The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez

Dear Georgina

Thank you for your interesting comments, definitely you are right. Humans instinctively look for patterns and familiar structures in observations... I've seen the 1964 Feynman lecture... what Feynman said is true... most theorists work that way.

Dear John

Thanks for your comments, again very stimulating, though this time I would prefer to reply with short comments. Induction has been rejected by Karl Popper as a method to achieve scientific knowledge because he claimed that there is no logic in reaching universal statements (postulates, axioms) from singular inferences, whereas from postulates logical deductions can be derived. I disagree basically because I think that one cannot arbitrarily postulate principles without first analyzing the correlations among single observations (data). The analysis and association of these observations constitutes the "logic" of the inductive method that, at the end, leads to the establishment of universal statements.

Israel

Dear Avtar

I thought I had the impression of having replied this post. I am sorry for this.

From your words, I can see that you are suggesting that one day I will change my position or opinion about it. However you agree that humans will never understand nature.

You: To me, a science that cannot reveal purpose to the universe and life in it, is a purposeless science; a science that cannot reveal beauty is an ugly science; and a science that is limited to the inanimate matter (particles) alone is a science of the dead.

I think you are right that science is gaining more appreciation from its followers, but if what you say is true, then science will become some sort of religion.

You: Science is ready for the next frontier - consciousness or free will if it has to progress any further. Consciousness or free will is the fundamental reality that must be the foundation of science, until then it is all building castles in the air. Free-willed decaying of the beliefs and mindset is essential to realize this fundamental reality of the universe.

What you suggest about consciousness as the next step of science I also understand it. But I do not think science is ready for this step, there is at least one more step that science has to undergo before going to the consciousness part. First, it has to get rid of the mechanistic and materilistic view of the world, particles and so on... for this, probably more than 100 years will have elapsed (provided science and technology do not destroy us).

Israel

Dr James

Thanks for your post. I invite you to read, some of my posts here in reply to Pentcho's inquiries, there you will find some other arguments in favor of the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field which is equivalent to having a fluid with a inhomogeneous refractive index.

Good luck in the contest too

Israel

Dear Vladimir

Indeed, the bottom line is the notion of aether and waves. This dispels both mathematical and intuitive perplexities in physics. I took a look at your work (BU). The motion of the nodes resembles the notion of vortex. I would consider both conceptions as equivalent from the epistemological viewpoint. I also sympathized with the entanglement explanation that you give.

I found the website very illustrative, I will consider it for future reference. Thanks for the link.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Hi Eckard

I'm going to reply to your comments in parts. This is part 1.

In 1632 Galileo published the "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief WORLD systems". In this work he compared the heliocentric model with the geocentric model by means of a dialogue among the three famous interlocutors: Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio. The work of Descartes (1596-1650) called "the WORLD" (I think that the NAME IS NOT A COINCIDENCE) in which the aether ideas were presented was divided in several parts, because Descartes was aware of what had happened to Galileo. Descartes also upheld the Copernican view but denied empty space. He first published one part in 1644, but he avoid the publication of the other parts because their content was heretical according to the dogmas of the church. The other parts were published some years later after his dead in 1662, 1664 and the complete text in 1677. By this time Newton was 35 years old and he had already discovered the law of gravitation. So, the rest of the century Descartes' works were widely recognized.

Now, recall that Newton's Principia was first published in 1687, but it took some years to gain wide acceptance in England and some more years to be widely accepted in continental Europe. It was well known in England by the beginning of the XVIII century but not in continental Europe. The reason for this is that in continental Europe Descartes' theory of vortices was well established and more popular. Christian Huygens had improved it immensely from ~1670 to ~1690. This is also why Huygens (Hooke and Leonard Euler too) supported the idea that light was a wave moving through the aether. So, there were basically two beautiful theories competing to gain followers (similar to string theory and loop quantum gravity today). The point in favor of Newton's version is that his theory was a mathematical and elegant model based on the three laws of motion and the law of gravitation (his theory was axiomatic). From these laws he could derived Kepler's laws, whereas Huygens assumed Keppler's laws with no derivation whatsoever from any other law. That is, Descartes' theory had no gravitational law. This was a great disadvantage. If you take a glance at Newton's Principia, the final part is called: "The system of the WORLD". There Newton wrote in the introduction about the cause of gravity:

"...The later philosophers pretend to account for it [gravity] either by the action of certain vortices, as Kepler or Des cartes; or by some other principle of impulse or attraction, as Borelli, Hooke and others of our nation; for, from the laws of motion it is most certain that these effects mots proceed from the action of some force or other.

But our purpose is only to trace out the QUANTITY and properties of his force from the phenomena, and to apply what we discover in some simple cases as principles, by which, in a MATHEMATICAL WAY, we may estimate the effects thereof in more involved cases, for it would be ENDLESS and IMPOSSIBLE to bring every particular to direct and immediate observation... We said, in a mathematical way, to avoid all questions about the nature and the quality of this force..."

