relative to the CMB will see overly high energy totals.

So, your “single simultaneous time” will both be the fastest possible time in the universe -- which just makes sense if it is the real driver of all causality in all possible frames -- and it will be the home of the only accurate “view” of the total mass-energy of the universe.

Finally, I think a test for the existence of such a primary frame – that is, for your simultaneous-time ether foliation -- may in fact exist, but it will necessarily be a very subtle test. I brought this issue up in a comment under Del Santo (topic 3017).

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 05:00 GMT

Dear Terry Bollinger,

Thanks for your gracious comments. I'm pleased that you got so much out of it, although as you note, it could take a while to follow all the lines of thought. You're probably correct to criticize the essay for veering from the assigned topic. You actually do address the topic in specific manner in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, but many focus on generalities, and reading 200 such is painful to contemplate. FQXi is a unique forum, offering reasonable visibility, archival storage, and a very effective comments scheme that cross-fertilizes. Establishment physicists probably come here to win a few bucks, but those who left academia long ago, or are otherwise locked out of establishment journals, see a venue for their own theories, which as you have discovered, span a wide range. Some, taking advantage of feedback, improve their ideas year after year, and often twist their theme into the current essay topic.

Your interpretation of my essay is essentially correct --- that all causality unfolds at the "same time" [as measured by perfect clocks, i.e. clocks not subject to local conditions.] Your use of 'curved' and 'space-time' are probably orthodox. Weinberg, Feynman, and others have derived GR from flat space, and I prefer flat space energy density distribution to curved geometry, although they are interchangeable in theory. Space-time as 4D is so misleading that I prefer 3D +1, as elaborated on in many of the above comments. The CMB approximates absolute space, and time is time – orthogonal to space. x,y,z can project onto each other, but time projects only onto itself.

Your discussion of the CMB frame as the only frame that "sees" the minimum energy of the universe is well stated. My focus has been less global and more local in the sense that I wish to explain the muon, the global positioning system, Einstein's railway cars, and other specific phenomena relevant to SR. I view the entire 3D universe as existing "now", i.e. it is the same time everywhere in the universe. Messages from one part of the universe to another flow at the speed of light through gravity. Einstein and recently others postulate that the speed of light may vary as a function of strength of the gravitational field through which it propagates, but I am uncommitted on this idea. We do have proponents of 'block time' among our FQXi essayists, but, as you note, mine is not a block-time theory. Your statement that "single simultaneous time" will be the fastest possible time in the universe is compatible in a sense. In reality (according to my approach) all time is the same time and has the same "speed". Local clocks cannot measure time -- they measure oscillating systems whose oscillating frequency is a function of local energy, so that changes in frequency show up on clocks as "changes in time". But in fact there are no changes in time; time flows equably throughout the universe. I don't believe any other scheme could have endured for 14 billion years with time willy-nilly changing relative to all the moving parts.

I will look at your test. I too, have a proposed test, and welcome others.

I've read your essay and will comment on your page.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin.

Thank you for kindly comments

I agree many points in your essay, concerning fundamental question, is very interesting as it gives rationally explanations that focus most imortart fundamental aspects of nature of the Gravity and light which I also have implications of 19th century's benefits of philosophy linked physics namely Classical Physics.

"TK: No. I hope we...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 01:50 GMT

Dear Bashir,

You say "I believe all scientific facts are somehow right, no matter whether it's classical physics or quantum mechanics, except [for] some fundamental interpretations."

I believe you're saying that the same facts have different interpretations, and conflicts are resolvable by the correct theory. I tend to agree.

You assume that nature began with photons and gravity, but Hertz's interpretation, reviewed in my essay, would view photons as 'disturbances' in the medium, in this case, gravity. If you begin with gravity, the photons will be included. If you redefine the photon to include charge, this is incompatible with Hertz's perspective.

I did read your essay and comment on the difference in our models.

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Eugene,

You had me at Einstein, until you went all Newton on me!

Find a perfect clock in my essay.

Nevertheless, decent score. :-)

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:38 GMT

Tom,

Sorry you knocked me down thinking I presented Newton. Newton had 'action-at-a-distance', which you will not find in my equations. Indeed, one can derive Einstein's field equations via iteration on the 'weak field equations' (although a geometric algebra approach makes absolutely no mention of field strength, so I interpret the equations as valid for any strength.)

I will re-read your essay and try to comment meaningfully.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 18:23 GMT

Edwin Eugene,

I didn't mean to knock you down. Sorry if I did.

In any case, it's a matter of concept, not equations. "Time flows equably ..." is Newtonian. "the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity" is equivalent to Newton, nonlocal or not.

Einstein/Lorentz time dilation and length contraction are physically real, because spacetime is physically real, and they manifest locally because they are measured relative to local conditions. This does nothing to Einstein's perfect clock, however, which is synchronized with the initial condition and continuing to any later time.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 19:07 GMT

Tom,

You state your beliefs clearly, but you don't address any arguments in my essay. Obviously before writing this essay I understood that it would step on many's beliefs. That's just the way it goes.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (3 not shown)

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 19:57 GMT

Edwin Eugene,

The central concept of Einstein's theory is a belief?

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 20:27 GMT

Tom,

Yes -- a mistaken belief. But your question indicates why you got nothing from my essay, as you seem not to accept the possibility that your belief can be wrong. I don't wish to argue beliefs, so there's nowhere to go from here. As Markus notes in the following comment, an experiment would be appropriate, and as I answered him, I do have an experiment to propose.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:29 GMT

Edwin Eugene,

My program is experimentally-based, too, with an experiment already proposed.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I like the way that you present your ideas in terms of a posthumous discussion of physicist. It is fun to read, and you explain some concepts really well.

However, I disagree with your conclusions. In particular, what seems decisive to me is how you would answer the following question: does your "local gravity as ether" theory make any concrete experimental predictions that DIFFER from the predictions of GR?

If the answer is "no", then it is simply a matter of taste whether one would like to adopt Einstein's formulation or yours. I would say that it's folklore among physicists that the gravitational field can, in some sense, be seen as some kind of "ether" if one really wants to. It is just that one doesn't gain anything from doing so.

But if the answer is "yes", then you should simply propose an experiment that decides between the two theories. How you feel about GR's and SR's different "time dimensions" (the word is simply chosen by you to make it sound implausible) is then completely irrelevant. The result will then either be a falsification of your approach or the Nobel prize for you.

Best regards,

Markus

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 19:10 GMT

Dear Markus,

Thanks for reading and commenting.

The answer (briefly mentioned on page 9) is yes: the "local gravity as ether" does make concrete experimental predictions that differ from the predictions of SR. It is an axiom of special relativity that one cannot measure the velocity of any inertial frame (such as the railway car) from within the inertial frame itself. According to my theory, one can do so and I have designed an experiment to do just this.

