Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

Thanks for letting me know that you intend to read my essay and comment on it.

I would like to let you know that my essay directly addressed to topic of the competition - namely the primordial foundational problems (unlike many other essays - yet ironically it is way down in the list).

To quote: "We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated".

Thus the first six pages of my essay is to show how physics arrived at the point where Newtonian mechanics became incapable of explaining relativistic phenomena, which manifest in cases of fast moving objects.

It shows that Einstein understood that Newtonian foundation was fictitious. Einstein knew that the "Right Way" was to formulate a theory on the same lines as TD, but instead of finding a theory based on first principles (as in TD), he added more fictions. And I show why he had to stick to this fictitious path. It is because, Einstein discarded the dynamic substratum of Galileo's relativity and took only the superficial kinematic caricature of it. The dynamic substratum of Galileo's relativity is that there is a CAUSE why the relative motion of two objects in a given location remains the same, independent of the velocity of the local frame. The cause is that both the objects share a motion in common with the local frame. "The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it" ( Dialogos, p. 187).

Poincare severely attacked this substratum (see St Louis Address), and insisted that there is no common motion so that the idea of a preferred frame is completely eliminated. It is on this castrated principle of relativity that Einstein adopted. This is why he could not discern the dynamic link between the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation. (Perhaps you may recall the discussion I had with George Ellis on this subject, where you made some comment in regard to my 'persistence').

In the last four pages of my essay I prove my point by briefly showing the solution. By developing the algorithm that underlies motion of a particle. Still these may not convey to you how relativistic phenomena appear in fast motions.

I would therefore copy an extract of my post to Israel Perez a few days back.

(Beginning of Extract):

In the final analysis, the whole crisis in physics has the following four factors combining together as the root cause - the primordial foundational errors of physics. 1) Not considering that all phenomena arise out of state changes of energy in an open system, with exchange of energy between the system and the field. 2) Not considering that Nature's processes are non-linear and NOT DEVELOPING PHYSICS RIGHT FROM THE START on the basis of a corresponding NON-LINEAR MATHEMATICAL SCHEME. 3) Not considering that motion of a particle occurs by the interaction of TWO quantities of energy; particle energy Mc2 and the energy of motion pc. The POINT MASS CONCEPT which is common to SRT and QM as well prevents the discernment of non-linear mathematical configuration underlying the interaction of the above two quantities of energy. 4) Not considering that: A particle moving relative to a given location (in motion) not only has a motion in common with the location but with the whole hierarchy of motions of the location. (E.g. A particle set in motion on a moving ship has motions in common with the ship, earth's surface, earth's orbiting centre)

As I see it, physics had developed from the time of Newton till early 1900's on a linear basis for slow moving bodies (without taking the above four factors into account). The development of physics up to that point was possible and successful because, for slow motions, the effects of non-linearity are negligibly small (imperceptible) over short intervals of time (they would manifest only if cumulative data are considered over a long period as in the case of perihelion motion of Mercury). In sharp contrast, effects of non-linearity develop exponentially at very high velocities, (and the very same phenomena that are imperceptible at slow motions become very much perceptible at fast motion). Thus when physics came at the stage of conducting experiments with fast moving particles, the combined effect of the above four factors hit the fan, and physics was thrown into a crisis.

The most difficult factor (out of the above four) to make people understand is about the effect of common motion of a particle with the hierarchy of backgrounds. This was a basic premise of Galileo and Newton "A body that is moved from a place also partakes in the motion of the place" (Principia p. 9). Because the non-linear effects are imperceptible at low velocities, the premise of "common motion of a particle with its places", became superfluous to be taken into consideration in practice. So there had been a de facto application of the Occam's razor to this principle. Therefore, physics of slow moving particles developed for two centuries by IMPLICITLY considering that all 'reference frames' are equivalent.

When physics arrived at the stage of experimenting with fast motion, the non-linear effects took exponential proportions, the phenomena associated with non-linearity were no more imperceptible.

The phenomenon associated with Galileo's premise of the motion of a particle (relative to earth) also having a motion in common with earth's orbiting centre, had even much deeper implications. It took the centre stage. The fact that earth's orbiting centre is also the centre of earth's gravitational field loomed large, and manifested in the results of these experiments of fast moving particles. But since Galileo's premise of common motion with the earth has slipped the minds of the physicists, it never occurred to them to look for an answer on its basis.

