CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
The Fundamental Nature of Time by Edwin Eugene Klingman
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 20:52 GMT
Essay AbstractHeinrich 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 BioEdwin 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
Jack Hamilton James wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
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
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
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
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 between the vector G and the scalar g. Quaternions would let you use bold typeface and regular typeface:-) The cross-derivatives that are in equation 3 are also easier to represent. I'm just sayin':-)
The arguments associated with the Maxwell-Hertz Equations being invariant under Galilean Transformation were very effective.
For me, the breaking of time symmetry that is associated with the GPS systems is a clue that something is fundamentally misunderstood. I see that you have a similar thought and have taken it to its logical conclusion. Namely that gravity represents a preferred local frame of reference.
This then leads to the return of a universal time which then eliminates all of the SR related paradoxes. I don't like to plug my own thinking in other author's forums, but I feel compelled to ask a question. I believe in a universal time that has two components as follows:
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:-)
I was especially impressed by your insistence upon things that are PHYSICALLY REAL and can be measured. To me, the interpretation of null results is always a little questionable. I prefer a measurement to a logical deduction because the deduction requires an axiom.
If two theories make the same predictions but one is based upon something that is physically real whereas the other is based upon an axiom, I will choose the theory that is based upon a real thing. Occam's Razor would choose the axiom based theory because it is more simple. So, the correct theory can only be determined by finding a prediction where they make different predictions. You zero in on this with the niobium sphere and the lunar ranging data.
It might be a little unfair to ask AE why he did not revisit SR in view of his later insights. By that time so many people had jumped on the SR band-wagon that he probably thought it would cause more harm than good. Besides, science is self correcting. In this case, you are doing the correcting:-)
All in all, this is an exceptional effort on your part. WELL DONE.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
view post as summary
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
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 18:36 GMT
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
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 10:13 GMT
Dear Klingman,
We begin here an energy-time asymmetrical interpretation based on multiplying the Galilean transformation by an energy factor representing the difference in energy between a system at rest and a system moving with velocity from your paper An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame.
In Universe we have no general rest anywhere, only local rest frames, note.
I have started to look for an asymmetric frame that force to symmetry breaking universally, and also locally. I Think symmetry as some universal frame has some flaws. See my essay.
Thanks.
Ulla Mattfolk.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
chris ness ness wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 08:16 GMT
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
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 15:13 GMT
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
Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 16:10 GMT
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
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
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
John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 18:47 GMT
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
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 22:52 GMT
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
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 03:34 GMT
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
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 in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature, rather than space.
Duration is the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve, not evidence of some underlaying dimension.
Clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock/action will use energy quicker, like an animal with higher metabolism will age quicker than one with a slower rate.
Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.
The simultaneity of the present was dismissed by arguing different actions appear in different sequence to different locations, yet this is no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the very fact these events radiated away the energy manifesting them that we can see them, as well as why they no longer exist.
There are philosophic issues as well, specifically determinism. It is the occurrence of an event which fully computes the input into it, such as information carrying light coming from opposite directions.
Predetermination assumes this calculation can be made beforehand. Yet events are first in the present, then in the past. They are determined by their occurrence.
Alan Watts used the example of a boat and its wake to show the problem with this, in that the boat creates the wake, not the wake tearing the boat.
The assumption is that prior events are cause of subsequent ones, but it is the underlaying energy which is cause of both. Prior events may predict subsequent ones, but are equally consumed by them.
Consider that energy exists as the present, thus is "conserved." So it is constantly creating new information and dissolving old. So the energy goes from past to future, as information goes future to past.
In the East, the past is considered to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because the past and what is in front are known, while the future and what is behind are unknown. In the West, we view the future as in front and the past behind, because we see ourselves as beings moving through our context and thus toward our future, while in the east, the observer is considered to be part of the context and only sees events after they occur, while the energy continues on.
Consider a factory, where the product goes start to finish, while the production line faces the other way, consuming material and expelling product. One future to past. The other past to future. Compare this to individuals and species, where the individual goes from birth to death, being in the future to being in the past, while the species is constantly moving onto new generations and shedding old ones.
Consider as well that galaxies are processes of energy radiating out as form gravitates in.
Hopefully this is of interest. Good luck in the contest!
Regards,
John
view post as summary
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
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 17:31 GMT
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
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 17:49 GMT
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 04:14 GMT
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
Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 00:18 GMT
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
Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:28 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay.
I find your essay interesting.
I wrote something similar a few years ago
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:
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:44 GMT
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
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) box. If at rest in the ambient frame it's 'part of it'.
2. As the waves reach the top box they're absorbed by the boundary fermions, re-quantized and re-emitted at local c in the new rest frame (now in Maxwell, Lorentz and radio engineers Transition Zone {TZ} and 'far' field). They are thus Doppler shifted to red. If they're sequential time signals? - they thus appear to be slowed (dilated) ..or 'contracted' (blue shifted, 'sped up', if moving the other way).
3. If the lower box were also in some other state of motion that TZ process would also happen as it entered the ambient medium. (There would then be 3 local speeds c visible by displacement by the reader!!! though all signals do c locally.)
4. In the case of the train, light within the train does c in the local train rest frame and on exit Doppler shifts to do c in the track frame. (We can substitute Earth and its ionosphere or any lens, for the box & train). Watch a pulse through the passing windows and it
looks like c+v.
5. The TZ is from (we know) a micron deep (at prisms & lenses) to a few parsecs for galaxy clusters, the more diffuse the medium the more gentle the curvature (& birefringence) and it's also lambda dependent (antenna engineers know all this). There's a short low quality video of a moving box if you'd like it.
That's based on the discrete field model, (DFM) consistent with what Einstein forgot he'd said in '52 (too much to drink I expect!) describing inertial systems as
"spaces with spaces, not thought of as bounded, in relative motion". I (now) don't find that
"non-intuitive" at all!. It seems consistent with all evidence I can find & seems to resolves the issues. That's subtly but importantly different to Hertz's view. Can you identify where and why it may appear flawed. or raise any questions?
The classical QM solution (as Declan employs) emerges from the same interaction model (though not just 2 states & 3 axes, and also including
Cos2,- see Declans string).
Great essay whatever. Another top score due I think!
Very best
Peter
view post as summary
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
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:05 GMT
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
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:39 GMT
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
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:05 GMT
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
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT
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
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 10:49 GMT
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
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 11:22 GMT
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
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 18:31 GMT
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
Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 11:53 GMT
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
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 15:23 GMT
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 15:54 GMT
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 08:12 GMT
Yes, Edwin, behind the mathematical structure the material content is forgotten or distorted. Here is your example of the circulation of the vector of electrical tension - it's a whirlwind, with this no one argues. Disagreement goes on. You say this is a whirlwind of ether, and I say it is a whirlwind of space, which is matter, according to the principle of the identity of space and the matter of Descartes. Space has one synonym - matter, the rest is its state. A physical vacuum is a state of the physical space when there are no corpuscles in it. Corpuscles are stationary vortices of space. A field is a space, each point of which has a potential. Etc.
I want all those who speak about the ether to be winners on one condition that they forget the word "ether" and will use instead of it the concept of physical space, which is matter. This is difficult to do, but it is necessary that physics develops further.
I wish you success! Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 06:00 GMT
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
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
Hello again Doc!
I'm going to do another read but commend your essay generally. Also Dr. Beckwith's contention that the fundamental nature of time is imposed by earlier cyclic conditions is an interesting idea, and I do like that he accepts conjecture as a valid element to reason.