I do not understand how one can add a new universal time dimension, t', to a new inertial reference frame, and not think of it as a new 'time dimension', but as you say, this is terminology. Physicists have a way of sweeping problems under the rug. For example, Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:00 GMT

Ed,

I have long thought that a covariant form of gravitation in which energy density distribution in inertial domains, interacting with each other, could be found that corresponds with results of GR. Having said that, what do you mean that, "Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not." How do you understand the LT to figure into the assemblage of several kinds of maths that is the computational devise called General Relativity? And how was GR applied to the orbitals assigned to GPS satellites which were launched and are continually controlled using Newtonian mechanics? please - jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:45 GMT

Hi jrc,

We agree (in principle) on your first sentence re: energy density distribution. Let me address your question about the failure of Einstein's 'space-time symmetry', in which "your clock runs slower than mine, while my clock runs more slowly than yours." This is supposed to be 'observer-dependent' as either can be the "rest frame". Thus, the GPS ground station will see the satellite clocks running slower, while the satellite should see the ground state clock as running slower. This does not happen! The ground state is always the fastest clock. This agrees with my energy-time interpretation of SR, in which clock rates are viewed as energy state dependent and are asymmetrical, but contradicts Einstein's 'space-time symmetry'. The ground station clocks have no "energy state changes" – they are in the 'rest frame' established by local gravity and do not move. The satellite clocks start on the launchpad and experience significant energy state changes to achieve 'escape velocity'. They always run 'slower' then the ground station.

[Note: I am separating SR velocity-dependent time-dilation from GR's gravity-dependent dilation as the asymmetry in question violates SR.]

Thanks for your question and for giving my essay serious thought.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (4 not shown)

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 00:21 GMT

Thanks for the response Ed,

I understand your argument as being that the onboard clock mechanism, the oscillation rate of Cesium atoms, is altered in relation to the earth clock by the momentum imparted by acceleration to escape velocity. This would then reflect as you propose that the earth clock is stable in the local inertial frame and the sat-clock slow due to its orbit maintaining the momentum load on the Cesium.

So then the next question is; what in the 45,000 nanosecond/day advancing rate of the sat-clock at its orbital distance. The sum of the lag and lead results in the onboard clock registering 38,000 nanosecond/day ahead of earth time, and of course has to be continuously compensated to within a 50 nanosecond window. If the gravitational force due to energy density interaction, causes the Cesium to vibrate more rapidly, would that shed momentum over time? jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 01:06 GMT

jrc,

Your first paragraph is essentially correct. Your second paragraph shows that you understand some of the mechanics.

The gravitational effect makes the satellite clock run faster, the special relativity effect makes it run slower. In essence, since in my theory the 'clock' is counting cycles, not measuring time, in GPS the counts are adjusted to make all clocks run at a common time, which Phipps calls 'collective time'. Having understood what they're doing, I have not delved into the details that you ask for, and it's not immediately obvious to me where variations enter the picture. The main point is that the clock 'adjustments' are always based on the ground clock running the fastest, which violates Einstein's special relativistic 'space-time symmetry' and validates my energy-time approach.

Going out this evening, so will be off-line.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 02:18 GMT

Have a good time, Doc,

I have looked at it from a perspective of having a consistent unitary field rationale, but then the complexity that immediately evolves in considering even small numbers in aggregate, require some kind of ontology beyond 'stacking' oranges. The quantity of energy in aggregate fields of specific force densities must also be conceived as differentiating what makes positive from negative charge operate as observed without resorting to "well, I'll just make it rotate". I seriously think that as density characteristics go, what we observe as the earth's 'magnetosphere' measurable way out into space, is actually still at electrostatic density in the aggregate field volume. And probably only of the denser region we associate as *negative* that operates in separation of atomic centers. So I ponder that sort of thing to try to metaphysically develop a measurement ontology that might project as quantities of energy in bulk for the electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational volumes of the entire field. What I found just in a theoretical, background independent, free rest mass; is that smaller volumes in a sphere at higher density, consumes less quantity in that volume than does the variation of density decreasing across larger volumes, as a sphere's volume computes on radial increments. And that's true for any mass quantity sitting on the benchtop in the realm of contemplation. Most of the mass in my computations is in the outermost shell, just at a much lower energy density range. I have no guess at how vast the earth's gravitational limit would be if it were calculated as if in the void.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT

G'morning Ed,

I just ran across this browsing for generalized energy density estimations, and it looks a close fit with what you are doing. It is towards finding a scalar term for gravitational energy density in flat (Euclidean) space, and if its on NASA then they take it seriously. search tag:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/poss
ible_scalar_term_#3

onward! through the fog. jrc

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Ed,

Is there an orbital configuration (not necessarily for the Earth) wherein the effects of GR and SR exactly offset each other? If so, does that provide any insight?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 21:42 GMT

Dear Gary,

You ask an interesting question about orbits that allow SR and GR time dilation effects to cancel. I would expect such to exist, but have not calculated this. Since the 'escape velocity' is a very special value, I would start there and see how SR and GR compare. I like your curious mind. Often just thinking of the right question is the key to insight.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene,

A fun and imaginative way to introduce the fundamental property(ies?) of time. Bringing popular and well-known physicists together in a situation for a discussion to write an excellent expository essay. thx

However, we know that time essentially imposes a causality criteria on modern theory. That is best discussed in

N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”, hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000. I would suggest that you consider that criteria, as it is (partly) solved by the No-Boundary Wave Function.

But there are several other criteria. In fact Karen Crouther wrote a nice essay further delineating the requirements in a modern context.

Among them is the requirement for finite particle representation geometry that replicates QC/ED quantum state algebra. The finitary criteria is necessary for mathematical consistency, per

G. Takeuti, Proof Theory, Dover Publications, 1975.

I explore these further criteria toward a logical foundational formula in my essay, which I encourage you to read as well.

Wayne Lundberg

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 22:13 GMT

Dear Wayne Lundberg,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I've looked at Seiberg, Susskind, and Toumbas on 'Space-time Non-commutation and Causality' – they discuss "the other term is an "advanced" wave which appears to leave the wall before the incoming packet arrived." They then say a conflict with Lorentz invariance is relevant. As you know I reject space-time symmetry in favor of an asymmetric energy-time interpretation of special relativity. Susskind's most recent book (my ref 19) claims to derive the Lorentz in two inertial frames, like Einstein. That this approach is inherently geometric is reinforced by Susskind's advice:

"when confronted with one of these paradoxes, you should draw a space-time diagram".

In other words, don't use logic (leading to 'paradox'), use geometry. Susskind is still big on strings, which many physicists have moved away from. Hartl, Hawking, and Hertog in "The Classical Universes of the No Boundary Quantum State" believe that the quantum state of the universe determines whether or not it exhibits a quasi-classical realm. I have very little faith in theories based on "the quantum state of the universe."

If I understand your essay you wish to construct fundamental quanta and properties from geometry:

"… All fundamental particle quanta, mass and energy quantities are attributed to a geometric basis [having a dual algebra, with no geometrical properties left over]."