So, from here we see that Newton was aware of Descartes work and that he was simplifying his theory to quantify phenomena. However, the philosophical and intuitive conception of gravity was more in agreement with Descartes. To make clear Newton's notion of gravity, I will quote some extracts from correspondences of Newton's contemporaries. Recall the famous motto which was born from a Letter that Newton wrote to his rival Robert Hooke dated 1676:

"What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants."

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:

"Gravity is the result of a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow..." [This is actually Descartes idea]"

To make clearer that Newton was actually Cartesian in the philosophical matters of gravity, in the third letter to Bentley in 1692 Newton wrote:

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe 'innate gravity' to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

to be continued...

Israel

This is part 2.

...I just ask you to keep the previous phrases in mind henceforth. On the other hand, I also mentioned the following: ...From ~1710 to ~1760 Astronomical problems were solved in England a la Newton and in France a la Descartes. Once Bernoulli confessed that in continental Europe most people were Cartesian, but in England Newtonian. Bernoulli was Cartesian but after returning from a trip to England he became Newtonian...

In particular, I was referring to Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782) son of Johann Bernoulli (1667-1748), nephew of Jacob Bernoulli and close friend of Leonard Euler. It is worth reminding an illustrative situation among the Bernoullis. At that time some academies used to organize public competitions for natural philosophers. In one of these competitions (I do not recall the exact year, perhaps 1724, and the problem) participants were asked to solved a problem about astronomy. Johann solved it a la Descartes and his Son, Daniel, a la Newton. Both found the solution and both were correct. This caused a split between Daniel and his father. So, the moral here is that despite the mathematical formulation, in essence, they were dealing with the same physics.

From ~1710 to the middle of the XVIII century the transition from Cartesian paradigm to the Newtonian took place. Just bear in mind, for instance, that the transition from the classical physics paradigm to the modern physics paradigm took at least 30 years, but in Newton's epoch the change of a paradigm took a longer time.

The other important factor that was crucial for the acceptance of the Newtonian version of gravity without a medium, i.e., in EMPTY SPACE, was the discovery in the middle of the XVII of vacuum (as you mention). Since vacuum was "feasible" then, some argued, there was no need of a medium. Nevertheless, during the XVIII century many physicists realized that there were different kind of substances. They classified them as ponderable and imponderable substances. As the word implies, the imponderable substances could not be weighted as the others, but most thinkers agreed that they did exist. And here again the phenomena were suggesting some sort of fine and subtle fluid. Electricity and magnetism were one of this kind. Now, recall that the Coulumb's law was discovered in 1785 and some other laws such as Ampere's law, Faraday's law, Ohm's law were all discovered early in the XIX century, only Gauss' law was published in 1866. By this time the notion of aether had already been revived not only because of electric and magnetic phenomena were suggesting it but also because optical phenomena was doing the same. The slit experiment realized by Young by 1799 was decisive in reviving the aether and considering light as a wave in a medium. Young based his ideas on Huygens investigations. So by the middle of the XIX century people had already discovered most of the equations of electromagnetism, but they were all "disconnected". It was only the monumental work of Maxwell that unified electromagnetic phenomena. In his book, the treatise of electricity and magnetism Maxwell wrote:

"The electromagnetic field is that part of space which contains and surrounds bodies in electric or magnetic conditions. It may be filled with any kind of matter, or we may endeaveour to render it EMPTY OF ALL GROSS MATTER as in the case of Geissler's tubes and other so-called VACUA. There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive and transmit the undulations of light and heat, and it is because the transmission of these radiations is not greatly altered when transparent bodies of measurable density are substituted for the so-called VACUUM, that we are obliged to admit that the undulations are those of an aethereal substance, and not of the gross matter, the presence of which merely modifies in some way the motion of the aether. We have therefore some reason to believe, from the phenomena of light and heat, that there is an aethereal medium filling space and permeating bodies, capable of being set in motion and of transmitting that motion from one part to another, and communicating that motion to gross matter so as to heat it and affect it in various ways."

To be continued...

Israel

This is part 3

...From here we see that for Maxwell vacuum only meant: "deprived of macroscopic matter". He also realized that electromagnetic experiments could be quantitatively explained whether the aether was included or not in his theory. Gibbs applied Maxwell's equations to refraction problems and also arrived at the same conclusion (notice that Gibbs was being mathematically pragmatic even though in philosophical terms the notion of aether was suggested). By 1887-8 Hertz in Germany discovered the electromagnetic waves and Hertz experiments were reproduced in England by Oliver Lodge corroborating Hertz' discovery. Hertz generalized Maxwell's equations to include the notion of the medium, but unfortunately his formulation was disregarded and considered as "unnecessary". As in the case of Newton in which the law of gravitation does not suggest any aether, Maxwell electrodynamics could live without it. This fact was exploited by Einstein when he rejected it in his famous article of 1905 "The electrodynamics of moving bodies" and later when he contented that fields were not states of the aether but physical realities independent of a bearer. But by denying the aether, space was left EMPTY. To avoid the action at a distance he reconsidered the gravitational field as the new aether. For Einstein also EMPTY space was a mere metaphysical artifice. He held that the gravitational field was space itself, He said that if there is no gravitational field, no electromagnetic field and no matter, then there remains nothing, and, again, nothingness was absurd for him. The problem with Einstein's aether is that it is, obviously, ontologically deprived of matter. Nowadays the astronomical observations suggest that there is more matter (dark matter) than the one observed. I think that this matter would be have easily related to the material aether that Einstein denied based only on epistemological considerations.

The application of the general relativity to cosmology has led physics to postulate the big bang model, the expansion of the universe, the microwave background radiation, etc. Nonetheless, despite the success of these models it is unquestionable that the INTUITIVE picture of the WORLD has been lost since the 1920s. I know also that the intuitive picture is highly disregarded in physics; modern physics no longer uses philosophical reasoning and intuition as tools to build theories. But like I mentioned before, mathematical reasoning cannot see what intuition and philosophical reasoning can. Descartes once said that it is good to learn all sciences because they are all the result of intelligence and reasoning. In this sense, those who also use philosophy as a tool to discover the mysteries of the universe have more advantages above those who only use mathematical reasoning. This is what Newton learned from Descartes. Newton was the model of a physicists: a magnificent mathematician, exquisite experimentalist and marvelous philosopher. Nowadays, it is really rare to find one scientist like this. Einstein was an excellent theoretician and an outstanding philosopher, but not a good experimentalist; perhaps this is the reason why he underestimated the importance of the experimental part in the principle of relativity. It is evident that, experimentally, the PSR cannot be denied. Since there is no experimental reason to reject it, there is also no reason to deny Descartes' (or Lorentz) notion of the aether. I'm convinced that these two concepts are the key for the progress of physics.

I hope I have dispelled some doubts.

Israel

Dear Juan

Thanks for your comments, they are interesting.

Based on my research, I see no reason to reject the PSR. The PSR has already been found though not identify as such. In my reference 14 (eq. 3.14), I provide just one example that the PSR can be, in principle, experimentally determined.

One should understand that the physical interpretation of experimental evidence depends to a high degree on the theoretical framework under consideration. Based on the current paradigm in physics, it is evident that there is no PSR since its conception is no longer a fundamental part in any of the accepted theories.

But one can build a theory including the PSR and reinterpret the current observations within this new theoretical framework. Such theory (lets name it DKT) is already developed but not recognized by the mainstream of physicists. In DKT, the aether is conceived as a material continuum pervading the whole universe and at the same time as the PSR. However, what in DKT is interpreted as the PSR, the prevailing paradigm interpret it as the remnants of the big bang, now known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). From the DKT the CMBR is only the temperature of the material continuum.

The continuum can be assumed, in general, to be dynamic but in its simplistic conception one can assume it at rest. In this scenario, the continuum resembles the Lorentz aether and therefore the Newtonian absolute space. I have provided a couple of epistemological arguments in my threads here in reply to John Merryman and Eckard Blumschein. There, I elucidate that even Newton considered that space was not empty at all and that he attributed the cause of gravitation to the flow of the aether. This fact tell us that, in the philosophical conception about gravity, Newton was actually a Cartesian. I also explain some of the misconceptions about the aether, the vacuum and the notion of fields (please see my threads below). The assumption of the PSR and the continuum can solve most of present problems in physics relatively easy. The key point is to get rid of the preconceptions of the present paradigm. This is the most difficult part.

Best regards

Israel

Hi Eckard,

Well I tried to explain my points but it seems to me that you did not see the connection. I have already read your essay which I enjoyed, I made some comments and I am aware of the references you cited. I remember Gifts, he claims this:

"CONCLUSION

Using the synchronized clocks of the GPS, light speed variation c +/-v arising because of rotating Earth has been demonstrated in this paper. This is at variance with the principle of light speed constancy used in the Einstein synchronization procedure but confirms the GPS light speed findings..."

Gift based his measurements on the synchronization of clocks in the GPS. However, the calculations for the synchronization of clocks are carried out ASSUMING IN ADVANCE THE VALIDITY of the constancy of the one-way speed of light and the application of relativistic effects. The reference he cites says:

"The principles of position determination and time transfer in the GPS can be very simply stated. Let there be four synchronized atomic clocks that transmit sharply defined pulses from the positions r_j at times t_j , with j=1,2,3,4 an index labeling the different transmission events. Suppose that these four signals are received at position r at one and the same instant t. Then

from the PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT,

c^2(t-t_j)^2=|r-r_j|^2

where the DEFINED value of c is exactly 299792458 m/s. The principle of the constancy of c finds application as the fundamental concept on which the GPS is based..."

Obviously, with this in mind, the experiment is invalidated. Roemer's approach experiences the same fate.

As I said, I accept the mathematical formulation of relativity but not the physical content. It is not my wish to reconcile the PSR with relativity, I am aware that the PSR is not included per se in relativity, so it would be futile to endeavor such a reconciliation. Instead a new powerful theory in which the PSR is assumed may emerge. Just bear in mind that an experimentalist would not reject the PSR because if he conducts the same experiments in any other system of reference he will deduce the same physical laws as in the PSR.

Israel