Just a thought for now; since Minkowski it has been taken for granted that the scale of space and time are identical (I can't recall for sure but think it was Eddington whom argued that we might as well treat spacetime as equal scales for each). There is nowhere to be found, any universal scale for either time or space. Only the absolute velocity of light. So... wouldn't it be more problematic (in the good way) to assume that at any juncture of initial condition the relative scales would be set by the respective lengths of span of each in an intersection, and that a leap-frog attenuation would arise seeking equilibrium of proportion (say *phi*, for instance) limiting at light velocity?
Best wishes and Good Luck, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 00:39 GMT
Dear jrc –
Thanks for offering to read my essay again; it's 'chock full of nuts' and probably requires more than one reading to appreciate. [I certainly would not extract all the ideas in one reading.]
I certainly agree that
conjecture is what we base new physics on, just as "a guess" is often where we obtain new mathematical solutions. I'm generally not friendly to the idea of a cyclic universe, but I have no drop-dead argument against it. It's probably a personal inclination.
You are correct that no scale (other than the Planck scales) exist, and light speed rather relates time and space to a field that crosses space and time. I come at the basic scale question from a different direction, but it doesn't fit nicely into a comment.
Thanks again for (re-)reading and commenting.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 21:43 GMT
Poor me, poor me, poor me,
pour me
another glass of whiskey.
Bartender hit me one more time.
Well, okay Ed, that is a lot of mathematical argument to digest. And while I have long given up on the traditional Classical concept of universal time, I am also well aware of good arguments for the practical usage of it in local field representation. It just always seems to leave me questioning whether the many arguments for constant metronomic universal time that support the Quantum Mechanical Cartesian measurement space, are really all that complete. Now... bear with me a moment because I may have missed it; how fast did you say this universal time goes? :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 22:01 GMT
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 01:45 GMT
geneman,
I'll give you that. I was about to send an email but it would take an essay, so maybe I'll save that to become a paperback writer. People would benefit by a revival of bending a book on airplane rides anyway.
So I'll stick with where I'm in agreement. (1) SR is mathematically complete geometrically, just not physically. And (2) it only enters GR as elapsed time on a curve,...
view entire post
geneman,
I'll give you that. I was about to send an email but it would take an essay, so maybe I'll save that to become a paperback writer. People would benefit by a revival of bending a book on airplane rides anyway.
So I'll stick with where I'm in agreement. (1) SR is mathematically complete geometrically, just not physically. And (2) it only enters GR as elapsed time on a curve, it is not a radial measurement on any single pole in a spherical volume. (3) Gravitation is not negligibly weak nor for that matter the weakest of primary force effects, it is characteristically dominant where the densities have dropped below effective range of the other primaries. (4) A proper unitary field model must categorize force effects by characteristic behavior of energy under density constraints of the entire quantity of energy constituting the inertial mass. (5) It is the amount of energy in a given field of effective range, interacting with the complimentary effective amount that we measure as intensity. So at the inertial core of a hypothetical free rest mass, only a near trivial percentage of the total quantity would be required to produce a density proportional to the whole that would thereby translate inertia throughout the limit volume. And while the much greater volumes that would concentrically arrange across the continuous density range specific to the primary force effects would progress outwardly towards lower density, those volumes would require ever more greater percentage of the unitary energy quantity. Gravitation is by far then the strongest of the primary force effects.
What has stumped efforts in unification, is that you can't get an unambiguous distribution of energy in accord with inverse square law determining a spherical boundary using integration over partial differentials. Even if you assign empirical upper and lower density bounds, the proportions will follow a linear progression until the outermost layer of the onion, and then the slope will change, everytime. Add a layer, that's where the slope changes. So you always end up with a feedback, not a zero boundary. I ran across a collection of Einstein's writings years ago and he comes tantalizingly close when he described how he came to choose a spherical geometry for GR. He wrote in splendid prose about the divergence of radii, no matter how close. So you can easily see that on any of an infinite number of radii, the energy would distribute in accord with inverse square law along that radii ... but what about the rest of the volume of the sphere between the divergence of radii!?! That's the mathematical problem. There's more space for energy distribution between the buttons that on them!
And on and on it goes. Best as always, jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear jrc –
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, and 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). This affects both the teaching and practice of GR.
I await your paper back. I still read them.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 00:14 GMT
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
Jonathan Kerr wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:13 GMT
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 21:38 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 13:05 GMT
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
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 valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:07 GMT
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
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
Ajay Pokhrel replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 02:25 GMT
Edwin,
Thank you for clarification.
Best Regards
Ajay Pokharel
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT
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
Wolfgang Baer wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 23:19 GMT
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
Wolfgang Baer wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 23:21 GMT
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
DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 13:09 GMT
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
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 17:25 GMT
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
Ilja Schmelzer wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 11:27 GMT
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 02:01 GMT
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
Victor Usack wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 03:23 GMT
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
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
post approved
google support wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 05:31 GMT
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
Steven Andresen wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 06:33 GMT
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.
Steven Andresen replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 08:53 GMT
Hi Edwin
You find agreements with me ? that makes two of us then. I’ve read your essay twice and I believe I well comprehend many of your intended points. And I might even be able to infer from it, opinions you only hint towards. Like a variant C, a consequence of photons being carried along with, trained by gravitational bodies in relative motion C+-V, which serves as the photons...
view entire post
Hi Edwin
You find agreements with me ? that makes two of us then. I’ve read your essay twice and I believe I well comprehend many of your intended points. And I might even be able to infer from it, opinions you only hint towards. Like a variant C, a consequence of photons being carried along with, trained by gravitational bodies in relative motion C+-V, which serves as the photons preferred frame. I have developed a view that translates yours very well. But that’s not to say I couldn’t benefit from a third or even forth read. Deep subject, lots of meanings, some of which are only subtly inferred.
I expect you will appreciate this
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.
Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term “force dilation” which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term “time dilation”.
Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.
Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.
QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.
Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 14:41 GMT
Steve,
by the same reasoning, two identical parent radio-isotopes are created in the furnace of an exploding old star billions of years ago. One is captured by the gravitational proximity of a nearby star and its "spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life. The other is ejected on a diverging trajectory from gravitational proximity into interplanetary, or even intergalactic space, and its spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases. So how did the current census of radio-isotopes on earth survive to become part of the accretion disc of this generation solar system, in the first place?
The Pu238 RTGs that power the Voyager twins, have exceeded their design working life as engineered in the earth's gravitational domain, by nearly a factor of 3. If it were simply gravitational effect of rate of response, not a change in the speed of time by proximity, Voyager 2 would have gone black long before it crossed out of the solar system. Instead it continued operational power level production for much longer duration of signal reception in the proximal speed of earth time. GPS arguments can be ambiguous on the matter, but not deep space radiological decay rates which do not calculate as suffering any measurable change. That argues strongly that time is local to particulate matter, and globally is a compendium of a multitude of quantum-times, like a vast Fourier Transform. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:17 GMT
Hi Jrc
Thank you for the message
There are differences in our terminology, and I wonder how different our perspectives might be. I'll have to read your essay, and see if I can tune into your method of thought. You have posed me a question I am not aware of specific parameters, like the half life of radio-isotope and in relevance to solar-system formation. Your radio-isotopes likened to windup clocks with variable expiry dates, dependent on relative gravitational environments and velocities.
You say
"spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life."
and
"spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases."
These expressions are quite different to mine "tense, relax, brake". The parameters I specify define force, to make comparative of two clock springs relative positions. Those parameters are force over distance equate newtons. I coin a term "force dilation" which is effectively expressed as newtons.
