A Self-Gravitational Upper Bound on Localized Energy

Rob

"The problem is that, the "differentiation" you refer to, exists only in your mind"

Not so. There is obviously an occurrence and a consequent light depiction of that occurrence, which is what we receive. Indeed, so obviously that I am wondering why you said that. And the answer lies in a follow up sentence: "Your "existential sequence" and "physically existent representations" are all just part of what exists". Yes light is physically existent, but it is not the existential sequence, it is a consequence thereof. And with the evolution of sensory systems it can be utilised if received.

"Light does not behave as a "representation""

It is not a case of 'behaving'. It is. And this is why the sensory system of sight evolved, thereby giving light a functional role.

"You and only you are the physical entity that "created" your representation"

Not so. Again you have confused light as a physically existent representation of occurrence, and what the output is from the processing of that, if received. That is, what we think we received, not what we received. This is demonstrated by your next sentence: "Photons bouncing off a wastebasket, by themselves, do not "represent" anything anymore than rocks bouncing off wastebaskets." They do. This is the whole point. Light does not 'anticipate' what it is going to interact with as it travels. If a photon based representation of the waste basket, which is a physically existent entity, hits the chair or your mouth, then nothing further happens. That is all. It still existed and was received. It is just that when it comes into contact with something that can process it, then it gets processed, ie a depiction of what it was is formed. The physics is the same.

Paul

Edwin

Well put. There is only ever an existent present.

Paul

Thanks, Steven, we all seem to be on the same page here.

I don't find Petkov blustery. Maybe it's because my own capacity for blusteriness is so much larger. :-)

Anyway, I don't think the question of whether gravity waves exist is entirely equivalent to the question of whether such radiation is necessary to understand gravity. Just as Einstein found that an ether is not necessary to understand the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Petkov's point that particles do not resist their motion has a fine pedigree from Galileo to Einstein.

Even deeper, I think, is that Lucien Hardy speaks of a kind of radiation without annihilation -- i.e., the interaction of particle and antiparticle that preserves state integrity. A nonperturbative theory of quantum gravity may be like this -- a balance between angular momentum and annihilation.

I'd like to share with you privately some of my current research on the relation of G to h-bar, in the near future.

All best,

Tom

Edwin,

Did you actually read anything I wrote?

Here is what I wrote:

"Now rather than viewing time as the present moving from past events to future ones, along a narrative dimension, if we treat it simply as an effect of action, then it is the events being created and replaced, ie. going future to past. Think of it as two objects, cars, subatomic particles, whatever, hitting each other. This creates an event. While the physical objects go from prior events to succeeding events, thus past to future, these events form and disperse, ie. go future to past. Only what is present is physically real."

Now how did you manage to conclude that I "talk as if the future is real?"

Keep in mind that I specifically argue against blocktime, which you have commented that many physicists take for granted and the last time we discussed this, we seemed to be in agreement that it is nonsense. Which it is, so how now am I accused of thinking any such thing?

Paul,

"And this is why the sensory system of sight evolved, thereby giving light a functional role."

And this is why the sensory system of sight evolved, thereby giving crocodiles something to eat.

That which exists, can serve many different functions.

"Light" has many such "functions", it's radiation pressure serves the function of keeping stars from collapsing, its energy serves the function of empowering plants via photosynthesis.

"One underlying point here being that the physical existence as knowable to us..."

The problem with your conception, (that the "final cause" for the existence of something, is its function) is that it has a very long history, over two thousand years, of failing to produce any such knowledge. It cannot be demonstrated to be false, nor can it be demonstrated to be true. But it has been demonstrated to be highly inferior to other conceptions, when it comes to producing knowledge about what physically exists. Your conception is the equivalent of iron-age technology. In Aristotle's time, it was the state-of-the-art-of-science, but the art has moved on. You should too.

"is it just a matter of needing a better method in order to predict more correctly what happens next. Or is it a case of changing the conception as to how it occurs, and hence how one predicts what happens next."

Exactly my point:

Your conception has a very long history, of being demonstrated to be the "inferior method", not a "better method". That it precisely why a "case of changing the conception" took place, four hundred years ago.

Rob McEachern

Tom,

My apologies. I definitely did not intend to imply that I found Petkov's essay blustery in any way, shape or form. It makes its point in a well-expressed and apparently logical manner. My remark about "blustery" wasn't directed toward Petkov's essay at all; it was directed at those who contend that the non-renormalizability of the perturbation expansion of quantized gravity theory implies that gravity and quantization are "mutually incompatible", and therefore that the REPLACEMENT of quantum theory, gravity theory, or both is REQUIRED -- a contention dear to the hearts of, inter alia, adherents of string theory (who after almost four decades of riding high are at very long last now entering their richly merited twilight era).

It in fact turns out that the non-renormalizability of the perturbation expansion of quantized gravity theory is due to NOTHING MORE than the gross misapplication to quantized gravity of perturbation expansion in straight powers of G: a little reflection quickly reveals that quantized-gravity transition amplitudes are non-analytic in G at the point G = 0, just as ANY quantum transition amplitude is non-analytic in hbar at the "classical limit point" hbar = 0 (which is the reason why semi-classical approximations are NOT straight power-series expansions in powers of hbar). Trying to do a straight power-series expansion about a non-analytic point is a transparent recipe for disaster, of course, which obviously has NOTHING to do with PHYSICAL CONTENT. For more detail see my paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3024

Although Petkov calmly makes a point which SOUNDS not implausible at first reading, I HAVE TO BE SKEPTICAL because so many other competent physicists over a period of so many decades have theoretically argued for radiation from the Einstein equation. Certainly the LINEARIZED form of the Einstein equation is so VERY HIGHLY ANALOGOUS to the Maxwell equation that a universal ABSENCE of radiation would appear to be impossible.

