On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics by Benjamin F. Dribus

Stephen Sycamore

Hello Ben, Paul and all others

The dialog between you two is especially interesting and detailed (amazingly detailed). I'd like to submit some observations particularly pertaining to the following comments:

"The relativity of simultaneity invoked by Einstein seems to be a feature of the real world, and this seems to preclude a "naive" notion of an external time parameter. You can choose a time parameter, but it will be different for different observers, while the causal structure is invariant. Any number of different ways of slicing things spatially are equally valid, so taking a spatial slice to represent "fundamental reality" puts one on very shaky ground."

"I use the qualifier "naive" because something like a preferred family of frames could arise from much more detailed considerations, and this is precisely the point of the whole discussion of Lorentz violation invariance. Once again, I'm open-minded about this; recall that I reject the symmetry interpretation of covariance (which puts all frames on an absolutely equal footing). But there's a big difference between rejecting the absolute equivalence of all frames and insisting on the priority of a single universal frame."

As Paul mentioned, it was probably originally from Poincaré that the conception of the relativity of simultaneity arose. One could, of course, question whether that actually is a feature of the "real world". Or rather that the conceptualization of splitting the Universe into segmented unconnected pieces called "inertial frames" actually reflects what occurs in the "real world". And whether one has lost information common to the Universe as a whole by making that split. I won't argue that doing so has no validity but rather that alternate conceptions and mathematical models involving the Universe as a whole may well give us another picture of the "real world". One that is at least equally valid.

It may not have been fully noticed that the mathematics within one of the essays here does in fact rigorously demonstrate the validity of choosing a single common time parameter for multiple observers. One that is numerically equivalent in producing the observable wave effects elicited in special relativity. It appears that there is a mathematical homomorphism between that model and special relativity. One may therefore choose which paradigm one would like to work with. The application of force and the exchange of momentum is an area where the alternate paradigm is very much more explicit mathematically and physically.

I suppose that is a different way of considering things that falls outside of the comments that I've quoted above and in doing so doesn't so heavily contradict them.

Steve

[deleted]

Steve

The key flaw in that quote from Ben that you repeat, and I must stress that most people think-it is not a 'Ben has got it wrong point', lies in: "You can choose a time parameter, but it will be different for different observers, while the causal structure is invariant "

Observation of physical existence is just that, observation. Physical existence occurs in one particular spatial configuration at a time. Observation always involves a time delay between time of existence and time of observation of that existence, because light has to travel and be received at the eye (apart from other factors which 'interfere'). So, even in a 'still frame of the film' (ie what exists at any given time), observation timings are different. When the 'film rolls' (ie when existence changes) then variance in the momentum of individual observers has an effect. But, existentially, it is just a different 'still frame of the film', the others having passed. In other words, like with like is not being compared.

"Or rather that the conceptualization of splitting the Universe into segmented unconnected pieces called "inertial frames" actually reflects what occurs in the "real world".

This is the key point. We cannot deconstruct the entirety of any given physically existent state of our reality which exists at any given time, on the basis of observation. We can however conceptualise its constituent existent states which existed at that time. The problem is that we can only effect that by association with 'its', which is a higher level of conceptualisation, ie involves several existent states over time. Think on this: what you know as the monitor in front of you, is not in the same physically existent state from time to time. It just appears that way, because we are conceptualising what physically exists in terms of superficial physical features.

Timing is a methodology which, using a conceptual reference of tick rate, enables differentiation in terms of rate of change. Therefore it is a case of 'choose a time'.

The notion of frames has nothing to do with observation, per se. It revolves around reference. To be able to effect any judgement there must be a reference, and if more than one is to be compared then the reference must be the same one (or adjusted to be so). The concern over inertial references is because it was believed that anything that was moving relatively was altering in dimension (a single force-gravity-being responsible for both effects). So, unless one factors in that supposed effect, then a moving reference is not a good one to use.

How one copes with this, if we can at that level, I do not know, but even if we consciously simplify it we must maintain the integrity of spatial and timing.

