I just meant that I got the impression that when you decided we can never know the answer to that question, you were looking at your own methods, and your own approach (which you do a lot), rather than the kind of physics that is hooked into the mathematical clues we have more specifically. But anyway, only a thought, sorry if inaccurate, let's leave it.

John,

Are you getting anything out of this dialogue?

All that I can follow of your last is, -- what is my understanding of "constant?" It's a mathematician's understanding, of course, how else would I use it in this forum?

A mathematical constant is 0, 1, pi .... A fixed value that changes other values in interesting ways. It's always a number, however, not some ethereal thing. The speed of light is a physical constant, a measured value that limits the communication between bodies -- to the distance that light can travel in one second. Whiich can be scaled up to cosmic proportions (light year).

So you are saying that the unit "one second" is physically real, in your thinking? See, this is the problem I'm having -- is that you say Spacetime isn't physically real in the same breath that you say the measure of Spacetime is physically real. Measuring something that isn't physically real? maybe in your world.

Tom

Tom,

One second is a measure of duration. Duration is a property of process. Process is what physical properties, such as light do. Think light=noun. Propagate=verb. I guess in math the terms would be factor and function, but since math is so conceptually dense, light and propagation might not be treated as such.

Tom,

Exactly my thinking also! QM is a 'mathematical tautology' applied to physical measurements. And this is what gives QM such great success and experimental precision. A point I have also made about Planck's Law. In my FQXi essay "The Metaphysics of Physics" , and in my chapter, "The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law", I show Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation to be an exact mathematical tautology and not a physical law per se. This result explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum matches so perfectly the theoretical curve!

Constantinos

Tom wrote:

"His thesis -- like Einstein's -- starts with first principles: a complete domain of equally likely universes and a method"

I was not aware that the hypothetical existence of "equally likely universes", has been elevated to the status of a "first principle"

Rob McEachern

John,

Epicycles are mathematical descriptions of our observations. Somewhat analogous to 'painting (the heavens) by numbers'. They are not tautologies!

The problem with 'epicycles', as well as with modern physics, is the 'physical view' and not the math. We could keep that view and invent more 'epicycles' to describe our observations. No problem. But when valid mathematical deductions lead to an unsustainable physical view (because it no longer 'makes sense') we must change the view! And apply the math to a more sensible world -- one that does not put us in conflict and contradiction with our senses.

To reiterate, "the problem with modern physics is in not providing us with physical explanations that make sense". Some would question if that is possible. I argue not only is it possible, but it is absolutely necessary. And have taken 'one small step for mankind' in that direction, here.

Constantinos

Constantinos

Tee hee. But that is the point. We can only know what it is possible for us to know. It is a tautology because what this is depicting is a closed system. The crux of the issue being what physical factor defines that closed system, ie what physical process underpins knowing, and hence what form of existence are we able to investigate objectively. Subjectively we can believe anything. Thinking , ie the subsequent processing of what is physically received, is a nuisance(!), that is where 'enhancement' occurs and we stray into belief, ie not knowledge.

As I said in my previous response, the caveat conveyed by 'think' should relate to the fact that knowledge is, by definition, only correct as at that time, because, assuming it has been constructed properly, it is still limited by the facual information available as at that time. But this is a practical feature about how knowledge is accummulated, not a metaphysical point. In other words, at some time in the distant future we will have accessed all the knowledge that is available to us. We will only know that as and when no new knowledge arises because we are within a closed system. Of course, in the area of belief, there is no limitation, we can keep making up ideas for ever, but that is not science.

Paul

Georgina

Einstein designating any entity as an observer does not make it an observer. What does so is the receipt of light. Indeed, from the physical perspective, every entity is an observer, because every entity receives light. The waste basket to my left is currently receiving a light based representation of the chair, as indeed is my ear, and my eye. The point is that consequent upon the evolution of sensory systems, the latter entity can utilise what is physically received, the others cannot. But this is irrelevant to physical existence, what existed, existed. Its existence is not a function of being sensed. All that creates is an awareness of the existence.

But the relevant point here is that Einstein has no observational light, nowhere in his narrative or examples does he have light being received. He has disassociated rays of light/lightening/etc. There are two very important implications for this: 1) he has deemed the reality of light to be existent reality, 2) the light which he refers to is just a constant, ie he could have just said 'let us take a constant in order to measure duration and distance'. One can of course reasonably speculate why he chose light, because he failed to understand his mistake of conflating existent reality and the light based representation of it (ie point 1).

Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with appearances, neither was it intended to be so. Neither should any physical theory be based on any aspect of the subsequent processing of what is physically received. Physics is concerned with what is physically received and what created that. Einstein's concept of relativity, which is incorrect, is the function of two counterbalancing mistakes, which is why at one level it 'works', but at another level is causing people to think there is something wrong with it.

Paul

Henk

Indeed, spacetime is a model. But as with any representational device, it must correspond with what physical existence is, and how it occurs. And spacetime does not. It takes a fundamental generic quality of physical existence, ie its spatial disposition, and invokes an all pervading relationship (which presumes equivalence) with the other fundamental generic feature of physical existence, ie the rate at which any given physically existent state alters. Furthermore, it continues the mistake of Poincaré and Einstein in failing to differentiate existential reality from the physical reality of light, ie they deem light to be reality. Which is why c acquires such an important role, a role it has not actually got in existent reality.

When exploring any reality, you need to ensure you are exploring the physical reality we can know, which is the only objecive reality available, and not some form of existence based on metaphysical presumptions, such as the concept of relativity or the notion that observation has an effect on physical existence.

Paul

Constantinos

I have just noticed your post in another thread. This is the whole point. As I said a few posts back, when dealing with existence, unless what it constitutes, objectively, is identified first, and then the implications of that adhered to, there is a very real danger of flawed presumptions about it creeping in, and thereby becoming the basis for what becomes a self-fulfilling metaphysical tautology masquerading as a physical theory. Because it is very easy to invoke all sorts of ideas about what existence is, unless rigour is maintained and especially once the investigation becomes complex (generally, hypothetical because it is outwith direct experienceability). More specifically, the Copenhagen Interpretation is contradictory to physical existence, ie physical existence cannot involve any form of indefiniteness, nether can observation (or any form of sensing) affect physical existence.

Paul

Paul ,

I understand that Einstein did not think he was dealing with "mere" appearances. He knew his relativity was not a complete theory and I am sure he would be happy to have it retained but thought about slightly differently so that it is compatible rather than contradictory to quantum mechanics. It can be retained and can work with quantum mechanics if general and special relativity relate only to the appearance, i.e. the observed images formed from EM data not the objects with atomic structure.

Re. Your final paragraph: Sensory data has to be processed to make any sense to us at all. Receipt of data with no output is no better than no data. If my eyes were disconnected from my brain, the data would still be received but as it can not be processed by my brain, I will not be able to see. Light that has been focussed by a lens might be capable of producing an image on a screen placed in its path but without the screen there is no see-able image. Its output that gives us knowledge. We can not access Object reality (your existent reality) including the EM Data Pool (your existent representations) without a -Reality Interface- that converts what is there into a form that our sensory system can receive and interpret. Which allows us to do such things as practical physics experiments -involving observations-; and much more besides: )

John,

Mathematics is conceptually easy. What is dense -- or foggy would be a better word -- are statements like "Duration is a property of process. Process is what physical properties, such as light do."

You're unlikely to ever get through to anyone who can clearly see that you're trying to do physics without the benefit of physical content. That should be absurd to you, and will be, once you learn what you're missing.

A second only measures the duration of an *event.* The event -- not the duration, not the process -- is physically real. Light -- electromagnetic radiation -- is not a physical property. It is a physically real event.

Tom

Constantinos,

"I show Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation to be an exact mathematical tautology and not a physical law per se. This result explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum matches so perfectly the theoretical curve!"

Then your theory suffers the same flaw as quantum theory -- by assuming what it means to demonstrate.

Planck's result is derived from physical measurement, not from curve-fitting. What makes it a law, is that Planck shows this energy distribution to uniquely correspond to bodies in thermodynamic equilibrium, "black" bodies.

Physical laws prescribe limits. Quantum theory proponents who want to enshrine nonlocality as a physical law -- as purportedly demonstrated by the experimental results of Bell-Aspect -- either forget or ignore this fact.

Let me take a classical example of curve-fitting -- Kepler's first law of planetary motion. "A planet's orbit is an ellipse." Why is it a physical law and not, as you say, a tautology? -- because if we relied on curve fitting to validate it, we could not. I like the way that Leslie Lamport ("Buridan's Principle," Found. Phys. April 2012) framed his argument in those terms: "To understand the meaning of Buridan's Principle as a scientific law, consider the analogous problem with classical mechanics. Kepler's first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse. This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler's law is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be consistent with the predicted ellipse."

Likewise, you neglect that the agreement of the blackbody curve with your own theory applies only to a system in thermodynamic equilibrium, ignoring the infinity of curves that would be required to generalize it to all possible thermodynamic states.

Tom

Rob,

I agree with you that the model is not the theory (someone should explain that to some climate scientists). I do not agree that the wave function is merely a mathematical construct.

A classical continuous wave function is certainly something different than the probability wave of conventional quantum theory -- it is not true, however, that "Neither wave-function existence, nor its collapse, have ever been demonstrated to be attributes of reality itself."

"Reality itself" being the conclusion of measurement results, one has to concede that applying the equally likely hypothesis of probability to quantum events, one realized event implies some "collapse" of probabilities. So that, at least, can be said to be an "attribute" of *our* reality, if not "reality itself."

What I find intriguing about Albrecht's hypothesis, is not only that one need not assume that a collapse of probabilities applies to a multiverse of equally likely universes (Everett's interpretation already says that) -- rather, one need also not assume that equally likely clocks result in one cosmological initial condition. This carries the implication that the physically real spacetime of general relativity does not have a unique origin in time; my own research informs me that the general relativity model -- conventionally described as finite in time and unbounded in space -- holds just as well for a universe finite in space and unbounded in time. This accounts both for classical time reversibility and quantum mechanical unitarity.

Tom