• [deleted]

  • Post #23

Israel,

Congratulations on another clear and logical entry. As you mention to Georgina, it does tie into a much larger field of inquiry. It is quite breath of fresh air to read Eric Reiter's and your essay together.

I happened to be discussing the very issue on a blog devoted to Julian Barbour's work, From Time to Shape. To save scrolling through, here are some relevant passages:

"The presumption of space arising from a singularity is based on this idea that space is created by measurements of objects and actions, yet that raises the question of what and where the singularity came from. If we assume a void, ie empty space, it doesn't need a cause. Only actions require cause. Yet it has an effect, ie, equilibrium."

"I understand Euclidian space is lacking motion, measurement, etc. That's why I call it an equilibrium state. The point is that when physics tries to eliminate it, the result is a singularity, which introduces a whole range of other issues and problems, which many in the physics community seem quite content to spend their careers wrestling with. Since the resulting speculations are leading in directions that are completely untestable, I think we might consider re-evaluating space as something defined by motion and measurement, rather than created by it. The vacuum as foundational state, rather than the singularity as starting point."

"What originally led me to question cosmology and eventually a lot of current physics, was the point that according to both theory and observation, space is flat. Expansion and gravitational contraction effectively balance out on the scale we can observe. The continued argument for an expanding universe is this is just due to the enormity of the entire universe and that just as a small portion of the earth's surface appears flat, so does our observed portion of the universe. Yet it seemed a lot of excess baggage was being attached to what might well be a simple cyclical process, a universal convection cycle, if you will, where radiant energy expanding out is matched by mass falling inward. It even seemed to me this opposite curvature of the intergalactic space between the gravitational well of galaxies was the cosmological constant, balancing out gravity, as Einstein originally proposed. So effectively there are "hills" between the gravity wells, such that they sum out to flat space. Keep in mind we only see the distant light that managed to thread its way past the intervening galaxies and thus traveled this empty space.

The curvature then, is not so much due to space, but the measurement of what occupies it, with expansion as much an integral feature of radiation, as gravity is an integral feature of mass.

Black holes are not portals into some other dimension, but gravitational vortices, which eventually spin that infalling mass out as jets of cosmic rays. Given they can be observed billions of light years out, that is an enormous amount of energy being ejected and logically explains the destiny of any and all mass which fell in.

Since I see space as infinite, entropy doesn't apply, as it is a consequence of closed sets. With infinity, any energy lost to one set is replaced by energy from surrounding sets. On this infinite scale, the galaxies and all the energy are really just cosmic vacuum fluctuations.

Dark matter might be due to gravity being a consequence of radiation condensing into mass and becoming ever more dense(M=e/c2). Dark energy wouldn't be necessary, since redshift would be a lensing issue, not the actual expansion of the universe. With gravitational lensing, we know the source is not moving, only the path of the light is being contracted around the field and thus bent, with expansion, it would be an opposite effect.

The black body radiation from the edge of the visible universe, that is presumed to be residue from the Big Bang, would actually be light redshifted completely off the visible scale and I predict that when the next generation of infrared telescopes get in service, they will find features of these distant galaxies that will be too old to fit in the age limits of current theory. Quite a few have been found which already push theory to the breaking point, but no one in the business is willing to risk suggesting the problem is in the theory."

We likely discussed this last year, but I stuck it here to add fuel to the fire of a debate that needs to happen. My entry this year is on my usual obsession with our perception of the direction of time: The Problem: We See Time Backward.

Ps, The site has been losing comments, so it's best to copy your posts before sending them. I just had to rewrite this one.

    Hi Joe

    Thanks for your comments. You should consider how physicists work. Most physicists no longer deal with direct "observations" detected by the senses but by measuring instruments. So, physicists interpret reality from data and some fundamental conceptions. Some times it's not a matter that they ignore the "reality" it is that they do not even envisage it. Some other times it is that they have to simplify their theories and disregard many important factors, like temperature or the gravitational influence. If they considered these factors the theory would become so complex to be handled. The more variables and factors you assume in your theory the more complex it becomes. For this reason, physicists look for principles and for this reason they even make false assumptions.

    Physical theories are built on the basis of mathematics, because one has to quantify the reality. From mathematics physics acquires its abstract character. You should keep in mind that qualitative observations are not satisfactory for the exact sciences. If you cannot quantify you cannot find the correct mathematical model and then it is harder to use this knowledge for technological applications.

    This is, in a simplified form, my view. Science progress very slowly finding strong pillars. I think this is one of the most difficult parts.

    It would be great to take a look at your essay, as you can see there are many interesting works to read.

