Kimmo
Anything helps us to understand, and is hence 'information'. How does that help? The point is to differentiate what is real and what is a representation.
Paul
Which is What? by Paul Reed
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. Existence necessitates physical space, but that can only be assigned via entities. So distance can only involve entities which exist at the same time. And they can only exist in one physically existent state at a time.
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 outcome.
3 Unless this is understood, a problem arises when distance is expressed conceptually in terms of duration. The concept being that it can be measured as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But this is not possible, because there is no duration available during which that can actually happen, so it must be understood that there is no duration, as such. That is, the result is just an alternative expression to, and the equivalent of, a specific spatial measure. Misunderstanding this leads to the flawed application of the equation x = vt.
The misconception of time and timing (the AB example)
4 Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, is the reference.
5 The events 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 since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.
6 Put another way, presuming that the times represented when the events occurred, then whether they were the same is potentially irrelevant. Any given event must occur at a specific time. Whether events happened to occur at the same time does not necessarily imply any physical significance. However the analysis involved the distance AB, and there cannot be a distance between something which exists and something else which does not. Therefore, A and B existed at the same time.
7 Yet another way of putting this is that establishing the timing relationship of A and B must involve another reference, so that the two can be compared and any difference identified. But this is what timing does, because the time shown on any device only has meaning if it is corresponds with the single reference to which all such devices are related, ie a conceptual constant rate of change. That is why they must be synchronised, otherwise the system is useless, allowing for the practicalities of so doing. That reference is not another time, but the time (in Einstein's terminology "common time"). Timing devices just 'tell' the time.
8 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to "common time", was non-existent; a false distinction which resulted in a superfluous 'layer' of timing for which there was no justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time anyway, although this, as with what is the reference for timing, was not understood. That is, t(a) must have equalled t(b), and there was no issue to resolve. This timing mistake reflects reliance on Poincaré's flawed concept of simultaneity.
9 Furthermore, the comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was also 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 that 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.
10 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of an example of light as the reference for calibrating distance and duration, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem (although this was not observational light). Any method, involving any direction, and any constant, would suffice for measuring a distance, if properly calculated and represented. Leaving aside the failure to differentiate existent reality from the existent light based representation of it (see below), the errors, in this limited context, were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and not understanding the reference used for timing.
The misconception of observation
11 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. 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. The physically existent occurrence, physically existent light, and physically existent observer, are all physically separate. Therefore, there will always be a delay whilst light, which is a physically existent representation of the occurrence, travels and, in a few cases, is received (ie is in the line of travel of, and interacts with) by an entity which can process the physical input available.
12 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must have been synchronised, otherwise the timings were meaningless, and since the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. If A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not have been a distance AB to observe.
13 In the context of observation then, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, these timings must represent the time at which light was received, and any difference could only have been a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa. That is, again there is no issue to resolve. The difference in timing would have been because these were observations of reality (ie receipts of light), not the occurrence of reality. However, there was no observational light in Einstein's theories anyway, just a constant, which happened to be an example of light.
14 There is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of occurrence and the creation of that light, could alter whilst it is travelling. Neither is physical existence, either in terms of the occurrence, or the representation of it (eg light), affected physically by observation (eg receipt of light) and the subsequent processing. Because that was not existent subsequently, which is a necessary condition for any physical effect to occur. The physically existent representation of the reality just ceases to exist in that physical form upon receipt, as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity. One of the physical features of light, as in what is physically existent and can be processed by a sensory system if received, being that it persists in the same (or nearly so) physical form over time.
15 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 have been 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 have been: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is irrelevant, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)).
16 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. Apart from which, what this actually means in the context of physical existence needs to be understood, ie since there is no duration as such, it is a conceptual expression of a spatial quantity. Duration being concerned with differences between physical existences, ie the rate at which turnover occurs. And c was not the speed of observational light, it was just a constant which happened to be defined in terms of an xample of light.
17 A key statement in 1905, section 1, part 1, Definition of Simultaneity is:
"But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t(a). In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t(b)-t(a)=t'(a)-t(b)."
