Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Hello Eckard, thanks for your comments on my essay, and sorry I took some time to comment on yours, am on holiday and on the road with my partner at present. I found some of your essay interesting - one thing, you say that Einstein's:

"...obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity."

The reason he thought there was no distinction between past and future is that Minkowskian geometry leads to that conclusion, and we often believe our old school teachers. But people are beginning to question Minkowski's work, as I have done in my essay. There have even been some rather desperate attempts to get rid of the lack of distinction between past and future, while keeping spacetime intact. I've argued that these don't work, because in spacetime, the distinction between past and future is purely observer-related, and depends on relative motion only. So it can't be about the collapse of the wave function, or other things that people ascribe it to, if spacetime is right. I've argued that there must be an error in the spacetime geometry, and that we have to look deeper to remove the problem.

I disagree that time strictly cannot be measured at all - a time rate can be measured in relation to another time rate. We don't know what causes these relative time rates, but they can be measured in relation to each other.

Anyway, best wishes, Jonathan

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

In a comment to John, you appeared to disagree with several essayists who "seem to intuitively believe in the correctness of the very foundational assumption that reality has been built on mathematics."

For this reason I'd like to make you aware of a comment that I posted [to all FQXi'ers] on this topic:

"This essay contest presents a number of contradictions, yet it is enlightening and eye-opening. My thoughts at this stage, after reading most (but not all) of the essays is stated in a comment I posted on Edward J. Gillis' excellent essay. The gist is as follows:

Despite the assumption that Bell's inequality is valid, an assumption I reject, I agree with you that "in order to make current theory logically coherent, we need ... indeterminism...".

You say our brains, "figuring out what we can control" bias intuition in favor of determinism. Yes, but free will does not fit a deterministic view and my intuition is comfortable with it.

As I recall Bernard d'Espagnat noted that our world is based on three assumptions: realism, inductive reasoning, and locality (linked to speed of light). Believers in Bell tend to retain logical inference at the expense of local realism. Perhaps this should be reconsidered.

Several essays in this contest suggest that space-time, locality, unitarity, and causality are "emergent", that is, not fundamental, but artefactual, emerging from deeper fundamentals, akin to temperature emerging from statistical ensembles of particles. Yet they apparently assume that logic and math survive even when space-time, locality, and causality have vanished (coming 'as close to "nothing" as possible').

I have presented logic and math as emergent from real structure (in 'The Automatic Theory of Physics') and if I am correct, then one cannot assume that one can banish space-time, locality, and causality and yet retain logic and math. [To do so one must be a 'Platonist', having a religious belief in some realm of 'math' not unlike religious belief in a 'Heavenly realm'.]

My intuition and my experience tell me that reality is both 'real' and 'local' while they also inform me that logical coherency is *not* universal. For instance this FQXi contest contains a number of 'logical maps' that span various regions of the 'territory' [physics], but they are logically inconsistent with each other [and potentially contain logical inconsistencies within themselves.] If anything, this problem grows worse daily, as new math and new physics ideas branch in new directions. Despite the claims of various schools of physics, there is no coherent 'Theory of Everything', nor does one seem to be in sight. Many deny even the possibility of such. Given this state of affairs, I am ever more inclined to believe that the Bell'ists have made the wrong bet, trading local realism for logic, and losing on both counts.

Perhaps a new understanding that 'logic is local' needs to replace the [probably faulty] assumption that 'logic is universal'. My essay is one approach that assumes local realism is fundamental."

As I hope to aggregate arguments on this topic, I invite your response on my thread.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

You'd need to understand 'Kinetic Reverse Refraction' (KRR) to understand my question. KRR is well known in optics but not well enough known outside as not rationalised into present theory. All good optics text books cover it, or this is one good link; 'Refraction between moving media'. http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-08/2-08.htm

Essentially, to an observer at rest in the air, the emission axis rotates in the OPPOSITE direction to that 'observed' from the 'car' frame.

You already agree remember that there IS a change in 'medium' (ambulance siren) from the emitter to the air; consider a siren inside the cabin as a headlight bulb, and the windscreen as the lens, the sound and light change propagation frame (co-moving medium) just AFTER emission. Observers inside the cabin, or the light lens, see the light first emitted in the emitter frame NOT the frame of the outside air. Ergo refraction has to occur before any Doppler shift of wavelength (thus derivative f) can be found by any other observer (where the process repeats in reverse). But do read the link, because it's easy to forget again when applying it due to unfamiliarity.

If you then look at my own figure 5 you can see the mechanism which explains both KRR and the findings of your own figure 5.

In a vacuum this becomes the 'Light Box' paradox. A light pulse bounces up and down, but when in relative motion to an observer it would appear to have an angled path so be superluminal. Tat's why Einstein needed Length Contraction. He said the box must then contract to conserve c.

So why would the light pulse not stay bouncing up and down when the box and it's mirrors moved off sideways!!??

KRR and my Fig 5 explain this without contraction of the box, and if the sides of the box were removed then the pulse WOULD stay vertical when the box moved away. Therefore intuition and logic is reclaimed. (as well as Snel's Law in KRR.

That is why Feist's findings are no surprise at all once the real process is understood. Only retained assumptions about how things work prevent this understanding.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for guiding me to "At the end of my Latin". I agree on that "Feist's findings are no surprise at all once the real process is understood". Be sure, I carefully selected and designed each of my five figures with the intention to enforce an important reconsideration.

Admittedly, I failed to understand on the first glance what message you intended to offer with your figures. You mentioned your Fig. 5; I only found four of your figures.

