Dear Constantinos,

Perhaps nobody in the community will be surprised when we show that Pentcho is wrong. Only Georgina found your 4. claim interesting. You wrote:

"My argument to Pentcho that all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space which defines existence in our Universe. Thus explaining CSL."

If observer 1 is in motion relative to observer 2 then I wonder how they both can be at rest relative to empty physical space (Israel Perez's aether).

I will avoid a discussion with Georgina because she follows Albert Einstein who made the observer an issue. While observers are of course not outside reality, I see processes in the objective reality quite independent from any observer except if he is involved in the observed process. I suggest you will discuss with Georgina elsewhere unless there is a connection to my essay.

Pentcho got it: "Michelson and Morley should have calculated and expected the NULL result". I am sure this is definitely an annoying surprise to many physicists and also exciting and unbelievable to almost every layman.

Best regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #169

Dear Eckard,

you wrote: "the past is the domain of reality". That is an opinion based upon a particular understanding of what reality is. You are I think referring to those things that have been measured or observed. Do things only become a reality upon observation?

I agree that -The- (unwritten) future is open to possibility. However knowing that perception comes after actualised events aren't those things now existing ahead of the output realisation or manifestation of them also in a more foundational way in a domain of reality, (ie. one that is ahead of the experienced present, not the past).

Amanda Gefter has written about each observer having their own observed universe.Something to which I have also alluded. In that context an object can be be observed as a reality more than once, as each observer will manifest the object from the data he/she /it has uniquely received.

While I probably don't fully understand the sign problem you are talking about, it does seem to me that whether there is a rotation to right or left does make a difference as it will alter the data that is received and so the output manifestation produced from it. Which could make an obvious difference for a non uniform source object. I am not saying this to be annoying or disrespectful but just to give another perspective- that may or may not be relevant to your argument.

By the way I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my essay as I respect your knowledge and very sensible consideration of matters.

Kind regards Georgina.

Hello Georgina,

We should be considerate of our host and move our discussion elsewhere away from his living room. He may wish to retire to his bedroom for the evening! Look for my response under my essay.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #171

Dear Eckard you write,

"If observer 1 is in motion relative to observer 2 then I wonder how they both can be at rest relative to empty physical space"

They will both be at rest relative to the 'empty physical space' they occupy.

May we simplify the space to the straight line IR of real numbers and set the velocity between two points on it equal to zero. Why should we deny the possibility to move this tandem relative to IR?

Dear Escard,

Thanks for the reference. I think that result of Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment by Feist prove again that observer can not with the help of internal two-way measurements of signal speed to find its velocity in space. If you take in account in the Feist experiment Lorentz contraction then the formula for signal speed gives dilation of time.

Sergey Fedosin

    Dear Eckard

    I take your essay as querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far: and I agree with you on this. I also agree on your take on time, and on your comment "It is mistake to keep differential equations for primary. They are merely abstractions from the originally integrating relationships" Correct: and those integrating relationships involve boundary conditions or initial conditions whereby global relations constrain local physics - in concordance with my own essay.

    I disagree on special relativity, as you know. I believe it's very well established. Any experiments of quality that disagree with it must of course be take seriously: they must be repeated by independent experimenters to check their validity. But you'll find it hard finding experimentalists willing to invest time, money and effort into that project: given all the other experiments that support SR, it is so unlikely it will prove anything interesting.

    George

    George

      • [deleted]

      • Post #175

      Dear Eckard,

      All paradox (like all magic) plays on the 'mental framing' we place on the situation we seek to understand. In Physics, the paramount view should be 'physical' and not 'mathematical'. Don't we agree? The question we need to constantly ask is "what is physical". Do you agree? The explanation I offered aims to define 'physical space'. And thus determine what is meant by 'physical existence'. All 'physical objects' in order to 'physically exist' must fill 'physical space' and require a duration of 'physical time'. The later I claim is assured by the Second Law while the former I propose is assured by the CSL. Which, in my way of looking at this, is the equivalent statement "all 'physical objects' are at rest with the 'physical space' they occupy". The 'physical object' defines the 'physical space' it occupies. In this view, we do not have physical objects moving relative to the space they occupy. In other words, the points in your comment cannot be moving in "tandem relative to IR". Though mathematically this can be thought, physically this would require the points to be 'apart and outside' the line. To not 'physically exist', in other words! Am I misunderstanding you? Probably I am.

