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

Dear Edwin,

thank you for reading my essay and writing such a glowing appraisal. It does feel good to be understood. I am glad I have communicated the ideas clearly.It's also good to hear that this has put some of my blog comments into a context where they make more sense.

I agree with your slight reservation -I personally see no reason to assume the Object universe does not have an eternal history. To assume otherwise, it seems to me, just makes nonsense or insoluble problems. However I can't speak for everyone else. There may be people who wish to disagree and require, according to their reasoning, a beginning however problematic.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your very positive feedback.

Georgina,

It's really very good thinking of you. You explained the problem successfully.But the question here from where to start. There is a contradiction between quantum and relativity in concepts and principles. So, will we modify relativity theory of Einstein in order to be accepted with quantum theory concepts and principles? Or we modify quantum theory to be accepted with relativity theory concepts and principles. Einstein tried in his last years of life to proof the inconsistency of quantum theory, and then tried to interpret the physical phenomena which interpreted by quantum to be interpreted by his relativity concepts and principles, but he false. From that time, scientist did not try to interpret relativity theory by the concepts and principles of quantum....why? In 1996 I adopted the first proposal, and I modified the relativity theory of Einstein to be accepted with quantum theory (Copenhagen School) concepts and principles. I found I could solve the most problems in physics regarded to quantum and relativity. I found in 1996 it is possible measuring speeds of particles or light ray to be faster than light according to my MSRT without violating Lorentz transformation or causality, and thus according to that it is interpreting, the quantum tunneling and entanglement, without violating the Lorentz transformation or causality. Also I could solve the Pioneer anomaly exactly according to modified GR. My proposed solution relative to modified general relativity and gravity is agreed with what proposed in quantum field theory. Please can you read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

then we discuss?

Hi J.C. N Smith,

thank you very much indeed for reading my essay and posting such a very enthusiastic review. Really glad you liked it.

Re.nested not a continuum. You will have noticed from the essay that the explanatory framework presents a different way of thinking about reality. Not just a continuum as is the space-time continuum but the output reality, the data in the environment and the source of the data. When talking about the quaternion representation in this essay I was only talking of mathematically representing the way data travels through the environment. A small aspect of the entirety of reality considered. It's a different way of thinking about Einstein's light cone idea. That's what Roger Penrose demonstrates in his lecture that I cited.

I can imagine a short pulse of light emitted from a source. A photon cascade spreads out spherically from the light source. As an analogy I can imagine a domino cascade, which is easier to visualise. In the space-time continuum model there would be all of the dominoes standing -and- all of the dominoes felled -and- every other intermediate stage, all in existence within the continuum. However in this explanatory framework each patten of felled and unfelled is temporary. So to consider the whole sequence of patterns historical iterations have to be combined. For data spreading out spherically, from a source in all directions, ie the progression of the photon cascade, that would be nested iterations- rather like a Russian doll. Not all simultaneously existing in space and therefore not simultaneously detectable by observers at spatial positions of the different spherical surfaces or "shells".

Dear Azzam,

I'm glad you think I have successfully identified the problems. If you read beyond the introduction you will find that I also offer, what I consider to be, solutions to a large number of problems, physical and philosophical, including the incompatibility of QM and GR. I also say which of our basic physical assumptions have been wrong and why. Given as postulates that emerge from the explanatory framework necessary to incorporate the facts and overcome the problems identified.

I am going to read a number of essays. I will post feedback on your thread if yours is one of them.

Frank,

thank you for your reply.

The hats are used in the essay as a device for presenting a lot of diverse information in a systematic and therefore comprehensible joined up way. It allows a structured flow from input facts and problems to output solutions and suggestions for further research / interesting directions to investigate. Edward de Bono's hats can be used in any order and more than once. They prevent thinking being stuck in one particular unproductive mode.

The explanatory framework pre-dates this essay and has been presented and discussed on FQXi blog discussions and the thread of my previous FQXi essay for a long time. The diagram is a combination of sets and flow chart. I have a higher resolution file of that particular version if the quality was a problem for you. The colours are merely to help identify the separate parts and have no meaning. It would convey the same information in black and white. For people who think like me it is less easy to mentally separate the various processes and parts from a monochrome image, perhaps for you the colours are a distraction.

