Humans are so arrogant, assuming that their brain -- which evolved to comprehend a classical world only -- must in 80-odd years also achieve "Anschaulichkeit" of the quantum world through the same neural channels and utilizing the same cognitive modeling.
I am reminded of a quote by John Marburger, in his review of the play "Copenhagen": "We cannot help but think of the [detector] clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles."
We still have quite a ways to go.
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 11:27 GMT
Karl
Apart from the 'interference factor' (psychology, physiology, etc) endemic to the processing of information received, we "go wrong" for two basic reasons:
1 A failure to differentiate reality from the sensory representations of that reality (ie light, noise, heat, etc)which is the information we receive, the two existent phenomena being different
2 A conceptualisation of reality which inherently invokes a degree of change into any existent state which does not exist, by viewing it in terms of 'entities' which then change in various ways, rather than a sequence of different existent states (which happen to look similar because we do not have the ability to perceptually differentiate them-until it becomes 'obvious').
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
Karl
We "extrapolate from that event the conclusion that a localized particle was speeding toward the detector and then interacted with it."
I must agree, and add that we have not considered other perfectly reasonable and common alternative ontologies, such as;
Pressure builds up gradually and is released in a 'quanta'. Examples are lightning, raindrops, internal combustion engines, and the filling of bags on a production line.
The only part of the Copenhagen interpretation which I find I can agree with is the part that uses this conception (prior to misinterpretation).; The quanta (particle) does not exist until the interaction.
I've found that ontology very successful. Unfortunately that takes us back to your first point; when our brains gave been conditioned with a set of assumptions an Anschaulichkeit which does not match those assumptions is not recognised as valid.
Penrose showed quite logically that we can never unite QM and Relativity with conserved photons. Non conserved photons, or (local) 're'-emmission theory does however seem to work very nicely as an Anschaulichkeit. Have you seen this;?
http://www.quantumrealism.net/uploads/ExtinctionShiftP
rinciple_An_Introduction_20Oct2006_1_.pdf
Best regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 08:40 GMT
Peter
"The quanta (particle) does not exist until the interaction".
So what does exist?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Paul
In Copenhagen only a probability exists. That's where the moon doesn't exist unless we're looking at it.
I tried a sequence of experiments to disprove that. Admittedly over the bridge in Malmo.
I first looked away but checked in a mirror. It was still there. I then rang and asked a friend to look when I had my eyes shut. It was still there. I then asked no-one to look but videod the shadows from the full moon. They remained (though as the moon may have gone I watched for a few seconds longer to make sure).
I eventually found an ontology, or Anschaulichkeit, matching all observation plus both SR and QM. (Unification);
I screened the moon so I could only see it's light going past not that arriving direct at my eye or camera lens. I found I could not see the moonlight at all. Absolutely nothing! I decided, as QM, that this must be because it was not interacting with anything. I looked at some matter in it's path and sure enough found that the quanta DID exist after interaction!
I then looked at the moon with my lens, and sure enough found that the quanta came into existence on interaction with my lens.
This meant Copenhagen was correct if interpreted in the quite well accepted terms that we cannot SEE light (trigger a quanta) in a vacuum, unless it interacts with some matter to do the triggering.
Of course, as this also worked on the plane flying home, and the quanta was still doing c, it became clear that if the quanta was indeed propagated by the interaction, then it would always be propagated at c locally, so always also FOUND at c locally, also explaining SR for moving observers without paradoxes.
Well that's one (DFM) explanation that works anyway. The energy exists but the quanta does not until interaction. Just like the tree falling in the forest. I'm sure we'll find another one day. And is isn't proven by any means as it may not have still worked at the other end of the bridge, in Copenhagen itself.
Do you think it might? (don't try this at home!)
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 11:56 GMT
Peter
Leaving aside how Copenhagen interprets the world. The probability 'exists', but that must be a calulation of some existence, it is not the probability of nothing. Or at least if it is, then what on earth is going on? We, obviously, do not create reality by knowing of it. Apart from anything else, it has ceased to exist before we are aware of it!! Before we 'interferred' with it, by measuring, something existed, by spatial position, by point in time. The problems are practical, not 'strange' intrinsic attributes of reality.