You present a real world example, voyager twins. I will have another read of this in the morning. See if I can relate
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:16 GMT
Steve,
I was actually presenting a rationale in the first paragraph that follows yours; ie, that gravitational fields effect response rates in a classic Newtonian time frame. And pose the question of survival of radioisotopes across the billions of years in extremely low gravitational environs.
The second paragraph briefly introduces the findings by NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains. (Keeping in mind that though much is known about radioactivity, there is still no hypothesis as to why some elements are radioactive.) And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally, which was like a surprise bonus to mission engineers.
I do not want to detract from Ed's long efforts, and agree with much of his field theoretical thinking. But GR is not negated entirely by the arguments of gravitational field effect alone. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 03:27 GMT
jrc
You have raised some questions and I don’t object at all. However I will mention that you have changed the terms and selected different scenarios, rather than arguing within specific terms raised in the essay, or my comments about clock springs.
And I am having trouble understanding your comments and questions. I cant iron out what appear to be contredictions. The misunderstanding could be entirely my fault. The confusion could easily be mine. These conversations can be notoriously tricky, and it’s so common to see people attempting to communicate these subjects (SR GR) while not even approaching a common understanding. That’s why I keep my considerations and arguments within reach of an observation and measure. A clock spring communicates definable values of force, while the hands communicate measure of time. I can point to the shaft that connects the clock spring to the hands, and show that the proportional motion of one is proportional to the other. This ascribes an equivalence between expressions of force and measures of time, that’s justified by observation and measure. Therefore it is not theoretical. And it is a much simpler system with less prospects for hidden variables than isotope radio active decays, which are little understood complex behaviours of complex systems.
I think a fair challenge to my rationale would be better directed towards that to which I refer. Conversation can benefit from being centred upon an observation, measure. Rather than extrapolated terms and scenarios. Will you join me in a discussion about clock springs? If you will then perhaps we should attend my thread, if and when my essay is live, or your essay thread. Rather than commandeering Edwin's.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Steve,
Clock springs I would treat as Edwin has, that they are a measure of energy of oscillations. And I had introduced radiological decay because Edwin's own comments contend that his model is compatible with GR, and much is. But the clock in GPS is the regular oscillation of Cesium atoms which increase to translate to 48,000 nanoseconds per day faster at orbital altitude then on Earth. So if gravtitational field effect allows that atomic frequency to increase, then it should also have the same predictable effect on the frequency of half-lives. So I think Edwin is on a right track and enjoyed his artistic license, but also agree with Philip Gibbs comments. Above all, that the good Dr. Klingman shows respect for the dignity of others and will always have mine. I've also done (what I felt was reasonably successful) modeling of this sort in a Cartesian measurement scheme, and find a lot of agreement with Ed's concept of real, physical field interaction, and the geodesics of GR being akin to worldlines of equilibrium if a field is reintroduced into the barebones, co-ordinate free geometrics.
I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 04:57 GMT
jrc
Hay good news. I read through your messages again and I understand your following points.
NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains.
“And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR,...
view entire post
jrc
Hay good news. I read through your messages again and I understand your following points.
NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains.
“And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally”.
On first reading, these two statements sounded contradictory. But I understand how one leads to the other now. But I admitted it was probably my fault, so all good.
“real, physical field interaction”
Yes!
“I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc “
and yes again!!
I find it fascinating/riveting that you are playing with the term “deceleration of light”. Deceleration and acceleration are equivalent terms. Both correspond to expression of energy/force. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this you suggest as the mechanism for mass?
In my essay which will hopefully be accepted, I refer to this association you mention. I refer to it in terms of being an association between photons and gluons, whereby their expressions of force are correlated via magnitude. Velocity of photon C, and gluon C2. Deceleration of photon C to derive value of mass C2, is a very appealing notion.
If deceleration of light is the mechanism that gives mass, then you will appreciate how a variant C would act to give variant mass. Mass would be proportional to change of velocity. Do you hold constant C as sacred? Are we speaking the same language?
I believe my term “force dilation” is the same concept to which Edwin refers, “energy of oscillations” but I define it as value of force.
Edwin recently quoted Richard Feynman as saying "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force".
A clocks increased oscillation in orbit constitutes an acceleration. Edwin has referred to it in terms of increased “energy”, terms of energy are interchangeable with “force”.
I believe the breakthrough occurs when atomic oscillations currently interpreted as “time dilation” are associated with variant atomic energy/force. Atomic energy/force extends to variant mass. It’s usefulness applies to, Atomic energy/mass scales dependant on gravities square law proximity to matter. This consideration of variant mass extends to “proximity of stars to each other in galaxies”. Average distance between stars in galaxies, increases by the square of distance from galaxy centre.
It will sound fanciful to most, but it should be considered a curiosity that, if a baryon is considered to increase its mass proportionate to distance from galaxy centre, “dependent upon dilated proximity of stars to each other”, then it does place mass where it needs to be to predict anomalous galaxy rotation velocity. An ideal fit.
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 14:42 GMT
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
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 16:22 GMT
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
Colin Walker wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 18:48 GMT
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
Priyanka Giri wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
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
George Kirakosyan wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 07:30 GMT
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 hereGood 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
Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:11 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 22:05 GMT
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
Wolfgang Baer wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 02:52 GMT
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
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
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
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 me that you don’t know if mechanical clocks can measure relativistic effects near massive gravitating bodies, then I realize I have misunderstood something within your work. That you must have divorced Theory of General Relativity in preference of original concept. For the answer to my question within scope of GR is a trivial one. “This is not a criticism, as I value original opinion, especially yours”
I take your point concerning qualitative research for exploratory purposes. That a predictive solution is not worth more than mere curiosity, if it can’t be related to a reasoning whether conventional or not. You offered a good example of a hypothesis which stands alone as an island, detached from conventional theory or unique justifications. However that example entirely neglects two points of my essay.
1. That I anchor my hypothesis to an observation and measure I term “force Dilation”. It is incontestable within scope of GR, although you might argue beyond its bounds.
2. And I follow through with metaphysics within context of why nature would behave this way. That atomic force dilation occurs because space contains the substance which provides atoms with the capacity for force. That Baryonic systems are evolved to harvest this energy potential, and all the agencies of matter are directed towards an optimised structural theme.
I wont revisit these arguments now because that’s what the assay was for. But for your example of qualitative exploration to stand comparative to my work, well it would seem to dismiss all of my crafted arguments and justifications.
To me at least, the complex systems of this world serve as a glaringly obvious clue. A clue that nature is serviced by an organisational principle, the types of which we are only aware of one. It surprises me that others are so blind to this evidence, even when I can articulate a scenario which rationalizes universal agencies and structures within its context.
What I believe my work is deserving of at the very least, is curiosity, on the mere basis that such a rationale can be crafted at all. Surely a relatively simple task would be to test such an idea, attempt to pull a card out from under the house, see if and where it might break down? I feel my ideas are well prepared for such a challenge, but it is not forthcoming so far. I would hope this much might occur at an international science essay contest questioning the fundamentals of universal existence. Even on the basis of it being a novelty theory.
Anyway, I’m off sailing now. I’m going to find a quiet little cove, dive for lobsters and scallops, and spend the rest of my time reading and rating essays. You are destined to do well in this contest, and probably all future contests to come. You’re an asset to this event.
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear Steven,
This essay contest provides a forum for us to showcase our theories and explanations of nature. Almost by definition, everyone who publishes his essay has faith in his idea and wants to share it with the world, but the author always understands more about his theory than anyone else, for obvious reasons.
