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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Parry: on 4/22/12 at 5:37am UTC, wrote Hi Bo, it would be good to have more participants contributing to...

James Putnam: on 4/22/12 at 0:06am UTC, wrote Hi Bo, So original thinking is to be pized automatically? How about...

Bo Nyberg: on 4/21/12 at 23:54pm UTC, wrote Explaining Time. Looking through the FQXi pages I see a lot of arguing...

James Putnam: on 2/22/12 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Paul, Did you read that message or not? I said I hoped I could present it...

Paul Reed: on 2/22/12 at 18:18pm UTC, wrote James Fair enough, but presumably sooner or later you will specify this. ...

James Putnam: on 2/22/12 at 16:39pm UTC, wrote Paul, As per my per re your per, there will be no per per your per. ...

Paul Reed: on 2/22/12 at 9:01am UTC, wrote James "The sole purpose of this message is to suggest that I think I do...

James Putnam: on 2/21/12 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote John and Jim, I have given explanations in the past that I intended to be...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, But what is a fractal? A fractal is not just a pictorial outcome..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, thank you for explaining very clearly. "Of course, as is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

jaime allen: "There are many topics like these, and all of them are helping me to become..." in Equivalence Principle...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It may help you come-to-terms with the fact that a "huge..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes,I agree with Eckard,there it's totally to be frank crazzy and..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: ""Please Joe, stop to post Always the same". Perhaps you have almost nothing..." in First Things First: The...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, You want to the bottom? ;-) In physics “unification” –..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

anna john: "It's a very good informative section. I appreciate the intelligence and..." in Gravity's Residue


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi BLOGS
September 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: It's About Time [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 14:13 GMT
We’ve had a few posts about the sessions at the Setting Time Aright meeting covering questions about memory, choice, free will and the end of civilization, entropy, and...electric fish. But as yet we haven’t really wrestled with the hardcore questions about time: Does time exist? Is it fundamental or emergent?

Well here they are. As an intro, watch this after-dinner debate in which Tim Maudlin argues that time is an illusion, while Julian Barbour contends that time is real. Yes, you read that correctly, Julian argues _for_ time, and Tim argues _against_ it. I should add that this is a mock debate: the evil masterminds at FQXi forced the speakers to argue against the ideas they famously hold. (If the picture sways a bit occasionally, it’s because the debate was filmed on board the ship and it was a little rocky that evening.)



That was a mock debate, so don’t hold the speakers to the opinions they express there. But there was also a serious session dedicated to the existence of time, featuring Barbour and Maudlin, again, and George Ellis. (By the way, if you're wondering why, when the camera pans round to show the audience, everybody is looking in different directions, it's because there were screens displaying the talk slides located on every wall.)

First up: George Ellis. If you followed our essay contest on the Nature of Time or have read the FQXi profile of his work, you’ll already know that Ellis wants to save time. He argues that although the block universe view of time that comes out of relativity seems to indicate that time is an illusion--with past, present and future all existing on equal footing--that model is wrong. He proposes modifying the standard block universe picture to include a flow of time--an emergent block universe--which exploits the irreversibility inherent in quantum wavefunction collapse to distinguish a closed past from an open future:



Julian Barbour picks apart conceptions of time in relativity, differentiating between Einsteinian relativity, in which each observer splits time and space apart differently, and Machian relativity (more here), in which the positions of objects are defined relative to each other, at a given instant.



Tim Maudlin also defended time. At the start he clearly sets up the distinction that forms the basis of his discussion: Is time not real? Is the space-time manifold real, but any distinction between time-like, space-like and light-like directions in it not real (Einstein’s view)? Is the time-like, space-like, light-like distinction real, but emergent (e.g. defined to be the direction of increasing entropy)? Or is the distinction real and fundamental--the naive everyday view that we take for granted (Newton’s view)? Maudlin argus that time and its arrow are real and fundamental and that to see it, we have to change the mathematics we traditionally use to view the structure of space-time. This is one of the most mathematically meaty talks of the entire conference, so sit back and enjoy:



Finally, as a sneak peak at the Universe session, which I’ll blog about later, it’s worth looking at Craig Callender’s talk -- especially if you’re interested in novel ways to slice up the block universe:



He doesn’t get into the crossover aspects of his work trying to recover time’s directionality by invoking evolutionary biology and cognitive science here, but in this article, “Evolving Time’s Arrow” he talks about more about that.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
Wow; excellent response! I'll really enjoy these five videos, but it'll take a while. See ya.

But before I go, as to the two questions posited, the first one is easy. Does time exist? Of course it does.

Our guide to physical reality may end up in an M-theory that combines GR and QM. And as far as general relativity is concerned, time is actual, and dynamic. For if there is no actual time in spacetime, what is changing as the geometry changes. It is time, the perception (measurement) of which depends on relative motion and a gravitational field. So it time didn't exist, we would percieve nothing to change, which is impossible. So much for GR.

QM is a little harder. Time exists assuredly as things get smaller and enter the microworld. Until the plank length distance or less; the the plank time duration, or less.

So to sum up: Time does exist in actual reality, our Universe. We measure it, by observing the rate at which time passes on local clocks. Except perhaps in processes occurring sub-Plank level, where the question, "Does time exist" contains no meaning.

So all five videos above, if this is an absolutely true statement about times' existence, will address this issue of the microworldview of time in some fashion or other. Time exists, so what does that mean? Let's find out...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
Told ya lol. Watched the debate between Sirs Barbour and Maudlin. Mr. B had an easy time eloquently espousing Time's existence, while Mr. M had to finally and quickly utter the language of the field, and invoke subMicroscopic realities to defend the opposite point that time is ephemeral. Won't comment on all these, just had to say. happens a lot lately. Aristotle taught me how to speak perfectly in Rhetoric, so it's fun to verify the arguments veracity sometimes, even though it is without error.