While I tend to agree concerning "foundational theorem which defines geometric-algebraic space-time objects.", I perhaps misunderstand the attempts to define "finite particle representation geometry" that replicates QC/ED quantum state algebra. While I believe geometric algebra is the proper framework: (combining algebra and geometry) I do not believe that elucidating the product terms [as I understand other essays to do] and placing them in one-to-one correspondence with the elementary particles is the correct approach. The LHC has shown that a perfect fluid results from Pb-Pb and Au-Au collisions, and I believe a fluid dynamics model is required to produce the particle zoo (utilizing Yang Mills gauge). I believe the pseudo-stable states resulting actually do have geometric properties, but I see these as 'end states'. I do not see geometric properties as initial states, and thus do not believe such geometry fundamental. I hope I have understood your essay correctly.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT

Edwin,

My work treats QCD color and QED charge and spin quanta as co-fundamental. The geometric-state algebra is an exact 1-1 with both existing taken together. I can easily write down a parallel to Dirac algebra, so I am not concerned about hypothetical ways of making QCD quanta appear 'derived'.

I think I should better illustrate what a geometric-state algebra is, starting from simple B&W spinning coins to the more complex geometry required for QCD. Anyway, I'm sure that your space-time diagram treats particles as point-like, which is a mistake. Singularitues are prohibited.

Wayne

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:31 GMT

Dear Wayne Lundberg,

We do have different models of QED/QCD, while we do agree that geometric algebra is the most appropriate tool. But I'm not sure where you got the idea that my space-time diagram treats particles as point-like. My model of particles is extended in space, not singularities. My particle model is not really discussed or implied by my essay.

I'm thankful that FQXi invites all of us to contribute our ideas to this forum. I think we all benefit from these exchanges.

Best regards, Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Edwin Klingman,

In nature, everything is interconnected and, of course, time is connected with energy. Besides, time is associated with inertia, momentum, movement and space. The question is what connections are short and direct, and which are indirect? Let us consider these connections on the example of an electron. If the internal energy of an electron is kinetic energy, then any...

view entire post

Dear Edwin Klingman,

In nature, everything is interconnected and, of course, time is connected with energy. Besides, time is associated with inertia, momentum, movement and space. The question is what connections are short and direct, and which are indirect? Let us consider these connections on the example of an electron. If the internal energy of an electron is kinetic energy, then any point that is part of the electron has zero rest mass and moves at the speed of light. The zero mass of points in a closed volume forms a nonzero mass of the electron. Here the points are very conditional definition - these can be any structures with nonzero dimensions. The motion of points inside an electron is an internal process of an electron. This motion causes a continuous change in the state of the electron, since each point continuously changes its spatial coordinates. The change in the state of the electron forms the proper time of the electron. Now imagine that the gravitational field has one single property - the action on the speed of light, and the smaller the distance to the central mass, the speed of light is less. Let the electron be placed in a gravitational field. In this case, all processes inside the electron slow down in proportion to the decrease in the local speed of light and this leads to a dilation of the electron proper time. In the case of an electron moving relative to the central mass, the average rate of processes inside the electron is additionally slowed down and this leads to an additional expansion of the electron proper time. Both forms of time dilation are observed in the GPS satellite system. In reality, the gravitational field has not one but two fundamental properties, and the combined action of these properties causes various adventures for the electron, including its gravitational acceleration. More details are shown in the essay.

The length contraction caused by gravity can be discussed in the future. Here I note that the rate of time flow in different frames of reference can differ very much, but any two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are also simultaneous in any other reference frame. So, I give You a high rating.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:35 GMT

Dear Robert Sadykov,

Your first paragraph describes a model of the electron that is extended and dynamic, and we agree on these aspects. Some details differ between our models, but, as you say, "the gravitational field has not one but two fundamental properties" [as shown in my equations (1)]. While I reject the non-intuitive 'space-time symmetry' of Einstein, I do believe that the non-linear self-interaction of the gravitational field interacting with ultra-dense particles is very difficult for our intuition to grasp. I have performed iterative calculations using Mathematica that show nonlinear effects to be significant.

Thank you for observing that

"The rate of time flow in different frames of reference can differ very much, but any two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are also simultaneous in any other reference frame."

No one else has stated it that way!

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin, time is not fundamental. Fundamental is the movement of physical space, which for Descartes is a matter. Time is a synonym of total movement space (ether, as you say). I appreciated highly your essay. You forgot to rate my essay. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:37 GMT

Dear Boris,

My essay does not state that time is [the most] fundamental. It argues that the fundamental nature of time is universal simultaneity, which Einstein destroyed when he added multiple time dimensions to physical reality, essentially adding a "universal time" to every moving object of interest. You and others consider "the movement of physical space". In my thinking space is an attribute of the field, and it is the field that is dynamic, not space, per se. I think the field, through possession of energy, is "material", not space per se.

I will reread your essay and try to leave a meaningful comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

In your reply above to Markus Muller, you write that "Physicists have a way of sweeping problems under the rug. For example, Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not."

You make it more explicit a few comments after that:

"Let me address your question about the failure of Einstein's 'space-time symmetry', in which "your clock runs slower than mine, while my clock runs more slowly than yours." This is supposed to be 'observer-dependent' as either can be the "rest frame". Thus, the GPS ground station will see the satellite clocks running slower, while the satellite should see the ground state clock as running slower. This does not happen! The ground state is always the fastest clock. This agrees with my energy-time interpretation of SR, in which clock rates are viewed as energy state dependent and are asymmetrical, but contradicts Einstein's 'space-time symmetry'."

It may well be that your interpretation does reproduce the observed results, but I would respectfully like to point out that Einstein's theory also does! In Einstein's theory, because of the relativity of simultaneity, it is true that two INTERTIAL observers moving at constant speed relative to each other will each consider that the other's clock is running slow --- what you call "space-time symmetry". But if one or both observers are accelerated, this is no longer true. You don't even have to consider General Relativity: in an accelerated frame, your definition of simultaneity changes constantly, and it is quite possible that you will consider the clock in another reference frame to be ticking faster.

A nice discussion of this often misunderstood effect can be found here:

Don Koks (2009) Do Moving Clocks always run slowly?

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

All the best!

Marc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:46 GMT

Dear Marc Séguin,

Thank you for reading my essay and comments.

You say

"It may well be that your interpretation does reproduce the observed results, but I would like to respectfully point out that Einstein's theory also does!"

You are correct that Einstein and I both derive the Lorentz transformation – he from two inertial frames, I from two different energies in one frame [my ref 12]. When applied to energy problems (such as time dilation) we should agree. This is analogous to different interpretations of QM [which share the same math] agreeing.

According to my reference 10 Einstein's 'space-time symmetry' effects [common terminology, not 'my' terminology] have never been measured. If light propagates in local gravity [a preferred frame, contradicting Einstein's basic principle] then this makes sense.

When one formulates the problem[s] as if two inertial frames [including separate times t' =/= t] exist, one arrives at paradoxes that require considerable pretzel logic to "explain". I've noted that Susskind advises one to "draw a space-time diagram" in these cases. That is consistent with the geometric nature of translating between two 4D frames.

My view is that Lorentz applied to energy is physical, Lorentz applied to transformation between two frames is geometric. If the two 4D frames are non-physical, the predicted results will not be seen [ref 10]. Energy phenomena are real and so calculations do match measurement.

You are correct that acceleration [implicit in GPS] does complicate the situation, further disturbing the idea of 'perfect clocks'. I will review the link you have graciously provided.