One may or may not assign the same meaning to keywords as others, and may or may not be aware of all competing theories and how they stack up. This list could go on and on, but with 200 contestants, all of whom believe in their approach, it is tough to recognize the truth immediately. In my case, I focus on fundamentals, which to me means fields, photons, electrons, etc. A mechanical clock is to me so complex that I make almost no assumptions about it. Even if I understood your theory exactly, I would hesitate to apply it to such a macro, mechanical, system.
You are blessed to be able to find a quiet little cove, dive for lobsters and scallops, and relax in that way. I do see that your essay has shot to the very top, so congratulations!
Thanks again for your kind words about my essay.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
hide replies
John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 19:35 GMT
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
Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 08:05 GMT
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
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 1920 English translation...
We can clothe the essential nature of this postulate in the mystical, but mathematically significant formula 3x108(metre)=√-1(second)....
Well Minkowsky made Einstein's postulates mathematical by making the speed of light the imaginary unit. Hence what the imaginary unit can do the speed of light can do -- and the imaginary unit closes the algebra on the geometry for any equation. That is, by making i equals c Minkowsky got space-time.
Clearly by making the speed of light by definition the imaginary unit, we imbue "the speed of light" with all the "properties of the imaginary unit" which are the properties that are necessary and sufficient to close all equations. That is, what the imaginary unit can do, the speed of light can do to. Clearly the imaginary unit via The Fundamental Theory of Algebra forces "c=i" to behave as a universal constant always timelessly available for all observers. That is, the imaginary unit is the "timeless" number that closes algebra on a geometric number field, all numbers are "forced" by the power of mathematical certainty (obtained by deductive proof) to obey the terms and conditions of the Fundamental Theory of Algebra which states that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root. That is, there are no "places" without the constant of closure for General Relativity of "c=i" that is, this "constant of closure" is universal and acts as a timeless initial condition for all polynomials that describe any interactions via single variable equations that are non-constant.
and
recall What is fundamental in complex numbers – is how we define the imaginary unit in maths. Recall the imaginary unit is defined by solving uniquely the equation x²+1= 0. That is, i is a unique (i.e. distinguishable) number defined as the square root of minus one, i.e., i ≡ +√-1. Since there are two possible square roots for any number +√ and –√, clearly the square roots of a negative number cannot be distinguished until one of the two is defined as the imaginary unit, at which point
+i and
-i can then be distinguished. Since either choice is possible, there is no ambiguity in defining i as "the" square root of minus one.
Your essay uses these two imaginary units above since clearly
+i(second)=c(meter) then elementary complex maths tell us that 1/i=-i, or that is
-i(second)=h(Joules) that is why you say the clocks count energy not time. Clearly Joules ~ 1/time or (Quantum theory:minimum change ΔEΔt~h/2π).
I feel using these basic facts you could of derived your ideas with less bother and not use the two-time and one-time frames. Since Minkowski used the
+i for space-time and you include the qm
-i. Yes I'm saying that our physics uses the indistinguishable imaginary units
+i,-i and not the definitional
i ≡ +√-1 A marvelous read and the comments you are receiving are so great -- one of the best essays so far.
I hope you have time to read my essay "
What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" it goes into details about these two constants for the definitional imaginary unit
view post as summary
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
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
view post as summary
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
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 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. 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 your essay is very deep and requires much thought. I plan to give it much thought and will score it accordingly. Congratulations on writing an essay deserving much thought.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
peter cameron wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:04 GMT
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
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 'local gravity'. In any case, imo there is no such thing as a 'preferred frame'.
Glad to hear you're into quantum gravity. Please give me a reference, would like to have a look.
Hawking radiation suggests that the 'Planck particle', the particle (for instance, a very small electron) whose Compton wavelength is the Planck length would radiate itself into one or more photons almost instantaneously.
However, the Planck particle has an event horizon at the Planck length. Time is stopped there. Hawking pair production probability decreases with radius. Wavelength of what can be radiated is about a thousand times the radius of the observable universe.
Point being that we are in the near field of the event horizon of the singularity at the core of every rest mass particle in the universe. Near field is a funny place, not well understood in QM, and where all the action is, non-linear, where energy transfer in frequency domain is possible.
To go further would require to introduce the concept of impedance quantization. If you're interested please have another look at the essay.
regarding GA and gauge groups, point there is that privileged role of gauge bosons goes away when wavefunction is expanded from point particle quarks and leptons to the eight fundamental geometric objects of the Pauli algebra of 3D space. They become just a few of the elements of the S-matrix generated by wavefunction interactions. The gauge group ends up being three (or four) copies of Cl(1,3) - the impedance representation (remember - impedances govern amplitude and phase) of the S-matrix.
For all of that there is just a minimal amount of GA needed. Arthur's book is expensive, not in my budget. Used the look inside feature. Can see it might be useful to some, but my bucket list at this point in life doesn't include gaining the expertise to be found there. Pretty satisfied already with the model we're working with.
i think this wraps up my response to your comments. Will address the essay in more detail in a new thread.
view post as summary
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
Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 18:16 GMT
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
Richard J Benish wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
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
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 and his troupe of loyal followers, what I think the idea really means is this:
Fogification of the inevitability of the anisotropy of light propagation.
As any competent ether theorist would argue, since light propagates as a wave in a medium, at every point in space there is a frame of reference (speed and direction) with respect to which light speed equals exactly
c. Which means it equals something else in all other frames.
A point not often enough appreciated in such discussions is the huge difference between
one-way speed and back-and-forth
average speed. Locally, the back-and-forth average speed has so far always come out to equal
c (Lorentz invariance). Whereas the one-way speed is arguably impossible to measure, due perhaps most of all, to the problem of producing a pair of synchronized clocks at the endpoints of the path.
Typically, the discussion gets very messy and fraught with all kinds of misunderstandings. In the interest of simplifying things, I’ve often conceived of a vast empty space with two props, considered one after the other: 1) a rotating wheel and 2) a massive sphere. In the first case light speed anisotropy can be measured because a light path can be made to follow the circumference in opposite directions. Return times to the same starting point are not equal. Also, time dilation is shown to be non-reciprocal: slowest clocks on the rim, fastest clocks at rest with respect to the axis. These are facts.
In preparation for considering the second case, you may recall that, upon contemplating such problems, wherein Earth’s gravity has to be accounted for, Phipps sometimes use the expression: “born-and-bred inertial clocks.” I think this is a step in the right direction, as is your idea of conceiving “light propagating in local gravity defin[ing] the preferred frame.”
Neither approach, as I see it, is sufficient to the task, however, because of abundant evidence provided by motion-sensing devices (accelerometers and clocks) that almost all such frames still yield evidence of
motion. Neither Phipps’ idea, nor yours, are sufficiently restrictive.
Intent on cutting through the complications, it long ago occurred to me that the answer is to identify the general (gravity-inclusive) analog of the rotation axis. The most strictly “born-and-bred inertial clocks” of all are members of the family of clocks that are falling from infinity. This is the collection of “preferred frames” whose trajectories I call
maximal geodesics.
Disentangling maximal geodesics that might serve as such with respect to one massive body from the influence of other bodies and all manner of rotational and linear motions in the real world is no trivial task. But I think it’s the appropriate strategy.
Upon pursing this route, I think it is interesting that, even accepting the possible fundamental significance of radial falls from infinity, we encounter a seemingly irreconcilable conundrum under the assumption that gravity is an attraction. If the paths are followed into a hole through the center of the source mass---if gravity is regarded as an attraction---then we’d have substantial speeds with respect to the center in every direction. Accelerometers on these trajectories NEVER gave non-zero readings. So how did they acquire any absolute (non-preferred) speed? Presumably, the rates of such clocks whipping past a clock at the center would be slower than the central clock. If these clocks never suffered an accelerometer-measurable acceleration, then what made this happen? Gravitons? Purple-winged horsies?