I will have a look at the reference in your post. However I note SR. Have a look at my post above in response to Ben 13/10 13.31. SR is not what everybody seems to think it is, but then you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!

Paul

PS: hopefully I can get the rest of the paper finished, which the response above is the front end of, very soon. But I have got to prepare for a Halloween party for the grandchildren today.

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Steve,

Thanks for chiming in. As I mentioned in other recent posts, I'm swamped at the moment and can't say much in response. What I will say is that I absolutely agree that "alternate conceptions and mathematical models involving the Universe as a whole may well give us another picture of the "real world"."

It's a difference between "may," and "must." All I am contending is that the idea that we "must" use an interaction-independent notion of time is wrong. I certainly am not arguing that all models involving preferred frames should be rejected out of hand. I like your paper because it is mathematically precise and doesn't take Lie group symmetry for granted. Take care,

Ben

[deleted]

Ben et al

It is the notion of frames which is causing a problem

A frame is a reference. Any judgement must have a reference. It is always comparison to reveal difference. And in order to ensure comparability of results, that reference must be consistent (or adjustments made on each necessary occasion to make it as if it was so). There is no such thing as a preferred frame (reference). There is a chosen one. And any one will suffice (it is just that some will present more practical difficulties than others).

Now, obviously, if there is some confusion as to the very nature of what is being analysed, then references could get confused. That is why it is best to establish first that physical existence has one physically existent state at a time, which alters, which results in a different physically existent state, and so on. Only one such state exists at a time, the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can exist. And, obviously, the next state in the sequence does not exist.

The two major references, not the devices used to operationalise them, are:

-tick rate (ie a concept of an omnipresent speed)

-spatial grid (ie a concept of a spatial mesh)

Spatial grid enables comparison of what is a fixed state of spatial relationships, ie what occurs in any given physically existent state, which only occurs at that time, and does not involve change. Therefore there is no tick rate.

Tick rate compares difference between physically existent states, ie rate of change.

The question is, given physical reality, rather than a metaphysical belief, can there be a relationship between these two? That is, is there a properly validated reference which enables comparison of spatial relationships over time. And if so, what it the unit of space to unit of change relationship?

Paul

[deleted]

Ben (Steve)

In responding to your comment about the relativity of simultaneity invoked by Einstein seemed to be a feature of the real world, and preclude a 'naïve' notion of an external time parameter, I posted a detailed response which replied to that, but was the front end of a re-write. I did rather assume that, although one would get to the same basic conclusion, that the rest of the argument, as currently expounded, was at least internally valid. But the impact of failing to understand the expression t =x/v, and the conflation of existence with observation of existence is more far reaching than I thought. So watch this space.

Paul

Benjamin Dribus

Sorry folks... I'll get back to this as soon as possible; at the moment I'm swamped with academic stuff. I've also got a few other papers that I promised to look at again and comment on. Feel free to keep up the discussion in the meantime. Take care,

Ben

[deleted]

Dear Benjamin Dribus,

There is an error in your essay: You propose the idea that the metric properties of spacetime arise from a causal relation. It is an error, the metric properties of spacetime depends only on energy-momentum tensor (gravitating matter), but not on causal relations.

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Anonymous,

What you say is a paraphrase of one of the assumptions of classical general relativity. The purpose of this contest is to identify foundational assumptions that may be wrong, and I believe that this is one of them. Take care,

Ben

[deleted]

Dear Ben,

Please see the absolute mathematical truth of zero = i = infinity that describes the universal singularity.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Paul,

Thanks for compiling all this. As I mentioned below, I'm in over my head at the moment with other responsibilities, and can't do justice to the detail of your points at the moment. However, I will highlight one point you make repeatedly that might help explain where I'm coming from. You say (item 13, for instance), "the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise the timings are meaningless." Fair enough, but how are devices synchronised? Well, by means of interaction. If two systems interact, it makes sense to compare stages of their evolution (e.g., "Bob held the door WHILE Janet walked through.") But if two systems do not interact, it is meaningless to compare their internal sequences to each other. They must exchange signals in order to establish a meaningful notion of common timing. This is the order interpretation of covariance. Take care,

Ben

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Sridattadev,

Thanks for your comment. You might want to reconsider using the symbol "i" in this sense, however, because everyone will assume you mean "square root of minus one." Take care,

Ben

[deleted]

Dear Ben,

Even that imaginary number which is square root of -1 is also included in the zero = i = infinity, as zero and infinity are also constructs of human imagination. So be it, for some conscience or "i" or the self is an imaginary construct and for others it is the only reality.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Benjamin Dribus

Dear all,

Something I would like to get to before the contest is over is a discussion of transitivity. Specifically, I make the following statement on page 6 of my essay:

"Second, I reject the assumption that the binary relation generating the causal order is transitive. Indeed, information about direct and indirect causation is a priori relevant, and this information is lost by closing the relation under transitivity."

This is the statement that I expected to cause me the most trouble in the sense that I expected most people (including serious scientists) to immediately conclude that the statement is wrong. I anticipated expending considerable effort in explaining what I meant, and did not mean, by this.

However, there have been only two remarks about this. One was the type I expected, saying that it's obviously wrong. The other said it makes perfect sense. I don't know if the absence of controversy over this is because everyone is being polite, or because most people view the point as unimportant, or what.

In any case, remarks about this, critical or otherwise, would be appreciated. Now I must get back to what I am "supposed to be doing!" Take care,

Ben

[deleted]

Ben (et al)

As said previously, a direct physical influence (indirect ones are irrelevant, because everything else is indirect) can only be effected from amongst physically existent states which are physically adjacent, and exist at the same given time. It could be any combination of them, including any given existent state just changing by virtue of its own innate properties, as whatever comprises physical existence is not inert substance. Which reveals the other aspect, that it could be any combination of the innate attributes of the existent states potentially involved.

Now the problem (as if properly identifying the above was not a problem!) is then establishing the relationship between effect and cause. Because effect, by definition, is of a subsequent (different) physically existent state from cause (those potential states involved having ceased to exist). So effect must be of the immediate predecessor state to cause. But now, see above, the issue (as if establishing sequence order at the existential level is not another problem!) is how is spatial relationship related over time, ie how can it be confirmed that effect is in the 'right' spatial position, ie 'adjacent' to cause, when they existed at different times (albeit consecutive).

This is 'easy' at a higher level of conceptualisation of physical existence, because that just eliminates a certain degree of differentiation, which enables us, to get spatial relationship, sequence order, etc 'right' at that level. But precisely what is happening 'underneath' that level, ie what is actually physically occurring, is then not known.

However, given the fundamental nature of physical existence, it is probably correct to reject this assumption, because it appears to be contradictory to how physical existence occurs. I seem to remember the concept of superposition arising when I questioned it before.

Paul

[deleted]

Ben Dribus,

I wonder why you are claiming that causality is generated by a binary relation. I see causality always transitive and not anchored in the laws of physics but in the unrestricted plurality of possible influences.

I contempt your perhaps welcome to the community diplomacy towards Parmenides, Lagrange, Hilbert, Einstein, Feynman, Schulman, Wharton, etc. who are denying the distinction between past and future. Please try to justify your decision. I could not find it explained in your essay.

Eckard

[deleted]

Eckard

Yes. What I said above and elsewhere ad nauseum.

The effect (ie next physically existent state in the sequence) could occur purely because of one, or the interaction of more than one, property (for want of a better word, but we know that at least some the elementary substance of physical reality is not inert, otherwise nothing would happen) of an elementary substance. That is, physical influences from other elementary substances had no affect. Or, it is some combination of............as you say a plurality of possible influences.

