• [deleted]

  • Post #68

Hi Israel, Hi Daryl,

There could be some funky way to get a preferred reference frame. But you have to make some very progressive assumptions. You have to really use and abuse the laws of physics (which can be a very good thought experiment). But what is so intriguing about a PSR? What are you each looking for? Are you trying to satisfy a need for a philosophically pleasing set of laws of physics? I suspect that is the case for most physicists/physics enthusiasts. But what is the motivation for finding the holy grail of reference frames, the preferred frame?

  • [deleted]

  • Post #69

Dear Israel Perez,

Your all-inclusive PR is not the only attempt to maintain Einsteinian PR while nonetheless questioning the fundamentals it was built on: Cahill, Christov, Jackson, ... You wrote to Jason: "Relativity makes the correct quantitative predictions, although not the most cogent physical interpretations." Neo-Lorentzians like Selleri and van Flandern claimed their theories furnishing the same quantitative results more easily. I do not share such views. I am just curious.

The reason why I failed to be convinced and called your essay cryptic is on my side: Because you did not show illustrating Figures, my shaky command of English might have hampered me the more. Sometimes I did not even find words in my dictionary. What does schollium mean?

You wrote: "Once the PRS is restored the paradoxes fade away." How about restoring simultaneity as does Phipps?

So far I cannot see in what Einstein was wrong when he considered his PR based on his denial of a PSR.

Last contest was won by a fictitious Newton who easily understood Einstein. Sorry, I am not a Newton. I rather trust in the possibility of human fallacies.

Eckard

Hi Jason,

Those are the right questions to ask, I think. One could argue, for instance, that from the realist point-of-view a block universe logically follows from Einstein's interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity, and that this is a metaphysical dead end---but that argument isn't scientific, so it's only a starting point for questioning the validity of the interpretation; i.e., we can take arguments like Minkowski's and Putnam's as the first part of a reductio ad absurdum, really ensuring we understand why the implication *is* what logically follows, given the standard point-of-view on the meaning of relativity, so that we can move on from them to complete the reductio.

In my opinion, Einstein's interpretation of the meaning of relativity is actually incompatible with cosmology and causal coherence, and therein lies the scientific evidence for a preferred reference frame. Furthermore, in my view the preferred frame can be reconciled with relativity in a way that does in fact make logical sense (i.e., isn't "funky") and doesn't really use and abuse the laws of physics, particularly with reference to the principle of relativity, beyond a clear distinction (as opposed to a fuzzy understanding) that the principle applies to the physical description of what is *perceived*, and not necessarily of *what is*.

Of course, that's basically an ontological distinction---but I stress that I think there is very good reason, from the point-of-view of cosmology, that the demands of relativity can only go as far as a description of phenomena, and definitely can't be applied as such to the true simultaneity-relation between noumena. My argument for this is 24,996 characters long, not including spaces, and I do encourage you to read it.

Regards,

Daryl

Hi Eckard,

I hope you get a chance to read my essay. I've argued that both Newton and Einstein were wrong about the meaning of simultaneity in the coordination of phenomena.

Best,

Daryl

Hi Janson

I am going to be categoric, please do not take me wrong, this is not personal:

You said: "You have to really use and abuse the laws of physics "

What are the laws of physics? The laws of physics are a set of equations that are found and established by physics. However, the laws can be modified at will according to the experimental evidence. At the end, observations decide what the laws are. Today there is a crisis in physics, a puzzle that, as evidence accumulates, becomes more and more complex. As in the past, scientific revolutions demand radical solutions. So, this contest asks: Which of our BASIC assumptions are wrong? I am answering the question clearly: the PRS. I see that there is no experimental reason to reject it. It is not a matter of philosophical satisfaction. It's a matter of physics, of "reality", of simplicity, of intuition and of progress for physics. Like I said in my essay, assumptions are reconsider several times in several moments in the history of science in view of the fact that they are suitable to solve the problems that physics has, this is the case. Probably you do not see all of this and probably you do not care about all of this.

Now I ask you: What is wrong with reconsidering the assumption? If you understood my essay then you understood that the current laws of physics are not affected by this assumption in the least and, what is more important, no experiment is in conflict with it but quite the contrary, the fact that experiments lead to the same physical laws in any reference system speak for it. Since no experiment force us to abandon it, one may conclude that its rejection is only a matter of either prejudice or parsimony. If you have no objection in these respects, my question is: Why are you so reluctant to accept it? What are your arguments to reject it?