[I would not try it on that bridge either. That was scary in a van]
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
Hi Karl,
Thanks for your answer.
Best
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT
Paul
It's impressive to sail under too, on a superposed wave pattern.
You wish to leave Copenhagen ..but then talk only about it! I always saw it as nonsensical but knew that Bohr had a point to be expressed and could see no better way. I now do, incorporating the wave function;
I agree that something existed, which presupposes an ether, or condensate, carrying fluctuations at c, because this is allowed if it has no 'absolute' quality, as in discrete moving fields. Bohr's problem can then be solved and words re-interpreted, with an ontology which includes SR and GR.
Briefly; The medium and fluctuations existed, superposed (perhaps similar to those many superposed surface waves on the sea) described by a complex wave function (Fourier). In this case it is impossible to tell when a peak will pass by, or indeed when the 'trigger' level will be reached for a photon 'click' of the detector to be generated. However, we can know the probability if we know the individual signal components.
But the quanta itself, or 'photon corpuscle' still does not exist until it meets and interacts with some matter. The signal is slowed and optical axis rotated (DFM Rotation) thus curved slightly and Doppler shifted in the medium to which the particle belongs. If you consider very carefully you may conclude that this may at once give co-variance and curved space time direct from the quantum mechanism. The measurement itself created the particle, it's gravity, and apparent path curvature. (not real path curvature as there is no path' just a rotation of the axis along the wave front of the Schrodinger sphere (the surface of which of course also links all entangled particles!)
I have found the wave function is preserved on frame transformation. This may mean little to you but will to some. It is what conserves c. I propose that this is what Schrodinger called Anschaulichkeit.
This is also the only ontology compatible with the Shtyrkov finding, so should be read while watching the video from the toy train.
Does that do it for you at all?
best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 11:26 GMT
Peter
I “leave” Copenhagen and then just talk about the logical form of reality. Which may of course have implications for Copenhagen. The danger being that one can get caught up in arguments about the interpretation of an interpretation, rather than identifying the true logic of what is the subject matter of that interpretation, and then asking the question whether the two are reconcilable.
I do not understand light, ether, waves, etc. At that point, much to the exasperation of Eckard as well, all I can do is require consistency in framing/reference points [and separately, point out what Einstein said-which of course, might have been wrong]. Select one, any one, then stick with it, for all measurements considered. And then point out that there is no time, but change, the frequency of which can be measured, and reality is different from that which is represented to us, etc.
By the way, I have asked this question before (not of you) but have not got an answer. Not necessarily in respect of light, but say these more ‘exotic’ sub-atomic phenomena. When reference is made to a wave, is it:
a) 'something' which, of itself, travels in a wave like motion, or
b) a chain reaction whereby 'some signature' is 'conveyed' along the chain, thereby giving the appearance of 'something' travelling, by virtue of a change in the 'somethings' that comprise the chain, which occurs in a wave like motion?
Another question I asked a few days ago was: What are the functions that equations 69 & 70(a) refer to in sections 21/22 of Einstein: Foundation of GR 1916?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT
Paul
That's fine, but you need to move on to apply and analyse for it to be of any use.
a/b. You'd need 20 books for each interpretion. The 'limits' I have found from interpretation point towards b, but not directly analogous to anything we understand.
What ticks all the matrix boxes is;
An energy (motion) 'condensate' (from which condensed matter condenses via pair production) through which something like 'pressure waves' propagate, but as fluctuations of rates of motion. when these fluctuations hit 'matter' they may, if strong enough, form a 'quanta' (which we call a 'photon') to be absorbed and click a detector or be re-emitted, blending back into the condensate (which is equivalent to 'dark energy', 73% of the mass/energy of the universe), and has 2.72 degree temp, known permittivity etc etc.