Thanks again for your well thought out comments and for contributing to this forum.

My best to you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

The bartender omits a crucial question in what is an argument about the nature of time. And that is; what physical form does light actually have in a modern tavern? In Ollie and Jim's day the luminiferous aether was seen as a real medium necessary for a warpage taking the form of a transverse wave to conduct a quantity of energy across space, even though it was calculable that it would physically have to be more rarefied than any known gas while having a rigidity comparable to steel. So in your conception that energy density is effectively the universal medium, and that density could be expected to vary in accord with 1/r^2 for gravity to be understood as an interaction of densities of energy; what is the physical form that EMR takes/ does it have a 3D shape/ how does it stay confined to a linear projection that would be necessary for e=hf to be consistently observed?/. If the nature of time is going to be argued on the back of light velocity, and how that can vary with energy density, then the other customers ought to know what light is.

An essay cannot convey all the mathematical arguments you work from, so could you give a wholistic panorama in least technical terminology, of how it all comes together? There has been a great deal of interest in your essay, but its gotten so dissected its like Hilbert space out here. best as always, jrc

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 19:37 GMT

Infinite mass is a misnomer for the induction reactance of energy density. In a co-variant domain of one inertial frame, what goes to infinity is the infinitesimal DIFFERENCE at light velocity of that reactance to induction from applied field strength. I've argued that all along. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:55 GMT

Dear jrc,

You ask a powerful question. Just as Feynman famously said no one understands QM, I believe Einstein claimed that no one understands the photon. I do have a 'picture' in mind that is compatible with equation[s] (1) in my essay. As I've noted on Avtar Singh's essay page, I believe he's correctly noted [his postulate I] the need for examining kinetic energy of the photon more closely.

To address this [the answer to your question] here in a comment is next to impossible. I don't handle FQXi equation formatting well, and FQXi doesn't allow figures to be inserted. Also, my arguments extend to the non-linearity of gravity, which is still not appreciated as meaningful by the majority of physicists. Key to the argument is that changing the ['weak-field'] equations to ignore non-linear terms [recovered through iteration] does not change the physical nature of gravity. The consensus appears to be that it does change the nature of gravity and so non-linearity can be ignored. I believe this to be a significant mistake.

It is not the 1/r^2 nature of gravity so much as the mass density dependence of gravito-magnetic circulation [hence angular momentum] that is significant. I formulated the equations to solve this and will attempt to solve and graph these using Mathematica, but that won't happen in this comment.

I don't think of "the nature of time … argued on the back of light velocity", but rather as the dual of energy. Nevertheless, it is valid to ask what a photon "looks like".

You reasonably ask for "a wholistic panorama in the least technical terminology, of how it all comes together." I will try to answer in a continuation of this comment.

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 21:02 GMT

con't – jrc's question about photon

Even as an assistant professor of physics, I once taught that the E and B fields of electromagnetic waves were 'out-of-phase' and their sum, ~(sin^2 + cos^2) preserved energy across the vast reaches of space. When I noted the "in-phase" diagrams in my textbooks, I thought them mistaken, but quickly convinced myself that the Maxwell solutions do yield E and B in-phase with each other.

This means that (E^2 + B^2) energy is max at one point in the waveform and zero at another. Thus as the waveform passes through a point, the energy of the point pulses from max to zero, and this repeats every cycle.

The equations (1) in my essay provide exactly the mass-energy density compensation needed for conservation of energy at every point the photon passes through. This only works when the non-linearity of the field is taken into account, and this is "non-intuitive". As I said above, I hope to solve and graph the solution, but it ain't gonna happen in this comment.

I also hope to prove experimentally that the velocity of "an inertial frame" can be measured entirely within the frame, which is forbidden in principle by special relativity.

I'm grateful for the "great deal of interest" in my essay, as I believe that both GR and QM are essentially mathematically correct, but both embed physical interpretations that are incorrect. The math won't change, but the interpretation of physics will, when physicists understand that mathematical projections onto reality are useful, but don't actually impart the simplified structure to reality. Most physicists welcome new ideas, especially math, but not many welcome reinterpretation of physical reality that invalidates things they have taught and published and that got them to their exalted state in life. Nevertheless, I believe this way lies progress.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Helolo dearv Edwin,

I loved and enjoyed your essay, it was a real pleasure to read and I learn in the same time.I liked also your words about the ether, I consider personally a gravitational aether.Congratulations for this general work and this interpretation of time.

Good luck, you merit also a prize like cristi ,congratulations still.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT

Dear Steve,

I'm very happy to see you here, and your comment makes me even happier.

Stay well, my friend

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 12:25 GMT

Thanks Edwin, it is nice,

I try to stay well lol

freindly, take care :)

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman,

At one point I played with idea of making my essay one paragraph long, because “What can one do with fundamental?”

For the most part, I have not seen authors that were inspired by this topic. You have found inspiration! As a work of friction there are minor things that could be worked on like setting of place by using the senses (sights, sounds, feel and even smells). Your Physics did not convince me, but you stated your points well. There are other story type essays for this topic, but this shows you have grown as a writer.

You should do well,

Jeff Schmitz

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 01:11 GMT

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz,

Thank you for your gracious comments and for the welcome advice to humanize the Tavern with sights, sounds, smells, etc. I may rewrite this using your advice for another venue (although there are few venues like FQXi).

I've now read your essay, and agree with you about "the assumption that the rules of quantum mechanics apply to gravity waves and neutrinos, but we have no experimental evidence for this assumption." You might like to read my comment below [Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT] based on Cristinel Stoica's excellent discussion of isomorphisms.

Thanks again for reading and giving meaningful remarks.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ed,

In a post above, you and JRC discuss how to represent a photon. I suggest the following:

Psi = (c*t)i + cos(theta)*[Ej + Bk]

where i, j, and k are unit vectors, theta = 2*pi*c*t/lamda, and Psi, c, t, E, and B have the usual meanings.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 11:46 GMT

Ed,

Oops ... I should add that the photon is moving in the i direction.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 17:17 GMT

Gary,

Glad to see you looking in. I think among the three of us we agree that gravitation to be realistically defined as a physical phenomenon, must be addressed in non-linear fashion. I personally go from an exponential 'stacking up', or 'deceleration', of energy into a self-gravitational spherical free rest mass. But that's not where Ed is coming from and I'm simply looking for a...

view entire post

Gary,

Glad to see you looking in. I think among the three of us we agree that gravitation to be realistically defined as a physical phenomenon, must be addressed in non-linear fashion. I personally go from an exponential 'stacking up', or 'deceleration', of energy into a self-gravitational spherical free rest mass. But that's not where Ed is coming from and I'm simply looking for a fit.

I agree with Ed that 1/r^2 is insufficient. It can be treated as a near approximation in a straight line measurement that operates as a time independent invariance theorem similar in form to the time derivative invariance of the LT.

Pardon the "A" in my previous post, I'm really bad about things like that. Poor discipline, and besides, who decided to denote "B" as the magnetic plane? I always think "F" for 'ferrous'. But that needs reserved for 'force'. I'm okay with "E" for the electrostatic, and elasticity. We just don't have enough glyphs to go around. Oh well.

