Well, despite that I don't approve of Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot problem, and that there are technical errors in your version of relativity theory -- Vladimir, I have to give you kudos for an entertaining, readable and enjoyable essay! (As always, I love your art.)
Tom
Thanks Ray for reading my essay. The Alexandrian solution was a poetic take on my essay by a friend - it may be more accurate to say it is a virtual cut of the mental Gordian knot to clear a century of conceptual cobwebs before starting again from zero patiently tying a new and simpler knot! If you have time I would appreciate if you can briefly outline the technical problems with my relativity version. I still have to work out the details so it is by no means a complete theory just intuitive notions. I think it might work in the context of a dynamic universal lattice where energy is transmitted locally from node to node at a maximum of c but at slower speeds when the nodes have greater potential as in a gravitational field.
Cheers!
Vladimir
Vladimir
I enjoyed your essay, and have come back to it several times. The analogy about the 'badly designed building' was apt, and the seven questionable foundational premises were insightful. You are clearly very handy with the pen and brush, and the diagrams added interest.
So I thought that the paper was a good summary of the problems confronting physics, and the several areas where its premises may be wrong. I guess the next question would be, How does one go about fixing these problems?
Thank you
Dirk
Thanks Dirk,
I am glad you read the paper and enjoyed the illustrations ( Fig. 1 was made using Adobe Illustrator - I would never have gotten the lines so clean with pen or brush - the rest were pencil drawings). As I argued with Asghar in these discussion I believe geometry is paramount to imagine physics so the visual imagination helped the physics. In your essay too you made nice diagrams illustrating your concepts. I would go even further and say if one cannot picture it it is not a good foundation for a physics theory!
My recipe for reconstructing physics is in my Beautiful Universe Theory but it is just a an outline road map that needs a lot of development. One can check some of its claims in a preliminary way by computer simulation. Wish I had the skills.
Best wishes
Vladimir
Vladimir
In your last post on George's blog, you draw our attention to your paper, a Beautiful Universe Theory.
Your underlying principle is: "understanding nature at its own level is a necessary step to pave the way for further theoretical, experimental and technological discoveries". Absolutely.
Your start point is: "It is hypothesized that the entire universe is made up of an ordered lattice of identical spherically-symmetric charged nodes that are smaller than the smallest known nuclear particle, but are on a similar scale to it". OK.
But, the real question is how does physical existence occur in this circumstance? Spin, even if it involves just orientation on a spatial point, rather than alteration of spatial position, involves change. A change of what, to what? So, what constitutes any given physically existent state? When, and in what state, can any given node be said to have physically existed? Is it on completion of one spin, half a spin, what? Because the problem is that, by definition, any given node cannot physically exist in more than one physical state at a time. It cannot be half way through a spin and at the same time have completed one, or whatever.
This might sound dreadfully philosophical, and indeed annoying, but actually it points to the most fundamental physical point of all. We can never know, neither is science concerned with, what might be 'really' happening. We are part of the reality we are trying to establish knowledge of, and we cannot transcend our own physical existence, other than by invoking beliefs. So, we know there is something existing 'out there' ('out' being external/independent to our sensory detection systems, ie sight, hearing, etc). To be 'out there', it is physically existing, and it cannot do this in different physical states at the same time. In other words, there must ultimately be discreteness. Continuousness in physical reality means that one, and one only, physically existent state occurs, and it never ever changes.
Now, there is then an argument about 'cause'. Because the question arises as to why this node is spinning, how does it get charged, etc. But, cause must have correspondence with some physically existent phenomenon. It is not some 'mysterious' process that has no physical basis. Which then brings one back to the same logical point, ie how does 'cause' exist? Personally I would suggest that the physically existent state of any given 'cause' delineates what constitutes physical existence as at any point in time. In other words, there is a tendency to think of thing (and even the smallest thereof, like your nodes) being the equivalent of physical existence. And then something else causes alteration, but the physicality of this can somehow be ignored in terms of defining what was in existence as at any given point in time.
In sum then, reality is an unbelievably fast movie. But there are ultimately 'frames', because you do not get a movie without them, and we have one. We certainly do not have a still photo.
Paul
Paul
Thank you for your message . I know you are concerned with what physical reality is and whether we understand it or not. This philosophical question (and you cannot deny it is one) somehow exercises you unduly. In my case I have bypassed the whole issue of what 'actually' goes on in Nature. I have presented a model and my attitude is - if it functions in a way that is close to how Nature does so (in other words predicting the results of experiments etc.) that will be wonderful - if not then that's it the model does not work.
There you see why speculating on sematic issues of reality is absolutely of no interest to me and does get rather annoying when repeated so and at such length. I do not belittle the importance of your approach and I know there are whole university departments devoted to these questions, but I think it is wasted on us 'nuts and bolts' physics people here who just want to get the scenario right. Please try to understand.
And yes yes the movie frame idea is a good way to describe events but only if each frame encompasses the entire Universe.
Best wishes
Vladimir
Vladimir
It was not a philosophical question, it was a physical one. I too "have bypassed the whole issue of what 'actually' goes on in Nature" (well actually, eradicated). I said so, ie " We can never know, neither is science concerned with, what might be 'really' happening. We are part of the reality we are trying to establish knowledge of, and we cannot transcend our own physical existence, other than by invoking beliefs. So, we know there is something existing 'out there'..". That is why it was a physical point.
I also have to stress that my comments were not about the content of the model, as such. I just used it to comment how physical reality occurs and the notion of sequence/discreteness.
"And yes yes the movie frame idea is a good way to describe events but only if each frame encompasses the entire Universe"
And why doesn't it? What in practical, not metaphysical, terms is an issue to actually directly experience can be resolved (or at least attempted to be) with hypothecation. There is nothing else left then.
Paul
Paul
I learned a new word from you, hypothecate, thanks.
If the movie frame encompasses the universe, a concept I like and inherent in my theory, the universe is then absolute. This goes against the idea of inertial frames that Einstein propo-- hypothecated.
Vladimir
From Miriam-Webster
Definition of HYPOTHECATE
transitive verb
: to pledge as security without delivery of title or possession
-- hy·poth·e·ca·tion noun
-- hy·poth·e·ca·tor noun
Also see Hypothecation
Vladimir
Tee hee, bring in the debt collector!
"If the movie frame encompasses the universe, a concept I like and inherent in my theory, the universe is then absolute"
Yes, but remember Vladimir that you are not establishing the 'universe', you are establishing KNOWLEDGE of the universe. And that is "absolute", though a better phrase is a closed system. That system being a function of sensory detection. All sentient organisms RECEIVE physically existent phenomena, that is the basis upon which we know, the subsequent processin of this physical input is irrelevant to the physics of reality. And no organism, including us, can physically transcend its own existence. We leave that to belief systems.
"This goes against the idea of inertial frames that Einstein"
Not so. Because the whole point is tha they are 'inertial', ie it is the point at which no change in any given reality occurs.
But another answer concerns this worry that everybody has with inertial frames, which stems from a misconception of what Einstein/Lorentz were originally saying, which then was incorrectly explained with Poincare's simultaneity and Minkowski's spacetime. So to some extent you cannot blame them. The original hypothesis was that matter was subject to dimension alteration (which was later admitted to occur also in light). The cause of which (a differential in gravitational force encountered) ALSO caused momentum change. So, if momentum was changing that indicated that dimension was too. So, in making any calculations, one needed to account for this. Movement is not the issue, it is an indicator that dimension change is occurring, so watch out, otherwise you'll get your sums wrong when comparing one thing with another (relativity). Now, whether this actually does occur and at the rate Lorentz propsed is a separate issue. That is why SR is all fixed shape bodies, straight rays of light, and effectively no movement in the normal sense of the word. Whilst in the real world, GR, it's 'all over the place' (technical explanation!).
By the way, this exchange prompted me to write a piece this morning, It's on my blog (06.42). You are assure, as per all my posts, that contrary to appearences it is a philosophy free zone (neither is there any hypothecation)
Paul
Hi Vladimir,
I had to think hard before replying, because I recognize your research as idiosyncratic, and I don't wish to tinker with subtleties that I don't understand. So I'm going to use a broad brush, and try to get across that while quantum mechanical theory indeed resembles a building in progress -- relativity theory is nothing like that. Relativity is a mansion designed and built complete.
The eminent relativist George Ellis has explained or implied the mathematical completeness of relativity ("top down causality") much more elegantly than I am capable of. In this year's round of essays, he casts a wide and fine-meshed net that captures modern information theory on the microscale, to smoothly connect the theories of relativity and the quantum on the large scale. Like Einstein, as you say, if the net were to be torn, George would have to start all over -- and as we know, the finer the mesh, the greater the risk.
I apologize in advance for the length of what follows. I think that a series of exchanges last month, between James Putnam and me in the FQXi blog "Essay Contest 2012: Questioning the Foundations," gets across my point of view.
I start:
"Hi James,
One area on which Richard Gill and I agree is that a mathematical model must be independent of experiment. I'm in a rather difficult position defending Joy's framework, because he started out by alienating -- and this is no exaggeration -- every mathematician on the planet ("disproof"). It's a huge irony, because it's the mathematicians, brought up on theorem proving, who would naturally ally themselves with a creative coherent argument if they have or can acquire the background to understand it. Physicists couldn't care less; physicists as a rule take mathematics "off the shelf" and try to fit it into what they are doing experimentally (whether real or gedanken). The job of a mathematician is to create new mathematics.
That's the rub. We can't create "new physics." We can only explain the physics we have. So a physical theory is tested by measured correspondence of a phenomenon against its mathematical explanation. That's what makes quantum mechanics so successful; it is vulnerable, however, to being the victim of its own success. That is, if the mathematical theory were completed, it would not be coherent -- how do we know this? -- because quantum theory at any scale is not coherent without the assumption of nonlocality. Mathematical completeness cannot be compatible with nonlocality, either mathematically or physically.
Einstein stood by his philosophy, "I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element; I want to know His thoughts -- the rest are details." In this respect he thought like a mathematician rather than a physicist. Completeness is what the "Old One" imagines. Relativity is mathematically complete in the classical domain.
Believe me, there are many days when I wished I hadn't signed on to this dispute. I've got my own program. And even with the overlap, the distraction is taxing and wasteful of my time. If we are going to be intellectually honest, though, we cannot dismiss arguments that are inconvenient, or that lie outside the rules we have prescribed for ourselves.
When we create new mathematics, we have to be ready to change or reinterpret some rules. When it's complete, *then* we can speak of how it corresponds to the "real world," a physical experiment. Otherwise, we are merely cobbling up explanations for what the real world *appears* to be telling us -- and that doesn't guarantee that we really got the true message (hence, Joy's "illusion of entanglement")and usually, we are simply validating what we already know to a reasonable certainty. A mathematically complete explanation that predicts an unexpected outcome, OTOH, has much greater explanatory power.
Tom
James replies:
"I am unclear about this statement:
'Mathematical completeness cannot be compatible with nonlocality, either mathematically or physically.'
I understand it to be saying that: Since relativity theory is mathematically complete, and, since quantum theory is not, that it is assumed that quantum theory must evolve into a state where it can be absorbed into a fuller theoretical framework dominated by relativity theory.
James
My reply:
"Well put. It's that, yes, but more:
Mathematical language, despite its reputation among many unfamiliar with it, is not mystical. It's built of definitions and theorems rather than bricks and mortar, yet the abstractions are every bit as solidly joined as the best-built dwelling. Imagine that a builder invites you to view your new house from a hilltop. You look down and see a foundation hole, a rickety frame, a partly finished wall, a crumbling chimney. "We're making progress," he says. "When will it be completed?" you ask. He looks puzzled, "What do you mean?"
"When can I expect to live in it?"
"Oh, you can't ever live in it. Wouldn't be safe."
"Excuse me?"
"We don't know when something might collapse."
You are incredulous. "Don't you have plans, drawings, blueprints, specifications?"
"Sure." He hands you the plan. It's an exact copy of the wreck you see below.
"But this doesn't tell me what the house is supposed to look like!"
"Of course it does," he says. "What do you see in the plan that's different from what you see below?"
He's got you there. You can't argue with success.
"That's pretty ugly," you say.
Again, he's puzzled. "Is there some law that says a house has to be pretty?"
You admit, "I suppose not."
"Well, then can you take care of this bill for the progress we've made so far?"
"It's in the mail," you say.
All best,
Tom
Vladimir
I am on holiday as of tomorrow morning. As such I undertook an interesting exercise (see my blog my post 27/7 07.40).
Remember, the 'movie' ultimately comprises stills. And there must always be physicality. That is, there cannot be a circumstance where the cause of a physical effect is not, of itself, physical.
Paul
Paul
I have responded earlier to the ideas you have put forward. As I told you I am really not interested. I find your repeated postings about the same thing distracting to me and those who wish to discuss my essay. I wish you will cease and desist.
I sincerely respect you and your zeal to research various ideas in physics, but this is not a blog but a forum, and this page is certainly not your blog page!
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir:
"The history of physics shows, 'physically realistic' theories open up new possibilities. Describing planetary motion using Kepler's ellipses rather than Ptolemy's epicycles led directly to Newton's gravity and beyond."
Well put! The essay was entirely enjoyable, and I'm interested to get to your Beautiful Universe theory in due course.
Best wishes!
Daryl
Dear Daryl,
Thanks for your cheering words. Both my experience as an inventor and artist gave me an intuition into both the nuts and bolts of devices and systems, and in the creative process that interacts with these things- and I am always amazed how many different intellectual and/or physical approaches can be made to design the same mechanism or theory. We have become too clever and it is this 'too cleverness' that is distracting us from finding the much sought-after unified physics close to the workings of nature.
I dare not utter the letters SR lest I invite another torrent of the sort of distracting posts I have been complaining about, but I feel that Einstein was 'too clever' and that in an absolute timeless ether-based universe relativity could have been (and hopefully will be) presented differently with light slowing down as it decelerates and curves in gravitational fields, for example.
I really should develop the math of relativity in the sort of model I proposed in Beautiful Universe but I know my limitations - I think geometrically not algebraically. Simulating (BU) would be great and I have a strong feeling the results of SR can all be reproduced from its basic node-to-node interactions at a maximum rate of (c).
Hope this makes some sense!
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
This does make some sense, although I've only been able to look briefly at your BU theory. I, too, primarily think geometrically, and I think you and I agree fairly well when it comes to relativity. Actually, in case you hadn't noticed, I wanted to point your attention to a response that I wrote to you on July 24 @ 6:47 GMT.
Daryl
Thanks Daryl you are very kind to take the time to detail your views. I have read your posts addressed to me on your page and also the one to Jim. Please make allowance for my somewhat limited technical ability to navigate the myriad details of SR and GR. Factor in the stamina of the grandpa set and that makes my reviewing and responding to all your points - as they well deserve - a question of time. Another problem for me is the interuptions of vapid or of off-subject posts that seem to pop out frequently from a certain source and do take out the pleasure of back-and-forth discourse.
Let us keep in touch I value your ideas.
Vladimir
Dear Thomas
Thanks for your message, and for taking my paper seriously enough to the extent that you felt you had to answer it, respecting its idiosyncratic nature, despite hinting about your disagreement or puzzlement about its contents. I enjoyed reading your exchanges with Putnam, and observations about Relativity and QM. What incomplete ugly architectural plan were you referring to in that exchange?
In writing my fqxi essay I took to heart the caution not to 'shoehorn' my own pet theory into the discussion. But now that I think of it, for a person like you taking my fqxi essay at face value it might read like a manifesto by an unwashed anarchist advocating to demolish all that is best and truest in civilized physics and beyond for no good reason.
As I hinted in my essay my criticisms spring from a vision of what a simple harmonious unified physics might be freed from the assumptions I mentioned - i.e. my Beautiful Universe Theory . I know it is by no means a complete program, and to make its few physical assumptions work it has to be developed by experts in many fields. But implicitly criticizing a program that states at the outset that Relativity must be 'reverse engineered' by saying it is not like Relativity is an oxymoron!
Yes Relativity is complete - that is exactly its problem! It is so structured as to shut out possibly important aspects of reality, viz. the ether, a timeless universe, and worst of all, the possibility of an absolute physics not dominated everywhere by the observer's point of view. Einstein proposed *absolute observation* (c is constant) but this made the Universe relative. But why insert an observer in every point in the universe? What if one starts by saying the Universe is absolute (where c has a maximum but can slow down in gravity), and only in cases of measurements involving inertial frames, *observation is relative* subject to Lorentz transformations. No observer need be present in GR - who is going to measure the speed of a light ray, Ray, as it curves around the Sun? We can simply apply what we know of the dynamics of deceleration and curvature in classical physics.
I have a lot of respect for the brilliance and hard work of the people who have developed QM and like Ellis refined Relativity, but obviously some basic things are not working, else fqxi would not exist and the present Foundational Question would not have been posed. Being a speculative forum what is wrong with considering a new starting point and building on it from there one notion at a time? It requires an open mind, perhaps even an empty one such as the one I may be privileged to posses :)
Thanks and cheers.
Vladimir
Dear Tamari
I found your essay interesting and I do see where we share some of the same thoughts, that's why I like it. I will critique it one item at a time because I tend to talk a lot when I get going.
"As will be discussed below, some may actually be wrong (that the photon is a point particle, rather than a spreading quantum of energy."
This is how I see it, if it looks and acts like a wave then it is a wave, now if it looks and acts like a particle then it is a particle. Where we went wrong in the past since we forsaken the aether for special relativity is that we thought the photons were both a wave and a particle, as Einstein alluded to, but it is not.
In our surroundings if a particle is moving through something fluid-like, air or a liquid, it gives off a signature wave that tells us that it was there. A photon, a gauge boson, moving through a bosonic condensate would do the same, give off a wave signature in the condensate that tells us something passed by. Now how I see it is the Photons are acually gluons with a build up of charge, e-plus e-minus charge pairs, that add up to 0.
The BEC-like particles in the medium that the photons passes through are diamagnetic to other bosons unless they are occupying the same state but they are paramagnetic to all other matter unless they are close to absolute zero. As a result the aether, (bosonic condensate), was affected by that passing particle similar to what a particle would behave like in a fluid-like medium as mentioned above. Remember in a BEC Helium II phase change below 2.17 degrees Kelvin helium acts like a boson and is superfluidity, diamagnetic, superconductor that obeys the Bose statistic. Now Fermions, Fermionic condensates - quarks, leptons, act similar to BEC at even lower temperature.
Since the Higgs boson was almost confirmed as existing within 5 sigma of accuracy then we are about to rename the aether as the Higgs field. Imagine Aristotle's look when he finds out that he isn't finally getting the Nobel prize for Physics for his aether theory after 2,400 years, some other guy named Peter Higgs is getting it.
Dear Tamari should be Dear Vladimir, sorry for the typo.
Ron