And thanks a lot for filming this, fqxi. Even though I would much rather have attended and enjoyed the talks firsthand, it is a great advantage to watch on video. It sharpens the senses to focus on the issues debated. bye...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 08:56 GMT
I would like to see all of the videos. Its great that they have been posted here. Unfortunately the first one has been removed now but the next, the George Ellis one on the evolving block time and adaptive selection was very interesting. I agree with him that the block time universe must be incorrect, and the type of evolving block universe he was talking of makes much more sense. Not having closed timelike loops is one very good attribute, as George Ellis pointed out.

I also agree that selection as George Ellis was describing has a role in the one way progress of change that is observed and associated with time. Though it may not be the the only factor leading to non reversibility of time and causality. He does associate that selection with entropy.

The definite difference between past and future in the quantum universe described does fit with what Eckard Blumschein has been saying here about time, and it agrees with what I have been saying about the difference between time in foundational object reality and observed space-time.Could say more as there are lots of interesting things in this that might be discussed. Worth a look.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 09:42 GMT
Julian Barbour's talk is also fascinating.Explains difference between Einsteinian and Machian relativity. Then talks about instants in time and imagined simultaneously existing arrangements in space. Familiar. He wants to get rid of the absolute background of Newtonian space and replace it with Machian idea of objects being relative to each other. That makes sense.

Though I can see the reason for having a hypothetical shape space isolated from the unseen environment and Newton's hypothetical absolute space, it is also creating an artificial impoverished system that is changing without considering all of the universal inputs causing that change, such as forces from neighbouring "triangles" and disturbances of the EM medium.

Which does contradict the working assumption that outcome is fully predictable from known initial conditions. But I do not think outcome is entirely predictable because at a balance point any additional disturbance could determine the direction and magnitude of change. Thats fits with chaos theory. The unwritten future is open and the unexpected input from the Object universe at a balance point can alter outcomes in unpredictable ways.

Also I am not convinced that best matched position is always what would occur next in sequence. But it seems to me that it isn't just minimum change that is occurring but forces are acting due to the relationships of different particles, or parts of structures, or different structures, their separations, orientations and scale and thus the strength and orientation of action of forces that must determine how the change will occur to give the next arrangement. The next position will be the one that reduces the force that is acting to give change. Though Julian Barbour does talk about Newtonian potential energy- and may be I am misunderstanding what he is doing.I'll have to watch it again.

Anyway the end is very interesting. Particularly how other bits of theory come out of the mathematics. The description of all of the change of the universe as passage of time in the final equation is impressive. Don't know if its right but there it is. A mathematical non temporal description of time. If you like maths I think its really worth thinking about. I would be very interested in other peoples opinions what he has done.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 19:08 GMT
Julian Barbour seems to have restored absolute simultaneity without even mentioning Einstein's 1905 postulates from which the relativity of simultaneity immediately follows:

http://fqxi.org/data/documents/conferences/2011-talks/barbou
r.pdf

Julian Barbour: "Was Spacetime a Glorious Historical Accident? (...) Absolute simultaneity restored!"

Of all the participants at the meeting not one could think of a reason why Barbour should discuss the antecedent when rejecting the consequent. Perhaps nobody even noticed that the relativity of simultaneity had been rejected.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 05:38 GMT
Barbour rejects the relativity of simultaneity but he also rejects the universe's expansion:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211021v2
.pdf

Julian Barbour: "The greatest need is for an explanation of the Hubble red shift that does not rely on expansion of the universe. (...) The estimates of section 7 show how readily the scale-invariant potential energy can increase if the universe becomes more clumpy. Scale-invariant gravity must, in the first place, yield a cause of the Hubble red shift. The only plausible candidate that I can see is this change in the 'potential' of the universe induced by such clumping. It is suitably great and, according to the standard model, has been happening since the end of inflation. Therefore, the conjecture has to be that somehow the change in potential causes the Hubble red shift. This is not inherently impossible. We know that differences in the gravitational potential give rise to a gravitational red shift."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, if Hubble redshift is not due to expansion, it would be due to some version of the "tired light" mechanism. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, if Hubble redshift is not due to expansion, it is due to anything except some version of the "tired light" mechanism.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
George Ellis "argues that although the block universe view of time that comes out of relativity seems to indicate that time is an illusion--with past, present and future all existing on equal footing--that model is wrong."

Again, rejecting the consequent without even mentioning (let alone questioning) the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 postulates). Scientific rationality seems to be completely destroyed.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
The principle seems to be: The false antecedent should be kept intact so that we can regularly reject the absurd consequent and waste FQXi's money:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
Watched Ellis and Barbour. Ellis does a good job of explaining why time has to be a process and not just a dimension. Interesting that he still mentions an expanding universe, without appreciating that the whole idea of an expanding universe requires the dynamic of the time vector to have space expand. Otherwise it's meaningless to have something with no physical properties expand.

Barbour also does a good job of removing time as a fundamental property.

Hard to really critique videos though, as opposed to giving serious thought to something written down and able to reference easily.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 02:18 GMT
Time ultimately depends upon intelligible distance in/of space, among other things. Time ultimately depends upon gravity as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 05:47 GMT
Sounds a god job I wasn't there!

Time is a conceptualisation of an inherent quality of the reality we experience. It does not exist. All entities which comprise reality are changing, and that is what we experience. Change does not necessitate space or a value, in the sense that only one existent state, in any given change sequence, exists at a time. That is, at any point in time, reality comprises the last existent state of everything. But sensory representations of existent states, which is the information we receive, exist independently of them.

Change involves:

- sequence, which is a number of discrete states in a specific order

- rate, the speed at which any given state replaces its predecessor

From the elementary particle perspective, entities are changing at every point in time. But decomposition to that level of detail does not aid understanding of most change processes. So any given sequence of change is considered at an appropriate level. At that level of definition, rates of change vary in any permutation, and the same entity may be considered in terms of a number of attributes (ie change sequences).