The fluctuations do c wrt the condensate, only changing when they meet matter and are re-emitted, and at new c subject to motion. A 'region' of condensate forms around all matter. Coming up against another region causes the disturbance and compression to propagate the particles (ions) to effect the change. Very Occam.
This seems to work all round, when no other model does. Any issues you can think of?
Peter
(PS; I'm afraid don't have the 1916 issue in my set, but he'd already had to assume no ether by then, against his intuition!)
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 06:09 GMT
Peter
Thanks. So crudely speaking, at the very lowest level we have 'effects', these are still real as such and not some hypothetical concept to 'make the system work'. They then take on the form we refer to as 'particle', ie an entity which can be considered to have its own existence, and then 'matter' which has some form of substance, when these 'effects' coalesce. Maybe it's a different percentage, but I understood dark matter was some 96% of the universe.
1916 Foundation to GR is available on the Net
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Gener
alised_Theory_of_Relativity
It's just annoying, obviously they are common concepts I just cannot find a definitive reference to them, or figure out what they are, from the text.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT
Paul
Dark energy 73% of mass/energy but dark matter 80% of the matter, which is the remaining 27%. Around 23% of the 80% dark matter is cold and 20% warm dark matter.
So 23% pops up twice as the dark matter % of the whole deal. This leaves only 4.6% of the universe as ordinary matter.
You may need to read that 3 times! (sorry Eckard!).
My money is on the parasitic photoelectrons they're trying to get rid of around the bunches in the LHC to speed them up and reduce thier energy bill in the search for dark matter, to be the dark matter. Simple ions, or largely 'free electrons' and only 'dark' because they have a refractive index n=1 (plasma). they are now called 'virtual' as someone noticed they violated conservation laws because they condesned from nowhere.
Of course the power input and syncrotron frequency guages at the LHC are the best speedometers available for the speed of a particle through a vacuum through which and with respect to we're not supposed to be able to discern a 'speed'!!
Do ask any specifics on GR. I'll give you a view if you wish. There are various interpretations which is one reason why they are non committal on wiki.
But remember; particles have mass, including 'photoelectrons', and we find they have the extra inertia when collided, and a plasma halo has momentum (It carries on when a planet collides, as in 'inertia of charge'. Does that perhaps tell us anything about gravity?
Regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
Peter and Pentcho,
Thank you Peter for pointing me to Dowdye. His "Introduction to the Extinction Shift Principle" makes your positions more understandable to me. While Marmet's reasoning is very close to mine in many details, I wonder how Dowdye arrived at emission theory because he might have a background similar to mine: EE and Germany.
Near to Dowdye I found a short note by Robert French: "Are Complex Numbers Essential to Quantum Mechanics?" So I am not the only one who resumed Pauli's question.
Pentcho, I would like you to comment on the ESP.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
Sorry Eckard but texts like this one:
http://www.quantumrealism.net/uploads/ExtinctionShiftPri
nciple_An_Introduction_20Oct2006_1_.pdf
"As a direct consequence of these emission effects, a resting observer measures a transverse relative time shift, mathematically equivalent to the time dilation of Relativity."
...act like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing them, I get petrified and cannot continue reading.
Pentcho
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 13:23 GMT
Well Pentcho,
I feel even more deterred by a lack of what engineers are calling the detailed critical analysis of the state of the art. In acoustics, a wave is a summary description of the behavior of many elementary parts, e.g. molecules. Dowdye seems to use the notion wave synonymous to particle or a non-Huygens elementary wave. Accordingly he wrote e.g. on p.3 "the velocity of a photon or a wave" and on p. 10 "primary wave or primary photon". Why didn't he take issue concerning Marmet and vice versa?
Dowdye, Marmet, Shtyrkov, Van Flandern, Ritz, Gift, Hatch, Selleri, Marinov, Ives, Popper, De Meo, Riebe, you and many many others were or are still offering arguments against SR and for alternative theories. Here John suggested something in common behind wave and particle. Did I overlook your own ideas or at least your preferences?
