An Accidental Universe

Tom,

"'metaphysics' is knowledge of 'what is' beyond our senses"

This describes "atoms" as well as "spirits". And that's the problem with 'metaphysics'. Since one man's "atoms" is another man's "spirits". To a mystic, modern physics is as nonsense as mysticism is to a physicist. This is the reason (i.e. the 'metaphysical nature of physics') why so much bitter opposition, intolerance and down right persecution exists among physicists; while lacking among mathematicians. Mathematicians do not claim any knowledge of what is the Universe. Any claim of such knowledge I say is metaphysical. And ALL metaphysical claims ultimately fail.

You write, "There may exist things one cannot sense". What we cannot sense is not the issue for me. Rather, our claim such nonsensical knowledge is sensible I find flawed. I can restate this as follows. There is nothing real about any theory! It's all an elaborate 'made-up story'. Where physicists fail, imho, is in believing their theories are real.

From my brief reading of this article on Albrecht, I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe. To believe there are is no less absurd than believing you can truly know another human being. Such laws as we understand may indeed depend on our sense of time. As 'time' is what gives 'existence' to everything that is for us.

In my essay, The Metaphysics of Physics., I argue we can end the metaphysical in physics if Basic Laws are mathematical truisms we use in our analysis of our measurements. Planck's Law, for example, I show to be just such mathematical truism and not a physical law per se.

Constantinos

John,

I'm with Jim George. We've greatly overcomplicated the simple concept we call 'time'.

Identical clocks, of any type, only tick at different rates if they are moving different physical conditions.

The REAL PHYSICAL truth is only then motion. The only other realisation needed to resolve every other mystery is then that the emissions representing 'DURATIONS' have physical representations, and are ALSO liable to changed due to differing physical conditions.

So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?

This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases.

Please explain to me what mysterious phenonomena is there in the universe that this simplified understanding does NOT fully explain? Think it through and let me know. I predict you'll find there are none.

Peter

"Ockham's razor weighs strongly against (spacetime)."

Absolute nonsense, John. Please, learn how the extension and unification of physical theories has actually evolved.

Tom

Edwin,

The anisotropic CMB pattern prediction and derivation is included in this 2010 paper, both specific and implicit, here;

Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil.

If the Milky Way is positioned say half way up the left hand outflow arm and slightly off centre, with a precession based hellicity similar to Centaurus A, the complex asymmetric flow pattern (characterised as heat in the graph) is perfectly reproduced. I can think of no other possible way it could ever arise. If you can do let me know. I await your numbers.

The good part is that when we get it all wrong it seems we may get more go's. Luckily for us!

Very best wishes

Peter

John,

"You first have to clear away all the current theoretical debris to start another model."

See the link I've just posted to Edwin below. Until the better model exists for comparison none of the current theoretical debris pile can be cleared away.

So we can't do it 'first', and it can't come after, so we're stuck in this catch 22 with increasingly divergent un-unified physics (though I see Tom has just decided to unify it - well done, long overdue). The increasing anisotropy and non homogeneity of space, (let alone the Higg's field), hardly fitted under the carpet any more!

The new AGN based recycling model also entirely unifies physics and removes something over 30 major anomalies at last count as well as all the paradoxes. consistent with the excellent Montevideo interpretation of QM in one of this years essays. Or perhaps wait 'til next time around?

Tom, if you read this, do let me know how you've done it if you have, we may find consistencies.

Best wishes

Peter

Constantinos,

"There is nothing real about any theory! It's all an elaborate 'made-up story'. Where physicists fail, imho, is in believing their theories are real."

I don't disagree. Sure, the theory is contrived. What is not contrived, is the science -- i.e., the correspondence of theoretical prediction to physical result. Science just doesn't have anything to say about what may lie outside of science.

"From my brief reading of this article on Albrecht, I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe. To believe there are is no less absurd than believing you can truly know another human being. Such laws as we understand may indeed depend on our sense of time. As 'time' is what gives 'existence' to everything that is for us."

I don't go that far -- I find it a handicap to believe in any framework. To do science, one sets personal belief aside. The crafting of physical theories has to be independent of the physics, or else we won't know whether something exists because we believe in it, or actually corresponds to something "out there." An anti-realist (and many interpretations of quantum theory take this position) says there is nothing out there; our measurements create the reality. My own choice of realist philosophy is metaphysical realism (the moon is really there when no one is looking). I think Albrecht's program respects objective reality, in that the free choice of random conditions depends on the choice being available.

Tom

Tom,

"To do science, one sets personal belief aside." Commendable words, but can you truly say that's what you do?

If so, why do you almost unfailingly revert to mainstream interpretation of relativity to refute any suggestions of other interpretations?

And if your answer relates at all to such things as established 'proofs' and 'consistencies' then you have failed your own test. This is because other models may well prove more consistent, but you have prejudged on beliefs not honest comparables of logical consistency.

If you claim not to do this, then perhaps address my posts and links above and below as a demonstration.

I'm not suggesting yours is a unique case, but that we all have far more deeply rooted hidden beliefs that we are normally prepared to seek and recognise, and more effort is needed to genuinely identify them and set them aside.

Only then can fundamental science genuinely progress.

Peter

Peter,

"'To do science, one sets personal belief aside.' Commendable words, but can you truly say that's what you do?"

To every extent possible, yes.

"If so, why do you almost unfailingly revert to mainstream interpretation of relativity to refute any suggestions of other interpretations?"

Because the refutation is complete and correct. I agree with Vesselin Petkov that "science never moves backward." There is no "non-mainstream interpretation" of relativity, because relativity is mathematically complete, and not in need of interpretation. What that means, is that the mathematical model is demonstrably independent of the physical phenomena the model predicts. Logical consistency is not enough -- personal beliefs can be logically consistent and have nothing to do with the physical world.

"And if your answer relates at all to such things as established 'proofs' and 'consistencies' then you have failed your own test. This is because other models may well prove more consistent, but you have prejudged on beliefs not honest comparables of logical consistency."

Show your work, then. If I find a mathematically complete model that competes with relativity and predicts the same physical results, and if the results are experimentally confirmed, then I will support it as a genuine alternative.

"If you claim not to do this, then perhaps address my posts and links above and below as a demonstration."

As I have said before in these fora, a mathematically complete theory only explains what it contains. It does not explain what's not in the theory. Observational anomalies for which there is no theory do not falsify what you call "mainstream science." As an example -- and I've given it often -- the discovery (Penzias and Wilson, 1965) of microwave background radiation does not falsify the steady state theory of cosmology. However, because big bang cosmology can explain CBR and steady state cannot, the discovery is one more verification of the mathematical completeness of general relativity.

"I'm not suggesting yours is a unique case, but that we all have far more deeply rooted hidden beliefs that we are normally prepared to seek and recognise, and more effort is needed to genuinely identify them and set them aside."

Right. As I said, though, logical consistency is no test.

Tom

Tom,

The most insidious mistakes are those we don't even know we are making. The safest position to take (drawing from our broad human experience) is we cannot know what is the Universe. As this requires the same 'mind set' as believing we can know another human being. And though we can all agree 'something is' out there independent of us (what I think you call 'metaphysical realism') this should not lead to the arrogant position what we 'know' of it is what is out there. Just like, what we know of another person is what that person truly is.

You write, "Sure, the theory is contrived. What is not contrived, is the science".

Can you really separate "theory" from "science"? Even after all the quantum weirdness we have come to know and some love while others hate? Science is no longer making 'objective observations'. There is much greater 'interpretation' of the objective data based on the theory we hold. It is reassuring to think such 'objective interpretation' is 'science'.

I too believed in that innocence. But have become increasingly skeptical. Add to this the design of our instruments to produce the outcomes we search (all based on our theories of what we search) and the picture becomes even more enigmatic. I fear we may be deceiving ourselves believing in our own magic. And that, in my view, is The Metaphysics of Physics..

You write, "To do science, one sets personal belief aside". But can we put aside our mind? Or all minds are the same everywhere and for all times.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I don't think the philosophical discussion contributes anything to the topic of this thread. I have given my own opinion on Andreas Albrecht's research, applying the conventional rules of scientific falsification (Popper) and from a realist perspective. So nothing in my opinion is "hidden."

That's as far as I want to take it.

Tom

Instead of spending all my time on this thread defending relativity (I am finished with that now, for good) -- I would have liked to have been involved in a high level exchange on the genuine merits of Andreas Albrecht's research program, which I think are considerable.

In my opinion, most participants in this discussion don't have a clue as to either the content of that program, or its implications for science, particularly cosmology. In fact, I think it is a potentially big step toward legitimizing cosmology as a hard physical science.

I've also not been shy of expressing my opinion that Vesselin Petkov's essay this year ("Can gravity be quantized") was unjustly ignored. For the same reason.

Allow me to suggest that Petkov on the side of relativity, and Albrecht on the side of quantum mechanics -- have a common meeting ground; i.e., that the mathematics of random variables and the mathematics of continuous measurement functions converge on an underlying unitary structure of topological foundation. I've devoted considerable research to that proposition -- would anyone like to seriously discuss it?

Tom

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

Peter,

"So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?"

Yes.

"This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases."

The frequency.

I'm not trying to complicate it, I just don't want the argument to be "There is no time." Time is a primal effect.

Tom,

I'm trying to respect your desire not to continue this, but I do want to make the following observation;

" However, because big bang cosmology can explain CBR and steady state cannot, the discovery is one more verification of the mathematical completeness of general relativity."

If redshift is a consequence of distance, the CMBR would be the solution to Olber's paradox, the light from ever more distant sources, shifted completely off the visible spectrum. Rather than open this up for debate, I will point out that when the James Webb telescope goes up and starts examining this radiation from the very edges of the visible universe, I predict it will find shadows of ever more distant sources within it.

"science never moves backward."

Lots of things can't move backward. They do collapse.

Of course, BBT couldn't explain its evenness and so Inflation was added

Tom,

I understand. Hard to engage in sensible reasoning if you believe only science provides the truths worth knowing. And never question that absolute metaphysical belief.

Constantinos

John,

We're trying to tie down reality yes? Which means identifying and excluding the 'metaphysical'.

So the big mistake that everybody makes is in assuming 'frequency' over wavelength. This is well understood in astronomy where we consistently get nonsense if not consistently using wavelength (lambda)! Yet because frequency is often the only 'observable' most have forgotten where it comes from.

Think what frequency is. It is some abstract number, per invented quanta of time, related to speed. Speed itself is only a distance per arbitrary time period. The only REAL fundamental physical quality we have is distance, so wavelength. We must then 'reverse engineer' it with LOCAL time to get the derivative; frequency.

If an emitter 10bn light years away emitted a 3 second signal ('event') containing 1,000 waves (wavenumber) 10bn years ago, the signal waves (or photons as you wish) after have interacted with countless billions of electrons on the way, all moving when re-emitting the waves (via 'coherent forward scattering') it has been 'tampered with', but spectroscopy gives us this history.

When it 'arrives' it cannot be detected till interacting with a lens. If the lens is moving fore/aft, the moment it interacts it's wavelength changes instantaneously. It CANNOT be detected otherwise. Now, as c = lambda*f, is a constant, the detector then finds a NEW LOCAL C!! Now you tell me what has happened to the apparent start and finish of the 'event' if the lens is moving towards the source? Yes it looks like less time. But the wavenumber is identical!

Don't let refractive index n distract you. We have been guilty of a MASSIVE sin on theorising. We have only assumed and used frequency instead of also lambda, so we have missed the fact that c is a propagation speed which has localised to the new frame (Continuous Spontaneous Localisation, = CSL)!!

Of course there is time, but our massive mistake has been using the metaphysical DERIVATIVE frequency. Only when we understand and correct our our error does the meaning of time become clear.

I'm relying on you to assimilate the importance of that as your are relatively un indoctratinated by past assumptions, though the 'F error' is universal.

Peter

What you're (both) saying is too vague to have much bearing on the issues. You have to explain why two clocks disagree if they're separated and then brought back together, whether after moving differently, or after being at different heights in a gravity field. The two clocks then have different ages. That question needs a very specific answer, and no-one has been able to give one, not even the best physicists of this and the last century. The answer has to fit the equations in a VERY specific way, otherwise what anyone suggests is in danger of being just more hot air.

Anonymousse,

Given mass is essentially composed of light(E=mc2), when it is accelerated, or in a gravitational field, its internal activity slows, so that the internal action and velocity don't exceed c. Therefore the clock you use in any frame is slowed and thus records the same speed of light. There is no internal action to light/at c, so it has no clock and no time. If you accept time is an effect of action, as I posited, the question then becomes; What is space? Time is a measure of action, but measures of space, distance, area, volume, are measures of space. I would argue space is not simply an effect of the geometry, but is the foundation of geometry. It is inertial and infinite. Consider the centrifugal effect; it is not due to outside points of reference, but is the relationship of spin to inertia. As you point out, we can have clocks record different rates in different contexts. When you accelerate or place a clock in a gravitational field, it is slowed. What those two situations do is act against inertia, just like spin. If you could build clocks with incredibly precise measures and place them in various situations, then bring them back together, the one which recorded the most lapsed time/ran fastest, would have been the one closest to the inertial frame.

Three dimensions are essentially a coordinate system. They define space, but they don't create it, any more than latitude, longitude and altitude create the planet.

As I point out in my contest entry, by treating time as a measure of duration, physics only emphasizes sequence, rather than the activity creating events, so it becomes a static narrative of events on some eternal timeline, rather than a dynamic process of change. Ask yourself, does the earth really move/exist along the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

I'll leave it at that for the moment, so whatever questions you wish to ask, I can try to answer.