      Dear Constantinos,

      Perhaps you are imagining an individual empty space belonging to each individual object. Engineers prefer just one space and (except for proponents of Einstein's relativity) a common time. Mathematically, we are always assume only one IR.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #177

      Dear Eckard,

      In math I am free to imagine! But in physics, we must always stay well grounded on the physical. And what is meant by 'physical'? My previous comments revolve around just that matter. And though we can imagine physical objects moving in empty space, such notion of physicality is imagined and prone to paradox. I suggest that 'physicality' is determined (along with the Second Law) by the CSL Postulate. Which, in my view, is equivalent to "all 'physical objects' are at rest with the 'physical space' they occupy". We just cannot physically separate a physical object from the physical space it occupies. In my humble opinion, many paradoxes result from just such separation.

      You write, "Perhaps you are imagining an individual empty space belonging to each individual object." I answer: I am not imagining "individual empty space belonging to each individual object". Just as I am not imagining a common empty space in which physical objects are in motion. But I am convinced that no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES! Aren't you? Perhaps rephrasing this may help to convey what I mean. No physical object can be in motion relative to itself!

      Constantinos

      Dear George,

      I am delighted. You are the first one who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public. I know that there are no experts who dare to entirely agree with me.

      Physicists tend to refuse reconsidering questionable applications and interpretation of mathematics. My Fig. 2 points to unphysical symmetries.

      Mathematicians are reluctant to question arbitrary instead of logical definitions of basic notions like number, or continuity.

      When I wrote "originally integrating relationships", I tried to remind of the physically implemented integrators used in analog computers. I did not write "integral equations". Yes, there are a few processes in reality that can be well described with initial or boundary conditions. However, most processes do not have an exactly defined begin and also no exactly predictable end. You may believe in Adam and Eve. Repair of defect genes requires a larger population.

      What about Feist, I deliberately quoted Bruhn because he did not even bother to search for a possible mistake. I see myself proficient enough in electronics and acoustics as to confirm that the measurement by Feist was correctly performed.

      In contrast to e.g. the measurement by Nimtz that was too involved as to be not possibly flawed, and to OPERA that also demonstrated how difficult it is to avoid flaws in very sophisticated systems, the measurement by Feist was too simple as to hide an error. While a check of the validity of the experiment is most likely not necessary, my explanation can be wrong. It is so far the only plausible one.

      Contests and discussions at fqxi are a market place of old and new arguments.

      - I maintain that the ear can definitely not analyze future input.

      - The expectation of a non-null result for the MMX was wrong if my explanation of the experiment by Feist is correct.

      I am asking myself: Doesn't this render the remedies by Ritz, Lorentz, or Einstein presumably unnecessary? Don't virtually all experiments that are claiming to support SR only confirm what also is valid with a preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, and an objective separation between past and future? I appreciate your helpful readiness to provide hints to antitheses.

      Sincerely,

      Eckard

      Dear Sergey,

      I agree that - if my explanation of Feist's experiment is correct - the MMX did not refute a medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate. Aether theories must not be excluded. Shtyrkov's measurement seems to be trustworthy.

      You seem to be the first one who suggests relativistic effects in acoustics.

      Eckard

      Dear Constantinos,

      Your confusion has nothing to do with my essay. Nonetheless, we should be able to clarify.

      You wrote on Sept. 28, 18:28 "... all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space."

      On Sept. 29, 22:10 you tried to explain: "no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES!"

      Newton understood physical space as something absolute in which all positions relate to each other. He called space God's sensorium. On earth, this ubiquitous space is not empty but e.g. filled with air. It is reasonable to say that a physical object occupies at a given moment a part of this space, and it is also reasonable to define speed of a physical object relative to the position that it just occupied for an infinitesimal small time span. Mathematically dx/dt at x and t.

      Your deviating opinion is not new. Aristotle (384-322) got aware of the formal seeming contradiction between rest and beginning motion. Already Zeno (490-430) made similar seeming contradictions an issue.