18 In the context of a proper differentiation between reality and the light based representation thereof, this thinking is, essentially, correct. Recipients of light representing the same physical occurrence, will receive those lights at different times because they are in different spatial locations (ignoring any vanishingly small differences there might be between those lights). Fundamentally, comparing these times and distances will reveal the time at which the occurrence happened.
19 But Einstein did not differentiate reality and the light based representation of it, so there was no observational light. In actuality, his 'local time' must have been the time of receipt of the light based representation of the occurrence, but he deemed it to be the time of occurrence. At the 'local' level this mistake was rationalised with the notion that they were the same if in the "immediate proximity". Which is incorrect, as there must always be a time delay whilst light travels.
20 Beyond the 'immediate proximity' (which could never be defined because it cannot be a correct concept), he effectively asserted, ie by virtue of his mistakes, that the time at which the occurrences happened is a function of light, and particularly its speed, which is obviously incorrect. The time of receipt of the light representation of the occurrence is a function of light speed, not the occurrence. The actual relationship between any physically existent state (ie occurrence) and the light (ie representation thereof) created as it occurs, is a function of their physical attributes and hence the way they interact. But any such actual differences/complexities involved do no impact on this generic argument.
21 The critical point being that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light. He was using an example of light as a conceptual reference constant against which to calibrate duration and distance. In other words, the fact that it was light, was irrelevant, it could have been any constant. His light was just a dissassociated "ray of light", with an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference" (later examples used lightening). All of which can leave the reader with the impression that observation had been accounted for.
22 But he only invoked a constant, so the 'observer/frame of reference' is just the reference used for comparison in order to identify difference. It has nothing to do with observation, because there was no observational light. The determining factor being what he did, not what he said he would do. Which means that the second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. Therefore all the ensuing attempts, including his own, to reconcile a presumed constancy in light with a rate of change in reality, are pointless, because the issue is non-existent.
23 In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential from the finish of the physical process, where it does occur and relates to the time of receipt of the physically existent representation of existence (eg light), to the start, by deeming it, incorrectly, to be a characteristic of physical existence itself.
24 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, this is a repetition of certain accepted assertions which underpin the argument about relativity.
Hi Paul,
I do not understand much of your essay. But there is some interesting content inside.
According to (25) Einstein failed to differentiate reality from its light based representation.
But Paul, do you remember his famous statement addressing exactly this issue (also incl. in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609): "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"? From Einstein we know that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry (only our perception causes that gravity seems to be a force). So maybe you are not so far from Einstein and me in your understanding the reality notion?
Please, imagine two men starting to go from the Earth equator to the North pole. The distance between them is e.g. 100 meters. They start and go exactly parallel to each other. There is no rope binding them and no force trying to pull them together. But with every step they are a bit closer and closer as if a rope and force existed. Finally they hit one another at the North pole. Apparently that is the effect of geometry of the Earth surface which is not the Euclidean plane but a sphere. Add extra one dimension and you have well known gravity.
In my simple and short essay I have tried to apply the same concept to the rest of known "force fields" i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear and even go further...
Thanks
Jacek
I suggest you re-read it then, or ask specific questions which I will answer.
Re Einstein, see my post above. Others quoted Einstein in trying to refute what I was saying (and not specifically about Einstein). So in order to avoid a string of posts, and similar ones in different blogs I put this up. Indeed, I have just posted some more paras in respect of spacetime on Mikalai's blog in response to qsa.
What he said is irrelevant. It is what he did which matters. And that has import in the second postulate. Because he did not deploy it as defined. In other words, it is null and void as defined, and the ensuing search for a reconciliation of constancy of light and rate of change is pointless. That is because there was no observational light in his theories, nobody observed anything, because there was nothing available for them to do so. All he had was a constant which he illustrated in terms of an example of light, eg a ray, or lightening. c is not the speed of observational light, it is a constant deployed to calibrate distance and duration.
After further doses of coffee I will read the newly published essays.
Paul
6 days later
Paul, you can only fight Einstein with his weapons and that is mathematics and thought experiments. You will find the information paradox that I present in my essay stimulating and casts a big shadow on SR
Paul, a stimulating read. I stared my essay with the sentence "Information in a physical sense is that what causes the state of a physical entity to change." That does not depart in any way from your view.
Anton
Not so. One fights anybody with what they actually said and relates that it to the true nature of whatever it is they are commenting on. One of the problems with Einstein being that most people do not even know what he said. As I had no background whatsever, I just read what he said, not what the standard interpretation is. This is incidentally, just the start of a paper about 14 pages long, I put this up as two respondents started quoting Einstein at me as a way of countering what I was saying (which was not about Einstein).
Apart from which I could ask you if there is anything wrong with what is said in the extract?
Incidentally, Einstein defined SR as involving:
-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary
-only fixed shape bodies
-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed
It is special because there is no gravitational force, or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred.
And his second posulate of 1905 is irrelevant. because he does not deploy it as defined, as there is no observational light in Einstein, just a constant used to calibrate duration and distance which is described as an example of light.
In other words, although he was wrong, most people are trying to resolve issues which Einstein did not even have.
Paul
Anton
It does not sound like my view, but I will re-read your essay
Paul
12 days later
Hi Paul,
You said at the very beginning of your essay:
"And in that respect, information must be a representation of something, so the something is primary."
Why is it that "information must be a representation of something"? This is the problem with the incredible ambiguity of information, which I mentioned in my essay: we don't know what the word means. ;-)
Sorry, I said "we don't know what the word means", but more relevantly I should have said that the word doesn't mean anything specific. ;-)
Lev
"Why is it that "information must be a representation of something"? Because precisely of what you say next. The concept of information is being applied to almost anything, on the basis that anything gives us information. But this is a meaningless definition. Indeed, more fundamentally, the whole concept is a fallacy. But since the essay asked for a differentiation, then I gave the only one that makes some sort of sense, physically.
Paul
Paul,
Congratulations for your excellent well-thought out paper. In the article you covered the ground you have been partially explaining in your previous posts. Your systematic style of point-by-point enumeration reminded me of that of Ibn Al-Haytham in his Kitab Al-Manather (Book of Optics). I have no head for logical exposition but it has finally dawned on me that we share important conclusions in our world-views. In my Beautiful Universe theory I see a single 'now' Universal State in which local linear adjacent action causes the 'next' state; this somehow resembles your position inasmuch as I understand it. There are other points of agreement and others I do not quite understand or disagree with, but for now I will just wish you well in the contest.
Vladimir
Vladimir
I have of course read your theory before, and while I cannot remember (getting old) if indeed its basic premise revolves around sequence of discrete definitive physcally existent states, then we are in agreement. Shame you do not want to engage on other matters.
Paul
Paul yes my 'Beautiful Universe' theory does posit a lattice of such nodes transferring angular momentum to adjacent ones according to a simple rule.
We are as old as we feel, but I am over 70 so I have to concentrate my time and energy at those times I feel my age!
vladimir
Wish I could, having occupied my time at ludicrous hours of the morning, as I do not sleep well, I then spend the day renovating my son's flat. But I keep telling myself it's in a good cause, ie to ensure the granddaughters get into a good school. Off out to the theatre now. In other words, if I had the time I'd check your beautiful universe.
Paul
family is worth more attention than any Universe!
7 days later
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to explain how uncertainty is inherent in Nature. Kindly bear with our lengthy explanation.
When Mr. Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Mr. Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Mr. Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Mr. Kennard's formulation is therefore totally different from Mr. Heisenberg's. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Mr. Kennard's formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Mr. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. "Spontaneous" creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Mr. Kennard's formulation and not in Mr. Heisenberg's formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.
The uncertainty relation of Mr. Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error-disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Mr. Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.
Mr. Ozawa's inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.
While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement, these are not always externally apparent. Various circulatory systems work within our body that affects its internal dynamics polarizing it differently at different times which become apparent only during our interaction with other bodies. Similarly, the interactions of subatomic particles are not always apparent. The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally. The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps. Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us. We may quote an example.
Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed.
All information requires an initial perturbation involving release of energy, as perception is possible only through interaction (exchange of force). Such release of energy is preceded by freewill or a choice of the observer to know about some aspect of the system through a known mechanism. The mechanism is deterministic - it functions in predictable ways (hence known). To measure the state of the system, the observer must cause at least one quantum of information (energy, momentum, spin, etc) to pass from him through the boundary to the system to bounce back for comparison. Alternatively, he can measure the perturbation created by the other body across the information boundary.
The quantum of information (seeking) or initial perturbation relayed through an impulse (effect of energy etc) after traveling through (and may be modified by) the partition and the field is absorbed by the system to be observed or measured (or it might be reflected back or both) and the system is thereby perturbed. The second perturbation (release or effect of energy) passes back through the boundaries to the observer (among others), which is translated after measurement at a specific instant as the quantum of information. The observation is the observer's subjective response on receiving this information. The result of measurement will depend on the totality of the forces acting on the systems and not only on the perturbation created by the observer. The "other influences" affecting the outcome of the information exchange give rise to an inescapable uncertainty in observations.
The system being observed is subject to various potential (internal) and kinetic (external) forces which act in specified ways independent of observation. For example chemical reactions take place only after certain temperature threshold is reached. A body changes its state of motion only after an external force acts on it. Observation doesn't affect these. We generally measure the outcome - not the process. The process is always deterministic. Otherwise there cannot be any theory. We "learn" the process by different means - observation, experiment, hypothesis, teaching, etc, and develop these into cognizable theory. Heisenberg was right that "everything observed is a selection from a plentitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future". But his logic and the mathematical format of the uncertainty principle: ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π are wrong.
The observer observes the state at the instant of second perturbation - neither the state before nor after it. This is because only this state, with or without modification by the field, is relayed back to him while the object continues to evolve in time. Observation records only this temporal state and freezes it as the result of observation (measurement). Its truly evolved state at any other time is not evident through such observation. With this, the forces acting on it also remain unknown - hence uncertain. Quantum theory takes these uncertainties into account. If ∑ represents the state of the system before and ∑ ± delta∑ represents the state at the instant of perturbation, then the difference linking the transformations in both states (treating other effects as constant) is minimum, if delta∑ is very very small. If I is the impulse selected by the observer to send across the interaction boundary, then delta∑ must be a function of I: i.e. delta∑ = f (I). Thus, the observation is affected by the choices made by the observer also.
Hope this satisfies your query.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Sir,
We thoroughly enjoyed your essay subject to some different modes of presentation. Something can be fundamental or not. There can be many things that are individually fundamental. But how can something be more fundamental than others? You are right that information must be a representation of something, but how can you say that the "something is primary". However, we note that your definition of information can be used to define reality. Very few scientists now-a-days give precise definitions.
We agree with the contents of your para 2 to 5 and 8. But we would like to phrase it differently. Knowledge is the perception of the result of measurement and measurement is a comparison between similars. Perception involves comparison of impulses received from an object with a previous such experience, which exists in the memory as a concept and which can be expressed as information through words that are understood by others. Thus, both reality and information require existence of objects that is perceptible to human sense organs, their identfiability with a concept and their expressibility through human language - all three being invariant under similar conditions subject to the fundamental nature of the physical world.
Your para 6 and 7 indirectly define the number system. Number is a characteristic of all objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,....n depending the step-by-step perception. If something is not A, then it belongs to a different class that exists (out of many) or A is physically absent at "here-now".
Your description of received physical information is somewhat confusing. Perception is the processing of the result of measurements of different but related fields of something with some stored data to convey a combined form "it is like that", where "it" refers to an object (constituted of bits) and "that" refers to a concept signified by the object (self-contained representation). Measurement returns restricted information related to only one field at a time. To understand all aspects, we have to take multiple readings of all aspects. Hence in addition to encryption (language phrased in terms of algorithms executed on certain computing machines - sequence of symbols), compression (quantification and reduction of complexity - grammar) and data transmission (sound, signals), there is a necessity of mixing information (mass of text, volume of intermediate data, time over which such process will be executed) related to different aspects (readings generated from different fields), with a common code (data structure - strings) to bring it to a format "it is like that".
Para 18 and 19 are very interesting. Distance means the interval between two objects that are sequentially arranged in an ordered manner. In this description, the objects occupy specific positions, which means no motion. Hence v here will be zero and your interpretation is valid. Time arises also out of ordered sequence, but of events, which means changes in objects. This implies application of energy, which may lead to displacement or partial displacement or transformation or transmutation.
The nature of light in modern times has been full of confusion. A wave, by definition, is continuous. A particle is discrete. Hence something can be described both as a wave and a particle only at a point - the interface of two waves. The photon consists of two standing waves of force - one an expansive electro force and the other the contractive magnetic force. When these waves intersect each other perpendicularly, it is called an electromagnetic particle. The particle vanishes as the forces separate in their continuation as standing waves. Photon is the locus of this interface in a direction perpendicular to both. Hence it is called the carrier of e.m. energy and has no rest mass. A wave always requires a medium. Since density plays an important role in momentum transfer and since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum.
Regarding Einstein, there is a great degree of misinformation. The concept of measurement has undergone a big change over the last century leading to changes in "mathematics of physics". It all began with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities of measurement suggested by Mr. Einstein in his 1905 paper were:
(a) "The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest", or
(b) "By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod"
The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here also we are reminded of an anecdote relating to a famous scientist, who once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!
Some scientists we have come across try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion. They claim that if we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of motion, then there will be no length contraction. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding the rod in a transverse direction. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference because the length contraction, if real, will be in the same proportion for both.
The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats "as if all three were at rest", one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will be relatively as rest, which means zero relative velocity. Either Mr. Einstein missed this point or he was clever enough to camouflage this, when, in his 1905 paper, he said: "Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks". But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? This question is extremely crucial. K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Mr. Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, the velocity will be measured by each differently. In fact, they will measure the velocity of k differently. But Mr. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and all are misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.
Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization and then denies the existence of any privileged frame of reference. We quote from his 1905 paper on the definition of synchronization: "Let a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t'A - tB."
"We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other."
The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Mr. Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In the above description, the clock at A is treated as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!
The cornerstone of GR is the principle of equivalence. It has been generally accepted without much questioning. Equivalence is not a first principle of physics, as is often stated, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. The appeal to believe in such a miraculous form of gravity is very strong. Virtually everyone, and especially physicists, accept Equivalence as an article of faith even though it has never been positively verified by either experimental or observational physics. All of the many experiments and observations show that the equivalence of gravity and inertia simply does not exist. If we analyze the concept scientifically, we find a situation akin to the Russell's paradox of Set theory, which raises an interesting question: If S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself? The general principle (discussed in our book Vaidic Theory of Numbers) is that: there cannot be many without one, meaning there cannot be a set without individual elements (example: a library - collection of books - cannot exist without individual books). In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous (example: a book is not a library) - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements, or individual objects that are not the elements of a set.
Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x): x x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library [x does not belong to x]. Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x does not belong to x}. It must be possible to determine if R belongs to R or R does not belong to R. However if R belongs to R, then the defining properties of R implies that R does not belong to R, which contradicts the supposition that R belongs to R. Similarly, the supposition R does not belong to R confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property "x does not belong to x" cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; "Objects can only be composed of other objects" or "Objects shall not contain themselves".
In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a "largest" set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell's paradox. Or as it is put in the everyday language: "A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville if and only if the man does not shave himself?"
There is a similar problem in the theory of General Relativity and the principle of equivalence. Inside a spacecraft in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they are relatively stationary in the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass inside the spacecraft and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point inside the spacecraft. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Mr. Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon these wrong descriptions are also wrong. We will explain all so-called experimental verifications of the SR and GR by alternative mechanisms or other verifiable explanations.
Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Einstein has also admitted this. But the Standard model treats these as absolute changes that not only change the perceptions, but change the particle also!
We had written too much. Sorry.
Regards,
basudeba
Basudeba
The fact about the physical existence as knowable to us, ie not one we dream up to fit an incorrect presumption, is as follows:
To independently (from the sensory systems which can detect it) exist in the way it does, means that it occurs definitively. Something cannot physically exist and be in some way not definitive. Actually, since physical existence involves existence and difference, then it is sequence. The sequence comprising definitive discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it.
"This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously". Let us assume that this depiction as to how physical existence occurs is correct. Then what is being said is that it occurs, definitively, because how does something fluctuate, have position and momentum, if in each instance there is not a specific physical occurrence? As you say: "The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field". One could ask very simple question here, ie why can't something which is existent have a specific spatial position and momentum, at any given time? Indeed, it must have, otherwise it could not exist.
"The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed"
Although there is an incorrect presumption that there is some form of indefiniteness in physical existence, this is where it all really goes wrong. Measurement/observation /etc cannot have any affect on physical existence because it has already occurred. "whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored". Incorrect. You do not disturb anything. It has already happened, furthermore, the physical interaction did not involve what happened anyway, but a physically existent representation thereof. In the case of sight this is light. Neither can you affect the future, because it does not physically exist. All that happens is that a different subsequent physically existent state occurs from the one which would have occurred had different circumstances obtained.
"While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement". "The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally". "Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system".
Now, whether these statements are true or not is irrelevant to the point that they all, correctly, refer to definitive states. Something happened. Then you say: "This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us". Exactly. Physical existence occurred, definitively, the problem, irrespective as to whether this particular depiction of how it occurs is correct or not, is in our ability to identify what is happening at the 'bottom line'. "The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps". Exactly, physical existence is a sequence of discrete physically existent states. Just as a point of detail, time is the rate of turnover in these states, only one in the sequence can exist at a time. And what is involved here is so vanishingly small in terms of degree of alteration and duration, that we can never differentiate it experimentally.
"Imagine an observer and a system to be observed..."
All this is irrelevant, because observation, or any other form of sensing, cannot affect the physical circumstance.
Paul
Basudeba
The point about primary was that the something, whatever it is, is what is physically existent. Whereas the representation, ie information thereon, may or may not be. The word fundamental also refers to being physically existent.
You may want to phrase those paras differently, but knowledge and perception are fundamentally the same. The issue is the degree to which any given depiction of physical existence corresponds with what is knowable (ie physical existence as manifest to us).
"Your description of received physical information is somewhat confusing"
There is a waste basket to my left, and a brick wall to my right. Light emanating from it is reaching my eyes, mouth and the brick wall. The latter two just cannot subsequently process the physical information that is available in that interaction. The subsequent processing of this is irrelevant to the physical circumstance.
As you identified, paras 18/19 are a consequence of the fact that existence occurs in discrete states, in sequence. So conceptualising distance in terms of duration is wrong, because other than at the same given time, the existence of either of what is involved could have altered.
"A wave, by definition, is continuous. A particle is discrete"
Not so. Nothing is continuous in physical existence, otherwise it would be the same physically existent state ad infinitum. A wave is a sequence of discrete states. What is 'continuous' is the alteration in the physical state.
Re Einstein, there is the first paras of another paper posted in response to some comments about Einstein above (me 24/4 04.19) . Whether length alteration actually occurs is an open question. The importance of it was that it triggered a mind set about a variance in physical existence, which does not exist, and was then explained by other factors anyway. His mistake in understanding timing is fundamental, and despite his words, there is no observation. "Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization". No he does not. He thinks he needs another layer of time to bring 'local time' to 'common time', not realising that timing devices are referencing a common standard, otherwise the system is useless. That is why timing devices are synchronised. Please read that post, before I comment further, though thank you for your extensive comments.
Paul