I still imagine it was or will be possible to experimentally check whether light behaves like a wave with limited speed re space or like a bullet without this restriction.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
Peter
It was not interpretation, but just what are the two phenomena which are expressed in equations 69 & 70(a) in sections 21/22 of Einstein: Foundation of GR 1916?
They are obviously something 'bog standard' It would just be satisfying to know what they are. The critical point is his conclusion that, given these, the effects are 'too small for earth'. The important point being, that they do exist, just too small in a particular circumstance.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 19:49 GMT
Eckard, Paul
Glad you understood Dowdye. Pentcho clearly did not, as Dowdye identifies the assumptive dynamic error in SR in the same way as the DFM.
I agree with speaking of the EM field or magnetosphere as much as ether, but we must be clear logically that the particles of the field cause change by the coupling, wearas the 'condensate' of the field is still a constant wave propagation medium. Of course if any other suggestion came up for where condensed matter condenses from and what dark energy is, it would offer an alternative.
I'd be very interested in you (and any) views on this very interesting site I discussed with Ray, from Ray's original link to one of the excellent papers.
http://theresonanceproject.org/
Paul plus E;.
Eq. 69 is his gravitational constant and I'm pretty sure 70a is alpha, which would make sense of his comment about elements 'too small to worry about'. This directly relates to the above, because he underestimated the effects of wave particle interaction, having virtually zero data compared to wht we have now. He's have been gobsmacked at the fine structure electron flux in our bow shock.(over 1 million/cm^3.) His 'weak field approximation' was then even more massively out than his original G curvature!
Be careful with alpha as it's kind of all things to all men, and no=one really has a solid ontological basis for it. It is the 'fine structure constant' of almost precisely 1/137th, which for one thing is the nominal free unbound electrons of all matter. Few have made the simple link with ('surface charge!). It is also used in, or rather more 'applied to', astronomy, poorly, to represent the 'cosmic expansion rate.' So confusion abounds. Some say most top physicists have the decimal version in the top corner of their blackboards, trying to find meaning for it. It's calculated to about 17 places of decimals, and then they find it changes with motion anyway!! The DFM predicted it changed with motion, and is related to the, 'parasitic', 'virtual electron' cloud in the LHC, which grows around the bunch with speed (through nothing but the em/ether!) and energy.
I hope that helps. I'd take all current science with a large pinch of salt. I always have. Again, as all good science says, nothing can be proved right or wrong, but that things, and us, can only validly agree or disagree.
Peter
A telling AE quote much ignored; "Electric and magnetic forces do not exist independently of the state of motion of the system of co-ordinates" (pt 6. 1905). He really knew the EM field must represent and limit the ECRF. Shame he was so so close to the whole ontology, 50 years before space travel - (and we're still not there!)
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 21:56 GMT
Peter,
Can you please point us to the page in Dowdye's "Introduction ..." where he 'identifies the assumptive dynamic error in SR'?
The White/Black Schwarzschild Whole is perhaps something for naive laymen to believe rather than for serious experts to digest.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 11:08 GMT
Eckard
"Can you please point us to the page in Dowdye's "Introduction ..." where he 'identifies the assumptive dynamic error in SR'?
The whole thesis does that, and specifically even his preface describes the "alternative procedure to relativistic methods" which relies entirely on the principle of local (relatively moving) background frames as opposed to Einstein's assumption that ANY background frame would imply 'absolute' one.
You'll know that most new discovery arises as by products of other research. In a way this is true here, where Dowdye does not specifically revisit the assumptions of SR to point out the error (perhaps sensible 'politics' as he works for NASA) but the logical implication is unavoidable. It arose from the original 'simultaneity' assumption, where two floating astronauts can only have a 'speed' wrt to each other, not any 3rd or background reference frame. (1905, Part I. Kinematics)
This includes the Relativity of length and times as discussed with Paul, (although Paul insists this part of the paper was written in 1916).