Re. Factual validity. In my opinion the explanatory framework presented incorporates the necessary facts given under white hat and overcomes the black hat problems and red hat dislikes. The assumption of its validity is based upon its ability to do that ie. its explanatory power. You are correct that this -framework- does not include -all- information known to humanity and therefore is incomplete. However that does not make it incorrect. With respect I think the mathematics you mention would need to be interpreted differently to be compatible with this framework, which you have demonstrated you do not yet comprehend, if that mathematics is itself valid. There is a historical -time line- that can be imagined for the Object reality and there is a time dimension within the space-time output.Without having seen what you are referring to, I think either might relate to the dimension you are talking about

When you question the "clocks and rod part" you seem to have entirely failed to grasp the argument for differentiation between output generated from data and independent object. Actualisation and manifestation. I agree that different manifestations can be observed and measured but that does not imply that the structure of the independent object itself is altered.

The way in which this framework functions is by joining up many ideas in a particular relationship. It might not seem to make sense if accessed in a piecemeal or disjointed way.

I should add to that list, data in the environment, which might also be regarded latent information, is not conserved in this framework. Such as when a photon is absorbed by a material object and there is no emission of another. The capacity to supply information is different from energy. Energy is conserved.

Frank

Time is non-existent. Timing, involves comparison of the number of changes, irrespective of type. That is, it is measuring the rate of change, of itself. This can either be effected directly, ie elephant walked 1mile whilst leaf changed to pantone colour x. Or, via a common denominator. For example if you are using a quartz watch, then it is oscillations (mins, secs, etc being fossilised language). In other words, what you are really saying is that there were 10m oscillations of a particular piece of crystal whilst that elephant walked 1 mile. What is occurring in physical reality is change, ie it occurs then re-occurs differently.

Therefore, everything is inherently a 'clock', it is just that some are better than others.

Paul

Hi Frank,

I have now taken a quick look at your methodology paper, for which you have now put a link. It looks interesting to me. I now think I understand why you have made such a strong pronouncement against that particular postulate of mine, without carefully reading the essay giving its context.

Your objection is, I think, because you are considering wavelengths. According to the framework I have set out waves are patterns spread over different iterations of the Object universe. Those iterations might be imagined along a time line giving a historical sequence but that is not a -dimension- of the external reality. The external reality I am talking of is uni-temporal ie. exists wholly at one and only one time, not spread over time. Being uni-temporal is incompatible with having a time dimension.

Time is a dimension in that it is a measurement that can be made but measurements are not in themselves things: and it is a dimension in that it is an aspect of the entirety of reality but not a dimension of the external Object reality, which is the uni-temporal arrangement of all objects and particles that exist.

I hope that clarifies the reason for that difference of opinion.

Information is not physically existent. Some physically existent phenomena are only potentially 'information' in the context of sensory systems which have evolved to utilise them. So, if and when, any such given physical phenomenon interacts with (ie their lines of travel coalesce) the receiving organ of a sensory system which can process it, then it becomes information in repect of that functional role in that sensory system, and indeed ceases to exist. Its physically existent state is unaffected by this subsequent activity. That is the physics.

Paul

Hi Georgina,

Good luck for this essays contest.

Regards

Dear Georgina,

You sketched the problem as a thought, but as a physicists I need an answer depending on equations and the recent experimental results. For example, is light speed is constant for all inertial frames of reference as Einstein proposed? Is the physical information received to us by light itself or by the speed of light? If the information is transformed to us by light or the speed of light, how can we interpret the quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, and what is the meaning of faster than light,and how that is related to the vacuum energy, and how the vacuum energy is related according to relativity? Is the Lorentz transformation and then the causality violated in the case of faster than light or there something wrong in SR required to modify according to quantum? There are many other questions in physics required to be answered, but as a physicists the answer must be depending on equations and the recent experimental results.

Georgina,

I appreciate you taking the time to read the methodology paper. It presents some foundational issues that could only be presented in a non-controversial manner in order to pass peer review.

You have a misconception as to the meaning of a dimension. We use dimensions to establish a relationship between "things." We make measurements using a dimension. Time is not a measurement, it is a concept covering a type of comparison dimension. We use the concept of time, which we have formalized in a set of related dimensions, each with a dimensional descriptor, to allow us to uniformly communicate durations of some type of event. The dimensional descriptor identifies the scale of a particular dimensional term by which we measure or compare a relationship.

The term wavelength is a concept used to describe one characteristic of what are termed electromagnetic waves. A specific type of dimension, described by a dimensional descriptor, is used to measure the size of a wavelength in order to uniformly record and communicate that information.

The time duration dimension size mathematically defined by the methodology is something that can be used anywhere in the universe, as it is not based upon a time division of a particular planets rotation.

The methodology identifies a mathematical method by which to establish the base size of particular types of dimensions.

The mathematics of the methodology are deceptively simple, as it reveals information that is directly related to quantum mechanics. E8 and string theory camps should both take notice.