I argue in my essay that most of the problems in physics can be "easily" solved if one accepts both the PSR and the notion that "empty" space is not only composed of gravitational potentials (as relativity holds) but that space is a material fluid a la Descartes. This is the benefit for physics.

Best wishes

Israel

  • [deleted]

  • Post #73

Israel,

Your own physical body is your preferred reference frame. Your own mind and point of view are a PSR. That is, unless a true PSR has detectable characteristics. Does it?

Hi Eckard

You know that assumptions are discarded based on experimental evidence. It is evident that no experiment can rule out the PRS, but quite the contrary, some experiments can suggest its reality. Of course, one can build a theoretical framework in which the PRS does not figure. Like I said, the physical interpretation of observations depends to a high degree on the theoretical frame. So if you do not share their views then the issue may become only a matter of taste, prejudice or parsimony [See my questions in reply to Jason below, I kindly ask you to answer them as well].

Christov's theory, for instance, reproduces present experimental observations, unifies electrodynamics, gravitation and quantum mechanics, and in doing so, his theory removes the wave-particle duality and the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function. It also sheds light on the dark matter and dark energy problems. Besides all of this, the theory makes a new modest prediction. This same state of things happened with Maxwell theory until 20 years later, Heinrich Hertz proved Maxwell was right.

You wrote: How about restoring simultaneity as does Phipps?

I just have to say: simultaneity is related to clock synchronization and clock synchronization is related to the one-way speed of light and the one-eay speed of light is related to clock synchronization. Experimentally this is a dead end. If this is true, there is no point of discussion. I asked before if you or James know about any reference where the one-way speed of light a la Roemer has been measured, but none of you has replied. The unambiguous knowledge of the one-way speed of light is not only crucial to solve the issue of simultaneity but others as well. So, do you have anything to contribute for this cause? Daryl has something else to say with respect to simultaneity.

You say: So far I cannot see in what Einstein was wrong when he considered his PR based on his denial of a PSR.

From the experimental viewpoint the rejection of the PRS is not justified. Experiments carried out in the PRS will lead to the same physical laws as in any other frame of reference. So, if a theoretician acknowledges that experiments define the shape of the physical laws, the theoretician contradicts himself by denying the PRS. Einstein thought that all systems of reference are equally valid for the description of physical phenomena and assuming a PRS will imply making a special distinction in his theory, this was for him a theoretical asymmetry that for a theoretician was intolerable. Unfortunately, he believed that the word RELATIVE demanded denying absolute motion. This is not the case, it only means "relative to", so the assumption of the PRS is legitimate.

Israel

Hi Jason

I wish you have answered my questions. Unfortunately, your reply does not help to settle our points of discussion. If you have no answer or you are not willing to answer them, one could only conclude that this is a matter of taste or prejudice. My questions are quite simple: Why do you think the PSR would not help to solve the problems of physics? What is the problem with reconsidering the PRS? What are your arguments to reject it? If I am wrong, I would be grateful if you could point out to me where I am wrong.

Israel

Dear Jason,

Just few comments from a PicoPhysicst.

1. Preferred system of reference (PSR): Preferred system of reference has always been there and will continue to exist. It is the reference system realtive to which the observer is at rest. In most of our arguments we also believe the observer is at origin that enables use of different co-ordinate systems and easy interpretation of mathematical formulations.

2. Ether was a very different concept so was earth at center of universe.

3. There are many more assumptions that come to mind which are at core of mechanics - whether Newtonian or relativistic. First and foremost of them being the assumption of uniformity of space.

In the essay 5-Dimensional Universe we describe the universe as 5-dimensional with time dimension mapped in drift direction. This not only provides constancy of speed of light as well as seen as a proof for uniformity of space.

Thus time and one of the dimensions (in the drift direction) have conformal mapping and thus measures to same number. The ratio is unity - giving speed of light a character of universal constant.

If we try to meditate on means available to measure distance and time independently, we will find that is not possible without bringing into picture constancy of speed of light.