The new limits now set are certainly particle modulated but allow ether as a frame. There is other circumstantial support for it's existence, including in Raman's 1922 (1930 Nobel winning) paper, referring to scattering being wrt the void 'medium' not the electrons orbit, the dark energy field, it's 2.7 degree temp, and and of course pair production, or condensed matter, which cannot condense from nothing without conservation law violation.
I'm not a strong proponent but I believe in honesty, using all evidence to define limits.
WRT The Schwartzchild Proton etc., It would seem you did not read the papers. The latest paper is rigorous and impressive, and has now been digested by 'serious experts' and passed an apparent severest peer review for publication by the AIP! I agree it initially seems a bit far off base, but if that is where reality really lies it is us being the troglodytes. It is worth a proper look. It is also not inconsistent with Dowdye / DFM dynamics. See also Ray's positive comments.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 22:50 GMT
Peter,
While the Schwartzschild solution is mathematically correct, I am not the only one who does not trust in the Rosen bridge to something purely speculative like white holes which are to me an example of useless mathfiction.
While you bluntly wrote "assumptive dynamic error in SR", I got aware of various definitely very knowledgeable authors who mostly prefer to merely offer their more or less neo-Lorentzian position instead of clearly rejecting at least Einstein's and Minkowski's interpretation.
I am just reading a textbook in German: Einsteinian (geometric) vs. Lorentzian (dynamic) interpretation of the theory of relativity. It justifies the latter as follows:
a) All essentially relativistic formulas were already derived before Einstein.
b) Philosophical consequences of Einstein's interpretation are untenable.
c) Plausible explanation of the paradoxes and the Sagnac effect.
d) The Lorentzian Interpretation of SR can easily be transferred on GR and so called realistic interpretations of QM.
Furthermore, Brandes states: "The quantum-mechanical vacuum has properties that are matching well to the idea of an ether."
I guess Marmet's papers "The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment" and "The Collapse of the Lorentz Transformation" might provide the basis for even more foundational criticism.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 10:07 GMT
Peter
Thanks for that. Don't like the sound of "all things to all men!". But anyway, my only interest is that he recognises the existence of a particular effect. I have no intentions of going any further.
Not sure about your interpretation of that part 6 1905 quote. To me he's just saying, rather obviously, that electric and magnetic forces are a function of the movement of bodies (he often uses system of co-ordinates instead of bodies). I presume from the context, the phrase "auxillary concept" means something like consequence, not causal. There is no framing/reference point implication in there.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 17:30 GMT
Eckard, Paul,
I find all points on your list agreeable Eckard. I feel the only reason others are cautious is because they have not yet seen the clear dynamic logic pointing to precisely where the error lies. It is fully consistent with Marmet.
Conceptually it was the (regretted) assumption that to remove an absolute background frame he was also forced to remove ALL background frames. He never consider the option, consistent with Styrkov, Dowdye, the DFM, and all your list, that all frames themselves may be the backgrounds to smaller frames.
This is so important it seems to fall under the influence of Orwell's 'Crimestop', where no matter how logical and obvious, if a solution conflicts enough with peoples 'belief' systems, or ;'indoctrination' the solution will be rendered invisible when they observe it.
There was only ever one reason for removing the 'ether', (as the modern ISM, CMBR rest frame, dark energy field, Dirac Sea, whatever other name you wish to use for it,). The reason was because of the inability of SR to support an absolute background, or 'preferred' 3rd frame in considering the kinetics of 'Simultaneity'. That reason is now removed, as our local background frames are not absolute, they are dynamic.
Are you also blinded by Crimestop? If so perhaps revisit the NASA photo of LL Orionis, and reconsider the SR paradoxes in light of the model, and the fact that speed in a vacuum IS detectable in accelerators.
Paul
I disagree with your interpretation. We must consider it alongside all his similar conceptualisation, for instance the space around matter as extension of the matter kinetically "mass spatially extended", and his small space s in motion within larger space S, etc. Little of that has had an ontological explanation before (he was striving himself for that 'Local Reality' and a unified field theory), but the literal interpretation I give, admittedly different to most, allows sense to be made of the whole conceptual basis.