    Good luck in the contest

    Israel

    Dear Vladimir

    Thanks for your stimulating comments. I agree with your view in the sense that Einstein knew how to avoid the PSR. In his lectured at Leyden Einstein gave some strong arguments against the aether assumption which due to the lack of experimental evidence were quite convincing for the mainstream of physicist. The acceptance of his theory was based on the fact that the theory was a very powerful predictive tool and this is what physicists exploited. I hold that intuition cannot be ignored in the construction of a physical theory, and I think that most people agree that absolute motion is plausible and quite natural. The famous Newton's schollium still remains engraved in my mind. I see no contradiction in his line of thought. He was even aware that, it may be impossible to detect absolute motion, but nevertheless it cannot be disregarded.

    Now, if we really wish to make historical justice, the credit must be conferred to Descartes. Newton's vision was inspired from him. Descartes had the conception that the aether was really dynamical, this was the cause of the motion of celestial bodies. Newton knew this very well but he decided to assume the aether static to simplify his theory. From ~1730 to ~1770 astronomical problems were solved following Descartes' approach in France and Newton's approach in England. At the end, Descartes approach was discarded not because it was incorrect but because it was more complicated (similar to the case of the geocentric model).

    Certainly, if relativity is not accepted as a physical reality but only as a geometrical model, then one can argue that the marriage with QM is an illusion. Thank you for the invitation to read your work. I will take a look at it ASAP.

    best wishes

    Israel

    Hi Daniel

    It is nice to read your view. Thanks for leaving you comments. Due to the lack of space in the essay, I could not clarify that, within the context of special relativity, the PSR cannot be experimentally detected only for interferometric experiments realized in vacuum. However, non-vacuum experiments might show a positive result. My reference 17 (section 3, Eq. 14) exposes the steps of a very simple experimental procedure to roughly estimate the absolute velocity of an inertial system of reference (say the earth) relative to the PSR. Certainly, I dismiss gravitational effects, etc. If we consider temperature, angular, and gravitational factors the problem becomes very complicated. However, in principle it appears to be feasible. Some experimental works, following this approach, have been reported elsewhere. The measurements are in agreement with the velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation. Unfortunately, they are not recognized by the mainstream of physicist. Most of the physics community assumes that the PRS assumption and the material fluid are dead.

    With respect to the one-way measurement of the speed of neutrinos or light, I have reservations. My investigations have shown that no experiment can measure one-way speeds of any physical entity unless you have an adequate clock synchronization (which implies the knowledge of the one-way speed of some physical entity, and thus this is a dead end).

    Finally, I agree that the speed of light is only function of the properties of space, and it would depend on how you construct your theory.

    I will look you essay ASAP. Good luck in the contest

    Israel

    Dear John

    Thank you for leaving your comments. You touch so many topics which is difficult to talk at length about all of them. I just would like to make some comments about some particular things that you outline.

    You: The presumption of space arising from a singularity is based on this idea that space is created by measurements of objects and actions.

    Me: I assume you're talking about the big bang singularity. So the singularity arises from two sources. First the assumption that space is continuous and the application of the general relativity, which assumes space as a continuous manifold. A singularity is an anomaly of our conception of the continuum. As you say, the conception of space arises out of the notion of material objects and not in the opposite way. Material objects are not adimensional as points are. Therefore, a singularity can only exist in the mathematical world.

    You: I think we might consider re-evaluating space as something defined by motion and measurement.

    Me: Indeed, I agree, motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place. The problem is that no one understands motion or change. This is one of the most difficult things in physics.

    You: The continued argument for an expanding universe is this is just due to the enormity of the entire universe and that just as a small portion of the earth's surface appears flat, so does our observed portion of the universe.

    Dark matter might be due to gravity being a consequence of radiation condensing into mass and becoming ever more dense(M=e/c2). Dark energy wouldn't be necessary, since redshift would be a lensing issue, not the actual expansion of the universe.

    Me: I would say that if one assumes space as material fluid, one will need to reinterpret experimental data and the "expansion" of the universe may be reinterpreted as another phenomenon. May be there is no such an expansion. So far, I think the condensation of radiation into mass is plausible. Many theoretical physicists from condensed matter also argue in this same direction.

    You: The black body radiation from the edge of the visible universe, that is presumed to be residue from the Big Bang, would actually be light redshifted completely off the visible scale and I predict that when the next generation of infrared telescopes get in service.

