Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Georgina Parry

Georgina

Lovely and even amusing essay, with an important theme consistent with others here. We're in stiff competition.

I hope youget to read mine and comment.

Thanks

Rich

Hi Richard, thank you for taking a look.

You comments are ambiguous to me. Perhaps they are intentionally so, like describing a red wine as reminiscent of a warm summer's evening. My essay is intended to be extraordinary rather than quaint and entertaining rather than comical. I hope you found it so. If not perhaps you would need to spend more time to fully appreciate it. There is a high definition version of the diagram 1. in this essay discussion thread.

Having only just come upon this brilliant and entertaining taxonomy of idea A (draft) taxonomy of ideas by David MacCandless I must apologise to everyone whose work I have called interesting. If it is interesting to me it is something special (meant in the best way), without associated implication of my feeling regarding current functionality.I would have 'interesting' on the conceptual structure axis, as it could apply (as I use it) to either functional or (currently, seemingly) dysfunctional ideas.

The designer doesn't have lovely or amusing on his taxonomy. Nice and funny seem the closest which, interestingly, cancel each other out on the functionality scale. Still ranking higher than interesting on the positive scale of conceptual structure. So thank you.

I will read your essay.

Dear Georgina,

I have read your essay a few times and I have liked your novel point of view. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of some biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria) as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.

I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Dear Georgina,

You are also requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Dear Gurcharn,

thank you for your favourable comments about my essay. I am delighted that you have spent time with it and consider it worthy of being a finalist.

Re. your concern about essay positions: Many people have not yet voted. The positions of the essays could- and probably will- change significantly between now and the end of community voting. I have read a lot of essays, commented upon some of them, and intend to read more. I expect everyone is a bit surprised by the number of entries this year.

FQXi blog comments and essay filtering are not a paying jobs though. If I had been paid for the hours spent on this site over the years I would have earned a considerable sum by now and my family would be better off and happier. I am only going to do what I feel able and happy to do at this time.I am not willing to do more. Hopefully I will get to your essay and be able to leave some constructive or positive comments.

Kind regards and good luck to you.

Hi Georgina,

I rather like your essay as it highlights the human aspect of doing science and considers how we think and approach problems and dilemmas. And we sure have plenty of those!

I had been thinking that I would have very much liked to have placed some diagrams into my essay because I imagine many readers might think it is a bit heavy on the math and dense conceptualism (that was necessary to rigorously demonstrate the findings), but there was just not enough time for that. The beautiful diagram in your essay was a real inspiration for so that I recently created and uploaded 2 diagrams explaining the essential findings of the essay (your principles in action).

If you should have to time to take a look and venture an opinion that would be very much appreciated. The topic seems to be very much in line with what you consider in your essay concerning time, space and the emergence of space-time.

With best wishes,

Steve Sycamore

Hi Stephen,

thank you for your feedback. I'm glad you were inspired by the diagram. To fit with the instructions given by the organisers, I used the framework, represented by that diagram to answer the specific question that was set. Rather than just discussing in detail the explanatory framework itself.

FQXi contest information -"Note: Successful and interesting essays will not use this topic as an opportunity to trot out their pet theories simply because those theories reject assumptions of some other or established theory. Rather, the challenge here is to create new and insightful questions or analysis about basic, often tacit, assumptions that can be questioned but often are not."

I hope that that is what my essay clearly does. Questioning how we think about science and, by thinking about it differently, questioning some very strongly entrenched basic assumptions that are most likely wrong.

I too hope I will have time to read and discuss your essay.

Yes, I've been thinking too about the wisdom of the guidelines you quoted. One important measure of relevance of each essay ought to be how many deep and pertinent questions the essay evokes and what valid approaches to possible answers may be considered without becoming fixated on any one answer prematurely.

Thanks for your excellent observation.

Steve

Hello Georgina,

I'll respond here rather than there. Thanks, will look at your essay again, with that in mind.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Greetings Georgina!

Yet another FQXi contest to bring us together! Thanks for your comprehensive "to do" list! I will get on with it as soon as this contest is over! Remembering how well we resonated over what physically makes sense I am once again seeking you out for your insights. The title says only part of the story, "The Metaphysics of Physics". The Summary and Endnotes make the case for some of that story with mathematical precision. Among these I think you will find interesting my mathematical derivation of the Law of Inertia and the proof of the proposition: "If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave".