Though not unrestricted. Those that could have been involved in the cause (which can only be considered as direct, otherwise it is the 'if a butterfly flaps its wings' phenomenon, because everything is ultimately interrelated) must, somewhat obviously, fulfil certain criteria in terms of sequence order and spatial relationship, to have even been potentially involved in the cause. Physical influences cannot have any effect over time, because a physical influence cannot be exerted on something that does not exist. Neither can something which does not exist exert an influence. So the potential is with any physically existent state which existed at the same time. Then spatially, something cannot have a direct physical influence on something else, unless it is physically adjacent at that time.

Finally, the effect must be the next in the sequence, from whatever constituted the cause. The cause (ie whatever was involved, irrespective of which particular properties were involved) must have ceased to exist (ie in that physically existent state), otherwise there can be no existent effect, which, by definition, is a different physically existent state (ie the next in the sequence).

I doubt if we will ever be able to identify this at the existential level, but we need to understand it first, and then consider the best way to represent it at a level we can cope with. Because at the moment, there are notions of causes which occur after the effect, causes which are a combinations of factors which existed at different times, causes which were not spatially adjacent when they existed, etc, etc.

Paul

Thomas Ray

Ben,

I think the key point is whether the transitive relation is one of equivalency or partial order. I can see "hiding," not losing, information in a closure under transitivity. That gives us potential indirect causality as contrasted with direct, or partially ordered, relations which are tractable to measurement schema of strict local causation.

Tom

Jens Koeplinger

Dear Ben - there are those of us who believe that space and time are emergent, that the light cone is a characterizing property of electromagnetism only, that causality on the light cone is therefore a dependent and likewise emergent phenomenon, and that there exists a wider geometry of everything that is applicable for all (four?) fundamental forces such that this geometry does not necessarily require causality as a principle, conservation of probability as a must, or derived phenomenons like the spin-statistics theorem to be foundational. Without proof, however, I doubt you'll get many comments here; and proof might just require a complete and working proposal for everything, which is not likely to be discussed here in slices, either ... Am I wrong? Best, Jens

[deleted]

Dear Jens Koeplinger,

I am glad to hear that you and other people thinking that. It may not be proof as such but, with the assumptions you have set out in that previous message, it is possible to have a QM type model and GR both representing different facets of reality and so compatible rather than contradictory. That arrangement also enables the temporal paradoxes to be overcome. Which I think is good evidence in favour of such an arrangement.

[deleted]

It is a shame then that space is not emergent, neither is time in the usual sense meant. Neither is our reality determined by light, light just enables sight. Neither are there just 3 dimensions. Neither can something be a cause unless..... etc, etc.

But never let facts get in the way of a good story, seems to be the guiding principle of physics!!

Paul

[deleted]

Ben you wrote.. Quote:"Second, I reject the assumption that the binary relation generating the causal order is transitive. Indeed, information about direct and indirect causation is a priori relevant, and this information is lost by closing the relation under transitivity."

Quote:"This is the statement that I expected to cause me the most trouble in the sense that I expected most people (including serious scientists) to immediately conclude that the statement is wrong. I anticipated expending considerable effort in explaining what I meant, and did not mean, by this."

I understand binary relation, I have looked up transitive and now understand what is meant by that. I can envision a cascade of transitive relations in the foundational material realm of physics giving a unique causal order or sequence. That order can be lost "in transmission" and therefore the observed order of events, are not necessarily the same as the foundational causal order.Dog barks because he hears man shouting, heard as dog barks then man shouts -dog bark thought to be causing man's shout. I've said that just to indicate that I don't feel the need to immediately assume what you have said is incorrect.

I have read so many essays that I can't remember the context of the passage you have selected. Perhaps you could just explain in your own words what you meant to communicate to be sure you have not been misunderstood.

[deleted]

Georgina (all)

The issue is not with observation of existence vrs existence. The problem is misconception of existence, which is different from observation, and affects both.

Physical existence is not affected by observation (or any sensing). It not only occurs before observation, but also when it does occur (ie exist) it creates a photon based representation of that, which is what is received (ie observed). Or a noise, vibration, etc, etc.

The problem is that we exist(!), so we can only know one form of existence, which is a function of sensing. And establishing what that physical existence is, let alone anything else which cannot be known anyway even if it does exist, entails, in effect, neutralising the sensing process and then, on the basis of physics, establishing what physically existed to cause what we actually physically received to occur.

If one wants to go to town on the bus, it is best to know some of the fundamental features of the circumstance, ie where is town, what constitutes a bus, etc, etc. The same applies to physics. If one wants to examine physical existence, then it is best to first establish how it is detected, and hence how what is potentially detectable can occur. Otherwise one might just end up with a variety of conflicting ontological philosophies masquerading as objective knowledge.

Paul

[deleted]

Ben,

Tom, Jens, and Georgina ignored my main argument against your castle in the air: Causality is always transitive because it is not a simple binary relationship.

We may rather imagine anything like an infinitely ramified family tree. Of course, this is not to be seen if one only looks at the laws of physics which are known to be time-reversible. A family tree is irreversible as is reality.

Eckard

[deleted]

Hi Eckard,

I will post a reply to you concerning the matter of transitive and non transitive relations on my own essay thread, as that is probably the proper place for it.

[deleted]

Later Eckard, I'm now distracted by other thoughts. I can't recall what I was going to say and whether it was relevant or not. Not ignoring you.

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Eric,

Thanks for the remarks. I would not worry about the "amateur" issue; the ideas are what matters. Anyone who neglects "amateur" contributions is only cutting off a source of potentially useful information. In any case, I wouldn't characterize your paper this way; it evinces plenty of familiarity with modern physics and knowledge of what the important questions are, in my opinion. Then again, I'm only a mathematician.

That said, I must say that I have absolutely no interest in political aspects of modern science. Your remarks such as "parlances the establishment," "certain to avoid contention," and "sociomorphic status" tend in this direction. In particular, I don't care a bit if my ideas are "bold," I care if they're right! If I were interested in establishment favor, I'd be doing string theory, not hanging out here.

Getting back to physics, what do you think is the best way to proceed experimentally post-LHC? Also, what do you think of Ellis' top-down causation idea? Take care,

Ben

[deleted]

Ben

"Fair enough, but how are devices synchronised? Well, by means of interaction. If two systems interact, it makes sense to compare stages of their evolution"

It does not matter how these devices are synchronised, neither is this about interaction, it is just that timing devices must be, otherwise they are useless in their function. They just 'tell' the time, in other words 'time', the reference, is a measurement concept of tick rate. And therefore Einstein's (Poincare's) notion that they needed to reconcile these 'local' times against some 'common' time was a fallacy. If they were reconciling the timing of observations, then they could explain the difference by light speed, because that is what enables sight, and thereby causes a delay between the timings.

"But if two systems do not interact, it is meaningless to compare their internal sequences to each other"

No so. The determinant is not interaction, it is existence. Two systems/sequences can only be spatially compared as at any given time. In simple language, how do you compare the distance from 'something over there' with 'nothing over here'? 'It' being 'nothing', in the sense that it existed in the physical state in the sequence being considered for comparison, at a different time from the state of the 'it' over there. The two systems do not have to physically interact, it is just a case of establishing what particular states in the sequence each was in at a given time. Your key word in Bob/Alice was "whilst", ie as at the same time....it was not that there was an interaction. [Obviously there is more to compare than spatial attributes, but that is what is being concentrated on].

Then repeating that exercise will establish no only the substance of the sequence/system, ie what is changing, but the rate at which it is doing so. Timing, ie the quantification of rate of change, does not need a timing device. Systems/ sequences can just be compared directly, neither does the attribute being compared have to be similar. Bob cooked an egg whilst Alice did her homework. Timing is about the comparison of number of changes, irrespective of type, in order to establish the relative rate of change, ie the speed at which the changes are occurring. Neither does the 'whilst' have to be at the same time, it is a duration when n occurred in one sequence. Which is why we have a common denominator of tick rate. Then we can identify n occurred in x ticks, p occurred in y ticks, or at a particular tick.......

Paul

« Previous Page Next Page »