Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 10/13/18 at 1:47am UTC, wrote Correction. "Charm allowed trees to grow and bloody mindedness kept them...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/12/18 at 1:50am UTC, wrote I wrote "Nothing can arise from nothing and that is very dull, as is the...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/8/18 at 5:50am UTC, wrote It still isn't made clear. Perhaps rather than saying " prior to the making...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/7/18 at 11:19am UTC, wrote I think I need to clarify what I meant by "Quantum theory is dealing with...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/7/18 at 4:40am UTC, wrote There can be true relative velocities and apparent relative velocities. A...

Georgina Woodward: on 2/25/18 at 23:15pm UTC, wrote Hi Gary, The place in the essay where I write about not mistaking...

Gary Hansen: on 2/25/18 at 4:13am UTC, wrote Hello again G. While I ranked your essay generously on February 2nd., my...

Georgina Woodward: on 2/22/18 at 21:24pm UTC, wrote Boris, Uni-temporal passage of time is change in configuration of the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Chima Ugochukwu: "Notice there am no difference between the black surface area surrounding..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Anthony Aguirre: "Hi Stefan, Yes, I would say that the de Sitter region is locally..." in Cosmological Koans

Georgina Woodward: "The word 'energy' can refer to a measurable. That can be represented by a..." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

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

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
July 20, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Universe soup and Sandcastles by Georgina Woodward [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 21:01 GMT
Essay Abstract

Having acknowledged human-centred approaches to questions about the universe, and the question of what is fundamental, a universe-centred approach is taken. Selecting foundational time and electromagnetic radiation as fundamental, to the working of the Material universe, and the perception of "the universe" respectively. As well as acknowledging the aptly named fundamental forces. It ends by considering what is fundamental to science and its progress. With emphasis on the importance of the dis-proven or discredited hypothesis, theory or method. Highlighting 'vulnerability' as fundamental to science.

Author Bio

Amateur natural philosopher. Biological sciences graduate. Thinking and writing about ideas concerned with physics and primarily time. With a number of papers submitted to the history and philosophy of physics Vixra archive, and the thinking behind them developed on FQXi community pages. Long time member of the FQXi online community. With a number of FQXi essay competition entries, one a prize winner.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 08:58 GMT
The vulnerability of science is indeed fundamental; we will see this in the next 2-3 exponential decades. Interesting contribution,Georgina ; I enjoyed reading it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 09:50 GMT
Thanks Stephen.

Bookmark and Share



Heinrich Luediger wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You say: “Each differentiated part of the Object universe is relative in orientation and motion to all other parts”. But wouldn’t such ‘differentiated part’ remain entirely undifferentiated under such conditions? Isn’t ‘something’ that is here and there, fast and slow, and in every possible orientation the exact definition of being undifferentiated? Aren’t you tacitly importing the observer (the scientist) into your Object universe from where everything get started?

And if so, wouldn’t your Object universe become dark and void if that which the observer brings to that universe is withdrawn from it? But you say: ”Something rather than nothing, existence rather than void is a foundational necessity.” It was Leibniz who had asked: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and it was Hegel who gave the answer: ”Pure Being and pure nothing are the same”. The ‘innocent’ state of the universe you have tried to depict on its behalf, which is ‘pure Being and pure nothingness’ is not depictable, because it is purely phenomenal, i.e. missing the reflective (scientific) level. I tend to think of us as being inherently bilingual: we’re done with ‘phenomenal’ language at the age of four or so, but it takes us the rest of our lives to learn/criticize/understand reflective-scientific language.

Heinrich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi Heinrich, thank you for reading and the questions.

The objects of the Object universe are not differentiated by observations but by their being/happening differently from the undifferentiated.That difference does not have to be observed to exist/happen. The configuration of objects, and its change,is independent of observation. In contrast: Measurable variables are relational and not sole properties of the objects. They relate to the orientation, motion, and location of another object that might be considered. For example, rotation of an object is not clockwise or anticlockwise as such a singular attribute requires the location from which the determination of direction was chosen. Without the 'relative to' reference object, the object of interest does not have a singular orientation of rotation. Tying that in with QM, it could be said that unobserved it is in a superposition of both states. Until the way in which it will be looked at is applied and a singular state outcome is recorded. Which is not now the state of the 'Object reality' but a limited fixed state 'Image reality', a product of observation. What has happened corresponds to decoherence in QM.

The Object universe itself might be said to be dark, as in un-seeable. The illuminated objects we see are visual products of the sensory system or device used to observe them. The illumination is due to light intensity (quantity of photons) being processed into brightness of the image. Not being seen is not the same as not being there, as you will know from stubbing your toe in the dark. It is not the same as void or nothingness.

I hope I have explained how the independent state of existence or being/happening fits into physics as the missing ingredient that can make sense of the physics of the unseen at the smallest scales of investigation. It is not an immature model. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share



John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 18:28 GMT
Georgina

Yes, time is fundamental. However, I regard ether as the carrier of electromagnetic waves as more fundamental than the radiation, which i regard as a behavior of the ether. Space is also fundamental (but not spacetime).

Thanks for an interesting article.

Regards from ____________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT
Hi John-Erik,

There is no empty space or void in the Object universe but it is filled with existence and that which is not differentiated into other kinds of existence remains as it is. It is the base of the soup, it is fundamental. It, the undifferentiated existence, acts as medium for electromagnetic waves and host to all kinds of fields. It provides no information about its existence (other than evidence provided by the former aforementioned phenomena and their interactions, such as curvature of light rays in a gravitational field), and so it is not a part of the 'image realities' produced by observation, or of Relativity. I have not used a name with a history because I would not like all kinds of associations with the name imported into the explanation I am presenting and then have to argue about them.

After the question 'what is fundamental' comes the next question 'fundamental to what?' With regard to the fundamental nature of EM. Whereas the undifferentiated medium is fundamental in the Object universe, EM is fundamental to the construction of visual products of organisms and devices. Which are formed from information obtained from the EM signals, not from the foundational Material universe (the source objects that emit or reflect EM). This is relevant to Relativity, non simultaneity of events, the temporal paradoxes and astronomy.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share


John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 19:45 GMT
Georgina

Thanks for this answer. We seems to agree on most points.