With this demonstration, we can put to rest the why and how of CSL. As a wave light needs a medium (ether?) to propagate and will propagate in a medium at a constant speed determined by the medium. And this speed will be independent of the 'source'. And since the speed of propagation can only be measured 'locally' to the medium of propagation, the speed will also be independent of the observer.

My essay is currently hovering between 'being' and 'not being'. With a little boost from my friends it might just make it over that hump.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

I have posted a reply on your essay thread. It would be nice to have some feedback from you on my own essay. My particular interest is the explanatory framework that I use to answer the set essay question. There is a high resolution version of diagram 1 in this essay thread, which is the correct way around and it is easy to read all of the labels. I have not just presented my "pet theory" but gone through the deductive steps I consider necessary to answer which (most important) basic physical assumptions are wrong. The framework necessary to have relativity and QM without contradiction, overcome the temporal paradoxes make sense of the arrow of time etc. also necessitates that those highlighted assumptions are wrong.

Georgina

I hope you may have managed to see the play again as intended. I'd value you thoughts on the mechanism (and score!). I think this simple understanding is very important for progress; That a pair of photons 'passing by' a lens which is moving towards the source have a different distance between them and speed to the ones entering the lens medium and optical nerve. The massive implications still seem to be missed by those too indoctrinated with standard assumptions. I'm sure you can see it, if not yet the consequences for unifying SR and QM.

I'd like to see you a lot higher up and am giving you a deserved top score. I also wonder if neither of us had the min 10 scores last year, which would keep us out of consideration, so scoring is important. I wish you luck and best wishes.

Peter

Thanks Georgina. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Dear Georgina,

There are attempts to solve some your questions. For example Strong gravitation at the level of particles. The problem of 'arrow of time' must be investigated in view of the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) . A reason for the 'arrow of time' is different rate of time at low levels of matter. At the level of atoms time goes much more quickly then at the level of star, so any macro-event first of all take place at the low levels of matter. On one hand the physics equations are symmetrical in time, on the other hand the arrow means different probability for inverse processes. We use very simple microscopic time-reversible equations but in reality in every process take place dissipation of energy and interaction of numerous particles. If we include dissipation in equation of motion the processes will have known final and the arrow of time appears. I agree with you that gravity is not caused by curvature of space-time, and < Einsteins theories of general and special relativity are mathematical descriptions of what will be observed rather than the underlying actualisations.>

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

My essay gives answer to many of those questions that are set out at the beginning. The questions are given because an explanation that is able provide self consistent answers to those questions is also likely to be able to highlight what basic assumptions have been wrong.I could have mentioned some others but chose to highlight the biggest most obstructive false assumption that the framework shows up, and the implications of it.

It is first necessary to carefully and thoroughly state the problems under consideration before being able to give a thorough, self consistent solution to them. That is what the explanatory framework is.I chose to list the problems because of the character limit. I did not make the whole essay about the structure and function of the explanatory framework as the organisers of the competition asked specifically that we did not make the essays just about our pet theories but brought something new.

I can see a place for a nested arrangement and have been considering a quaternion type of arrangement for a long time. However I have got over thinking of that as the distribution of matter and am now thinking of it as useful for describing the transmission of potential sensory data from source to detection which relates, in my mind to Roger Penrose's quaternion description of the light come and there may even be some correlation with Joy Christian's work. I am not a mathematician and so do not have the expertise to judge the correctness of his working but can only think about what it might mean within a holistic framework of physics.

I think the reality detected is considered -The reality- and if the data has come from a macroscopic source any other possible manifestation from data that was simultaneously produced is then ignored. The sphere of data nearest the source is youngest those further away earlier (older data) so the observer position/orientation and distance from source determine what data is fabricated into the singular manifestation deemed to be what is real.

I have a different explanation for the arrow of time. It is the ONE WAY INPUT OF DATA (originating from actualised source), ACROSS THE REALITY INTERFACE, to processing into a fabricated manifestation output. IE from the actualised pre-space-time reality to the space-time manifestation , an image reality produced from the data.

I have explained my opinion on what is occurring re the arrow of time here to help clarify the function of the explanatory framework used to answer the essay question.Not just to disagree with your statement, Quote: "The problem of 'arrow of time' must be investigated in view of the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it).I am glad you found something to agree with in my essay. I will try to take a look at yours.

Further to my previous reply I think I should just clarify a few things. When talking about a sphere of data, I am talking about a 2D surface. Also the sphere is a simple generalisation. For a source object with a non uniform form, the data that is related to a single iteration of the object is not necessarily a uniform distance from the source object. There is also in the spherical description the assumption that data can be transmitted in all direction from the surface of the source object, which might not be the case. The direction of transmission may be constrained by the environment in which the source object is located.