And at the same time over two centuries of physics, minds of physicists had got trained to ignore the effect of earth's gravitational field, and to consider that space as empty and inert. With this mindset, they could never think of even a more complicated structure than the space being the earth's orbiting gravitational field. That is, that the space (of the lab frame) consists of a gravitational field whose centre is orbiting about the centre of the sun's gravitational field. (That space needs to be considered as consisting of two interpenetrating gravitational fields in the least).

The particle (of energy Mc2) while at rest on earth already is orbiting with the earth in the sun's gravitational field. This is common knowledge, so common that it was never considered to have any further implications.

The implication is that, the energy of motion pc now added to the particle (Mc2) to set it in motion too has to gravitate about both these fields. In order to counter-act the gravitation of the sun, the energy pc has to develop a separate subsidiary component of energy (by fission) which will enable it to move at the orbital velocity determined by the gravitational potential of the sun's field. By this means it also develops a centrifugal force, which counteracts sun's attraction (and thereby tidal effects get eliminated). Therefore the velocity that the subsidiary component of energy pc has to develop, to move in sun's gravitational field, (while also moving the particle in earth's gravitational field), is equal to earth's orbital velocity u = 30 k/s.

This is why in the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS a term involving earth's orbital motion became manifest. And this is why in the 1904 paper in which Lorentz was working towards developing the EMPIRICAL EQUATION, (which we now call as the 'Lorentz transformation') by iteration of data of experiments of fast moving particles, he wrote in the opening paragraph itself: "The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ..... IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH'S ANNUAL MOTION ...." (p. 11)

In my theory there are no reference frames (like the theory Israel Perez claims that he tried to develop similar to TD). So Israel's following statement does not apply to my position:

Israel wrote: "I now understand why you introduce the sun frame. Lorentz considered it because at that time physicist assumed that the sun could be at rest relative to the aether (PSR). But today this argument no longer applies because the sun it is not at rest relative to the PSR".

I am by no means a follower of Lorentz theory. You seem to mistake my constant references to Lorentz's EMPIRICALLY DEVELOPED EQUATIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL FACTS, with Lorentz' subsequent INTERPRETATIONS to explain the terms in those equations. Lorentz' yeoman work in developing empirical equations is quite a different thing to various kinematic interpretations he proposed in his attempts to interpret them. I have no truck with those interpretations.

I would urge you to read my essay at least now. I have demonstrated therein how to represent physical processes by simple non-linear algorithms. I have accounted with extreme accuracy for the slow down of a GPS clock due to orbital motion, muon decay. I have eliminated the schism between physics of slow and fast motion. In just half a page I have derived Lorentz transformation by means of dynamic principles.

End of extract:

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 18_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

Eckard

I am not sure whether I do or I do not, because as you know, I do not have the background. Which is why I have never commented on your fig 3, etc, per se. All I can talk about is, at the generic level, given the fundamental nature of our reality (ie what we are analysing) then 'the rules of the game' are.....

However! since my knee is really sore and I am grounded, I will attempt to take my mind off it by looking at these concepts. And if I feel I can say anything 'sensible' (which might actually be rubbish) I will do.

Paul

Eckard

As expected, I now have a headache as well as a sore knee. I can specify the relevant fundamental nature of what is being investigated (ie our reality), and therefore what needs to be modelled with representational devices (eg mathematics). But having spent the day reading, I still certainly cannot make any judgement about the validity of specific constructs, nor indeed could I discern their underlying view as to how our reality is constituted.

The ontological characteristics of dimension, distance, and space

As previously stated, our reality is a sequence of physically existent states of the substances which comprise it. Only one such state can exist at a time, because for the successor to exist, the predecessor must cease. That is, at any given time within any given sequence, there is only ever one state (aka the present). Since the previous state (aka the past) has ceased to exist, and the next state in the sequence (aka the future) does not exist. Furthermore, that existent state must be physically definitive, and involve no change, otherwise existence, and alteration thereto, which is known to occur, could not do so.

