The Metaphysics of Physics by Constantinos Ragazas

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Avtar,

I was responding to what you said rather than to what you've written. I have misspoken. You said, "... if we allow the natural degree of freedom (free will or spontaneity) dimension in physical theories, it completes what is missing from current theories...". My use of 'spirit' (in the sense of free will) to describe such inclusion in current theories may be misleading and unnecessary. I use 'spirit' and also 'metaphysics' in a rather restrictive sense in physics. And I certainly do not mean to imply the 'supernatural world' of spirits, demons and angels. You misunderstood me if that's what you understood. Sorry and I apologize for such unfortunate misuse of words I should know better not to use!

Best regards,

Constantinos

PS. I have tried reading your essay several times. Each time with equal incomprehension of the many facts and figures, graphs and equations, you use to flesh out your arguments. Too much here for a mere mortal like me only interested in making sense of the same universe we all inhibit from knowing!

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

Your essay is admirable! You do what I wish I could, but of course cannot do - discuss and question the role(s) of mathematics in physics from a scientific point-of wiev. I have learnt a lot from reading your essay - and will have more to learn by thinking it over again. My present understanding of your essay caught up in a few words is that the misuse of mathematics in physics creates metaphysics, and in so doing, it also dresses up metaphysics in the false clothes of science. Have I got it just about right so far? Thank you for a most interesting and instructive essay!

Best regards, Inger

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Inger,

That is correct. I argue that any model that seeks to describe 'what is' the universe is metaphysical in essence. But to make my argument, I first seek to dispel deeply held beliefs physicists have about physics. That includes the belief that because math is used to deduce logical conclusions, physics is immune from becoming metaphysics. But I also offer a solution to this predicament of physics. That we restrict physics to our 'measurements of what is' (which we know) and derive Basic Law as mathematical truisms (and NOT as models). I demonstrate how this is possible.

All the best,

Constantinos

Helmut Hansen

Dear Constantinos,

as I told you: I strongly believe in metaphysics. When I read your paper a meeting between Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein came in my mind.

In this meeting (1926) Einstein made a statement, that irritated the German physicist. Einstein stated, that it is the theory that decides what can be observed ..and not the other way around.

To formulate his matrix mechanics Heisenberg had restricted himself to deal only with observable magnitudes like the frequencies and intensities of line spectra without referring to unobservable electron orbits inside the atom. Heisenberg thought that it was exactly what Einstein had made on his way to special theory of relativity. But Einstein replied in an unexpected way. He admitted that he did use such philosophy earlier but now it was nonsense all the same. Einstein did not believe that a physical theory can only be based on observables. His epistemological position was definite: It was the theory that essentially decided what could be observed.

Limiting the scope of physics to measurements and to mathematical identities (and not models) may have a high appeal for physicists, but it is - to my opinion - not the key to a deep and penetrating UNDERSTANDING of the Universe. To be clever is one thing, but to understand is another.

I am thus convinced that the idea of a transcendent field of reality is the most powerful physical hypothesis so far. It allows us to grasp the deepest level of the universe.

In his book "The Character of Physical Law" the physicist Richard Feynman is exploring the Relation of Mathematics to Physics. On page 46 he is asking: Is there a place to begin to deduce the whole works? Is there some particular pattern or order in nature by which we can understand that one set of statements is more fundamental and one set of statement more consequential?

To me metaphysics is the natural discipline to get an answer to these questions, because it deals with something that is by its very nature of fundamental character. That may not sound very appealing, but it is the way I think.

However, I wish you good luck for your paper.

Kind regards

Helmut

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Helmut,

Is your response here to my post there, under your essay? We may be disagreeing over what in fact we agree! You write, "[Einstein stated] it is the theory that decides what can be observed ..and not the other way around".

In my essay I write,

"Our understanding [of 'what happened'] is deeply rooted in the 'view' [theory] we have. ... In all cases, our explanation will only be a description of 'what happened'."

And also,

"We observe what the detector is designed by us to show".

Also,

"In our recent search for the Higgs boson (if confirmed) did we find it or did we create it? By designing our instruments according to our theories of its existence?"

And,

"Where is the fine line between evidence and interpretation? We discern our evidence [observables] using the same thinking and theories we use designing our instruments."

But more than the above quotes, I also present in my essay an argument that we cannot know a physical quantity E(t) by our measurements of it interacting with it. Yet such 'invisibles' from us are real to us. In my formulation I in fact start with such a 'quantity eta' which is undefined and undefinable [invisible]. This 'eta' I argue in my last post to you may be thought as the 'invisible ether' you argue cannot be directly 'observable' in a physical theory. Yet providing 'sense' to our understanding of the world.

