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

you are Welcome,

Sincerely

Hello dear Georgina and dear Azzam,

Sorry Georgina, I don't want to utilize your thread.I d desire simply to give him a road for his understanding of his asks.

You know Azzam, Georgina is a good thinker, she can answer also to your doubts abouts several asks.

Hi Georgina/John,

What Wheeler is saying, is a point that I myself have been trying to get across in the FQXi forum since the beginning, and without much success. It's that one should be grounded in the fundamentals of classical physics from the bottom up (such as detailed in Einstein/Infeld, *The Evolution of Physics*), i.e., understand the mechanics of the universe before taking on the more subtle basis for the mechanics.

Wheeler, at the end of the day, was one of the first modern scientists to introduce the role of consciousness into the mechanics of creation, eventually theorizing that the world is made of information alone ("it from bit"). Rather than relying on metaphysical causation a priori to reach this deduction, however, he got there by increments, from the manifest classical mechanics of gravity in the very large, to the manifest statistical mechanics of the very small.

Uniting the machinery of the deterministic world with the machinery of quantum mechanics is yet an uncompleted task; the comprehension of what "machinery" means, though, is -- as Wheeler notes -- the essence of the problem. A classical connectedness is something we learn early -- wheels and gears and cosmic cycles -- and that's what we commonly call the machine. Digital computing has changed our notion of machine to include effects not so obviously connected. Whether this implies hidden connections (e.g., topological connectedness of the kind described by Joy Christian) that preserves determinism, or whether the world is inherently probabilistic, is the great debate among scientists and philosophers.

Tom

Dear Georgina : First of all a great BRAVO for your essay. It is really good thinking leading to interesting concepts. I am just struggling with my own essay and hope to submit it at the end of the month. On page 5 point 13 there are paralels with my Foam of Spheres and on page 7 : your data Pool reminds me of my Total Simultaneity. I really like your approach and wish you the best of luck with this contest.

Wilhelmus

Georgina,

I think you are right that it was Einstein himself. Wasn't it his comment something like; " Mass and energy tell spacetime how to bend and spacetime tells mass and energy how to move." ?

Models only model. Measurement might affect, but that's more a matter of the inherent fuzziness of being part of the system being measured.

It really goes down into the whole 'Math as foundational Platonic ideal belief system.' The philosophy that denies it's a philosophy.

Tom,

Several times posts haven't posted, as I rush off and come back to find them still in the box. The previous was one, so it was written before your recent post.

There are quite a few ideas tied up in your post, but the one I would address is what do we do, if our classical views are flawed? Epicycles being the classic example. It proved eminently possible to construct a mathematical model with the earth as the center of the universe, for the very simple and basic reason that from our physical point of view, we are the center of our view of the universe. Even the star maps of today would be meaningless from another location in the galaxy. This very success proved to be a profound stumbling block to further understanding. As is said of GR and QM, 'The math works, therefore it must be right.'

How do we go back and make sure all possible foundational assumptions are correct, when there is so much social and professional pressure to keep moving forward, even far beyond the point of rank speculation? I think even you have to admit that not only are there plenty of loose ends remaining, but many of those supposedly tied up bring to mind the old computing principle of "Junk in, junk out."

As for determinism, vs. probabilistic, it would seem we would have both, when the 'machine' is deterministic, but the input cannot be fully defined prior to an event. Otherwise, if we were to assume the laws of the machine are only just suggestions, all bets are off. Or we assume there is some God-like point of view, by which all input is known, even if the range of sources is effectively infinite. So it would seem the past is inherently deterministic, since all input has been factored into the outcome, while the future is inherently probabilistic, since there is no perfect set of potential input into events which have not occurred. It is only when one subscribes to some blocktime, or multiworlds view that the question becomes unanswerable.

Georgina, John, Thomas,

The problem with gravity is the way we define the terms mass and energy. Einstein received a lot of credit for presenting an equation that equated energy to mass, which may have been his way of agreeing with Max Planck's support of the theory of energetics, everything is a form of energy. Energetics fell out of favor once the particle theory of atomic structure became the accepted assumption.

We have become locked into the assumption that energy can only have the structural form and characteristics of a contemporary photon. It is very easy to identify an energy structural form that satisfies all the characteristics of gravity, satisfies the Newtonian "instantaneous-influence-at-a-distance" phenomenon and agrees with Maxwell's equations, but it would disrupt $100s of millions, probably into the $billions, of grants and funding for projects that are aimed at proving the curve-space time theory of gravity.