Now since drift can be any of the three directions, we have uniformity in space at least at micro level. (PicoPhysics believe it is limited to micro level, at macro level it is not uniform due to disturbance caused by presence of matter).

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

    Dear Israel:

    I enjoyed reading your well-written paper making a case for reviving the PSR based on its "usefulness".

    First of all I agree with the conclusive statement in your essay:

    "The PSR assumption constitutes a paradigm shift that would demand a drastic change in the way of conceiving the present universe. Well established facts such as the expansion of the universe would need to be reinterpreted in the light of this new paradigm. A theory based on this assumption can provide new insights with respect to the dark matter, dark energy problems as well as the acceleration of the universe."

    This has actually been accomplished as described in my paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.

    The point to note here is that the universal reality is a continuum between the lower limit PSR (V/C=0) and upper limit no space-time (V=C). In between these two limits, various V/C values represent varying level of realities that appear to us as the so-called multi-verses. So neither the assumption of PSR only nor GPR only are correct. The reality consists of transition from PSR in the near-field (earth to solar system) to GPR in the far-field (galaxies and universe). Hence, the current cosmological paradoxes - dark energy, dark matter, and quantum weirdness are shown to be artifacts of the incorrect assumption in standard cosmology of a fixed PSR with absolute space-time in the far-field (V~C). This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.

    I think your statement extremely limits the role of science - "....it is legitimate to judge that the final aim of a scientist may not be the finding of the "truth" but merely the finding of a theory that reproduces and explains the body of experimental evidence. The knowledge gained during this process is then used for the convenience of mankind."

    I would like to promote the role of science and scientists to reveal the ultimate universal reality that not only enhances its material life and conveniences but also provides purpose and meaningfulness to life in the universe. My attached paper - "In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose" shows how science can achieve this.

    I would like to invite you to read my paper and provide your comments in light of your paper.

    Regards

    AvtarAttachment #1: 1_Manus_MetanexusIn_Search_of_the_Universal_Reality__Purpose.pdf

      John/Israel:

      I fully agree with the statement - ""motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place."

      This has actually been vindicated in my paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.

      This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.

      Please read my detailed post below and my posted paper for further details.

      Regards

      Avtar

      Hi Jason/Daryl/Israel;

      Please read my detailed post below as to how PSR, GPR, and SR can be reconciled or bridged addressing many of the points you are making.

      Regards

      Avtar

      Hi Avtar

      Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. From what you say I am curious about your work, it appears that we have some points in common, I will read it ASAP. I just wonder whether your theory besides explaining some of the most important problems in physics makes new unobservable predictions. I would appreciate if you could make some comments.

      As to the aim of science. I would like to make a comment to state my point. I think that one should acknowledge that humans cannot be omniscient, if this were true there would be no more questions to answer and we will control nature at will. This leads me to reach the plausible conclusion that humans will never understand how nature really works. I wish you were right but I cannot overlook the previous statements. I may be wrong, in such case, I would appreciate also if you could persuade me of changing this belief.

      Best wishes

      Israel

      Hi Israel,

      I am struggling to answer your question: "What is wrong with reconsidering the assumption? (PSR)" There is nothing wrong with challenging assumptions. The problem "I" have is that it doesn't lead anywhere. If you could come up with an experiment for a gravity drive, a warp drive or something spectacular like that, but you had to question an assumption or a postulate of physics, then it could lead somewhere. Unless I have overlooked something...

      Israel,

      In all fairness, I'm actually proposing an aether medium made of waves. I think that pretty much puts an end to preferred frames of reference. Everything is really just a trick of light.

      I wish you luck in the contest. :)

      Hi Jason

      You: If you could come up with an experiment for a gravity drive, a warp drive or something spectacular like that, but you had to question an assumption or a postulate of physics, then it could lead somewhere. Unless I have overlooked something...

      Like I said, the aim of this contest is not to propose a theory or experiment but to point out which assumption is wrong. I argue that the assumption that there is no PSR and that there is no aether is wrong. If you want a theory considering these two assumptions, it is already developed and waiting for experiments to prove it. Certainly, you do not see the utility because you have some other ideas in mind. If you have developed an aether theory then you have to consider that the aether itself is the PRS. The theory I mentioned also argues that everything is fundamentally a wave.

