• [deleted]

  • Post #101

Israel,

Keep in mind that for theoretical physicists, experience is manipulating a lot of abstract symbols. As the old saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this case, bits of information. When you have a lot of competitive people with the same predilections, it is a classic recipe for getting seriously off track.

Remember that epicycles were quite accurate and could have been made completely accurate, for the very simple reason that were are the center of our perspective of the rest of the universe, so it would be mathematically modelable. The problem arose when they tried to define the physical reality within the context of this model. Yet we still have this belief that math represents some underlaying structure to reality, rather than a best model of it. So today, they still do what the ancient cosmologists did; Whenever observation and theory diverge, figure out what new epicycle/particle/dimension/field is causing it, rather than question the assumptions built into the theory, because for theorists, theory is the reality. Theory is their intuition.

Hi Jason

You say: Aether waves and light are mutually causal: one causes the other to exist.

This is more a assumption than a prediction. I meant what new unobservable physical phenomena predicts and how the predictions can be experimentally verify. For instance. Einstein predicted the bending of light. Quantum mechanics predicted quantum tunnelling.. etc. I am talking about this predictions...

Israel

Hi Israel,

What I'm getting at is that aether waves are responsible for the existence of all phenomena of nature (time, space, gravity, electromagnetism, etc.). Even atoms are only able to exist because of the aether version of the atom which looks like hydrogen atom wave-function. If the aether didn't exist, then nothing would exist. In that sense, aether causes everything to exist.

In another sense, when we emit light using flashlights, LED's, radar, radio-wave antennas, etc, we also create the aether waves that support the EM radiations.

Now gravity and acceleration fields exist because of some particular configuration of aether. Now if were clever, we can figure a way to duplicate the aether configuration of gravity/acceleration fields with nothing more than light, specifically EM frequency chirps. So I am predicting that a train of frequency chirps will create the same aether wave configuration that exists due to gravity. If the experimenter detects an acceleration field caused by EM frequency chirps, which cause the aether to take the same configuration as that of gravity, then we've proven that aether exists, we've proven that we can manipulate aether waves.

In a way, it's like a feedback loop. Everything exists because aether exists. But we can manipulate the aether using light because we can control light very easily. When we manipulate aether using light, it changes the aether wave which in turn changes how nature manifests. It's a feedback loop to manipulate how nature manifests.

Hmm..!! I don't understand your aether language. It is sort of ambiguous. I am having semantical problems. I better read your essay, I'll be back to you as soon as possible.

Israel

John

I just want to make some comments in this topic you touch. You should keep in mind that math was only included in physics to quantify reality. Actually, it is well known that math was born from experience and from experience math gains its truth and scientific value. Oliver Heaviside once said: Math is an empirical science. There are many physicists, like Max Tegmark, who thinks that for every element of reality there corresponds a mathematical one. I do agree that one can find mathematical structures to explain reality. A mathematical structure is nothing but a logical structure. But I know pretty well that logic sometimes turns out to be illogic and irrational. There is no natural logic for reason, the logic is imposed by experience. This is like when we have a collection of random data. Data that follows no pattern is illogical. If a theorist sees no trends in the data the theorist finds no logic in the data. Once the data follow a pattern, the theorist will invent a logical structure to reproduce the data. So, the logical structure of a theory is determined by experience.

Today many theorists follow an heuristic approach to solve the problems of physics: What if I assume this potential, what if I assume this field... I'm going to propose this hamiltonian... What if I consider space-time discrete... If the proposal works, then good, otherwise to start over...

The heuristic approach resembles "guessing" in which no scrupulous analysis is followed. Some theorist follow this procedure because they do no longer question the fundamental assumptions, because they no longer consider philosophical reasoning and intuition as a tool to build a theory... However, I think that in science as in war everything is allowed insofar as the problem under consideration can be solved... intuition and analytical and philosophical reasoning still have a major role to play in physics, because they "see", what a logical or mathematical structure can not...

Thanks for your stimulating comments

Israel

  • [deleted]

  • Post #107

Dear Israel,

When you mention finding patterns in data I reminded of the Narrative fallacy, which is a common human bias that seeks to find causal stories within what may be unrelated events. Leading to mistakes of correlation for causation, in every day life and also sometimes in science and social science. I'm also reminded of the propensity to see human faces in inannimate objects such a piece of toast or a pebble, because the human mind is adapted to discriminate such patterns in sensory data with ease.

You final paragraph reminds me of what Richard Feynman said- "Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First. we guess it (audience laughter). no, don't laugh, that's the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

Richard Feynman lecture Cornell university 1964 (from amiquote.tumblr.com )

  • [deleted]

  • Post #108

Israel, Georgina,

There is a bit of a dichotomy between inductive and deductive logic. Yes, we induce common patterns and principles from the phenomena around us, then use them to deduce further extrapolations in larger arenas of phenomena.

I think the point we are making is that math is a tool, and much like any tool, from other forms of language, to mediums of exchange, or computers, telescopes, even simple hammers and knives, we never quite know where our use of them will lead us. They are the principles we induce from experience, then apply to further exploration. The problem is when we start treating these tools as Gods, where everything which arises from their use must be true and unquestioned. That is when we lose control and chaos takes over, from wars, to economic bubbles, to physical theories run amok. We fall victim to our own beliefs.

Hi Israel,

Please let me know if I can answer any questions. The aether is this ontological substance that implements the laws of physics. In its simplest form, it's a probability wave. When excited by energy, it transmits photons. Particles with mass are like a range of frequencies of aether waves that are "knotted" or "kinked" together into a localized particle of mass. But the important part is that an aether medium gives us a strategy to try to manipulate gravity using light.

We don't have to understand the aether very deeply to be able manipulate it, and thereby manipulate gravity.

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #112

Israel,

The irony here is that sometimes, what theorists proclaim as grand insights, are already fundamental to our intuitive knowledge, from millions of years of interacting with physical reality. Then our different languages and disciplines view these patterns from different perspectives and don't see the connections, with each insisting on particular interpretations. Discretion is foundational to knowledge, but like everything else, should be kept in perspective.

Dear Israel

When we speak of the double slit interference with particles you and I seem to agree about what is going on - the field outside the particle is what interferes. As I understand it this is far from the realistic picture that comes in to the minds of quantum theorists - it is all mixed up with notions of probability, entanglement and God knows what. In my theory it is the systematic explanation of how the energy locked up in the node can create such a field is what is important. And to the best of my knowledge the experiment with fullerenes was made with slits wider than the C60 diameter.

Yes particles as solitons have been discussed over the years, - particularly by my email friend the Canadian researcher Gabriel LaFreniere. I was shocked to hear that he has passed away recently and that his website in which matter as standing waves is specifically described and simulated, was offline. Fortunately a copy of the website Matter is Made of waves is archived here: Gabriel LaFreniere's website . Actually this is the 2009 state of the website - I think he added to it in the past 3 years, but the new research seems gone.

I hope young researchers like you will help preserve and propagate his work.

Vladimir

  • [deleted]

  • Post #114

Dear Dr. Perez,

My Internet access was very limited and unreliable for the past month. Both that and my too abrupt reading of your first message to me in my forum caused me to not fully appreciate its importance. Professional physicists have occasionally communicated with me but it has been rare. Usually the messages I receive are from other amatuers. I do fully appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge with me. I have read your essay and welcome it as a greatly needed addition both to the contest and for asserting the rightful prominence of empirical evidence. Speaking only for myself, theory is either its follower or is unanchored invention. I liked your essay very much. Good luck in the contest.

James Putnam

    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

    Dear Israel:

    Thanks for your reply. Responses to your comments are provided below:

    Your comment 1: "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...... but if what you say is true, then science will become some sort of religion"

    Response:

    No, I am not suggesting that you will change your position; I am saying that only your free will (and not an external imposition) would guide your future position. Also, I am not saying that humans will never understand nature; I am saying that when and if humans understand or realize that the free will or consciousness is the fundamental reality of the universe, the incomprehensible and diverging materialistic reality of matter alone will become only a purposeless or meaning less utilitarian need or pursuit. The top level or the ultimate objective of science is revealing the eternal universal reality which is the fundamental source (as well as sink) of everything including matter, energy, space, and time. When this ultimate objective is realized, the current approach of science - the lower level materialistic-only (matter represents only 4% of the universe) pursuit would appear only a ritualistic religion-like practice guided by the superstitious matter-only belief.

    Your comment 2: "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 materialistic 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)."

    Response:

    You have hit the nail on the head in suggesting that the current materialistic-only view of science is hindering the progress of science. However, humans do not have to wait 100 years to break this shackle. The theme of my paper is to show that, right now, if the free will dimension of the spontaneity of the mass decay is integrated into the current theories, they can successfully predict the observed universe dissolving many current paradoxes, inconsistencies, and singularities. We are there now, no need to wait for hundred years.

    I can only hope that scientists could be convinced of this missing physics of spontaneity well-observed in nature today so that they do not have to be shackled by a self-imposed belief (religious) and pessimism that humans cannot understand nature at its core or highest level. They just need to focus on the forest and not get lost in individual trees. Instead of focusing on the transient waves on the surface of the ocean they must see the ocean below. Time is our only enemy but time is only an artifact illusion of matter. As soon as, which can be now, science sees beyond the inanimate matter, the darkness is dissolved and lights turn on. This is my personal experience as a scientist.

    Regards

    Avtar

    • [deleted]

    • Post #118

    Hi avtar

    Thanks for your reply. What you mention reminds me about Teilhard de Chardin and his omega point; so far, we haven't reach it. The problem is that for the majority of scientists, it would take so many years to understand what you said. Science does not evolve as fast as you may think. The process would take hundreds of years more.

    You: "I am saying that only your free will would guide your future position." I interpret this as if I were to change my way of thinking about something as time goes by. The view and the feelings about something change because of experience and maturity, that's it.

    Good luck in the contest

    Israel

    • [deleted]

    • Post #119

    Dear Israel,

    You consider space "a material fluid a la Descartes" and told us that Bernoulli ascribed the Cartesian view to continental Europa but the Newtonian to England. Perhaps you refer to Jacob Bernoulli (1654-1705). Newton was born in the year 1642 when Galileo died. When Descartes died in 1650, Newton was a little boy. Between Descartes and Newton something decisive happened.

    Otto Gericke had read speculations on empty space in the Meditationes by Descartes. He managed to build about 1650 the first vacuum pump in order to demonstrate in 1654 that there is an empty space. At that time he got aware of experiments in 1643 by Torricelli, Galileo's pupil. Von Guericke's Experimenta nova ut vocantur Magdeburgica led to the steam engine, his communicated to Leibniz experiments on electrostatic force at distance led to the play with electricity.

    Concerning Maxwell's equations I wonder why you didn't mention Gibbs. If I recall correctly, the idea of an aether goes back at least to Ampere and Cauchy.

    Best,

    Eckard

    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