show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Paul,

As you were kind to read and comment favorably on my essay, I feel compelled to respond. Which is difficult, as I am of the dualistic camp and you present a very detailed argument for a discrete model, along with a comprehensive historical foundation for it.

That said, I still think you are missing part of the picture. I don't have the attention to detail required to fully...

view entire post

Paul,

As you were kind to read and comment favorably on my essay, I feel compelled to respond. Which is difficult, as I am of the dualistic camp and you present a very detailed argument for a discrete model, along with a comprehensive historical foundation for it.

That said, I still think you are missing part of the picture. I don't have the attention to detail required to fully question the body of your essay, but think of it as a pyramid: If you want to make it higher, you can't just add more blocks on the top, you need to start with adding blocks to the foundation and make that bigger first. So I will try to offer a few foundational blocks to expand the parameters of the issue.

If I may offer a basic philosophic observation, I think the traditional concept of dualism as the dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is flawed. The thesis and antithesis balance each other, but if you combine them, they cancel out. There is no synthesis. Yes, there are two sides to the coin, but you can only see one at a time. I think we in the west have this monolithic view that there is some Godlike, bird's eye view and if we keep at it, eventually we will find this TOE. The problem is that an objective perspective is an oxymoron. If we combine all perspective, we have no perspective.

What you have done is to present a fairly wholistic argument for discrete reality. So my challenge isn't to say it's wrong, but to expand the foundation in order to present an argument for why there is an analog connectivity which balances the discrete structure. The problem is that we cannot view them simultaneously.

I realize this is probably not good form, but I would like to post a somewhat long comment I made to Thomas Mcfarlane, who presented a more philosophic argument for discrete reality. Then I would like to build on a few ideas which occurred to me while reading your essay:

"You make a good argument for why reality can only be understood in terms of its discrete relationships, but it's wrong. With your last paragraph, it's clear you understand your point has its limits, but relegate the wholistic view to mystery. It isn't mysterious at all. It's overlooked because it's so basic. Math says that if you add two things together, they equal two. Well, if that's the case, you haven't actually added them together. Necessarily actually adding things together means you have one of something larger. In basic terms, it's like adding two piles of sand together and having one larger pile, but in reality it's more like components combining to create a larger whole. Whether physics, or biology, we like to take things apart to see how they work, but the fact is that they work together. Much like all the parts of your body add up to a larger whole, or all the components of an atom add up to an atom, not to mention all the various levels between, above and below the atom and the person.

This dichotomy is basic to the difference between eastern and western philosophy. In that we in the west tend to focus on objects and view their actions as emergent. While in the east, there is the contextual view and the particulars within the context are as much a part of the larger whole as your nose is part of you.

One aspect of this that I raise quite frequently and was the subject of my entry in the Nature of Time contest, is that we are looking at time backward. The basis of our rationality and from that, language, culture, history, etc, is the concept of time as the present moving from past to future. So it is natural to include this into our physical theories of how reality functions, but the fact is that it is the changing configuration of what is, the present, which turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. It is not that we move from a decided past into a probabilistic future, but that the continuous collapse of probabilities which turns the future into the past. Time is an effect of motion, not the basis for it.

In fact, in eastern cultures, the past is considered to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because both the past and what is seen are known, while what is behind one and the future cannot be seen. Physically we do understand what is in front of us and can be seen is of past events, be they across the room, or across the universe, but we consider ourselves to be moving through our environment, rather than part of it, so we think of ourselves moving from past situations to future ones, as a function of our own spatial action. The irony is that this creates a deterministic view of time, since we only exist at the moment of the present and cannot change the past, or affect the future. On the other hand, when we understand ourselves as fully integrated into our own context, then our actions are part of the process creating these situations and we affect our context, as it affects us.

You do conclude your essay with a nod toward Complexity Theory, with its dichotomy of order and chaos, but I think this relationship can better be described as a dichotomy of information and energy. Energy manifests information, while information defines energy. The information is the top down view of the details, while the energy is bottom up process. They are like two sides of the same coin, such that there cannot be one without the other. They are still opposites though, as energy is fundamentally dynamic, while information is necessarily static.

Think in terms of how you perceive the distinctions you use to define your view of reality: Necessarily you must move from one to the next, otherwise it is that frozen featureless void. So there are the distinctions and there is your movement from one to the next. That is time. Remember the clock has two features; the hands and the face. We think of the hands as moving clockwise, but from the context of the hands, it is the face which moves counterclockwise. The hands represent the present, as it moves from one unit of time to the next.

