An Accidental Universe

Rob/All

The generic answer to the point you raise is that physical existence occurs in one specific physically existent state at a time, there is then alteration which results in another which supersedes the former. The rate at which this occurs is extremely fast.

Theories tend to relate to one physical circumstance, but get applied to, what in reality is, a sequence of such circumstances, because we fail to differentiate the existential sequence adequately. This was my point behind questioning what wave physically relates to. That is, it is first addressed as if it is a singular physical circumstance at a given time, but as the posts have stated anyway, it obviously is not. Which then raises the question as to what is physically special about wave. There is something and it moves in a wave motion, wave not being a physically existent entity. Having established what it physically is, then one can proceed to examine what physically constitutes the collapse of it.

Paul

Constantinos

I do not want to re-run the exchange we are having elsewhere. So suffice it to say that whilst in principle you are in effect waving a valid warning flag against 'metaphysical creep', the flaw in your argument is that you are depicting all circumstances as being metaphysical. Whereas, in fact, there is one physical form of existence which is not, for us. That caveat being the key point. It may be rubbish, but we can never know, we can only know what we are enabled to know, and there is a physical process underpinning that which means that the potentially knowable has definitive, independent, form and a limitation.

Paul

Rob

Correct, there is no choice as to what the reference is in timing, just the level to which the rate is differentiated.

Tom

Einstein did not understand timing. 1905 section 1 part 1. He thinks there is a need, in physical existence, to adjust the times of existence, unless they are in the 'immediate proximity', ie local to a common time. That is, he failed to understand that timing is referencing to a common constant rate of change, ie the individual timing devices are already synchronised, by defintion, otherwise the timing system is useless. He thereby created a superfluous extra layer of time. But this offset his failure to differentiate existential reality from light reality, which then reveals a real timing difference, because light takes time to travel, so there is a timing difference in the reeipt of light.

Paul

Hector

Physically (as far as we can know, and this is science not religion), what is happening is that there is alteration in a physically existent state. Only one such state, in any given sequence, can exist at a time, because the predecessor must cease for the successor to exist. Look out the window, a bird flies past, the bush changes colour and loses its leaves, etc. Now, each of the physically existent states which comprise those sequences can only exist one at a time, in a sequence order. The bird is not in different spatial positions at the same time, neither does the bush have/not have leaves at the same time. Neither does any given existent state continue to exist once it is superseded (this flawed thinking reflects the failure to understand that we receive a representation of physical existence, eg light). It is existential sequence, one physically existent state at a time.

One aspect of this is the rate at which that alteration occurs, irrespective of what is altering, and this is what timing calibrates. As with any measuring system, fundamentally this involves comparison to identify difference. So, in the case of timing, the reference is a conceptual constant rate of change. Any given timing device 'tells' the time, ie within the realms of practicality, it is sychronised with this conceptual reference. Again, a practical example. If you use a quartz timing mechanism, what is actually happening. Answer, you are comparing a rate of alteration as manifest in crytal oscillations, with whatever rate of alteration is being timed. In other words, if one literally used the reference, then the result would be expressed in terms of the event started at oscillation x and n oscillations had occurred when it finished. But the oscillations are automatically converted for you into another expression, which is minutes, days, etc, ie the common constant reference. Indeed, if you consider why those labels you realise this is an example of fosilised language, because the first clock was earth movement.

Specifically, I do not state it is all about movement, it is about the rate of alteration, movement just being one example of physical alteration.

Paul

Paul, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

" Paul Reed replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 07:46 GMT

.................Space-time is incorrect, as too is Einstein's concept of relativity. "

That's what I was disagreeing with. I can however accept that we are each doing, in our own way, what we think most helpful.I am now working on a more succinct "mathematical" abstract representation which may be more acceptable to some people, as it gets rid of the philosophical "excess baggage" It eliminate a number of contentious words and will be less confusing and complex as it is "minimalist" in its presentation style.I am pleased to have taken that next preliminary step in formalising the work.Good Wishes, Georgina

? what is the contradiction?

Constantinos,

Regarding your statements that:

"5)I have also shown other "physical laws", as for example Newton's Laws of Motion, to also be mathematical truisms and not "physical laws" based on experimental evidence.

6)I suggested that all Basic Laws of Physics can likewise be mathematical identities which we can apply to analyzing our experimental data."

My point is that while the "Basic Laws of Physics" can be regarded as mathematical identities, the law you cited, F=ma, CANNOT be used to analyze "our experimental data", obtained while observing the motion of a rocket. The problem is not in determining whether or not a "Law" is a "mathematical identity," the problem is to determine which of the infinite number of possible "mathematical identities" actually "fit" the data. F=ma does not fit the data for rockets. There is a different "mathematical identity", which does fit the rocket data. And it reduces to F=ma, in cases where "m" is a constant. But a rocket is not such a case.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

Though you don't directly state, you do then agree that Physical Laws can and should be Mathematical Truisms. This is big news! Since Tom and many others dispute this very point I am making and amply demonstrated.

Now, it is true that in order to validly use ANY mathematical theorem ALL the premises to that theorem MUST be true. If we tried to use the Pythagorean Theorem to measure the distance between two points not lying on a flat plane, for example, our calculations will be wrong. Likewise, if we used the Second Law, F=ma, to a situation where the m is NOT constant, the Second Law will also be misapplied. And this would be so regardless if the Second Law is a Physical Law (depending on "physical assumptions") or a Mathematical Identity (depending on NO "physical assumptions").

I am encouraged to know my call for using Mathematical Identities as the Foundation of Physical Theory seems acceptable to you. We can resolve all our other differences, if they still do exist.

Constantinos

Paul,

Your statement that "Einstein did not understand timing.", is belied by the evidence. I think he correctly understood that there is no way "in the moment" of ever dealing with "objective time", so he decided to not even try, and instead only deal with "subjective time", while "in the moment", and then he could figure out how to transform "subjective time" observations into "objective time" observations "out of the moment", via the Lorentz transformation.

In other words, he realized that "in the moment", while actually making a specific observation, the only clock he or anyone else can actually see, without a substantial Travel-time delay, is the clock sitting right next to him. He knew that a more distant clock would appear to yield a different time, due to the travel-time delay. But he knew that it would not usually be possible to determine what the delay was, "in the moment"; hence, clocks could not be "synchronized" beforehand. So his solution to the problem was to ignore the problem "in the moment" and then devise a procedure that would enable observers to "synchronize" their observations, long after the observations had been made, via their unsynchronized, subjective timing.

Rob McEachern

Paul,

You write, "you are depicting all circumstances as being metaphysical". Wrong! I am arguing when we seek to describe "what is" the Universe (Nature) we ultimately fail because such knowledge is 'metaphysical' in essence. And I'm further arguing we can avoid 'physics morphing into metaphysics' if our Basic Law of Physics are Mathematical Identities we apply to our measurements and observations of "what is". Thus, we will be knowing what is 'certain and true' to us. And not be seeking to know what in essence is 'metaphysical'.

One point further. Your depiction of "what is" as being "one physically existent state at a time" is 'metaphysical'. Parmenides said as much some 2500 years ago! And he was a foremost 'metaphysician'.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

The example of F = ma that Robert gave you is straightforward Newtonian physics, the physics we use to put people on the moon. If you don't understand that Rob's example shows that the application of Newton's formula to physical phenomena is kinetic (the mathematical representation is static) -- consider how rocket scientists actually calculate the least time-least fuel problem, as a 2-point boundary value problem in six dimensions. The result is the optimal path between points of two gravitating bodies, of an infinite number of possible paths, in which mass(energy) depletion changes the parameters continuously, and always in perfect agreement with F = ma at any point. Without this continuous function that gives meaning to the equation, we could not assign any physical meaning to it. Clearly the physical meaning is independent of the mathematical language.

Now -- I appreciate that Rob is trying to stay on the topic of this thread -- hard to do when respondents keep going off topic with their pet theories ("Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the Earth rotates" -- really? -- "Physical laws are mathematical tautologies" -- demonstrably false).

Rob's arguments opposing Albrecht's hypothesis are valid. We could have a real debate here, based on real physics. Can you please make some attempt to let it happen?

Tom

Ah, I wrote my reply before seeing Rob's latest response. Exactly.

Tom

Constantinos,

You asked "We can resolve all our other differences, if they still do exist?"

Other differences do indeed exist. Unfortunately, most physicists have ignored them. Consider:

a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c, is a mathematical identity. But they are not physically identical. Physically, if you attempt to build this equation, in "hardware", the left-hand-side requires one multiplier and one adder. But the right-hand-side requires two multipliers. They are physically different, even though they are mathematical identities. Either one would "fit the data", but only one corresponds to "physical reality".

With more complex equations, such as the Fourier Transforms, at the heart of quantum theory, the number of different physical manifestations for a given mathematical identity, becomes astronomically large. Some of these different physical manifestations are so different in their attributes (as big as the difference in the attributes of a galaxy versus an ant), that attempting to "interpret" them produces wildly different "interpretations" of quantum theory. One of the oldest and best known examples is David Bohm's Interpretation, developed sixty years ago. It is a determinist interpretation, that is mathematically identical to the standard, probabilistic interpretation, in the non-relatavistic case. Another, virtually unknown example, was discussed in my essay; the Fourier Transform based wave-function computation of probabilities is mathematically identical to a filter-bank physical structure that requires no "wave-function" whatsoever, it can be "interpreted" as computing the desired probabilities, via a simple histogram of the detected, quantized entities.

Rob McEachern

doug,

I think the word 'space' is a poor representation of the 'dark energy' we're all made from when it's focussed as quanta.

So I don't think it's 'created', but it the physical dimensions a certain total energy can occupy do not seem to be invariant.

So perhaps it's all about the compressibility, and how it behaves when a local part is quantised by, lets' say, a twin vortex creating a particle (donut). (I actually prefer donuts to toffee apples, but studying an apple closely shows it's as toroidal as all EM fields).

i.e. It somehow maintains a 'reduced density' around the vortices (we call it 'gravity'), so it's pretty clever stuff! In fact of course what it is NOT is 'stuff', the bit not in the vortices is not 'matter'. But when the vortex slows down does the distance the energy needs in a 'dark' state increase? or just the energy density?!?

So; I don't think space can be 'created, it's just a 'phase transition' and I don't know the smallest vortex possible, but suspect it may be smaller than we can find! Gamma tells us a lot; It's 'optical breakdown density', of some 10^21/cm^-3(look at the nose of craft re-entering). Even EN waves at radio wavelengths can't get through!

So perhaps that is the densest vortex field, so defines the smallest simple vortex?

What do you think? Did that sound like a lot of twaddle? or at all like reality?

Best wishes

Peter

Rob,

So how did this perfectly sensible solution to the subjectivity of time become the "fabric of spacetime," where time goes from being a measure of particular actions to a physical vector of "blocktime?"

Rob,

Certainly "differences do exist" among physicists. Humbly, I only referred to differences existing in your understanding of my argument to Tom.

You write,

"a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c, is a mathematical identity. But they[the two sides] are not physically identical."

The "identity" in the above mathematical expression is in the logic of the ideas the symbols represent. Not in the "representation" of those ideas in a computing machine. We shouldn't speak of symbols as having "physical reality". As Tom argued in a previous post, "C-A-T is not a carnivorous animal". When I speak of "physical reality" I mean in the sense of Nature and not Man. Though, I confess perhaps there is legitimacy in also considering such reality as is made by Man. But for now and for Physics, "physical existence" is what exists in physical Nature. I confess, however, the philosophical weakness in this.

I am glad you have no objections to my derivations showing Planck's Law and other Basic Law of Physics are Mathematical Identities (not dependent on any 'physical assumptions') and not Physical Laws (depending on the physical hypothesis of "energy quanta", for example).

Constantinos

Twaddle. We need to define "Space". If "volume", as I have always understood it (matter occupies Space), then, holding E = mc2, holding energy constant, if we play with the other variables, and turning c into %"c" (namely velocity), then as velocity (rate) goes down, mass goes up. And as rate goes up, mass goes down. And as the velocity reaches its extreme (namely "c"), mass goes down entirely. It has turned to Space (CIG Theory & the MTS concept equation). E = mc2 supports CIG . So does the DeBroglie equation. I went a little off topic. Wad'ya think. More twaddle?

Tom,

"physical phenomena is kinetic (the mathematical representation is static)".

I am not mistaking in any of my arguments the difference between "variables" and "constants". It was a major challenge to make that distinction clear to my students. So be assured, and look elsewhere for any real substantive differences you may have of my reasoning.

As to "Can you please make some attempt to let it[discussion on Albrecht's hypothesis] happen?". I have and have no objections to you or anybody pursuing any discussion you / they wish to have here or elsewhere. You give me undo credit dictating the topic here.

Constantinos

John,

It is a manifestation of the phenomenon I described in the post I made Feb.24 @ 14:34. There are often many very different, wildly different, physical interpretations of a single mathematical identity.

And they persist, because Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria cannot be used to distinguish a "to be Preferred" choice, since they all produce identical predictions for any possible, future observations.

Rob McEachern