Dear Georgina,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You do a very nice job of explaining and exploring a vast array of ideas, problems, and paradoxes in a concise manner. A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Regarding your first section (facts) points 1 and 3, I would point out that general relativity works only if we assume that the phenomena we call "dark matter" and "dark energy"are really due to some strange type of matter and energy rather than different dynamics.

2. Your second section summarizes the problems very well. Regarding points 6 and 8, I have some ideas about this (I see you do, too!). Many of the paradoxes of relativity arise from allowing time and causality to conflict with each other (the grandfather paradox, which you mention on page 6, is an example of this). My idea about this is that time is really just a way of talking about cause and effect. Instead of having a mysterious "time dimension," our concept of time may come just from noticing that cause and effect always occur in a specific order (hence, we say "cause comes before effect.") This explains the arrow of time too; the arrow of times is just given by the direction from cause to effect. This is part of what I call the causal metric hypothesis. If you're interested, you might look at my essay here, where I explain how this works.

3. I spent a while with my head turned to the side looking at your diagram 1. There's a lot to consider here. You ascribe the arrow of time to "continual sequential change of the arrangement of Object universe and unidirectional input of data from Object reality to Image reality." I am not quite sure what you mean by Object universe; is it a universe of "objects," or is it "objective," meaning it exists regardless of what we observe?

4. I agree with the statement, "As space-time is emergent output from data processing not an observer independent reality, the curvature of space-time is not the cause of gravity." I think that "spacetime" is a way of talking about cause and effect.

5. On point 13: quaternions, twistors, geometric algebra, and Clifford algebras are all important and underappreciated.

6. I think that objects and clocks are, once again, ways of talking about cause and effect, but this is a long story...

7. I either agree with you, or lean toward the same conclusions as you do, on the "wrong assumptions" (page 6). I also agree with most what you say in your postulates.

8. What you say in your "Data Pool" section (page 7) sounds similar to my "causal configuration space. Also, Wolfram's ideas are somewhat similar to mine.

Thanks for the fascinating read, and good luck in the contest! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Georgina,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

Jim

Dear Benjamin Dribus,

thank you so much for your comments. I really appreciate the time you have spent with my essay and your making the effort to give feedback on it. I am sorry about the diagram being on its side. I wanted to get it as large as possible so that it would be easier to read as there are a lot of labels. If printed out it could be turned around, though I have posted a high resolution version of the diagram on this discussion thread. As it also lost some resolution when it was put into the text program. That high resolution version is the correct way around.

Re. no.1. I am not so sure about the point you make.I am not invoking different dynamics (from what is observed and modelled by the mathematics of relativity) for the space-time output reality, (that is the Image reality). So the consideration and modelling of relativity is completely unaffected/unaltered by employing the explanatory framework. It works well and I do not see the need to alter it.

A very important difference between the picture of the universe presented by the explanatory framework and Einstein's space-time continuum universe is that the explanatory framework includes continual motion at the foundational, Object reality, level, ie. continual change rather than being static. That continual change will it seems to me permit the centripetal force, to balance gravity,as envisioned by Kurt Godel, but disliked by Einstein because of the implications for time. Though if this explanatory framework is employed it can be understood that it is only the observer's relationship to the potential sensory data that would be altering and not temporal alteration at the foundation level. As at that level in whatever way the observer moves everything in existence still exists simultaneously.

RE your number 2. I appreciate what you are saying but I think it more complex than mere observed cause and effect because there is the epiphenomenon of non simultaneity of events for different observers. Which seems to imply that there is not a set order of events. I agree that at the foundational level a sequence of events is generated but that is not directly observed. Potential data is formed by interaction with actualised arrangements of matter and when that data is received an output incorporating it can be generated. It is imo the (one way) input of data that gives the impression of time flowing one way. The sequence of events observed need not match the sequence in which the data was generated. As when the data is received depends upon the observers distance from the source and his/her/its motion, but still gives a one way passage of time experience.

re.3 Both. The Object reality is what exists as the source of the potential sensory data that we use to fabricate a manifestation of external reality. So it is the material universe independent of observation of it, including the electromagnetic and other potential sensory data within it. It is objective in that it is not fabricated by any kind of observer of it, organism, device or sensitive material.

Re,4 to 8. Glad to hear that there is similarity in our ways of thinking.Thank you very much once again for your feedback and good wishes. I will read your essay.