    Me: If space is assumed as fluid, you may be correct. Actually, there is theory that predicts that there is a redshift even if space were static. The theory is already developed but one must understand that a new theory will be accepted not only because explains the experimental data but also because it makes new testable and unobservable predictions. If you have a theory that explains all observations, but it does not make new predictions the theory has few relevance for physics. What you should do is to try to promote your theory and verify experimentally the new predictions.

    Well I hope you find my comments helpful.

    Good luck in the contest

    Israel

      Dear Israel,

      First, I'm glad that you and Daryl are now in touch. Next, as indicated in my comment above, I find this statement fascinating:

      "So, within this context, the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of the material medium."

      from Xing-Hao, Ye, and Lin Qiang -- Chinese Physics Letters 25: 1571-1573 (2008).

      I do not have access to Chinese Physics Letters. Do you have an alternate reference. I can't find one. Also, are they the only people to treat this topic? It seems like a very important issue to me.

      Thanks,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Israel,

        Einstein's brilliance is the greater because of his intellectual honesty. He was always thinking back about the implications of his theories and if need be revise them. I think his attitude to the ether was ambivalent as you point out, but he needed it for GR in order for his grid of clocks and measuring rods to work (I am paraphrasing his words).

        I agree with you about Decartes and highlighted his ideas about ether (together with his amazing illustration of the ether vortices) in Section 2.3 of my Beautiful Universe paper. Maxwell's gear-like mechanism to model electromagnetism in vacuum suffered the same neglect that befell Decartes' idea. My Beautiful Universe lattice of nodes with angular momentum in units of (h) are my way of recasting these ideas into modern physics.

        Your sentence "if relativity is not accepted as a physical reality but only as a geometrical model, then one can argue that the marriage with QM is an illusion" is too general to understand in the context of what I said. Are you objecting to what I said about the need to reexamine some of Einstein's other ideas as you have done for AS? I am not saying relativity or QM do not work, but that they works despite their being so abstracted from the simple physical way I think Nature works at the tiniest level, a level that assumes the absolute space idea that you have so ably defended.

        Best wishes

        Vladimir

        Hi Edwin

        I leave you a couple of useful references:

        Dupays A et al 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 161101

        Ahmadi N and Nouri-Zonoz M 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74

        044034.

        More complete theories are already well advanced but unfortunately not accepted within the mainstream of physics. Please take a look at my reference 19, there section 9.2 gives an comprehenive set of references about this topic.

        Israel

        • [deleted]

        • Post #31

        Israel,

        Thank you for the reply and advice. Given the enormity of the situation, I have to stick with making predictions of what will be discovered, rather than experiment. Some of the recent observations of distant galaxies and galaxy clusters ,which push the boundaries of current theory: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

        As for the idea of cosmic rays condensing into interstellar gases, resulting in a gravitational contraction, while they haven't been able to find dark matter, there is an excess of cosmic rays on the perimeter of this galaxy.

        "motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place. The problem is that no one understands motion or change. This is one of the most difficult things in physics."

        Actually I think I offer a clue to this in my essay. By deconstructing our misperception of time, I place motion within the equilibrium of space, with time as emergent effect.

        Sorry for all the links, but they are generally interesting, if you haven't already seen them.

        Thanks for those. I've already read 19 (once). Any other references on this topic would be very welcome. Thanks again.

        Hi Isreal,

        I haven't read your essay yet, but I am responding to the comment you made above. This is the the comment you made that I have issues with; "With respect to the one-way measurement of the speed of neutrinos or light, I have reservations. My investigations have shown that no experiment can measure one-way speeds of any physical entity unless you have an adequate clock synchronization (which implies the knowledge of the one-way speed of some physical entity, and thus this is a dead end)."

        One of the first indications that the velocity of light was finite was observations of the moons of Jupiter. It can be determined relativily precisely when the moons of Jupiter will eclipse each other, or pass in front of Jupiter, or behind it. In the 19th century they were using this fact to determine a universal time relative to London, or Paris, or what have you. The issue that arose that called this into question was that when the earth was on the oposite side of the Sun from Jupiter, the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter arrived 16 minutes later then when the earth was closest to Jupiter. That is a one way measure of the velocity of light without "adequate clock synchronization". I'm sure there are others.

        Jim Akerlund

        • [deleted]

        • Post #34

        Israel, if in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), which is in fact a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light, then in gravitation-free space the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the observer relative to the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. See this:

        http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/general_relativity.html

        Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."

        That is, the earth observer will measure the speed of light to be c'=f'(lambda)=cf'/f=c(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Equivalently, an observer in gravitation-free space accelerating against the flash of light with acceleration g will measure the speed of light to be c'=f'(lambda)=cf'/f=c+v. Needless to say, this is again a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light.

