Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

You wrote in your essay: "Those who signed for clarification concerning the twin paradox [5] are blamed for not understanding the twin paradox that the twin paradox is not a paradox but merely counterintuitive. While the signers dispute this, they are unable to agree on an alternative. The majority within this minority prefers only to distrust Einstein's relativity [6]".

Please consider whether my essay (attached) provides an alternative.

I would like to let you know, I was a signatory. But I certainly do not belong to the 'majority within the minority' which you correctly comment about. I belonged to a minority within the minority. Perhaps I am in the minority of one, who considered that all the empirical equations that give expression to relativistic phenomena are correct, but Einstein's space-time interpretation is incorrect. (Just the same way McEachern says about equations of QM being correct while the slapped on interpretations being incorrect).

What is required is to discern the physical basis of relativistic phenomena, as arising from state changes of energy.

And this connects up with another statement from your essay: "Conservation of energy does not imply closed systems"..

Yes you are quite right. There is no interaction in the Universe that occurs without exchanges of energy with the field, and this necessarily means that all systems are open.

Conservation of energy needs to be looked at from a broader perspective on the lines advocated by Weyl: : "The total energy as well as total momentum remains unchanged: they merely stream from one part of the field to another, and become transformed from field energy and field momentum into kinetic energy and kinetic momentum of matter and vice-versa" ( Space-Time-Matter, p. 168).

I attach my essay. You would find therein that I have shown the physical basis of 'time dilation'. I have explained how a GPS clock slows down due to orbital motion and how the decay time of a muon gets delayed when in motion and I have matched results to a very high degree of accuracy.

My objection to SRT version of the 'twin paradox' is that it considers 'time dilation' to occur because of some KINEMATIC change in the space-time structure. This interpretation is wrong. Time does not change, but internal processes slow down with respect to time for DYNAMIC reasons.

I have shown in my essay how, when a body is set in motion, it loses the fraction of energy Mc2(1 - 1/gamma) to the field. (A particle or body is also not a closed system). The energy that remains in the body is Mc2/gamma. The internal processes slow down in direct proportion.

The traveling twin's metabolism too will be slowed down in the same manner. WE cannot rule out the probability that the traveling twin's body cells and organs may not degenerate due to slowed down metabolism as much as that of the earth bound twin's. (To this extent we may consider that one has 'aged' less than the other, just like if we consider two fifty year old men, one substance abuser and the other having a healthy life style, the latter would be considered to have 'aged' less healthwise).

But just like the clock on the wall of the spaceship is a CLOCK by virtue of the internal processes within it, the twin's body clock is also a CLOCK by virtue of its metabolic activity. If this clock with the reduced metabolic rate is to be considered the measure for the age, then we can consider the case of two people who are twins, neither of whom have ever left the earth too. One has hypothyroidism and the other not. The question is because the twin with hypothyroidism has a lower metabolic rate does he become younger than the other?

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 17_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

Eckard

"May I object that this is logically impossible?"

You can, but on what objective basis, assuming this is not a comment about my use of words just to make it readable? Which links to the next comment:

"I already blamed you for a logical circle which you denied with the inappropriate excuse we are living within a closed system"

There is nothing "inappropriate" about this, neither is it a case of "living within". We are part of existence, no different in that sense from Andromeda Galaxy or a stone. The only reason we, and any sentient organism, are aware of existence is because of the development of sensory systems. So we can only have knowledge of what must be assumed to be (but we can never know) a particular form of existence, ie our reality-that which the sensory systems enable us to detect. Which includes what we can properly infer (ie on the basis of other direct detection) we would have been able to detect had the sensory processes been perfect. Objective knowledge must be subservient, either directly or indirectly, to validated direct experience, because that is the only mechanism whereby we are enabled to know. Our reality is knowledge, and is a closed system. It is only within that confine that objectivity is possible, because what exists/occurs, does so independently of sensory detection.

Now, one of the issues is a tendency to assume that while we are fundamentally reliant on the sensory systems, and hypothesis must relate to it, we still can know existence. Which we cannot. That is, intrinsically logical hypothesis is deemed to enable us not only to overcome the immediate deficiencies in the sensory processes, but also provide knowledge of what is inherently beyond their capability. So, given this flawed presumption, as knowledge becomes more complex and its derivation further removed from direct experience, confusion arises between what, while not directly validated, is properly inferred from other direct experience, and what is based on no substantiated experienceability. The latter is belief, not science, though when it involves, for example, complex mathematical models, and an aspect of our reality that is not directly experienceable, then it can appear scientific (objective).

In simple terms, the reality we are investigating has a definite physical basis, ie has fundamental characteristics, because it is a function of the sensory systems. It is not an abstract concept. These then must be reflected in a scientific approach, not metaphysical concepts, which includes the apparently intellectually correct stance of assuming nothing, because there is something. What we are actually trying to establish is, within that given form, what occurred. Any type of method must start from the basis of the fundamental nature of our reality.

Paul

Hello Eckard,

Google Scholar finds many papers by A. S. Omar, including the one you mention and another IEEE paper by the same authors published that same year.

"Network theoretical transient analysis of signal transmission over evanescent modes" IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation Date of Publication: March 2003

"Steady-state analysis of signal transmission in evanescent channels" IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation Date of Publication: May 2003

From the abstract, the first paper appears to show the claims you have attributed to Professor Omar. However, it might not be a general conclusion as the paper seems to be applicable only to signals passing through a waveguide.

The second paper sounds especially interesting as the abstract claims "It is also shown that under steady-state conditions, conventionally defined transmission velocities are not necessarily restricted to be less than or equal to c (speed of light in free space) as long as they are not related to direct measurements."

Does that result substantiate what many of us are saying about the non-measurability of apparent superluminal wave propagation? I'm not an IEEE member but I think purchasing at least one of the papers would be in order. Thanks for the reference. I'll return after studying the paper(s).

Steve

Steve, Eckard.

Thank you Steve for your support. Eckard; You claim I "uttered in the last contest: actually superluminal motion." But you disregard what I actually write and said, and continue to do so!

My first axiom in bold type, last year, was; "EM wave speed is controlled by n within a dielectric medium" i.e. c/n with c explained as 'local' c. I protest that you have not understood, and explain, but you just dismiss my explanations and assume you know better a priori.

The secret to understanding lies in the axiom that there are TWO valid cases for all 'speeds', as clarified in my essay. This is 'real' propagation speed, and 'apparent' speed, which is 'observer speed' (or 'frame') dependant.

I'll try yet another analogy, and ask you questions;

You are an observer at rest on a coach travelling at 100kph.

In the opposite direction a coach B approaches also doing 100kph.

A man in coach B is running towards the front at him maximum speed 15kph

You film the coach passing, play it back, and find the man running at 215kph!

Question. Is the man really running at 15kph, 115kph, or 215kph?

Hopefully considering this question will clarify the reality that there is more than one answer subject to observers state of motion and local background.

DFM Answer;

The runner is doing REAL 15kpk in his local background space.

Coach B is doing REAL speed 100kph in IT'S local background space (same as A's).

You will observe APPARENT 215kph from at rest in YOUR local background space.

And there are 3 speeds of sound, all the same, but, like a bullet speed, would be 'apparently' different if observable. One for each coach and one for the road!

The 'apparent' speed you find for the runner can vary infinitely subject to your coach speed (i.e. 'subject to your inertial frame').

Once you start to be comfortable with that very simple but 'different' way of looking at speed, we can finish the ontology be considering the light that moves from one local space to the next.

Let me know how you get on with that one, or, if you still think it's wrong, please point out where. It should suddenly become very simple the moment it's understood.

Peter

Eckard

I am considering waves. But waves propagating in any medium A, which is a 'moving mass' with respect to medium B and also then considering waves propagating in medium B. Both these waves are propagating at c wrt the medium they are in.

For you as an observer to consider each locally (i.e. propagating at c), you must change frames (accelerate) from one state of motion to another.

The waves I'm considering are indeed 'conveying energy', and I make no assumption of emitted 'particles' of matter. Photons as wave packets are not excluded, but only the wave behaviour is considered. The misunderstanding lies a level above this in conception of relative kinetics. This is why I analogised the buses. If you consider a light pulse emitted from the rear through bus B, with a diffuse gas to trace its progress (as a 'cloud chamber') it's REAL speed is dt=c through bus B, so c wrt the bus.

It is the same for your rest frame bus A. So when you see the evidence of the pulse in bus B, you are seeing only an 'apparent' speed (c+v) not a real propagation speed. You must 'jump buses' if you wish to find the real speed; c.

Why do you have a problem with this simple logic? Nothing exceeds c. Not the original pulse in bus B (unless you are being anthropocentric) and not the light scattered from the gas particles evidencing the passing of the pulse.

Your last line is illogical unless there is just one medium at rest in the entire universe. Yes of course we are considering "the frame of the medium when considering waves" but, as all mediums are in relative motion, we must consider the frame of each medium in turn. We are not 'superimposing velocities in the same medium'.

Once that new overarching broadening of conception is achieved the rest can be fitted logically into place. While it seems some, like Judith and Steven, can see that next step, I can see that to others it may be like Indiana Jones's 'leap of faith' (in the 'Temple of Doom') and look impossible until tested. In this case there is no 'fall', so you should not fear to test it.

How would people hear each other talk within two passing Concorde jets if there is only one universal frame?

If you return to the buses, and the air within as a medium in which you are at rest, then the invisible and unfamiliar but simple solution should reveal itself.

Best wishes

Peter

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