I can vaguely discern in your waveform suggestion that the cosine of theta would produce an amplitude, I am not trained mathematically to readily see things like that. And its each to their own, and if two different methods define the same process then its corroborative. Ed has a function he says he has yet to chart, but one must assume that its derivative of his global scheme of things in equating gravitational behavior with time dependent energy density.

I personally think, an R4 model of EMR that is self-limiting to observed limits, and which would be directly transformative to to S3 would be essential to bridging Relativity and QM. And think where we can look for a theoretical absolute velocity is in the core values of a free rest mass. I won't tout my own thing, it has legs but ticklish spots on both Achille's Heels. But I will say that where my modeling fails in part is that I have never gone back and put the EMR waveform in motion. Realistically, a soliton with a 'Pinch Point' that Ed colloquially (I'm good with colloquial!) describes, should race along at c like when you shake the bends out of your good extension cord after dragging it around for an hour. You know, you look at which way the kinks are winding and walk it out straightish and start giving it circular little whips, and the uncoil loop snakes down the length to where it hits a carbuncle, and unlays it.

Where I'm fuzzy about a gravitational mass interacting in a field of lower energy density, is not that the non-linearity in the mass would seek a greater field density to match its own density center, but rather how that non-linear field of lower density propagates from another gravitational mass among others in continually changing positions melding into the global system locale. That's got to be a lot of work. Good Cheer, jrc

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica's essay is very relevant to points I have made above, so I show comments I made on his thread:

Cristi gets off to a great start showing the isomorphism between 'number scrabble' and 'tic-tac-toe'. He notes that "in mathematics, isomorphism's are ubiquitous", mentioning that Euclidian geometry ~ axiomatics ~ symmetries ~ numbers/equations, for example.

This supports very nicely my thesis that physicists project mathematical structure onto physical reality, and then come to believe that physical reality has that structure. While it is relatively simple for competent mathematicians to 'switch' from one formulation to another isomorphic formulation, the physicist who "freezes" the projected mathematical structure onto physical reality has a tendency to "see" reality is having that structure.

For example, spins tend to align in fields such that statistically they are aligned or anti-aligned with each other in neighborhood/domains. Based on an over-simplistic interpretation of Stern-Gerlach data, Pauli projected a 'qubit' structure, O|+> = +|+>, O|-> = -|-> onto spin, despite that the SG data is distributed almost exactly as predicted by calculations of 3D spin traversing an inhomogeneous magnetic field. Based on Pauli's 'qubit'-based Hamiltonian, Bell 'believed' the qubit to be real and thus required qubit results: A = +/-1, B = +/-1 rather than variable deflection as seen in the data. The variable data satisfies Bell's relation which he claims is impossible to satisfy.

In another comment Cristi states: "Because Bell's theorem is a theorem. Trying to refute it is like trying to find in Euclidean geometry a right triangle which violates Pythagoras's theorem. It is simply impossible." Of course Bell's theorem is a foregone conclusion, from his very first equation, in which he forces the only allowed data to be +1 or -1. There is no physics involved in this, simply an initial condition that is 'projected' onto the reality of spin.

Thus Bell's 'belief' in Pauli's mathematical projection, causes him to reject 3D spin, which does satisfy ABcos(A,B), and to claim this impossible, leading to "entanglement" as a new mystery, on which thousands of papers can be written. This is compounded by "proofs" of Bell's theorem being conducted with valid two-state experiments, where the states are detection or not of photons.

Finally, as Bell was forcing 'qubits' on spin, Feynman, who was in love with the two-slit photon experiments, realized that he could apply Pauli's 'qubit wave function' for spin in a manner analogous to the two-slit experiments and he applied this to SG, thus projecting 'superposition' onto spin. Although Feynman's gedanken experiments have never been tested, several QM texts now begin with Feynman's two-slit-spin analogy. Thus Feynman and Bell forced a 'mystical' view on spin and Aspect "confirmed" it with photon analogs.

Once these giants froze the qubit projection onto reality, other isomorphisms go to hell. Isomorphisms are formalisms, qubit spin is (believed to be) physical reality! To seriously question this "reality" can be dangerous to one's career.

I discuss qubits because the genealogy is so clear cut. I could've discussed iso-spin, in which Heisenberg replaced two real fundamental particles with an imagined particle with 'qubit-like' projections onto reality, etc.

In my essay I treat another projection onto reality. Einstein, while basing his treatment on Hertz, projected a 4D-coordinate system with a new universal time dimension onto each moving object. The addition of new time dimensions (the physical 'reality' corresponding to the math structure) of course demolished time as universal symmetry and replaced it with "the relativity of simultaneity". This 'freezing' of the 4D-projection on the moving objects has lasted 100 years, despite the fact that the 'energy-time' conjugation in one inertial frame is isomorphic to Einstein's 'space-time symmetry' in two inertial frames, and agrees with all relativistic particle physics data.

In similar fashion, one can derive Bekenstein's "holographic principle" in terms of energy alone, without ever conceiving of information. But the 'information' projection is now 'believed' by physicists, and the door is closed to isomorphisms.

In summary, as long as the isomorphisms are mathematical, they are easily seen to morph into one another. But as soon as a mathematical structure is projected onto physical reality, it becomes "frozen" in the mind of the (consensus) physicist, and the fact that other isomorphic interpretations (such as 'classical' versus 'quantum') are equally possible are dismissed or rejected with almost religious fervor.

Cristi wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 11:32 GMT, that while it is natural to question non-intuitive physics, one has to move on in his career. Nevertheless, he says:

"But I still think it is necessary to start by questioning everything, and you should never stop."

I believe that if one projection that leads to non-intuitive 'nonsense' can be replaced by another isomorphism that is compatible with the real data, and yet makes intuitive sense, this change of isomorphisms should be made.

So thank you, Cristi, for focusing on 'isomorphism' and 'fundamentality' as you have done. Your essay is well written and enlightening. Of course I agree with your proposition that geometric algebra is the tool we should be using. I hope my essay is read in terms of such isomorphisms.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 02:18 GMT

Author Cristinel Stoica replied [on his page] on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 09:52 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for the interested comments and reading my essay.

You are right that physicists, like any other humans, project their views onto reality. But I don't think we can use this as argument to simply refute some of the achievements of physics. I would say the opposite is the right way,...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 02:21 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Thank you for responding to my comment. You have certainly understood my main point, that we project our views onto reality. However you misinterpret me when you suggest "find where they are wrong and then conclude this was because of a wrong projection."

That is exactly what I am doing!

My essay discusses the arguments for one such wrong projection. It is hard...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 02:23 GMT

Dear Cristi,

After responding to you I started looking through 26 Jan 2018 copy of Physical Review Letters I received in the mail today. I was interested to find article 040406 titled

"Violation of Bell's Inequality Using Continuous Variable Measurements"

That is essentially the argument I was making above about the continuous variable deflection of silver atoms instead of Bell's constraint of +1 and -1. The current article is based on quantum optics, and therefore does not translate directly into atomic tests, but I hope you can see that it is an isomorphism of the paper I linked to above. The authors [Thearle, e al.] note that for continuum variable quantum optics the Bell test is harder to realize. But, significantly, they state

"Bell argued that quantum states with positive definite Wigner function would not violate a Bell inequality with respect to continuous variable measurements."

