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

Dear Helmut

while my essay may well lay the ground for interesting metaphysical analysis, I am avoiding any such analysis in this essay and thread - I am confining it to purely verifiable physical effects. This already gives rich conclusions, such as I have shown in the section on digital computers.

I agree that metaphysical analysis based on what I say will be useful, but my aim here is to take the theme as far as I can without any such metaphysical aspect - precisely so that I can strongly counter commentators such as the physicist calling himself "There is nothing new under the sun" on their own ground (see my post of Sep. 23, 2012 @ 08:05 GMT). My response to him is based in analysing purely physical effects.

The point I am making here is that topdown effects do not only occur in biology and the mind, they also occur in physics, and this can be show in purely physical terms, provided one defines causation and existence carefully: which I do at the start of my essay.

Kind regards,

George

Moffat's later bimetric theory was OK, it was his first varying speed of light theory that was wrong. I did not see in your essay that you are proposing a bimetric theory.

There has been a huge amount of work on the possibility of varying constants since Gamov. Please see for example J P Uzan et al here and links therein: there are many constraints on such theories. You'll need to tie in to this literature in order to be taken seriously nowadays.

That is my final comment on your essay on this thread.

Here is a great exposition by Mark H. Bickhard and Donald Campbell of emergence and its relation to downward causation [see attachment]. Note emphasis on the relation between particles and fields in quantum field theory.

GeorgeAttachment #1: Emergence_Campbell.docx

My goodness, you are persistent.

1. Binding energies are indeed an example of topdown effects: I mention this in section 5.2.3 of my article here . If you want to discuss binding energies further please take it up with any nuclear or particle physicist, not with me. It's a standard part of what they deal with on an every day basis, using standard special relativity theory, which works perfectly.

2. The Lorentz transformation equation you want to alter -- which means you are indeed a special relativity denier -- is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators, because Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant. Please see 348 to 354 of Flat and Curved Spacetimes, where Ruth Williams and I show how the standard relations between electric and magnetic field due to relative motion follow from the standard Lorentz transformation laws, and specifically the equation you complain about and want to alter.

This relation is tested millions of times every day by the way standard electrical equipment operates.

George

Hi Eckard

"Maxwell's equations were made Lorentz invariant because Michelson failed to detect the medium in which light propagates as a wave." Not so: Maxwell did not in any way use Michelson's results when he derived his equations, indeed this could not have been possible. He died 1879. The Michelson Morley experiment was conducted in 1887.

Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant because of their structure; indeed they are the only part of standard physics Einstein did NOT have to alter when he developed special relativity theory, precisely because of this fact.

The way a moving charge generates a magnetic field follows directly from the standard Lorentz transformation matrix L^a_b applied to the electromagnetic field tensor Fab, see page 349-353 of Flat and Curved Spacetimes for an explicit derivation of this relation. This is a valid derivation of the theory underlying all use of electromagnets in electric motors and relays. My statement is correct.

I have no idea what your point about binding energies is. They underlie the stability of nuclei, nucleosynthesis in stars and the early universe, and the possibility of nuclear energy. Their existence and implications are uncontentious.

I can't believe I'm having to debate special relativity issues now. PLEASE will you all take the time to thoroughly read and understand any standard textbook on special relativity. I do not intend to continue this debate.

George Ellis

.

Eckard

I have no interest whatever in reading Phipp's paper. If you want to read it, that is your concern; there are hundreds of similar papers out there, and no reason to choose any one of them over all the others. The time would be much better spent reading Feynmann's Lectures in Physics. I am happy to accept your correction of the history of Maxwell's equations. The result is unchanged: they are Lorentz invariant, are extraordinarily well tested, and were derived long before the Michelson result. Yes the covariant 4-dimensional way of writing them is by far the best.

I am not interested in entering into any further debate about special relativity and will delete any further postings on this thread that pursue this issue.

George

Dear Eckard

you are quite wrong to be hurt by my comment that the time would be much better spent reading the Feynman lectures. I often read them for elucidation.

You'll find the relativistic derivation of the transformation laws for electric and magnetic fields on pages 26-1 to 26-10 in Volume II, and that of the Lorentz equations of motion on pages 26-11 to 26-13. They clearly show (Table 26-3) both why motion of an electron generates a magnetic field, and motion past a magnetic field generates an electric field (and hence a current). Basic stuff for electrical engineers.

George Ellis

The theme of this essay and this thread is the existence of both bottom-up and top-down causation in science in general, and in physics in particular.

Some interesting issues have arisen from the postings on this thread that have addressed this theme. To avoid confusion I'll deal with them in separate postings. Here is the first.

Issue 1: Contextual Logic

Frederico Pfrimer's posting on September 14th at 17:18 GMT lead me to read his interesting essay, which contains the following statement:

".. the main wrong assumption of physics is not a physical assumption, but a millenary logical assumption: the principle of excluded middle .... This principle says that a proposition is either true or false, in other words, either the proposition or its negation is true"

I responded on September 24th at 19:23 GMT "I think that you might be saying that the truth or falsity of a proposition may depend on its context. That is very close to the concept of contextual effects that I discuss in my essay." I believe this is a key idea: that the way the logic at the lower level operates may depend on the higher level context within which it is imbedded. This is one way of cashing out Frederico's proposal.