We have created a duration measuring system, known as time. But this is timing. It enables us to compare disparate sequences of change in terms of a common denominator. Logically, the best unit for this system would be the quickest, non-variable, example of change in reality. In sum, had time been understood at the outset, we would not have invented the concept, and would instead be considering change sequences in terms of change units.

The whole of reality may be expanding, but this is not time either. And, since it is omnipresent, it is not detectable, other than by comparison with the apparent rate in the past.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 21:24 GMT
Rate is only speed if measuring magnitude of distance -in an amount of time-. Rate is a ratio for comparison of one change against another.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 21:47 GMT
Paul,

I said that because it doesn't work well if it is argued that time does not exist because it is only change (which might incidentally also be thought of as energy) but then time is brought back in to explain those changes. Wording is very important for accuracy and correctness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 09:00 GMT
Georgina

The simple answer to your posts is, timing is not time.

Look out the window for 10 minutes (then envisage what might happen in 1 year, 100 years, etc, because it gets boring!). Now, what do you experience? Answer: change. Everything around you (indeed including you) is changing, in a variety of ways and at any number of rates. Where’s time? Answer: nowhere. It’s a concept, it has no existence. Change does, don’t get me wrong I am not saying time is some form of psychological illusion or whatever. Obviously, we want to be able to quantify these rates, and compare disparate types of change, so we have a change duration measuring system (unfortunately called time).

Another way of expressing this is, if we had understood it from the outset, then we would be talking in terms of change and change units of measurement. Reality is changing, we use a measuring system to quantify it.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
Any fundamental or ultimate understanding of time FULLY includes and incorporates instantaneity. Any true and fundamental understanding of physics

FULLY incorporates and includes instantaneity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:47 GMT
Our variable extensiveness (and growth) in and with time and space ultimately requires instantaneity. Think about it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:51 GMT
The fundamental and ultimate understanding of physics includes the body. Do any of you dispute this?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
Consciousness is delayed because it reduces the temporal reactivity of the self. In dreams and in waking, one never comes back the same. Continuity ultimately requires sameness/similarity and extensiveness, among other things.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 03:04 GMT
Zeeya,

Slightly off topic, but happened across your article in Nature, on the connections between condensed matter physics and string theory. Quite interesting.

It's been my suspicion that some aspects of the mathematical treatment of physics isn't pointing towards other worlds and universes, but not fully considered aspects of this reality. The effort to create completely abstract descriptions of reality makes it conceptually easy to completely disconnect with reality. Such as treating space as three dimensional, rather than treating three dimensions as just one frame.

"Polchinski admits that the condensed-matter sceptics have a point. "I don't think that string theorists have yet come up with anything that condensed-matter theorists don't already know," he says. The quantitative results tend to be re-derivations of answers that condensed-matter theorists had already calculated using more mundane methods."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 07:32 GMT
John

Too right. Most of the maths and the underlying assumptions has lost all connectivity with the fundamental logic of reality.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 21:00 GMT
Hi John,

Thank you for noticing that article! You have inspired me to add a link to it in a new post on establishing scientific truth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 10:53 GMT
Paul,

I wouldn't say most and I wouldn't blame the math, so much as the mathematicians for losing sight of the fact that the same reality can be modeled many different ways doesn't mean there are correspondingly many different realities. The example I use is that one can create a mathematically precise geocentric cosmology and could even make a self-centric one, since we are the center of our own reality, but that doesn't mean there are giant cosmic gear wheels, or a universal anti-self to make the math work.

Similarly there is no need for blocktime in relativity, or multiworlds in QM, if time is treated as emerging from action and the collapse of future probabilities into past circumstance, rather than an underlaying dimension along which the present either moves from past to future, or subjectively exists.

In computer programing, the saying is; Junk in, junk out. So when the math starts pointing off in weird directions, it doesn't always mean the reality is weird, but that some factor is wrong in the math.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 08:05 GMT
Agreed This has been the subject of other threads within the past view days, all of which have since gone dead.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Is Einstein's 1905 light postulate true? An equivalent question: Can a sentient being "jump, within a minute (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth"?

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute"). No wonder that many people, attached to the usual idea of an external flow of time, refused to believe that the travelling twin will come back younger than his sedentary brother."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 01:09 GMT
Pentcho,

According to relativity, light has no time, so presumably something traveling at light speed doesn't age. The problem with this theory is that since all internal energy is converted to light, it burns up. Basically it would be like saying that if I were to throw a log on the fire, it would appear to burn up to me, but for the log, time would simply stop, since it has turned to light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 07:10 GMT
John

Light has plenty of time to travel in relativity. That is what local time is, ie for the timing of events (eg existence, receipt of information about it). The problem is that, based on a misunderstanding of time, local time has been reified and deemed to be a manifestation of reality (ie a dimension).

In respect of light travelling in general, this was the main topic of an exchange in Neutrino Black Magic, thread started by Pentcho 10/10 10.17, and involving Eckard. It has gone quiet in the past couple of days, so my question posed in that thread remains unanswered.

My question, which was aimed at demonstrating the fallacy of the ‘always c wrt observer’ concept, can be considered as follows:

Either:

a) light travels at the same speed in all circumstances

b) light travels at different speeds due to circumstances

If a), then why all this discussion? Light always takes the same amount of time to travel the same distance, irrespective of circumstances.

If b), then how does a variance result from the influence of an observer? Light is independent of observer, indeed it ceases to exist at the point in time when it makes contact with eyeball.

Have you, or indeed anybody else, got a view?

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 08:24 GMT
Paul,

Let me try to make your question more concrete. The observer starts moving against the waves and MEASURES, as a result, the frequency to have increased. If these were water waves, he would easily measure the speed of the wavecrests (relative to him) as well: it is higher, just as the frequency. The physical picture is more than simple.