They claim the first observation of Bell correlations in a continuous variable system. As I said, this does not translate directly into Stern-Gerlach type of atomic tests, but I believe it is isomorphic to the continuous variable deflection measurements that I describe and that I have shown to violate Bell's inequality.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene,

Thanks for your kind words in my Essay page. It is indeed nice meeting you again here in FQXi.

You wrote a nice and provocative Essay. I have found very entertaining the issue that Einstein stayed in your tavern before coming in my dream. By the way, is the tavern keeper yourself?

I am not convinced on Einstein's reply on the TK statement that "Light propagating in local gravity constitutes a preferred reference frame, contrary to your conclusions, Professor." In fact, in your Essay, Einstein replied that "But light propagating in local gravity would seem to break this symmetry." Instead, I think that Einstein should have preferred replying something like: "local gravity cannot exist because it generates a breakdown of the Equivalence Principle". In that sense, a local Lorentz frame (LLF) can be considered a preferred reference frame, because in a LLF the gravitational field is always null. But I think that Einstein's conclusions on the non-existence of a preferred reference frame underlays the concept of general covariance. In fact, even admitting the existence of multiple "universal times", it exists only a proper time and only a proper distance and both of them respect general covariance.

In any case, your Essay was a nice reading. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 19:35 GMT

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your kind remarks and for reading my essay. In 'quantum gravity' I quote Ohanian and Ruffini:

"Principle of the equivalence of gravitation and acceleration is true only in a limited sense. If rotational degrees of freedom are taken into consideration… then the equivalence fails."

EEP ignores two things, tidal effects and rotation. One cannot replace gravity by acceleration if tidal effects cannot be ignored or if rotation cannot be ignored. In most cases the tidal effects can be ignored, but any principle that has exceptions is not a principle to bet one's theory on.

Although I do not mention it in this essay, I have described The Nature of Quantum Gravity the behavior of gravito-magnetism for ultra-dense matter. For example, the upper bound on the radius of the electron is approximately ten to the minus twentieth meters. This provides a density factor of approximately 60 orders of magnitude, and possibly even higher. When one plugs this mass density into equations(1) of my essay, the gravito-magnetic circulation ( del x C ) becomes non-negligible, and this aspect of gravitation cannot be "replaced" by acceleration. Therefore the EEP is a useful conceit in certain instances but I do not believe it is fundamental.

As I sit here, weighed down by gravity, I have trouble understanding the belief that mathematically projecting an "acceleration" on the body actually cancels local gravitational energy. Einstein's geometric equations do not handle the concept of local density well (if at all?) But the linear equations [(1) in my essay] imply the full non-linear equations, and they are based on momentum density, that is, mass density in motion.

As for the concept of general covariance, there is no physics in covariance.

I thank you for reading my essay and responding with thoughtful criticism. We do not agree on the central significance of the EEP. I see it as a useful approximation when gravito-magnetic and tidal effects are ignored. It says nothing real about "local gravity cannot exist."

I address other related issues in neighboring comments on this page.

As I remarked on your page, you have described, in very enjoyable fashion, a model of quantum normal modes of a black hole analogous to the atomic states of Bohr, and allowed Einstein to draw out various features that are addressed by your model. I am impressed with your analogy, and I am very glad that Einstein stopped by to see you after leaving the Tavern. It is always good conversing with you.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 08:34 GMT

Dear Edwin,

There are some important parts where I agree with you. I wanted to state this from the beginning of my comment, in order to facilitate reading without feeling that I opposed you too much. There is something where we disagree too, but you will see there is some important part where I tend to agree with...

view entire post

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 22:40 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Thank you for your extended reply. I am retired and have plenty of time for this. You are in the middle of your career and have very little time, therefore I appreciate your gracious behavior. I take your criticism very seriously – you are certainly correct that all 'animus' must be removed from any paper on Bell. With that understood may I provide another link to a paper [please ignore the title!]: Bell was Simply Wrong , in which you might look at page 5 and 6 for the Bell test result figures. On page 5 is the model and page 6 shows the results obtained for +1 and -1 [which fail the Bell test] and for variable A and B based on the classical model [which produces the desired Bell cosine correlation]. Both are based on 10,000 runs generating random spin and SG orientations.

As I have so little opportunity to exchange thoughts with you, and since you mentioned the Dirac spinor, I link to an analysis of Dirac's equations: Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell. It is not generally known that Dirac's 4-component Dirac wave function is not an eigenvalue equation [see page 13] due to coupling between the positive and negative components. It yields a Pauli-like eigenvalue equation only after a Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation which 'smears out' the Dirac point particle, decoupling the positive and negative states, but occupying the region over which the integration is performed. Even then the equation does not yield spin, but helicity! Dirac is treated pages 10-17.

Finally, let me mention that Steven Kauffmann has analyzed the Dirac equation and shown that the speed of the electron is greater than 1.7c, where c is the speed of light, and other anomalies follow. Kauffmann attributes this to Dirac's desire for 'space-time symmetry' [per Einstein] which causes Dirac to forsake the Correspondence Principle in favor of 'symmetry in space and time variables'. [The same space-time symmetry I address in my essay.] Kauffmann has developed a unique relativistic extension of the Pauli Hamiltonian which does not produce the Dirac anomalies, but the world is not currently begging for any improvements to the Dirac equation. I include the link to his paper simply for your convenience, in case you ever desire to look more closely into the situation: Unique Relativistic Extension of the Pauli Hamiltonian.

Once again I thank you for your generous response. You need not respond to this comment. I simply present the information to you.

I see at the moment you are number one. Congratulations.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Revisiting your essay yet again, feel almost ready to comment, so diving in...

Much appreciate your gifted writing style, makes me smile. thank you.

regarding non-linearity, and coming back to our thread on boundary between quantum and classical, if of such a mindset would insist that we confine our logic to the wavefunction and its interactions. A larger enterprise that what might be directly approached just yet. Point being that all quantum interactions are non-linear if the wavefunction is collapsed, and there is no communication of energy/information if it is not. At the quantum level gravity is not exceptional in this regard imo.

the dialog still makes no sense to me. And gives the feeling that it takes great liberties with Einstein's mind, perhaps an unfair advantage given the beguiling beauty of your prose. Leaves me baffled with bullshit so to speak, tho meant with no disregard for the speaker.

don't understand what is meant by 'local gravity'. Please define.

at end of first page appears you postulate the existence of a 'medium'. Presumably this is 'curvature' of space. At quantum level there is no 'curvature', just phase shifts generated by quantized impedances. That's what impedances do - they shift phases. One cannot move EM fields around without exciting the vacuum wavefunction. Excitation of vacuum electron Dirac spinor is origin of 377 ohm free space impedance seen by photon. No curvature. This happens in flat 4D Minkowski spacetime.