Constantinos

Helmut Hansen

Dear Constantinos,

just the fact that your 'quantity eta' is undefinied is the focus of my critique as far as metaphysical options are concerned. I do not avoid of being metaphysical. Instead of that I take very consciously a metaphysical position. Consequently I am working on a specific set of metaphysical properties, like OMNIPRESENCE, INVISIBILITY, ONENESS, ABSOLUTENESS etc.. To any of these properties we can state, that their physical meaning is still unknown.

In a modern metaphysics it is systematically attempted to precise this meaning.

To give an example: To apply the property of OMNIPRESENCE in a physical meaningful way, we have to assume unavoidably an infinite velocity. Otherwise the ONE could not be everywhere in the truest sense of the word. This metaphysical assumption implies, of cource, that the relativistic space-time-structure has to be extended to a point, where it satisfies this specific metaphysical demand. We have thus to "add" a space-time-segment of v = c until v = oo in order to complete the relativistic picture.

In course of this addition-process a space-time-structure appeared that looked very much like a MANDALA being composed of a square and a circle, which are closely entangled to each other. This metaphysical space-time-structure has the specific property that the speed of light c is given twice - in two different geometrical modes. Just this dual Nature of c is issue of my present paper. There are two faces of c: A wave-like face and a particle-like one.

Now, if you look at your approach, you can see very clearly, that there are massive differences between our two views. You are f.e. claiming, that there is only a wave-like face of c (i.e. light is propagating as a wave), but not a particle-like one. (Hence, your conclusion: Einstein's CSL Postulate contradicts his Photon Hypothesis.)

I am thus a little bit afraid, that your approach though impressive may fix the present limitations of modern physics too efficiently. That is my concern...

Kind Regards

Helmut

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Helmut,

Thank you for further clarifying your views on physics and metaphysics vis-a-vis my essay. Though you highlight differences, I choose to highlight agreements. There are several.

As to the differences, you write

"You are f.e. claiming, that there is only a wave-like face of c (i.e. light is propagating as a wave), but not a particle-like one. (Hence, your conclusion: Einstein's CSL Postulate contradicts his Photon Hypothesis.)"

This is not a claim! It can be mathematically proven that if the speed of light is constant then light MUST propagate as a wave. Your metaphysical argument for the 'two faces of light' is interesting but suspect.

You write, "I am working on a specific set of metaphysical properties, like OMNIPRESENCE, INVISIBILITY, ONENESS, ABSOLUTENESS etc.. To any of these properties we can state, that their physical meaning is still unknown."

I accept the 'physical meaning' of such abstractions is unknown. But I ask you, what is the meaning (any meaning) of such terms like, ONENESS? And if such terms are not 'objectively defined', how can these be used in our 'objective reasoning' we seek to communicate to others? Or we must first be 'believers' before we can 'understand'.

In my own thinking I DO make sense of such terms as you've listed. And I can even say I 'understand' some of what you argue. And use such 'metaphysical reasoning' to guide my thinking. Just as all physicists do in their own way but never acknowledge or perhaps even know. And this is a key point in my essay!

All the best in all you do,

Constantinos

Helmut Hansen

Dear Constantinos,

you are right, first of all you have to believe in order to be able to understand afterwards.

Credo ut intelligam is a well-known phrase, which means "I believe so that I may understand". I am sure you know this. It was the maxim of Anselm of Canterbury - and if you are working on the field of metaphysics you have indeed to start with a belief, because the ONE is beyond usual perception. We have very little serious information about this field of reality, most of them only in pictorial or allegorical fashion.

But quotes like credo ut intelligam may sound very dramatic. Actually every theoretical physicist resp. philosopher does have a working philosophy, sometimes more abstract - and sometimes less abstract. Metaphysics is a very radical working philosophy. To built up a metaphysical theory of the universe you have to go to the most extreme limits of language - to a point, where language begins to fail. This is one way, one can go. Another way is to push already existing theories beyond its scope and to ask how does the theory look like, if f.e. the condition of OMNIPRESENCE is applied to it. As I already told on this way the archetypal structure of a MANDALA surprisingly came up.

And this structure f.e. has intrinsically a lorentzinvariant design, which is slightly different from the relativistic version.

In brief, it is possible to conduct metaphysics in such a way, that scientific standards are met.

There are many ways to ROME.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Helmut,

Thank you for your thoughts. You write, "There are many ways to Rome".

I like to add, "... and they all require a traveler to seek the journey".