What about kinetic reverse refraction KRR, "a phenomena not yet assimilated into

physical theory" you did not yet explain to me how it may relate to my Fig. 5 where the wave propagates in only one medium with always the same refractory index. All explanations of KRR I found refer to refraction at a boundary between two media with different indexes.

I agree with Don Johnson's arguments in Galilean Electrodynamics 2006, 3-7 against Wheelers SR related illustration of transverse motion.

I will read Shtyrkov's 2011 paper in Russian on the Michelson experiment and have a look at Dowdye's 2006 Introduction in the Extinction Shift Principle you made me aware of. While my Fig. 5 shows reemission, I do not see this a justification for the implications ascribed to emission theories so far.

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

I always enjoy your replies, and particularly your mastery of mathematical history, which you use to illuminate many areas.

I agree that "complete determinism [is] a naive intuition and at variance with the possibility of a potentially infinite world."

As for "While reality is necessarily 'real', I do not share your pessimistic guess that logical coherency is *not* universal. Maybe, it cannot be easily enforced" I see the 'logical ideas' we have as due to essentially separate logical structures that exist in our brains, some learned from playing baseball as children, some learned from sitting in calculus class, and these structures are not wholly integrated and fully unified, nor are they universally correct and compatible. The question is then whether these separate maps, or combinations thereof, can 'cover' reality coherently. Maybe, maybe not.

Of course this depends upon the correctness of my view that logic is structural in nature as opposed to mystical in nature, and also to the degree that structures (neural nets) that are connected uniquely in each of us can 'rise above' this dependence on individual experiences to be isomorphic with those of others. It's amazing that a few simple theories like Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, and quantum mechanics can bridge these differences in most physicists minds, but to expect it to do so for the "potentially infinite world" you mentioned seems to me to expect a lot. And this does not even take into account the dimensions of reality of which Kyle Miller speaks.

Thanks for sharing your insights,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eckard

My submission have been refused, but if you want to read mail me please. yuri@danoyan.net

I can send you for discussion.

All the best

Yuri

No 3 things

Yuri Danoyan

Abstract

Assumptions of physics need reconsider:1)4D spacetime. 2) Gravity as a fundamental force 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h). Alternatives have been proposed. 1.Splitting 3D discrete space from 1D continues time.2.Gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe. 3. Only Planck constant as a fundamental dimensional constant.Attachment #1: My_crazy_theory.pdf

Hi Eckard,

Yes, I believe that physical reality does not depend upon the perspective of an observer, but 'physics', the map of reality, generally does to a large extent.

And in quantum theory this includes "counterfactuals" and perhaps other concepts that may affect theory.

Although logical structures in the brain are quite flexible, I do not believe that the structures that we use to map the world are 100 percent integrated or otherwise seamlessly overlapping. Certainly these maps differ from brain to brain, and I believe they are similarly dis-integrated in one brain. And I am not sure whether or not there are logical issues having to do with the way our brains process self-referential logic.

The point is that physics (per d'Espagnat) is based on realism, logic, and locality, and most Bell theorists have decided to forego realism and locality in favor of retaining logic. But to me, logic is the most mysterious and least understood aspect of the three, while both my theoretical model and my mind tell me that local realism is valid. I cannot prove that the problem lies with logic, but I do not consider that anyone has proved that local realism is false. If I'm forced to choose, based on incomplete knowledge, I choose local realism and fuzzy logic (not "the" fuzzy logic).

As for Kyle's topic, I had missed it until I saw Georgina's comments. The topic is not an easy one to discuss. I have written in past contests about the effects on perception which I interpret as 'suppressing' metric awareness of distance and difference in favor of topological awareness of connectedness and unity. It is, in general, not a topic that goes anywhere as most who have not experienced it have no idea what is being discussed, while most who have experience of it have not the physical or metaphysical concepts to make sense of the experience.

I hope this response addresses your comment.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

You again assume without thought that the detector itself, (ignoring the reflector) is not involved in the process. ("...the wave propagates in only one medium...")

This is the wrong assumption I'm discussing. In fact the Hutchinson essay also explains the relationship if not the massive implications quite well in another way, showing the detector cannot detect anything without the light negotiating a a refractive plane (i.e. frame change);

"...In every free space solution for a detector, either the detector has detected the quantum or it has not. After diffraction, the solution almost certainly converges to just one such set of overlapping free space solution because any other solution would be unstable."

This is indeed the precise situation for the KRR experiments. The detector (lens) is in lateral motion wrt the incident medium. So the KRR effect does apply, and all anomalies are resolved, and Snel's law is recovered.

It seems you perhaps tried to read the essay too fast and lost track of the complex logical consistency.

Peter

Peter,

The experiment described in my Fig. 5 is an acoustical one without any lens and with definitely only one medium (air) in which the sound pulse propagates between two rigid boundaries. There is no possibility for a refraction to be seen.

I guess, the astonishing directivity of the 220 kHz ultrasonic transducer used by Feist is not very well known.

You mentioned Hutchinson's essay, I looked in vain for his reply to what you wrote to him and quoted here. You did not even tell me what you meant with your Fig. 5.

Sorry, I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

"If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent."

I think that the essays here (more than one hundred of them) show that physics does to a large extent depend upon the perspective of the observer. And they probably come as close as possible to proving that physics is also wrong to a large extent. It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged.

And while I agree that our neural nets are plastic and hence can learn, I do believe that -- regardless of how distributed over the net -- logical concepts and other concepts are discretely organized and overlap only to a degree, if at all. It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head, and this shows (to me) that minimal overlap exists between such ideas.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

This link just for you

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6044

All the best

Yuri