Now Steven Weinberg lays great emphasis on the fact that the idealized local "freely-falling frame" concept is a matter of SCALE. EVEN in electromagnetism there is a "near zone" where a field is NOT RADIATIVE -- electromagnetic radiation can ONLY actually be ASCERTAINED sufficiently FAR AWAY from its source. Recall that gravitational TIDAL forces can COEXIST with the idealized local freely-falling frame concept PRECISELY BECAUSE of that hierarchy of SCALES which Weinberg so strongly emphasizes. Thus I am highly inclined to think that gravitational radiation, which, LIKE electromagnetic radiation, could only be ASCERTAINED over a SUFFICIENTLY large SCALE, can ALSO peacefully COEXIST with a local freely-falling frame conception that is "hemmed in" to a much SMALLER SCALE than the WAVELENGTH SCALE of that gravitational radiation.

So I guess my answer to Petkov is that gravitational radiation is NOT prima-facie any more antithetical to the idealized local freely-falling frame concept than are tidal gravitational forces: BOTH tidal gravitational forces AND gravitational radiation can be reduced as much as one wishes by CONFINING OBSERVATION to SUFFICIENTLY SMALL local freely-falling frames. In other words, I suggest that Petkov reread and take very seriously the Weinberg HIERARCHY OF SCALES idea in CONJUNCTION with the strong Principle of Equivalence -- see Weinberg's celebrated 1972 textbook on General Relativity and Cosmology. I must say that Weinberg seems to be an amazingly perceptive physicist.

I think you can now see that when I concluded that QUANTIZATION of gravity is largely IRRELEVANT to the functioning of the universe, I did so for reasons that are QUITE DIFFERENT from those of Petkov. In particular, although the GREAT BULK of gravity is INDEED non-dynamical, I see no theoretical (or observational) reason to DOUBT that gravity AS WELL has a (relatively much less important) dynamical RADIATIVE part that indeed IS, in principle, subject to quantization. For me the key controlling fact in this regard is that the very SMALL actual physical value of G DRIVES this quantized gravitational field theory very strongly toward its classical limit, which of course makes its quantization largely irrelevant. In other words, the NATURE of quantized gravity is such that it is driven toward its classical limit by EITHER taking the familiar hbar -> 0 limit OR by taking G -> 0. That is because the PRODUCT of G TIMES hbar SUPPLANTS the GENERIC occurrence of hbar on its own in key expressions of quantized gravity theory. Once again, for the details see my,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3024

All the best, Steven

Paul,

"Physical existence occurs in one physically existent state at a time, in a sequence. There is no form of indefiniteness in what occurred, the problem is with our ability to isolate it. Neither does observation/measurement alter what occurred. The physical question is what constitutes a physically existent state and what causes the alteration. The two 'whats' may well be the same entity (or more likely range of entities). In other words, if there is some substance (or different forms thereof), in effect, it is 'inert' because it is the properties of that which are defining any given physically existent state it is in and causing the alteration."

For making physical theory, it is fine to thus state some guiding postulates. But one doesn't yet have a theory until one can (at least very roughly) hand an experimenter a prescription of what actions to carry out, along with a prediction of what will then transpire. This sort of thing doesn't have to be minutely comprehensive: quite idealized gedankenexperiments can often be at least a good beginning.

You can throw out the current "established" sets of guiding postulates and substitute some others that seem more sensible to you, as per your statement above. But until you get far enough along with your ideas that you can organize them into (at least rough) prescriptions for experimental action along with (at least rough) predictions of what will transpire, they do not yet constitute a basis for theory.

To merely repeat over and again that your collection of ideas is much more sensible than the "established" guiding postulates seems hollow when it becomes apparent that your collection doesn't yet comprise a sufficient basis for launching theoretical prescription and prediction.

So how to go forward? Maybe someday you will accumulate enough sensible ideas to actually serve as a basis for theoretical prescription and prediction. Or is it that you want others to fill in missing ideas/principles that you still need to comprise a viable basis for making theory?

I would submit that even if your so far incomplete collection of sensible ideas can be expanded so as to be able to produce theory, that new theory would be competing directly with the "established" one that is supported by an enormous body of experimental tests. This implies poor Bayesian a priori odds that the sensible theory can empirically win out over the "established" one.

I hope you are beginning to see why, merely because of one's own ideas/opinions, to insist on changing "well-established" physics postulates is NOT a very promising thing to do. One much more promising time to change "well-established" physics postulates is when one realizes that they fail to take adequate account of reliably established empirical facts: one example is Heisenberg's realization that full Newtonian trajectory information can't even in principle be obtained by using Planck-Einstein electromagnetic radiation probes. Or the realization that Galilean relativity is not consistent with the results of the Michelson-Morely null experiment.

In other words I submit that what you are currently thinking about has an unacceptably high a priori likelihood of being a waste EVEN if it should eventually become sufficiently fleshed out to serve as a basis for theory.

Of course on top of that it is not at all presently apparent WHAT would serve to adequately flesh it out so that it could become a theory basis.