Hi ,

Here are my equations, they help for a real understanding of the polarization m/hv.

E=m(c³o³s³)

mcosV=cosntant.

For all physical spheres, bosonic or fermionic.

The serie of uniqueness at the quantum or cosmological scale is finite and precise with the central sphere like the most important volume.

Now the bosons turn in the other sense than a fermion, so you can see the synchronizations of evolution.Now we have the 3 motions of the spheres, so c linear velocity, o orbital vel. and s spinal vel.

You shall see the answers to your doubts !

Regards

Frank,

I have taken the trouble to understand the concept of time and dimension and those concepts have been foundational to the work I have been doing for the last 6 years. I now understand that -you- are using the term dimension in a very specific way. I accept that the postulate you disagree with was possibly not clearly enough expressed for minds such as yours. As I pointed out to you a word definitions supplement was not allowed within the rules.

What I have said in the essay is within a context, a whole framework. Not isolated pronouncements on the structure or function of the external universe. Your methodology has to do with processes that have duration. The external universe that I imagine you are thinking of, when those words are said, includes a historical component. As processes, including oscillation, are spread over time. Within the explanatory framework described, that is a number of iterations of the Object universe. Only the youngest iteration exists. The historical collection of iterations is not the external Object universe that is in existence. Understanding that you should understand why the postulate could be given.

Now that might sound like nonsense. For it to make sense it is necessary to read the essay in its entirety from beginning to end. Then the diagram will be comprehensible and you will see that what you are saying about wavelengths is not incompatible with this framework. It just has to be looked at as fitting across iterations, if you are talking about what exists independently of observation, rather than within any single one. Or within the output Image reality formed from processing of received data.

Dear Azzam,

I don't think I can give you the answers you are looking for. I can not mark your mathematics.I cannot supply the kind of experimental results you require (See my biography). In the essay I have tried to express that I do not think that linear logic, building from facts (experimental results) or linear building of mathematics is enough to solve the many problems that there have been in physics.

What is the point of the most wonderful mathematics pertaining (for example) to the Big Bang and inflation, if such scenarios never happened? That would make it fantastic numerical story telling, mathematically brilliant- but not better physics than an interim verbal description that more closely matches reality. You will see at the end of the essay that full mathematical expression of the framework is a possible area for future research and development.

Thanks Steve.

Georgina

A tour de force bravo! I enjoyed going through your essay and should read it again for the big truths as well as the many small gems glistening between the lists. I am impressed how you have approached physics (and biology) holistically putting the observer and and thinker in her place to see a rather too complex conceptual 'reality' of theories assumptions (diagram 1) yet zeroed in on controversial physical truths I totally agree with. If you read my essay for the current fqxi contest (submitted but not yet online) you may see what I am talking about. I liked your definition of gravity as motion affecting the surrounding 'dust'. If you include under dust the vacuum ether nodes of my Beautiful Universe theory then we totally agree there!

Cheers!

Vladimir

Georgina,

You do an excellent job of dissecting the various inputs and outputs to current physics.

Tom makes an interesting point about how GR is just supposed to model gravity, not explain it. Safe to say though, that it is generally accepted as an explanation. If even Tom is willing to accept it is only a model, maybe there is hope physics will get beyond its current unicorn phase. One rather simplistic explanation for gravity might be that it's an effect of fusion. Rather than being an effect of mass, that it is a product of the creation of mass. When mass turns to energy, it expands, so might not the opposite be true, that when energy is contracting into mass, there is a resulting vacuum? From the most faint cosmic rays coalescing into interstellar gases(which would explain dark matter/excess of gravity on the perimeter of galaxies), to the creation of heavy metals in the core of stars. We could reverse Einstein's signature equation; M=e/c2.

John

Hi John,

thank you for reading it. I do appreciate your positive comment.

Yes Tom's point is interesting. Curvature of space-time is a good model for gravity, in that it corresponds to the experimental evidence. That correspondence does not prove that it is cause though. The argument I have presented shows why the experimental evidence should be expected to correspond with his model. It is only the assumption that that correspondence is showing causation of gravity that is wrong, not Einstein's model.

I am pretty sure it was Einstein who made that assumption. I don't have a handy quote of Einstein saying as much to hand, but I think I'll look for one now. This is an interesting thing, written by John Archibald Wheeler "Only by understanding gravity as the grip of spacetime on mass, and mass on spacetime, can we comprehend even the first thing about the machinery of the world-" Which indicates to me how fully the assumption has been accepted.

Thanks for the food for thought.