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        • Post #35

        Hi Israel,

        I agree without reservation with Popper's view of science. It's a mathematician's view, after all -- that some premises are better suited to some problems than others. That a mathematical model is independent of physics, and only realized as useful to physics in the correspondence of the mathematics to the results of a physical experiment (Popper adapted this position from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth).

        Your well argued hypothesis of a one-way measurement has the earmarks of a seminal idea. A few months ago when the faster-than-light neutrino controversy was in full swing, I argued that unless a two-way measurement could confirm that putative result, we could never be sure of its physical reality. That is impossible in principle, however. So I get your point that such an hypothesis might be deemed superfluous without actually being superfluous. I.e., it would meet Popper's criteria of metaphysical realism.

        That's why I think that topology is the most useful mathematical framework to address foundational questions. We need the property of orientability to deal with one-way phenomena. I hope you get a chance to visit my essay site ("The perfect first question") to see why.

        Best wishes in the competition.

        Tom

          Dear Vladimir

          Definitely Einstein was very smart, there is no doubt about it.

          I am not objecting what you said. I just meant that maybe there is no need to unify Relativity and quantum mechanics as many physicists believe today. Both theories have been very useful as a mathematical tools, but, particularly, I think that relativity is not the only theory to account for the observations. I have seen a couple of other theories that do the same work as relativity.

          Israel

          Dear John

          I found very interesting the links you sent me. Thanks for the information. As I mentioned before change and motion are very difficult concepts to grasp. I will take a look at your essay ASAP.

          Israel

          Hi Tom

          Thanks for you comments, they are very welcomed. You have summarized my view very well. I consider that Popper's view is highly influential for scientific work. He is still one of the basic references in a epistemological paper. It is unquestionable.

          You touch an relevant topic, the topic of truth. Actually, I have been studying the criterion of truth. I mean how can we know that something is true or false. This topic is interesting to me for several reasons.

          As to the speed of neutrinos, I agree. A comprehensive understanding of the speed of any physical entity cannot be attained without the acceptance of absolute velocity. My reference 17 shows that if in a measurement, carried out in an inertial system in motion relative to the preferred system, the absolute one-way speed of the entity is close to the speed of light, the observer in motion will measure a value slightly higher than c, say 300 100. This effect is only a problem of the geometry of your experimental setup. If you change the geometry you will get a slightly different value. The reason for this is because of the length contraction that undergoes the apparatus. Another reason is the orientation of the setup relative to the motion of the inertial system. Please take a look at my reference 17 for further details. Of course, there are some many other factors that could affect the measurement like gravitational, temperature, etc. So, the task of measuring with high precision, as it is required for the case of neutrinos, becomes really challenging.

          Indeed, topology gives a different view of the universe. Though one should be reserved about the physical meaning that can be extracted from topological approaches. I appreciate your comments which have been very inspiring.

          It would be nice reading your essay. As you can see there are so many. I'll check it ASAP.

          Good luck in the contest

          Israel

          Hi Georgina

          Just to thank you for your clarification.

          Israel

          • [deleted]

          • Post #41

          Hi James

          Thanks for your comment. In my investigations, I have considered most experimental techniques. Roemer approach is well known to me. And it is very controversial due to the fact that people assumed a system of reference at rest with respect to the sun, but time measurements are realized on Earth. So they are presupposing a clock synchronization a la Newton. The same time on Earth and the same on the sun, Jupiter, etc. Most authors who claim that this is a one-way method do not show convincing arguments against this and no detailed calculations. The Roemer approach is ambivalent. You can judge it from different perspectives. You can see Io moon as a mirror reflecting the sun light. In this sense it is clear that light goes towards the moon and then backwards to the earth (this resembles Fizea-Focault approach). The other way of seeing this experiment is based only on the variations of delay times in the moon positions (determined by the orbital period) and the difference of the distance between the Earht and Jupiter at different positions of the Earth's orbit. But like I said they assumed the Sun as the reference frame and not ther Earth. If you have any references where the calculations are explicitcly shown please send them to me, I will be glad if you can convince me that Roemer approach is a one-way measurement.

          Best Regards

          Israel

          Hi Israel,

          You seem to have missed my point. The light of the moons of Jupiter eclipsing each other was expected to arrive at a certain time on the Earth and it didn't. You could make this very same setup on a table top, where the (one way) light is expected to arrive at certain times due to the very geometry and math of your setup. No need to deal with whether we are using the Sun as a reference frame, or Earth, or Centari Proxima. My point was that the example I cited did not use clock synchronization. And I now add that this can be scaled down to table top.

          Jim Akerlund