There is a simple principle at work here, namely that of Occam's razor and general conservatism in theoretical physics. One doesn't deign to alter theories that have a track record of working very well unless one can point out specific empirical facts with which they are inconsistent. The reason for this comes down to Bayesian a priori probabilities.

To repeat, what you are dwelling on (1) is not yet an adequate basis for theory, and (2) is in direct competition with an "established" theoretical alternative that has a comprehensive and robust track record, even should the formulation of what you are dwelling on eventually be expanded into an adequate basis for theory. Therefore the a priori odds that what you dwelling on can result in progress are unacceptably small.

Steven

John

The answer to your the two questions you asked is: because you do not explain yourself properly.

Whatever constitutes physical existence is only ever in one physically existent state at any given time, commonly known as the present. There is then alteration, and a different physically existent state supersedes the latter, which ceases to exist. That is commonly known as the past. The state which subsequently occurred is commonly known as the future. So one could argue that it is 'present' to 'future', but equally, using these somewhat incorrect labels, it can be expressed as 'past' to 'present'. Because it is a sequence, and there is only ever a 'present', which is, at the time of its existence, the 'past' with reference to the next 'present' in the sequence, or the 'future' with reference to the preceding 'present'.

Now, our concept of time is invoked by this sequence of alteration. And timing measures the rate at which it occurred, irrespective of what changed.

Your concept of 'physical objects' is ontologically incorrect. There are none. There is a given physically existent state of whatever constitutes what to us, at a much higher level of conceptualisation, appears to be a persistent state, ie object. In existential terms, all that is happening is that the superficial attributes which cause us to deem whatever constitutes it an object, remain unchanged, or nearly so. When in fact there is substantial alteration occurring. In other words, what we perceive as being an object is just a sequence of physically existent states, as is the entirety of physical existence.

Paul

Rob

My point about light and its acquired functional role, consequent upon the evolution of sight, is that this in no way alters light as a physically existent entity. It also raises the question as to how, and to what extent, it comprehensively and accurately depicts what occurred.

My point about physical existence as knowable to us had nothing whatsoever to do with function. Whatever this existence is, we are part of it. We cannot externalise ourselves from it. We are therefore trapped in an existentially closed system, ie we have to presume that we are only able to know one particular form of existence. But at least we can know one, and there is an independent physical process that underpins 'knowing'. Your point about proof is irrelevant. We cannot know whether what we know is 'really' correct or not, all we can do is know what it is potentially possible for us to know, ie confirm it from within the closed system. And there is a basis for that.

Paul

Paul,

You remind me of a strobe light. Flashes of coherence, surrounded by darkness.

There is only light and space.

Steven

At the generic level, I am not sure there is any further to 'go'. Obviously there is more than just what I write in these posts, but not a lot. And by definition, there cannot be a lot, because generically, it is not that complex. How this manifests, certainly is. I appreciate what you are saying in terms of 'proscribing experiments', but I do not think that is what follows on. The consequence of what I am saying is a set of rules/guiding principles which stem from understanding how we are aware of existence, hence what it is for us, and so how that must occur. Which I would suggest is a good start point! Establishing what happens can proceed in any appropriate manner, it just being that concepts/hypotheses/etc should not contravene the rules (ie the very nature of physical existence).

Having said that! Here is the first 22 paragraphs (3 pages) of my abridged version of why Einstein was wrong. That is, this does not contain philosophy/etc, just a simple conversion of some of those basic rules into actuality and a simple argument. Apart from the fact that posting 22 paras is enough, as you can see from para 22, there is a 'natural break' in the argument. And indeed, if an argument starts off incorrectly, then it finishes incorrectly, which in this case means e does not equal mc2.

Why Einstein was wrong (Abridged Version)

Introduction

1 Distance is an artefact of physically existent entities, it being a difference between them in terms of spatial position. And differences do not exist, entities do, and they do so in one specific physically existent state at a time. So distance can only occur between physically existent states which exist at the same time. It is not possible for there to be a distance, as opposed to some form of conceptual spatial relationship, between something which exists and something else which does not.

2 Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. The notion which presumes there could be varied results when quantifying it, either in terms of space or duration, is a fallacy. Whatever the measuring methodology, there can only be one result for any given distance.

3 However, distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of assessing distance as the definitive spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be measured as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But as this cannot happen, it must be understood that there is no duration, as such. It is just an alternative expression to, and the equivalent of, a specific spatial measure. Failure to understand this results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt.

4 When establishing what constitutes distance, space or dimension, the reference is a conceptual matrix of spatial positions, with which any given physical reality is 'divided' spatially. To 'locate' this matrix, it must be associated with any given constituent physically existent state of that physical reality. Consistency of reference must be maintained in order to ensure comparability of subsequent measurements.

5 The dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint) of any constituent physically existent state is defined in terms of spatial positions 'occupied' on this matrix. 'Mapping' other existent states would reveal their comparability with each other. Distance is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could involve any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states, it could revolve around separation, or one within another.

6 Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'. So, three is the minimum number of spatial dimensions that is ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation (ie up/down, back/forth, side/side). But that is not what is physically existent. At the existential level, the number of possible dimensions is half the number of possible directions that the substance with the smallest spatial footprint could travel from any single spatial point on the spatial matrix.

The misconception of time and timing (the AB example)

7 Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, is the reference.