Effectively this proves him spot on conceptually, but forced into the wrong assumption about ether (saying even at Leiden in 1921 "space without ether is unthinkable") because he had not found the way out' of the dilemma exposed by the 'discrete field' model of dynamic space. As an astronomer I can tell you that it also appears to resolve a whole host of anomalistic chasms between observation and theory.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
Peter
It certainly must be considered in a context. But not one that involves possibly anything he ever said, or an interpretation based on now known knowledge.
The para is:
“The analogy holds with “magnetomotive forces.” We see that electromotive force plays in the developed theory merely the part of an auxiliary concept, which owes its introduction to the circumstance that electric and magnetic forces do not exist independently of the state of motion of the system of co-ordinates”.
Now, I cannot get those words to ‘move’ to the extent that they equate with your interpretation of what was meant, at that time. Not what he may have been meant with considerable further hindsight, or what you now think they could mean.
And as with anything else, he said what he said about ether. Whether he was correct or incorrect, is a subsequent judgement. One cannot have a sort of ‘pick and mix’ approach to a theory.
Where is this ‘s and S ‘ reference? I have found such in Foundation to GR 1916, Section A, para 2. But the words do not seem to approximate to what you are saying.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 19:10 GMT
Paul
I quite understand if you disagree. I do not expect others to have identical interpretations. That is a strength of mankind. I have however researched Einstein's work and life for over 40 years so have very good reasons for all interpretations.
As you ask however I will explain the relation to spaces s and S. He derived at an early stage the basic dynamic, and was always...
view entire post
Paul
I quite understand if you disagree. I do not expect others to have identical interpretations. That is a strength of mankind. I have however researched Einstein's work and life for over 40 years so have very good reasons for all interpretations.
As you ask however I will explain the relation to spaces s and S. He derived at an early stage the basic dynamic, and was always trying but struggling to express it with a real ontology (logical construction of mechanisms). He never found what he searched for (termed later as 'Local Reality' and the UFT) to connect SR with GR and a QFT, to disprove Bohr's illogicality. He said this many times (I've posted many of the quotes, such as "..we do not yet have a basis..." etc.
He expressed the same basic concept, related to local co-variance of c, in very different ways many times. His (paraphrased) "em forces dont exist independently of the state of motion of the body" may be conceptually simplified to; "the em field moves with the body," which, if you think carefully, may be said to be closely equivalent to; "bodies are not IN space but are spatially extended" insofar as a bodies em field acts as a 'spatial extension' of the body as far as it's motion is concerned.
This brings us to 1952, and "Relativity and the Problem of Space." (trans.'54). He re-expressed the same basic dynamic in a very different way with a small box or space s in motion within larger space S. "One is inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of space S" i.e. s is coherent in itself but moving through S, just, for instance, like Earths's em field through the suns heliosphere, as in; "It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box it's particular space.." - (because light, somehow, goes through each of those spaces at c wrt each space!).
He continues tellingly "..not thought of as bounded.." - certainly not at the time, as no boundary was observable to any example he could think of,; "..and to assume that these two spaces are in motion wrt each other".
Now this is actually precisly like the ECRF within the Sun's Barycentric CMBR heliopsheric frame. Indeed we may even have another s, called Venus and it's em field, which also moves within the big s.
And the heliosphere moves through the galaxy (even bigger 'S') in precisely the same way, and so on. Also a bunch of protons in the LHC do the same in the pipe, and a jet plane does the same in the big space S past the cloud and guy in the balloon. c is the same locally to him and a guy on the plane. But in that case the 'boundary' is more visible! There may be an infinite number of jet planes on different vectors. he goes on; "it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other."
I have researched this through every case and scale and the falsifiable ontology has proved 100% successful so far (Please offer any apparent contrary observation.) I finish with the last part of the quote;
"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other.
This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable rôle even in scientific thought."
It still is both logically unavoidable, and far from doing so.
I have simply identified an ontological mechanism consistent with that logic.