As you know, my model avoids this conundrum by steadfastly adhering to the testable prediction that trajectories representing radial falls from infinity do not pass the center. A clock at infinity and a clock at the center always tick at the same rate because they are extreme members of the family of maximal geodesic clocks.
I’ll leave it at that.
Best regards,
Richard Benish
view post as summary
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
Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:07 GMT
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
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 intention, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics. It really gives me a good answer about the questions related to prioritizing problems I faced.
To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.
Here is my essay in current contest; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143
Please feel free and comment, discuss, approve, disapprove or ... Truth is only important thing for all and forever.
According to your essay, some points I really understand are;
"How far into the foundations, when it comes, must the revolution penetrate?" [1]— Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
"One of the current essay contestants, Edwin Kling-man, echoes some of Phipps’ ideas by suggesting that the course of physics would benefit by rethinking the foundations back to Hertz and Maxwell. [2]".
I absolutely agree with Edwin and woold like to comment, that at least some department of physics namely Theoretical Physics should go back 19th century by recombining to Natural Philosophy, in order to setup it's foundation and recover fundamental problems, or minimum point to 1932 and cancel Coulomb's charge statement and all fundamental interpretation Quantum Mechanics namely Nuclear force and hypothetical boson particles with its massles terms and profoundly rearrange everything.
On the other hand the impact of above mentioned statements gives that the question of Fundamental Physicality would be incomprehensible without setting up its basics by addressing all problems in Physics (comprehensive environment).
additionally Paul Dirac very few Physicists that have been worrying about this case since 1928.
"2 . What’s Not Fundamental About Modern Physics and Cosmology?".
I think the Interpretation of Modern Physics (Quantum Mechanics) is Fundamental.
Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions. A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.
Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have no valid reason last 85 years (1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;
Regarding to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts". How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.
I agree many points of your conceptual explanation and would like to discuss it later. If you find more relevant essays/topics please share with me.
The fundamental concept physics is based on three basic units Mass, Space and Time ( matter plus two related basic effects) which isn't interchangeable but their effects (derived) as energy, force an so are interchangeable since it agrees with our everyday experience.
What is the difference between Fundamental and elementary?
What is the name of fundamental penergy e?.
The case of mass energy equivalence, in 2010 essay contest I have explained and quantized that mass of elementary particle (photon) but I have experienced that there is great misunderstanding due to confusion of terms over last hundred years, since photon is the first hypothetical boson
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794
Mass of photon m=E/c^2 = 1.78266173x10^-36kg.
Wavelength = 1.239841857×10^-8 m
These results and perhaps more are also in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
We are incoherently talking same thing in diffrent name. I would be thankful if one can comment.
Another amazing fact is that I have noticed that it agrees with Einstein's proposed photon as particle with energy of 1eV.
What means to answer the question Fundamental in such kind of environment?
Sincerely.
Bashir
view post as summary
post approved
Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 23:22 GMT
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
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 intention, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics. It really gives me a good answer about the questions related to prioritizing problems I faced.
To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.
Here is my essay in current contest; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143
Please feel free and comment, discuss, approve, disapprove or ... Truth is only important thing for all and forever.
According to your essay, some points I really understand are;
"How far into the foundations, when it comes, must the revolution penetrate?" [1]— Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
"One of the current essay contestants, Edwin Kling-man, echoes some of Phipps’ ideas by suggesting that the course of physics would benefit by rethinking the foundations back to Hertz and Maxwell. [2]".
I absolute with Edwin and would like to comment, that at least some department of physics namely Theoretical Physics should go back 19th century by recombining to Natural Philosophy, in order to setup it's foundation and recover fundamental problems, or minimum point to 1932 and cancel Coulomb's charge statement and all fundamental interpretation Quantum Mechanics namely Nuclear force and hypothetical boson particles with its massles terms and profoundly rearrange everything.
On the other hand the impact of above mentioned statements gives that the question of Fundamental Physicality would be incomprehensible without setting up its basics by addressing all problems in Physics (comprehensive environment).
Paul Dirac was one of very few Physicists that have been worrying about this case since 1928.
"2 . What’s Not Fundamental About Modern Physics and Cosmology?".
I think the Interpretation of Modern Physics (Quantum Mechanics) is Fundamental.
Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions. A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.
Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have no valid reason last 85 years (1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;
Regarding to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts". How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.
I agree many points of your conceptual explanation and would like to discuss it later. If you find more relevant essays/topics please share with me.
The fundamental concept physics is based on three basic units Mass, Space and Time ( matter plus two related basic effects) which isn't interchangeable but their effects (derived) as energy, force an so are interchangeable since it agrees with our everyday experience.
What is the difference between Fundamental and elementary?
What is the name of fundamental penergy e?.
The case of mass energy equivalence, in 2010 essay contest I have explained and quantized that mass of elementary particle (photon) but I have experienced that there is great misunderstanding due to confusion of terms over last hundred years, since photon is the first hypothetical boson
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794
Mass of photon m=E/c^2 = 1.78266173x10^-36kg.
Wavelength = 1.239841857×10^-8 mm.
These results and perhaps more are also in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
We are incoherently talking same thing in diffrent name. I would be thankful if one can comment.
Another amazing fact is that I have noticed that it agrees with Einstein's proposed photon as particle with energy of 1eV.
What means to answer the question Fundamental in such kind of environment?
Sincerely.
Bashir.
view post as summary
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
Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:16 GMT
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:59 GMT
I have asked FQXi to find the embedded character or other source of the formatting errors appearing above. - - - Edwin Eugene Klingman
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:38 GMT
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
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 01:32 GMT
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
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
Ed,
That is an excellent answer. I believe I owe you a few beers:-)
Very Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 21:44 GMT
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
Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 06:13 GMT
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
Flavio Del Santo wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 19:35 GMT
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
Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 14:33 GMT
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
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 lines
======================================================
E
very time I read your essay I seem to understand, it more and more.
I have a couple of questions about Equation 1
(a² + b² + c² + d²)u² = f²u²
A quote page 3
"The meaning of Equation 1 is that in a 4-D geometry, if a right triangle is constructed from an integer number of basis lengths in each of the four dimensions (a, b, c, and d), then the hypotenuse (f) that traverses through the 4-D space will also have an integer number of the basis lengths.”
In Equation 1
Clearly it is the area u² that is common to both sides. Since its area's four squares when summed gives a transcendent "number" to both (a² + b² + c² +d²) and the area f². So if we have a 5-d hypotenuse cut from area f² within our 4-d space-time based on a well understood four squares geometry with an invariant length "the square root of s²". How do you avoid this "cut" being s and not the area s²=(a² + b² + c² +d²) which what equation 1 is saying. That the total area of (a² + b² + c² +d²) times the common area u² equals the common of area of u² times the area f². And ever body knows that (the sign of s²) times (the sign of area u²) equals (the sign of area u²) times (the sign of the area f²).
"Yes, I am treating an octonion as a bi-quaternion. That is what makes the multiplication table work.
The matrix multiplication is interesting. If the complex i commutes normally with the unit vectors, the coefficient matrix uses B. But if the complex i anti-commutes with the unit vectors, the coefficient matrix uses B*."