At each level of the hierarchy, there is a set of logical and causal relations that operate. In first order logic , a predicate P(a) is a statement that may be true or false depending on the values of its variables a. The issue then is whether those variables can be determined purely at that level of the hierarchy, or whether they depend on variables defined at lower or higher levels. In the first case, the logic at the level considered is affected by bottom up causation, and hence is not determined purely by the variables at that level. In the latter case, it is affected by top-down causation, with the same outcome. Thus whether a specific proposition is true or not depends on parameters defined at other levels --- which means the principle of the excluded middle for logic at that level is in effect modified: truth or falsity is contingent on context.

The process is particularly clear in the case of conditional branching or looping in computer programs. The program continues on one path if a condition T(a) is true, and on another one if it is false. If T(a) is based on variables that are evaluated in other subroutines, it depends on criteria evaluated in the program as a whole rather than in the subroutine where the condition is evaluated. This logical difference then goes on to cause different flows of electrons at the physical gate level (cf.the discussion of computers in my essay). The underlying physics of course allows this, indeed it enables it to happen. Essentially the same conditional branching happens in many cases in molecular biology (see Gilbert and Epel: Ecological Developmental Biology for details).

Accordingly I believe Pfrimer's and my essays are in sympathy with each other in a profound way (even though this was not what he had in mind!)

George

In view of the interaction above, here is a note on how special relativity interacts with bottom up and top down causation in the case of electromagnetism:

The electromagnetic field is described by an anti-symmetric tensor F, made up of electric and magnetic field components. The micro level laws are (i) Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, including the Gauss law, with particles such as electron and protons as sources; (ii) the Lorentz force law for the effect of electric and magnetic fields on charged particles such as protons and electrons.

The transformation laws for electric and magnetic fields under change of velocity v in the x-direction follow from the nature of Lorentz transformations, see Feynman Lectures in Physics Volume II, pages 26-5 to 26-10. They are

[math]E'_x = E_x,\,\, B'_x = B_x,\,\,\\

E'_y = \frac{E_y - v B_z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, B'_y = \frac{B_y vE_z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, \\

E'_z = \frac{E_z v B_y}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, B'_z = \frac{B_z - vE_y}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}.\,\,

[/math]

With the Gauss law, these show why an electron in motion generates a magnetic field. They also show why an electron moving in a magnetic field will experience a transverse electric field that will then affect its motion.

The bottom level dynamics is the way the micro level electric and magnetic fields interact with each other according to Maxwell's equations, with the charged particles as sources, and these fields in turn exert forces on those particles via the Lorentz force law, that cause them to move if they are free to do so.

Bottom up effects are the way that billions of electrons in motion at the micro level generate measurable electric currents at the macro level, such as in a generator, and the way that forces on billions of charged particles at the micro level can add up to generate macroscopic forces, such as in an electric motor.

Top down effects are for example the way that electric coils (macro entities, not describable in terms of micro level variables) constrain the motion of electrons in specific directions. This is why the micro fields they generate add up to macro level fields (see for example Feynman Lectures in Physics Volume II pages 13-5 to 13-6); without the constraints exerted by the wires, no such macro fields would be generated. Similarly the constraints generated by the design of the electric motor ensure that the individual forces on electrons and protons are channelled so as to add up to measurable macro level forces. This constraning effect is top down action from the level of machine components to the level of protons and electrons.

How does special relativity fit in? Magnets in the generator create magnetic fields. It is the motion of the generator coils in these fields that creates the local relative velocity v that (via the above equations) then causes an electric field to act on the electrons and make them move to form a current. In an electric motor, it is the motion of electrons in coils that generates local magnetic fields that are utilised to generate rotation. The above equations are at the heart of what happens in both cases. And they result because of the application of the full set of Lorentz Transformation laws --- the heart of special relativity --- to the electromagnetic field.

It is for this reason that the daily operation of electric motors and generators, via their design (thanks to the good offices of electrical engineers - a top-down effect from the human mind into the physical world), is a demonstration of and confirmation of both special relativity theory, and the efficacy of the combination of bottom up and top down effects.

George

And I so carefully previewed those equations! Oh well, here they are:

[math]E'_x = E_x,\,\, B'_x = B_x,\,\,\\

E'_y = \frac{E_y - v B_z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, B'_y = \frac{B_y vE_z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, \\

E'_z = \frac{E_z v B_y}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, B'_z = \frac{B_z - vE_y}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}.[/math]

I give up. You'll have to read them in Feynman.

I give details below in my posting of Sep. 28, 2012 @ 07:41

The equations are

[math]E'_x = E_x,\,\, B'_x = B_x,\,\,\\

E'_y = \frac{E_y - v B_z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, B'_y = \frac{B_y vE_z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, \\

E'_z = \frac{E_z v B_y}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},\,\, B'_z = \frac{B_z - vE_y}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}.

[/math]

[they probably won't display properly as there is a fault in the system; they preview correctly]

George