Good luck

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 20:23 GMT
Georgina,

Love your statement “What is fundamental to science is the examination and testing of hypotheses, theories and methods”. You point the arrow right back at the people writing about their ideas. We are indeed involved in a “survival of the fittest” environment that exposes us as competitors for cultural or scientific influence. You are a little more optimistic than I that any progress is being made. Phillip Gibbs wrote about the relative nature of ideas. It kind of bothered me because it may be accurate…. no truth just truth seekers. The second part of your statement “testing of hypotheses, theories and methods” is sometimes missing in papers that present complex math but contain no data comparisons. It doesn’t show and of course no one will read references, but I worked a year reducing 2016 Particle Data Group Meson and Baryon data.

Well presented, interesting paper. Thanks for your complex thoughts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 23:37 GMT
Hi Gene, thanks for reading and your comments.

It is problematic for science, as there is no kudos for 'not like that' findings or papers rejected. Success is measured by papers published and citations of them. Yet the testing and rejection (done right) is of great importance for progress and credibility of science. I am annoyed by the popular press reporting findings that are in short time countered by contradictory findings. It shows a rush for publication that harms the credibility of science as a whole. I don't think there is the same 'test it till it breaks' ethos that engineers and computer game developers share.

After a computer game development 'jam' the competitors play each others games and 'try to break them'. Rather than that being a bad thing it allows un-thought of ways of testing to be used. Uncovering issues and providing "I never knew it would do that" moments. Allowing the game to be fixed. Playing the 'can I break it game' is fun and the broken game is not a failure but a potentially better game. That kind of testing could be replicated in science by independent teams collaboratively testing each others products. This runs counter to a culture of secrecy to protect potentially valuable intellectual property and priority, affecting professional scientists. Peer review is perhaps intended as a similar kind of quality testing but the ethos is different it seems.The process is not 'lets all have fun seeing if we can break each other's products' in the spirit of mutual helpfulness; but something else. FQXi competitions get closer, but have also been affected by ulterior motives that are not about the science, or the presentation, itself.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 23:16 GMT
Georgina,

For me, this was a much more readable text than your previous essays. It is not pedantic. You identify the passage of time as fundamental rather then time itself. That is an interesting perspective that eliminates some of the other questions and problems.

You suggest that there is a single base that is used to brew our universe full of "stone soup". That is probably the simplest hypothesis. The aetherists will argue that everything is made of aether. I will suggest that you need something and nothing. That will make the informationists happy. You even suggest there is a scalar dimension .....

You pay homage to the empirical testing of hypotheses. I appreciate that:-)

And you end by noting that vulnerability is fundamental. That is interesting. It certainly works with the passage of time to create a dynamic universe.

All in all a good essay.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Gary, thank you for your feedback. With regard to something or nothing. I'd like to have my cake and eat it. I will suggest that there is ubiquitous existence in the Object universe, no voids completely empty of it. While accepting that there can be positive and negative results of detection (of objects or phenomena) A photoreceptor cell,for example , has a range of frequency sensitivity and an intensity threshold required for response. No response is not that there is nothing arriving at the cell but it is either outside of the frequency sensitivity range or below threshold intensity. This idea is helpful for making sense of the double slit and half silvered mirror experiments.

An electron or photon is detected taking just one path or slit.That does not mean nothing went through the other. Some sub photon or sub electron disturbance associated with the particle, which is undetectable (sub information) could pass through the other path or slit and then interfere with that part of the associated disturbance that has traveled with the electron or photon. Consider also picking up radio signals. Not receiving a signal of interest is a nul result but it does not mean that no waves are arriving at the receiver instrument.There are the multitude of waves that are potential white noise and possibly other signals not of interest. So nothing is what is generated by a threshold not being met or being outside of the range of attention or responsiveness, rather than physical nothingness.

I am thinking of testing of all kinds.( See reply to Gene.) Including examination of methodology and reasoning and mathematics, experiment and replication, statistical significance, alternative hypotheses that would fit the same results, prior contradictory findings, additional facts not included or considered...It would depend upon what is being tested.You get the idea. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 03:36 GMT
Being pedantic : ) ,The zero or void or hole or nothing is 'generated 'by nothing happening in response rather than there being nothing there.As to generate something sounds like activity rather than inactivity, to be clear it would have been better if I had said in my preceding reply- So nothing is a consequence of a threshold not being met or being outside of the range of attention or responsiveness, rather than physical nothingness. The idea is the nothing is part of the constructed representation, rather than there being actual nothingness in the source reality.

Bookmark and Share


Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 14:03 GMT
Georgina,

Your training in life sciences is serving you well. So, rather than there being something and nothing, you think there is something and a scalar dimension that allows for a spatial distribution of the something. And what we perceive as nothing is simply too little for our perception. This is very believable to me and might even fit in with the uncertainty principle. But how do you test for something that is below your measurement threshold? That will be the challenge you face.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You wrote: “Employing Ockham's razor, it is better to assume there is only one kind of base existence from which all other differentiated kinds of existence are formed rather than multiple kinds of base. Supported by the apparent conversion of particles into other kinds of particle during certain kinds of interactions. Which would not be possible if they were ultimately constituted from different foundational types of existence.”

Only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed. Finite humanly contrived misinformation concerning the activity of INVISIBLE particles has nothing to do with reality.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 00:44 GMT
Thank you for reading what I have written Joe.

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Georgina,

as answer to your post on my thread:

It was only three month ago that I thought "Inflation is a crazy idea".

But I was not able to explain my perception that a "whole" reality can emerge from a point where there is no space and time, so...in order to try I used this "crazy" idea, which does not mean tht my own idea was also crazy. I only used it because scientists seem to accept it and find it a good explanation. My use of it is NOT the explanation of the HOW but just using an IMAGE. In fact the emergence of other dimensions like time and space out of what we are experiencing as NOTHING is difficult to understand.