      I just want to ask you if your theory makes new predictions, and if so, what are they?

      Good luck too.

      Israel

      Dear Israel Omar Perez,

      My view on Ether & 'The Preferred System of Reference'

      Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light with sound. In parallel to this, conservation of energy led to unify kinetic energy, heat, light and sound to be collectively and inter-convertibly called energy.

      As sound can not travel without a medium, it was argued by some theoreticians that a medium is required for light to travel. However, light travels through space devoid of any matter. For space to act as a medium for propagation of light a host of properties shall be assigned to space. Considering the fact the value of these properties are unreasonable and sound does not propagate through space, it was a dead concept at the origin it-self. So ether as an all prevailing medium concept was dead at birth. But as usual, in human nature, we prefer not to be negative in our conversations. This makes different thought processes co-exist in a given period of time. The ether concept continued to exist for some time. The argument in favour of ether was a possibility of providing it a unique characteristic of being at absolute rest. (Though, absolute rest was not defined clearly). In terms of Newtonian frame of reference, it was seen as a universal reference frame that assigns each object a value in each of three dimensions of space representing rate of change of position. This association of Ether with absolute rest was turned down by Michelson-Morley experiment. This was as big an effort as recent discovery of Higgs-Bosons. The proposed defining characteristic of ether at absolute rest was negated by observations by in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. So ether as a concept similar to a medium that is essential for sound waves died as a result of Michelson-Morley experiment.

      During the time interval between Newton (& Galileo) to Einstein, science was in formative state. From flat earth, to universe with sun as center to doing away with any preferential location or reference was completed in this period. This purified concept of space from all the baggage it carried due to limitations of human intuition and observations.

      In PicoPhysics, we define realities of Knergy and Space as host realities for two opposite concepts. Knergy of Konservation and space is antidote to Konservation. The unary law 'Space contains Knergy' describes the interaction between the two.

      Five Dimensions of universe

      In PicoPhysics we can establish only three dimensions of space. So space has only three dimensions. There is no fourth or fifth dimension of space. Let us consider what a dimension means. Dimension is one of the observable aspects of reality. The universe includes both Space and Knergy. While Space has 3-Dimensions, Knergy has 2-Dimensions. This gives the universe its five dimensions.

      Science also deals with degrees of freedoms in relation of dimensions. Though universe has five dimensions, the degree of freedom is less than four. The dimension of Time is maps conformal to space dimension in drift direction. The dimension of energy is less than one, since it does not allow for negative values. Thus degrees of freedom are at best four for universe.

      Thanks and Regards,

      Vijay Gupta

      Dear Vijay

      Thanks for leaving your comments I appreciate them and I will take a look at your essay as soon as possible. I just like to make clear that neither the Michelson-Morley experiment nor any other experiment can rule out the immovable aether assumption. None of these experiments proves that there is no aether. The aether was rejected only on epistemological grounds. I invite you to read my essay, there I elucidate these points.

      Best regards

      Israel

      • [deleted]

      • Post #87

      Israel,

      "I argue in my essay that most of the problems in physics can be "easily" solved if one accepts both the PSR and the notion that "empty" space is not only composed of gravitational potentials (as relativity holds) but that space is a material fluid a la Descartes. This is the benefit for physics.'

      I'm trying to figure out how space could be a "fluid," yet not be some form of causal spacetime.

      It seems to me that to make space a true PSR, all dynamic properties would have to be washed out, leaving it as an equilibrium state, in which matter/energy/action interacts. There seems to be this insistence on some measurable function, aether, etc, filling it up. It seems to me the most irrefutable argument for space as the elemental frame, is centrifugal force. Once you rotate any defined frame and the component contents seek to follow a straight line, requiring some attractive property of the frame(gravity) to hold them in, that is evidence of the Euclidian equilibrium of space. Aether certainly wouldn't cause centrifugal force.

      Yes, all of space is either dominated by energy radiating outward, or mass/gravity contracting inward, but they seem, according to measurement(COBE, WMAP) and theory, to be in balance, resulting in an overall flat space.

      The only alternative to space as some form of elemental void, is the notion it emerges as a consequence of the singularity, which is a whole additional can of worms, one which incidentally grew out of the idea of "spacetime" in the first place.