Now if the waves are light waves, the observer MEASURES the frequency again (it has increased) but is unable to directly measure the speed of the wavecrests, for purely technical reasons (the speed of light is extremely high). But this should not prevent us from asking:

If the observer were able to directly measure the speed of the light wavecrests (relative to him), would he find it to increase as he starts moving against the waves, as in the case of the water waves? In other words, does the MEASURED increase in frequency correlate with an increase in speed (relative to the observer), as the "more than simple" picture suggests?

Note that if the answer is "no", the only remaining explanation is this:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapter
s/big_bang/index.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 11:11 GMT
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true, then the youthfulness of the travelling twin both has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered and is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibb
ons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chap
ters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 16:19 GMT
I realize that trying to counter this endless stream of rot is like trying to bail the ocean with a teaspoon. However, one does what one can.

The twin "paradox" is NOT a paradox. It has nothing directly to do with clock readings, "suffering acceleration", travelling "twice as far" or whatever. It is a completely straightforward and well understood consequence of the relativistic non-simultaneity of events. That is, the twins in their respective inertial frames each AGE NORMALLY; i.e., no matter how much separation between the two, their clocks are synchronized at the same rate, all the way to infinity. At relativistic distance, however, each sees the other as aging more slowly, because of the limit of receiving information from the other -- just as an exploding supernova looks "young" to our eyes even though it may be hundreds of thousands of years old in its own frame. Each appears to the other to be negatively accelerating, relatively speaking.

If the travelling twin reverses course to return to her brother, it would be equivalent to the supernova growing ever older in its frame, while the observer grows proportionately younger. In other words, suppose you were in the same space of the supernova event origin, and therefore aging at the same rate as the supernova -- reversing your course to try and return to the origin means that you would have to travel faster and therefore age more slowly relative to the supernova event, because your clocks are no longer synchronized -- you are in an accelerated frame relative to the rest frame of the event. Approaching the origin, you would find that the event appears to have greatly aged because YOU have aged less, RELATIVE to that rest frame, even though you appear to yourself to have aged normally. There is no PRIVILEGED frame of reference; each is valid.

The supernova grows at some speed determined by its initial condition (a speed that you shared at the birth of the event, just like the twins); when you leave the rest frame for an accelerated frame, neither you nor the supernova have gotten any younger. You've simply de-synchronized your clocks, but the symmetry of motion between positive acceleration and negative acceleration remains.

Okay, back to the regular nonsense. Rant mode [off].

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Tom,

I welcome your clarifying additions to the conversation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 17:14 GMT
Gary W. Gibbons FRS defends Einstein's 1911 conviction (the youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered):

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a
909857880

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78. Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

John Norton defends Einstein's 1918 conviction (the youthfulness of the travelling twin is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered):

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objecti
ons_against_the_theory_of_relativity

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4. This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 06:57 GMT
When discussing sound waves, physicists readily admit that an observer moving towards the wave source cannot change the wavelength (it remains constant) so the speed of the wave relative to him is equal to the speed of the wave relative to a stationary observer plus the speed of the observer relative to the source. That is, the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIqSYmjlhC8&feature=
related

This variation of the speed of the wave is obviously universal (valid for all kinds of waves) but is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Accordingly, referring it to light waves could be fatal for one's career. Still physicists forget the danger sometimes:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fich
iers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 13:59 GMT
Stephen Hawking: Moving source changes the wavelength:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-
Hawking/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."

What if the light source is stationary and the observer starts moving towards it? How can the moving observer change the wavelength? If he cannot, then the redshift and blueshift are due to... a variation of the speed of light relative to the observer? Hawking would never answer. Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why he should.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 08:13 GMT
Sound waves behave sanely in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Class/phy141md/doku.php?id=ph
y141:lectures:30

"A doppler effect also occurs when an observer moves towards a source, but here the wavelength does not change, instead it is the effective velocity that changes and leads to an apparent change in the frequency of the sound."

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the following text would be commonplace:

"A doppler effect also occurs when an observer moves towards a source, but here the wavelength does not change, instead it is the effective velocity that changes and leads to an apparent change in the frequency of the LIGHT."

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the observer moving towards the sound source evokes no thoughts about an observer moving towards a light source:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 12:30 GMT
http://www.flashcardmachine.com/waves6.html

"Moving Observer - frequency increases if the moving towards, decreases if moving away. Wavelength does not change. The actual speed of the wave does not change but to the observer the speed appears to change."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/S
ec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Such texts do not exist in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world - they are untexts. The authors are unpersons:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
The theoretical/thoughtful fullness and accuracy regarding unifying/describing inertia and gravity is ultimately inseparable from the experience thereof. FACT!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 17:47 GMT
". . . then how does a variance result from the influence of an observer?"

It doesn't.

"Light is independent of observer, indeed it ceases to exist at the point in time when it makes contact with eyeball."

When a photon is absorbed, by an eyeball or anything else, it exists or doesn't exist to the same extent that it did in flight. The particle is massless.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 09:07 GMT
Tom,

I had to search for the text you referred to as to realize that you were responding to questions by Paul who also mentioned that I did not yet respond to his repeatedly put alternative between a and b.

The reason for me to postpone my answer was lacking time. I decided to first try and shed hopefully light into the OPERA dispute among the more than one hundred authors who agreed with publication and those who disagreed because they do not believe that neutrinos can be travel faster than light. I am in debt to you Tom for your effort to point me to allegedly compelling evidence for SR even if did not consider this propaganda conclusive.

Don't the data from OPERA, MINOS, T2K, and other experiments provide one more possibility to find out whether or not there is a light carrying medium? Unfortunately, only data from OPERA were easily available to me. While I could roughly find out the direction from Fermilab to MINOS, I only guess that K is westward from T because Gifu is westward from Tokyo. I need the time data.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:29 GMT
Eckard,

The big hole in the OPERA experiment is the absence of 2-way measurement. That is, do particles reaching a conveniently chosen point occupy an identical time interval in returning to the point of origin?