8 A and B were each attributed a time (local) of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there was a relationship between these timings, or not. If there was a relationship, then there was no timing issue to resolve. If there was no relationship, then nothing further could have been discerned from this information since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.

9 So there must have been a presumption that the timing devices were synchronised (ie working properly), even though this was not recognised. That is because the reference for timing was not understood, it being a conceptual constant rate of change, ie not the timing devices, which just 'tell' the time, and are only valid if related to this reference (ie synchronised), within the realms of practicality. This must be so, otherwise the timing system is useless.

10 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to a "common time", was known already, and was a false distinction implying a extra layer of timing for which there was no physical justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time, ie t(a) equalled t(b). Had the times been different, then A could not have been compared to B, and distance established, because they were not existent at the same time.

11 The comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was incorrect. Not only is there no duration in a spatial circumstance, but AB cannot be compared to BA on the basis of subsequent timings. Because such timings cannot be presumed to relate to AB, as either A and/or B could have altered over time, and therefore the distance could have altered. The measurement can only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at a specific time.

12 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred, was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of light to do this, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem. Any method, involving any direction, would suffice, if properly calculated and represented. The errors were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and a misunderstanding of the reference used in timing.

Light

13 Before progressing with the argument, it is necessary to highlight certain fundamental characteristics of observational light. It is a physical effect in photons which enables sight. As that effect results from an atomic interaction, the speed of the physical phenomenon which the photons interact with is irrelvant, unlike in a collision. Thus the start speed of any given light is always the same, and as with any existent entity, it will continue to move at that speed unless impeded. Also, there is a relentless sequence of such interactions, and light travels in all directions.

14 So when reference is made to light, it is usually in respect of many different physically existent phenomena, ie different physically existent lights may only be the same in terms of that aspect of its physical state which when received can be subsequently processed. Hence, the physically existent entity in its own right, and what physically can be processed, need to be differentiated. The point being that the latter remains the same (or nearly so) over time, and is the same whether received (ie in the line of travel of) by an animate or inanimate entity. And since it is this photon based representation of any given physically existent state which is received, there is always a delay between the time of existence and the creation of that representation, and the time of receipt of that.

The misconception of the role of observation

15 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. So time of existence, and time of observation (ie receipt of light), were asserted by Einstein to be the same if whatever was involved was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition. But in reality there is always a difference, which is fundamental to highlighting the flaw in his argument.

16 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise these timings are meaningless, and if the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. Alternatively, if A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not be a distance AB to observe.

17 Therefore, in the context of observation, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, any difference in these times could only be a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa, and not a reflection of some other variance. That is, again there is no issue to be resolved. The difference in timing would have been because they were observations of reality (ie receipts of light). However, there was no observational light in Einstein's writings and theory anyway.

18 Physically, there is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels; and there must always be light in order to observe. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of existence and creation of the light, could alter whilst the light is travelling. Neither is physical existence affected by observation, because it occurred before that, and was not involved in that interaction. That being with the physically existent representation of that reality (eg light), which then just ceases to exist in that physical form, in the same way as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity.

19 By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity for a generic one, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which was wrong because that time involved duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should be: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity.

20 A key point is that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light anyway. He was using it as an example of a conceptual constant reference against which to measure time and distance. There was just a dissassociated "ray of light", an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference", which can leave the reader with the impression that observation has been accounted for. Whereas, in fact, he only invoked a constant, the determining factor being how he deployed that in the narrative/equations, not what he called it. A timing/spatial reference is by definition, a constant, while in practice observational light approximates to a constant, which further disguises the mistake.

21 Einstein failed to differentiate physical existence from the physical representation of it (eg light). He equated the reality of light with physical reality, so there was no observation (ie receipt of light), and the time delay which does occur between time of existence and time of receipt of light, was consequently eliminated. This was counterbalanced by his failure to understand the reference for timing, which followed the flawed concept of simultaneity by Poincaré. In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential which does occur, from the finish of the physical process to the start, deeming it be to a characteristic of physical existence.

22 The book: 'why does E=mc2' by Cox & Forshaw will now also be used as a reference, as this is a standard and readable exposition of Einstein's argument. That is, it is acknowledged that this is a repetition of certain accepted assertions which underpin the argument about relativity, and not a specific opinion of the authors.

Paul

Paul,

"Your point about proof is irrelevant. We cannot know whether what we know is 'really' correct or not, all we can do is know what it is potentially possible for us to know, ie confirm it from within the closed system. And there is a basis for that."

If you are a solipsist, then your statement is a least consistent, but you are talking to yourself. If you are not a solipsist, then you recognize there are others out there, some of whom may be as bright as you, and some of whom may be just as interested in understanding reality as you, and some of whom may even be better prepared than you for such an enterprise when playing in the realm of physics, which you seem to choose to play in.

In that case, you should recognize that fundamental questions, such as "Do you see the same color that I see?" can only be answered in the context of shared experience, and shared language, where we try to convey what is meant by "seeing green", for example. In such a case, we can analyze and correlate our results and come to a rational basis for deciding that "We probably see the same color that we call 'green'. We'll never know, but the odds become convincingly large that it is the case. Science is the accumulation and agglomeration of many many such questions and communal answers, always backed by communally recognized 'logic', proved by predictions that are found to match 'reality'. The interconnected network continues to spread, until, in the end, it is not unreasonable to believe that this shared answer is as good as any individual answer that competes with it. That is not beyond doubt the case, but the bar is high.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin

I am not sure what point you are making in respect of that quote. This was a response to a point made by Rob. Now, first of all his conception of my conception was not correct, ie it was to do with "that the "final cause" for the existence of something, is its function". My point was that the existent nature of light is such that there was advantage in the evolution of a sensory system that utilised it. Secondly, I picked up on the underlying misconception here that there should, ultimately, be proof. Which there cannot be. There is only proof within a closed system and following the rules as to what is 'of', as opposed to 'not-of', that system. This being, of course, one of my fundamental points, ie there is confusion between logical possibilities of existence and the form of existence potentially knowable to us, which should be, and only be, what is investigated.

I had to look up solipsism. This is not what I am saying. If you look back at recent posts you will see I talk of 'eradicating individualism', because one of the problems is that sensing occurs at an individual level. And I keep making the point that the subsequent processing (individually or generically) of what was received is irrelevant to the physics of the circumstance. In other words, the processing of what was received is, for physics, a nuisance! However, it is the only way we are initially aware that something occurred. It is then necessary to reverse engineer the output from that processing, ie a perception of what was received at the individual level, in order to establish what was received. But this is not physics.

That sensory system/brain processing does not alter physical existence, which occurred previously. It creates a perception of what was physically received, which can vary from individual to individual, and generically depending upon how the sensory system works. Going back to my waste basket and chair, with dog (Ralph) on it. Leaving aside the quality of the eyes/brain we both have, as I understand it, Ralph processes in black and white, and not with such definition. A programme the other night mentioned that we (assuming decent eyes) can distinguish a 100 (it might have been more) shades of grey. So if Ralph could speak to me, his perception of what occurred would be different. But this was not because the physical existence was different (leaving aside the detailed point that he received a different light based representation of the waste basket to me, because I am in a different spatial position).

The twist in the tale then is that what was physically received was not what physically occurred, but a representation of that (though this representation physically exists in its own right). Light is an effect in photon based 'take' on what happened, it was caused by an interaction with it as the sequence progressed. Which raises the question as to the relationship between whatever was involved and hence the adequacy of any given light as a representation. Light is physically existent, it has properties of its own, which one must presume impinge upon its ability to fulfil the acquired functional role perfectly. That role having come into being with the evolution of sensory systems. It has no impact on light in terms of its own existence, ie it is a representation whether it is received by the appropriate sensory system or not. A brick receives light, just the same as an eye. The physics of the circumstance is the same, and that is where the physics stops. Because the difference is that the brick cannot process what interacted with it, the eye can, which results in a perception of what was received (and as a point of detail, and individual one at that).

Having read that, now look back at your third paragraph. Within the existentially determined closed system we are in (which is a function of an independent physical process, nit philosophy), it is possible to establish that it was green (ie not an individualistic quirk). That as the processing, generically, established green, then what was physically received was x. Then since x was received, what occurred was y.

Paul

Paul,

"In other words, the processing of what was received is, for physics, a nuisance!"

True. And that is why physics must learn to deal with it, and cannot ignore it, which is why it is part of physics.

"It is then necessary to reverse engineer the output from that processing" This may not be possible. Nevertheless, it must still be attempted, because it is part of the problem.

"... in order to establish what was received. But this is not physics." If you cannot establish what was received, then you can do nothing, that is why you must at least attempt to do so. Otherwise you do no physics, or anything else of any use.

If light is a representation, then what, exactly, does it represent to your brick? In order for it to be a representation, as that term is commonly understood, it must represent something, other than itself. So what is this something else, for the brick? It cannot be your "photon based "take" on what happened", because brick's do not have "takes" on anything. So what does it represent, to a brick?

Rob McEachern

Rob

"And that is why physics must learn to deal with it, and cannot ignore it, which is why it is part of physics"

Not so, the latter part that is. One could argue that there is a physical aspect to the working of the eye/brain, but this processing is the remit of other disciplines. More importantly than such divisions of labour, it is not part of the physical circumstance, which is the remit of physics. It is a process which utilises physical input to create a perception thereof. However, since it is the only start point, physics certainly "needs to deal with it, and cannot ignore it", relying on those who are analysing the process to provide an understanding as to how it works and hence what any given perception indicates was originally physically received, ie eradicating irrelevant 'influences'.

But none of that processing is relevant to the physical circumstance. No physical theory should include any aspect of it in explaining the physical circumstance. Because physical existence occurred before that processing.

"If light is a representation, then what, exactly, does it represent to your brick?"

Exactly the same as it would have done had your eye been in that spatial position rather than the brick. Light is just a physically existent entity, it does not alter dependent upon what other entity it is going to interact with. One quality of light, and indeed certain other physical phenomena, is that it is inherently a representation of whatever it interacted with, due to the way it interacts, exists, etc. That is, when received, and given an understanding of the physical processes involved in its creation/existence, it is possible to discern what it interacted with, ie what caused it (having of course eradicated the 'influence' of the subsequent processing effected by the sensory system/brain, which is irrelevant). The only difference is that a brick cannot process what is received, whereas an eye can, so we cannot know what it was that the brick received.

Paul

Hi Steven,

My turn to apologize. As you know, I've been preoccupied. You write:

"My remark about 'blustery' wasn't directed toward Petkov's essay at all; it was directed at those who contend that the non-renormalizability of the perturbation expansion of quantized gravity theory implies that gravity and quantization are 'mutually incompatible', and therefore that the REPLACEMENT of quantum theory, gravity theory, or both is REQUIRED -- a contention dear to the hearts of, inter alia, adherents of string theory (who after almost four decades of riding high are at very long last now entering their richly merited twilight era)."