The prestige of those that control the scientific authority structure is based upon the receipt and control of funds. I do not perceive them willing to allow a new gravity concept to disrupt a well established flow of funds.

Frank,

I can understand what you are saying, yet I do feel science is far more motivated by faith, than greed.

There is the physics of politics, where belief systems go through a growth phase of increasing credibility, as they prove ever more successful at beating whatever opposition arises, until it becomes more a function of institutional management, than pursuit of vision and corruption sets in. Depending on their social and civil functions, different institutions can survive for much longer than others. So then there is the politics of physics.

Sciences cannot live in the corrupted phase for nearly as long as say, religious or political institutions. I think historians will look back on this and see the discovery of the Higgs as the apex of the current age, because once the glow of this success wears off and scientists start looking for new avenues to explore, they will not have the resources to push the current view much further, so there will be, gradually at first, a tendency to give more attention to the many issues percolating under the surface. Without that grand unifying effort to keep everyone pointed in one direction, first the fringes will raise their profiles a little further, then the debates within the ivory towers will start to grow louder. Then it will really start to come out in the open that many assumptions are not as solid as they have been presented to be.

Tom ,

to be fair to John A. Wheeler my quote is from "Journey into Gravity and Space-time" written by him back in 1990. His views may have changed. He also said in that writing- "Even the word universe, bandied about in many a book, conceals a mountain of ignorance. We don't know whether what we call" the universe" is open or closed or whether that distinction -with growth of our understanding -may not itself fade away into thin air, into undefinability, into nonsense.

So while on the one hand saying that "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 sounds very certain -to me-, he is being very open minded about the realm itself in which the physics is occurring.

Georgina,

The problem with the issue of gravity started long before Einstein became involved. From what was known about electromagnetic (EM) fields, the propagated kind, individual electric charges and magnets, Einstein could not reconcile how any of these could accomplish the universal attraction of all objects that possess what is termed mass.

Heaviside did not help the propagated EM side of the argument, he transformed Maxwell's equations such that they fit what scientists of his era knew about these fields. It is an assumption that the Heaviside transforms are correct, and this has been carried forward to the present. There are many papers that reveal that Maxwell's original equations allowed an EM structure where both fields were not transverse, they supported a longitudinal element. With one of the EM fields aligned with the axis of propagation it is possible to identify an EM field structure that presents an attractant only force to another field of the same type.

The scientific community, by accepting Einstein's curved space-time theory of gravity, stuck their heads into a Lewis Carroll rabbit hole where bizarre theories beget bizarre theories. Einstein is credited with the quote, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Can anyone conclude Einstein's curved space-time theory of gravity is in any way simple? Your essay rejects the assumption that curved space-time is the cause of gravity.

Having an EM field structure would make it easy to understand the mechanism of the force of gravity, such that it could be taught at the high school science level.

Georgina, just for curiosity, have you read Lancelot Law Whyte's article on "Chirality?" (Leonardo, Vol. 8, pp 245-248 Pergamon Press 1975)

Chirality

Frank,

I have not only rejected curved space-time as the cause of gravity. I have explained why that must be so. As space-time is the product of processing received data and not the foundational external reality. Explanation of how that conclusion is reached can be found in the essay. As it is not space-time that is curved in foundational reality it can't be affecting bodies of matter.

I have not just left a void when discounting the curved space-time causal explanation. I later explained that the universal motion of all bodies must affect the environment of space in Object reality.( Don't remember my exact words without referring back to it) That can affect the motion of other bodies and affects the path of the light, giving the effects of gravitational attraction and curved space-time. So you can see from that that I don't think it is what the light is doing that is causing gravity either.It -is- the alteration of the environment, which the light is also travelling through; and that environment is not within space-time, but uni-temporal space.

Dear Wilhelmus,

thank you for reading my essay.I do appreciate your positive remarks about it. Glad you found some ideas in it that resonate with your own thinking.I look forward to reading your own essay when it appears.

Hi J.C. N. Smith,

Can't thank you enough for your response to my essay. I am sorry if my reply was rather brief and to the point of your question.

I like Max Tegmark's "Shut up and calculate " paper very much. It contains many quotable words of wisdom as well as diverse ideas that I find appealing. I have learned from it that the universe can be thought about in many more ways than I had imagined; and learned that ideas I had considered nonsense I had formerly not been thinking about in ways that made sense of them.

I have realised that I mustn't be too hasty to pass judgement because sensible or nonsense, right or wrong, can be due to the quantity/quality/style of information or explanation accessed and the viewpoint of the thinker- and not the idea itself. Even if ideas turn out to be wrong they can be stepping stones to new and better ideas. Even if they have to be thrown on the junk pile they are useful in the way Edison's failed experiments were. "Results, why man I have gotten lots of results. I know several thousand things that won't work." Thomas Edison. That is honest progress and we can all participate.

Hi Georgina,

Not a problem; you've been busier than the proverbial woman on crutches in a revolving door replying to the many interesting posts which your essay has generated.

I agree with your comments above about not being too hasty to pass judgement.

"The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." -- David Deutsch, 'The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 257. (You commented favorably on this quote elsewhere.)

Which of course raises the question, what is truth? I personally take truth (in the context of science) to be the best available explanation for observed phenomena, with the understanding that it will remain so only until someone offers a better, more comprehensive explanation, which presumably would then subsume all previous "best explanations." Little by little, step by step, I think we're sneaking up on it, with a little help from our friends.

Cheers,

jcns

Dear Georgina,

Your own essay, which is brilliant, by the way and will receive a great rating from me, argues over and over again, even with your quotes from others for my argument. And I do believe without exception, that Infinity, or Endlessness is Cruel and Malicious. I agree, as it is the ultimate mental jail, we are trapped within. If you are claustrophobic, you are in trouble. However there is one release value, and that is the endless growth of "Knowledge", which finite sentiency is forever capable of. And must be, to justify the paradox of the finite and the infinite. Or said another way, this paradox is the essence of existence itself. As it could be no other way.

Knowledge is insatiable, due to the absolute fact that infinity is insatiable. Infinity just as knowledge is forever a ponderable and yes cruel and malicious fact - in fact. It is the one thing that assails me with fear of the trapped nature I find myself in. With exception, if I give up to the infinite, then I do not think anymore, and am no longer trapped. It is a duplicitous, and paradoxical reality, I cannot escape.

If I could escape then infinity is no more than a false and finite misnomer, and that is not possible, by its own very real nature.

I hope this explains my position in a way that marries in with your thesis, as your thesis is not in conflict, from my perspective.

It is what it is...

I wish you great success, deeply and sincerely. Albeit your work, already speaks to that fact.

Cheers, Russ

PS... I have a series of Essay's @ www.otterthink.wordpress.com Perhaps they will shed some additional thoughts as to why I believe, as I do.

Compared to mine, yours is a meticulously logical approach to the incompatibilities of GR and QM. It is easy at the surface but layers in complexity. I'll delve deeper.

Georgina,

I mentioned Lancelot Law Whyte's publication Chirality to illustrate one of the unexplained characteristics of the universe that was influencing his thinking and writings.

An individual that assembled information contained in his diaries made this statement, "The diaries were dedicated to the recording of his progress on this great task, not to the writing of his books. They were intense, personal, at times heartbreaking, written for a future biographer, an account of the daily joys and sufferings of a great mind nearing a universal truth. As the reader will see shortly, they are quite overwhelming. They are organically linked with the emerging grand unified theory as he was also developing a new way of thinking, which has considerable dependence on the unconscious. One can actually learn to use his method by simply reading what he had to say about it."

The diaries of Lancelot Law Whyte

Your writings suggest you are using this "new way of thinking," but this manner of thinking is not really new, probably been around as long as our species has existed. What is new to each individual that uses it is realizing it is an actual mental tool that can be exploited.

Dear Russ,

thank you for reading my essay and for your very kind remarks. I am glad you liked it and found it compatible with your own way of thinking. Thanks too for the further explanation of your thoughts and your web address.

Thank you James,

I do hope you will be able to see how it all fits together. The framework might appear complicated at first but when it is understood it is really rather simple and then easy to use as an explanatory tool.I do have a higher resolution file of diagram 1, if it is too difficult to make out the words on all of the input arrows. Some quality was lost when putting it into the text file. I look forward to reading your essay.