Even if neutrinos do have a speed slightly in excess of the speed of light in vacuo (and this indeed would be exciting to learn) it would only be damaging to relativity if time-reverse symmetry were violated. There are other ways to explain the faster speed without violating the symmetry of spacetime -- I prefer Joy Christian's model, which uses the analogy of the "Pacman" video game in which a character disappears at one edge of the screen and reappears at the opposite edge.

Using a well-understood classical analogy, Kepler's elliptical orbits preserve time reverse symmetry ("equal areas in equal times"), so hypothetically, neutrinos (or any particle with mass) that exceed the speed of light in one direction may slow in the opposite direction, so that the total time reconciles velocity to the universal constant. Christian's choice of topology preserves spacetime symmetry, and I am convinced it is correct.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 19:02 GMT
Constructivists in Einsteiniana:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1661/1/Minkowsk
i.pdf

MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY, Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley: "It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep structure within a "constructive" version of the special theory of relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical community. (...) What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame."

Do rods and clocks behave "as they do"? That is, can arbitrarily long objects be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers? Can a bug be squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to another? If not, can light "have the same speed in each inertial frame"?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pol
e.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. (...) ...the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT
John Norton teaches believers to reject Newtonian spacetime and worship Einsteinian spacetime:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spa
cetime_rel_sim/index.html

John Norton: "In Newtonian spacetimes, there is only one way to do this, so a Newtonian spacetime unstacks into a unique set of spaces. In this sense, space and time remain distinct even if we represent the physics in a spacetime. In a relativistic (i.e. Minkowski) spacetime, the relativity of simultaneity tells us that there are many ways to do this; there is no unique, preferred unstacking. In this sense, space and time get fused together and this fusion is the real novelty of the spacetime approach in relativity theory. This novelty is surely what Hermann Minkowski had in mind when he wrote in the introduction to his famous lecture "Space and Time" of 1908: "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

Believers sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

John Norton teaches believers to reject Einsteinian spacetime and worship Newtonian spacetime:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-make
s-the-universe-tick.html

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

The ecstasy gets uncontrollable: believers tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 22:53 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Why not fill your posts with what you think? I mean, give your ideas support. I think one of your ideas is that the speed of light increases as light approaches the Earth. Is this correct? Why don't you spend some effort in proving it? Your campaign of continuous quotes from others suffers from explanation and proof of what it is that you think is real physics? What is your position, without constant referrals to other's quotes which may or may not be taken out of context, about the nature of the universe?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 07:08 GMT
Agreed.

And furthermore, can you please stay in one thread, with as far as possible, one topic. As per my side comments in a couple of posts above, engaging in discussion in this forum is very difficult. Threads go dead, off topic, etc.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 06:23 GMT
Self-mutilation of Einsteiniana's minds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-time-we-
thought-we-knew.html

Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed that the wristwatches worn by two individuals moving...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Georgina wrote: "relativity works with space-time, a construct in which distances between objects and events can vary for different observers and each observer has his own clock. (...) Things appear to happen differently for different observers because space and time are combined into space-time and the common sense view of absolute distances and passage of time doesn't apply. No conspiracy just a different way of describing what is going on."

Still observers must observe the same events. If the observer travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM and some postulate of special relativity is false:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 01:18 GMT
Pentcho,

they observe -different- manifestations formed from the sensory data produced by those events. They are not seeing the objects themselves. The objects themselves, the actualisations , the actually existing arrangements of particles are never seen.The difference has to be grasped. There is another facet of reality that is unseen.

If only the data that can be measured is considered real then there are magic rabbits that come into existence only when revealed.

Otherwise there is a reality that exists even when not observed. That is the rabbit that exists concealed within the magicians hat unseen. Don't take what is observed at face value and assume -it- must be identical with what exists and must exist simultaneously for all.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 05:49 GMT
The false assumption, causing the paradox, is that the manifestation seen exists externally to the observer, as the object, as it is seen and that it (the manifestation) is the externally existing object. Not so IMHO. Pole, rivet, bug , barn ,travelling twin are all formed from sensory data into an output reality -different- from the source reality, the externally existing object providing the data by reflection of EM, and different from that object as it exists simultaneously to observation of the processed output manifestation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 07:34 GMT
Paul Reed wrote: "... my underlying point. Which is: Light (as in what we can realise as an optical image) cannot always travel at c wrt observer."

Paul,

This is an epitaph (on the tombstone of modern physics). Do you realise that?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT
Just for the record, I copied this into the correct thread, ie Pentcho 24/10 18.54, and asked questions

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Instantaneity is a fundamental FACT of space, time, and physics where the understanding of physics meets its limits/end.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
Whatever the modern physicists can't understand, they then avoid and do not try to understand it. This narrowness of vision/mind is unacceptable. The extensiveness of thought is inseparable from/linked with the extensiveness and accuracy of physical description.

It is not even known/understood what "mass" is.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 02:03 GMT
Well, that's a lot of thought that I completely glossed over. Less is more. On to video number two. Hi, Georgina!

GE on Thee...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 03:17 GMT
Wow, that was fantastik by G. Ellis. Thanks; but I hope he was updating an earlier longer (slower) lecture lol? I am so glad I wasn't there: he speaks very rapidly in a pleasant english accent. Way too rapidly for me to follow to be honest. Luckily (I mean inevitably, due to adaptive selection), us watchers of this second video on EXISTENCE have a super-power nobody there posessed: we can use the pause button, thoroughly and longlingly... So we can read the notes. After doing that and grokking some of that subsequently, I look forward to checking out the paper he mentioned publishing soon? Again, wow. Thanks again for not inviting me lol... This is a very pleasant and vicarious voyage: must have been a whirlwind of geniuses... Also, if I understand correctly, one essence of Mr Ellis' argument is that the Future exists in a different sense of the term "exists" than the Past & the Present, which may or may not exist in the same way as each other. That's brilliant.