In establishing what constitutes dimension, distance and space in our reality, it must be recognised that we are conceptualising any given physical reality (ie physically existent state) as if it was being divided into a grid of spatial positions. The 'mesh' size of this grid must be equivalent to the smallest elementary physical substance in our reality, so that the spatial position of any physical substance is identifiable.

Only physically existent states exist. That is, concepts either reflect that physicality, or are an artefact of it. By definition, any given physically existent state must have definitive dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint), this being a function of its constituent physical substance. That, with reference to the conceptual grid, can be defined as spatial positions 'occupied'.

It could be argued that a direct comparison between states is possible, and therefore there is no need for the concept of a grid. This is a fallacy, because logically the two circumstances are the same. The physically existent state used as a reference is just a surrogate grid. Indeed, in order to ensure compatibility with other comparisons, that state would have to be maintained as the reference (ie a de facto grid).

'Mapping' other states that were existent at the same given time, would reveal not only, obviously, both the spatial footprint of those states and their comparability, but also, distance. That is an artefact, a function of the physicality, and the particular selection of, the existent states involved. It is a difference, defined by comparison. There can be no distance between existent states which existed at different times. Their relative spatial position at their respective time of occurrence could be compared. Distance is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could include any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states involved, distance could involve spatial separation, or, if one state is within another, their spatial relationship, again in both cases with respect to specified dimensions.

Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint. It relates to the distance along any possible axis. So three is the absolute minimum number of spatial dimensions that is still ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation of any given physical reality. But is not what is physically existent. At that existential level, the number of possible dimensions that any given physical reality has is half the number of possible directions that the smallest substance in our reality could travel from any given spatial point.

Finally, space, in the sense of 'nothing', since otherwise it is distance. Again the start point is that only physically existent states are known to exist. Logically, there is the possibility that a not-physically existent state exists, ie at any given time there is a spatial position(s) that is(are) not occupied by physical substance. But this has not been proven yet. It is critical to differentiate this concept of 'nothing' from physical substance which just has different properties, because irrespective of how different the substances are, they are still substance.

The epistemological representation of dimension, distance, and space

As expected, I still cannot comment on any given mathematical construct in terms of its validity as a representational device of the above. Neither did I feel I made any real progress in discerning what form of reality Hilbert and Dedekind were presuming, ie following up on your comment that Hilbert 'shared the view that the distinction past and future is merely an illusion'. Without then understanding the content I could at least have made some comment, on the assumption that the content of the mathematical construct reflected the form of reality presumed. That particular notion of our reality being incorrect, indeed, it is probably its most critical feature.

So, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the task is to develop models which properly correspond with the ontological characteristics of our reality (as above), which includes assessing the ones already being used. It has to be noted that in much of the material I read, there was a predominant concentration on intrinsic validity, ie whether the construct was internally valid. Obviously any given model cannot be internally inconsistent, but the search for 'internal perfection' is tantamount to assuming that our reality is an abstract concept and therefore what is required is a model that has no pre-conditions and 'covers all the options'. But, our reality does have definite, and discernable, characteristics, which need to be properly reflected in any device purporting to represent it.

Paul

Eckard

You asked of; "a single (thus 'local') frame"? I responded on the long string on my blog as follows;

"I agree it does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is confusingly 'CSL', so I'll use 'instantaneous', for 'CIL'.

Envisage a space, say a 10 metre cube, with say five 0.5 metre 'particles' in it, all made up of gluons, protons, electron shells etc. and all moving with respect to (wrt) each other. We'll slow down some light waves passing through the space, to a constant 5kph wrt the cube, which we'll call 'c', so we can see what's going on.

As a part of each plane wavefront interacts with each particle the speed of propagation is instantly changed, or 'localised', to c', which is c wrt the particle NOT the cube. Most of the wave carries on at c, and another 0.5m bit may interact with a different particle, and then be localised to c", which is yet another c, wrt THAT particle. After a very short delay (PMD) each particle re-emits the charge (wave) at c wrt itself, that is; c' or c". So each of those speeds is different when viewed from the cube (background) frame, but is always c from the frame of each particle. That is 'local c' in the 'local frame' of each particle.

Now if all the particles are at rest wrt the cube, but the PMD delay gives refractive index n = in excess of 1, then all the re-emissions will have the same speed and axis c'. The process is equivalent to 'extinction' of the old wavefront and speed c. The effect of two axis during extinction is a form of birefringence, precisely as first found by Raman Chandraseckara pre his 1930 Nobel. (He also confirmed the new emission speed c' is wrt the particle not any bound electron orbital speed). In this case the word 'local' then refers to the cube, which may of course be in motion wrt it's own background.

Maxwell's 'domains' are only valid for each of those local frames. As soon as a 'transformation' (LT or GT) between frame is required they are invalid.

The big difference here is that we can now assign a frame' the mutually exclusive 'space' envisioned conceptually by Einstein (1952) to finally complete his quest for a 'Local Reality' derived from a quantum mechanism. That mechanism is simply Raman scattering, co-incidentally found the year of his Leiden speech 1921.

Does that help clarify the meaning assigned to 'local frame? The word 'single' may be almost irrelevant, but importantly reminds us that there are others, indeed "infinitely many spaces in motion relatively"; (AE 1952)"

Do let me know if the mists of confusion are yet lifting.

Peter

Eckard

Don't feel guilty (your post above). My responses are somewhat long because I try my best to explain myself. Anyway, here is a new approach. An exchange with Ben Dribus prompted me to rewrite two previous papers, and I have just posted the first half, which summarises what I had been saying to him, on his blog (my post 28/10 16.11). And ovelaps with the substance of our exchange here, which stopped at 17 posts. Have a look at that. Sorry I don't know how to do links

Paul

Eckard,

Did you see the Wesley take on Feist? (below). Also Harald van Lintel presented one at the 2003 NPA Conference in Storrs, CT, as noted by Tom Miles in a recent 'Dissidents' post. He apparently found the results of a repeat experiment 'inconclusive'.??

Wesley makes a distiction beween energy velocity and phase velocity.

Wesley_PhysEssays_v17n2(2004)159-165.pdf

Neither perceive the 'missing' point that it is not possible to have a real 'frequency' f without a corresponding wavelength once the detector and wave have interacted (and no interaction = no detection, so only 'apparent' not real f). So deriving local CSL.

I see Wesley as at least partly misguided, and haven't read van lintel.

Your views on all 3 subjects ??

Hope you're well. Best wishes.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for the hint. I was not aware of Wesley. Here is the abstract of his paper you referred to (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3025664):

"Classical waves in a medium, valid for light and for sound, involve two velocities, the phase velocity c′ and the energy velocity c, which in general are different both in direction as well as in magnitude. Doppler effects for a moving source and observer and for a wind are derived. The out‐and‐back phase velocity of a wave in a wind is proved to be isotropic according to classical wave theory, which explains the Michelson‐Morley null result as simply a classical Doppler effect. Feist has recently experimentally demonstrated the isotropy of the out‐and‐back phase velocity of sound in a wind, thereby confirming classical wave theory and duplicating for sound the Michelson‐Morley null result for light." This seems to be correct. The link you gave was perhaps faulty.

Miles is suspect to me. I will nonetheless search for Harald van Lintel NPA 2003.

Eckard

Attached is part 1 of the Mistake by Michelson and Morley.Attachment #1: MichelsonMorleys_Mistake.doc

Eckard

This may be a mistake, but it is not the mistake.

That is that with the conflation of reality and light reality, light speed becomes the time reference of reality. Which it may or may not be, coincidentally (ie from the perspective that it is what evolution used to develop sight). Also, coincidentally, observational light tends to be constant in that it is the result of an atomic interaction, not collision, and any startng speed is maintained unless impinged upon. That is considering light as a phyical enity, which it is, rather than some mysterious phenonomenon, which it is not. If light speed is actually the fastest rate of change there is, then it becomes the time reference for physical existence. But this needs to be proven. Which requires something more than, 'we cannot see anything faster'!! Precisely how one goes about that is somebody else's problem.

Paul

PS: I have completed a paper but want to read it through, finally. I will post it on my blog but I cannot do links, so if you want a copy send to paulwhatsit@msn.com

Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is 'refreshed' at the mirror (ie it is not a reflection/collision) is irrelevant. Light in this respect is not some mysterious commodity which is above normal physical rules. But one would never detect that with the set up of Michelson.