I could also have explained it in this way : When we are observing our universe from far outside it will become a point, inthis point EVERYTHING is SIMULTANEOUSLY happening for this outside agent. In this exemple we are however still in a spacelike surrounding and having a time like experience, we are NOT OUTSIDE REALITY, we are still inside our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere. If we could place ourselves outside of our reality (through consciousness) it would be possible to become conscious of the Total Simultaneity of the POINT from where realitie are emerging.

I try to describe this point that is time and spaceless (for us) as ALL and Nothing together. Nothing means NO MEANING (for us), but it can represent MEANING for other forms of consciousness...From our perspective however "THE INITIATIVE" comes from this for our understanding "NOTHING".

I hope I could explain some things you asked

and will also read your essay.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 09:18 GMT
Universe soup? More like word soup - what is the point of all this and how does it advance Science?

Most of the ‘essay’ is just lists of unrelated bullet points with no clear direction or thesis that I could discern. Apart from that, a great essay...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 12:37 GMT
Declan, I'm sorry it isn't your cup of tea! The final section 'Sandcastles and science' is about the practice of science and how it is a good that hypotheses and methods are disproven or discredited, however well regarded, as finding 'it's not like that','doesn't happen like that 'and 'can't be found like that' is certain advance in knowledge. In my reply to Gene, (you might like to read it), I have written about the value of collaborative testing and evaluation in a spirit of mutual helpfulness to enable products to be improved. Feedback in my experience is really useful but very hard to come by.

I have put a paper in the reference section under background "Woodward , G., Uni-Temporalism, the Relation of Human Beings to Time and the ‘future’ of Time in Physics,(2016), vixra.org" if you are interested in finding out where some of the idea have come from.

The essay is broken into sections dealing with different fundamentals. The first part deals with the foundations needed for fundamental foundational, uni-temporal time. The next is electromagnetism which is fundamental to observation and perception. The next is the fundamental forces, and finally what I consider fundamental to science.

The base of the soup, existence rather than nothingness: see my replies to Gary. As host to all of the fundamental forces it allows their unification.

The list of differences between the seen and the materially existent is to emphasize that physics is dealing with two different facets of the universe. Actualized existence and material things, and products of signal receipt and information processing. That is not trivial but the necessary realization for understanding the temporal paradoxes as the result of a category error.

Foundational passage of time is the time needed by QM. The time that emerges from signal receipt gives non simultaneity of events. The two kinds of time allow QM and Relativity to be non contradictory as they are not about the same facets of physics happening in the universe.

The part about measurables being relational rather than sole properties of the entity of interest is important for understanding QM, providing a 'picture of superposition of the unseen/unmeasured','picture of evolution of a variable profile over time and reduction to a limited fixed state outcome when a limiting viewpoint or protocol is applied. Providing a 'what's going on'at what physicists call 'wavefunction collapse' or 'decoherence'.It discounts Many worlds post outcome in favour of many alternative possible measurements prior to the limiting mental consideration and physical treatment of the entity of interest.

I have tried to explain the difference between the universe experienced and the universe as it is, and how it can be conceptualized despite our being unable to have all viewpoints from all relations simultaneously.That relates back to the beginning where I mention the difference between human and universe centered views, there was also a little comment about not mistaking consequences for causes , which was pertaining to the anthropic principle.

The Terry Pratchett quotes were for entertainment but I hope their relevance can be seen too. Georgina

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 10:13 GMT
-And I give a possible solution to Olber's paradox.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Georgina,

A very nice essay with argument which you probably already know I'm in wide general agreement with. I'm pleased you found fermions important, and also that you briefly address QM. But I suggest a few things need more examination.

1. 'Wavefunction'. You agree complex EM 'waves' yet how do we describe those characteristics, x,y,z, axis energy, wavelength etc. without a 'formula' to cover all oscillations found? I DO agree the 'wavefunction' and it's transforms on interactions are misunderstood and muddy as bathwater, but surely if the baby goes too we'd have to re-invent one?

2. You identify the ambient frame and that relative 'observer/detector' velocity affects 'colour'. But isn't it more fundamental to identify wavelength 'lambda' after interaction as triggering the colour receptors, then also valid for instruments and ALL EM signals? Then Doppler shifts also remain consistent physics. (In astrophysics we know lambda MUST be the fundamental value)

3. You identify 'change' which I agree, but why not reduce further to just 'motion'. All change is from motion, and no motion means nothing to change! (boring as you say!)

4. QM. First well done, I like & agree your description. But you skip the issue that it's exactly that description that Bells 'Theorem' Inequalities irrefutably disprove! (using QM's assumptions) i.e. it's the 'EPR paradox'; if it's just about chosen interaction angles then Alice can change Bob's result instantly at a million miles away! THAT has always been the problem, never resolved, so most say you're wrong & natures weird!

However good news is at hand to finally prove your model correct. It won't be accepted of course, it'll be ignored & screamed at, but it's now irrefutable by repeatable experiment. The massive importance of Declan Trail's paper (see my comment to yours) is that his maths code also almost precisely matches the experimental result. You can repeat the experiment yourself for under £200 (see my photo's and end notes). It's all about fermions. It's genuine paradigm changing stuff!

I look forward to chatting further on that and the above queries.

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 22:26 GMT
Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.

1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. Rather than being singular limited states or values, they can be considered as consisting, prior to measurement, of a profile of states and values that is the aggregate of all states or values that would be obtained form the viewpoint of other reference objects in the environment with which there are relations. As the particle moves relations change and so does the variable profile. The wavefunction collapse pertains to obtaining a singular outcome due to mental reduction of possibilities that will be considered and physical interaction via apparatus or protocol. I don't really understand the question about 'characteristics'. All of the measurables are undefined prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular state or value is applied. So wavelength, energy and so on are relative measurements and not absolute. I do think if something works then it’s OK to use it, even if the way in which the model functions is not exactly what is going on. If it is kept in mind that it is a kind of mathematical analogy rather than the way the universe really is and is functioning. Including that there isn't really another space in addition to the universe where superpositions are, and there are not Many worlds, other universes where each different way of looking exists. The different relative perspectives are all within the one universe prior to selection of just one.

2. Frequency (and therefore also wavelength) is another relative measurable. The frequency of the light as it meets the receptor is dependent on that relation. Following on from above. Yes it ties in with the Doppler effect. I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

3. I think if I was only to talk of motion it might give the impression that I was only considering kinetic energy. There are many kinds of energy with their own characteristics and I think 'change' better encompass them than motion. Though yes, I suppose, the different kinds of energy do involve motion. I'm not convinced that it is better. Motion involves questions of position and location and distance, (and timing) which leads onto what kind of space are we talking about, and how should what is happening be accurately defined.

4. I think that Bells inequalities don't apply because they are based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time but I'm suggesting a different model of the universe. The QM results suggest that something has to give, and that something is that the results have prior existence in the space-time continuum. IE that kind of realism needs to go, rather than acceptance of faster than light communication. As I see it, entanglement correlation is due to imposing the same measurement conditions on the separate particles produced as opposites. The imposition relative perspective or limiting procedure produces the result. It is not discovering the one and only state or value there could have been, It has no effect on the other particle distant from the one observed. This is possible with sequential uni-temporal time and an entirely open future, rather than the already exiting future in space-time. Which incidentally is also necessary for true agency.

We may have to disagree about the ways in which the universe is strange. I may not be as “steeped ‘ in QM as you say, on Declan’s page, but I have thought about it. (I’m certainly not singling out QM papers for criticism out of personal fear of QM. I’m sorry that is your perception of me but I consider it nonsense.) Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 00:38 GMT
Correction I should have said 4. I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption ...

There is an underlying notion that the outcome singular fixed states or values exist already, like the colour or pattern of socks, rather than coming into 'being' when the viewpoint or limiting procedure is applied.

The elephant and blind men analogy is rather overused but nevertheless: singular limited state trunk/hose only exists in isolation when a singular limited 'viewpoint' (I.e. relative to this man") is applied. Same for singular state leg/pillar, singular state ear/fan and singular state tail/rope. Prior to those measurements the elephant unseen has the potential to be measured as any of those states. Yet isn't any of those isolated 'measurement outcome' states. Elephant source un-felt is indefinite as far as the would observers are concerned. There are of course many other potential 'feel-points' that could be taken. So by mentally limiting the number of observers to the traditional ones the possible outcome states have already been mentally reduced.

I have some papers on viXra that give some thoughts on quantum physics, variables and measurement, and the effect of different perspectives of the universe.

Is Quantum Physics Really Strange? viXra:1708.0235 ,The Map is not the Territory viXra:1708.0268 , and The Frog and the Swarm of Bees, Different Views of the Universe viXra:1801.0098

Which are also, I suppose, relevant background to the essay but I didn't think it was necessary to list all papers containing some relevant idea. If you are interested in where the expressed viewpoints are coming from you could have a read/skim of them. Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 22:24 GMT
Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.

1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. All of the measurables are indefinite prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 22:28 GMT
Duplicate post -please ignore.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 19:20 GMT
Georgina. Thanks. Interesting. But consider;

1. If we have >2 identical detectors or eyes at rest side by side in an ambient medium they find the SAME from ALL signals. If one is different, rotated, moved or in any relative motion, THEN, we agree, finding always differ. To me the evidence is clear, 'observer dependence', but does it also agree with the signal having NO measurables...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 00:12 GMT
Peter I'll try to address your points

1. My proposition is that the measurables are relative and so the relative to what has to be established. Without that its state or value is indefinite. Does that mean the object or phenomenon does not have behaviour unless measured? No. But to say what it is comes with,"says who?',i.e. what perspective or limiting constraint was applied to obtain that singular value or state.

The measurements are not sole properties but involve relations. I think one argument against hidden variables is considering the measurement values or states belong to the entity of interest. Incorrectly assuming the (to be) observed object or phenomenon needs separate individual states to satisfy each different kind of measurement. Whereas it just needs its one unobserved behaviour. It isn't drawing the correct response out of its bag of answers when interrogated but its behaviour is being judged in a particular way.

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 13:45 GMT
It has taken me until now to get to this. My time is a bit chopped up these days. I would say that if I had to parse what you write it is that time and causality is defined in a local sense. You say things occur as a part relative to other parts, which in a way is how gauge theory and general relativity are constructed. A local region has some kinematics of spacetime or of a field, and how that local region meshes with other regions determines dynamics.

A part of what I maintain, which is an aspect of my essay, is that local and nonlocal principles are dual. This is from how I treat the duality between bulk gravity in and anti-de Sitter space and the field theory on its conformal boundary.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 22:57 GMT
Hi Lawrence, thank you for taking a look. The proposition in the essay is that:"Foundational passage of time is about the pattern of existence, of differentiated parts and about the change. The happening rather than just the static being of the pattern of existence."

I wrote, "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating. The pattern is always unitary and uni-temporal. The pattern changes more rapidly at the smaller scales but always remains part of a singular pattern of existence. It all remains together, temporally speaking. The rate of change of the pattern in different places is not foundational time passing at different rates. It is the entire pattern, the entirety of existence, that is a time. There is no other time to be at. "

Meaning, a time is the configuration or pattern of the whole of existence simultaneously. There is no past or future but only that extant version. Foundational passage of time is simultaneous change of the entire pattern. (Spacetime was put in the disregarded heap.)

People use timing to compare change. It is really comparison of alteration of one part of the pattern of existence against another. The foundational Object universe is uni-temporal. Causality is local but foundational time is universal.

Non simultaneity of events stems from differences in signal receipt;and pertains to the products of processing. Relativity has been formulated upon a category error that does not distinguish between material objects and products of signal receipt and processing. Trying to highlight the important difference between the categories was the reason for the extensive list in the essay of differences between seen things and objects as they are. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 19:49 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Very beautiful essay. I think it's an important direction you choose, the difference between what is fundamental for humans vs for the universe. And I like how you sprinkled your writing with very illustrative references to Terry Pratchet :)

Good luck with the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 05:18 GMT
Thank you Cristinel. I found far more great quotes from Terry Pratchett than I could use. I'll share this one. 'Discworld' has its own science.

“The universe, they said, depended for its operation on the balance of four forces which they identified as charm, persuasion, uncertainty, and bloody-mindedness.Thus it was the sun and moon orbited the Disc because they were persuaded not to fall down, but didn't actually fly away because of uncertainty. Charm allowed tress to grow and bloody mindedness kept them up, and so on.” Terry Pratchett. The Light Fantastic (1986).

It works!- and makes me smile.

Kind regards Georgiba

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 13, 2018 @ 01:47 GMT
Correction. "Charm allowed trees to grow and bloody mindedness kept them up, and so on.” Terry Pratchett. The Light Fantastic (1986).

Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 11:58 GMT
Some interesting point of views.

The fundamental constituent like the mass of the fermions, but the massless bosons?

The change and the time connection is a deep connection, and it is interesting: so that the fundamental is the time, or the change; and you write of the fundamental forces, so that you have a heap of fundamental concepts, rather than a single principle; the last fundamental is the scientific methods: “time, mass, forces and methods”.

The method of obtain knowledge is necessary in the scientific world, but I think that the mathematics also have some fundational property.

A good work.

Regards

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 23:02 GMT
Hi Domenico, thanks. I think the 'base'existence is differentiated into all the different kinds of existence. The fermions are one particular way the base can be different. I mentioned the fundamental forces are different ways in which the base medium is affected by matter. Photons are also alteration of the base medium but in another different way. Photons are singular disturbances from the change in energy level of an electron. In contrast a disturbance of the medium that is a gravitational field is a whole that is spatially distributed and the division into single particles that are not that whole doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Likewise the bosons that supposedly operate at sub atomic scale. I can think about what is going on as field or disturbance of the medium and division into particles doesn't make more sense. I think the HIggs boson is not a part of nature but an effect caused by the extreme conditions used to detect it, which caused the evidence of its existence. in nature the field isn't divided into individual boson particles. I think the bosons are a part of an accounting system that works with the different kinds of alteration of the base medium. Stemming perhaps from a desire to have a full particle model for everything. That's why the whole 'particle zoo' of the standard model was put aside at the beginning of the essay but not discarded. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 23:20 GMT
Summary

Looking at what is fundamental for the majority of physics

Foundational time, for happening and agency

EM signals, for perception of 'reality'

The disturbances of the base medium providing all of the fundamental forces

What is fundamental for progress in science and makes science adaptable/ able to develop rather than being 'set in stone'.

Vulnerability of science work

Bookmark and Share


Heinrich Luediger replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Georgina,

some remarks regarding ‘your’ conception of time: in wave mechanics (classical and even quantum) the symbol t is a parameter, no metaphysical entity. Its equations describe bodies in mathematical space, which can be known precisely for this reason. That is, in physics (proper) nothing ever ‘happens’. The ‘things’ we know don’t happen, they simply are, and whatever ‘happens’ we don’t and cannot possibly know. For example, the individually occurring blackenings on a screen behind a double slit illuminated by low level coherent light are mere happenings (unpredictable events in the future), whereas the shape of the interference pattern is a priori knowledge. What we can observe is our knowledge, not events in time.

In general, that there is something called historical development from the past to the future ((r)evolution) is a romantic (mainly 18th/19th centuries) idea of historians and sociologists later picked up by biologists. While the concept of natural evolution has meanwhile become dubious in biology by showing that the term ‘species’ has no empirical equivalent (e.g Hey J., On the failure of modern species concepts, 2006) it is the more surprising that ideas of evolution are thriving in physics.

Heinrich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 06:21 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,

I like that you jump in at the deep end, "shedding a heap of unnecessary ideas about the universe." In fact, your first two, time stretching from infinity to infinity, and block time in the space-time continuum, are the focus of my essay. [Eckhard also has a lot to say about this.]

I'm with you in assuming only one kind of base existence from which all other kinds are formed. I'm with you on the object universe being at the same time and only time everywhere, i.e., Now.

After dealing with time, you treat electromagnetic radiation, which I too treat in my essay. In fact, I agree with almost all of your essay. You finally conclude by suggesting that Einstein's relativity can be cross examined. That is what I do in my essay. I hope you will read it and find it interesting. It supports your essay quite strongly. Don't worry about the math. It's correct.

It is so good to see the sharp edges get knocked off of our models. They get smoother and smoother with every contest.

Congratulation on a very well written essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 01:30 GMT
Edwin, I am glad you and I agree on some important points about time and existence, On existence; what I have proposed, and you are in agreement, is as simple as possible but no simpler as Einstein recommends.

I am really pleased to find that you also want foundational, sequential time that is fully simultaneous and without past or future. It is necessary but can not by itself account for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 19:28 GMT
Georgina,

Thank you for your kind words. Your essay clearly dispels what is not relevant in you "heap of assumptions," and mentioning right off the necessary foundations. I like it that you mention "vulnerability" is fundamental in that failed theories can serve as stepping stones to further discovery, stating that even Darwinian evolution can be re-examined using epigenetics. This is well-stated.

Thanks for the good read.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 20:15 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 21:13 GMT
Hi Joe, 'what is fundamental?' is is very open question. There isn't just one answer to it. It depends on how the question is interpreted and where the focus of attention is directed when answering. It is interesting to read lots of different viewpoints and kinds of presentation. I do not find it surprising that there are diverse opinions.

I have read and commented on your own essay, tying to give both positive feedback and suggestions that might be helpful. I have no more to say about it. I would like to keep this page for discussion of my essay and the subjects I chose to consider. Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Gregory Derry wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 00:33 GMT
Georgina--

Your essay is quite interesting and I enjoyed reading it, but I do have a few (hopefully constructive) criticisms and comments. I will be very interested in your response.

If I understood your approach here, you are trying to eliminate as many presuppositions based on present knowledge as possible, so as to build a sturdy foundation (pun intended) for a description of reality grounded in essential notions. If I've understood correctly, that's where my problem comes in, because you frequently (and quite reasonably) need to invoke a variety of concepts (fermions, EM waves, etc.) that are firmly embedded in the presuppositions that you have previously jettisoned. This happens more subtly in other ways too, e.g. you talk about potential energies, which only have meaning in the context of trajectories through space and time, but also wish to eliminate space and time as necessary concepts. I guess another way to say this is that it's difficult to think about these issues in a manner similar to the pre-Socratic Greeks when we now have the kind of understanding that we do.

Please let me know what you think about this point, including any misunderstanding I might have about what you are aiming to do in the essay. As I said, it had a lot of points of interest, and I share your ideas about having a firm empirical grounding for concepts.

--Greg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 02:59 GMT
Hi Gregory, thank you so much for your question. I am not trying to eliminate as many presuppositions as possible but to put modes of thinking about the physics that aren't compatible or would get in the way of thinking about my own proposition. For example Newtonian time is put aside because I am not suggesting a return to use of Newtonian time although I am suggesting a uni-temporal (same time everywhere), sequential time.

Reading through the essay the physics that has been put aside is replaced by alternatives that take its place. For example very early on fermion particles are seen as differentiated parts of the base existence. Later on electromagnetism is explained as a particular kind of disturbance of the base medium. Also very early on in the essay foundational time is introduced "Change together with existence provides foundational time, which is the changing configuration of the ‘Object universe’, that is, the pattern and substance of all concurrent existence, at all scales."

After talking about electromagnetism I point out "The above list of differences between products of EM processing and the fermion based sources of electromagnetic radiation should make clear the need to differentiate them and not treat ‘the seen’ as the external material existence.This does mean that as well as the seen, there are unseen sources. " This is a differentiation that was not done in the formulation of Relativity. Resulting in a category error and cause of the paradoxes.The space occupied by the content of the visual product is not the space where the physics of the external material universe is happening. So you see why "Block time and the space-time continuum; Parents of paradox" are put aside at the outset.

Later in the essay there is discussion of the nature of the space where things are happening. The difficulty of relating to it as a human being and how it can simplified to be made comprehensible.

You wrote "it's difficult to think about these issues in a manner similar to the pre-Socratic Greeks when we now have the kind of understanding that we do." Yes, that is why the heap of assumptions is put aside at the beginning to make room for different ideas, and avoid confusion by trying to use new ideas in the wrong context.

I am providing an alternative explanatory framework.It overcomes the incompatibility of Relativity and QM, and dispels the paradoxes. As well as addressing the measurement problem, by explaining that measurables are relative, not sole properties; and measurement is imposing a viewpoint or procedure that outputs a singular limited fixed state or value. The fundamental forces are also unified. Perhaps with all of the above in mind the essay will be more approachable.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 13:23 GMT
Dear Georgina;

I like your style; you really have put together the best ingredients for an “Universe soup and sandcastles”. You have touched all the fundamental aspects necessary for discussing what is fundamental, and have put yourself for so doing in the right position (universe centered instead of human centered approach). But a good cooking requires not just the right ingredients, but the right recipe (right quantity and right moment and way of adding together all the ingredients).

Adding some formalism to your essay would have made it great. Yours has what mine lacks (mine is arid). The way I see it, we complement each other. In my essay I start by establishing the general concept of “Fundamental”. Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental.

The interesting thing is that we both discuss the same aspects of reality but with different methodology. I hope we in the future we could put together the two parts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 21:56 GMT
Hi Diogenes, thank you for reading and for your appreciation of the essay. I take your point about lack of formalism, I could have made it more obvious. I have put a paper giving some of the background in the additional page, appendix and reference section.

My aims were; to write something that was an easy, enjoyable, read, addressing the topic and the program of which the competition is part. I also wanted it to be an advance on ideas already expressed not just a reiteration. I really wanted to emphasize the differences between seen or measured and existent unseen, relevant to understanding what is happening in the physics considered by Relativity, and considered by QM.

The 'Sandcastles' section is about how we ought to regard science that has been superseded or dis-proven. Including continued value of the scientific method, when not previously dis-proven science is shown to have been wrong. In anticipation of inevitable changes that have the potential to be used to discredit science itself. That vulnerability to failure is its strength, and in my opinion needs emphasizing. Allowing adaptation in the light of new knowledge and thence progress.

I have taken a quick look at your essay and notice there are similarities. I hope to comment on your page. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 22:31 GMT
Wowow Georgina Woodward!

Wonderfully matching essay with mine… Thank you…You visited my essay very early and gave a nice comment even!

Your words “Selecting foundational time and electromagnetic radiation as fundamental, to the working of the Material universe, and the perception of "the universe" respectively. My dear Georgina Woodward !!!!…..….. very nice idea…. I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 10:27 GMT
Negative results in science are not well enough appreciated. Wrong ideas that could have worked need to be ruled out. This is not a form of failure. Your "vulnerability is fundamental" message explains this nicely, and I think it has a double meaning. Our own vulnerability in the universe is also fundamental to the way the universe works. If life was not vulnerable there would be no evolution. Natures wrong turns with life also have to eliminated.

Thank you for the different and thought-provoking perspective

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
Hi Philip, thank you for reading the essay and commenting. I'm glad you appreciated the part about progress in science. I hope that it is a useful way of thinking about it, that can be used to defend science. Which seems more important than ever with recently apparent anti-science attitudes in popular culture and US government, in particular. Even huge changes can be seen in a positive light and not as failure of science itself.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:04 GMT
Hi Joe, I do not know why you think you are being treated unfairly. Your essay has been accepted into the competition and is on public display. You have had a number of comments left.I have noticed that Philip Gibs recently left an interesting question about it, showing that he has made an attempt to grasp your meaning. You are not bottom of the community ratings. There are now a huge number of competition entries. The competition process is what it is, imperfect for everyone but better than no competition. We do at least have the chance of getting our ideas more widely read than on the FQXi community pages alone. Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:43 GMT
Georgina

Delicious.

What is the next course?

Gary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 20:58 GMT
Hi Gary,

http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0098 The Frog and the Swarm of Bees, Different Views of the Universe

Georgina

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:43 GMT
Georgina,

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 your kind words about mine.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 10:08 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Sorry for the late fulfilment of my promise to read your essay.

“Nothing can arise from nothing” interesting point of view. However if Nothing=Everything then the glass is not half empty but half-full...so not dull at all.

“More here less there” this remark is maybe the origin of the existence of entropy. The goal of entropy is an even distribution of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

there are some similarities but also significant differences in our models. Uni-temporal Now is the existing configuration of the entire Object universe. All existing substance, material things, and the relations between them. It is where physics is happening. I sometimes refer to it as the causality front. As everything is in motion, the uni-temporal Now (configuration) changes and is not eternal but transient. EM signals persisting within the changing configuration of the Object universe can be received at different times by different observers, producing non simultaneity of (seen ) events.

Thank you for reading and your reply. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 09:01 GMT
In regard to gravity: "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move." according to John Wheeler interpreting Einstein's field equation. As I see it this is incorrect.

Mass does not tell space time how to curve. Instead the mass is affecting the distribution of the content of space around it. That effect is altering the paths taken by EM radiation passing through it. When the EM signals are received and processed into a product, the appearance is of curved space time because of signal delays. The space time product of signal processing has no affect on the material mass.

Instead it is the content of uni-temporal space that is affecting the motion of the mass. It is that base medium that is 'told' by the mass how to distribute and in turn 'tells' the mass how to move. Both the mass and the base medium are parts of the Object universe. The space-time product of signal processing is not where the physics is happening.

The above is what was meant by the brief description in the essay.

The base medium also provides resistance to change of trajectory. So force must be applied to overcome it. The amount of medium deceases moving away from the Earth or other gravitational mass and so the resistance decreases with distance, giving the decrease in the strength of gravity with distance, fitting the inverse square law.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 11:35 GMT
Attraction of the base medium to mass, and its distribution around it allows gravity to be an effect that is occurring locally between masses and the base medium, as a consequence of the mass, rather than force acting at a distance between masses (Newtonian gravity) or result of space-time curvature (Einstein's gravity).

For example: The mass of a planet will affect the concentration of the base medium around it.The interaction that another mass has with the medium is related to the mass of the planet, the concentration of the medium due to that planet's mass, and radius that is the second mass's distance from the centre of the planet. Which are the things that relate to the distribution of the medium.

A reason for tendency to orbit could be the difference in concentration of base medium above and below the object. The more concentrated providing greater inertia, producing a turning.This model makes gravity experienced at ground level a kind of compression from attraction of the medium to the planet, and that medium resisting change of motion through it, so there is inertia of objects on the ground. Energy required for elevation. This fits with the reading of a ground placed accelerometer being due to that compression.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 11:43 GMT
The additional torque needed for more acceleration at lower orbit could be just that turning from different concentrations previously mentioned. That seems like something that could be calculated.

Bookmark and Share



Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 12:02 GMT
Maybe it just doesn't need saying here as it isn't directly about the essay. But it seems at first counter-intuitive that as concentration of the base medium increases there is no decrease in acceleration. Which is why understanding that the increase in concentration isn't increase in viscosity is important.A greater concentration is not hindering motion through it, as a greater viscosity would, but constraining the motion to that produced by the relation with surrounding medium and making change from that particular motion more difficult.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 09:43 GMT
Georgina Woodward, you have a very interesting essay. I liked this:

A universe can not be constituted of nothing. Nothing can arise from nothing and that is very dull, as is the

mathematics of nothing.Something rather than nothing, existence rather than void is a foundational necessity. To be a universe that has physics, chemistry and biology is happening, the existent something must have the quality of being able to have different distributions. More here, less there, so that from unknown (as it shares no information about itself), base existence, other kinds of existence can be happening and identified. Then there can be quantities and

categories and geometry and mathematics is more interesting.

According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, matter is space and space is matter that moves. Time is a synonym for universal movementniya. Thus, space is the Foundation for fundamental theories. Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Boris.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 00:40 GMT
Hi Boris, glad you found a paragraph that you like.

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 20:24 GMT
The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter of Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space – it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

Everyone likes to look at the sky and it seems empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he had to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer – in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space there is a setting for changing the world. Time is a synonym of total movement.

You are close to the ideas of Descartes on 10, if you leave a comment on my page and evaluation. 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 principle ofthe identity of space and matter of Descartes

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 00:43 GMT
When length, breadth and thickness are attributed to an object an orientation has been selected for it. Orientation is not an independent property of objects. If an observer makes length, breadth and thickness measurements of an asymmetric object and then passes the object to someone else, that other may give different measurements for length, breadth and thickness because the relative orientation is different to the relation with the previous observer.

The material object has relations with other objects in the surrounding environment including distance from them, which could be used to characterize the objects extension with position and orientation. This is a 'web' of relations rather than an artificially imposed co-ordinate reference frame.

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 05:28 GMT
Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no voids. But if they are formed, then closes instantly. Taking into account modern concepts, the speed of light is the limit for any real movements, in the New Cartesian Physics the voids in the space closes to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics.

It should be understood that there is a geometric space as empty and is physical space as matter and which is moving. In geometrical space there are no problems with measurements of length, width and height, they do not depend on the orientation in it. In the physical space is modified so that the speed not exceeded the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give there your assessment.FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko



I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear Georgina , Time is a synonym for universal, total movement of space, which is matter. Universe soup forever bubbling and boiling. We do not see the space that is in a state of physical vacuum, it is transparent as glass, but we see particles that have merged in the body. Corpuscles also created from space, which is matter and which rotates in the corpuscle. The rotation creates a centrifugal acceleration. Flux of a vector of this acceleration is mass. Multiply any mass on the gravitational constant and you get the value of the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration. Multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, and you will get the energy that is accumulated in the corpuscle in the movement of space, which is matter.

I was also against Einstein, but then I realized that all the paradoxes arise from the inertial reference systems with infinitely long numerical axes. If you take the inertial frame with an infinitely small numeric axes, it turns out all good. Nothing wrong with that in them time stops, no, because they are infinitely small.

Thank you for the discussion, I give you 10. New Cartesian Physics нужна твоя высокая поддержка, чтобы развиваться дальше. Посети мою страницу и дай там свою оценку.FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 21:24 GMT
Boris,

Uni-temporal passage of time is change in configuration of the entire extant universe. Which can be likened to your total movement of 'space'. However a time is configuration of the universe, it is not a property possessed by individual particles or objects. The time inside an atom requires the context of the rest of the universe external to it. Also since the universe is uni-temporal there is no different time for things to be at. So time stopping inside an atom but not outside does not fit with my own explanatory framework. Though time apparently stopping (no information update) when movement is keeping pace with the speed of signal transmission does make sense, but does not apply inside atoms.