As I pointed out though, it is the energy of the present which forms and dissolves these units of time. The future becoming the past.

So it is the wholistic present which is creating these discrete units which come into being, grow as long as they absorb more energy then they lose, eventually to lose all energy and fade into the past.

One way to think of this is as a factory: The products go from initiation to completion, but the production line faces the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product.

The mind functions in a similar fashion, as it consumes masses of information, turns it into discrete thoughts, which are then replaced by the next. The brain is physically real, thus it exists in the present. Thoughts coalesce out of the future and fade into the past."

Paul,

Some have argued the point about information and energy, as information implies consciousness, so make that form and energy.

Another way to consider this relationship is light vs. mass. Light/radiation expands out, while mass gravitationally contracts. These are the two primary features of our universe; The great swirling vortices of galaxies, pulling mass in and radiating energy back out across billions of lightyears.

Just suppose, as I suggested in my essay, that what we detect as expansion, the redshift of distant galaxies, is actually an effect of the expansion of light. So just as gravity causes space to contract, light effectively causes it to expand. Now rather than thinking of this in terms of those macroscopic features, consider it as happening on the microscopic scales as well. The result would be a constant tension across all of space and it would only be due to purturbations which create these larger galactic features, as variations create areas of collapse, yet there remains constant mixing all up and down the scales, leading to the complex interactions or energy constantly pushing out and form making an equal effort to stabilize and then contract, due to loss of the dynamically unstable energy. Consider how it creates the processes of punctuated equilibria that motivate and define all activities on this planet, from the geologic to the political.

Now consider it in the terms I laid out for Tom, that you can't have one without the other, that they are like two sides of the same coin. You can't have formless energy, or platonic forms without energy to manifest them. Consider it in terms of your own essay, as you try to give form to light. When we don't measure light, it has no form, but measuring it gives it the form we measure.

An interesting way to consider this is how form and energy play out in society. There are many aspects, institutions and disciplines primarily interested in form; Academics, teachers, scientists, writers, news media, etc. Then consider those aspects of society which are more concerned with energy and other forms of power; Businessmen, bankers, resources providers, from miners and oil companies to farmers, politicians, though they might be on the line. Think how they relate on some levels, yet have totally different views, much like the point about thesis and antitheis not having a coherant synthesis. Yet existing in some larger cycle, as those with the power start to stagnate and those with the information dismantle the monuments to power.

While this is long and rambling, somewhere in your essay, I keep getting this subconscious impulse that it can be inverted and used to explain gravity, as the structure you define takes on its own momentum...

I know this was a very long post, but hopefully not completely confusing.

John

view post as summary

show all replies (10 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Sir,

Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:

3. If the...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:

3. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

4. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Our comments: Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod”.

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system”. This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation.

His “mathematics” using the equation for the sphere is all wrong. For example, he has used equations x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0 and ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 – c^2 τ^2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x^2+y^2+z^2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In the later case there is no way to correlate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c^2t^2 = c^2 τ^2 or t = τ.

Again, if x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = x’^2+y’^2+z’^2-c^2 τ ^2, t ≠ τ.

This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics.

The data relating to receding galaxies are insignificant in cosmic scales. It is evident only in larger scales of galactic clusters and super clusters only. It is not evident in lesser scales. Just like the planets in the solar system while orbiting the Sun sometimes appear to recede from each others while their satellites remain unaffected, the receding galaxy phenomenon can be explained by a revolving Universe. It must be remembered that spin is a universal characteristic of all closed systems.

In various threads we have shown that gravity is not a single force that attracts, but a composite force that stabilizes and that it belongs to a different class that could not be coupled with other forces of Nature. The so-called gravitational constant is only a constant of proportionality whose value depends upon the masses of the bodies, the distances between them and the density of the medium that contains both. Thus, every time we measure its value precisely, we come up with different results. Similarly, the cosmological constant is only a constant of proportionality.

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other “theories” relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures.

Randall-Sundrum “braneworld” hypothesis in which the observable universe is housed within a three-dimensional membrane, or brane, that is itself floating in a warped, higher-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, called the bulk is only figments of imagination without any tangible proof to support these views. The same is true for holons. Data from LHC has proved super-symmetric and brane-world models are wrong.

It is high time scientists come out of the mania of chasing a mirage and start re-writing a new physics based on the data available at present. We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the “creation event” to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution.

Regards,

basudeba.

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies