Rethinking Geometry and Experience by Anton Lorenz Vrba

I like your style. :) That essay was written well.

Anton,

I appreciate you taking the time to read my essay, topic 1294, and replying thereon. I am surprised that not one mathematician has remarked about the concept presented by the IEEE paper cited in the essay, as it represents a fundamentally different way to apply mathematics to physical law.

From your Introduction:

"The first thing to say is how bleak the present situation is. In foundational studies of mathematics and physics we have been stuck for seventy years; despite numerous books, articles, and meetings, there has been no real progress. Edward Nelson [9] (2002)"

There is a good reason why real scientific progress has stagnated. For over a century, all those that pursue advanced degrees in mathematics and physics have attended what is essentially the "Bernie Madoff University of Physics and Economics", where the attendees have been taught to believe everything that is presented to them without question, and if you were brazen enough to question, you were expelled, no dissidents allowed.

I noted how you defined the speed of light, "where c is the speed of light in empty space."

You might appreciate the utter simplicity of how a slight change in the orientation of the propagating electric and magnetic fields will result in an attractant only force. Helical Electromagnetic Gravity

Anton,

I am not a participant of this contest, however I found your essay most stimulating.

It raises many arguments, possibly the most important with profound implications is what you term the Michelson Morley Einstein Information Paradox. This needs to be discussed openly, it cannot be ignored. You may have found a crack in the Einstein theory.

Can anyone explain this paradox away?

good luck

Peter

Hi Peter and Anton,

You might have a look at Fig. 5 in my fourth essay and if necessary at the additional explanation I gave right now in the discussion in reply to Pentcho Valev.

Curious,

Eckard

Dear Anton,

You wrote: " 'Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is correct. . . .' Really? I beg to differ'.

Are you differing with Poincare or Einstein?

What does "Sub specie aeterni" mean in the context Einstein used it? I think it means 'superficially'.

I quote an extract from your reference (3): http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/albert_einstein_Geometry_Experience.htm

"Envisaged in this way, axiomatic geometry and the part of natural law which has been given a conventional status APPEAR as epistemologically equivalent".

"Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is right. The idea of the measuring-rod and the idea of the clock co-ordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures, which may not play any independent part in theoretical physics. But it is my conviction that in the present stage of development of theoretical physics these ideas must still be employed as independent ideas; for we are still far from possessing such certain knowledge of theoretical principles as to be able to give exact theoretical constructions of solid bodies and clocks.".

"Envisaged in Poincare's way G + P convention APPEAR to give equivalent theories. If you take this superficially Poincare is right".

This is why I say that Einstein was not agreeing with G+P = N. If you scroll down a few paragraphs, you find Einstein stating HIS POSITION.

"The question whether the structure of this continuum is Euclidean, or in accordance with Riemann's general scheme, or otherwise, is, according to the view which is here being advocated, properly speaking a physical question which must be answered by experience, AND NOT A QUESTION OF A MERE CONVENTION TO BE SELECTED ON PRACTICAL GROUNDS. Riemann's geometry will be the right thing if the laws of disposition of practically-rigid bodies are transformable into those of the bodies of Euclid's geometry with an exactitude which increases in proportion as the dimensions of the part of space-time under consideration are diminished".

So Einstein's view was not G+P = N. His view was more like G_P = N

History repeats itself. Newton made it clear in the Preface to the very first edition of Principia, that he is writing a provisional make shift theory because he is unable with the present knowledge to develop the "Truer Method of Philosophy" (i.e. Geometric_physics based on least particles - read as quanta of energy). But his followers took hold of the makeshift theory, turn it into a dogma and formed an orthodoxy hostile to any new thinking. Same thing has happened with Einstein.

I quote an extract from my essay:

Einstein wrote: ".. But quite apart from the superiority of one or the other (i.e., NM or RT), the fictitious character of fundamental principles is perfectly evident from the fact that we can point to two essentially different principles, both of which correspond with experience to a large extent.". (1, p.393). It must be clear from this statement that Einstein held that not only Newtonian foundation to be fictitious, but also that the foundation of his own theory of relativity to be fictitious!!.

In regard to the fictitious axioms in the foundations of physics Einstein wrote: "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented (fictitiously), can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more has the right way any existence outside our illusions? ......". We need to note that in answering the above question , Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas: " ..without a hesitation that there is, in my opinion a right way, and that we are capable of finding it (in the future) ...Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is a realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. (thus quite in contrast to the abstruse mathematical formalisms of SRT and GRT), I am convinced that we can (i.e. WILL be able to) discover by means of purely mathematical constructions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena" (1, p. 398). We must note that Einstein indicates here candidly that RT is directing not quite towards the 'right way' and implies that RT will be surpassed and replaced when the 'right way' is found.