Sorry I misunderstood. I'm not as critical of string theory -- as an extension of quantum field theory, it has after all shown us new rigorous paths toward reconciling a continuous field theory with discrete measurement functions that may not be possible to realize without extra dimensions.

"It in fact turns out that the non-renormalizability of the perturbation expansion of quantized gravity theory is due to NOTHING MORE than the gross misapplication to quantized gravity of perturbation expansion in straight powers of G: a little reflection quickly reveals that quantized-gravity transition amplitudes are non-analytic in G at the point G = 0, just as ANY quantum transition amplitude is non-analytic in hbar at the 'classical limit point' hbar = 0 (which is the reason why semi-classical approximations are NOT straight power-series expansions in powers of hbar, to do a straight power-series expansion about a non-analytic point is a transparent recipe for disaster, of course, which obviously has NOTHING to do with PHYSICAL CONTENT."

I agree. We've always known that if hbar is zero, the world is classical without boundary between quantum and classical events.

"For more detail see my paper,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3024

Although Petkov calmly makes a point which SOUNDS not implausible at first reading, I HAVE TO BE SKEPTICAL because so many other competent physicists over a period of so many decades have theoretically argued for radiation from the Einstein equation. Certainly the LINEARIZED form of the Einstein equation is so VERY HIGHLY ANALOGOUS to the Maxwell equation that a universal ABSENCE of radiation would appear to be impossible."

However, is it necessary for gravity to be quantized in order to be gravitational? -- that's Petkov's question. Because in classical gravity particles do not resist their motion, do we really have warrant to believe that quantum particles resist their motion? If not, we should stop worrying about discontinuous energy jumps. I think Lucien Hardy is on to something, too, in that radiation without annihilation leads to a continuous (field) description of attractive phenomena -- "I anticipate that quantum gravity will be a theory having indefinite causal structure whereas quantum theory has definite causal structure." Which plays into your next comment, and I am going to leave off at this point because it is as far as I'm willing to go at the moment:

"Now Steven Weinberg lays great emphasis on the fact that the idealized local 'freely-falling frame' is a matter of SCALE. EVEN in electromagnetism there is a 'near zone' where a field is NOT RADIATIVE -- electromagnetic radiation can ONLY actually be ASCERTAINED sufficiently FAR AWAY from its source. Recall that gravitational TIDAL forces can COEXIST with the idealized local freely-falling frame concept PRECISELY BECAUSE of that hierarchy of SCALES which Weinberg so strongly emphasizes. Thus I am highly inclined to think that gravitational radiation, which, LIKE electromagnetic radiation, could only be ASCERTAINED over a SUFFICIENTLY large SCALE, can ALSO peacefully COEXIST with a local freely-falling frame conception that is 'hemmed in' to a much SMALLER SCALE than the WAVELENGTH SCALE of that gravitational radiation."

All best,

Tom

"So I guess my answer to Petkov is that gravitational radiation is NOT prima-facie any more antithetical to the idealized local freely-falling frame concept than are tidal gravitational forces: BOTH tidal gravitational forces AND gravitational radiation can be reduced as much as one wishes by CONFINING OBSERVATION to SUFFICIENTLY SMALL local freely-falling frames. In other words, I suggest that Petkov reread and take very seriously the Weinberg HIERARCHY OF SCALES idea in CONJUNCTION with the strong Principle of Equivalence -- see Weinberg's celebrated 1972 textbook on General Relativity and Cosmology. I must say that Weinberg seems to be an amazingly perceptive physicist.

I think you can now see that when I concluded that QUANTIZATION of gravity is largely IRRELEVANT to the functioning of the universe, I did so for reasons that are QUITE DIFFERENT from those of Petkov. In particular, although the GREAT BULK of gravity is INDEED non-dynamical, I see no theoretical (or observational) reason to DOUBT that gravity AS WELL has a (relatively much less important) dynamical RADIATIVE part that indeed IS, in principle, subject to quantization. For me the key controlling fact in this regard is that the very SMALL actual physical value of G DRIVES this quantized gravitational field theory very strongly toward its classical limit, which of course makes its quantization largely irrelevant. In other words, the NATURE of quantized gravity is such that it is driven toward its classical limit by EITHER taking the familiar hbar -> 0 limit OR by taking G -> 0. That is because the PRODUCT of G TIMES hbar SUPPLANTS the GENERIC occurrence of hbar on its own in key expressions of quantized gravity theory. Once again, for the details see my,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3024

All the best, Steven

Jonathan, I posted a paper over in the "It for Bit" essay contest. Since it is about cosmology, it is not attracting any attention there. I will repost below but after reading the commentary regarding Steven Kauffmann's article I realized that there was more work I needed to publish. This resulted in another paper entitled "comments about quantum gravity and black holes". I would appreciate comments on these two papers.Attachment #1: 1_Kinetic_and_potential_energy_during_expansion.pdfAttachment #2: Comments_about_Quantum_gravity_and_about_black_holes.pdf

Reply to "Confronting the Dark" by Zeeya Merali (Discover magazine - May 2013)