Bi-quaternions are just directed areas, that is, an area with a + and - sign. Clearly the matrix works because we have the invariant area ijk which then allows us to use octonian logic "based on + and - signs" which are attached to the bi-quaternions' areas. Hence in equation 1 the need of the 5-d hypotenuse cut from the area f² in our 4-d world which is based on an invariant four squares space-time summation.
Your 5-d area's four squares summation gives us the length of 4-d hypotenuse "the invariant length of the square root s²" not the total invariant area summation. You have 4-d areas with a 5-d hypotenuse length of the four squares for the area f². We have literally have a 5-d hypotenuse length within our 4-d space-time that any four square summation must obey. Since the area of u² is the one common transcendental number that bridges both sides of Equation 1, while the 5-d hypotenuse is an invariant 4-d length that any summation must have available to have closure for the geometry of the area of f².
A number (which is a perfect square) is the summation of four squares. If the area of f² is n square metres d²ct, then the physical manifestation of that area is a n invariant unit lengths of dct in our 4-d space-time. Not an area. We have an area f² on the right RHS, then on the LHS, equation 1 has a 5-d hypotenuse cut --
length c(metre) -- an invariant length that, by the 4-S theorem and equation 1 - each and every, any and, all - four square invariant summations must obey within our space-time.
Of course your multiplication matrices Eq 5.4 and Eq 5.5, clearly ties "i" with c(metre), via the common area u² which is on both sides, where we have units of the summation of transcendental i if we use the 4-S theorem on both sides at once but using your multiplication rules A,B*,A,B* for – and + sign matrix Eq 5.3, which is, after all, a + and - sign summation using "octonian" logic directed bi-quaternion areas i.e. the column [C,D], using Eq 4.1 about a stationary "ijk" invariant the area f², using f a length “the square root of the area of f²” to transverse the equal sign, Equation 1 uses a 5-d length, so cannot be associated 1-1 with a summation of four square labelled A,B,C,D thought of as a “a perfect number as an area”. It is – the area u² – that is, the common “four square summation” i.e. the perfect square, that spans the equal sign using the 4-S theorem on both sides of Equation 1. A number (which is a perfect square) is the summation of four squares). Your Eq 5.3 is a dance using A,B,C,D where A,B,C,D do integral steps on directed areas ALL on the geometry of the area of ijk. More simply the dance is with the directed areas which have a + or – sign, that is, i and * are not moving, i.e. they don't lead! It is --- i and * --- that are stationary and it is Eq 5.3 that moves areas that equal + or – throughout a basic multiplication table page 6, clearly Eq 5.3 only gives the square root of s², a length not an area for how the multiplication table works in your matrices Eq 5.4 and Eq 5.5.
The full 4-S multiplication "of the areas on both sides of Equation 1" is:-
(the sign of the area (a²+b²+c²+d²)) times (the sign of the area u² on the LHS)
equals (the sign of the area u² on the RHS) times (the sign of the area f²).
You will find Eq 5.3 octonian area + and – logic uses only the “square roots for the area u²” on the LHS for the bi-quaternions areas plus and minus signs attachment. That is, it is the common area of the transcendent “number” (a summation of four squares) which transverses the equal sign in Eq 1. as perfect numbers). Not your A,B*,A,B*,-,+ matrix dance Eq 5.3. which is after all + and - sign summation using "octonian" logic directed bi-quaternion areas i.e. the column [C,D]; clearly uses Eq 4.1 a stationary "ijk" invariant the area f².
More simply, the area of f² is ijk equals -1 and then we take the square root of the area of ijk. that is, √-1 the imaginary unit. Clearly the full 4-S multiplication table for the "equal sign" invariant + and - unit count across the equal sign for Equation 1 is a transcendent dimensional process with "a unit of the square root of the area u² (see below)”; we will call the invariant unit of the times table a "sec"" for the area of the total summation of the area of the four squares of space-time. Then the 5-d hypotenuse cut would have a pure number a "transcendental" 5-d number
c=i and it's "4-d length" of the times table is
i(sec). The full 4-S sign multiplication times table used for how the LHS and RHS signs of the area u² common area behave across the equal sign, are;
same signs on the LHS and RHS give +ve
while different signs on the RHS and LHS give -ve.
Or the appearance of the bridge (common area) across the equal sign is in units of --
+i and -i -- that is how we cross the equal sign using the area of u² on the LHS and using the area of u² on the RHS.
Gary said in my comments
You have some interesting ideas but they are very speculative. Essay contests such as this are a good place to present such ideas:-)
I don't think you can set i=c or i=h but I do think you can construct something similar to the following:PSI = exp(omega) = sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] + (v/c)i
Then for v=c, PSI=i. I looked at your work instead, to see how you bridged with a common 5-d length (of the square root of f²) the areas on both sides of the equal sign. Your method mixes lengths with areas across the equal sign. While in the full 4-S, it is the four sums of
+i and -i that are the "invariant count" lengths of the area u². The hypotenuse of the area geometry of f² is an invariant 5-d length "f" which isn't an area on the LHS.
=======================================================
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan Kerr wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 19:05 GMT
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/d
p. [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/d
p 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 cc
f 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
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
Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 02:33 GMT
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
Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 01:14 GMT
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
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 can discuss the proposition that: all light propagates in local gravity. Photons have energy, hence mass, and bend in gravitational fields"
It suggests that even photon mass was included the concept mass energy equivalence.
Considering the points of your coments I will focus on it more and will discuss later.
". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, as described in equation 1 in my essay. You state that "strong and weak force are both a gravitational force." 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 nonlinear field. I do not believe the situation has been......"
In fact this hypothesis is based on idea that is a collectively view " picture in mind" of all scientific theories and facts. Deeply thinking to many possible imaginations considering Nature's similarities and after choosing one rechecked and compared its relation to the facts. Since this Hypothesis is based on scientific ingredients it must agree/confirm all known facts and also recorrect it's interpretation or make predictions. By searching some parallel approaches in the contest I found many related in somehow but focusing deeply on specific aspect. In other words, I believe that all scientific facts are somehow right, no matter whether it's classical Physics or Quantum Mechanics, except of some fundamental interpretations.
I think what is missing is only (interpretation) fundamental theory that compiles all scientific theories into same ground (same basis). Since this Hypothesis is a different view, it's basics assumption is that clustering process of the Nature began with absolutely one kind of extremely large quantity of small-sized particles (photon) and one kind of attraction force (Gravity) as it may agree with Big Bang event, There are some expected communication Challenges it may face and overcomes namely;
Terminological metaphors may make term confussion unless redefinition, example; "Photon is particle that gives elementary charge (e) character and basic energy quanta (1eV) therefore its really the natures elementary particle" may sound quite strange.
It may be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling. I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used.
Under consideration of gravitational force as basic with categories;
Linear interaction interactions: electrostatic force and planet's centrifugal force.
Non liniear interactions: Orbiting object( charged vs non charged or magnetic non magnetic) influencing other external particles(electro, gravity, magnetic,........ Dynamics) Electromagnetic waves as Gravitational waves type (dynamics charged particle)
and Spherical quantum modeling of charged/neutral magnetic.... and its detection system (giver and sensor) could be good, for studying and simulating Nature of particle clusters and related effects, such as Quantum correlation/monogamy, intermolecular forces, multi spatial dimensions string theory, I propose simplest octopole magnitetic cube like. Spherical clustered particles of rotating (dynamics). In other words spherical modelling of homogeneous spheres packed could reveal secrets and the beauty behind Physical science Mathematics. It would be necessary studying both matter formations and related effects and relationship between our number sequence, parity and quantum such as;
Electron proton Neutron Neutronstar. Black hole.