Back in 1990s Hestenes and the Cambridge crew demonstrated equivalence of GR in 'curved' space and gauge theory gravity in flat Minkowski spacetime, made clear how that got lost with the rest of geometric interpretation until Hestenes rediscovered and expanded.

Point here being that this makes it straightforward to extend an EM wavefunction model in flat Minkowski spacetime to quantum gravity, just have to have the right quantum mechanic's tools.

from there it explores gravito-magnetics. This is an effort i applaud, considered it once or twice myself but never found it compelling. I don't expect it will come easy to me, tho reminds me of electromechanical analog of the SHO.

the problem for me is that it is a top down view, and requires a lot of diligent attention to fit all the pieces together properly. Very conventional in the sense one eventually gets thru Maxwell and arrives at a Lagrangian, but to be honest i'm still stuck back at local gravity and wondering what i'm learning about in the rest of it, and how it relates to fundamentals in the physical world.

my view is bottom up, wavefunctions and their interactions. It took a lifetime to get there, was no room for most of that beautiful but for me irrelevant top down stuff.

like what i see in your essay, but finding it overwhelming in the sense i can't tie it into a coherent picture that addresses the organizers' challenge. can you do that for me?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 20:01 GMT

Dear Peter Cameron,

Thank you for re-reading my essay. I very much appreciate it. I have also reread your essay and it is no surprise that you feel as you do. We believe too many different things for them to make sense. First let me repeat my main thesis that physicists project math structure onto reality, then come to believe that physical reality has that structure. Cristie Stoica discusses isomorphism. Mathematicians know that one structure is isomorphic to another [see his 'number Scrabble' versus 'tic-tac-toe'] and can easily switch between them. But physicists "freeze" one structure as physical reality, and get stuck there.

You ask me to define 'local gravity'. I feel local gravity at this moment. It pulls me toward the center of the Earth with a strength and preferred direction that differs from the gravity I find in the asteroid belt, or between galaxies. Light is deflected in gravity, and, even according to Einstein, "propagates" in gravity.

We have very different concepts of the 'wave function'. Like Bell, I believe it is real and possesses energy. In my reply to Christian Corda above, I reference The Nature of Quantum Gravity, based on the gravito-magnetism of ultra-dense matter, such as the electron. This picture is of the deBroglie-Bohm-like induced waves [ del x C ~ rho v ] and is compatible with Born's probability interpretation, so I think of it as physically realistic at the particle level. It is a wave function that is compatible with deBroglie, Born, Bohm (to some extent) and explains Bohr's 'orbits' and two-slit behaviors. It also makes sense statistically, i.e., for quantum mechanics. I do not believe this is the way in which you conceive of 'wave functions'.

Similarly, you identify a 'medium' as curvature. I do not. Einstein's 'curvature' is equivalent to energy density in Cartesian space. You note Hestenes and others demonstrated equivalence of GR in 'curved space' and gauge theory gravity in flat Minkowski space. Weinberg and Feynman separately showed the same thing. So 'curvature' is not really part of my thinking – it effectively leaves out the mass and focuses on empty space surrounding mass. It is the inverse of distributed energy density and is of limited utility. Even so, the gravito-magnetic field "curves" around ultra-dense matter in motion, but I view this as curvature of the field, not of space.

One result of the above is that I find no use for the 'vacuum wave function'. QFT is to me a "bookkeeping scheme", that ignores the physics of particles while keeping track of the results of this physics in terms of 'excitations' in the vacuum. It is generally isomorphic to the phonon excitations of condensed matter physics. Calculations of vacuum energy are off by 123 orders of magnitude, called "the worst error in physics". Again, Feynman diagrams replace continuous reality with the lattice of 'events', and provide a bookkeeping scheme based largely on conservation of energy. Sometime 'ghosts' are needed to preserve energy, but they are projected into the formalism without a second thought.

To switch topics a little, in The Nature of Quantum Gravity I discuss Ohanian and Ruffini's statement:

"That the linear equations imply the full nonlinear equations is a quite remarkable feature of Einstein's theory of gravitation."

Most physicists believe that Einstein's "weak field equations" [contained in eqns(1) of my essay], by virtue of this linearity, actually apply to linear gravity, as if removing non-linear terms from a description actually has an effect on the physical field. It does not. The non-linear terms are recovered by iteration. Gravity is always non-linear. It might be of interest to you that a treatment of Einstein's 'weak-field' equations based on Geometric Algebra makes no use at all of the concept of field strength, hence 'weak-field' is not a relevant concept for GA, only for Einstein tensors.

To summarize, I identify non-linear gravito-magnetic field as the continuum reality on which our universe is based. When Big Bang and LHC energies exist, the field behaves like a perfect fluid. Particles 'condense' according to the laws of equations(1) and then interact. The gravito-magnetic circulation and ultra-dense matter is equivalent to deBroglie's wave particle postulate that underlies quantum mechanics. It is what Bell was searching for. The 'quantum vacuum' is a figment, an isomorphism of the bookkeeping scheme that ignores gravity and keeps track only the results of such interactions. It is sufficient to solve statistical physics problems but cannot even calculate the masses of the particles. Pauli's 'qubit', Heisenberg's iso-spin, and SU(3) etc. symmetries are projections of math mistaken as realities of physics. For more on this aspect of quantum projection, see my response to Cristi Stoica above at Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT.

In short, it is no wonder you have trouble making sense of my essay. I respect you for trying to do so.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Here we are again all together.

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise. Congratulations on a very information-dense essay.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 03:02 GMT

Dear Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov,

Thank you for commenting on my essay. This year, as last year, I find we are in agreement about the fundamental nature of gravito-magnetism. You state that:

"The nature of the fundamental elements in the universe can be in two basic phase states: in the form of toroidal gravitational waves and in the form of photons."

It's not clear to me that our understanding of toroidal gravity is the same. In 'The Nature of Quantum Gravity', I see induced gravito-magnetic circulation as the deBroglie wave induced by the electron's momentum density. Association of photons and neutrinos is not compatible with my understanding. I believe the gravito-electro-dynamics represented by eqns(1) in my essay iteratively yield appropriate solutions.

You seem to say that the speed of gravitational interaction is 770 times greater than photon propagation; this seems to conflict with the recent data from colliding neutron stars, which indicate gravity and light propagate at the same speed. We do agree that "distortion of space-time is more of an abstract concepts and physical process." And, as last year, when you say "there are no fundamental particles … with a greater mass than the electron", I believe this should be "greater mass density".

So we agree on the fundamental importance of gravito-magnetism however the details must, in my opinion, be worked out from the dynamic equations. The non-linearity of gravity makes this quite a difficult task, probably accounting for the lack of solutions in this area. It seems your calculations are heavily based on harmonics, and it is not clear to me that that is sufficient. I encourage you to continue developing your model.

My best wishes for continued development of your very interesting theory. I shall continue developing mine, and perhaps we will converge to a best theory.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Ed,

As usual, you explore new alternatives to the foundations of physics, and this time you did it also in an entertaining and philosophical way. I think challenging the foundations is something that should be permanently done, and it's not a simple job. I see that you take the obstacles seriously in doing this, which is good. Success with the research and the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

report post as inappropriate

In eq 13 you have a moving frame as c-v/lambda, but what we see is also a changing lambda, as redshift. It looks like frame dragging. The eq. should maybe look a bit otherwise?