      By the way, I consider the expression metaphysics of physics" not the best choice. As a Greek you know that metaphysics can be translated as after physics. Andronikos of Rhodos put the so called first philosophy of the physics by Aristotle as an appendix behind (meta) the main part.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #181

      Dear Eckard,

      You might say all of physics has to do with confusions we have about what Nature has in mind. And what we mean by what we say. Understanding this state of human affairs, I will not take offense! But do apologize for taking space responding to you under your space. So how else I should respond? I do not object doing this under my essay, if that is better for you.

      More clarifying comments to confuse the matter further. By 'empty physical space' I do not mean necessarily the space we imagine without anything in it. The physical object and the space it occupies cannot be physically separated. But can only be imagined by us as separate. As physical space occupied by a physical object devoid of that physical object. My statement, "no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES!", can thus be restated as "no physical object can be in motion relative to itself!". I think this should make the matter self-evident.

      As to my use of metaphysics, it does not depend on the historical arrangement of Aristotle's books. But what the words in Greek actually mean: after or beyond the physical.

      Constantinos

      Dear Eckard,

      George may be the first one in academia "who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public", but you have a number of friends who do agree with you. For example I remarked above that:

      "We hold the mathematical concepts, set theory, calculus, etc., in our heads forgetting where the logical holes are located. It is very good that you continue to remind us that holes exist and show us where some big ones are located..."

      and I agreed with your following statement, "Tolerating an overlap of mutually excluding models is certainly no satisfactory solution."

      So yes, it's great to have someone with 'skin in the game' agree with you, but don't forget your friends! We also agree with your "...querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far"

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #186

      Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

      I mentioned [20] Nimtz. The community of physicists was unable to immediately and clearly demonstrate in what he was wrong when he consistently measured propagation speed in excess of c. Isn't this alarming? He was of course wrong.

      I quoted Bruhn as to demonstrate how arrogantly genuine experimental results are ignored. I vote for more effort also concerning the very basics of mathematics.

      When Roger Schlafly suggests to decouple mathematics and physics this might be popular. Of course, many models of reality are not just not trustworthy but they can presumably not at all be rescued by any corrections. Nonetheless, I see any agnosticism welcomed by those who are lazy and coward.

      I reiterate what I wrote in 833: If the essence of mathematics is its freedom as claimed by G. Cantor, then mathematics cannot be as fundamental as usually claimed for a correct description of reality.

      Thank you for your encouraging words.

      Best,

      Eckard

      After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

      Cood luck.

      Sergey Fedosin

        Because my English is shaky I am often not sure whether or not I am understanding essays or discussions correctly. For instance 1410, Sep. 13, 09:04:

        "If we have for the particle Mvc then the speed of particle is v. If the speed of particle is smaller then v in the case the momentum of particle is smaller then p and the particle has no energy pc/gamma = Mvc."

        - smaller then or smaller than? I am not sure.

        I hope my mistakes, e.g. assessed instead of accessed, are not misleading.

        I did not even manage to access so many essays. I wonder how Sergey Fedosin selected those who were worth to get notified about his assessment. Maybe he intends urging me to read his essay? Well, maybe it needs just time for me to grasp why his nesting does not fit into a frame of absolute reference? Peter Jackson already often put me in the drawer of the stupid ones who do not understand his visions.

        Eckard

        Dear Eckard,

        You present some good ideas here. In particular, I think that set-theoretic issues are very relevant to physics. I have run into the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice in my own efforts to understand physics. A few other thoughts:

        1. I agree that past and future are objectively different from each other, and that the future is not yet determined. There are a number of ways in which an objective arrow of time can arise. I prefer to take causality as fundamental, in which case time merely agrees with the direction from cause to effect. But even theories with "emergent time" like Barbour's shape dynamics can distinguish past and future by means of "asymmetry of configuration space."

        2. I don't know if differential equations will ultimately be good enough even with boundary conditions. This is because differential equations require a differentiable structure in the interior of the region being modeled, and I think this may be too much to assume. Integral equations are physically better in my view, but much harder to work with mathematically.

        3. I agree that although "reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism."

        4. I think SR probably breaks down on small scales, but that is a long story!

        5. You have some nice diagrams!

        I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

        Ben Dribus