Pauli exclusion, Nuclear Magic numbers, DNA cell...
Elementary quanta can be applied to al matter.
We know necessary fundamental constants namely elementary energy E (1eV) for single elementary particle and speed of light (c) hence we can accurately calculate it's proportionality to any particle charged, neutral or both. The ratios of Energy and mass are exactly same, and no any other particle which can have such property.
Best regards
Bashir
view post as summary
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
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:21 GMT
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
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
Member Markus P Mueller wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:01 GMT
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
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
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 12:16 GMT
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
Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 18:36 GMT
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
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 23:27 GMT
...probably because that is the traditional interpretation. Since I construct up from a reductionist algebraic basis, the finite particle representation geometry is crucial. Not seeing any particle goemetry I assumed the usual.
Anyway, I do hope we both benefit,
Wayne
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 07:43 GMT
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 09:13 GMT
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
Member Marc Séguin wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:22 GMT
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
John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 18:15 GMT
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 photonEven 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
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 22:13 GMT
Thanks Ed,
The in-phase scenario is something I have also thought was overlooked. At the slow as a stone speeds of Faradays experiments, A and B are laterally at 90* but also at 90* out of phase in the axis of direction of motion. But as velocity increases the phase difference creeps (a-la Lorentz) to nil at light velocity and the only thing that distinguishes between them is the lateral right angle orientation. That goes to density varying inversely to velocity and a photonic cyclic pulse. (That was the basis of my model years ago, and of course requires a c + (v = cycle peak periodic velocity) And once one thinks about it, the electric and magnetic fields would need to become identical orthogonally at light velocity or an antenna would fry! At light velocity Lorentz zeroes out the difference, not physically compound it. jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 19:49 GMT
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
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 22:57 GMT
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
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 11:40 GMT
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
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT
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 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, find where they are wrong and then conclude this was because of a wrong projection. I don't think "they project, so they are wrong" is the right thing to do, because we can say this about anything and we can refute anything like this. So are there places where their projections simply are wrong? I think there are, and the right thing to do is to discuss the arguments.
When you say "Pauli projected a 'qubit' structure", you make it sound as if Pauli's previous life experience molded his mind to view the world in terms of qubits, and then he started seeing them everywhere, including in the electron's spin. But in fact there was no previous experience of qubits in Pauli's experience. He came with them by reasoning, despite the qubits were not previously present in his experience. So his equation can't be explained as a mere preconception.
One can argue that Pauli was influenced by the Clifford algebra, his Pauli algebra being nothing but the Clifford algebra of the Euclidean 3D space. There is no sign of this either for Pauli or for Dirac, they both discovered this independently. And I would say unfortunately, since if they knew Clifford algebras some of the confusions in their formulations could be avoided. When I say "confusion" I don't mean they are wrong, their equations turned out to be right and to describe the quantum states and the dynamics quite well in their own domains. What I refer to are some subtleties which involve the geometric interpretation, rather than the empirical adequacy. There is much commitment to historical context in both their theories, which I think would help being deconstructed, but by no means the results are wrong. As you saw in my comment, I was myself opposing when I was very young the conclusions of Quantum Mechanics, but was this because of their projections, or because of my own? I know that it was my projection, because I lived in a classical world, and my intuition was shaped by this and adapted to this. Now I think I know better, but it wouldn't be fair if I would bring my own experiences with this as an argument that you should believe what I say and discard your own views.
You said "Of course Bell's theorem is a foregone conclusion, from his first equation, in which he forces the only allowed data to be +1 or -1. No physics involved in this, simply an initial condition that is 'projected' onto the reality of spin."
Here is why I disagree. Bell only assumes that the particle can go up and down, as the Stern-Gerlach experiment shows. He doesn't assume that the Pauli's theory of spin is behind this. He just discusses yes-no measurement. This is very general and with no implicit commitment on what's behind the result. Also, in his theorem he only takes as hypotheses locality (L) and Statistical independence (SI), and he derives a conclusion about the correlations. The experiments proved the conclusion wrong, so either the proofis wrong, or the hypothesis (L and SI). Hence, L or SI or both must be wrong. That's all, no Pauli algebra involved. This works for any kinds of measurements which result in a yes/no outcome, if combined in a similar way. And there are versions in which no spin neither polarization are involved, because two-level systems are everywhere. I remember even a version based on positions and momenta. And the proof was generalized to all sort of quantum states. The reason it always works is because quantum states can live in superposition, and because measurements are represented by operators, and whenever these operators don't commute, things like this happen. And nature stubbornly confirms this.
> "leading to "entanglement" as a new mystery, on which thousands of papers can be written"
You can try to make a model of the Helium atom without entanglement. Or reproduce all these predictions of QM which were confirmed by experiments, without entanglement. I agree with you that spin is 3D (well, when more particles are involved the things change). But try to reproduce EPR without forcing Alice and Bob choose the same or opposite directions, but independent ones. To do this you will need either to postulate that something happens nonlocally (thus violating L, like in the Bohmian and GRW interpretations, both endorsed by Bell), or that SI is violated, that is, the initial state of the particles is chosen in a way which depends on what Alice and Bob will choose. My personal position, because I find worse to break Lorentz invariance, is that L is kept (but without rejecting holism), and SI will go away. This is my position, and I know for many is crazier than to give up L. And of course for others it is crazy to drop L. And it is understandable that for others sacrificing L and SI is equally crazy. But to me there is no option to keep both of them except for some very particular cases. And if an explanation works for very particular cases and fails for the general, it must not be the right explanation. No matter how much you qualify the conclusions of QM as "crazy", "mystical", or use quotation marks around words like "confirmed", you still need to prove your point. And before reproducing all we know about QM, try at least to reproduce EPR for spin, for all possible choices made by Alice and Bob, without breaking L and SI. Bell's theorem says you can't. You say Bell was wrong. Prove it. This is the challenge, and I explained I gave up long time ago checking such "proofs" because my time is limited and I have my own crackpot ideas to chase :). But check it for yourself, your model should work for all cases. Then find where Bell was wrong, but in the proof. Write a paper without all this talk about how full of prejudices are Pauli, Feynman, and Bell. Do this if you want after you prove it, but if you want to increase your chances someone from those brainwashed mainstream physicists to read it, make it simple, foolproof mathematically, without handwaving and without psychoanalyzing physicists.
So let me congratulate you for trying to debunk quantum mechanics and special relativity, perhaps someone has to try this, because everything should be checked, double-checked and so on. I am just a limited being with two jobs and no time to take such attempts seriously enough as they deserve, and from what I am concerned, QM and relativity are correct. But you have my encouragement to dig deeper, good luck!
Best regards,
Cristi
view post as summary
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
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 to solve other century-old mistakes in a brief comment.
It does not matter why or how Pauli came up with the wrong projection, only that he did. He was brilliant, and his model was extremely useful. It is only when physicists believe in this model and assume spin is a two-state entity that things go off the track. One can very happily use 'qubits' when it is appropriate. Unfortunately, post-Bell all physicists seem to think it is always appropriate.
I believe you are wrong about Bell. He does not assume only that the particle can go up or down. He assumes the particle has two states, +1 and -1. This precludes the 3D spin that is deflected in the field by a spin-dependent amount. When one treats 3D spin versus qubit spin, one does obtain the correlation that Bell claims is impossible.
By projecting qubits onto 3D spin, Bell formulates a false theorem, falsified from his first condition. It is
logic past this point, not
physics. And the two-state logic ignores the distribution of SG data and is "proved" by two-state experiments on photons, having almost nothing to do with silver atoms in an inhomogeneous field.