Also, what is the frame here?

Thanks. Ulla Mattfolk.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:22 GMT

I truly like this approch, give you a ten. Much to learn here.

Hope you also like my asymmetry approach :)

Best Regards, Ulla Mattfolk

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:31 GMT

Dear Ulla Marianne Mattfolk,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your gracious comments.

Discovering Schrödinger's "What is life?" (circa 1965) was a great excitement for me. I put Schrödinger at the top of the genius stack. His 'aperiodic' crystal was genius at the time. He knew maximum order was required, but not the total order of the crystal. His was the intuition, and he spurred all of the DNA pioneers, many of whom credited his 'What is life?' for their entry into the field of molecular biology.

But you say, "we often assume the ideal to be a periodic symmetric structure, so symmetry is 'fault' or 'error'."

My opinion is that all real symmetries we apply to physics today are approximate. I discuss this in comments around this contest, so do not repeat it here. For physicists, symmetry is 'easy', as it has a group representation, so if we can find elements that seem to be groupable, we can apply matrix math. And it works, even when the symmetry is broken. This is probably because the group elements can be transformed into each other, but require something other than the pure symmetry that the math relies on.

You say 'information is distortion'. Yes, when energy exceeds a system threshold it 'distorts' the system, causing a transition to a different state; the structure is 'in'-formed, and information is 'recorded'. However it is not useful information unless a code-book or context is available to interpret it. As you say "information is about something." How could information travel through space, not knowing what ultimate system will be 'in'-formed? Energy travels through space, and sometimes leaves a meaningful record. And yes, "unlearning is hard." [See my essay.]

In your essay you say "Logic longs for unified picture, but logic may fool us." In my schema, consciousness is awareness plus volition, while intelligence is consciousness plus logic [where logic is structural.] Logic is piecemeal, local, and based on hardware: silicon logic gates, protein/DNA/RNA, axons and synaptic gaps, etc. I believe it is consciousness, above and beyond logic that longs for a unified picture, i.e., wants all of the logical pieces to fit together without contradicting each other.

If consciousness arises separately with each life form, it must be 'easy', that is simple – easy to achieve, because life forms are almost without limit. But all such 'simple' models have failed. This (and experience) tells me that consciousness is inherent in the universe and must have a field character. Many of my essays, particularly my last one, address this point: The Nature of Mind

Your bio addresses the real miracle (that supports a consciousness field): Self-healing.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. These comments are very valuable. In my entire essay I had only one equation that I questioned: the eqn (13) term containing (c-v)/lambda. I wondered if anyone would comment on it – you did. Yes, possibly the lambda should be red shifted. It changes nothing significant about the essay, but perfection is better than the alternative.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT

Thanks,

You know, many times the small differences can be important, especially with such a weak force as gravitation.

I have actually never quite well understood why light would propagate without a guiding wave, when all other Waves need guidance. But the ether concept is still inflamed, most choose some other Word for it, like grid etc.

It is the same with consciousness, such nonsense sometimes is expressed. And it makes it totally difficult to discuss it. There are Always some reductionsit knowing better. Sic!

Good Luck. Ulla Mattfolk.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I enjoyed your essay, but must confess that more study of it would be needed for me to appreciate all of the diverse perspectives you present. Your focus on time is a superb choice.

I think TK's on page 9 reflects the feeling of many people. "...the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity." My own view on the essence of time would seem bizarre to most people. The local passage of time is quite simply a measurement of local motion of the fabric of space itself. That's not the bizarre part.

Now for the seemingly bizarre part. Time is continually slowing in the universe. What does that even mean? It means if one could carve out a piece of space without any matter to use as a clock, then a clock embedded in the universe would be continually slowing. All clocks in the universe slow at the same rate. This makes detection challenging. MOND gravity is one place in which it appears. This does not violate conservation of matter and energy as might at first be thought.

I will try to further digest what you have presented, but it will take some time (pun).

Richard Marker

report post as inappropriate

Space and time are concepts we generated to understand position and movement of bodies macroscopic and particles micrroscopic.Is there any alternate way of coneptualising the picture and arrive at explaining the observed facts/ events taking place? Our explanations are based on observations and abservers based within the universe. Can an external observer view the picture differently, say an alien from a different world. The logic behind the two distinct observers may differ and hence the explanations too will differ! Time to me is linked with living while the space is linked to reality of vacuum that really dominates space overwhelmongly over matter.There appears vaste scope for divergence of understanding that has thus far been developed for physical phenomena!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

congrats for a well-written and obviously much appreciated essay!

Nevertheless, I can’t see what (in Popper’s terms) the Folgerungsmenge of your essay (theory) is. In other words, it seems to remain at the level of symbolic-definitional permutation (of Einstein’s theories) and not imply any disposition to action. In yet other words, your essay remains within the domain of theoretical (or mathematical) physics, which has always reminded me of the pilot who jumped out of the plane because he thought he could fly…

Heinrich

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin,

I re-read this discussin between these wonderful thinkers,your essay is a very relevant to read. I asked me if you have already thought about a gravitational aether.The second thing is about this quantum gravitation, have you already thought about the fact to insert this dark matter in our standard model to reach this weakest force at 10exp-67newton. I ask me how to consider these waves , fields , particles non relativistic if they are the answer for this quantum gravitation.In logic we could reach it without the electromagntic reasonings , relativistic.It is hypothetical but I beleive strongly that this dark matter and this quantum gravitation are linked and are a new road for physics.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 11:03 GMT

I have shared your essay on Facebook also , it merits to be shared,best regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Klingman,

Although the contest is over, I hope for further resonance stimulated by your essay.

I am not sure whether or not you are aware of the fact that Poincaré who introduced Relativity did never agree with Einstein's what Michelson called a monster.

So called dispute on priority for Relativity is misleading. See Damour 2004.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Klingman

I hope you read this. Are you interested in my last blog at:

blog

From ____________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Dear FQXi'ers,

It is now one year later (Jan 2019) and I have just published on viXra a 57 page paper that I have expanded from the 9-page essay above. The paper can be found here:

Everything's Relative, or is it?

My thesis is that special relativity, with all it's contradictions and nonsense, was accepted primarily because of the many 'proofs' of time dilation, from muons to the Hafele-Keating experiments. Because Einstein's theory was the only interpretation, these proofs caused physicists to accept his space-time symmetry [no preferred frame], relativity of simultaneity, and all associated paradoxes [logical contradictions].

Unlike quantum mechanics, with its Bohr, deBroglie-Bohm, Everett, QBism and other interpretations, special relativity has had only ONE interpretation, that of space-time symmetry, thus it's been a package deal, take it or leave it. The energy-time interpretation provides an alternative way to interpret time dilation that does not lead to logical contradictions.

I hope those who were interested in this essay will download the extended version from http://vixra.org/abs/1812.0424

My best regards to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman