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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

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

Sue Lingo: on 6/24/20 at 5:25am UTC, wrote Hi Edwin... Not a browser issue as reported above... i.e. apparently my...

Sue Lingo: on 6/23/20 at 7:12am UTC, wrote Hi Edwin... Just discovered some browsers may no longer allow subdirectory...

Sue Lingo: on 6/23/20 at 5:14am UTC, wrote Hi Edwin... I was unable to add a new post to your FQXi Essay Contest...

Sue Lingo: on 6/8/20 at 6:53am UTC, wrote Hi Edwin... Thanks for digging deeper!!!... don't know why you are unable...

Edwin Klingman: on 5/21/20 at 17:20pm UTC, wrote Hi Harrison, In Phys Rev Lett 124,081301 (2020) Glavan and Lin note...

Harrison Crecraft: on 5/20/20 at 17:52pm UTC, wrote Hi Edwin, Does the contextual interpretation you describe for SR apply...

Peter Jackson: on 5/19/20 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Edwin, Just as good on a fuller 'moderation' read through, so very much in...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/19/20 at 1:17am UTC, wrote A delightful essay Ed... I like to save some of the best for last, and you...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "This is unification of QM and GR in a nut shell. Gravitons exist. They..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "The graviton is the mathematical solution to the Schrodinger's equation. ..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...

Jason Wolfe: "It would be nice to imagine that the Germans are working on gravity..." in Generalised Integrated...

Jason Wolfe: "Jim, If its physical, it can be perceived by the body, by physical things..." in Structure Invention by...

jim hughes: "Does the Standard Model have to be described as "physical"? I'd say it..." in Structure Invention by...

Jason Wolfe: "I think an event happens at a point, and the causal consequences travel..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.


FQXi FORUM
July 10, 2020

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Deciding on the nature of time and space by Edwin Eugene Klingman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 01:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

Special relativity centers on two key aspects: a formal transformation and an ontology, differing from the pre-relativistic ontology. Recent papers [1,2,3] discuss century-old issues associated with the ontological problem. Per Thyssen [1] "Special relativity leaves the debate about the dimensionality of the world underdetermined." This underdetermination requires a decision that lies outside the formal rules of the theory.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His dissertation, "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 36 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. He has recently non-linearized the weak field equations of relativity, and is currently focused on identifying false premises built into physics theories.

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-04-25 01:50:05 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 04:59 GMT
Having read a number of essays, in my opinion FQXi is fulfilling Templeton’s vision, against all odds. By maintaining an open essay contest, open to the world and with minimum, almost nonexistent filters, they have supported a decade of novelty and fresh insight—from academics, to the degree they are allowed discretion, and from the field of the great unwashed—retired professionals, and younger fanatics, who, again against all odds, try to understand and teach.

Believe me—the pieces haven’t all been put together in the right order, but most of the pieces exist on the FQXi archive of ten wonderful contests.

I hope you’re having as much fun as I am! It makes the Coronavirus house arrest not so bad...

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Kwame A Bennett replied on Apr. 29, 2020 @ 20:36 GMT
I like the solid mathematical foundation embedded within this approach; I too watched those relativity YouTube lectures that were incorporated within this paper; however, I have a fundamental disagreement with the thought experiments themselves that lay at the foundation of relativity and that told at the start of those lectures.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 13:48 GMT
Dr. Klingman:

I was looking forward to your contribution to the FQXi essay contest this year, and I enjoyed reading your essay on interpretations of special relativity. However, you did not address general relativity at all.

My view on both SR and GR involves an interpretation that no one else seems to be discussing. The orthodox interpretation is that 4D abstract spacetime is fundamental, and that clocks and rulers behave as they do because they follow this 4D mathematical formalism. In contrast, I started out by focusing on real quantum waves in real space, and noted that these provide fundamental microscopic clocks and rulers. One can then invert relativity and define the behavior of clocks and rulers as fundamental, without any need for 4D spacetime.

This provides a way to correctly calculate the curved trajectory of light near a star, using classical equations without any reference to a gravitational metric or curved spacetime. But the interpretation of this curvature is different – it is classical wave refraction in a medium where the speed of light is reduced. This reduction in c near a star is actually implicit in GR, but no one seems to notice it, because SR was derived from the constancy of c, so GR must have that also.

If you are interested, this was addressed in my previous FQXi essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, and again in my new FQXi essay, “The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing”.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 15:19 GMT
You might like my comment below Alan...

My first mention of inverting Relativity was in '97, and I explicitly set out that one could solve c^2 = E/m and let m go to 0, showing that light in a massless realm would have unbounded speed, and suggesting that the current value of c is set be the weight of the universe. But even years later; I've been too timid to bring that up. Now it seems to yield meaningful answers.

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Alan M Kadin,

Thanks very much. I too look forward to your essays every year. We are on the same path, although we often differ in the fine details. You say in your essay:

“Taking these definitions into classical mechanics allows one to reproduce all the standard tests of GR, at least to first order in phi: gravitational red shift, bending of light, and rotation of the perihelion of Mercury. No reference to 4D space-time is necessary.”

I fully agree with you that no reference to 4D is necessary. The 10 page limit prevented me from fully developing special relativity, for example the fact that I derived time dilation from absolute space and time last year. Since I believe that time dilation is the thing that makes most people accept relativity, it’s significant that there is a non-relativistic explanation for it.

Anyway, I am now moving from SR to GR, and my approach is that ‘curved space’ is simply an alternative encoding of energy density in flat space. The relevant physical info is gravitational energy density in flat space. Flat space coding carries no info. Remove the local energy density, as the equivalence principle demands and where does the information go? The physical info is now encoded in the coordinates. They are equivalent formulations. Only a mathematician could love the energy-less formulation, but as Hossenfelder points out, some are more driven by ‘mathematical beauty’ than by physical reality.

So thanks again and good luck.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 20:47 GMT
Alan,

You noted that I did not address general relativity at all. I did not think it fit in the very specific example treated in my essay. But I have recently provided a physical interpretation for a 98 year old metric solution to the field equations whose physical interpretation has been “obscure”:

A Primordial Spacetime Metric

I think you might find it interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 14:25 GMT
Good to see you join the field Ed...

I look forward to reading this paper, but I have been preoccupied. Since it appears your choice of topic is an outgrowth of e-mail exchanges we participated in; I'll explicate some of that here. FWIW I got a thoughtful reply from Neil Sloane, when I sent him a note suggesting dimensionality is emergent, with an unbounded upper and lower limit at the outset and with its convergence to 4-d shaped by the properties of spheres in various dimensions. Ultimately: he said "it sounds very interesting but I know nothing about cosmology."

So I know a lot of speculation is possible, and I agree with Alan that we do not need to see 4-d reality as fundamental, nor does the speed of light c need to be an absolute constant. I think we can do the unthinkable, by inverting Einstein's famous equation to solve for c instead. Specifically; c^2 = E/m where m --> 0 in the matter-free regime, in the radiation-dominated universe before the appearance of massive particle. This assumption alone gives a phenomenology similar to what Afshordi and Magueijo recently published.

But relaxing the assumptions about dimensionality does lead to some interesting new Physics, no matter how you cut it.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 14:31 GMT
Oh I forgot to add...

This reworking of Einstein means that the speed of light in our local universe is set by the total mass of the universe, or at least that within our Hubble-radius bubble. I.e. - the speed of light would be unbounded in a universe with no massive substance but is slowed by the presence of matter in the local universe, as it is in water or glass.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 14:38 GMT
And one more thought...

Amitabha Ghosh wrote in one of his books, that the mass of the universe as a way to account for the slowing of light works out 'about right.' I think he was implying the relation above. But as Alan says; nobody wants to mess with Einstein's assumptions from SR, and they seem to feel they should be ported to GR intact. His teacher Minkowski wrote of the death of space and time subsumed in spacetime. So there is some weight behind these ideas - but something has to give, in order to make progress.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 01:52 GMT
Jonathan,

I tried to reply earlier, but got knocked off the net.

Looking forward to any comments after you’ve read it.

If you’re still in NY I hope you’re not traveling on subway.

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 16:31 GMT
Edwin Eugene,

"We cannot perform measurements in the moving frame from our observation point in our frame, so relativity is not an empirical model and does not lie within the domain of science."

For a 'physically' set mind it is no doubt a major leap to elevate the observer frame over those moving relative to that frame. From a philosophical point of view it is only a first step in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Heinz,

Thanks for reading and thinking about my essay. Your points are well taken, but I disagree, for example, that it is “a major leap to elevate the observer frame over those moving relative to that frame.”

Petr Beckmann [Einstein Plus Two] points out “the laws of physics...must hold regardless of any observer, who should do nothing but observe.” The behavior of electrons, for example does not depend on the observer but the local field with which it interacts. He says:

“In all experiments the observing instruments have always been nailed to the local field,so they could not reveal whether the observed effect was associated with an observer-referred or a field-referred velocity.”

His is a powerful book that I only came upon after finishing my study of special relativity.

It’s reasonable to assume that in fixing “cracks” in special relativity I might introduce some of my own. In fact, the physics is associated with the inertia factor gamma, while the paradoxes that are associated with the Lorentzian “mixing” of time and space disappear. Your doubts are reasonable, but I believe they are misplaced.

As for “not change anything in the world”, energy-time theory makes different predictions. For example the observer can establish his own frame velocity, impossible in SR. More important, I believe, is restoring a sense of physical intuition, which has been lost in modern physics.

I will read your essay again before I comment on your approach.

Thanks again, and for your ‘mainstream-erosive’ comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 14:51 GMT
Heinz,

Having re-read your essay, I now better understand your comment.

You conclude your essay: “The only reality there is, is a timeless present.”

I won’t say that you are wrong. Back in the day I got very excited about Marshall McLuhan, Hayakawa, and languages. I certainly like your relation of Absolute non-contradiction to orthogonality.

But, aside from cocktail conversation, I’m not sure where one goes with this. Using metaphor, it’s as if your universe is somewhere between the all encompassing connectedness of a cross between an LSD experience and solipsism.

I’m all for both, but on normal days I have numerous 747’s fly over my ranch on the VOR radial descending into SFO, and I don’t think that happens under LSD or designed by solipsists.

My essay pushes (3+1)D-ontology, also called presentism, and it is a functional model that approximates the reality you describe, but far more useful, in my opinion, than going overboard about the reality of time. I do thing category errors are worthwhile indicators of heretofore unseen error, and I believe you have applied it well toward QM, but I’m not sure categories are good for much else.

My two cents.

Thanks again for reading my essay and commenting. I did enjoy your essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
post approved


John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 20:27 GMT
What Special relativity did was to change the coordinate system from the intuitive xyzt to xyzc. Therefore, the Shapiro delay had to be calculated with a standard of c which suggests a calculation of time dilation. The standard of measure was from rods and clocks to rods and speed. So, the math may work compared to measurements (be careful to NOT use clocks).

Thus, the speed of light is the fastest MATTER can travel and the Lorentz transforms are on Measurements. So, for experiments such as quantum eraser or entanglement, a speed of an ether wave can be much greater than light. And van Flandern measured gravity's speed and millions of times faster than light. But if an experiment is done relying on General Relativity (the left side of the field equation) the maximum speed that can be calculated is c.

I think it hubris to consider humans can know ontology. But we can predict and use our model for helping us.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear John C Hodge,

Hi John, and thanks for your comments.

I believe the speed of light is the fastest anything can travel. The colliding neutron stars implied that gravity and light travel at the same speed (as I would expect). I believe Bell’s theorem based on Stern-Gerlach is incorrect and no entanglement is implied. The experiments showing entanglement are based on light and a different analysis is required.

I’m not quite sure what you mean about “the Lorentz transforms are on Measurements.” I think they are on the models, which predict or are compared to measurements.

Relativity has two major types of experiments: time dilation and speed of light. In most cases they are entirely separate, but the time dilation experiments are still xyzt-based.

I don’t think it’s hubris to consider that humans can know ontology, but I’m quite sure that 4D and (3+1)D are conflicting ‘ontology’.

It’s not expected that all FQXi participants will believe the same things.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

Sensational essay!! Not speaking for you but putting my opinion forth is that: Your essay by a professional physicist is hopeful for a much needed wrenching of the control of physics from theoretical physicists. A less confrontational appearing restatement of this is: It is hopeful for the much needed return of physics to being the science of measurements.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 01:48 GMT
Hi James,

Great to hear from you. Thanks for the very kind words. I hadn’t seen your name yet, I hope you’re entering this year.

I really am glad that you enjoyed the essay. I thought you might.

Take care, my friend.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 03:19 GMT
Dear Edwin,

"There is no problem with the math of the Lorentz transformation;

the problem is in the ontology, i.e., the nature of physical reality."

I have written that there is a mathematical problem with the derivation of the Lorentz transformations. I can take correction. Here is why I have said the above: I wrote:

The Improper ‘Derivation’ of the Lorentz...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 20:32 GMT
Dear James,

I should have been more specific. Instead of saying

There is no problem with the math of the Lorentz transformation...

I should have said:

There is no problem applying the Lorentz transformation...”

Like you, I am generally unhappy with the derivations of Lorentz, which is absolutely necessary for special relativity. Because I cannot put graphics in a comment, I invite you to look at page 9 of

Everything’s Relative, or is it?

There I have reproduced a flow graph of Lucas and Hodgson showing up to 30 derivations of Lorentz, all of which have some problem in my mind.

Since I pick on Susskind a lot, I will quote his derivation of Lorentz, particularly his statement about

the requirement that the speed of light is the same in your frame and my frame..”

followed by

Whatever the relationship between the two frames of reference, it must be symmetrical.

Both of these statements are wrong from a physical perspective (although of course they match Einstein’s assumptions). They are geometry-based and ignore gravity.

You say (4th paragraph of excerpt)

Both observers see that same wavefront (and measure it with respect to themselves). They both measure it as C.

I disagree with this. Einstein says it is true because he had to do so to make things ‘work’. But first, one cannot measure the one-way speed of light, period. Second, if one assumes a local ether as the gravity through which light propagates [as I do], then the moving observer (would) see C-v as the speed (if it could be measured). Even Einstein says so in his Relativity in 1952 in his analysis of his [faulty] simultaneity detector.

So I disagree with your 5th paragraph: “Regardless of the magnitude of the v, the moving observer measures (the speed of light) as C.

There is a way to test this. Einstein clearly states an observer can never measure his speed from within his frame. In the same reference I linked to above, on pages 41,42,43 I have designed a ‘velocity detector’ that makes a different prediction from relativity, based on my energy-time theory versus Einstein’s space-time symmetry theory of relativity. So it’s possible to see who’s right. Sadly there is very little interest in experiments that could prove Einstein wrong.

As for time dilation — in Einstein’s unphysical theory, it follows from application of Lorentz. In my energy-time theory it follows from the increase in inertial mass [shown in your eqn(27)] of kinetic energy, so that the moving inertial mass resists acceleration of the restoring force that all clocks (based on harmonic oscillators) have, and the clock slows down.

I hope my response makes sense to you. I appreciate the effort you put into clarifying things.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 13:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your comments .

I fully agree that:

“In current approaches the question of ontology (if it even arises!) is often left up in the air; efforts are focused on mathematics. For those who believe that physical reality arises from mathematics, this probably makes sense. For the rest of us, physical reality (ontology) is a given, which we attempt to model with mathematics. This makes sense and has worked well for centuries”.

Your presentation presentation is also very superb:

“With experimental evidence of particle plusreal wave, and a path to Schrödinger’s equation of quantum mechanics, we now ask how real physical waves provide abstract probability amplitudes?”

“So quantum mechanics is based on real local particle-plus-induced-wave, not on mystical non-local superposition of non-real wavefunctions of the kind Bohr, Feynman and others insist “no one can understand.” Recall that John Bell was inspired by de Broglie’s theory and noted that the wave is just as real as Maxwell’s fields, stating “No one can understand this theory until he is willing to think of as a real objective field rather than just a ‘probability amplitude’.” 16ΨBell also noted “...two particles interact at short range and strong spin correlations are induced which persist when the particles move far apart.” This is entanglement, a very fragile resource,17 but just how far can one particle interfere with another or with itself?”

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Warm Regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 21:39 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I was anxiously waiting for your essay to appear. I know you work very hard to advance science and you remain one of very few people have helped me.

Your review of relativity literature was impressive. Like others I was run over by the train but eventually recovered. It takes deep insight and courage to uncover the assumptions, especially those of AE.

It...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Gene Barbee,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I think there are two issues. First one must see what’s wrong with the current physics. A number of impressive books, from Smolin to Hossenfelder and others have noted that we’ve been stuck for almost half a century, but the establishment, like any and all establishments, not knowing where to go, keeps going in the same direction. After all, we have to keep bread on the table, and there are psychological issues as well. Smolin, in his last book, says he can’t wait to retire, since one can’t do anything new in academia.

After realizing that there is no market for a new theory, I decided that it’s necessary to find and point out the false premises built into the old theories, to show the need for new theory. Alan Kadin has, I believe, seen the same thing.

But after realizing that things are definitely wrong, there’s still the problem of finding what’s right. I think that an understanding of what’s wrong moves one into the same neighborhood, which, for lack of a better term, I’ll agree to call neo-classical. I think Alan and I are definitely in the same neighborhood, but we’re not next door yet. There are other essays in this contest that see to be moving into the neighborhood.

I’m thankful that FQXi has played this game for a decade. I’ve learned from the great essays, and hopefully contributed to others.

I’m glad to see you hanging in there. It’s difficult to work with no positive feedback, and the formalism that you’ve developed prevents most from appreciating your work, since it’s too offbeat. But I admire the willpower it takes to keep plugging along without much positive feedback, so I hope you keep plugging. You do seem to extract a few jewels from your model.

My best regards and wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Gene H Barbee wrote on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 02:47 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I appreciate your feedback and agree it is off beat. I couldn’t stop thinking about your essay and wanted to share some previous work.

Reformulation of QM.

Basis of Pauli exclusion principle: The superposition of exp(180) identical wave functions that are positioned outside one another (the basis of the Pauli exclusion principle).

Wave particle...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 04:07 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I first of all appreciate your energy based LT as a key explanation. Thank you for making me aware of FoP. Having looked into Thyssen’s “Conventionality and Reality” I was disappointed because nobody seems to deal with the undeniable difference between past and future and belonging causality. In the end you and me will certainly converge in support of Alan Kadin’s reasoning up to a prediction that is at least as unwelcome as is your essays.

My time is since Covid19 more limited. In previous contests you provided accurate summaries of valuable contents over many essays while omitting criticism. Instead of showing due gratitude for your strong support of my current essay, I looked for a minor discrepancy. You wrote on p.1: “… absolute space means that a preferred local frame exists.” Are you aware of my unfinished comments on Cusanus?

My best recommendations for you, Alan, Bee, and all other supporters

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I’m very pleased that you appreciate energy-time (3+1)D versus 4D spacetime. I also am glad that you are now aware of Foundations of Physics. It was founded by t’ Hooft, who, I believe, is more open to questioning orthodoxy than many Nobel laureates. And I was not aware of your comments on Cusanus. Can you point me to them?

I too have been surprised that the causality aspects of multiple time dimensions are mostly overlooked, or at least largely undiscussed. As Smolin noted, after learning relativity people mentally organize the world in a new way.

I do think that we are gaining traction and more commonality in the ‘neo-classical’ approach that some of us seem to be converging to. I also think that you have played an important part by examining significant math issues such as the Fourier analyses you have focused on. Students are so overwhelmed with absorbing the flood of math and physics information that they have no hope of spotting troublesome aspects. And many, for one reason or another, never find time or inclination to wonder about such things, and anyway lack a platform to do much about it. FQXi has certainly been valuable by allowing us, year after year to refine our work and place it before our peers.

I have learned a lot from your essays over the years, and your erudition, and am pleased when you find mine worthwhile.

My best regards — take care of your health in these crazy times.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 00:42 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

There are in particular two authorities who are still guiding me: Shannon who distinguished the closed past from the open future and Popper who also declared the future open. So far I feel the only lonely one who suggests calculate as if they were stupid but be careful and ready to not ignore causality including the natural reference of time.

Moreover I got the impression that several voters have an eye on intuitionism e. g. when supporting Flavio De Santos or Peter Jackson who declared the TND wrong. Although the ideal border between past and future is not directly measurable, there is no present state in between. Because a frequency analysis of measured data cannot include future data, mathematicians were definitely wrong when they denied R+ with only positive values of elapsed time for a mathematical reason (Hausdorff).

While Einstein's Relativities are not my primary concern, I admit that I did never swallow some logical flaws. Your attribution of LT to energy and Alan's explanation of deflection of light are more appealing to me. The attached files are unfinished.

My humble judgment may give you a boost.

Yours,

Eckard

attachments: 3_Cusanus.docx, 3_Cusanus_vs_SR.docx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 21:05 GMT
Hi Eckard,

I certainly agree 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is open, but suspect you meant I declared another 'TND' wrong??

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 09:33 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

thanks for trying to unterstand my approach! Of course I'm no more naive about being able to convince you as you are to convince academic physicists...

In your reply to my essay you say: "But, aside from cocktail conversation, I’m not sure where one goes with this [my ideas]."

Answer:

Away from the fairy tails of physical modeling back to laws of nature...

or

Away from trying to answer questions back to giving answers causing novel questions.

again, good luck

Heinz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Harrison Crecraft wrote on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 16:23 GMT
Hello Edwin,

I’m glad to finally see your essay. I am puzzled by your statement: “In relativity, in the frame of the station, we observe the railcar; and we cannot observe the interior.” If we are a stationary observer at the station, and the railcar has glass walls, surely we could observe and measure the kiddie cart moving at 0.994c as easily as we could observe and measure the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 17:21 GMT
Dear Harrison,

Thanks for reading my essay and thinking about it. You’ve misunderstood several points. I’ll start with the last, since I think it hints at where the problem lies. When I state that “the observer can establish his own frame velocity” this is true in the energy-time theory in (3+1)D ontology. It is not true in the space-time special relativity theory in 4D ontology. This is a difference between the predictions of the two theories. This is described in detail in my reference 11, “Everything’s Relative, or is it?”.

If the observer can measure his own velocity, this contradicts SR, because the observer believes his own frame to be at rest. Einstein specifically states it’s impossible.

You state that the empirical description of physical reality explicitly depends on the observers space and time framework. You are correct, but the question is what is the space and time framework — is it the 4D ontology of SR spacetime imposed by the Lorentz transformation, or is it the (3+1)D ontology of energy-time theory? The recent papers in Foundations of Physics claim that this question is unanswered because it is underdetermined in SR. I think it’s time to try to answer the question. There is only one correct answer; 4D or (3+1)D ontology. They are not both possible.

Your first paragraph seems to imply that you believe that the rail car can be accelerated to 0.9c and then the kiddie car can be accelerated another 0.9c. I’m uncertain how to address this, beyond suggesting that you might wish to reread the paper. We clearly have a mismatch in our understanding. It is clearly not possible in a framework of absolute time and space.

I hope this clarifies some of the confusion; I would be happy to answer more questions.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Harrison Crecraft replied on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 21:14 GMT
I will read some of the references you cite and educate myself better. It is absolutely non-sensical to state that the kiddie car can be accelerated another 0.9c. This mixes up frames of reference. I believe that physical reality is contextual, and you can only discuss ontology from a single fixed context. As described in my essay and its references, the idea that you can arbitrarily change the context underlies numerous quantum paradoxes (and I assume relativistic paradoxes.)

From the fixed context of the station, I believe the kiddie car can be accelerated up to (but less than) an additional 0.1c and that this is empirically measurable. It is only when you apply Lorentz transformation to transform that description relative to a new context, that you would describe acceleration of kiddie car by 0.9c, but this is comparing apples and oranges and it leads to paradoxes and physical violations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 23:24 GMT
Thanks for your response. We agree about the 0.1c max velocity for the kiddie car. It is the Lorentz transformation that introduces the relativistic paradoxes, makes the ontology 4D, and allows up 0.9c velocity in addition to the 0.9c of the rail car. There are other unphysical consequences of Lorentz as well. In the (3+1)D ontology the paradoxes vanish, the inertial mass relation (gamma) is preserved exactly, and clocks still exhibit ‘time dilation’ of the proper amount. There’s more, but too complicated for a comment.

The frames of reference are ‘cartoon worlds’ that convert one universal (3+1)D frame to multiple 4D universal frames and drastically change the physics. The paradoxes flow from these changes, confounding intuition. The better you understand relativity, the harder it is to ‘unlearn’. If you are transforming this into your own scheme, there may be additional complications. Thanks for making an effort to understand.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Harrison Crecraft wrote on Apr. 7, 2020 @ 14:39 GMT
Hello Edwin,

We are in complete agreement that a system’s objective contextual physical reality must be defined with respect to a system’s actual context. We cannot arbitrarily change or choose a system’s actual context.

The Lorentz transformation does not change a system’s ontology; it is a transformation of description from one context (inertial framework) to another. What is interesting and significant is that the Lorentz transformation conserves the information about physical reality, even as its description changes. I think your objection is that this leads people to conclude that we can arbitrarily change a system’s context. I also strongly object to this idea, but for a different reason, and this is where our physics diverge.

The Lorentz conservation of information and the consequent conclusion that we can arbitrarily change a system’s context are based on an idealization that is unattainable in reality. In addition to an inertial reference frame, a system’s context includes ambient temperature from which the system’s ontology is defined. SR and GR define a system’s context at zero kelvins. Absolute zero can be approached but it can never be reached. In the case of the universe, the ambient temperature is the cosmic background microwave temperature, currently at 2.7K.

There is no transformation that conserves a system’s ontology at one ambient temperature to another and back again. Physical reality must be defined with respect to a system’s actual context and ambient temperature, and we cannot arbitrarily change or choose a context of convenience. A system’s ontology can only be defined with respect to its actual physical context, as we both agree.

Harrison

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 7, 2020 @ 18:29 GMT
Dear Harrison

Again we completely agree that definitions must match a system’s actual context.

When you say that the Lorentz transformation does not change a system’s ontology, that is tautologically true — it is impossible to change ontology, which is physical reality. But it does assume a different, incorrect ontology. One cannot ‘mix’ time and space as Minkowski famously claimed in a (3+1)D ontology. The Lorentz transformation mixes time and space, and this is simple impossible in a universe with local preferred frame and universal simultaneity. Lorentz produces “length contraction” which does not physically occur. People speak as if the MM measurement arms are contracted, but Lorentz doesn’t contract material, it contracts “space”. Every point in a moving frame is contracted, not just the points in the material arm.

The Lorentz transformation is between two 4D geometries. It has, in my opinion, nothing to do with information, per se. Information involves recording energy-based changes in physical systems and code books for interpreting the record: “one if by land, two if by sea” is meaningless without the context or code book. There are other associated aspects of relativity that, while not actually part of the Lorentz transformation, completely throw away inter-frame kinetic energy, an impossible and rather foolish thing to do.

You say you think my objection is that ‘this’ leads people to conclude that we can arbitrarily change a system’s actual context. I’m not sure what you mean by this. My objection is that special relativity is based on a wrong model of reality. The 4D- ‘block universe’ is simply not real; reality is 3-space and one universal time. The energy-time theory does yield the gamma(v,c) associated with ‘relativistic mass’, and consequently does lead to clocks slowing down, as increased mass/inertia resists the acceleration of the oscillator restoring force and hence the oscillator/clock mechanism slows down physically. In my opinion this ‘time dilation’ is the main reason that people have accepted the many paradoxes of special relativity for over a century. There is now an alternative explanation for time dilation that produces exactly the correct inertia-factor gamma. This is significant, and should be cause for rethinking the paradox-ridden theory. Energy-time theory does not produce length contraction.

I am uncertain of the consequences of your theory, and have not understood it well, but I am quite certain that my statements about Lorentz and the differences in 4D and (3+1)D ontology are correct. I have worked on this theory with quite capable physicists for almost three years, and they have yet to find any math error. Interpretation is in the mind of the observer, and I am sorry to say that after 50 years of dealing with a ‘mentally reorganized’ world (Smolin), some octogenarian minds have become almost hardwired. Very bright PhD engineers find it much easier to grasp energy-time theory than do physicists. The better one understands relativity, the harder it is to unlearn it. There are all the other psychological factors at work as well, and for academics there are career issues.

You speak of “conserving a system’s ontology”. Ontology is just a fancy word for physical reality. “Conserving” reality is not an option, or even a meaningful concept. One can misinterpret reality, which is what special relativity does, but reality ‘conserves’ itself without our help. I do not think that reality is synonymous with “actual physical context”, as context to me means ‘outside’ of the system. Reality is inside, outside, everything. And it is not 4D. Lorentz only operates between 4D geometries, so Lorentz transformation is inappropriate.

Particle physicists are more than enamored by Lorentz. It is built into their Lagrangians at the fundamental level. Why? I believe it is because Lorentz guarantees that relativistic mass is properly taken care of (by the gamma factor) which is paramount in particle physics, whereas the length contraction that erroneously comes with Lorentz is of no significance in particle accelerators.

You say that Lorentz is a transformation of description from one context (inertial framework) to another. My point is that Einstein’s inertial frame is a ‘cartoon world’ that, by introducing multiple time dimensions, destroys universal simultaneity, which is the 1D in (3+1)D, and thus presents the physicist with a false description of reality. I believe the empirical fact of clocks slowing down has caused physicists to accept these cartoon worlds because there seemed to be no other explanation of time dilation. Now there is another explanation. It does not ‘disprove’ special relativity, but it does provide an alternative theory to be tested against relativity. And it gets rid of the Lorentz-based paradoxes which have bothered so many for so long.

Thanks again for thinking about these issues. It is much easier simply to go with the flow.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez wrote on Apr. 7, 2020 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Edwin

I just read your essay which is quite interesting. I now understand that we share a similar view on how physics should be done. In your essay you mention that Einstein demolished the absolute frame but in fact this is not so. You may wish to read the book written by Wolfang Pauli from 1958, about relativity. There you will notice that Einstein tried several times to eliminate any trace of the absolute frame, without any success. To my knowledge the absolute frame was deleted from textbooks just to avoid conflict with relativity theory.

I definitely agree with you that there should be one ontology, but as you have realized theoreticians do not care about this, most of them deride interpretations in physics as philosophy. Aware of this, I drew a line to separate ontology (which is a philosophical term and works well in this field but is not very welcomed in physics) and physical understanding.

Anyway, I am glad you call my attention to your work, it is well thought and written. I wish you the best in the contest!

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 00:27 GMT
Dear Israel,

I knew from previous essays that I found your views very simpatico. I am extremely pleased by your comment, and also wish you the best.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 22:55 GMT
Dear Israel,

I noted from a previous essay you commented:

“Definitely the view of space as a fluid can drastically twist our present views of the universe and make a lot of progress for science. I'm quite convinced of this.”

In light of this I would like to link you to my latest work along these lines:

A Primordial Spacetime Metric

Cheers,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 22:07 GMT
I found the relevance of Noson Yanofsky’s essay such that I reproduce my comment here:

You tackle a very real question of persistence. In a response to Jochen you say: “I am not pushing subjectivism. But not because I believe in structure.

This is compatible with my belief that physicists project mathematical structure on the world and then believe that physical reality has this structure.

You say “the usual lesson one learns from the Ship of Theseus is that objects do not have persistence through time.

You also discuss measurements in special relativity. My essay deals with this in detail. I hope you find it interesting. My conclusion is, I believe, relevant to your essay. Relativity is 4D, and structures are frozen ‘forever’. The alternative, (3+1)D ontology, sees universal time (the present) spanning the spatial universe. The energy-time theory conserves energy in the present, and thus lends structure to the reality of the present, but it is a dynamic, energy-based structure, compatible with the Ship of Theseus.

I believe this provides insight into the problem of ‘persistence’.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 00:47 GMT
Ronald Green’s essay also has interesting related discussion of the nature of time...

However much we try,we cannot imagine a world that has no time.” This is similar to saying we can’t imagine a wold that has no change.

The nature of change in physics is based on energy, which is the complement of time, but that brings ‘persistence’ into the picture. Noson Yanofsky’s essay treats persistence, whether in people, ships, nations, etc which retain identity over time while the pieces constituting the entities undergo constant change.. He too places the enduring or persistent ‘structure’ in the mind.

I believe that physicists project (in their minds) mathematical structure onto the world, then come to believe that physical reality actually has that structure. Some unlikely structures, such as ‘qubits’, taken seriously, lead to bad places.

You observe that ‘now’, ‘the present’, has fuzzy edges and we don’t know where it begins or ends. This was, more or less, the topic of three papers in Found. of Physics last November, that I treat in my essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space. You observe that special relativity complicates this further. My essay analyzes special relativity’s frozen 4D-ontology versus the (3+1)D-ontology of universal simultaneity across all space, which is the energy-time formulation of ‘spacetime’. The conservation of energy in the present preserves most monetary structure, while allowing change from moment to moment.

Whereas I agree with your observations about perceived or ‘experienced’ time as unique to each person, nevertheless, as you say, “we cannot imagine a world that has no (objective) time.” As I do not believe we can capture the experience of time, except allegorically or metaphorically, I focus on the shared or common time so necessary to physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I'd almost given up on you! Excellent essay again, and brave, as you know the judges will be stony ground. Still, nicely put together and argued, and of course I agree with most. I know you won't mind discussion of the bits I don't, but first, full marks for stating we CAN'T VALIDLY 'MEASURE' FROM OTHER FRAMES!

I'll re-state my own clear rationale for that as I suggest...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 20:57 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your kind words and for making the effort to analyze my essay. Yes, I follow your ‘discrete’ argument. It was your discrete model of plasmas that caused me to take you seriously years ago. But that doesn’t apply here. The ‘glass wall’ is not to be taken seriously; it simply means I want full transparency for all frames. Instead of ‘glass walls’ on the ‘boxcar’, we can remove the walls entirely, and frame the argument in terms of a ‘flatcar’ with no walls. Einstein’s inertial reference frame is a mathematical device that does not imply ‘enclosed frame’. Ignoring wind pressure, the juggler can juggle on a flatcar as easily as in a boxcar. This removes the c/n argument of your fourth paragraph; it is not relevant to the problem.

As for your mention of ‘ultimate’ absolute system frame at the center of the universe, it suffers from the same problem as ‘distant simultaneity’ — it is not measurable, hence not fact-based. That is why I use ‘local absolute’ in relativity arguments. I believe the ‘local absolute’ is always the local gravitational field through which light propagates, and which makes c+v measurable. The local gravity in the station [ignoring earth’s rotation] establishes local rest [only perfect at the N and S poles] while the rail car and kiddie car do not generate their own gravity fields and thus are moving through the ether, hence see c+v, not c. This violates Einstein’s ‘constant c’ hypothesis and invalidates his theory, as he said ether would do.

Susskind is very bright, but, like everyone else, fails to see things that haven’t been seen for 115 years.

Like Smolin said: "to learn relativity is to experience a transition from one way of mentally organizing the world to another.". Once people change to relativity, they no longer apply commonsensical ideas of reality. That’s where the problem lies.

Thanks again for putting effort into understanding my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 10, 2020 @ 14:43 GMT
Eugene. I studied your essay (for a long time) and I basically agree with your conclusions. It appears to me that a theory that depicts a physical (ontological) result with a mathematical (creating and functioning) fundamental that correlates with the empirical physical measurements - from the smallest Planck action to the the visible universe - would solve many(all?) of the of the major problems of physics. The Successful Self Creation process/results introduced in my essay “Clarification of Physics...” appears to meet those criteria. In the theory I show how the processing created the variables/relationships of space, time, mass, speed, time that scale up to become the variables/relationships of the universe and its contents. It also creates the mathematics that can be used to explain them and their fit in the processing. In addition the process creates Quantum Mechanics, Planck action(s) and unifies QM, Planck Action and Relativity in one theory. Almost sounds too good to be true? I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear John David Crowell,

I certainly agree that many current problems of physics are based on false assumptions. It seems that a good approach is to try to identify these false assumptions and see what’s left of science after they have been removed. My current essay deals with the false assumption of multiple time frames.

I agree with certain aspects of your approach; it is finite, it is based on ‘flexible’ C* units that change while preserving their essence, and it is so structured as to be scalable. Also, as I think you agree, vortices are an essential concept.

On the other hand, I do believe a big-bang-type creation event is reasonable, and I do not subscribe to a multiverse. In my mind the ‘free lunch model’ of a primordial field coming into creation implies that initially nothing else existed — therefore any possible interaction must be self-interaction, as nothing else existed to interact with. This leads me to a self-interaction principle and equation that unfolds to evolve the universe in an essentially self-aware mode that gets us to where we are now. For example, to formulate it in physics form, if ‘d’ is a ‘change operator’ and f is the primordial field, then the basic equation is: df = f*f where * is the interaction operator. You’d be amazed how much falls out of this equation.

One problem with FQXi, almost by definition is that most of the participants have their own models of reality, making it extremely difficult for everyone to agree. Therefore the best that can be expected is for us to converge to common principles and processes. Over the decade of contests this appears to me to be happening, as a number of us are coming to a neo-classical view that rejects the ‘magic’ of many current theories.

I appreciate your reading my essay and agreeing with certain aspects of it. I wish you well in this contest and in the continued development of your theory of reality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 22:08 GMT
Edwin,

I have taken to printing out essays that I read, making it easier to really digest them. I have always valued your opinion and am gratified with your comments re my effort. You never really know if you have hit the mark on each contest effort until community members really take the effort to read them closely. Thanks for your interest.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 16:24 GMT
Thanks Jim. You really have written an exceptional essay this year, and I hope you do very well. I think it is the kind of essay that can win; beautifully written, very informative, and not overly controversial. I hope you win.

I hope after you read my essay you will return and comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Edward,

First of all, it is good to meet again, I read already your comments before you participated in this contest, and I fully agreed and thank you for reading my essay.

While reading your essay I made the following remarks:

Special relativity is indeed not as simple as it seems, because it analyses an emergent phenomenon, as you say the “ontology” of space and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for this response. I thought that we were in essential agreement on several points, but when different terminology is used one can’t be sure. I’m pleased that we converge in many places as we appear to. After all, we’re talking about pretty big questions that have been asked for a long time.

I’m glad you liked my essay. Thanks again for studying it and commenting.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 13:25 GMT
Hello Mr Klingman,

I enjoyed you relevant essay about this special relativity and the general frame if I can, say , I have shared it on Facebook,

good luck and best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 16:01 GMT
Hi Steve,

I’ve seen your comments on other threads. You seem to be doing well. I thank you for reading my essay and for sharing it on Facebook.

Take care of yourself my friend.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 18:14 GMT
You are welcome , Yes I am better , I had many problems in Belgium ,I was in a big depression due to many problems, I have lost all the important persons, they are dead like my mothers due to cancer, my godfather a suicide and my grandmother and all this the last 5 years, I am alone without nobody ,more others serious problems and a difficult past also, but I am better, I have immigrated since 7 moths here in Finland, I live with Ulla Mattfolk, she tells you hello.

I have evolved also about my theory, I learn a lot of maths and improve it, at the begining here on FQXi my English was not well, it is a Little bit better even if it is not perfect in grammar , and my theory like I said Begins to be better at my humble opinion, I will publish several papers this year in logic, I am invited too at several international Conferences, I must say that I fear, I dislike to present in front of persons lol but I must assume. Thanks for your nice message, I repeat but your essay was very relevant to read, I wish you all the best and take care also , be the force with you Jedi of the Sphere :)

Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 19:05 GMT
Glad things are working better for you. You went through some rough times. Tell Ulla hello from me.

Those of us with new theories or models begin because we see problems and think that our insight can be helpful. But theories are complex things and it takes a while to ‘work the bugs out’. In many cases the improvement over the years is quite visible. This comes from continuing effort and from invaluable feedback from our peers. God bless you and I wish you the best. Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Harrison Crecraft wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 13:37 GMT
Hello again, Edwin:

I took some time to review you article “Everything’s relative, or is it?” I see clearly now that we are absolutely on the same page ontologically. I have focused on quantum mechanical issues and was unaware of the issues regarding relativity that you raise. SR clearly allows different frames of reference (FORs) to synchronize their clocks if their relative motions are zero. If we assume a stationary FOR, we can therefore define a universal time frame throughout 3D space. 4D spacetime and 3D space + time are distinct conceptual models with distinct mathematical descriptions, which you have detailed. I was interested to learn that within the 4D spacetime ontology, length contraction is implied, but it is not empirically observable! We have both argued that a valid empirical model can accommodate multiple conceptual models, but only one is right. We both agree that physical reality must be defined with respect to its actual physical framework, or more generally, to its context.

I hope you take a closer look at my essay. If you overlook my lack of appreciation of different ontological interpretations of relativity, you will find a deeper framework that unites our contextual conceptual interpretations. By including a positive ambient temperature as part of the context, I eliminate quantum paradoxes, establish the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as a fundamental physical law, and allow an objective definition and arrow of functional complexity. A positive ambient temperature is empirically justified because absolute zero is an idealization that does not exist in reality, and the universe as a whole has an ambient temperature currently equal to its 2.7 K cosmic microwave background.

Thank you for expanding my horizons. I hope I can return the favor.

Harrison

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 16:19 GMT
Harrison,

I appreciate your investment in studying “Everything’s Relative...”. I thought we were basically in agreement on ontology, and am very happy that ‘we’re absolutely on the same page ontologically’. I think it is extremely important “a valid empirical model can accommodate multiple conceptual models, but only one is right.”

As Israel Perez points out in one of his comments, to many physicists disdain ontology as ‘philosophy’ and shun the question. It is, as I think you agree, the major question: what is real?

I will look again at your essay. I taught thermodynamics 50 years ago, but never worked deeply in the field, so it will take me some time to feel comfortable again in this area. I certainly agree with you that a positive ambient temperature should be part of the context, but I have not followed all of your consequences that follow from this. It is an important point, and I will look again.

You have put quite an effort into understanding my approach, and I thank you for this.

Good health to you and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Harrison Crecraft replied on Apr. 13, 2020 @ 19:12 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I wrote my essay to conform to the contest specifications. If you want to look at an actual article on my conceptual model, (which I hope you will) click here to download

Best Regards,

Harrison

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 15:16 GMT
In response to comment on Fabian and Matthews thread I responded:

Probably I would say that the complexity density of a given pattern will correspond to a certain ‘degree’ of consciousness. The most ‘dense’ or complex patterns exist in the brain where we find the highest degree of consciousness.

You agree that a consciousness field is not unreasonable and ask whether this field is already described by our physical theories or whether one needs to add a new one. Charmers thought that we needed a new one and thought that physics ‘left no room’ for a new field.

In 2006, when I was lead to the idea of a new field, I asked myself how this field could interact with matter. If I thought ‘raise my arm’ I wondered how the thought actually exerted any force on matter to start the bio-chemical-mechanical process. It took less than an hour to derive a formula for the force of a consciousness field on matter, based on a change in the local field, that was analogous to the electromagnetic force on charge. Similarly, the motion of mass induced a change in the local field, thus inciting awareness of the moving matter. We don’t really want to be made aware of matter that isn’t changing. Only active flows in our brain should incite awareness.

It actually took a while for me to realize that the equation I had worked out by thinking the problem through in all it it’s aspects was actually written down in 1885 by Oliver Heaviside based on his formulation of gravitational theory in analogy with Maxwell’s electrodynamics. The more I analyzed the situation, the more every aspect fit together.

In other words, I did not sit down one day and think, “maybe gravity is the consciousness field’. Instead I worked out the simplest equation that exhibited all the properties of consciousness that I thought consciousness must have and then found out that the equations described the gravito-magnetic field of Heaviside that also are the ‘weak field’ equations derived from Einstein’s general relativistic field equations. In other words, I was dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that gravitomagnetism fills the bill perfectly.

Also in 2006 Martin Tajmar measured this C-field in the lab and then 2011 Gravity Probe B detected this field. Eventually, after everything fit perfectly in place, I accepted this idea, and it has provided the most comprehensive understanding of consciousness that I have come across.

Along the way I realized that physicists, always projecting structure on the world and thinking that this actually describes the world, had misunderstood the ‘weak field’ equations of relativity. To simplify the non-linear field equations they simply linearized the equations to describe the ‘weak field’. Since the equations are no longer self-interactive, they believed the field is no longer self-interacting. This is foolishness. Changing the equations to simplify the calculations does not change the nature of the field. A self-interactive field remains self-interactive. It only means that one must iterate to restore self-interaction to the calculations. Also significant is that it is not mass in the equations but mass density. Physicists again foolishly think that the gravitational field is only significant for large masses. False — it is density that drives the gravitomagnetic field circulation, hence electrons and atoms induce changes in the local field.

The book I wrote describing this theory of consciousness is “Geneman’s World”, ISBN-13: 978-0-9791765-5-5, in 2008. My first FQXi essay in 2009 was on the Physics of Consciousness but only ten years ago it was not cool to talk about consciousness in physics. I am quite pleased to see that this topic is now ‘respectable’. Believe me, it wasn’t.

Warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman:

I'm glad you liked my essay. You say:

“It’s hard to argue that time ‘exists’ as a physical entity with one dimension, but it’s an extremely useful concept.”

We agree that "the so-called time" was and is and will remain an extremely useful

concept, and that it is hard to argue that it has a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 18:32 GMT
Dear Hector,

You say “We agreed that what is slowed down is not the "so-called time" but the clocks, the physical reason of such slows is the speed inertia and or gravity that slows the internal movements of the clock respect to the similar one on the earth surface.”

That’s a key point, as I believe that ‘time dilation’ is the aspect of relativity that has had no alternative interpretation, thus convincing many physicists that relativity is correct, warts and all.

Another point that I believe is consistent with you is that we experience subjective time but objective time is essentially a measurement. There is really no reason to expect that we can capture the experience of time with a clock, but it’s nevertheless less necessary to make it objective if we want to use it in physics.

Thanks for reading and commenting, and good luck in this great game we play.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 03:56 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I have just finished reading your essay for the second time, and I must say I am impressed. I believe you are absolutely correct when you advocate focussing on ontology in order to make progress in physics. Be sure to read Israel Perez’s essay as he makes some very similar points.

As you may have noticed in Marts Liena’s essay on the aether, where he quotes some work of mine on time, I also developed a time-energy theory seven years ago. It works best when there is a preferred frame – so in your essay example with the kiddie car in the railcar, my time-energy theory totally supports your observation re the stationary observer looking through glass walls.

The support of ontology in developing physical theories is that we help dismantle paradoxes. The twin paradox is easily explained without resorting to using ‘space-time’ in the answer, as Einstein did.

There are no time paradoxes in my theory, but it is best explained when an aether is considered as a preferred system of reference (borrowing that term from Perez). I liked your quote from Mermin "…the concept of time is nothing more than a convenient…device for summarizing compactly all relationships holding between different clocks."

It is a concept I hold as well, as I believe in an infinitude of clocks, (a clock being any defined volume of space, each with its own individual tick depending on the embodied energy of that space).

I am interested in the physicality of dimensions (as distinct from their mathematical being). I think I understand three dimensions of space, as that is the world I inhabit. However, I do not understand zero, one or two, or four or more dimensions of space from an ontological point of view. To my point of view there is only volume, down to the smallest of scales, and volume means 3 space dimensions. String theories propose multiple curled up space dimensions, (comes from the maths), but I have no idea what these can be, as in my humble view there are only 3 space dimensions, and anything curled up inside a volume must have some other property that defines it. I do not mind having other types of dimensions (time, temperature, pressure, energy, etc) as long as their meaning is made clear.

I like your point “I am ever more convinced that many of our nasty problems in physics have very little to do with the issues on which this essay contest is based”, which is also made by Perez.

As my entry was my first ever FQXI essay, I tried to stick to examples of undecidability, computability and unpredictability, in my considerations of a TOE, although I do wander on to the philosophical time topic of presentism which I currently endorse.

I am currently reading some of your previous FQXI essays and look forward to further discussions with you. Good luck in this one, your essay is most interesting.

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Lockie,

In your essay you note that Laplace’s demon cannot collect all the required info “at a certain moment “ as special relativity eliminates a universal present across all space. Yes, physicists seem to compartmentalize, using, at any given moment, only a subset of physics theories that support their current effort, yet defending others in other contexts.

Your view of presentism in terms of “causal relations between energy forms (...) in the Now” matches my view.

As for ether, I believe that light propagates as disturbances in the local gravitational field, while the gravitational field defines the volume of ‘space’, which is an abstraction. I agree with Einstein that “There is no space absent of field.

Per your remarks on TOE’s, in my opinion a TOE need not compute everything. Schultz’s essay distinguishes between algorithmic patterns (essentially computable) and non-algorithmic patterns which do not place necessary limitations on knowability. I think Feynman said: “More can be known than can be proven.

I think you misunderstood my Merlin quote. Our experience of time is real, not illusion, but we must objectify as measurements to be useful in physics. Nevertheless, Mermin’s approach, in order to justify SR is absurd, in my opinion. But I do agree with your summary, that clocks read time as a function of their energy, not as a function of multiple time dimensions.

What I like most in your above comment is your observation about volume, or 3-space, as real, with 1 and 2 dimensions of space being imagined. I agree completely, but haven’t seen it stated that way before. Time and energy are complementary or dual, and necessary to have change. Energy, with equivalent mass, evolves in the Now, making things ‘happen’ in 3-space, as a consequence of being unevenly distributed. This addresses the problem of ‘persistence’ of local identities while pieces of persistent entities change from moment to moment (Ship of Theseus). I know that you’re interested in gravity, so you might like a treatment of dynamic space: A Primordial Spacetime Metric

Welcome with your first essay. You did address fqxi’s topics nicely, while adding numerous insights that I found very interesting. I hope you find my other writings interesting as well. I scored your essay, so please remember to do mine.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 20:42 GMT
Corrected link, I hope;

A Primordial Spacetime Metric

Bookmark and Share

Lachlan Cresswell replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Once again thank you for your comments. I think we are generally on the same page regarding time but you would need to read my various writings which unfortunately I have never placed on the internet. I concur with Julien Barbour that we can dispense with time altogether, but this is still problematic because all of our theoretical frameworks rely on it.

I have a non self-referential definition based on energy, derived from the Einstein-Planck formula, that seems to give a better understanding of relativity, so long one assumes an absolute reference frame (aether) to accommodate momentum.

When I distill the ideas even further it is all about the interaction of matter with the aether. My matter particles have the property of (volume, spin, and charge) and my aether particles have the property of (volume and state). I have borrowed ‘state’ from John Conway’s game of life, as having a binary meaning of ‘alive’ or ‘dead’ with respect to the ‘state’ of the aether particles neighbours.( it is quite involved requiring several rules that form the basis for my TOE). I have a well developed matter theory that I previously mentioned, which has great predictive power. I have been exploring nuclear physics with it and believe I can explain many of the mysteries of how various elements get their atomic structure.

I do not know of David Mermin’s take on relativity, but I liked the quote you gave for the wrong reasons. Maybe we both misunderstand. But misunderstandings are good because they sharpen our reasonings if dealt with properly, just as paradoxes are good. It’s good to know that both of us can get rid of all the time paradoxes with our respective energy-time theories.

There is one thing you may be able to explain to me re time. I have never understood why the concept of a tachyon (faster than c) means backward in time. My definition of time allows faster than c as a concept (but not for electromagnetic radiation), but nothing can travel backward in time. And I particularly do not like Feynman’s take on antimatter – time symmetry, where a positron is an electron travelling backward in time.

Thanks for the link on your paper on the primordial spacetime metric, which I will read when I have finished 'Everything's Relative'

Keep exploring!

Lockie

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan Kerr wrote on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 12:48 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I've been reading your essay and finding it of interest, have a few comments. I'll also rate it - btw, I'd appreciate it if you'd rate mine, as you said it was of interest, and it has only had one rating so far.

You say that if time runs differently in different frames, being able to look inside the railcar at the small car would violate the principle of relative simultaneity. Firstly, one thing SR does not have a problem with is self-consistency. It's counterintuitive, like a lot of things (the Earth is spinning, but it doesn't seem to be). Whatever else it is or isn't, SR is self-consistent.

And it's a description of the real world, including what we see, if you're prepared to calculate the light travel times.

It's worth pointing out that all three things in the example - the station, the train, and the small car, have relative velocities. Any pair of them have a relative velocity. These three velocities don't add up in the expected way, but you could look through glass walls and see everything for that reason.

The simultaneity aspect is even less related to what we see - the visible picture gives no direct clue as to when the event we see happened. Hence galaxies are seen as they were a long time ago. So what you see won't be affected by simultaneity issues.

In answer to another point, I think the goal of physics is both a mathematical and conceptual description, and that the conceptual side is not axiomatic, but more like a visual picture. And it's very much part of science, and should not be relegated to philosophy. Some people tried to boot it out of science, because the conceptual side started doing very badly in the 20th century. But that wasn't its fault, we just weren't yet ready to interpret all the mathematics we had.

Hope this makes sense, just my own opinion. Best regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

If by ‘self-consistent’ you mean that all,of the conclusions derived from Einstein’s axioms agree with each other, then I agree. By inventing multiple time dimensions, one per frame, and providing a ‘standard unit’, c, common to all frames, he enabled the Lorentz transformation, a simple 4D group operation on 4D geometries. Not only is mass not considered in Lorentz, but Einstein, incredibly, resets mass to rest mass in every frame, an unphysical act if there ever was one.

As for being a description of the ‘real’ world, recent articles in Foundations of Physics state that the dimensionality of the world is underdetermined by special relativity. My point is that one must choose an ontology, i.e. reality. That is a theme that a number of authors support in this contest.

As you mention, relativity only works with pairs, as this is the only way to define ‘relative velocity’ in a way consistent with Lorentz. Nevertheless, as Smolin states, once learned, relativists mentally organize the world differently. I think it’s probably the fact that the Lorentz group, acting on only two entities, has an inverse [it’s a ‘group’] that will always get you back where you came from, that ‘feels right’ as there is nothing else I can see that feels right.

You say that in the 20th century we just weren’t ready to interpret all the mathematics we have. I believe that we projected math structure onto physical reality and mistakenly came to believe that reality actually matched the math, which, I believe, it does not.

I do thank you for reading and commenting. If we’re not challenged it’s hard to make progress. I got rid of that ridiculous 1 someone gave you [i got one too].

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan Kerr wrote on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 21:29 GMT
Thanks Edwin,

I appreciate the high score you gave my essay. I think you're right that the title was a mistake - I tried to make a point in the title, but titles aren't for that!

I've heard you say before that SR has a separate time dimension for each frame, back in 2018. I think that's only one interpretation of it - same with what you say about relativistic mass. In my book I say...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT
Jonathan,

That’s what makes horse races: “ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice”.

I could argue every one of your statements, but if it fits together nicely in your mind, I could almost certainly not change your mind.

I have a very hard time believing that it’s possible to determine “the photons travelled at c in relation to both the lab and the pions.” I think some very strong assumptions went into that conclusion.

Thanks for sharing your analysis with me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan Kerr wrote on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 15:08 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Well, what you say about the horse race is a bit like the Rubik's cube I mentioned, with many possible configurations. We try to guess which one is the most relevant. Experiment sometimes joins in the process - there are plenty of experiments that are open to interpretation.

But it's important not to leave experiment out, because it helps narrow things down a lot. If you look up 'experimental basis of special relativity' there's a page with links to many of the main papers, and if one is prepared to take those results onboard, I'd say you find that the central ideas of SR (though no doubt there'd be some disagreement as to what those are), are correct.

Most of the people who question SR are prepared to ignore a lot of data. Having said that, the surrounding ideas are far more questionable. Minkowski spacetime, for instance, I think is wrong, and probably untestable. And I think rather like you on simultaneity - to me simultaneity at a distance outside the light cone is comparatively meaningless. So I don't support established ideas for the sake of it, I think it's good to question things.

Wishing you luck, thanks for the conversation,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 18:18 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I enjoyed these comments, and particularly your last paragraph. In ref 11 I do analyze many experiments and find alternative explanations of them. I’m glad you’re thinking about Minkowski spacetime.

I believe the primary problem with special relativity is that ontology is ignored, and (3+1)D ontology is used when needed while 4D ontology is proclaimed throughout. I don’t think this is legitimate, but that’s what happens when ontology is ignored. I think that this happens whenever acceleration is introduced into relativity problems. In short, per Smolin, relativists ‘mentally reorganize the world’, and, once in this ‘only two frames’ mode of seeing the world, force results that may or may not have much to do with reality, but they toe the line. Sometimes the line is crossed, such as the law of addition of velocity preventing relative velocities greater than c, as happens at the LHC. In these cases one ignores relativity, but quietly, so as not to raise anyone’s ire.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Edwin,

As I expected, you proved again to be a very good at writing. I am happy that you try to challenge special relativity, there is no theory in science which should not be challenged. If some physicists use the cartoon ontology you criticize in the way you presented, so bad for them. The correct ontology of special relativity was explained by Minkowski. He explained why spacetime is four-dimensional, and why bodies are in fact four-dimensional, and how this makes it look like a length contraction, and also that the descriptions in various reference frames refer to the same spacetime, not to different nested cartoon worlds with many dimensions of time. You can use as a starting point Vesselin Petkov's essay, Minkowski spacetime - a no-go for objective becoming, because he discusses precisely Minkowski's spacetime. He gives some links to Minkowski's papers. There are many critics of special relativity, and I see you are making more serious efforts than many of them, so I would love to see your take on Minkowski's arguments.

Cheers,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 17:57 GMT
Dear Christi,

Thanks for reading and commenting in detail. As I note, SR is more complex than Lorentz, due to ontology of Minkowski. Lorentz doesn’t act on 4D ‘bodies’ but on every point in space. I’ve shown ‘apparent’ length contraction [which is simply Doppler in (3+1)D space] in my ref 8.

I’ve looked at Petkov and he several times states that Minkowski in 1908 based his claims on ‘experiments’, as if that makes it unquestioned. I believe, based on other experiments [Michelson-Gale] that light propagates through local gravity, in which case the ‘ether wind’ would be almost zero, far below the resolution of the MM experiments. Einstein said that ether would destroy his theory, and only ten years later Einstein believed in ether, and did so til his death. He stated that light cannot propagate without a field.

Petkov multiple times references pre-1908 experiments as basis of Minkowski, which gravity as ether demolishes. He also talks about length contraction, which has never been directly measured or experimentally proved. Petkov believes experiments ‘prove’ Minkowski, but I have 57 pages of analysis of experiments in my ref 11 that argues otherwise.

I believe my analysis of the velocity law [which many people, including Weinberg, deny] is novel, so that formed the basis of my essay. It is impossible in 9 pages to convince someone who believes in special relativity, but I have written over 100 pages in last year or so that might convince you, if you had time to read them. It’s not as simple as it’s made out to be — one reason that Found. of Physics published 3 papers in Nov 2019 discussing problems with special relativity, and concluded that the 4D vs (3+1)D issue is under-determined in special relativity.

You may have missed it, but I have recently derived ‘clock slowing’ [time dilation] in absolute time and space, yielding exactly the slowing predicted by relativity. That is the first alternative explanation in 115 years, and seems worth thinking about.

For all the known reasons, my view is not welcome in academia, but I am completely convinced that most treatments of special relativity mix 4D and (3+1)D ontology in analyzing specific instances. That is not physically kosher, but it is the way it’s been done for a century.

Thanks again for advancing the discussion.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I always read your essays with interest and follow the movement and development of your ideas on the basic problems of fundamental science, your original and radical ways of solving them. This is an unusually important conclusion for a future brainstorming session:

 "In current approaches the question of ontology (if it even arises!) Is often left up in the air; efforts are focused on mathematics. For those who believe that physical reality arises from mathematics, this probably makes sense. For the rest of us, physical reality (ontology) is a given, which we attempt to model with mathematics. This makes sense and has worked well for centuries.”

Here we have slightly different views on the movement of Mathematics and Physics towards PHILOSOPHICAL ONTOLOGY. But this is good. The main thing is to find a reliable single ontological basis for mathematics and physics. Yes, here, first of all, the problem of understanding space (the nature of space). To understand is to "grasp the structure." (G. Gutner “Ontology of mathematical discourse”). Add: ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE. Philosopher Pavel Florensky is right: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding." ... I give the highest rating to your ideas. Let's hope that we, all interested participants in the contests, will be able to assemble a team for the global think tank on the ontological problems of modern mathematics and physics. Notice that in the article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics Carlo Rovelli poses first the main ontological questions: “What is space?”, and then the question: “What is time?” This is an ontology issue. But the ontology also needs to be pulled out of the crisis... The philosophical ontology requires extreme thinking about reality, about being... Let's remember how Menelaus caught Proteus in the network with the prompts of the “form goddess” Eidothei … That is the task of physicists and mathematicians is to “grasp” the absolute (unconditional) forms of the existence of matter (absolute states) in their unity, to “grasp» the ontological structure of space and then its ontological and gnoseological dimension.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

We fully agree that ontology is needed to resolve epistemological confusions. As for grasping ontological structure, please note that I have updated my essay to address this issue. You might find the last three pages interesting.

It’s always a pleasure interacting with you. Take care of yourself in these crazy times.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 25, 2020 @ 01:50 GMT
Edwin Klingman re-uploaded the file Klingman_FQXi_2020_time_spa.pdf for the essay entitled "Deciding on the nature of time and space" on 2020-04-25 01:50:05 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Malcolm Riddoch wrote on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 11:16 GMT
Hi Edwin,

thanks for commenting on my essay Je suis, nous sommes Wigner!

Your notion of a consciousness field (C-field) is something I’ve been thinking about for some time. I take it the C-field is what gives phenomenal form to our individual empirical experiences, and this physical field would go some way to answering the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness? In other words, the complex (3+1)D world of our waking experience, or say the presumed phenomenal world of a frog with its simpler CNS, would just be a complex perturbation of the self-aware C-field.

A couple or three questions come to mind:

1. Is the C-field induced dynamically by the mass flow—and its fluctuating gravitational field—in a neuronal network, such that at some point when our foetal brains reach a certain neuronal threshold the corresponding individual C-field arises specific to that individual physical entity?

2. Or is the C-field a primordial universal field that is perturbed by matter flows/gravitational fields in general? Our individual neuronal network would then be an evolved physical system that uses the same universal C-field that we share with everyone else and all other sentient lifeforms.

3. In terms of the feedback loop I can see how a particular neuronal pattern might induce its particular C-field configuration, but not how that C-field then induces a physical change in the neuronal patterning. How would the C-field produce fluctuations in itself that then effect the relevant changes in the neuronal mass flow? Does the self-awareness that arises in the reflection of the C-field and its neuronal patterning have a resonance in the field that then drives the neuronal patterns appropriate to it?

This physical feedback mechanism would be important to ensure the C-field isn’t seen as a merely ideal part of a substance dualism ala Descartes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 17:30 GMT
Hi Malcolm,

Yes, the C-field gives phenomenal form to our individual empirical experience. It is the field that is self-aware, not the atoms or molecular systems moving in the field. It’s aware of its existence and of changes in its local dynamics induced by local motion.

It is a primordial field, here since the beginning. My equations do not describe how self-awareness ‘works’, but how the field interacts with mass, including the equivalent mass of its own local energy density. Deciding that consciousness must be a field (circa 2006) I looked at known fields for clues to interaction; F=qE and F=mG seemed to imply a new ‘stuff’ F=iC, and I rejected the idea of new ‘stuff’, i. Next the Lorentz force F=qvxB of the magnetic field on charge suggested the analogous F=mvxC. This turned out to have the interesting properties that I was hoping for, so I explored these. Turns out that Oliver Heaviside wrote this in 1883, so the C-field is the ‘magnetic-like’ behavior of the gravitational field, operating on mass instead of charge. If you understand how the magnetic field acts on charge flow and how moving charge induces circulation in the local magnetic field, you understand behavior that is 3D and complex.

We know that the field exists (Gravity Probe B), but most do not realize that it is density that appears in the equation, and the density of an electron, say, is pretty high. The key difference with the electromagnetic field is that the E,B fields are uncharged, and hence do not interact with them-selves. The C-field has energy density, hence equivalent mass density, and thus interacts with itself. This is key to ‘self-awareness’ of the field. Changes in circulation are sensed and Lorentz-like forces are applied to local flows in the field. The universe is filled with gravitomagnetism, but the most interesting locations are those portions of the local field filled with dense biological complexity, whether living cell or brain. Here the constant flows maintain ‘structure’ including the type seen in Wolfram’s graphs.

I assume it’s like riding a bike, once the field masters local control of one axon, the trillions of axonal connections are there to be sensed and steered. And the field effectively assumes shapes sustained by local flows in the brain. [On exceedingly rare occasions I have ‘seen’ the ‘shape’ of music!]

In short, the behavior of this field is rich enough to accomplish the actions that we would want a consciousness field to possess. A major problem for Chalmers is that he thought physics is ‘complete’, and did not want to introduce new physical entities. The C-field has always been here, and is implied by Einstein's field equations, so we need not postulate new entities, only a new property, self awareness. The field is global and hence we don’t have to wonder how one microtubule, say, in front of your brain can relate in any way to another in the back of your brain, or the trillions in between. Nor do we need ask how consciousness ‘arose’. It was always here, but the complexity does evolve in Darwinian fashion.

Hope this answers some of your questions,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Malcolm Riddoch replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 05:26 GMT
"It is a primordial field, here since the beginning."

Yes that's how I think of it too, rather than a field that is produced by the biochemistry and thus a secondary phenomenon, which is how various pan-psychisms try to shoehorn consciousness into physicalism... the fundamental particles just each have an inherent C property that then somehow combines together en mass in the biological form to become a correlated individuated C-field. But how do quantum bits of C all combine to make one unified C self?

If the C-field is primordial and universal then there's no combination problem, just physical stuff floating around in a C-field and eventually self-organising into ever more complex self-aware forms of sentient matter—morphogenesis via your gravitational C-field theory!

So I sort of get how this might work in the purely physical sense, just as a magnetic field works with electrons, so too the gravitational field is effected by and effects the neuronal mass mechanisms ... more or less? But I'm just not sure how the self-awareness property works in terms of transforming the G-field into a C-field.

The hard problem of C is that of how not just self-awareness arises in us but also how that is accompanied by phenomenal experience, as in I'm aware of phenomenal stuff ... so what's the stuff and how does it arise reflected as it were in the C-field such that I can become aware of it?

For me, given this wider phenomenal hard problem, any 'self-awareness' property would need to include a sort of self-reflective property, where self-awareness is itself an effect of this reflective property of C. I call this the 'Open Field', and we are the opening within which phenomena such as a 'red thing' for example, as well as our awareness of the red thing, and our awareness of being aware, can arise. All phenomena, all mental and physical phenomena, need the openness of a self-reflecting open field in order to appear as phenomena.

But now I'm getting a tad Heideggerean!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 06:21 GMT
Malcolm,

Gravity is the primordial field, the field all forces are supposed to converge to at Big Bang. I believe all mass effectively ‘condenses’ from the big-bang-density turbulence, with vortices stabilizing as solitons (neutrinos) or as torus (electrons and quarks). All of creation, particle and field is built of the same substrate. The interaction of the two forms is specified by Einstein’s field equations. The G and C fields only interact strongly at Big Bang or LHC conditions., with no “structure” other than particle transformations. Not much to be ‘self-aware’ of, from our perspective. Things have to settle down to biological temperature and complexity before ‘self awareness’ attaches to any form we would recognize. At that point the equations are simpler (Heaviside) and the C-field (magnetic-like) circulation induced/generated by mass currents senses the presence of the mass-current, and the (magnetic-like) force of any local field effectively ‘steers’ the mass-current/momentum density.

The ‘sense and act on’ behavior tells us how the field interacts with the body.

It does not really matter how familiar you are with field equations, you will never truly understand how gravity ‘pulls you to the earth’ such that your arm gets tired holding it out in the gravitational field. Similarly you will never understand self awareness from the equations. My first essay made this point.

I have proposed a theory that ‘explains’ how the brain can grasp 3D shapes, etc, and how the field couples to body in such a way that Darwinian evolution of complexity increases, without the nonsense of asking at what point does dead matter become conscious. The universe is conscious, but the awareness does not come from the equations. It comes from the primordial field evolving to where we are today. You’re living it. You’ll never get an explanation that produces awareness, it’s there to start with. You might find this frustrating. I think it’s great. Enjoy it!

Thanks for playing!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Philip Thrift wrote on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 11:40 GMT
Edwin,

Mathematical relativity theory is a bit outside my expertise, but I was interested to see Wolfram's "hypergraph" theory - discussed a lot recently - brought in. It will be interesting to see if this "new foundation" of Wolfram works out.

And thanks for the nice comment on my "Essay", which I revise here:

https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/04/24/substrate-t
argeted-programming-stp/

Philip Thrift (@philipthrift · Twitter)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 17:59 GMT
Philip,

Thanks for the interesting ideas of substrate-based programming introduced in your essay. As I note in my essay, I believe Wolfram’s ‘hypergraph’ demonstrates how neural networks can form arbitrary shapes in 3-space and how these interact with a proposed consciousness field to yield 3D awareness in our minds. I think Wolfram is confused about his creation. It is not a new path to fundamental physics, but to mapping networks into arbitrary shapes.

Good luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


John R. Cox wrote on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 19:10 GMT
Hello Ed!

I've just looked back in on the essays and just downloaded yours. I'll get back again but have to say right off that you have made the most profound statement on SR that is the crux of the matter from which the contrived paradoxes issue. "However, Einstein provided each world with its own absolute time and space by assigning each world its own universal time dimension..." page 1...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 20:35 GMT
Thanks jrc,

Hope you enjoy the rest! Good to hear from you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,

I agree that special relativity looks like 'an exceptionally simple theory'; I thought pretty much the same (and I thought tensors made it look complicated) but good theories always look like this in retrospect and not when people are struggling towards the theory.

After all, the Lorentz transformations were discovered by Lorentz via his theory of local time and that was hardly a simple theory. But I think that special relativity shows its subtlety when we try to incorporate it into other theories, that is into gravity - which took Einsteins (and others) and into quantum theory - that took Dirac & Feynman (and many others) and was quite a bit more complicated. I guess the lesson to learn from here is that a theory can look simple in isolation but show their teeth, so to speak, when we try to put them together with other theories.

I also think Rovellis observation that distant simultaneity is not measurable and that we have is a local frame of reference is a good one. I'm not sure about his contention that Einstein fully embraced the geometric view - going on from his paper - I think he used it more as a tool. I recently came across a paper that showed that Einstein didn't consider GR as a geometric theory, but as a unification of inertia and gravity.

Having said that I do think think the geometric view is a useful perspective, I never really understood tensors until they were explained geometrically. I guess I had been spoilt by vectors that made Newtons ideas seem more natural. Not that they weren't natural already.

Warm Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 05:18 GMT
Dear Mozibur Rahman Ullah

I really don’t think special relativity is simple. The Lorentz transformation is simple; the theory, based on the 4D ontology is complex and paradox-ridden.

You say, “special relativity shows its subtlety when we try to incorporate it into other theories, that is, into gravity and into quantum theory.”

But in a recent paper Glavan and Lin note that, "According to Lovelock's theorem, Einstein's general relativity with cosmological constant is the unique theory of gravity if we assume (i) the space-time is (3+1) dimensional [plus three other conditions]."

The field equations are not Lorentz invariant. If one tries to add the Lorentz invariant pair-wise connections between all local particles in a global gravitational ontology, one would be adding pair-wise distortions of time and space (length contraction and time dilation), all local-pairwise-velocity-dependent, onto global mass-dependent space curvature. For example the Schwarzschild metric is time independent; it is frozen in space forever. The whole thing is an untenable proposition.

Newtonian gravity is Galilean invariant. Recall that Einstein’s field equations must make contact with the Newtonian potential in order to be a physical theory of gravity.

The Maxwell-Hertz equations are Galilean invariant — Einstein based his theory on Maxwell-Hertz, but he mistakenly used (ch 13), “bodies at rest” and he Lorentz-transformed between two cartoon worlds, whereas (ch 14), “bodies in motion”, with the convective derivative is Galilean invariant.

Schrödinger quantum mechanics is Galilean invariant, not Lorentz invariant.

When Dirac forced special relativity symmetry on his equation, he gets a free particle with speed 1.7c, that is faster than the speed of light. When his equation is used for particles interacting with the field, he loses the ‘spacetime symmetry’ he had forced.

Feynman, as best I can tell, uses Lorentz to maintain inertial mass, and ignores any length contraction issues, since these aren’t measurable. The inertial mass can be maintained without Lorentz. However I suspect that the enforced geometry group symmetry probably simplifies a lot of the math in path integration, etc.

In short, only special relativity, a toy model without gravity or rotation, or even inertial mass, requires Lorentz, and that is because Einstein invented a universal time dimension for every cartoon world, and ‘attached’ a constant speed of light to every world to enable the Lorentz to be derived, and used the inappropriate Maxwell-Hertz equations.

I do not think Lorentz has travelled at all well across theories, but these facts are not always pointed out.

I do thank you for reading my essay and thinking about it.

Warm regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 18:03 GMT
Interesting point about Lorentz Invariance only required by SR, Ed.

In GR the only place it enters equation is as a non-zero vector tangent to elapsed time on a curve. It was Tom Ray whom finally dragged me into the understanding that GR is not simply an elaboration or extension of SR. And where we find singularity in GR is largely due to mass density treated as an average in a spherical volume approximated from the visible aggregate (electro-static) ponderable body. It is profoundly different to consider 'averaged' mass density apart from 'constant' mass density. In a free rest particle, the constant density of a core volume would also be an average throughout that volume, but not any sort of average of the total energy of the particle field where the inertia of a closed system is equal to its total energy. We are still lacking a general consensus that would provide a universal proportional mass upper density bound relative to the mass:energy quantity of any isolate free rest mass. So a successful gravitational unified field theory could be constructed topologically on a single pole but that continuous change of 'mass:energy' density would have to agree with the Spherical geometric field aquations in GR in predicting the time dilations consitently observed and exploited in such technologies as GPS and earth based altimeters.

There is a lot yet to become revealed. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 19:30 GMT
jrc,

Tom was right, “GR is not simply an elaboration or extension of SR.” GR is an approach to a global theory, whereas SR is a toy model that ignores gravity, rotation, and even inertial mass, to relate two 4D geometries each assumed to have its own universal time dimension and its own attached speed of light. I am about to move into GR and focus on its ontology.

You’re also correct that it is profoundly different to consider ‘averaged’ mass density apart from ‘constant’ mass density.

Steven Kauffmann has shown that the Oppenheimer-Snyder dust-model ‘collapse’ always produces a horizon inside of the mass, whereas the Schwarzschild solution is based on empty space outside a mass. Thus the result is derived on inconsistent grounds.

The time dilation of GR is an energy phenomenon, which is compatible with the energy-based clock slowing (time dilation) that I recently derived based on (3+1)D ontology of absolute time and space.

I had not realized your level of interest in GR. I recently provided a physical interpretation of a 98 year old exact metric solution to Einstein’s field equations whose interpretation had been ‘obscure’. You might find it interesting:

A Primordial Spacetime Metric

I certainly agree with you last statement.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 10:10 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

All the difficulties and paradoxes associated with the Special Theory of Relativity arise from the misinterpretation of the results. The comprehension of SRT is based on the presumption that all what one sees, hears, measures or in some other way perceives is reality. In fact, the measured values are apparent and the SRT is a tool for calculating the actual values. There are no paradoxes and conundrums in this case. More in: New Concept of Special Relativity. http://viXra.org/abs/1911.0367

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Ilgaitis,

I believe your paper confuses the Doppler ‘apparent length contraction’ with Lorentz length contraction. Your abstract summarizes:

The comprehension of SRT is based on the presumption that all what one sees, hears, measures or in some other way perceives is reality. It leads to inexplicable paradoxes such as twin, Ehrenfest, spaceship and other paradoxes of relativity.”

You are certainly correct that SRT “leads to inexplicable paradoxes such as twin, Ehrenfest, spaceship and other paradoxes of relativity.

They are paradoxes because the equations are simple, but the ontology is unrealistic. The example in my essay is one of many. I chose this example because I had not seen it explained in such fashion before. If you’d like many more examples, see my references; my ref 8 treats the same problem that you do, while ref 11 covers most historical issues.

Perhaps if you read my essay closely you will understand the problem.

Best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 29, 2020 @ 09:56 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

Thank you for answer. I read your essay and references. I found only the same cause of the problem, which has been creating paradoxes and conundrums for 100 years, i.e., presumption that Lorenz length contraction, time dilatation etc is real.

You wrote: “I believe your paper confuses the Doppler ‘apparent length contraction’ with Lorentz length contraction.”

Answer: Nothing is confused. The Lorenz length contraction, time dilatation etc is apparent. Lorenz transformations are correct and work well. They make it possible to calculate the real value from the measured apparent value or predict the result of measurement at high velocities.

You wrote: “They are paradoxes because the equations are simple, but the ontology is unrealistic.”

I agree – the ontology is unrealistic if it is assumed that the measured or observed values are not apparent but real.

Good luck in contest

Ilgaitis

attachments: Time_Dilatation_Real_or_Apparent.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Ilgaitis,

Thanks for responding to my reply. The beauty of fqxi is that free exchanges of ideas and opinions by people who study the issues benefit us all.

It’s a pleasure dealing with reasonable people who can discuss something they see differently.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Sue Lingo wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 05:52 GMT
Hello Edwin...

I consider GEOMETRY, as a discrete language of graphic primitives, to be the most descriptive and universal language branch of maths, and I greatly enjoyed your utilization of graphic primitives...i.e. cartoons... to expose imprecise mental constructs that are constraining perceptions of Reality.

Obviously "relative" to the train station observer, the combined railcar...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 18:14 GMT
Hello Sue,

I have just read your essay and enjoyed it immensely. I not sure whether the computer-naive will appreciate your poetic analysis [think GW in your last essay] but I am computer competent and I loved it. I almost saw a Data General 1600 or Hewlett-Packard 2100 in front of me as you booted the hardware and the system experienced spatial differentiation over time with “address-mapped switch configuration...with which to query the entity’s experience“ [which showed up in lights].

Of course the “continual pulsing” is conventional, and not necessary; just an efficient way to design. But your “entity that experiences differential/transformation over timeis applicable to the consciousness field-based model of absolute intelligence.

In my terminology awareness is fundamental to consciousness, but intelligence is obtained by adding logic circuitry.

I’m sure you see that your model of intelligence applies directly to my model of the brain in the consciousness field. The awareness comes from the field and the intelligence comes from the axon/synaptic logic circuitry.

I suspect that a key difference is that the self-interaction of the distributed continuous but inhomogeneous consciousness field replaces an equivalent “addressable spatial occupancy map, within which to query the entity’s experience.

In short, I believe that by abstracting conventional computing at a very high level you have captured the essentials for understanding the intelligence aspect of the consciousness field model of the brain, something that most models of ‘brain as computer’ fail to do. Congratulations!

As for my interpretation of some items in your comment:

I haven’t thought enough about Planck length to have an opinion about Stephen’s much smaller length. I have come to believe that gravity is the substrate that the universe is made of/from. Einstein said that ’there is no space absent field’, and I think that he considered the gravitational field to fill space. It serves as the local ether through which light flows as a disturbance in the field, pretty much the way Hertz thought of it. After last year’s detection of colliding neutron stars we know that both light and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, c.

Instead of space and time being ‘mixed’ by Lorentz, I associate the gamma as the inertial factor, increasing rest mass by the kinetic energy of motion through the local gravity. The heavier the inertial mass, the harder it is to accelerate, and the limit is imposed for mass with v less than c.

I too consider geometry as fundamental and believe that the brain’s interaction with the field as described produces 3D geometric shapes in the physical brain that mirror the shapes we see around us. Once these shapes are learned through eyesight, we should be able to recall them and play with them at will.

With warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Sue Lingo wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 06:24 GMT
Hello Edwin...

My bad!!

The text in above comment reads: ... c value much greater than c as currently consistent with Planck's constant...

It should read: ... a quantum of action much smaller than currently consistent with Planck's quantum of action

sl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Sue Lingo replied on May. 9, 2020 @ 23:36 GMT
Hello Edwin...

Thank you for reading may essay, for your encouragement, and for the opportunity to establish a dialog to query your mental circuitry.

As facilitated by FQXi essay and essay comment threads, interdisciplinary exchange is resolving conceptual conflicts resulting from discipline specific language, and as a result, I see a a convergence of seemingly incompatible concepts.

Delighted to make a connection with computer competence.... i.e. your multi-discipline faculties are rare in the FQXi forum.

Am still trying to get as many essays read as I can before the poll closes... but will get back to this discussion thread shortly after the 18th.

Just scored you a 10...

May your essay's rank rise on a tide of perceptual clarity.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 10, 2020 @ 02:09 GMT
Hi Sue,

Yes, interdisciplinary is good, and fqxi facilitates that. I too see some convergence occurring. Also, I see that consciousness has moved from being almost untouchable ten years ago to mainstream, if this contest provides any measure of this question.

I re-read your essay and followed the Honeywell and black hole links, but the other links were broken for me. I wanted to be sure to score your essay, but I see that I did so on 28 April. Thank you for scoring my essay.

My best to,you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Sue Lingo replied on Jun. 8, 2020 @ 06:53 GMT
Hi Edwin...

Thanks for digging deeper!!!... don't know why you are unable to view the UQS links?

I tested them from my essay.pdf ... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3483 ... no problem, and I daily get an average of 10 worldwide virtual visitors to the UQS open source on-line commentaries.

The UQS website is http: not https:.. but I visited http://www.geneman.com/... and assuming your browser security settings allow you access to your website, it should not be the issue?

In that most mathematicians, physicist, and philosophers, are some combination of two or more of these scientific disciplines, they frequently dabble in cross discipline inferences, and contextual clarification is a critical element in conveying cross discipline "we are on the same page" validity... i.e. given a CAD spatial quantization environment in which to verify context, metaphors for a Cosmic Consciousness are much more likely to converge, and to mitigate verbalization, I rely heavily on CAD illustrations in my open source on-line commentaries.

In that semantics, as equations or poetry, or some combination, can not facilitate contextual clarification to the degree of detail necessary for us to discuss whether a Hydrogen Proton is "self-aware"?... and does it have logic circuitry to process field intelligence??... to facilitate the discussion, your ability to access the UQS Consciousness Investigation... www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php ... 3D CAD illustrations of the UQS Hydrogen proton model, is required.

I have read, enjoyed, and 1st. draft re-viewed:

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009)

TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman

I will post my review to your 2009 Essay page, as soon as I get an edit on it.

Thanks again...

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 10:15 GMT
Hello Professor Klingman,

I thought about your quantum field of consciousness, I have thought a lot also about this consciousness. In the past I considered that this consciousness is an emergent propertt due to evolution of biological Brains but after a deeper analyse I see differently and I consider that all is conscious probably. Because I consider that the main energy beyond this physicality is an infinite eternal consciousness and in my model this energy is transformed in energy and matters from the central cosmological sphere. I consider so like I told you 3 main finite series of 3D coded spheres, one for the space and two others for the fuels , photons and cold dark matter and when they merge they create our topologies, geometries, properties of matters with fields and particles. So I consider that all is made of particles and not fields, but I understand your model probably correlated with the strings and the fields and this 1D main field , or geonetrodynamics. I see just differently considering a kind of gravitational primoridal aether , this space is coded and from this eternal consciousness. We search answers to this universal puzzle, and I beleive that this consciousness is the main source , like main energy. This energy after in being transformed and coded create our physicality, so we can indeed consider that all is conscious at its level of conscious, probably that the number of particles encoded is proportional with the consciousness and the evolution is important also. It is complex to encircle all this, but we try to reach these unknowns. the big difference in my model of spherisation and these 3D coded spheres is about the main essence, I consider particles coded but we can converge at my humble opinion with the fields. The particles for me are more foundamental, the fields are just a resuslts of contact and encodings of these 2 fuels that I have explained made of coded spheres.

Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 16:51 GMT
Steve,

I am so glad that our theories are converging in a fashion. I’m also glad that physicists are now beginning to consider consciousness; it wasn’t cool to discuss this topic only a decade ago. And I notice that even your English is improving!

Take good care of yourself and stay healthy

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 18:32 GMT
Thanks Professor Klingman,

The convergences are important at my humble opinion. I understand about this consciousness that in the past it was not easy to discuss about this. Probably that the modern theoretical physics are more open to discuss about it. It is the same with the main origin of this universe, I know that the sciences Community is divided , a part considers that we come from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 19:45 GMT
Steve,

One imagines that, if the primordial field is gravity, and if the density of our entire universe were concentrated in a Planck volume, that the field would explode outward with motion whose positive kinetic energy would equal and balance the negative potential of the gravitational field, what Feynman calls “the free-lunch model”, so that the universe comes from zero total energy. I find that a very fruitful model to derive today’s world from. Of course one must appeal to God to create that event, but I have no problem with that.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 29, 2020 @ 17:44 GMT
Der Edwin Eugene,

You wrote an enjoying, interesting and provocative Essay, despite my ideas on special relativity are different from your ones. To understand this point, it could be useful stressing that I did not like the answer that Susskind gave to your question about the meaning of "seen from the stationary frame". In my opinion, the key point is that the law of velocity addition permits to write a SOLE Lorentz transformation between the stationary frame and the frame of the "kiddie car". In other words, the final velocity obtained through the law of velocity addition "makes glass walls" the walls of the train. Thus, now the observer in the stationary frame needs no more to see the "kiddie car" through the eyes of x'. Instead, in physical language, the observer in the stationary frame sees the "kiddie car" through its proper eyes by using the final velocity obtained through the law of velocity addition in a SOLE Lorentz transformation.

In any case, I enjoyed in reading your Essay. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 29, 2020 @ 18:45 GMT
Dear Christian Corda,

Thank you for your kind remarks, and for analyzing the issue. I like your answer versus Susskind’s but there are other issues than the velocity addition law at stake. An essay is not sufficient to treat the complexity of SRT, but this example gave me a chance to focus on the ontology issue, which I am becoming convinced is overdue some focus. I just read Michael Dascal’s essay and found very good insight into the issue.

I read your essay and thought I had scored it, but that was not the case so I’ve remedied that. As you know I feel that your QNM is original and potentially agrees with some work I have done. Your model is probably too complex to be appreciated in an essay. I hope that my future work brings me closer to your QNM model.

My warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Jochen Szangolies wrote on May. 1, 2020 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I think you raise a number of important issues in your essay, which are often glossed over in the teaching of special relativity. First of all, you point out that time dilation---and, in fact, other relativistic phenomena---can be derived within a framework of absolute space and time. This is true, even if it's often not well appreciated---the best analysis is, I think, due to John Bell (him of the theorem), in his essay 'How to Teach Special Relativity'. There, he shows that, for instance, length contraction can be explained by noting that the shape of the electromagnetic frame of a moving charge will no longer be spherically symmetric, but rather, flattened in the direction of movement; and thus, a rod, made from 'atoms' whose spherical symmetry is no longer given, will contract in length. Similar remarks apply to electrons circulating around these atoms---their period will change in accordance with time dilation.

This is today sometimes glossed as the 'Neo-Lorentzian' interpretation of special relativity; as is proper for any interpretation, there is no experimental means to adjudicate between it and the 'Minkowskian' interpretation in terms of four-dimensional spacetime; hence, it indeed requires a decision to opt for one or the other. (Things do, however, get more difficult once one moves to full-fledged general relativity.)

Another point is that in teaching special relativity, one generally assumes a sort of 'view from nowhere'---imagining one could 'observe' what happens in, say, moving train cars as it happens. But the events within a train car moving past us would look nothing like the naive predictions made by applying the Lorentz transformations---indeed, there are many intriguing optical phenomena attached. For one, flying past a planet at a high fraction of the speed of light, that planet would not look like a flattened pancake at all, as the Lorentz contraction would naively lead us to expect---indeed, it would remain looking perfectly spherical, but, curiously, rotated as compared to the orientation we would see flying past it at lower speed!

This is due to the so-called 'Penrose-Terrell rotation'. The reason for this is that, essentially, an object moving past an observer at a high enough speed gets 'out of the way' of light emitted from its (relative to the observer) backside, so that such light can reach the observer after all. Thus, what we would see when peeking through the walls of a moving train would be very much more complicated than what the simple Lorentz transformation might lead us to expect.

In the relationship between a theory and the world, there are then two sources of potential failures of fit, if one is not sufficiently careful---one, in the observational consequences; and two, in the ontological consequences. Naively, having just learned special relativity, one might conclude that one sees a Lorentz-contracted object moving past, which means that reality needs to be described in terms of a four-dimensional geometry; neither of which is right.

However, I am not sure I see the connection with my remarks to Xerxes Arsiwalla in his essay, and the notion of how distributional systems may overcome Gödelian problems. After all, the sort of systems you discuss here are staunchly computational---and thus, subject to the same issues of undecidability, etc., as any other model of computation. Xerxes seemed, in his essay, to be saying that there is a notion of distributional system that outstrips these capacities, but I'm still not sure what exactly is meant by that.

Anyway, I wish your essay good luck in the contest!

Cheers

Jochen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 10:48 GMT
"Electromagnetic frame of a moving charge", above, should be "electromagnetic field", instead.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Jochen,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

Yes, material objects made of atoms may or may not contract. If this type of real contraction of atom-based material occurs and applies to MM experiments, I’ve no problem with that, in principle.

In relativity, it is 'space-time' that is changing. Space is getting shorter and time is getting longer. I don't really believe in space. Einstein: "there is no space absent field". If one takes away the field, there's nothing; no-thing. Space is an abstraction – it simply doesn't exist! It is an attribute of the field, not a separate "thing" – space does not contract.

The Lorentz contraction operates on space; the entire space contracts under Lorentz, not just the material object. This is incompatible with (3+1)D and is inherent with 4D. It is not optional, it is built into the transformation on 4D space-time geometry. It is unphysical in the extreme. So although I find some sort of shortening of material arms reasonable, length contraction means shrinking space, That's what Lorentz does, it shrinks space (in one direction).

I question the energy time (3+1)D force-based 'shortening' of material; but I don't reject it. I reject the special relativity (4D)-space-based length contraction.

You say, “This is today sometimes glossed as the 'Neo-Lorentzian' interpretation of special relativity; as is proper for any interpretation, there is no experimental means to adjudicate between it and the 'Minkowskian' interpretation in terms of four-dimensional spacetime; hence, it indeed requires a decision to opt for one or the other.”

This is what I mean when I say “One must make metaphysical choice commitments to ontology.”

I would not call this ’Neo-Lorentzian’; it is not Lorentzian.

You also say “Things do, however, get more difficult once one moves to full-fledged general relativity.

I have recently interpreted a 98-year old exact metric solution to Einstein’s field equations in a way compatible with the above. The previous interpretation has been obscure and confused. You might find it interesting: A Primordial Spacetime Metric.

Thanks again for your comment. I will re-read yours and comment on your thread.

My warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 10:21 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

After taking a critical look at your reloeaded essay, I will tell you elsewhere my radically new alternative to what not just Susskind is teaching. Following your hint that only gamma and m=gamma m_0 are experimentally confirmed, I share your opinion that there was no reason to abandon the good old notion of ubiquitous simultaneity. I am now suggesting to modify neither t and x nor c but v.

Unfortunately, you merely mentioned that but not in detail in what your theory differs from SRT.

Being just an engineer, I cannot see why you felt obliged to add your perhaps not experimentally founded assumption concerning a consciousness field instead.

Anyway, even without understanding your C-field, I consider your essay by far a more relevant one than those who are defending QM. While Kadin is perhaps more courageous, he does not question the SRT that Susskind is teaching.

I strongly agree with your praising FQXi as an excellent and urgently needed forum.

Thankfully,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thank you for your gracious remarks. I am pleased that you now find (3+1)D ontology reasonable. I did not expand on ways that my energy-time theory differs from SRT for two reasons. First, the 9 page limit, and second, I am submitting papers to peer reviewed journals and most of them insist that the info not be published prior.

In case you missed it I refer you to my reply to Ullah on 27 April @ 05:18 above. There I address the belief that the Lorentz transformation applies everywhere. I argue that this is not the case and that it does not even apply in areas of SRT where it is assumed to do so. I am considering expanding this comment into a paper.

You make the valid criticism that my rewritten essay mixes apples and oranges. I retained the analysis of SRT while adding 3 pages on a ‘not experimentally founded’ theory of consciousness. You are correct; in many ways it weakens the essay. I did so with the following thinking:

My first fqxi essay was a theory of consciousness, at a time when it was not ‘cool’ for physicists to discuss consciousness. Today, a decade later, up to 25% of the essays discuss consciousness. It has apparently been recognized as related to physical theorizing. And on 13 April on his thread, Christi Stoica remarked to me that he had recently heard “three unrelated known people working on the hard problems of consciousness and supporters of panpsychism, mentioning gravity (...) as a possible physical field that could be associated to consciousness.” Then on the next day Stephen Wolfram published a paper claiming ‘a new fundamental path to physics’ that I believe is better interpreted as a model of 3D mechanism by which the brain couples to the consciousness field. So I simply decided to use the opportunity fqxi offered to ‘strike a claim’ and did so, recognizing that it detracted from my SRT essay.

I don’t think that I have changed many minds in this context. SRT is like politics and religion; it is almost impossible to change the minds of believers with mere facts. I had seen SRT argued for 10 years on fqxi and I had ignored it. Two years ago, working with Steven Kauffmann, I suggested that we review what we agreed upon about SRT before going much deeper into General Relativity. It was this in depth review that made me realize how much was wrong with SRT.

It’s a vicious problem. I am an old physicist and have been outside the establishment too long, so no one listens. But as Smolin has written, it is impossible inside the establishment to achieve anything new that threatens core beliefs. I see no alternative but to use platforms like fqxi to lay out the problem.

Thanks again, and I wish you good health.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 00:53 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Will we remain unheared? Let's concentrate on just two compelling core arguments:

- While abundant defense of SRT is exclusively based on increase of mass with v, there is no valid evidence for what not just Michelson rejected.

- While the past is unchangeable, the future is open to influences in principle. Causality impies:In reality there is a border but no extended state between past and future. Fourier transform introduced redundancy by ignoring it.

By the way, did you get aware of an essay that convincingly removed at least one of the many paradoxes that are still related to modern mathematics and physics? Do you keep Kadin's prediction for possibly correct?

I guess and hope, your health and my health will benefit from shelter at FQXi.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 02:10 GMT
Eckard,

You make a good point. After all, the attitudes to consciousness as legitimate physics concern changed in ten years. Perhaps attitudes to SRT will change as more info surfaces.

I’m not sure what you’re asking about Kadin. I disagree with some of his specifics, but generally agree that neo-classical field-based reality trumps quantum statistical interpretations of reality. I have been pushing this theme for ten essays now.

The false assumptions and erroneous projections of math structures have produced a situation in which nothing really new has occurred for 40 years. At some point the dam will break. We are in very tumultuous times and lots of shibboleths are in danger.

Covid19 will show many institutions do not work for the good of the people, but for their own agendas. It is the nature of entrenched institutions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 05:58 GMT
Hi Edwin, you really did address Leonard Susskind. It was a pity he would not be sidetracked by the issue of sensory perception, However that is completely understandable as he would have had a set syllabus to teach. Yes it is about rods and clocks and measurements but unless hands on, sensory perception is involved in the reckoning of the measurements. The observers are assumed by me to be human as depicted by stick figures. In Special relativity, each observer has their own reference frame or present slice of space time. If sensory perception is thought about, it could be said that each observer makes their own selection of potential sensory information from the environment immediately outside their position.Going further one could say each observer generates their own unique present experience using the sensory input received. which is not the material happening.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 06:21 GMT
Rather than thinking about objects travelling at the speed of light, it is helpful, at least to me, to think about thunder and lightning. 3 observers, one under the storm, one not far away say 1 mile and one 5 miles away will experience the storm differently. More delay in experience of the thunder the further away From the lightning event. That causes air expansion, creating pressure waves in the environment. Multiple observers will generate heard sound from the pressure wave when received at each observer location. The simultaneity of that lightning (the actual spark) and sound wave potential sensory information formation is undeniable. But it is not experienced as simultaneous by all observers. The same sort of thing is going on with the train and kiddie car but the sensory information is light waves travelling much faster than sound.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 07:47 GMT
EMr ('Light') reflected from the kiddie car to the eyes of the driver will be used in generation of an observation product that shows both driver and car maintaining their positions relative to each other (ignoring slight vibration).'Light' from the kiddie car, received by the standing observer in the train will be used to generate an observation product showing a slow kiddie car appropriate speed.'Light' reflected from the train moving through the station at very high speed,(there was no mention of acceleration from zero velocity in the lecture) will be used to generate a product, by platform observer, with the train seen moving at extreme speed; 0.9c. The kiddie car has to be travelling at least 0.9c according to that observer, for it to remain inside the train, moving with it. The extra kiddie car motion is insignificant compared to 0.9c. Do not add the 0.9 cs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 17:35 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I thought you would find relevance in some aspects.

You note that sensory perception is involved with rods and clocks, but in relativity the measurements are imaginary, based on the Lorentz transformation of space and time.

As you also note, simultaneous events that travel with constant speed are not experienced by all observers as simultaneous, depending on the position of the observer. The fact that not all observers agree on whether things are simultaneous is meaningless.

You mentioned that “there was no mention of acceleration in the lecture.” That is key to special relativity; it excludes acceleration, including rotation, and uses just ‘slices’ of reality to conclude things that contradict common sense. Any kinetic energy actually acquired in the acceleration phase is just “thrown away” by resetting the moving observer’s velocity to zero and his equivalent moving mass to rest mass. But finally, as you say, do not add the 0.9c to 0.9c. By creating multiple time dimensions, one per cartoon world, Einstein created unphysical paradoxes.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Michael muteru wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 09:55 GMT
Dr Eugene.very precise and well illustrated work.Rated you accordingly. Thanks for the concept of neural networks and mapping.can cognitive Bias be key?please read my take here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.Thankyou and all the best in the contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear Michael,

I enjoyed your essay, and I found the following simple statement quite insightful:

Imagine a world without Measure, from the grocers, healthcare and to economics all human activity would run berserk.”

One tends to forget just how significant this simple procedure is to survival as a group. It probably also served as incentive for the earliest development of mathematics.

You also note: “A Bias is a Tendency by an arbitrating Authority to lean towards a particular inclination when confronted with options / choices in decision making.”

On your thread Christian Corda called this ‘politics’ and this tendency is nowhere seen better than in special relativity.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 18:16 GMT
Professor Klingman, I have thought still about this consciousness.

In fact , Nobody can really prove the origin philosophical, mathematical or physical of this consciousness. Nobody can affirm his general philosophy in fact , we have the same problem about the origin of our universe and about the foundamental objects at this planck scale. Why we exist, why we are, why this life exists and this evolution, why we are conscious and have a free will, why this matter and energy transformations? we don t know, we can just extrapolate with intuitions in accepting our limitations. It is not prohibited to Think fortunally and we discuss simply in accepting these limitations like humble thinkers,we can never affirm assumptions, we must prove but we cannot prove this consciousness and its origin. It is the same about God or about a mathematical accident from an energy to explain this physicality.

Spinoza , Descartes, Kant , Godel, Cantor, Einstein , Borh, or others d say the same , we must accept these limitations in knowledges simply and try to complete this universal puzzle with determinism , we search answers...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 18:19 GMT
I have writen this also on the blog of FQXi about this consciousness , I spoke about your ideas also.

This Hard problem of consciousness is indeed important and complex. Like told me Edwin Eugene Klingman, it is great that now we can discuss about these things , because in the past it was more difficult. The ideas of The professor Klingman are interesting about a kind of field of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Steve,

I completely agree with almost all of your points. Thank you for writing them. I certainly agree that no one can prove these issues of consciousness. It is more a question of what explanation makes the most sense and is compatible with the largest domain of which we are aware. For me, including all of my conscious experience over many years, a consciousness field was the only thing that made sense. Never did it make any sense that dumb material objects could arrange themselves (or be arranged) in such a manner that they would suddenly ‘become aware’.

The question then became how the field would interact physically with the material world. Applying Occam’s razor, things went in a direction that continually rewarded me with positive insights and never ran into paradoxes that would discourage continuing the approach.

Along the way I decided that much of today’s problems in physics derive from physicists projecting math structures onto physical reality, useful in specific domains (like qubits) and then believing that these structures had universal application. Once people write enough papers based on such a new structure, it becomes part of the catechism.

Anyway, I’m glad that you find the concept useful. Since Feynman said that “more things can be known than can be proven”, I am likely to spend my remaining years trying harder to know what I’m talking about than to prove what I’m talking about.

Warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 10:41 GMT
Thanks Professor Klingman,

I agree also with your Words, all seems a question of deterministic convergences between maths, physics and philosophy after all it seems to me humbley. The universe and its generality shows us maybe Concrete roads. A thing important for me is this evolution, and I have remarked that these fields like main origin and these oscillations, frequences, resonances,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Rating essays has always been difficult for me. If an essay keeps true to the theme of the contest is one factor, but sometimes reading other essays gives me a new view on what the theme means. Could one disagree with the Physics of an essay, yet still see the value of the work? There is an ongoing point battle and I as well as others have been “point bombed” with 1s. I never give out ones, but I do give tens after the long process of determining what a ten looks like is complete.

An ideal review should not be about points or Einstein (sorry Albert), but the work as a whole. Perhaps not ideal my review is as follows.

This essay takes the reader gently by the hand on a journey of ideas and presents how these ideas relate to the overall theme of the contest. The essay held my interest, but did not sell me on its viewpoint.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 23:05 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

Thanks for your feedback. I believe that my point about ontology being beyond the issues that fqxi prescribed makes it on topic. In principle, my energy-time theory can distinguish between space time symmetry of special relativity, but the political fact is that there is no interest in doing experiments to test special relativity. Lacking determinative proof, I believe that one must choose an ontology to interpret a theory. It’s my opinion that relativity is applied to whatever ontology is convenient, and I don’t believe that’s legitimate. SRT excludes acceleration and rotation, but is commonly extended into these domains for Hafele-Keating and Michelson-Gale experiments, which I believe is not kosher.

Obviously one cannot do any definitive analysis of SRT in nine pages, but, after reading a number of essays I decided to rewrite my last three pages to make a somewhat different point. While it’s an important point, it does probably weaken the essay.

I actually read your essay several times but could not decide what to say to you, so I said nothing. In your essay your asked:

Would we want a robot to solve Physics?

My dissertation asked “How would a robot physicist function?” assuming the ability to make measurements correlated with the robot’s actions on its environment. The key factor is the use of pattern-recognition algorithms to partition the data into categories that represent ‘properties’ of the system, which establishes an epistemology, but not an ontology.

In short, I did not assume consciousness, but simply designed a machine to sort data obtained from the real world by interacting with the real world, in an attempt to show why the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of math to science’ applies.

Thanks again for your honest feedback. These contests truly are valuable.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 21:31 GMT
Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Ontology could be the theme by omission. Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are about what cannot be known and your essay is about limits of the knowable, two sides of the same coin. You convinced me that your essay is of the theme of the contest. As a reader, how your essay fits into the overall theme is not important. My essay is more about the why and your essay is about the how. A robot could be a tool in finding objective data about the nature of the Universe. A robot would be useless in answering why you want objective data in the first place. In short, your essay is on a journey, while my essay is still looking at the map to figure out where to go. My essay is in a completely different tone and direction, so I can see why it is not everyone’s cup of tea. Thank you for reading my essay and I understand why you did not comment.

As for an absolute time frame, Galilean relativity is the basis of momentum, symmetry and conservation laws. Einstein relativity expanded on the existing framework of Galilean relativity for a simpler general solution to problems others worked on in bits and pieces. We could we solve problems currently solved with Einstein’s relativity using an absolute time frame, but it would be far more complex and would not yield new insight.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

P. S. I see that they are blocking robots from giving comments. Robot opinion would be important in this topic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vesselin Petkov wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 03:11 GMT
Dear Edwin,

You mentioned "inertial mass m = γ m0" and, given the relatively recent controversy over relativistic mass, I wonder what your view on that is.

Best wishes,

Vesselin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 15, 2020 @ 04:22 GMT
Dear Vesselin,

I am not sure what the ‘recent’ controversy is, but there have been objections by some to the idea of relativistic mass for a while now.

My view is that inertial mass m = gamma m0 is the most accurate relation in relativity. It is a kinetic energy aspect of mass that has real consequences, whereas the mixing of time and space by gamma is unphysical.

I’ve read your essay several times. It seems to put great weight on Minkowski’s 1908 interpretation of the MM experiments. My own interpretation, like that of Hertz, upon whose theory Einstein based his 1905 paper, is that light propagates in local gravity, which has effectively zero ‘ether velocity’ in the MM lab. Nor do I believe length contraction of space occurs. Time dilation can readily be explained in (3+1)D ontology, based on relativistic mass. The only length contraction that appears in measurements is the Doppler-based ‘apparent length contraction’, and possibly some material-based contraction under acceleration.

Considering your employment, which I assume is based on full agreement with Minkowski, I decided there was little to be gained by arguing any of these points. Over the last two years I have found out in no uncertain terms that believers in special relativity can apply it to any problem, although I believe that they mix ontology when the apply it in acceleration and rotation situations. Thus I did not rate your essay, as that seemed inappropriate.

What is your belief about relativistic mass? I looked again and did not find it in your essay.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share

Vesselin Petkov replied on May. 16, 2020 @ 05:06 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I think relativistic mass is an experimental fact - see:

1. (PDF file): On Relativistic Mass - Appendix by the Editor to A. Einstein, Relativity[/I] (Minkowski Institute Press, Montreal 2018) - a volume with five works by Einstein (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/books/einstein.html)

2
. Mass does increase with velocity (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/relmass.html)

Above I wrote "I think"; you also write "my view is". If interested in what should be done when there are so many people with so many different views of the same world, you could have a look at my latest reply on my essay's page.

Best wishes,

Vesselin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 16, 2020 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Vesselin,

On your page the suggested reply states: “one of the elements of the research strategy of the Minkowski Institute (Montreal) is to provide justification for excluding research directions. I am well-aware that some people will be outraged by such undemocratic intervention.”