I am surprised and pleased to learn that you do agree with me about 3D spin. That's wonderful!
You challenge me to make a model of the helium angle without entanglement. I would ask you to try and understand two types of 'entanglement' that physicists do not distinguish between. First, I remind you that I believe in a deBroglie-Bohm-like wave (function) induced by momentum density as discussed in
The Nature of Quantum Gravity. The ultra-dense electron induces a gravito-magnetic wave similar to the manner in which a moving speedboat induces a wave. Boat AND wave are physically real. In helium, two electrons interact and their wave states become "entangled". This is a fancy word for simply interacting and influencing each other. It is physically sensible and not surprising in the least.
This local 'entanglement' is entirely different from Bell type 'entanglement' that exists 'faster-than-light' at any distance. That is the belief derived from Bell's logic based on qubit structure projected onto physics. In short, the entanglement one finds in a helium atom is real and local. It differs from the non-local entanglement of Bell.
Finally, you say prove Bell wrong. I do so here:
Modern Classical Spin Dynamics. I do so by using 3D spins in the magnetic field and calculating the deflections. This maps perfectly over the SG data [see figure 6, page 20]. The model is simply classical spin and the correlation is the same as QM predicts for qubits. As you note, you will not study it, nor will any physicist still active in their careers. So it is a thankless task that yet yields satisfactions, and I thank FQXi for a venue in which we exchange information densely and pleasantly.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response, and good luck in the contest.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 11:09 GMT
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 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 you.
But first let me clarify something. When I say that spin is 3D, I refer to the Block sphere representation (plus the phase), not that spin is a mere 3D rotation. To me the spin is perfectly described by a spinor. I agree with the Pauli spinor as the nonrelativistic limit of the Dirac spinor. If you want to describe the Pauli spin of the electron in a basis, ignoring the position and other degrees of freedom, the basis has two vectors. There are not only two states, there are infinitely many, it seems to be two states because the measurement is done in a particular basis, and by the projection postulate yields two possible outcomes. This description of the spin works perfectly and it is very simple and natural. By "simple" I don't mean is simple to our classical intuition, I mean that it arises naturally when combining special relativity with the requirement of unitarity, see Wigner's theorem. The "3D spin" I mention is the Bloch sphere representation, and the state vector, represented up to a phase factor by a 3D vector, is completely determined by the expectation values of the spin operators along the three axes (which give the components of that vector along the three axes).
Now here is a bridge over the gap between our views. While I take the spinor seriously, it is not directly observable. The observables are build out of the Dirac spinor by taking various products of Dirac matrices and evaluating the result on the spinor field. You know these are scalar, vector (the electromagnetic four-current), bivector (where the angular momentum is), trivector (or pseudovector), and a pseudoscalar (a tetravector). These quantities are observable, and for a single spin 1/2 particle they behave in many situations quite classically. Now by "classically" I mean a classical spinor field, not a quantized field (as in the so-called second quantization), but the point is that these quantities are differential forms. And in the nonrelativistic limit we can treat an external field as a classical field too, in particular the magnetic field of the Stern-Gerlach device. So I am pretty sure that a quasiclassical analysis of the electron in the magnetic field is useful and relevant. You can even approximate the particle with a ball following a classical trajectory, as long as it is not too localized so that Heisenberg's principle makes the trajectory too fuzzy. This bridge I try to present here to you is something I always found reasonable to be true, and thought that it is important to have such an analysis. My brief glance to your paper gave me the impression that you are doing this in a careful and serious way. I always pictured for myself the electron as interacting continuously with the Stern-Gerlach device and exchanging momentum, energy, and angular momentum with it. I didn't do a careful reading of your paper, but I think you do this, and if I am wrong please let me know.
As a general approach to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, I think it is important to understand what happens. I don't belive in magical projectors, and I think measurements are not sharp, they are just interactions. But I don't think there is a description consistent with both L and SI. I will come back to this later. For now, I want to say that I see nothing wrong with the particle passing through a Stern-Gerlach device and landing either in the up region or in the down region, without a collapse or projection. Even though I see this in terms of spinor fields, I think we see this picture similarly. So probably if I will check all your math and physics I expect I will agree with your figure at page 20. If you did this analysis without adding new physics, with the right math, and got that picture at page 20, I think it is an important result.
Now, I have the feeling that you are not satisfied with this analysis, and want more, namely to disprove Bell. If you are interested in my 0.02$, here is what I would advise you. Take that paper, clean it for claims that Pauli and Bell were wrong (I will explain later why), and try to publish it. If I am right, you can make it be some "mainstream" analysis of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. And I think you can get it published in a journal with ISI IF.
Now, I promised you I will come back to Bell's theorem. It is completely irrelevant if he labels the two outcomes with +1 and -1, or +1/2 and -1/2, or |up> and |down>, or just "up" and "down". If you think it is relevant, let's consider then another version of Bell's theorem, one which I say is the same, and you may say is a weakened version. Let us refer only to spin being up or down along an axis, not to Pauli matrices, not to two-level systems. By up and down I call the two places where the particle arrives after going through the S-G device, those two regions you reproduce in your picture at page 20. This is also in agreement with my views, because there are no sharp measurements. So we just think in terms of yes/no measurements, answering to questions like "did the particle land on this "lip" of the iconic postcard, when oriented along this particular axis?"
If you want to prove that Bell was wrong, then your task (for a second paper I would recommend) is to provide an explanation of the EPR experiment based on your theory, in terms of these up and down along diferent axes. So we stick only with what we can see in the experiment, not with the projections you said Pauli made. Maybe you think you already have this proof, but I still suggest you to put it in a second paper, separate from the one-particle paper.
If I am right, then you are wasting a great opportunity by mixing your one-particle analysis with the idea that this disproves Bell. I think your reasoning is the following sillogism: "(1) I explained the S-G experiment without Pauli matrices and spin operators, (2) Bell assumes Pauli spin, therefore (3) I disproved Bell". I don't think this works, because I don't think you can get the same correlation as QM with your model, unless you add something that breaks either L or SI. If I am right, you can publish the one-particle paper. If you are right, you can publish the one-particle paper, and then make it easier for the reader to accept your model and to read your second paper, where you will explain EPR. So no matter who is right, I think your analysis may result in a paper, which I think will be useful for physics (but I repeat, this is based on a brief glance of your paper, maybe I project my own views on it).
Best regards,
Cristi
view post as summary
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
peter cameron wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 14:26 GMT
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
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 07:26 GMT
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
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 16:12 GMT
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
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 09:51 GMT
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
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 18:00 GMT
Ed,
the red shifting (or blue) of lambda, seemed explicit to me as well. That and your stating that the Transition Zone was not necessary (or perhaps not included) in your modeling of an aether-like energy density field. All of which brings back around the transverse wave picture of EMR.
So a little colloquial clarification would be nice. Does a red shift observation in your model mean that the physical wavelength has been 'stretched out' as it is being projected from a source? and to what reference does it react to assume a length corresponding to velocity of the source?
The problem encountered in modeling a physical waveform, is that we cannot count wave numbers without intercepting them at each individual length point from emission, so it remains an experimentally non-falsifiable theoretical argument. jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Richard L Marker wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 13:40 GMT
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
Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 14:34 GMT
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
Heinrich Luediger wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:00 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 10:57 GMT
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
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 12, 2018 @ 17:03 GMT
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
John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 18:49 GMT
Edwin Klingman
I hope you read this. Are you interested in my last blog at:
blogFrom ____________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2019 @ 20:01 GMT
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
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.