The paradoxes are due to a category error, not differentiating between products of EM signal receipt and processing, and independently existing material things.

I like the idea of filled space. I'm not convinced about the rotation you mention. I think there are different kinds of particle behaving differently, which gives them their recognizably different characteristics. Things with mass are differentiated from the base medium and have inertia, there is resistance to their movement through it. That seems different from flux of a vector of centrifugal acceleration due to rotation.

Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind comments. Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:13 GMT
Hello again G.

While I ranked your essay generously on February 2nd., my comments regarding your essay were too trivial to be useful. so, I would like to make amends by offering you a few belated comments.

Concerning your statement 'what is causal and what is consequence', the notion of a singular subject and a singular predicate only holds momentarily.

More generally, all causes generate events that instigate effects, which effects in turn become the next generation of causes.

I concur with your statement that 'Nothing can arise out of nothing'; however, not withstanding our general understanding that the predominant constituent in the universe is vacuum, there is a significant quantity of unevenly distributed matter, interchangeably masquerading as energy, that together are the cause of our concerns about causation; all of which may have led you to conclude that 'it is better to assume there is only one kind of base of existence'.

Which leads me back to my own conclusion: that 'existence' is the single prerequisite fundamental to the whole shebang. itsinmybook.com

Lots and lots,

G too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 23:15 GMT
Hi Gary, The place in the essay where I write about not mistaking consequences for causes is to do with the anthropic principle. Although the argument also applies to other areas such as evolution. Eg, Flight is a consequence not a cause of the evolution of flying birds. Birds do not have wings so that they can fly but having wings enabling flight has aided survival. Leading to predominance of best wings (and genetics for them) in the breeding population of birds able to fly.

Georgina

Bookmark and Share



Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 7, 2018 @ 04:40 GMT
There can be true relative velocities and apparent relative velocities. A true velocity requires that there is a relation between two actualized things, parts, or phenomena, or parts thereof, that are co-existing. That is within the same and only existing entire universal configuration. If one reference object is actualized but the comparison is with a manifestation formed from received signals then the velocity calculated for the manifestation is attributed to the material object it appears to be but is not in essence the same as the true relative velocity which is the relation between the two actualized things or phenomena.

It is said that Newtonian gravity is an approximation of Einsteinian gravity. However Newton is dealing with two actualized bodies in space, whereas Einstein is dealing with a space-time manifestation ( necessarily formed from received EM radiation or calculation of that ). Therefore the solution is an attribution which although it may be similar in numerical value is in essence something fundamentally different. The difference is between what is actually happening and what is seen to have happened,

Re. Einsteins field equations "The equations must be wrong! Although the theory and the equations have passed every test, they are intrinsically incompatible with quantum theory (which has also passed every experimental test). The problem is that the equations require the energy and momentum to be defined precisely at every space time point, which contradicts the uncertainty principle for quantum states. This is not a just a problem at high energies or short distances, it is a conceptual incompatibility that applies in every lab." From"Einstein Field Equations (General Relativity)" via https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/intranet/pendulum/gene
ralrelativity/ Retrieved 7 jun 2018

Quantum theory is dealing with what is (unitemporal material existence) that is prior to the making of a contextual observation, without context; that providing a singular value or state. Whereas space time represents a manifestation, the product of observation, and that product is of definite states and or values., Contextual manifestation, results, not externally real (actualized) source reality.

The solutions to these equations are the components of the metric tensor g_{munu}, which specifies the space-time geometry. The inertial trajectories of particles can then be found using the geodesic equation. From"Einstein Field Equations (General Relativity)" via https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/intranet/pendulum/gene
ralrelativity/ Retrieved 7 jun 2018

The inertial trajectories mentioned are trajectories of a manifestation of an object ( formed from EM processing ) and not a material object in unitemporal space being affected by the distribution of the existing content of space unobserved.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 7, 2018 @ 11:19 GMT
I think I need to clarify what I meant by "Quantum theory is dealing with what is (unitemporal material existence) that is prior to the making of a contextual observation, without context; that providing a singular value or state." I am talking about what is happening in a quantum experiment - the evolving relations between an actualized entity or phenomenon and the actualized environment of the apparatus unseen prior to observation. That is what is occurring in the actual territory rather than a "map" representation. (It can be represented by evolution of a superposition of result states, eigenstates but that isn't precisely what is happening.)

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 8, 2018 @ 05:50 GMT
It still isn't made clear. Perhaps rather than saying " prior to the making of a contextual observation" I should have said prior to obtaining the result of having applied a context, meaning by that the environment provided by the experiment and the protocol used that only permits a singular fixed state outcome. Prior to considering the singular state obtained ( a measurable) the actualised, beable, entity or phenomenon and beable environment provided by the apparatus are in an evolving relationship.

Bookmark and Share



Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 12, 2018 @ 01:50 GMT
I wrote "Nothing can arise from nothing and that is very dull, as is the mathematics of nothing. " There can be no differences in distribution of nothing that would allow gradients and flux in it. It can not host a field. Rather than Newtonian action at a distance, Newtonian gravity can be written as a field theory as demonstrated by (November 26, 2012) Leonard Susskind General Relativity Lecture 9 Stanford university. This gives the effect of mass on something producing 'geometry' in space. It can not be the effect of mass on nothingness. The geometry obtained from Newtonian gravity can not then be substituted by the geometry of Relativity. Space time is generated from received EM. The space-time landscape is a product, not the source reality. Its generation requires simultaneous existence of the receiver and the carrying signal, IE same temporal location. It also requires interaction by coming together in space of signal and receiver. So it could be said that all space-time originates in a unitemporal (same and only time everywhere) spatial process.

Newtonian type gravity but with unitemporal change in configuration of the universe as foundational passage of time rather than Newtonian time can be written so that there is gradient of distribution of the 'host of fields' around a mass. That gradient of the host will effect the paths of light, affecting receipt time, leading to a space-time distribution of the information obtained form the received EM.

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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