There is already “exclusion of research directions”; such is inherent in entrenched establishments. The members of such establishments are human, hence essentially tribal, and “our tribe is always right.”

I quote McEachern in my essay:

"…Planck observed a century ago, the problem is, theoretical physicists are not part-icularly adept at identifying that some things even are assumptions; with the result that ‘self-evidently true' facts lead to long periods of stagnation, until these "facts" are eventually shown to be just idealistic false assumptions.”

Einstein built his false assumptions into his definition of ‘inertial reference frame’ and then based every relativity problem in terms of multiple inertial frames, automatically guaranteeing that multiple time frames are (falsely) assumed. Minkowski built his false assumptions into his 4D ontology.

Special relativity is not the only area of physics that has false assumptions in its fundamentals, but all such areas have books, papers, lectures, professorships, and other investments that oppose any serious focus on such fundamental false assumptions. ‘Political correctness’ has nothing to do with it. It’s the nature of the hierarchical establishment, period.

The lack of real progress in 40+ years is near proof of this state of physics, and many in these contests believe the dam may be starting to break, but that’s probably optimistic.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 11:12 GMT
The message did not reach, I am sending again.

Dear Edwin,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 16, 2020 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I reread your essay and once again agree that

“It is assumed in the work that the device of the Universe is based on a single essence - a toroidal gravitational pilot wave. De Broglie pilot waves are vortices of deterministic turbulence in the material, dynamic and fractal medium of a physical vacuum.”

In single “free particle” instances, the particle is deterministic, while multiple such particles interacting non-linearly are effectively non-deterministic, and subject to quantum statistics.

I encourage you to continue working based on your above assumptions.

My best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


sherman loran jenkins wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 05:58 GMT
Edwin:

A new era dawns.  Old questions become quaint and historical.  Is the whole community ready?  Or is physical reality too dangerous for our collective understanding at this time?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Arnold wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 07:15 GMT
Edwin, I generally agree that mathematics shouldn't be subordinated to physics.

But regarding your take on Relativity:

Observer A is moving 10 seconds (sec) in time and is considered to be at rest. Observer B is moving uniformly at .9c relative to A, and so moves 9 light-seconds (ls) in that time. According to Relativity, and the Lorentz transformation, they will each observe the other’s clock to have only ticked 4.36 sec (t’ = t(sqrt(1-.9^2)) = 10*sqrt(.19) = 4.36.

Now we need to consider the motion of a third body C relative to each. C is moving in the same direction as B. A and B will each agree that C passes a signpost at a definite point in space, but they will disagree on both how far away it is and at what time C reaches it.

The clock on C will be, like the signpost, objects agreed upon by A and B, and C’s clock can be given by B as

t’ = 4.36*sqrt(1-.9^2) = 1.9 sec.

So returning to A, given C’s clock at a distance of 10 ls according to A, C’s distance traveled in 10 sec on A’s Clock will be given by

1.9 = 10(sqrt(1-s^2)) with s being the ls C travels in 10 sec on A’s clock

.19 = sqrt(1-s^2)

.036 = 1-s^2

s^2 = 0.964

s = .98

So while A observes B to be moving at .9c and B observes C to be moving at .9c in the same direction, A observes C to be moving at .98c

You may think it absurd or counter-intuitive, but it is with Relativistic mathematics consistent with the physical world.

For a simple, graphic explanation of Special Relativity, see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335989541_Speci
al_Relativity_graphically_explained

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 15:44 GMT
James you have not understood the issue, but apparently that has not kept you from knocking my score down with a 1 score.

Bookmark and Share

James Arnold replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 20:15 GMT
You are mistaken. I didn't give you a 1.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 20:43 GMT
Thanks for that, just bad timing. Good luck to you.

Bookmark and Share


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

We agree with you that relativistic theory is a complex conceptual construction. And new interpretations of one or another of its conclusions are possible. For example, you write:

"...He provided absolute space for each by effectively assigning each world its own 'ether', whereby light propagates with speed С in each world..."

This is so, but a different conclusion can also be made: there are not many 'ethers', but one 'ether', which has zero speed relative to all reference frames. Why not? This is no more strange than the same speed C relative to all reference systems. Dear doctor Klingman! We are encouraged by the courage with which you discuss fundamental problems. Unfortunately, in modern science there is a lot of conformism and few breakthrough ideas.

We hope that our essay "New ontology: algorithmic laws and the passage of time" will cause your positive interest.

We have downloaded your publications from the site "vixra.org", and we will get to know them. We paid attention to the problems of the Quantum Spin. Please tell me, can it be argued that the energy of rotation is contained in the Quantum Spin of elementary particles, which can be converted into radiation energy? If so, we are getting a new direction for energy development. We are sure that this is how we have been reflecting on this problem for many years.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

Thank you for your interesting comment and analysis. I agree that there are not many ethers but one ether, and hypothesize that it is the universal gravitational field that light propagates in. Unlike the ether expected by Michelson-Morley, it is not universally homogeneous, but locally defines a preferred frame, in conflict with Einstein’s ‘spacetime symmetry’. Einstein said that the existence of an ether would destroy relativity, yet post-1918 he accepted an ether as necessary for light to propagate in! Obviously the ‘local ether’ travelled with the MM lab so they detected “zero ether wind”, to within their instrumental resolution. Because they were expecting a homogeneous universal ether their null result was interpreted to mean “no ether”. Just a little bit more imagination would have changed the entire century of physics in a positive way!

I noted in comments on your thread that Peter Jackson replicated Hafele-Keating and asked for a rationale, as to why “why east and west acceleration have the opposite effect on oscillation rates?”

In my viXra:1812.0424 paper, “Everything’s Relative, or is it?” on pages 45-52 I explain the HK and the Michelson-Gale experiments which are essentially unexplainable by relativity. The various Wikipedia-type explanations are based on “ontology-switching”, which I believe is not legitimate, but is compatible with the fact that relativists ignore ontology and choose whichever is needed in a given situation, as if physical reality is “problem specific”!

In your essay your AREAL set is an interesting model of time, compatible with the (3+1)D-ontology of ‘presentism’, in which past and future events are unreal. This is somewhat analogous to the Peano axioms, in which only the latest integer exists, identified with the ‘moment’, NOW. This algorithmic ‘counting’ of cycles is the basis of all measurements of time. As you say, “the functionality of a mechanical clock is one of the simplest algorithmically arranged processes.”

This of course differs from the ‘experience of time’, which is not measurement-based, as you seem to imply with your discussion of St Augustine.

I believe that all axiomatized theories are algorithmic, and your analogy with Feynman’s chess board appears appropriate.

Thank you again for reading my essay, analyzing, and commenting.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


sherman loran jenkins wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 01:11 GMT
Edwin:

I agree with your basic approach.  The Universe is composed of one fundamental substance-charge.  Higgs charge.  This charge fills the Universe and is under tremendous pressure.  In response to the pressure the charge assumes a pattern of motion in sync with all surrounding charge.  This pattern of motion you may call a vortex.  Synonymous with the Higgs field this charge in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


GerryKlein wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 08:27 GMT
Hello E.E. Klingman,

The 2009 FQXi essay contest topic was “What’s Ultimately Possible in Physics”.

Your entry “Fundamental Physics of Consciousness”.

In your abstract you state, “Because every physical theory assumes “something”, that basic assumption will determine what is ultimately possible in that physics. The assumed “thing” itself will likely be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Gerry,

I’m impressed that you reviewed my first (2009) essay. Just FYI, you might find my 2016-17 essay on the Nature of Mind interesting as well.

We agree that space and time are ‘not things’; they are abstractions. Einstein said “there is no space absent a field” and I believe that’s true. If one could actually take away the field, then ‘no thing’ would be left. But apparently unlike you I believe that the field is a thing. It occupies volume and possesses energy density and can perform work. It is a physical thing and it is real. It can be tested at any time by jumping off a roof.

Motion on the other hand is a ratio of two ‘no things’, space and time. I conceive of the speed of light, c, as a disturbance (a stress) propagating through a physical field, as did Hertz, and I identify the field as gravity. As I sit here replying to you I am not in motion relative to the earth, but I do feel the force of the field.

Your essay references “the immaterial world non-material no-thing world of consciousness.” My theory assumes that the primordial field has consciousness, which you define as the ability to receive and respond to stimuli. The field senses moving mass density and exerts force on moving mass density, and this requires enough energy that we must eat ~3 times per day.

You mentioned the Michelson-Morley null result, which I interpret as meaning that the laboratory (to first order) was not moving through the local gravity field, hence no ‘moving ether wind’. If a little bit more imagination had been applied in 1887 we would have been spared a century of mistaken non-intuitive concepts and the corresponding “everything’s relative” nonsense leading, ultimately, to the general acceptance of “my truth” and “your truth” with which we are cursed today.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I found your essay to be interesting and beautifully written. And I thought your explanation of the problems with Special Relativity, and a possible way of solving these problems using a different ontology, was very clear.

However, as you might realise, I disagree with your view of time (also your views about number and consciousness). As you say: “the problem is in the ontology, i.e., the nature of physical reality.” I see a universe of subjects. I take the view that time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change, i.e. the creation of time is only representable as an algorithmic step, where there is a stepwise change in time whenever there is a perception of (what we might represent as) a stepwise change in number for a variable. I can’t see time as a pre-existing universal dimension or continuum, i.e. something representable as a smoothly changing variable in an equation.

Re consciousness: I think it is necessary to consider how one would derive the information content of consciousness, which clearly consists of higher-level information categories like “food” “danger” “tiger”, “songbird” and “striped”. And how one would derive that content from the lower-level information categories (like light frequency/ wavelength) arriving via interactions with the eyes and ears.

Regards,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 19:28 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

As I recall you live in Australia, and if I were to phone you we would probably both agree that it is “now” where each of us are, independent of position in the universe. I believe that the concept of ‘absolute time’ as ‘universal simultaneity’ is simply more useful than thinking that “time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change.” Certainly ‘awareness’ of time is engendered by such, but the way things hang together throughout the physical universe goes deeper than subjective perception, I believe. I am not a solipsist in any way.

I’m not sure I would describe time as “a pre-existing universal dimension” but mathematically, it is convenient to treat it as such. The question for physicists is whether the dimension varies with position, as the 4D ontology claims, or whether time and space are essentially unconnected, as (3+1)D-ontology supposes.

As for “information content”, while that is certainly a useful concept, I tend to avoid it today because too many people believe that “information is physical”. The reality, in my opinion, is that “energy state transitions in a specific context” describes what actually happens without making any physical assumptions about “info as real”.

The question of algorithmic vs non-algorithmic consciousness is more complex. Clearly the fact that neural networks support logic points to algorithmic. But perception of shapes, for example, is, in my model, essentially non-algorithmic. I don’t believe I “compute” the difference between a ball and a cube using logic. I really believe it operates as I described in my essay.

Based on your many essays and comments over the years, I think we generally see the world in much the same light, but of course our preferred descriptions will never be identical; it’s just too complex.

Thanks again for reading my essay and thinking about it. I always enjoy hearing you viewpoint.

Warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Neil Bates wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 21:38 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

You have well laid out how Einstein showed that reality is not just a simple given. The nature and structure of space and time even which is which is relative to states of motion (and in GR, acceleration too.) It seems a rather tight pivot to the next subject, of your concept of the Consciousness Field, but I understand the space (;-)) constraints here, and it being further explained in the references. If you can link that concept with the feature-building power of Wolfram's constructs, that would be a neat feat.

BTW if any readers might take at look at my own piece, addressing the issue of the strong correlations of entanglement and how neo-mechanistic models of quantum physics aren't enough - it could use more votes on this last day. Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 22:26 GMT
Hi Neil,

Thanks for your response. Yes, it was a pivot, and I only did it because of timeliness. I struck while the iron was hot.

Since then I have been model building with Mathematica; not doing Wolfram’s graphing but computing fields in an idealized axon cube or ‘cell’ with 12 edges and various flow patterns. I’m getting some very nice results!

I’ve just reread your essay. As I’ve noted, Bell’s qubit approach to Stern-Gerlach is simply wrong and a real 3D spin produces both the required correlation (purely local!) and the actual ‘postcard’ distribution of deflection states.

Unfortunately I have not worked out the analogous analysis for photons, which are actually used in Bell tests. However your essay is a goldmine of information, so I have scored you highly.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 01:17 GMT
A delightful essay Ed...

I like to save some of the best for last, and you did not disappoint. I have fundamental agreement on several of your key points. You know what some of my sticking points are. But at this time the disagreement separating us is paper thin.

I'll comment further but I want to get to a few more essays now. One of the best!

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 01:59 GMT
Edwin,

Just as good on a fuller 'moderation' read through, so very much in line with Jonathans comments above. Reading so many a reminder is always good. Again we're close in just about all ways! It's now 03.00 in the UK so on my last scoring round way past my bedtime!

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Harrison Crecraft wrote on May. 20, 2020 @ 17:52 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Does the contextual interpretation you describe for SR apply also to GR? The contextual dissipative conceptual model (DCM) so nicely accommodates quantum mechanics and SR. If GR is also describable contextually as 3D space and universal time, I see no reason that DCM could not accommodate GR. And perhaps a path to quantum gravity.

If you like to pursue this, please email.

Best Regards, and good luck with the essay.

Harrison

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 21, 2020 @ 17:20 GMT
Hi Harrison,

In Phys Rev Lett 124,081301 (2020) Glavan and Lin note that, "According to Lovelock's theorem, Einstein's general relativity with cosmological constant is the unique theory of gravity if we assume (i) the space-time is (3+1) dimensional [plus three other conditions]."

Einstein’s non-linear field equations are not Lorentz transformable.

An argument can be made that only special relativity supports the Lorentz transformation. In energy-time theory the gamma function of velocity applies to inertial mass, not to space and time. The inertial mass then causes moving clocks to slow down, since the restoring force that is the basis of all harmonic oscillations is resisted by the greater mass and hence the clocks count fewer oscillations in the same time period. This exactly matches ‘time dilation’ of special relativity, but has none of the nonsense implications of relativity.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share


Sue Lingo wrote on Jun. 23, 2020 @ 05:14 GMT
Hi Edwin...

I was unable to add a new post to your FQXi Essay Contest (2009) CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Author Page, as per my Jun. 8, 2020 @ 06:53 GMT post to our thread above.

In order to give continuity to what I consider a highly relevant discussion, I am herin posting a summary of my initial review (now essay length) of your - TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Sue Lingo replied on Jun. 23, 2020 @ 07:12 GMT
Hi Edwin...

Just discovered some browsers may no longer allow subdirectory access links... i.e. all subdirectory links go to the UQS Home page... and it will be necessary for me to recode all .html subdirectory link in all my webpages.

I already have done so to facilitate your access to the subdirectory links in the above post from the UQS Home page:

Scroll down to:

UQS: Social Media and Forum

Click:

Log Update: 05/28/20... (this links to an .html duplicate of my FQXi author communications)

Text search:

Sue Lingo wrote on Jun. 23, 2020 @ 05:14 GMT... (this is a duplicate of my above post w/ corrected links)

Thanks for your patience.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sue Lingo replied on Jun. 24, 2020 @ 05:25 GMT
Hi Edwin...

Not a browser issue as reported above... i.e. apparently my ISP "tweaked" their user webpage functions.

The resulting dysfunctionality has been brought to their attention, and is being investigated.

May tenacity prevail in all things digital!!!

sl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.