Best regards,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

I see several valid points you made in your essay about how the scientific community will always find what it seeks by making adjustments to the methods of measurement it uses. Answer to the question "what is universe?" is what we want it to be. Answer to the question "Why does universe exist?" can be experienced by the one who is self realized, and the answer is love. It is out of love a mother brings forth a child in to this world and thus creates a universe for the child. These are purely metaphysical aspects of our being, but they shape the physical realm of our existence. We are not only real on a sensory basis, we are also real on the spiritual or conscience basis. Eta that you propose is like the radius of the sphere of consciousness. It can vary from zero to infinity in a relative existence. And for the realized, one who experiences absolute singularity, both (zero and infinity) are the same and hence Eta is a constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Sridattadev,

Thank you for your thoughts. You write, "We are not only real on a sensory basis, we are also real on the spiritual or conscience basis." I would say we are more real as 'spiritual beings' than 'physical beings'. All knowledge is self-knowledge. Thus, to know the universe we need to know ourselves. It is in that sense I understand and agree with you when you write, "... for the realized, one who experiences absolute singularity, both (zero and infinity) are the same..."

Though the 'quantity eta' in my essay is the basis for defining the physical quantities like energy, momentum, force, temperature, and entropy, 'eta' is undefined. It can be thought as 'being' or as 'ether'. Thus, built into my mathematical formulation of Basic Law of Physics, is both 'spiritual existence' (being) and 'physical existence' (energy, etc.)

love and peace,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

I absolutely resonate with you. Wish you all the best.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear G S Sandhu,

Thank you for your kind words and support. I agree with you. In the background of overwhelming noise (and odds) its hard our message to be heard by those that need to hear from us.

I will make every effort to read your essay and comment under your essay forum.

Best regards,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Natural reality involves both the truth AND us fundamentally. That is what the physicists do not understand. Thank you for your essay. It is an important one. Can you read and rate mine please?

Constantinos Ragazas

Hello Frank,

Thank you for your support and interest in my essay. The 'mindless Universe' of Physics is an intellectual black hole. We agree! The Universe known to us cannot be independent of us. If we are fortunate, we will soon discover the face we see in the mirror of nature is our own!

I will return the favor and read your essay.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Well said Constantinos. Thank you.

Pentcho Valev

Constantinos,

You wrote: "With this understanding that light propagates as a wave (and not as a particle projectile) we can now explain why the velocity of light in a medium is constant and independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."

I am afraid you can only explain the independence from the source but not from the observer. The speed of all waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Pentcho Valev

Constantinos Ragazas

Pentcho,

Thanks for your comment. This same question (speed of light independent of the observer) was earlier discussed in Israel Perez's forum. Here are some quotes from that discussion:

Israel Perez: "The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case."

Me: "There can be no doubt light propagates as a wave. And as such, light will have an absolute and innate propagation speed in a medium. And that constant speed is what we measure 'locally' to the medium of propagation. So the only question really is can we measure the speed of light in any other way but 'locally'?"

Israel Perez: "I agree with you, though I don't have a definite answer to your question."

Pentcho, I believe the speed of light can only be measured "locally". To measure the speed of light otherwise the observer will have to be "outside" the medium of propagation. In the case of light in "empty space", this would mean the observer will have to be outside "empty space"! Or the "ether" that I argue makes up physical space at the most fundamental level. But this amounts to being "outside the Universe". Which is just impossible!

Another way that perhaps this can be stated is: "all observers are at rest relative to the 'ether' "

In my humble opinion, the problem with CSL arises because we seek to understand this in terms of 'particle projectiles'. But one interesting results in the Endnotes to my essay is a mathematical proof of "if the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave". Together with Maxwell's result, "if light is a wave, then the speed of light is constant", this conclusively proves CSL and the wave nature of light.

Constantinos

Pentcho Valev

Constantinos,

When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, he encounters more wavecrests in a given time and accordingly the speed of the light waves RELATIVE TO HIM has increased. Is that true?

You are invited to give a yes/no answer but note that "yes" marks the end of relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Constantinos Ragazas

Pentcho,

In the mental frame you frame the issue, the answer for me too would be "yes". But the problem, as always, is our 'mental views' are only our views and not necessarily what Nature has in mind.

For me, the question of light breaks down to this: 1) Light propagates as a wave as a disturbance in the most fundamental layer of all physical being (I call this 'ether' others call it empty 'physical space'). I have shown this to be true in my Endnotes. And 2) The speed of light can only be determined 'locally' to this fundamental physical space as an absolute and constant speed. On this I agree with Peter Jackson. Although I don't want to put words in his mouth. He has his own way of describing all this.

In the quotes I have provided in my last comment to you, I believe Israel Perez also agrees with this assessment. And though he has no answer to the question, "can the speed of light be measured other than 'locally' to the medium of propagation", I have offered what I believe is an explanation why this cannot happen. Simply, for an observer to measure the speed of light while in motion relative to 'physical space' they would need to have an existence apart from 'physical space'. But 'physical space' is what constitutes existence in the Universe. Thus, such observer would need to be other than and apart from our existing Universe. And this I argue is not possible for Physics! Perhaps Metaphysics!

Have you rated my essay yet? Please do! As I need all the support I can get just to make it to the final round. I don't expect any prizes. But more exposure and recognition of the ideas I argue.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

« Previous Page Next Page »