An Accidental Universe

I thought the problem Albrecht is trying to solve had already been solved.

Anonymous,

"How does any of these logics actually lead to those conclusions."

Consider the origin of quantum theory, said to be the most successfully verified theory in science, ever. All its sophisticated machinery, both mathematical and experimental, from 1803 until today, is dedicated to explaining Thomas Young's simple two-slit experiment.

Explain, it does. But not in a mathematically complete way. It takes the phenomenon for what it is, and retrodicts a cause. Unfortunately, the explanation drags along a lot of philosophical baggage -- nonlocality, the meaning of free will, superposed positions, probabilistic wave functions, the nature of time.

As you say, Einstein's relativity -- the special and the general theory -- comes mathematically complete. Ideas become thought experiments and thought experiments become physical experiments in a straightforward mathematical model.

I wish more people could see that Albrecht's framework contains the same potential for mathematical completeness, in that the unifying idea might in principle be tested against known physical results and extended -- in the same manner that Einstein extended Newton's theory of gravity.

We ought to be looking for falsification rather than verification. It's becoming more obvious that standard quantum theory offers no falsifying criteria.

Tom

John,

This dialogue is over, unless you answer my simple question:

Where's the physics?

Tom

Too many anonymouses here. Can't keep them straight. Anyway -- what problem do you mean?

Tom

Georgina

What is "observed reality" then? And why is physics interested in it? Indeed, what is relativity and why has it been misunderstood?

Paul

Anonymous

You can compare rates of change without referring to the measuring concept of time, ie by direct comparison-x occurred whilst y occurred. Indeed, if one considers a quartz based timing device, for example, what is actually being compared is a sequence of crystal oscillations with other change sequences. Which reveals what is physically being measured, ie the rate of change in physical reality, and what the reference for timing is, ie a conceptual rate of change to which all timing devices are, within the realms of practicality, synchronised.

Who has solved what in terms of synchronisation, certainly not Enstein, which was the point I made. Einstein 1905 Para 6 (part 1):

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a"B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B..."

Incorrect. Either timing devices are synchronised or the system is useless. Time of observation does not determine time of existence, not that there is any observational light in Einstein anyway, designating an entity an observer does not make it so. The various events either existed at the same time or they did not.

Another mistake he makes is over the conceptualisation of distance. This is an artefact of physically existent entities which exist at the same time, ie a spatial difference between them. In other words, x=vt has to be applied with caution, because the concept is that a specific spatial quantity can be expressed in terms of the duration it would have taken for something to travel it , had it been able to do so, which it cannot. Furthermore, Einstein involves subsequent timings to establish distance. This is obviously incorrect, because a distance is a function of the existent circumstance at a specific time, at another time that circumstance may well have altered. Einstein 1905 Para 6 (part 2):

"...for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'(a)."

Referring back to the point above, note here the use of the word light, but it is not light, because nothing is observed, it is just a constant.

Paul

To,

"This dialogue is over, unless you answer my simple question"

LOL. In other words, you are not about to answer my simple question.

Presumably Ockham's razor is not part of your understanding of physics, especially if it conflicts with long held beliefs.

There is Einstein's observation that 'A solution should be as simple as possible, but not any simpler.'

Then there is the Tom amendment; 'Nor should it conflict with the canon.'

John,

You have to have physical content to have a physical idea. You don't. This has nothing to do with "the canon," or with "Ockham's razor" or with "Tom's understanding of physics."

It has to do with measurement units and their application to physical phenomena. If you can't explain your idea in those terms, none of those other things mean anything at all. You can claim to "make an argument" all day long -- it doesn't amount to physical science.

Tom

Paul Reed, feb 20 07:46

There is an absolute time and the origin is the change/alteration of space. In every point of the universe space is changing in an identical manner (same speed, same quantity). So, space by itself is an absolute frame and the foundation of time is the continuous alteration of space (e.g. primary fields/QFT).

Time in general relativity is a result of the existence of local phenomena and their interactions. This means that the "internal time" of every composed phenomenon (mass) in the universe is identical. But... the overall time (= the alteration on "the outside") of similar phenomena differs if they find their selves in different physical settings (e.g. a gravitational field). So spacetime is a derivation of absolute space and absolute time (but you cannot label it as "incorrect").

John,

On the chance that you don't understand that your question has nothing to do with physics:

"If you have a theory where time is axiomatic, versus one where it is emergent, which would be simpler?"

Neither one, because neither one CAN be the comparative basis of a physical theory. To ask whether "time is axiomatic" or "time is emergent" is nonsense. There are no universally consistent physical axioms (Hilbert's program fails), and "emergence" is a metaphysical construct by which you would have to redefine time as something other than a simple parameter of reversible trajectory as used in classical physics. This takes work, unless you have a magic blackboard that reveals the answer to you.

Now, if you want to do the work that in the context of an actual theory of physics, with math and predictions and stuff, shows that time can be treated independently and axiomatically -- OR that time is alternatively compelled to emerge from a certain set of physical values -- I'll listen. Otherwise, it's just hot air.

Tom

"Physical existence is an existential sequence" yes, hahaha, it seems so, but we don't know why, that's the problem. Theory tells us it isn't a sequence. You think you know why it is, fine, but all you do is state it frequently, you've offered nothing approaching an explanation. If you don't understand the question, you're not going to get the answer. Others are wondering why, including some of the best thinkers in the world. Please leave the question if you're happy about it already.

Tom,

Thanks for taking so much time fulfilling your promise about dropping beliefs to fairly assess merits. I really look forward to a response so well considered!

As the relevant post became so buried I've re-posted it below. The link is to the complete and simple maths, but I can repost that here too if you prefer. In terms of corresponding with nature, the model seems to do rather better than SR, the only change to which is not requiring any assumption that "background' = "absolute". Please ask any questions, and try me with all falsifications you can. That's the point.

Thanks

Peter (tenacity 'R' us) J...

Tom,

You well know nothing can be constructively proved complete, so with; "Because the refutation is complete and correct." you've exposed that deeply embedded belief you always invoke. If you disagree let's test it. You must then show that the alternative is less complete and consistent. I do appreciate your offer to do so, so off we go;

Now, as I've said before, the model agrees with both the SR postulates and that the mathematical formalism represents a perfectly adequate representation. But the maths is not the nature, and other maths can give identical results. The only other valid falsifications of the 'nature' (reality) then are of consistency, self, logical and with observation (data).

So if one interpretation turns out to have less inconsistencies and anomalies it is possibly a more accurate model of nature, Yes?

First the maths. The only change is as the algorithms in my essay and end notes. These have been verified, never challenged or falsified, and produce CSL, via the instantaneous delta lambda implicit in detection. Thus also comply with QM!!

(resolving the 'measurement problem'). Please check them again. In fact there's a better version here; MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING v2

Now let's lift the carpet (no longer just the corner!) and pull out a few things pushed under there as it doesn't fit current interpretation, arising from the only varying assumption; that any background medium has also to be 'absolute'. The DFM resolution is in parenthesis.

1. CMBR Anisotropies, with severe lack of isotropy and homogeneity. (derived)

2. The host of apparent paradoxes, which won't quite ever go away. (removed)

3. The IAU 2000 resolutions regarding inconsistent theoretical basis. (found)

4. Stellar Aberration not possible with waves and needing refraction (resolved)

5. Pre Big bang conditions. (Logically defined and evidenced).

6. Re-ionization (ditto)

7. Unification of SR and QM. - all about time really. (complete).

8. The Higg's Field. Yes! a field with an assumed spatial identity! (allowed).

9. The flat 'lockstep' galaxy rotation curve. (Precisely derived)

10. The kinetic SZ effect, decoupled halo rotation etc. (predicted).

11. Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The non relativistic 'special agent' even the eminent Sandage had to assume for the Hubble constant and acceleration. (solved)

12. The 'Ether' George Smoot had to invoke (2004 Nobel) explain CMB 'frames last scattered' etc. Again with a kinetic identity. (fully implicit).

13. Kinetic Reverse Refraction. (derived)

14. Non linear Optics effects. (ditto).

15. Lensing delays of over 3 years!! - Abel. (longer predicted)

16. Intrinsic rotation of matter in space. (predicted)

17. Pair production. (matter from nowhere). (predicted)

18. Violation of Snell's Law and loss of 'Fresnel refraction' in favour of 'Fraunhofer reraction' at Maxwell's near/far field transition zone.

I'll stop there but could fill a book with astronomical anomalies alone, such as the very Ecliptic Plane itself (USNO Circ. 179 p6). and JPL's Dan Gezari's continuing problems with Laser Lunar ranging theoreticals. All resolved in the more simple interpretation.

Most are in complete denial that those exist as they're immediately ignored if they don't 'fit'. So Only 'beliefs' keep the present interpretation alive. But human nature won't let most face up to realities, so it's claimed, with no basis, that all the above are just 'misunderstandings'.

This is your test. Can you really drop your beliefs and compare honestly?

Peter

Tom,

Is the rate at which a cesium atom oscillates a measurement unit?

If so it seems a reasonably simple question to ask whether that unit is based on the particular action used and thus is inherently irreversable, since any opposite action would still be another, separate action and thus constitute its own measure. Or is reality inherently a mathematical consruct, where whatever appears possible, must be possible.

Apparently though, its only religion if you can read latin.

Peter,

"You well know nothing can be constructively proved complete ..."

No. What I well know is that mathematical proofs, constructive or not, are not equivalent to the standards applied to a physical theory, where no proof standards exist. Mathematical completeness means that the logically closed judgments of a mathematical theory demonstrably correspond to physical phenomena. Relativity is mathematically complete. " ... other maths can give identical results ..." betrays your lack of closed logical judgment; e.g., E = mc^2 is a logically closed physical theory because the constant precisely limits the equivalence of E to m.

Please, can't we just discuss Albrecht's result in this forum?

Tom

"Is the rate at which a cesium atom oscillates a measurement unit?"

No, John, it isn't.

Tom

Paul,

Re. "observed reality". Corroboration of observations is important to eliminate mistakes and delusions, which might give observations that have the appearance of reality but are not. It is of course only "reality", Image reality. The whole audience will observe the rabbit emerging from an apparently empty hat, so corroboration alone does not guarantee reality only the probability or likelihood of seeing the same thing under the same or very similar circumstances.Why is "observed reality" important to science? It is the basis of the scientific method. Make a hypothesis, design a test of the hypothesis and -observe- the results, which either disprove the hypothesis or do not.

Re. What is relativity: There are a great many books on the subject. One of my favourite books is E= Einstein. His Life. his thoughts , and his influence on our culture. Relativity has been misunderstood because there has been no differentiation between Object and Image reality. What is observed has been taken to be the real object. Eg. The observed image of a train has been assumed to be the object train. When they are different things entirely . One is an output image produced from processing of electromagnetic data and the other is a material thing with atomic structure.

Paul,

To summarize ... "what we know is what we think we know"

Constantinos

Tom,

"No, John, it isn't."

Hmm... so the mechanism of atomic clocks don't produce timing units...You know, you might have finally proven "There ain't no reality in science."

Is this where it starts to become a religion?

"Hmm... so the mechanism of atomic clocks don't produce timing units..."

No, John. They don't. The second is the scientific unit of measure. The number of oscillations in that interval, of a cesium atom preserved under specified constant conditions, is an arbitrarily agreed standard.

Tom