And so then the next logical conclusion is that once the difference between the two technical senses of the usages of the term "exists" is uncovered, adaptive selection, complex emergent block universes, and even the way we read, learn and think--even the way stars and planets form (which will then be the same 'way'), is fully understood. Do we exist, in the same sense that time does? That's a more general way to ask Does Time Exist. Brilliant squared...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 03:21 GMT
I saw 7 of the "F"s in the example shown by Mr. Ellis. And pretended not to see the 8th. Seriously...

How many did the rest of you see. I did only see 4 at first glance lol...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 08:07 GMT
5 at first, non of the ofs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 23:18 GMT
I suspected there were more to find than I might think, so i was looking carefully, using that "magic stopwatch superpower". Still missed the ofs. If I had not suspected I would no doubt have seen less.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 10:07 GMT
Do "we have to change the mathematics we traditionally use to view the structure of space-time"? I say yes and no.

Yes, as I tried to explain in my three essays, mathematics deserves revision. But no, we may not expect a more appropriate mathematics justify mistakes in physics. What about special theory of relativity, I found out that Lorentz followed Michelson who wrote in 1887:

"To account for the phenomenon of aberration Fresnel supposed the luminiferous ether at rest, the earth moving through this medium without communicating any perceptible part of its motion..."

As said by Jonas Avater in Physics Forums: "If we drug a bubble of ether with us the amount of stellar aberration we measure would be much less or absent altogether."

Were they correct? Is Shtryrkov wrong?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 10:55 GMT
Eckard,

Shtyrkov's premise:

Ether 100% dragged at the earth surface and only partially dragged at some altitude

is too awkward. I have neither the time nor the energy to justify my claim but somehow feel that the implications would be quite absurd.

Best regards, Pentcho

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
Pentcho,

Styrkov's results were measured by means of aberration angle changing with rotation of earth around its axis and around the sun. Observing a geostationary satellite, he argued that for three obvious reasons this angle is "depending ONLY ON PARAMETERS OF OBSERVER'S MOTION."

Where did you find his premise? His paper of concern is not free of misspellings but nonetheless written in easily readable logically flawless English.

Someone who claims something should always be ready to justify his claim or be silent. Gut feelings do not count in science. To me a strong evidence for behavior like a wave, not like Newtonian/Einsteinian mass points has been reproducible provided by accelerators, in which c could not be exceeded even with very high energy.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 19:32 GMT
Eckard,

Shtyrkov's premise:

Ether 100% dragged at the earth surface and only partially dragged at some altitude

is implicit in the following text:

http://bourabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf

"However,
in most cases tests performed at sea level gave negative results. That appears to confirm Stokes' hypothesis of ether drag by the moving Earth. (...) Thus, a positive result might be obtained by carrying out the experiment beyond the layer of entrained ether..."

Best regards, Pentcho

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 04:37 GMT
Just seen Tim Maudlin's video. Well presented, he is a good speaker...

Concluding remark-

Tim Maudlin says "What is the origin of the geometry of space-time? the origin of the geometry is the intrinsic ordering structure that time itself provides."

I'm biting my tongue does anyone else have any comments to add.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 16:03 GMT
If measurement is to be considered the basis of reality, why is temperature not considered as fundamental as space and time?

Consider that the universe is presumed to have begun as an enormous burst of energy that has since cooled down, as this energy expanded to volume, to the point of the cosmic background radiation temperature of 3.7k. Given this direct correlation between increasing volume and decreasing temperature, one could presumably predict the age of the universe by its background temperature.

Spacetime is considered a physical mechanism, determining the relationships between mass and energy. While temperature is a scalar average of cumulative motion in a given area. So it would seem a direct vector between points is fundamental to reality, yet a scalar average is only just a measurement.

One could break that measure down to lots of points moving about within a given space and everyone of them could constitute a clock, correlating the distance traveled to the duration required. More distance to shorter duration would correspond to faster clock rate and higher temperature.

So it would seem that temperature is also a correlation between distance and duration, just like spacetime, but combining multiple clocks and thus reflecting a broader reality.

So the question is, again, why is temperature "just" a measurement and not a foundational mechanism of the larger reality?

Remember that at the first moment of the universe, there wasn't much time or space, but there was a lot of thermal activity, which converted into time and space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
Finally I've seen the Craig Callender video. He sets out some of the problems of time, and has some interesting suggestions. Stuff about light cone type surfaces in particular. The last "cm" is intriguing. Don't really know what to say about it though... Yes there are lots of different directions of data production and data signals spreading out in the environment. The surfaces though do not exist except theoretically as only the youngest iteration of the object universe exists imo.So that light cone is made up of a number of different iterations of the object universe at the foundational reality level, or one might say to tie the terminology together, the past multiverse as each iteration of the universe is different and not identical to the previous existence as there is continual change. But consideration of such hypothetical surfaces and how the manifestation produced from that data when intercepted must be subsequent to the production of it elsewhere is useful.

I'm thinking about it like this: Production might be regarded as in the future relative to the present of the observer as it has not yet been observed but will be, rather than has been observed and is no longer. I'm calling that the pre-written future. So although intuitively the present is built up from the past and at the foundational level what -is- is formed from what was (the sequential change); due to non infinite data transmission delay what is observed (manifestation ) has a variable lag behind actualisation and the data production from that actualisation. Which is then giving observation that is not in accord with a simple uniform arrow of time from past to present for all observers but gives non simultaneity and relativity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 01:50 GMT
Now I want to cut the thing up and make it 3 dimensional.