It dies not 'require' ether, but allows it. Last '52 quote, re M&M; "..the aether appeared, as it were, as the embodiment of a (local) space absolutely at rest."
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 13:23 GMT
Peter
Well I find it somewhat difficult that it is apparently possible to have so many interpretations of such an important body of work.
As always, I do have to stress this is different from whether he (they) were correct, as such. And that is again different from whether you, or others, are correct.
It does however seem to smack of the ‘theatre review’ syndrome. Theatres want good reviews, so they slice and dice, anything and everything, in order to make it appear that they got one. Similarly, there seems to be an ‘Einstein said this’ brand, which one wants to attach to one’s own ideas/theory, so the search goes on for some out of context statement, or something that could be construed a particular way, or indeed, something he did actually say!
Thanks for the s and S explanation, but I did just ask for the reference. I recognised the words, and suggested where the source actually was. I presume from your answer it is in this 1952 paper you refer to?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 16:50 GMT
Paul
-"I find it somewhat difficult that it is apparently possible to have so many interpretations of such an important body of work." - I promise you're far from the only one!
I suggested a logical analysis of the 'spaces s and S' (1954 in English - also ref; 'Notes to 15th Edition') because it is often dismissed as illogical and I have never seen it given an ontological basis. This then may be unique, having only one logical interpretation! - Please let me know if you find another.
The point about Einstein was that he was quite frank about his search, what he sought, and about his failure to find it. But he did leave wise words and a good conceptual structure to build from. Devoted relativists ignore all this, but his comments are clear. Some I may not have posted recently include;
"I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (Letter to max Born 1944)
"We still do not know 1000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us."
"For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation."1940
and; "The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to gravitational fields, but not to the total field."
And, tellingly, in 1952; "..one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."
Many complain about others attempting to stand on the shoulders of giants. I prefer Einstien's view to theirs, and only wish to see his work logically completed as he wished. Is that a reasonable wish?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
Peter
I will have a look at s & S, but it will be a few days (off to Mum's).
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 12:37 GMT
Peter
Well, all I can read from these somewhat philosophical paragraphs (1952 Relativity and the Problem of Space) is that space is that which is not accounted for by bodies (ie ‘not-space’). Hardly a stunning concept. Then there is the added (previous) complication that those bodies can change shape when force is applied (hence the reference to Euclidean/Cartesian). Which just strengthens the notion that one must not consider in terms of space, but bodies, and certainly not fixed space (or indeed fixed shape bodies) even if one did. He is also, somewhat confusingly, though it is correct, referring to a space as that which the body occupies. And then refers to these ‘spaces’ (really bodies), of which there could be an infinite number, as being in motion wrt each other.
Indeed, HERE is the key sentence in the whole paper: “The subtlety of the concept of space was enhanced by the discovery that there exist no completely rigid bodies”. It is now 1952 and we still have length alteration. THIS is what underpins the theory.
There is no way I can get to your interpretation, and anyway, one would have great difficulty ‘attributing’ this to Einstein mainstream thinking, unless it specifically said: ‘this relates back to x and therefore changes x.’ That is not the same as saying that your point is not, of itself, correct.
Interestingly enough, he then goes on to write about time. This is nonsense. But then from base papers and the influence of Poincare, with length contraction becoming slowing clocks and faulty concepts of instantaneity, it is already obvious that he does not understand what time actually is, and the difference between that and timing. His theory about shape change with force applied (which at the same time causes velocity change) might be correct, either logically, and/or in terms of values attributed to this effect. It might not. But we get space-time, where the flaw in misconception of time has been reified as an innate characteristic of reality, and the essential point of what he was saying, has been more or less, lost.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT
Paul
So you say Einstein was wrong about time, and re-interpret his 'space s' as 'body s'. I'm sure you realise that anyone also; "would have great difficulty 'attributing' this to Einstein mainstream thinking,"!!
But that does not of course make it wrong. But the subtlety that; because you don't understand his logic you feel you can simply change his conceptions ('space' to 'body' that makes it a little wrong!