I couldn't find any other place to contact Zeeya. There's no entry for that name in FQXi's member list. I did submit this article to Discover but I never heard anything, so I assume it fell into a black hole there. On the chance that Zeeya would appreciate some feedback regarding "Confronting the Dark", I'll post the feedback here. There's an interesting sentence on p.46 of that article - "The universe first slowed down as the inward pull of matter dominated over the relatively mild outward push of dark energy." This can be explained by lines in my vixra submission listed in the paragraph below. "Some gravitational waves from outside the solar system pass by and some are diverted towards the sun (just as some of the ocean waves passing an island are diverted to the shore by being refracted by the island's mass)." The "inward pull of matter" is merely what seems to happen. Actually, the gravity waves give planets pushes and "Planets nearer the Sun orbit faster than those farther out because an outer planet concentrates gravity waves in itself - the increasing density with depth corresponds to increasing concentration (of wave packets) and magnification (of gravitational waves)." As Einstein stated, gravity waves are merely the curves of space-time existing in, and between, the galaxies (as distinct from the flatness of space in the universe as a whole). Cosmic expansion is accelerating because of the increased production of space-time by binary digits, Mobius loops and figure-8 Klein bottles (see the paragraphs below concerning string theory and subuniverses). This "relatively mild outward push of dark energy" is dominated by its (gravity's) apparent inward pull because of the concentration (of wave packets) and magnification (of gravitational waves). Now to the article I sent to Discover (which doesn't include the PS about the frequency of gravitational waves) -

Dark energy can easily be explained as a composite of Newton's and Einstein's ideas on gravitation. This amalgamation of their (mathematical) thoughts explains - in layman's language that doesn't require mathematics - gravity as a push by gravitational waves that explains dark energy, dark matter, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, tides, orbits, and apples falling on a 17th-century scientist's head: see "CHALLENGE - Explain To The Layman How Gravity Accounts For Dark Matter and Dark Energy Without Using Any Mathematics", a section within http://viXra.org/abs/1305.0196. It supports Einstein's idea of gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming mass^, saying gravity is weaker at higher altitudes because it is concentrated in more and more "wave packets" (where it interacts with EM) at lower heights and below a planet's surface - where it corresponds to higher density, magnification of gravity's effects, and slowing down of time because motion of the particles is less in greater densities (particle motion increases at lower density, allowing the universe's highest speed - the velocity of light - in the vacuum of space). The simplest and briefest way to explain dark energy is to use this explanation of why planets orbit in the Sun's ecliptic plane -

It begins with this sentence - "the more mass a body possesses, the more gravitation is diverted to play a part in that body's formation". Agreeing with Einstein's theory that gravitation is a push created by the hills and valleys of curved space, gravitational waves are a repelling force (this aspect of gravity is normally referred to as Dark Energy) refracted towards the Sun's centre. The waves ultimately originate far out in deep space where they push galaxy clusters apart. As they pass the solar system's outer boundary, some waves are refracted by the Sun's mass like ocean waves passing an island (some are refracted towards the island and cause waves on its beaches).

Having given the planets pushes which keep them in their orbits and prevent them flying off into space, the waves arrive at the Sun where they interact with electromagnetism to form the masses of subatomic particles see PS (mass being produced by G-EM interaction was proposed by Einstein in a 1919 paper to the Prussian Academy of Sciences - "Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure Of The Elementary Particles Of Matter?"). They also form the strong and weak nuclear forces associated with those particles (nuclear forces are a by-product of G-EM interaction). The rotating Sun bulges at its equator and therefore has a larger equatorial than polar diameter, and more mass at its equator*. This means more gravitation has been diverted to that region. Planets are also made from G and EM interacting, and must consequently lie in the path gravity waves took from the outer solar system to the solar equator (more gravitation was diverted here - so if planets are created by G and EM, it follows that they'd be created where the gravitational "current" is greatest). For simplicity, we say the Sun's gravitation is strongest at its equator and planets are compelled to orbit in the ecliptic plane.

* Although the Sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured, recent results from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite indicate that if the Sun were shrunk to a ball one metre in diameter, its equatorial diameter would be 17 millionths of a metre larger than the diameter through its North-South pole, which is its rotation axis. ("Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists" - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm and J. R. Kuhn, R. Bush, M. Emilio, I. F. Scholl. The Precise Solar Shape and Its Variability. Science, 2012)

^ When gravitons and photons transfer energy to each other, E=mc^2 ("Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" by Albert Einstein - "Annalen der Physik" - November 21, 1905) says the relation of mass to energy means they're transferring mass, too. Another way to view their interaction is - the product of gravity interacting with electromagnetism is what we call "mass"; the gravitons and photons therefore give mass to each other. Experiments conducted by the Particle Data Group ("Review of Particle Physics" - Physics Letters B, Volume 667, Issues 1-5, 11 September 2008, Pages 1-6) say the mass of a single photon is no more than 10^-18 eV/c^2.

"Mass of the graviton" by Alfred S. Goldhaber and Michael Martin Nieto - Phys. Rev. D 9, 1119-1121 (1974) - says "...although it is not known if the graviton exists, one can still say that its rest mass is less than 2 ﾃ-- 10-62 g. It's important to note that this paragraph is referring to either subluminal or rest mass of the photon. In other articles e.g. "Equation Describing the Universe" (http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0030), I refer to photons as massless. This is their state at the speed of light (the same applies to gravitons for electromagnetic and gravitational waves are both parts of, and disturbances in, the fabric of space-time) -

"It's impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height. The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons - specifically, of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960's adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. Suppose that at lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, in accord with Relativity, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time's 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can't exist at lightspeed and photons are massless." This leads to a photon (such as from the Sun) experiencing the whole universe - including Bose-Einstein condensates, gravitons, and other photons - in its existence. There is no space, no time, no gravity - only one photon which occupies no physical space because it's a mathematical construction.

Dark energy cannot push the universe past its breaking point for this reason -

Bob Berman's article "Infinite Universe" ("Astronomy" - Nov. 2012) says, "The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite" and "Many separate areas of investigation - like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space - all point the same way."

Support for the article - After examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent" - "WMAP's Universe": http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sﾃ nchez, Yuri N. Parijskij [published by Springer, 31/12/2003], the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

The evidence indicates that the universe is physically infinite. Evidence also indicates the universe is expanding (Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" [1929] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173). How can the infinite expand? We could simply say it obviously doesn't; and cling to the old concept of a finite space without an edge (like the surface of a sphere). But this would be an incomplete explanation. It makes sense that the infinite universe is static and that it consists of an infinite number of expanding "subuniverses"#. As one of these expands, it collides with its neighbours and their galaxies enter its space. This idea reminds us of the idea that inflation (the universe's initial, extremely rapid, growth spurt) may have created multiple universes, as well as collision of universes in the Steinhardt-Turok model (see "Cosmic evolution in a cyclic universe" by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok - Phys. Rev. D 65, 126003 [2002] [20 pages]).

Also see "Will our universe collide with a neighboring one?" - another article by Zeeya Merali - Discover, October 2009. It speaks of the "axis of evil", an unexpected alignment of cold and hot (denser and less dense) spots in the cosmic microwave background; one of the possible explanations of this being collision with another universe (other proposals are that the universe's inflation wasn't perfectly symmetrical, and that the entire universe is rotating). Whereas inflation suggests separation between universes and formation of a "multiverse", the idea of expanding subuniverses suggests unification of the subuniverses as inseparable parts of the greater universe.

# The strings of physics' string theory are the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in computers and electronics. The digits are constantly switching between their representations of the "on" and "off" states. This switching is usually referred to as a flow or current. Currents in the two 2-dimensional programs called Mobius loops** are connected into a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle by the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of 8-Kleins. Each Klein 1) is one of the universe's subuniverses (our own is 13.8 billion years old), 2) is made flexible through its binary digits which seamlessly, or almost seamlessly, join it to surrounding subuniverses and eliminate its central hole, and 3) possesses warped time and space because its foundation is the programmed curves in its mathematical Mobius loops. The universe functions according to the rules of fractal geometry. So the Mobius does not exist only at the cosmic level. It also manifests at the quantum scale, giving us photons and protons etc. Space and time are no longer separate in modern science, but are an indivisible space-time. So if space and the universe are infinite, how can time not be eternal? The past and the future must both extend forever (the idea of time being finite arises from confusion of our subuniverse with the one infinite universe). BITS (BInary digiTS) only suggest existence of the divine if time is linear. Although a non-supernatural God is proposed via the inverse-square law's infinite aspect^^ coupled with eternal quantum entanglement, Einstein taught us that time is warped. Warped time is nonlinear, making it at least possible that the BITS composing space-time and all particles originate from the computer science of humans.

** Let's borrow a few ideas from string theory's ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. The 2 loops' currents are connected into the four-dimensional looped superstring of a four-dimensional Klein bottle possessing looped or nonlinear space-time.

^^ The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation (associated with particles) partly depends on the distance between their centres, the distance of separation only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the particles' or objects' sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance##). The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits.

## Infinity does not equal nothing - total elimination of distance, or space, produces nothing in a physical sense and reverts to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin's imagining of strings as "not made of anything at all" (p.35 of Dr. Sten Odenwald's article "What String Theory Tells Us About the Universe": Astronomy - April 2013). It also reverts the universe to the mathematical blueprint from which physical being is constructed (this agrees with cosmologist Max Tegmark's hypothesis that mathematical formulas create reality, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math#.UZsHDaIwebs and http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646). So, infinity = something, agreeing with Dr. Sten Odenwald's statement on p.32 of his article, that "The basic idea is that every particle of matter ... and every particle that transmits a force ... is actually a small one-dimensional loop of something."

PS The difference between gravity's strength and electromagnetism's strength is 10^36. gravity is the weaker partner despite having the higher frequency because nearly all its energy goes into the "organized energy" forming a particle, which then re-emits some of that energy at reduced electromagnetic frequencies, including those of gamma radiation. (Just as visible light can be absorbed and re-emitted at lower infrared frequencies which have the same speed, gravitational waves can be absorbed then re-emitted at lower electromagnetic frequencies - including those of the microwave background - which have the same speed.) The EM contribution to a particle's formation is the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction of 1% of gravity's because EM is waves in space-time (not something separate from the warping of space-time that is gravity). In other words - EM plays a secondary, subordinate role to gravity which, being united with EM and the nuclear forces, is the ultimate physical source of all repelling and attracting (from the attractive strong nuclear force to the repulsive dark energy). People are accustomed to thinking matter and energy are converted into each other only under unusual circumstances like radioactivity, nuclear explosions and in the Large Hadron Collider. But the conversions are happening all the time in every particle of every atom and every beam of energy. (E=mc^2 would probably describe the conversion from gravitational energy to the "coherent, organized energy" that is matter).