Its really bugging me. The output reality can't just be a sub set of the uni-temporal source reality. So its "floating there in limbo", on another level, part of the source reality but also not, seemingly superposed but not. Its incongruent.!! I don't think conventional maths will allow me to put a 4 space-time dimensions inside a 3...

view entire post


attachments: 1_Corrected_NEW_RICP_DIAG.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
Georgina

Because it is n spatial dimensions at any point in time. It is timing. And one also has to unravel the time-lines of the three continua involved (existent actuality, existent representation thereof, observer receipt of that).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
Paul ,

its simple on the one hand but also very complicated. I can't talk to you about the complications as judging from our previous discussions it would take to long to explain and would get nowhere. Farewell.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


[[ddlink]] wrote on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
numerals Pointer on the dial diamond elements as the reference object the 1940 landing aircraft twin engine .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
Georgina

May I offer an ontological 3D foundation to your diagram? I don't believe you can get any closer in 2D. You'll need to step back and decouple from where you are to eventually re-approach from a different viewpoint. I also agree with you about maths. One major limitation exposed by what I'm about to describe is the modelling of particles as points. They cannot be infinitely small, and their non zero dimensions hold an important key to macroscopic effects in the DFM, i.e. Space-Time, which I've been working on with John Minkowski from the quantum optics angle. Try this;

Consider a 50mm diameter circle on a page. This is a vastly simplified representation of a particle. There may be a vortex or any form of motion within, but we have defined some limits.

Now draw a line across the top of the page, and name it 't' zero. Now draw a line half way between this and the particle and name it 't' one. We are considering evolution of wave particle interaction, and the lines are waves approaching the particle. Now draw some more lines equidistant below the others, but going 'behind' not crossing the particle.

Now draw 5 more circles each 10mm to the left of an overlapping the first. Name them 't' two - 6. This is the medium of a refractive plane moving laterally. Now trace some fixed points on the wavefront (lines) and floow them as they intersect the circumference of the circle with evolution of time, and consider what may happen to the optical axis of the part of the signal interacting with the particle signal when re-emitted by it.

We have called it DFM space-time rotation. It happens when a signal is emitted BY a massive object, at it's fine structure, as well as when arriving at a new massive object, perhaps a lens. Of course the re-emission will be at c wrt the particle so arrival rate will always be modulated vertically to the local c.

This will then provide a structure for the macroscopic effects observed.

Let me know how you get on.

best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 23:27 GMT
No Peter,

you made me go and look up ontological to make sure I understood it. The diagram is the ontological foundation. From Wikipedia: "...ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences."

You are talking about something possibly going on within the data pool which is within a subset of it.

The structure as given is necessary to overcome the paradoxes and foundational questions especially to have space-time but no time paradox, to have QM and space-time relativity existing together. Allows partial non determinism, non locality etc, etc. Its simple but not trivial.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT
Peter

The ontological foundation to any such diagram is to reflect what is actually happening. Apart from anything else, the so-called paradoxes, etc, would then dissappear.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
Georgina

I quite understand your viewpoint, but it seems you did not try the last step back to test another. Let's consider ontology in relation to what mankind is trying to achieve.

At the most basic level possible, nature is one.

Physics is not the divided unrelated incompatible subjects we impose through poor understanding. We need to understand HOW quantum mechanisms lead directly to macro classical observation. This must be possible, so must be our ultimate aim, (as Boscovitch, Einstein, Penrose etc. have all said). This is ontology in science - what are the concrete realities and how do they fit together logically to make the observed effects.

In this case your excellent two dimensional diagram does indeed need another dimension, beyond the metaphysical, to the real entities and their mechanical relationships. i.e. what really makes space 'curved' i.e. space-time (and it is NOT mathematics!). It can only get that dimension if you can see precisely why it needs it.

When we identify what we need to achieve we will have a chance of achieving it. if we cannot identify it we will never find it. So let us examine the paradoxes you say your diagram resolves.

How does it explain co-variance of c for all moving observers?

What is an inertial frame?

How does it resolve duality?

How does your diagram derive length contraction?

And time dilation? etc.

I believe you are well on the way to doing all of these at once, but cannot progress until you step back further, away from where you were, let go for a mo, and take an overview of where you are and where it is you need to get to. Only then go back.

Did you derive anything mechanistically from the intersection of the moving plane waves and circumference of the moving circle. For instance, a joining of the intersection points across the circle which is not horizontal? Reality is only uni-temporal at one frozen point in time. Interaction also involves evolution in time.

Paul - I think that is the clearest most concise and accurate description I have ever read from you. Bravo. Keep it there. Can you find a link between my moving circle and line interactions, and the quantum explanation for unexplained macro observation? Delay in observing is only one key part of the puzzle.

Consider; The words 'no' and 'never' do not belong in nature, only in human minds.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
Eckard

Yes; 'Frame' transformation. I couldn't find where I wrote 'floow', and I hope all the other questions are answered above, and you can now see the issue.

As Nobel Laureate Sir William Bragg said;

"The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them."

We make far too many assumptions and, once imprinted in our brains, are far too resistant to stepping away and reviewing them.

Can you now see the point about Shtyrkov's wrong assumption in interpretation?

Consistently believing that only considering change from one inertial frame is adequate in all cases is consistently missing the window onto what is wrong with current physics.

If you consistently fall with a leaf, does that mean that all and any measurements taken by the guys watching it from the ground are entirely irrelevant!? Once eyes are opened afresh a genuine insight into inertial frame ontology will emerge.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 15:10 GMT
Peter

“If you consistently fall with a leaf, does that mean that all and any measurements taken by the guys watching it from the ground are entirely irrelevant!?”

No. But neither does it mean what you are asserting either.

Leaving aside any notion of dimension change for the sake of this point. There are 3 circumstances to consider:

1 The sequences of existent states, of themselves.

2 The sequences of light based representations (which are also physically existent phenomena) of those existent states.

3 The relative spatial positions of each of the various observers vis a vis the existent states, when comparing the timing point at which existence occurred to the timing point at which the information (light) was received (seen, intercepted), and the conditions for travel in each case for the medium conveying the representation (eg light).

The existent states in respect of an ‘entity’ exist one at a time. The representation ceases to exist when received (seen, intercepted). Both these are real, and exist independently of, and before being received by, the observer. But they are different.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
time is a numerical sequence of change of timeless universe, see more on

www.spacelife.si

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
Amrit

Correct(ish), ie the words could be open to various interpretations!