My conception is in the centre of those and is the only on which removes the paradoxes. The space s is always the 'mass spatially extended' to which he refers. It has matter at it's centre. It is this, not contraction, which should be the underpinning of his work as it is consistent with everything, from Boscovitch to astrophysics. But if you're looking for something that conforms to mainstream rather than conforms to logic and observation, then you should look elsewhere.
As Ray say, ..have fun.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 08:42 GMT
Peter
1 As always, do not accept what Paul Reed says, here is Einstein:
“When a smaller box s is situated…inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S”.
He is referring to internal space, ie the box. External space, ie what we normally refer to as space, being ‘not-box’. So one has boxes (or ‘not-boxes’ as a consequence because that is the mutually exclusive opposite, except that he wants you to think in terms of boxes and space (ie ‘not-boxes’) as the consequence), ‘which are in motion wrt each other’.
2 My point about Einstein ‘mainstream’ was of course that, unless clearly stated by the author, one must be careful to attribute too much meaning to a statement made some 40 years after the theory was postulated.
3 I cannot be bothered to comment on time. Until somebody stops coming back with misinterpretations, or using the ‘tarred brush’ approach of its just philosophy, and broaches some factual/logical point which disproves what I am saying, I am getting bored with listening.
4 As I then said, and say most times. What he did, or did not say. And whether that was correct or not. Does not inherently impinge upon the actual potential validity of what you are saying.
5 Space, ie ‘not-box’, could well be a function of effects created by box, described as ‘mass spatially extended’. This seems a sound idea, along with the presumption that there might be ‘something’ in that space which is ‘different’ from the ‘substance’ of box which interacts with the effects generated by box. But as is his point, contraction of one is expansion of the other. And he said, rightly or wrongly, that boxes (bodies) change, and anyway, we are to focus on boxes (which can include effects thereby created) and not space which is just a consequence.
5 Just out of interest, I note on each occasion you do not respond on what constitutes SR, when I define what it was in accordance with what the man himself said (on many occasions) it was.
Ba Humbug, off to get the Xmas food (got 2 of those Heston orange pudds)
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 10:13 GMT
Paul
Interesting interpretation, reversing what he actually said when referring to "spaces" ('not thought of as bounded') but don't fool yourself that this is what he said not 'what Paul Red said'.
The Special Theory of Relativity, as it has become known, as opposed to the Generalised Theory, has, as I've said often, many interpretations. You'd do well to read some of the many (I've read scores) of 'authorities' views and interpretations before deciding you know better.
As I have explained, I have gone back further, to the problems SR was derived in an attempt to resolve, which is essentially what Einstein postulated. I'm not going to discuss all sorts of different interpretations about what various people believe he may or may not have 'meant' but said wrongly. I see my purpose and aim as far more important than that. You have entirely missed or chosen to ignore the crucial fundamental logic which I presented to the best of my ability. There is no point in continuing any discussion while this remains the case.
Have a good Christmas
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 10:20 GMT
Peter
1 I am not "reversing what he said", that is what he said. Admittedly the language is torturous, but the "hollow space" is the box-the space occupied by the box. The "hollow space of the larger box S" is the space occupied by S, as an entity. But the smaller box s, occupies its own space (its own hollow space)within S, the rest being external space to s, albeit together these constitute the internal (occupied) space of a larger box, S.
2 "The Special Theory of Relativity, as it has become known, as opposed to the Generalised Theory, has, as I've said often, many interpretations. You'd do well to read some of the many (I've read scores) of 'authorities' views and interpretations before deciding you know better".
I am not interested in 'authorities', when the man himself, who wrote the theory and designated SR & GR, explains what constitutes which, as 'clear as a bell'. Just which part of the following from Einstein is not understandable or open to interpretation?:
"Provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity". (Einstein 1916 SR & GR section 18 para 5)"
"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of isolated material points holds relatively to it… In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity". (Einstein SR & GR 1916 Section 28)
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies