Recognising Top-Down Causation by George F. R. Ellis

Dear George,

I read your essay.It is well written and your argument is very clear. However, I would like to point out that the statement "The concepts that are useful at one level are simply inapplicable at other levels" is an assumption. It may not be true.It is that assumption that leads to the question whether it should be from bottom to top or reverse.

Bottom-top and top-down causations are equally possible, and you have pointed out examples. This may indicate that the system is in equilibrium and the ongoing process is a reversible one.The universe may be in a state of equilibrium at any instant, and the expansion may reversible process.

Another point where I diagree is with the statement "random events take place at the micro level". If what happens at microlevel is random, then surely top-down causation will not take place. But we find that in a given situation,the events happen in a pre-determined way. Otherwise when we type A, we can expect any character to appear on the computer screen. The whole computer programming becomes possible just because the events are deterministic.

Dear Dr. Ellis,

Thank you for your response. I would like to mention that Physicists who are 'imbued with their mother's milk' into believing in Einstein's principle of relativity, are blinkered not to see the top down structure, between the motion of a particle relative to earth and earth's GRAVITATIONAL MOTION round the sun.

One of the great damages that happened to physics is due to Poincare's rejection of Galileo's principle of relativity, whose BASIS is that an object moving relative to earth shares also a MOTION IN COMMON with the earth.

Galileo: "Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION" (p. 114).

As an analogy he wrote: "The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it" (p. 187).

Poincare culled off the common motion with the local reference frame from Galileo's principle of relativity, and MISCONSTRUED that all IFR are equivalent, and that laws of physics are the same in all IFR. And Einstein accepted it uncritically in the formulation of SRT.

The absence of COMMON MOTION in our frame of thinking is why we cannot conceive the top down effect of Earth's gravitational motion round the sun on a motion of a particle relative to earth.

What Galileo has stated is that the top down effect is imperceptible. The reason why they thought it to be imperceptible is because at the low level of velocities of objects that Galileo and Newton were dealing the effect is extremely minute, since the MATHEMATICS DETERMINING THIS EFFECT IS NON-LINEAR. It is at high velocities the non-linearity comes out of its relative dormancy and turns to manifest effects exponentially. So although both Galileo and Newton made mention of the COMMON MOTION, physics developed as if this is of no consequence because of the relative dormancy of the mathematics determining the top down effect.

But when experiments with very fast moving began at the turn of the 20th century, new phenomena arose, which seemed to contradict classical views. See Lorentz 1904 paper which led to the formulation of empirical equation which came to be known as the "Lorentz transformation". He begins the paper: "The problem of determining the (top down) influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by a translation, .... IN VIRTUE OF EARTH'S ANNUAL MOTION ....".

Thus Lorentz came very close to giving the top down interpretation to the "Lorentz transformation". If a determined and a consistent effort was continued to get to basics in terms of dynamics, then the problem would have been solved. But unfortunately Einstein turned it into a kinematic postulate of SRT and the matter has got buried under this theory ever since.

There is one question I would like to ask you in regard to SRT's position on the LT's. SRT never discovered or predicted LT. It took hold of Lorentz' empirically developed equation and turned it into a postulate. And when subsequent experimental results confirm LT ("space co-ordinate"), the credit goes to SRT. But if SRT's interpretation about LT is correct, then along with the confirmation of the 'space co-ordinate', the 'time co-ordinate' too must be experimentally confirmed. The question I ask you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time is t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)gamma?

I have pursued the on the Top Down influence of Earth's gravitational motion on the relative motions of objects on earth. In my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

I have followed Einstein's efforts (besides relativity) to develop what he called the 'Right Way' by extending the approach of thermodynamics to whole of physics. I have explained why Einstein could not succeed in spite of his convictions - This is because he left out the possibility of top down effect of earth's motion from his frame of thinking.

Once the top down effect is properly taken into account (as I show in my essay), the general equation of motion of a particle derived from first principles becomes:

x' = gamma[vt(1 -u/c)] and t = t,

I have shown that a) when v tends to c, the equation turns to LT and b) when v is very much less than c, x = vt.

Hence this general equation holds for all velocities (very low to near light velocities). By this the schism in physics as regards Newtonian physics is valid only for low velocities and SRT is valid only for near light velocities disappears.

I am attaching the MS Doc version of my essay because the diagrams pdf version in this website have not come out properly. I request you to comment on my essay.

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 8_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

Dear Dr. Ellis,

1. I am bring to your attention that in my essay, going on EINSTEIN'S TRAIL on the search for the parallel between the perpetuum mobile in TD and Lorentz transformation that LT is THE TOP DOWN EFFECT of earth's motion on a relative motion of a particle on earth. By this I am giving you the greatest gift to you to confirm your essay on "Top Down Causation". But perhaps because of your dogmatic acceptance of SRT (in spite of Einstein's own misgivings about it) you refuse even to read my essay and consider whether it could be the case. You say: "I don't think there is much mileage in trying to show it is a wrong theory. It's not something I'd spend time on".).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

2. "The question I asked you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time is

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

(I correct my typo in my earlier post)

And your answer: "Yes - THE DECAY OF COSMIC RAY PARTICLES. This is discussed in most standard texts on special relativity, for example Flat and Curved Spacetimes (Ellis and Williams)".

I AM SORRY DR. ELLIS, YOU ARE MAKING A VERY GRAVE ERROR. YOU ARE CONFUSING BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED TIME DILATION EQUATION (1) AND LORENTZ TIME TRANSFORMATION EQUATION (2)

t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 --------------------(1)

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t ----------(2)

You have said "all those collider experiments at places like SLAC and CERN verify it millions of times over each time they do a run", I agree with you subject to what is stated below.

In those "millions of times" of verifications, what was verified was

a) that displacement is given by x' = gamma(x -ut) where U IS THE VELOCITY OF ORBIT OF THE EARTH and gamma determined by u. Hence the gamma-factor (for all experiments conducted on earth) is a constant. Gamma = 1.000000005.

b) And in the experiments to verify the decay time of a muon at CERN it confirmed the 'time dilation equation' t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2. In this v is the velocity of the particle in this gamma-factor. In this equation gamma is a variable. In the CERN experiment gamma v = 0.99c and gamma = 7.088, and when moving in a cosmic ray (as in Feynman example below), v = 0.9c and gamma = 2,294.

To quote from Feynman: . For example, before we have any idea at all about what makes the meson disintegrate, we can still predict that when it is moving at nine-tenths of the speed of light the apparent time that it lasts is

(2.2x10-6)/ sq rt [ 1- (9/10) squared] sec; and that our prediction works ..." (Vol I Ch 15 - 7).

For SRT to be correct on its fundamental contention on the Lorentz transformations, when the muon decays after moving through a displacement given by x' = gamma(x -ut) the corresponding time has to be given by (2)

t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t.

But this time is given by (1).

Here is the fundamental contention of SRT in Einstein's own words: :.. "The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and THE TIME."(1, p. 55).

I WILL ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. CAN YOU GIVE EVEN ONE EXPERIMENT THAT HAS CONFIRMED THE EQUATION t' = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

(I will follow this with another post giving a brief introduction to the content of my essay).

Best regards,

Viraj

Regarding the issue of the arrow of time and the H-theorem:

When I wrote my essay, I assumed that any competent present day physicist would be aware of the basic issues arising as to the time reversiblity of fundamental physics and the arrow of time. It has become painfully obvious through this thread that this is not the case. Yes of course it is PCT invariance rather than just T invariance that underlies present day particle physics: that makes no difference whatever to Weinberg's derivation of the H-theorem, which is based in unitarity. Unitary transformations are T-invariant. Weinberg's derivation of the H-theorem consequently does not solve the arrow of time issue in a purely bottom up way (my posting of Sep. 16, 2012 @ 14:06 GMT explains this in painful detail). If Weinberg had introduced some element related to collapse of the wave function into his argument, the situation would be different: but he does not do so.

For those of you who want a concise analysis of the issue by someone other than Penrose or Carroll, who it turns out are regarded with total disdain by some Californian physicists, here is a clear presentation of the issue by Craig Callender. This carefully explains, in the proper historical context, why some kind of cosmological condition is necessary to resolve the arrow of time issue, as has been realised by many great physicists including Einstein, Feynman, and Schroedinger. If you take the trouble to analyse it properly, bottom up effects alone are not able to resolve the arrow of time issue.

George Ellis

George,

You say,

"One of the basic assumptions implicit in the way physics is usually done is that all causation flows in a bottom up fashion, from micro to macro scales. However this is wrong in many cases in biology, and in particular in the way the brain functions."

My essay speaks of empirical evidence such as the trapping of anti-matter in space and the perceived weightlessness of thousands of sightings of UFOs in our atmosphere as good hard evidence. Macro and micro studies try to address this mystery. Is it an exception regarding your thoughts?

Jim

Dear Dr. Ellis,

1. First of all I must let you know that I am not a 'special relativity' denier, in the sense that I reject the a) principle of constancy of velocity of light, b) the validity of the displacement equation of Lorentz transformation, c) the slowing down of internal processes of a particle when in motion, d) transverse Doppler effect (TDE)of light, d) matter particles cannot move at the velocity c, etc.

I am glad to say that I not only accept these empirical facts which you call as the "tightly integrated package", but I have also derived these by extending principles of TD into whole of physics as Einstein intended.

. "By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead to assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there given in the theorem: laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile" (Einstein's Autobiography, p.53).

By extending the principles of TD (as Einstein intended), I have proved a) how the velocity of light remains constant in a given medium. b) Shown how the TDE occurs c) With TDE, I have shown how null result of the MMX comes to be. d) shown extremely accurately how an atomic clock in a GPS orbit loses 7.213 ns/day. e) Using the same algorithm which is used to calculate the above time delay, proved why a matter particle cannot move at velocity c.

So if you like, I have provided a "tightly integrated dynamic foundation" to the "tightly integrated package" which has so far been collection of ad hoc kinematic assertions. Thus fulfilling Einstein's dream of having a theory of principles in place of the makeshift constructive theory he created provisionally.

I am not a relativity denier in the sense of rejecting the 'package'. I don't throw the baby with the bath water. But you must admit that the LT time equation falls into the category of 'bath water'. It is not an item in the 'tightly integrated package'.

2. You wrote: "yes I agree that that specific equation per se has not been verified but time dilation has, which is its core element".

No it is more than that. In the millions of experiments you mention, which have proved the LT space equation right, these have at the same time proved the LT time equation to be false.

If the 'specific equation' has not been 'verified', and there is the other equation which is the core element, does it not mean that the whole contention around the 'specific equation' is false?

I am glad that you have the honesty and courage to effectively admit that no experiment has proved the fundamental contention of SRT, which is: :.. "The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME."(1, p. 55).

You wrote: "I don't have to have a test of that one specific equation in order to test the theory as a whole".

But according to Einstein this equation is a FUNDAMENTAL premise for SRT. It is this time equation that transcends the contradiction between his other two postulates as you can see from the above quote from Einstein. So does not the theory fall apart on this account?

But the 'integrated package' remains with the "Right Way" - the TD interpretation!!

3. You wrote: "I call it putting my attention to items that are likely to lead to progress".

It is for progress towards what Einstein indicated as the "Right Way" I am drawing your attention to. Einstein wrote: "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented (fictitiously), can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more has the right way any existence outside our illusions? ......". We need to note that in answering the above question , Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas: " ..without a hesitation that there is, in my opinion a right way, and that we are capable of finding it (in the future) ...Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is a realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. (thus quite in contrast to the abstruse mathematical formalisms of SRT and GRT), I am convinced that we can (i.e. WILL be able to) discover by means of purely mathematical constructions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena" (Philosopher-Scientist, p. 398).

Best regards,

Viraj