No I don't know whether an alteration in dimension occurs as a result of accelerated/decelerated motion, somebody ought to find out. What I was saying was that they believed it did. The argument was: the expected differential was not proven, but we still think it exists, so therefore the equipment shrank to counteract that. The value derived was gamma, which is just transversal (hypotenteuse)/vertical. Which is something of a clue that they have not got the value correct, even if it does occur, and that they are conflating light reality with existent reality.

Although dimension alteration keeps getting a mention, it does not have an effect in their theory. It becomes the equivalent of the supposed shift in time (eg everyone is in 'their own time'). And that was the donkey that they pinned the tail on. In the first instant, it caused them to worry about referencing wrt things that were moving (in the sense of more than others), because if the reference is altering dimension then that is a problematic reference. But the perversion of local time (Poincare "most ingenious idea") 'solved' all that. It is all about time difference, allegedly. Of course, it one conflates light reality with existent reality, then it is, because there is always a delay whilst light travels.

Paul

PS: thanks for advice on attachments, I just could not understand what URL(?) to give it, so I just dumped it as a post and wrote an e-mail to the administrators.

Eckard

I will have to be careful here, as it may not be what you are saying. But there is no duration in physical existence. Hence even the application of x = vt can be flawed (and indeed is). So by definition, there is nothing to be symmetrical about.

Either one stays within any given time and compares different physically existent states at that time, or one compares sequences of these as they progress over time. The point about x = vt is that distance, which is a difference, can only occur between two physically existent states which are existent at the same time. So any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

The exception to this is that distance could be conceived as a single example of change, ie a difference. So it can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Failure to understand the absence of elapsed time in a physical reality results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt. Making this mistake reifies change, and hence duration.

Now look at Einstein1905, it falls over from the start. Even worse, distance is seen as being quantifiable in terms of subsequent timings, not just it is a duration.

Light is 'constant' in that it is an existent phenomenon. It is not dependent of being received (ie observation). It results from an atomic interaction, so it always starts at the same speed, ie the speed of what it reacted with is irrelevant, because it is not a collision. There is no dichotomy between 'constant' light speed and a variable timing. It is just that the latter is in the receipt timing of light, not physical existence. All other things being equal, then the time of receipt of light which carries a representation of any given existence will be a direct function of distance between observers and existence.

Light as in waves, etc, ie over time, is another issue. Here we need to understand how light works. How many photons are involved in a 'decipherable' light, does exactly the same effect in photons disperse in all directions after an interaction, what is the differential between one light and the next, how does the effect actually travel, ie does the effect itself move, or is it a chain reaction, etc etc.

Be careful with SR, it is not 1905. SR is a theoretical circumstance without gravity. So it involves fixed shape bodies (ie no dimension alteration), only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary movement, and light that travels at a constant speed in straight lines. It was his way of demonstrating that there was no inherent contradiction in the two postulates. Note the phrase "only apparently irreconcilable" when stating them in 1905. Now that is weird, a new theory, only requires two postulates, and yet the author is aware that those who have brains might spot there is an inherent contradiction somewhere. But the author does not explain why it isn't at that time. Just 'resolves' it later with a purely theoretical circumstance, then moves on to the actual theory, ie GR.

The point about 'frames' is this: it is a reference. The reference for both time and space are concepts. They have to be operationalised. So any given timing device or spatial measuring device is just 'telling' the quantity. It is, in practical terms, the best approximation we have to the concept, which enables us to compare differences. Those watches of Einstein's were in synch already, otherwise they are useless. There was no "common time" to find.

Having been stimulated by an exchange with Ben, I have written the core argument down. I am now wading through all the other stuff. I do not have the capability to be specific, but my view is becoming that this search for a stationary reference and consideration of ether/light/etc was a red herring. There is no problem. Obviously light arriving at earth is affected by a number of factors, but light here on earth? The immediate reaction, ie dimension alteration, just sort of gets left on the cutting room floor. Timing is the new kid on the block, thanks to the flawed concept of simultaneity. One gets 'echoes' of dimension alteration in the idea that it is OK for clocks to differ when they move, because movement is making them contract/elongate so they tick more slowly/faster.

Paul