In regard to Geomeric_physics We must remember Galileo: "Philosophy (i.e. Physics) is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth" .

I have developed the type of geometric_physics, Newton and Einstein were predicting. It is only a small beginning. Summary of it is compiled for the FQXi essay.

I developed "Geometrodynamics of energy" having identified the following foundational problems and to rectify them.

I quote the list of problems:

"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".

If you can find the time, I request you to please have a look at my essay - "A Treatise on Fundamental Problems of Physics" posted on Sep 06 on FQXi. And comment on it.

Best regards,

Viraj

Anton Lorenz Vrba

Have you read my essay?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Dear Anton,

I do not understand how gravitational constant appear in (37) ?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Anton,

You say ''This universe has an energy content of E = (M + m)c²''

Well, that would be right if your universe, your particles have been created by some outside intervention, by some Creator. Since I prefer to live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention, in a universe which can be understood rationally, that is, which obeys the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing has to add to nothing, the energy content of my universe is zero.

The UP is interpreted to say that virtual particles can appear by borrowing the energy to exist from the vacuum, for a time inversely proportional to their energy. From the UP it is but a small step to a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) where real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance, at about the same place. Your universe only has a non-zero energy content because you, like everybody, assume that particles only are the source, the cause of interactions, of fields and forces.

As in a SCU particles have to create themselves, each other, here particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, a fact which has quite interesting consequences for physics as you can see in my essay ('Einstein's Error') or the more extended study at my website (www.quantumgravity.nl).

If with ''From Planck's relation E = h f, it can be said that, one cycle of a light wave of frequency f is equivalent to an energy quanta h.'' you mean that h refers to a minimum energy quantity, a smallest building block of energy, then I must disagree. Planck's law describing blackbody radiation says that there are more energy levels for particles to occupy per energy interval at higher energies, so the energy difference between subsequent energy levels keeps decreasing without limit at increasing temperatures, to become infinitesimal at infinite temperatures.

Anton

Dear Anton,

(It seems that you have not seen the post copied below, so I repeat)

You wrote: " 'Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is correct. . . .' Really? I beg to differ'.

Are you differing with Poincare or Einstein?

What does "Sub specie aeterni" mean in the context Einstein used it? I think it means 'superficially'.

I quote an extract from your reference (3): http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/albert_einstei

n_Geometry_Experience.htm

"Envisaged in this way, axiomatic geometry and the part of natural law which has been given a conventional status APPEAR as epistemologically equivalent".

"Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is right. The idea of the measuring-rod and the idea of the clock co-ordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures, which may not play any independent part in theoretical physics. But it is my conviction that in the present stage of development of theoretical physics these ideas must still be employed as independent ideas; for we are still far from possessing such certain knowledge of theoretical principles as to be able to give exact theoretical constructions of solid bodies and clocks.".

"Envisaged in Poincare's way G + P convention APPEAR to give equivalent theories. If you take this superficially Poincare is right".

This is why I say that Einstein was not agreeing with G+P = N. If you scroll down a few paragraphs, you find Einstein stating HIS POSITION.

"The question whether the structure of this continuum is Euclidean, or in accordance with Riemann's general scheme, or otherwise, is, according to the view which is here being advocated, properly speaking a physical question which must be answered by experience, AND NOT A QUESTION OF A MERE CONVENTION TO BE SELECTED ON PRACTICAL GROUNDS. Riemann's geometry will be the right thing if the laws of disposition of practically-rigid bodies are transformable into those of the bodies of Euclid's geometry with an exactitude which increases in proportion as the dimensions of the part of space-time under consideration are diminished".

So Einstein's view was not G+P = N. His view was more like G_P = N

History repeats itself. Newton made it clear in the Preface to the very first edition of Principia, that he is writing a provisional make shift theory because he is unable with the present knowledge to develop the "Truer Method of Philosophy" (i.e. Geometric_physics based on least particles - read as quanta of energy). But his followers took hold of the makeshift theory, turn it into a dogma and formed an orthodoxy hostile to any new thinking. Same thing has happened with Einstein.

I quote an extract from my essay:

Einstein wrote: ".. But quite apart from the superiority of one or the other (i.e., NM or RT), the fictitious character of fundamental principles is perfectly evident from the fact that we can point to two essentially different principles, both of which correspond with experience to a large extent.". (1, p.393). It must be clear from this statement that Einstein held that not only Newtonian foundation to be fictitious, but also that the foundation of his own theory of relativity to be fictitious!!.

In regard to the fictitious axioms in the foundations of physics Einstein wrote: "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented (fictitiously), can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more has the right way any existence outside our illusions? ......". We need to note that in answering the above question , Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas: " ..without a hesitation that there is, in my opinion a right way, and that we are capable of finding it (in the future) ...Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is a realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. (thus quite in contrast to the abstruse mathematical formalisms of SRT and GRT), I am convinced that we can (i.e. WILL be able to) discover by means of purely mathematical constructions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena" (1, p. 398). We must note that Einstein indicates here candidly that RT is directing not quite towards the 'right way' and implies that RT will be surpassed and replaced when the 'right way' is found.

In regard to Geomeric_physics We must remember Galileo: "Philosophy (i.e. Physics) is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth" .

I have developed the type of geometric_physics, Newton and Einstein were predicting. It is only a small beginning. Summary of it is compiled for the FQXi essay.

I developed "Geometrodynamics of energy" having identified the following foundational problems and to rectify them.

I quote the list of problems:

"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".

If you can find the time, I request you to please have a look at my essay - "A Treatise on Fundamental Problems of Physics" posted on Sep 06 on FQXi. And comment on it.

Best regards,

Viraj

Anton,

Well, I just wanted to point out that in saying things like

''When the particles are a distance r apart, the total energy of the universe remains unchanged''

''In a universe as a whole, the sum of these three energy forms is always constant.''

you don't specify with respect to what that universe has energy: if this is impossible, then such statements have no significance. You consider objects and events within the universe from an imaginary observation post outside of it, as if you are looking over God's shoulders at his creation, which, scientifically speaking, is illegitimate.

Anton

Anton

So Zaphod isn't the dropout I thought he was! Good fun read and original ideas, though I preferred Bragg's original; "The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them."

I also both discuss Krauss and develop the concept that "further particles are produced carrying away the excess energy with zero nett momentum" (see my last years essay, suggesting that is what the photoelectrons -now called virtual- in the LHC are all about).

But my hearties congratulations lie in the central theme of reconsidering geometry. As motion is an invalid concept in geometry. I've proposed it is thus also invalid in algebraic vector space, ergo Cartesian systems. This 'created our problem so can't resolve it'. The alternative structures I explore are of logic (truth propositional, and dynamic), and interesting results emerge.

Well done for an original and well written work with some pertinent quotes. There are a few suggestions I'm not convinced by, but I hope you'll read mine, derive why, judge for yourself and comment. However, I think scoring certainly shouldn't be about how much we may or may not agree with, and I liked your original style.

You may also find mine a little theatrical as the top layer to a set of 'self build' components making an ontology for deriving classical observation from the quanta. I look forward to your comments.

Peter

Anton,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

Jim

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Anton,

You have some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. The idea that gravitation becomes repulsive at small distances is interesting because it mirrors what seems to happen at large distances with the dark energy. Personally, I think that scale-dependence in physics is still underappreciated. Different effects seem to dominate on different scales, and none of our current theories seem to address this properly. There is the weak/strong scale, the electromagnetic scale, the ordinary gravity scale, the dark matter scale, the dark energy scale... and who knows what there is at smaller and larger scales?

2. I have seen something similar to the formulation (N)=(G)(P) before, and after reading your essay, I wonder if this formulation you present (going back to Poincare) is the origin of it. What I am talking about is Rafael Sorkin's motto "order plus number equals geometry," which might be symbolized by (O)(n)=(G).

3. Sorkin is the originator of the "causal sets" program in quantum gravity, which attempts to describe spacetime as an emergent structure arising from elementary causal relations among events. The "order" (O) he refers to is the "causal order," and the "number" (n) is the "number of events." This is one attempt at a new conception of geometry, anyway.

4. The reason this interests me is because Sorkin's view is similar to my own, which I describe further in my essay here. The ideas are different from those you present, but the philosophy is somewhat similar. The fundamental principle I propose is called the "causal metric hypothesis." I'd be interested to know what a Betegeusian would think of this approach.

5. I like the quote that "one must replace thinking habits with thinking necessity." For me, thinking necessity for physics is based on the simple principle of cause and effect, and once the physical principles are clear, the mathematics has to be whatever is required to get the job done!

I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

Ben Dribus