There is only a sequence of discrete existent states. There is no form of change, or time, within any given existent state. We can compare the frequency of change (or analyse the substance of the differences). It is timing, not time. Time does not exist. This has significant implications, one of which I am trying to pursue in the current dialogue between Ray & Joy over in On the Origins...

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ewan S Fallon wrote on Feb. 2, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Zeeya,

Enjoy your magazine stuff. It seems to me that fundamental theories deserve a story. Instead of trying to put a bunch of numbers together in different combinations, to describe the big picture, perhaps we should have plot that thickens. This was the case in the late '50's when I fed my engineering mind with different scenarios in opposition to the mother of all symbols --- Relativity and its bent space, as described by the "childlike" rubber sheet and ball illustration. It started of course with the M and M experiment, which seemed to do funny things with time. It was the "seemed " that got to me, and started the story. There is a zen observation which decries reducing everything to symbols, as we do. We tell a child that "this is a tree" when in truth it is only the language symbol for a tree, not the tree itself. Einsteinium and Quantum Mechanics are the epitome of symbolic nebulous.

After many years of Quixotic endeavors I have put together a story of the "what if" of my best guesses.

Could I possibility interest you, if even faintly, in a professional write up of same?

thank you

attachments: Ether_Front_Case.jpg, Ether_Inside_Case_copy.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
John and Jim,

I have given explanations in the past that I intended to be helpful in arguing in favor of the existence of time irrespective of change. Those efforts didn't make any headway. Maybe it is because those who argue time does not exist do reasonably expect a more direct answer identifying time without change.

I think that can be done, I have avoided doing it because it involves explaining cause. I have mentioned before that there are three properties of the universe that are not available for us to isolate and experiment upon. They are cause, space and time. I work with a single cause for all effects.I haven't explained the nature of that cause yet.

The reason is because it involves theoretical changes that begin with changing the interpretaton of mass in f=ma. That point by itself hasn't gained traction here. So, jumping passed it to other changes that follow or even directly to cause is not currently an attractive choice for me. Perhaps a future essay entry will give me that chance.

For now, there is something I have decided might be usefully said. It is that in my work: The existence of both space and time are established by cause. In other words, before effects even occur, there is a need to describe cause. In that description, both space and time play central roles. They are a part of cause. The physical description of cause, as I use it, includes both space and time as physically present. However, there is no such description in this message.

I know that this message is not even close to being sufficient to make my case. I won't even be trying to make my case until I see progress on other preliminary points. The sole purpose of this message is to suggest that I think I do have an answer for the question: Where is time as well as what is space. Whether this is true or not is something to be resolved at a later date.

I don't even want to try get started making that case because I already have tried to get started to make the case to no avail. I haven't proven anything yet. So, my point is not to win any points with this message other than making the point that I hope to find a more promising way of doing it here in the future. At that point, my view can be helpfully critiqued by others. Thank you for your interest and relevent messages.

James

p.s. I have a paper that has been accepted for presentation in a 25 minute talk at a conference that takes place in less than two weeks. I haven't decide yet whether to pay-up, travel, and attend. The relevance of that paper to the contents of this message is that the paper demonstrates how to calculate the universal gravitational constant from known properties. G is not a given in my work. The change I make to mass and the other theoretical changes that it leads to make it possible to derive the universal gravitation constant without learning of it through experimentation. My point is that I get results, they just aren't attractive here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
James

"The sole purpose of this message is to suggest that I think I do have an answer for the question: Where is time as well as what is space".

And as per previous requests, the last one being in respect of time (Entropy Jim 17/2 23.51), could you please clarify what existent phenomena these two concepts correspond with.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT
Paul,

As per my per re your per, there will be no per per your per.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT
James

Fair enough, but presumably sooner or later you will specify this. In the meantime, I will provide an answer (as stated many times previously):

Time: in reality, the phenomenon which is referred to as time, is an attribute of the process of change in physically existent states. It being the frequency with which any change occurs and therefore a state is superseded by the next. In the context of measurement, this can be timed, which involves the comparison of frequencies of change.

Space: in reality, space is any spatial position which is not occupied by an elementary particle. So it can be extrinsic to one entity, but intrinsic to another, larger, entity, and is determined by individual particles, or conglomerates thereof.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bo Nyberg wrote on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 23:54 GMT
Explaining Time.

Looking through the FQXi pages I see a lot of arguing about personal approaches to the problem, mainly between just a few participants.

At the same time very little original thinking about the subject is being offered.

Hopefully the ideas here presented: The dynamic present will remedy that.

Bosse Nyberg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 00:06 GMT
Hi Bo,

So original thinking is to be pized automatically? How about correct thinking? Is that what is at "The dynamic present"? You can tell, I suppose, that these 'talking down from on high' messages do not carry weight with me. I suggest that you bring your argument here. Say what you think in your words. FQXi.org is a good place to do so. I think that there is a good chance that someone or other here may agree with your perspective whatever it is.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 05:37 GMT
Hi Bo,

it would be good to have more participants contributing to discussions here. Is it possible for you to give a brief intro. to you idea here? I am a bit reluctant to open links as I no longer trust my internet security to protect my computer from new viruses and Trojans. If you look into this site a bit further you will find a lot of original thinking among the Blog stories starting each thread and amongst the posts of the few regular participants in discussions. It is scattered, though, over many different threads and topics.

It is really fascinating to me how strongly everyone feels about their own particular very different projects. I suspect you will be no different. On the down side there is little agreement or overlap in approaches and so very little collaboration, or positive appraisal, or development of ideas in any particular direction. On the positive side there is also very little moderation so you can present what you think, unlike on other sites that restrict participants to talking about known and accepted physics. That gentle moderation has recently has been severely abused and there has been a great deal of very nasty personal insult, belittling and ridicule on certain threads. Which is a great pity as it used to be a very pleasant, tolerant educational site. Hope that description has not deterred you -Welcome.

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.